Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

The article discusses and compares two European studies that investigate young recipients of commercial messages on alcohol. The studies spring out of very different science philosophical paradigms. Their comparison therefore brings certain ontological, epistemological and methodological questions to a head.

A large amount of existing research and theorizing has been reviewed in order to frame the studies concerning the following aspects: their goals (genesis, purposes etc.); their view on the nature of reality (ontology); their view on how knowledge is created and expanded (epistemology) and, their view on the role of values in research and theory building (axiology).

It is suggested that although the studies work in separate paradigms and are concerned with different phenomena, they could gain from a consolidation for complementary purposes.

The task of studying alcohol marketing audiences puts the alcohol research field's methodological capacities to the test. The field needs more interactive collaboration between different research traditions in order to produce credible research in this area.

This article introduces a conceptual framework for conducting mixed methods within the alcohol research field by suggesting that any data analysis – qualitative or quantitative – is also a narrative or social representation. Theoretically, the paper draws on Andrew Abbott (1997; 1998) and Howard Becker (2007), arguing that three ordered forms of representation are performed in quantitative analyses based on survey studies: The first order of representation refers to how participants respond to or interpret a survey question; the second to the arrangement and interpretation of variables in quantitative analysis and shows that measurements can have networks of meanings and the third to ways of merging quantitative analysis with other material, such as qualitative data.

Empirically, the paper illustrates the first order of representation through an analysis of 13 focus group interviews. In these young people discussed selected international survey questions, which later were used in two representative surveys on alcohol and illegal drug use, conducted in 2005 amongst 2 000 15-16-year-olds and in 2008 amongst 5 000 17-19-year-olds.

The article discusses how insights of the first order of representation are useful when researchers wish to carry out the second and third orders of representation.

Research on substance abuse treatment suggests patient satisfaction is linked to use of services and abstinence. However, patient perspectives on treatment are rarely examined. This study used mixed methods to examine correlations between patients’ treatment satisfaction, retention and abstinence from drugs and provide a transpersonal account of patient perspectives on treatment.

Eight Danish outpatient substance abuse treatment centres participated in the study. Data was collected from 186 patients. Quantitative measures were used at baseline screenings and at 6 months follow-up interviews, including the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8). Qualitative measures were used for patient descriptions of treatment at follow-up.

Patient satisfaction with treatment was linked to retention, abstinence and program differences. The qualitative data described patient's views on high or low treatment satisfaction.

The CSQ-8 is a valuable tool for monitoring patient engagement and treatment effect in substance abuse treatment services. The inclusion of patient perspectives underlined the importance of a more contextual understanding of program components.

In this study we report on experiences with applying mixed methods in an evaluation study and present reflections on strengths and challenges in this respect. What was done in order to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods? What were the main benefits? What kinds of difficulties were encountered.

The study is a case report based on the researchers’ own experiences from applying qualitative process evaluation and quantitative effect evaluation in a comprehensive evaluation of a complex community prevention project.

Findings from qualitative methods were used to initiate further effect evaluation (sequential integration) and to support and explain findings from the effect evaluation (simultaneous integration). The main benefits were a more nuanced and comprehensive evaluation integrated into a common evaluation report. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods presented a number of challenges, particularly in integrating the analyses and writing a common report, due to significant differences in research traditions.

The use of mixed methods in this evaluation study was very useful and necessary, particularly to explain the findings and to provide information for future prevention projects. However, essential differences between process evaluation and effect evaluation presented challenges.

The article considers methodological problems of working with register data and shows how deficiencies in a quantitative dataset may constitute a tool for discovery if data shortcomings are used as input in a qualitative investigation of data genealogy.

Based on a specific research case example the article demonstrates how qualitative moments are intrinsically embedded both in quantitative datasets and in the statistical processing.

It is argued that statistical analyses of datasets cannot be made without considerations of institutional organisation and perceptions of persons implied in the production of data. Lastly it is suggested that prison-based drug misuse treatment research currently needs to face the paradoxical challenge of excessive statistical programmatic power, which has encouraged formulations of ‘causalist’ research questions. It is further suggested that a reorientation towards theoretical explanation as an addition to the statistical demonstration of factor associations is important if quantitative studies are to further open the black box of treatment.