Researcher Effects 91

no analysis is neutral - despite research analysts’ claims of neutrality. We do not come to our studies uninitiated. What we know shapes, but does not necessarily determine, what we “find” (Charmaz 2005:510).

The life experiences of the researcher cannot help but impact on the direction of inquiry or the interpretation of the findings of the research. Liamputtong and Ezzy argue ‘the results of a qualitative research project are integrally influenced by the theories, emotions, morals and politics of the researcher’ (2005:283). As this research is concerned with the ‘politics of prohibition’ and the stigmatisation and

marginalisation that result from this, the emancipatory approach adopted could be perceived as biased towards the interests of people who use illicit drugs. However, as this research shows, their voices are rarely heard in policy debates and this research illuminates their perspective of working in partnerships, as well as the perspective of others who work with them.

In the research I adopt some of the methods of Critical Discourse Analysis due to the appeal it holds for me based on my experience of working in various roles in policy development and service delivery planning processes in both government and non- government sectors. During the literature review process I encountered numerous examples of applied Critical Discourse Analysis and it struck a chord with me as a useful analytical tool for better understanding partnerships at a practical level. The process of developing these documents as the official government position on an issue is typically overseen and refined by ‘expert bodies’ (‘Steering Committees’, ‘Working Parties’ or the like) before they are signed off by the Minister (or Ministers)

responsible for implementation of the policy. These ‘expert bodies’ are typically made up of senior officials from a range of government and non-government agencies and, in some cases, consumers. These bodies ensure policy reflects the views of the incumbent government and seek to impart ideological messages through the use of rhetorical devices, such as ‘partnerships’ and ‘affected communities’ (Hastings 1999; Lupton 1992). These bodies are also often sites of contestation and compromise, where power and ‘expertise’ generally hold sway. My experience working in this area

provides me with insights into this process that undoubtedly influenced my choice of method.

I make no pretence that this research is not influenced by my views on the folly of the ‘politics of prohibition’ nor do I seek to hide my desire that, in some small way, this research might contribute to the growing choir of voices that are calling for a different approach to the issue of drug use in society given the well documented failure of prohibition and the significant harms caused by this approach (Hathaway 2002; ICDSP 2010; TDPF 2010; Wodak and Moore 2002). This research is intended to highlight the fact that the concept of partnerships involving people who use illicit drugs is, in most instances, little more than a rhetorical tool aimed at portraying a policy process in line with contemporary public health best-practice of inclusiveness and consultation. If improved health outcomes among users are to be achieved they need to be meaningfully engaged in all aspects of the policy process, although the structural and environmental barriers resulting from prohibition makes this difficult. This research identifies some of these barriers and offers some solutions as posed by those affected and others who work in these partnerships. As Rubin and Rubin highlight, research of this critical nature seeks to ‘redress past oppression, bring problems to light, and help minorities, the poor, the sidelined and the silenced’ (2005:25).

My interest in the concept of partnerships involving people who use illicit drugs stems from many years working in various government and non-government organisations, as well as in the private sector, in a variety of roles relating to a range of health issues. During this time I witnessed some very effective partnerships involving consumers of health services. This experience spanned the area of illicit drug use as well as the more ‘respectable’ areas of chronic disease and gay men’s health. I was privileged to be involved in a number of public health partnerships where consumer input to policy development and service delivery planning was valued and considered an essential element in achieving better health outcomes. At other times, however, I witnessed instances where the concept of partnerships and consultation with consumers was regarded as something of an inconvenience and mere ‘lip service’ was given to

genuine consumer involvement. During my time working in the illicit drug sector I had been invited to attend meetings of two of the now defunct user groups in Tasmania in an advisory capacity, one of these groups also had a police officer regularly attend meetings in a similar advisory role. Furthermore, my interest in researching this topic has meant that I have had the privilege of attending several conferences and Annual General Meetings conducted by AIVL as a Tasmanian delegate. This is due to the inability to recruit suitable ‘peer’ delegates from Tasmania to these events as a result of the stigma attached to identifying as an illicit drug user and the implications this has in a small jurisdiction. It was this experience that motivated my research into this topic. In this regard the research is influenced by the critical theory approach discussed by Kincheleo and McLaren (2005) which

advocates that researchers ‘enter into an investigation with their assumptions on the table, so no one is confused concerning the epistemological and political baggage they bring with them to the research site’ (2005:305-6).

My involvement in the area of illicit drugs in a professional capacity facilitated the recruitment of a number of conversational partners working in peer-based drug user organisations, or having had experience working with them in Tasmania, that would otherwise have not been possible. At the same time I sensed my previous experience working with people who use illicit drugs meant some of the conversational partners working in law enforcement and service delivery roles were a little suspicious of my motives and appeared somewhat guarded at the commencement of the interviews. In most cases this appeared to dissipate not long after the interviews were underway and it became clear to the conversational partners that my research was motivated by a genuine interest in the practical workings of partnerships involving people who use illicit drugs. I anticipated this and in an effort to overcome this participants were sent a list of questions that might be discussed in advance, they were also advised that the interviews would focus on their own involvement in partnerships and that not all questions would be relevant to them. Given my background I was also wary that participants might simply seek to convey views about partnerships that they thought I wanted to hear. The open-structured nature of the interviews allowed me to encourage

conversational partners to relate their views on partnerships in their own terms and to structure their stories according to their own experience. I am confident that during the interviews the conversational partners became so engaged with providing their own views of the workings of partnerships involving people who use illicit drugs that any desire to provide a particular perspective of partnerships they thought I might want to hear was minimised.