The improvable self: enacting model citizenship and sociality in research on ‘new recovery’

References

• Achara-Abrahams I, Evans AC, King JK. 2010. Recovery-focused behavioral health system transformation: a framework for change and lessons learned from Philadelphia. In: Kelly JF, White W, editors. Addiction recovery management: theory, research and practice. New York: Springer; p. 187–208.
   Google Scholar
• Anex. 2012. Australian drug policy: harm reduction and ‘new recovery’ (discussion paper: Draft for consultation). Retrieved from: http://www.anex.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Australian-Drug-Policy-harm-reduction-and-new-recovery-April-2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Arndt S, Sahker E, Hedden S. 2017. Does the Assessment of Recovery Capital scale reflect a single or multiple domains? Subst Abuse Rehab. 8:39–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton M. 2007. The new abstentionists. London: DrugScope. Retrieved from: http://www.drugwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-abstentionists.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Aston S. 2009. Identities under construction: women hailed as addicts. Health. 13:611–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi C. 2009. Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? Sydney: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi C. 2018. Drug problematizations and politics: deploying a poststructural analytic strategy. Contemp Drug Prob. 45:3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Barad K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beckwith M, Best D, Dingle G, Perryman C, Lubman D. 2015. Predictors of flexibility in social identity among people entering a therapeutic community for substance abuse. Alcohol Treat Quart. 33:93–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berridge V. 2012. The rise, fall, and revival of recovery in drug policy. Lancet. 379:22–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best D, Beckwith M, Haslam C, Haslam S, Jetten J, Mawson E, Lubman DI. 2016. Overcoming alcohol and other drug addiction as a process of social identity transition: the social identity model of recovery (SIMOR). Addict Res Theory. 24:111–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best D, Lubman D, Savic M, Wilson A, Dingle G, Haslam A, Jetten J. 2014. Social and transitional identity: exploring social networks and their significance in a therapeutic community setting. Therap Communit. 35:10–20.
   Google Scholar
• Best D, McKitterick T, Beswick T, Savic M. 2015. Recovery capital and social networks among people in treatment and among those in recovery in York, England. Alcohol Treat Quart. 33:270–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biernacki P. 1986. Pathways from heroin addiction: recovery without treatment. Philadelphia (PA): Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blunden H. 2016. Discourses around negative gearing of investment properties in Australia. Housing Stud. 31:340–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckingham S, Frings D, Albery I. 2013. Group membership and social identity in addiction recovery. Psychol Addict Behav. 27:1132–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloud W, Granfield R. 2001. Natural recovery from substance dependency. J Social Work Pract Addictions. 1:83–104.
   Google Scholar
• Cloud W, Granfield R. 2008. Conceptualizing recovery capital: expansion of a theoretical construct. Subst Use Misuse. 43:1971–1986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins T, Vamplew W. 2003. Mud, sweat and beers: a cultural history of sport and alcohol. London: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Deloitte Access Economics. 2011. Re-awakening Australia: the economic cost of sleep disorders in Australia, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.sleephealthfoundation.org.au/pdfs/news/Reawakening%20Australia.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis F, Farrugia A. 2017a. Materialising drugged pleasures: practice, politics, care. Int J Drug Policy. 49:86–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis F, Farrugia A. (eds). 2017b. Drugged pleasures (special section). Int J Drug Policy. 49:86–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health (Victorian). 2013. Optional module 8: assessment of recovery capital. Melbourne: Victorian Government.
   Google Scholar
• Dilkes-Frayne E, Duff C. 2017. Tendencies and trajectories: the production of subjectivity in an event of drug consumption. Environ Plan D: Soc Space. 35:951–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingle GA, Cruwys T, Frings D. 2015. Social identities as pathways into and out of addiction. Front Psychol. 6:1795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duff C. 2014. Assemblages of health: Deleuze’s empiricism and the ethology of life. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Duke K. 2012. From crime to recovery: the reframing of British drugs policy. J Drug Issues. 43:39–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke K, Herring R, Thickett A, Thom B. 2013. Substitution treatment in the era of ‘recovery’: an analysis of stakeholder roles and policy windows in Britain. Sub Use Misuse. 48:966–976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwyer R, Fraser S. 2015. Addiction screening and diagnostic tools: ‘refuting’ and ‘unmasking’ claims to legitimacy. Int J Drug Pol. 26:1189–1197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwyer R, Fraser S. 2016. Making addictions in standardised screening and diagnostic tools. Health Sociol Rev. 25:223–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwyer R, Moore D. 2013. Enacting multiple methamphetamines: the ontological politics of public discourse and consumer accounts of a drug and its effects. Int J Drug Pol. 24:203–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eslake S. 2013. Australian housing policy: 50 years of failure. Address to the 122nd Annual Henry George Commemorative Dinner, The Royal Society of Victoria, Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Farrugia A. 2015. ‘You can’t just give your best mate a massive hug every day’: young men, play and MDMA. Contemp. Drug Prob. 42:240–256.
   Google Scholar
• Farrugia A, Fraser S, Dwyer R. 2017. Assembling the social and political dimensions of take-home naloxone. Contemp Drug Prob. 44:163–175.
   Google Scholar
• Faulkner-Gurstein R. 2017. The social logic of naloxone: peer administration, harm reduction, and the transformation of social policy. Soc Sci Med. 180:20–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald J. 2015. Framing drug use: bodies, space, economy and crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Moore D, Fraser S. 2017. Interpellating recovery: the politics of ‘identity’ in recovery-focused treatment. Int J Drug Pol. 44:174–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank D. 2011. The trouble with morality: the effects of 12-step discourse on addicts’ decision-making. J Psycho Drugs. 43:245–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank D. 2018. ‘I was not sick and I didn't need to recover’: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) as a refuge from criminalization. Sub Use Misuse. 53:311–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S. 2004. ‘It's your life!’: injecting drug users, individual responsibility and hepatitis C prevention. Health. 8:199–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S. 2013. The missing mass of morality: a new fitpack design for hepatitis C prevention in sexual partnerships. Int J Drug Policy. 24:212–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S, Moore D. 2008. Dazzled by unity? Order and chaos in public discourse on illicit drug use. Soc Sci Med. 66:740–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S, Moore D, Keane H. 2014. Habits: remaking addiction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser S, Seear K. 2011. Making disease, making citizens: the politics of hepatitis C. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser S, Treloar C, Bryant J, Rhodes T. 2014. Hepatitis C prevention education needs to be grounded in social relationships. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 21:88–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser S, valentine k. 2008. Substance and substitution: methadone subjects in liberal societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gribbin C. 2017. Negative gearing: an update ahead of the 2017-18 federal budget. Tax Australia. 51:554–556.
   Google Scholar
• Gowing L, Ali R, Dunlop A, Farrell M, Lintzeris N. 2014. National guidelines for medication-assisted treatment of opioid dependence. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Groshkova T, Best D, White W. 2013. The assessment of recovery capital: properties and psychometrics of a measure of addiction recovery strengths. Drug Alc Rev. 32:187–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart A, Moore D. 2014. Alcohol and alcohol effects: constituting causality in alcohol epidemiology. Contemp. Drug Prob. 41:393–416.
   Google Scholar
• Holt M. 2007. Agency and dependency within treatment: drug treatment clients negotiating methadone and antidepressants. Soc Sci Med. 64:1937–1947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes K. 2007. Migrating identities: the relational constitution of drug use and addiction. Sociol Health Illness. 29:673–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Independent Expert Working Group. 2017. Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management. London: Department of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Karasaki M, Fraser S, Moore D, Dietze P. 2013. The place of volition in addiction: differing approaches and their implications for policy and service provision. Drug Alc Rev. 32:195–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keane H. 2002. What’s wrong with addiction? Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin HA. 2002. Alcoholics Anonymous discourse and members’ resistance in a virtual community: exploring tensions between theory and practice. Contemp. Drug Prob. 29:749–778.
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster K. 2017. Rethinking recovery. Addiction. 112:758–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster K, Duke K, Ritter A. 2015. Producing the ‘problem of drugs’: a cross national-comparison of ‘recovery’ discourse in two Australian and British reports. Int J Drug Pol. 26:617–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster K, Santana L, Madden A, Ritter A. 2015. Stigma and subjectivities: examining the textured relationship between lived experience and opinions about drug policy among people who inject drugs. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 22:224–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B. 2004. How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body Society. 10:205–229.
   Google Scholar
• Laudet AB, Humphreys K. 2013. Promoting recovery in an evolving policy context: what do we know and what do we need to know about recovery support services? J Subst Abuse Treat. 45:126–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudet A, Morgen K, White W. 2006. The role of social supports, spirituality, religiousness, life meaning and affiliation with 12-step fellowships in quality of life satisfaction among individuals in recovery from alcohol and drug use. Alcohol Treat Quart. 24:33–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laudet A, White W. 2008. Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained recovery, life satisfaction and stress among former poly-substance users. Subst Use Misuse. 43:27–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law J. 2004. After method: mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Law J. 2012. Collateral realities. In: Dominguez Rubio F, Baert P, editors. The politics of knowledge. London: Routledge; p. 156–178.
   Google Scholar
• Manton E, Pennay A, Savic M. 2013. Public drinking, social connection and social capital: a qualitative study. Addict Res Theory. 22:218–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mawson E, Best D, Beckwith M, Dingle GA, Lubman DI. 2015. Social identity, social networks and recovery capital in emerging adulthood: a pilot study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Pol. 10:45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh J, McKeganey N. 2000. Addicts' narratives of recovery from drug use: constructing a non-addict identity. Soc Sci Med. 50:1501–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeganey N. 2012. Harm reduction at the crossroads and the rediscovery of drug user abstinence. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 19:276–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller WR, Kurtz E. 1994. Models of alcoholism used in treatment: contrasting AA and other perspectives with which it is often confused. J Stud Alc. 55:159–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol A. 1999. Ontological politics: a word and some questions. In: Law J, Hassard J, editors. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell; p. 74–89.
   Google Scholar
• Mol A. 2002. The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mol A, Law J. 2002. Complexities: an introduction. In: Law J, Mol A, editors. Complexities: social studies of knowledge practices. Durham: Duke University Press; p. 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Monaghan M. 2012. The recent evolution of UK drug strategies: from maintenance to behaviour change? People Place Pol Online. 6:29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Moore D. 2004. Governing street-based injecting drug users: a critique of heroin overdose prevention in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 59:1547–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore D. 2009. ‘Workers’, ‘clients’ and the struggle over needs: understanding encounters between service providers and injecting drug users in an Australian city. Soc Sci Med. 68:1161–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore D, Fraser S. 2006. Putting at risk what we know: reflecting on the drug-using subject in harm reduction and its political implications. Soc Sci Med. 62:3035–3047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore D, Fraser S. 2015. Causation, knowledge and politics: greater precision and rigour needed in methamphetamine research and policy-making to avoid problem inflation. Addict Res Theory. 23:89–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Eating Disorders Collaboration. 2010. Eating disorders prevention, treatment and management: an evidence review. Sydney: NEDC.
   Google Scholar
• Neale J, Finch E, Marsden J, Mitcheson L, Rose D, Strang J, Wykes T. 2014. How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 21:310–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. 2011a. What is the role of harm reduction when drug users say they want abstinence? Int J Drug Pol. 22:189–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. 2011b. Recovery from problem drug use: what can we learn from the sociologist Erving Goffman? Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 18:3–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. 2012. Heroin users’ views and experiences of physical activity, sport and exercise. Int J Drug Pol. 23:120–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. 2013. Does recovery oriented treatment prompt heroin users prematurely into detoxification and abstinence programmes? Qualitative study. Drug Alc Depend. 127:163–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. 2014. Gender sameness and difference in recovery from heroin dependence: a qualitative exploration. Int J Drug Pol. 25:3–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Panebianco D, Finch E, Marsden J, Mitcheson L, Rose D, Wykes T. 2016. Emerging consensus on measuring addiction recovery: findings from a multi-stakeholder consultation exercise. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 23:31–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Strang J. 2015a. Philosophical ruminations on measurement: methodological orientations of patient reported outcome measures (PROMS). J Ment Hlth. 24:123–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Strang J. 2015b. Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods to optimize patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Addiction. 110:1215–1216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Tompkins C, Wheeler C, Finch E, Marsden J, Mitcheson L, Rose D, Wykes T, Strang J. 2015. ‘You’re all going to hate the word “recovery” by the end of this’: service users’ views of measuring addiction recovery. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 22:26–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Vitoratou S, Finch E, Lennon P, Mitcheson L, Panebianco D, Rose D, Strang J, Wykes T, Marsden J. 2016. Development and validation of ‘SURE’: a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) for recovery from drug and alcohol dependence. Drug Alc Depend. 165:159–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nettleton S. 2013. The sociology of health and illness. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nettleton S, Neale J, Pickering L. 2011a. ‘I don't think there's much of a rational mind in a drug addict when they are in the thick of it’: towards an embodied analysis of recovering heroin users. Sociol Health Illness. 33:341–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nettleton S, Neale J, Pickering L. 2011b. Techniques and transitions: a sociological analysis of sleeping practices amongst recovering heroin users. Soc Sci Med. 72:1367–1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nettleton S, Neale J, Pickering L. 2013. ‘I just want to be normal’: an analysis of discourses of normality among recovering heroin users. Health. 17:174–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ning AM. 2005. Games of truth: rethinking conformity and resistance in narratives of heroin recovery. Med Anthrop. 24:349–382.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Brien KS, Kypri K. 2008. Alcohol industry sponsorship and hazardous drinking among sportspeople. Addiction. 103:1961–1966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen M. 2015. Embodied subjectivities: bodily subjectivity and changing boundaries in post-human alcohol practices. Contemp. Drug Prob. 42:3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Radcliffe P. 2011. Motherhood, pregnancy and the negotiation of identity: the moral career of drug treatment. Soc Sci Med. 72:984–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter A, Lancaster K, Diprose R. 2018. Improving drug policy: the potential of broader democratic participation. Int J Drug Pol. 55:1–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.01.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith C, Riach K. 2016. Drug taking and employment: exploring the employable citizen in UK policy. Sociol. 50:24–42.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson N, Moore D. 2014. Methamphetamine ‘facts’: the production of a ‘destructive’ drug in Australian scientific texts. Addict Res Theory. 22:451–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson K, Palmer C, Raven M. 2011. Drinkers, non-drinkers and deferrers: reconsidering the beer footy couplet amongst Australian Rules football fans. Aust J Anthrop. 22:388–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Drug Policy Commission Recovery Consensus Group. 2008. A vision of recovery. [Cited 2018 July 31] Available from: http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Policy%20report%20-%20A%20vis ion%20of%20recovery_%20UKDPC%20recovery%20consensus%20gr oup.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Valverde M, White-Mair K. 1999. ‘One day at a time’ and other slogans for everyday life: the ethical practices of Alcoholics Anonymous. Sociol. 33:393–410.
   Google Scholar
• van Melick M, McCartney D, Best D. 2013. Ongoing recovery support and peer networks: a preliminary investigation of recovery peer supporters and their peers. J Groups Addict Recovery. 8:185–199.
   Google Scholar
• Wardle I. 2012. Five years of recovery: December 2005 to December 2010 – from challenge to orthodoxy. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol. 19:294–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White W. 2008. Recovery: old wine, flavor of the month or new organizing paradigm? Subst Use Misuse. 43:1987–2000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wincup E. 2016. Gender, recovery and contemporary UK drug policy. Drugs Alc Today. 16:39–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar