S. Friedman
Mar 1, 2000
Citations
0
Influential Citations
10
Citations
Journal
International Journal of Drug Policy
Abstract
Rapid Assessment and Response (RAR) is being widely applied to issues surrounding drug use and also to the prevention of HIV and other infectious diseases (Rhodes et al., 1999; Stimson et al., 1999). This commentary aims to provide a cautionary note. RAR is being put forward as both good science and as a good intervention tool. Yet, it is my claim that these claims are not supported by evidence. If RAR is an intervention, it needs to be evaluated as such. If it is a scientific method, then its value needs to be shown as science. To put it bluntly: we probably do not know if Rapid Assessment and Response is a good thing. I say this in spite of having helped Stimson and his colleagues develop some of their RAR instrumentation; and in spite of my basic respect for some of the underlying theory. RAR does attempt to use multiple kinds of data and to triangulate it to arrive at a more accurate and more useful picture of reality than any one method can do. As someone who tries to use quantitative, practice-testing (often experimental or quasi-experimental), ethnographic, and historical methods in my own research, I clearly support this aspect of RAR (Friedman, 1982; Friedman et al., 1999). RAR in the form Stimson proposes also attempts to get relevant constituencies, including drug users, involved in designing, collecting, and interpreting the study and its results (Stimson et al., 1999). Again, these are important parts of effective research in public health. Good intentions, however, are not enough. We need to know if RAR leads to good science and to good programs. The remainder of this commentary consists primarily of a number of questions that need to be answered. First, does RAR really lead to outcomes that further the public health? Stimson and his colleagues seem pretty enthused about it on the basis of their experience, and this is an important datum. Experience is a good starting point. It is not, however, adequate; evaluation is needed. Second, a number of researchers worry that RAR is simply ‘second-rate science’. I am somewhat sympathetic to this; a good * Fax: +1-212-845-4698.