The small sample sizes and context-bound findings of qualitative research are commonly viewed as significant factors that limit its use (or “transferability”) in settings other than those in which the research was originally conducted. This perceived limitation is of particular importance in a field such as harm reduction where small sample sizes may be the only realistic option for studying the behavior of hard to reach groups. In this article we use Miles and Huberman's (1994) structured method of appraising qualitative research for its transferability to other settings. We consider the extent to which a typology (based on ethnographic field research into public injecting sites) can be used effectively by practitioners in settings other than those in which the original research was conducted. Through appraising the strengths and weaknesses of this research, we demonstrate that contextualized qualitative findings can enable the transferability of qualitative research findings and be of significant applied value for harm reduction services.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
2.
BourdieuP., & WacquantL. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3.
BourgoisP., & SchonbergJ. (2009). Righteous dopefiend. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BrewerJ. D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5.
CoomberR. (2002). Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights—the case of criminal populations. [Commentary]. Sociological Research Online, 7(1).
6.
DarkeS.KayeS., & RossJ. (2001). Geographical injecting locations among injecting drug users in Sydney, Australia. Addiction Research and Theory, 96, 241–246.
7.
DoveyK.FitzgeraldJ., & ChoiY. (2001). Safety becomes danger: Dilemmas of drug-use in public space. Health and Place, 7, 319–331.
8.
DowdallG. W., & GoldenJ. (1989). Photographs as data: An analysis of images from a mental institution. Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 183–207.
9.
FirestoneW. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16–23.
10.
FitzgeraldJ.DoveyK.DietzeP., & RumboldG. (2004). Health outcomes and quasi-supervised settings for street injecting drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 247–257.
11.
FitzgeraldJ., & ThreadgoldT. (2004). Fear of sense in the street heroin market. International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 407–417.
12.
FlyvbjergB. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In SealeC.GoboG.GubriumJ. F. & SilvermanD. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 390–404). London: Sage.
13.
FryC. L. (2002). Injecting drug user attitudes towards rules for supervised injecting rooms: Implications for uptake. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13, 471–476.
14.
GoboG. (2004). Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In SealeC.GoboG.GubriumJ. F. & SilvermanD. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 405–426). London: Sage.
15.
GommR.HammersleyM., & FosterP. (2000). Case study and generalization. In GommR.HammersleyM. & FosterP. (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 98–115). London: Sage.
16.
GreenT.HankinsC.PalmerD.BoivinJ.-F., & PlattR. (2003). Ascertaining the need for a safer injecting facility (SIF): The burden of public injecting in Montreal, Canada. Journal of Drug Issues, Summer, 713–732.
HammersleyM. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography?London: Routledge.
19.
HammersleyM., & AtkinsonP. (2007). Ethnography: Principle in practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
20.
HillierB. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HuntN.LloydC.KimberJ., & TompkinsC. (2007). Public injecting and willingness to use a drug consumption room among needle exchange programme attendees in the UK. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, 62–65.
22.
KellyM. P.StewartE.MorganA.KilloranA.FischerA.ThrelfallA. (2009). A conceptual framework for public health: NICE's emerging approach. Public Health, 123, e14–e20.
23.
KleeH., & MorrisJ. (1995). Factors that characterize street injectors. Addiction, 90, 837–841.
24.
LeCompteM. D., & GoetzJ. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
25.
LewisJ., & RitchieJ. (2003). Generalizing from qualitative research. In RitchieJ. & LewisJ. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 263–286). London: Sage.
26.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
27.
LonginoH. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
LonginoH. E. (1996). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in Feminist philosophies of science. In KellerFox E. & LonginoH. E. (Eds.), Feminism and science (pp. 264–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MalinsP.FitzgeraldJ. L., & ThreadgoldT. (2006). Spatial “folds”: The entwining of bodies, risks and city spaces for women injecting drug users in Melbourne's central business district. Gender, Place and Culture, 13(5), 509–527.
McKnightI.MaasB.WoodE.TyndallM. W.SmallW.LaiC. (2007). Factors associated with public injecting among users of Vancouver's supervised injecting facility. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33(2), 319–326.
32.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
33.
MurrayS. A.TapsonJ.TurnbullL.McCallumJ., & LittleA. (1994). Listening to local voices: Adapting rapid appraisal to assess health and social needs in general practice. British Medical Journal, 308, 698–700.
34.
NavarroC., & LeonardL. (2004). Prevalence and factors related to public injecting in Ottawa, Canada: Implications for the development of a trial safer injecting facility. International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 275–284.
35.
OngB. N.HumphrisG.AnnettH., & RifkinS. (1991). Rapid appraisal in an urban setting: An example from the developed world. Social Science and Medicine, 32(8), 909–915.
36.
ParkinS. (2009a). The effects of place on health risk: A qualitative study of micro-injecting environments. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
37.
ParkinS. (2009b). Places of risk, places of harm: Visualizing public injecting drug use in Plymouth. Paper presented at the South West Hepatology Nurses Group meeting.
38.
ParkinS. (2009c). Places of risk, places of harm: Visualizing public injecting drug use in Plymouth. Paper presented at the South West Hepatology Group meeting.
39.
ParkinS. (2010a). The effect of place on health (and drug related death) risk: Findings from a qualitative study of public injecting drug use in Plymouth. Paper presented at the South West Drug Related Death conference.
40.
ParkinS. (2010b). Risk, harm and opportunities for blood borne virus transmission in public settings: Findings from a qualitative study of injecting drug use in Plymouth. Paper presented at the British Association for the Study of the Liver.
41.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2007). A rapid appraisal of public injecting and drug-related litter in Plymouth: A confidential report to Plymouth DAAT [Unpublished Commissioned Report]. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
42.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2009a). Informal “sorter” houses: A qualitative insight of the “shooting gallery” phenomenon in a UK setting. Health & Place, 15(4), 981–989.
43.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2009b). Public injecting and symbolic violence. Addiction Research and Theory, 17(4), 390–405.
44.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2009c). Value in the visual: On public injecting, visual methods and their potential for informing policy (and change). Methodological Innovation Online, 4(2), 21–36.
45.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2010a). Fluorescent blue lights, injecting drug use and associated health risk: Findings from a qualitative study of micro-injecting environments. Health & Place, 16, 629–637.
46.
ParkinS., & CoomberR. (2010b). A rapid appraisal of drug use and drug related litter in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Barking: Drug and Alcohol Action Team.
47.
ParkinS.CoomberR., & WallaceG. (2010). Going public. Drink and Drug News(February 01), 14–15.
48.
PinkS. (2004). Home truths. Gender, domestic objects and everyday life. Oxford: Berg.
49.
PinkS. (2007). Walking with video. Visual Studies, 22(3), 240–252.
50.
PinkS. (2008). Mobilising visual ethnography: Making routes, making place and making images. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3).
QuineS., & TaylorR. (1998). Methodological strategies. In KerrC.TaylorR. & HeardG. (Eds.), Handbook of public health methods (pp. 17–23). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
53.
RanardJ. (2002). A little less shock and more therapy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13, 355–367.
54.
RhodesT. (2000). The multiple roles of qualitative research in understanding and responding to illicit drug use. In GreenwoodG. & RobertsonK. (Eds.), Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research (pp. 21–36). Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
55.
RhodesT. (2002). The “risk environment”: A framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13, 85–94.
56.
RhodesT.KimberJ.SmallW.FitzgeraldJ.KerrT.HickmanM. (2006). Public injecting and the need for “safer environment interventions” in the reduction of drug-related harm. Addiction, 101(10), 1384–1393.
57.
RhodesT.SingerM.BourgoisP.FriedmanS. R., & StrathdeeS. A. (2005). The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Social Science & Medicine, 61(5), 1026–1044.
58.
SchofieldJ. W. (1993). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In HammersleyM. (Ed.), Educational research: Current issuesvolume 1 (pp. 91–113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
59.
SharpK. (1998). The case for case studies in nursing research: The problem of generalization. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 785–789.
60.
SmallW.KerrT.CharetteT.SchechterM. T., & SpittalP. M. (2006). Impacts of intensified police activity on injection drug users: Evidence from an ethnographic investigation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17, 85–95.
61.
SmallW.RhodesT.WoodE., & KerrT. (2007). Public injection settings in Vancouver: Physical environment, social context and risk. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, 27–36.
62.
StakeR. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7, 5–8.
63.
TaylorA.CusickL.KimberJ.RutherfordJ.HickmanM., & RhodesT. (2006). The social impact of public injecting (independent working group on drug consumption rooms) [Paper D]. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
64.
TaylorA.FlemingA.RutherfordJ., & GoldbergD. (2004). Examining the injecting practices of injecting drug users in Scotland. Edinburgh: Effective Interventions Unit, Scottish Office.
65.
van BeekI.KimberJ.DakinA., & GilmourS. (2004). The Sydney medically supervised injecting centre: Reducing harm associated with heroin overdose. Critical Public Health, 14, 391–406.
66.
van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
67.
WalshD. (1998). Doing Ethnography. In SealeC. (Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 217–232). London: Sage Publications.
68.
WanlessD. (2004). Securing good health for the whole population: Final report. London: HMSO.
69.
WilliamsM. (2000). Interpretivism and generalisation. Sociology, 34(2), 209–224.
70.
YardleyL. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology & Health, 15(2), 215–228.
71.
YinR. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
