Mark Monaghan

Bio: Mark Monaghan is an academic researcher from University of Birmingham. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cannabis & Evidence-based policy. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 35 publications receiving 567 citations. Previous affiliations of Mark Monaghan include Loughborough University & Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.

Cannabis and Psychosis: Are We any Closer to Understanding the Relationship?

Abstract: This paper provides an update from the literature on understanding of the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia. In particular, the paper focuses on the latest findings and remaining areas that require investigation. Three hypotheses have emerged as potential explanations for the association between cannabis and schizophrenia, namely cannabis can trigger schizophrenia, cannabis is used to mitigate symptoms of schizophrenia, and there are common factors which might account for the association. Biological and genetic factors dominate this field of research; this has been at the expense of exploring social and cultural contributory factors which influence cannabis and schizophrenia. The evidence for cannabis acting as a causal factor for schizophrenia has so far not been established. Research needs to extend beyond males drawn from western countries if we are to advance knowledge and understanding of the link between cannabis use and schizophrenia.

The Complexity of Evidence: Reflections on Research Utilisation in a Heavily Politicised Policy Area

Abstract: Exploring evidence utilisation in a heavily politicised policy area, this paper suggests that established models of research utilisation provide inadequate grounds to conceptualise the evidence and policy relationship in this context This is because they operate at too high a level of abstraction and have a narrow understanding of the association Using recent developments in UK drug classification policy as a case study, a newer ‘processual model’ is (tentatively) advocated This highlights the complexity and nuance of the policy process and its accompanying use of evidence which, it is claimed, more accurately depicts the evidence and policy relationship in this particular scenario

The recent evolution of UK drug strategies: from maintenance to behaviour change?

Abstract: Politically, the idea that certain kinds of drugs and drug use are intrinsically linked to certain kinds of criminality – known as the drugs-crime nexus - enjoys continuing salience. This shows little sign of abating. Since 1995, successive strategies have embraced this theme and policies have been developed to try and increase the numbers of drug users entering treatment in a bid to drive down crime rates. Drawing on a review of the relevant literature and an analysis of successive drug strategies and related policy documents, this paper argues that although contemporary drug policy is still underpinned by such notions the suggested means by which crime rates are to be reduced is gradually shifting. Since 2008, there has been a notable change in rhetoric with an increasing use of conditionality in the benefits system coupled with an overt desire to ‘nudge’ those engaging in risky behaviours to amend their ways. This seems to be related to a steady disillusionment with methadone maintenance treatment and a desire to solve the drug-crime problem by promoting the goal of ‘abstinence’. More recently, abstinence has been replaced by the less well-defined term ‘recovery’, but both signal a desire for drug treatment to move away from maintenance. This paper argues that such developments are part of a creeping moralisation that has reemerged in UK social policy over recent decades.

Evidence versus politics: Exploiting research in UK drug policy making?

Abstract: Introduction Theorising the policy making process A historical and geographical overview of the research and policy connection The two communities of evidence and policy, the challenge of politics and the impact of the media Competition, conflict and controversy in the making of UK drug policy Developing tools for exploring 'evidence' in evidence-based policy making The nature of evidence in politicised policy areas The role of evidence in the politicised policy making Conceptualising and modelling evidence use in politicised policy areas Conclusion

The archaeology of knowledge

Abstract: We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.

Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective

Abstract: Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies can be properly targeted and developed to counter an ever-changing landscape of social problems. The book will be essential reading for all those who loved (or loathed) the arguments developed in Realistic Evaluation (Sage, 1997). It offers a complete blueprint for research synthesis, supported by detailed illustrations and worked examples from across the policy waterfront.

Rethinking ExpertiseRethinking Expertise, by CollinsHarry and EvansRobert. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. 159 pp. $37.50 cloth. 0226113604.

Abstract: Second, communication within the audience segments is repeatedly acknowledged as the basis of transformation of labeled sets into classes, types into categories, and concepts into forms. One needs to clarify this communication process, describe it, and understand it. Prior ecological works presumed that the classification task was incumbent to the observer, raising questions about the validity, existence, and durability of the categories and forms (e.g., Durand 2006). Undoubtedly, the formalization of diverse audiences’ comparative categorization proposed in the book represents a major reconceptualization, but the societal hierarchies, verticalities, and conflicts need to be part of the communication basis. Third, although the fourth part of the book deals with organizational change, loyal to the core assumptions of ecology theory, the organizations and their spokespersons do not seem able to influence the evolution of the fields, industries, or populations. Organizations hardly possess intentions, governance characteristics, or market and non-market resources to do better than adapt a multimeaning multi-audience reality, to wit to shape, carve, and influence the very selection criteria that rule the fields where they operate. Finally, more than the possibility of categorization, the ontological nature of forms and population is a question looming around the entire population ecology story, old and new style. Yesterday imposed by the ecologist as erudite observer, today forms and populations are “decentralized” to audiences. This displacement fills a caveat of the former version of population ecology. The next question worth investigation nevertheless lies in the epistemological nature and ontological status of concepts, categories, forms, and populations. Does the linguistic turn of organizational ecology open the Pandora’s box for a neo-constructivism, a post-realism about forms and populations? Organizational ecologists have long avoided the too-human considerations of politics and ideologies. However, the decentralization of categorization processes, the evanescence of group membership, and the importance given to (social and cultural) codes imply that beliefs, causal associations, and discursive elaboration are to integrate the newly refounded ecological corpus. Overall, I applaud the conceptual details, thorough definitions, and meticulous demonstrations of this book. Readers of the book will appreciate differently this new theorization of known themes, from full acceptance to some resistance. One may regret certain minimal or backhanded references to extant literature (in particular on social categorization, status construction, and organizational identity). One may reject premises (having a more political theory of legitimacy, a more controversial social positioning of audiences, and a more classificatory argument of audiences’ habitus). But everyone can make up their mind by reading and appreciating the conceptual qualities of this book.