Team research methods for studying intranasal heroin use and its HIV risks

Nineteen years ago Douglas (1976), a sociologist, vigorously recommended team field research. As Douglas noted, most ethnography is carried out using the "Lone Ranger" approach, which--while producing a number of excellent studies--generally limits the researcher to small groups or parts of large groups. In the few cases where field research teams were assembled (e.g., Becker et al. 1961), they tended to be homogeneous and to simply divide the group being studied between them and then essentially perform identical investigations (Douglas 1976). Douglas had a different vision. He saw the optimal field research group as heterogeneous, able to take on large projects, and able to take multiple perspectives. Such a team would have a variety of talents, experiences, and inclinations to call upon and would be more able to connect with the people being studied (e.g., by including indigenous members noted for their sociability). Douglas argued for giving greater consideration in designing research to society's conflictory nature and the desire and need for people to misinform, evade, construct false fronts, lie, and deceive themselves. According to Douglas, field research teams were an excellent means of coping with these problems. With various members using their array of talents to study a problem from multiple perspectives and through numerous webs of social cliques and networks, research teams would be particularly able to get behind people's facades and produce valid data. Though Douglas presented a compelling argument, there is little evidence of an increase in team field research, with one exception: research groups studying HIV/AIDS. The NADR program, funded by NIDA, created a number of field research teams across the United States that combined ethnographers with indigenous staff who, whatever their principal duties, could be used to assist in the research. These field research teams were also part of a survey research effort, and, in this fashion, quantitative and qualitative methods were combined to a degree uncommon in social science research. While many of these research groups have since disbanded, COIP was fortunate enough to remain in operation. The authors have described how they assembled a field research team composed of COIP members that combined ethnographers with selected indigenous staff to address a particular problem--new heroin use and its implications for HIV/AIDS. The goals the researchers set for the study would have been impossible for a single ethnographer or for a survey research team acting alone: to discern potential trends in new heroin use (though researchers were limited to studying mostly poor people); to develop fairly deep understandings regarding the study's central concerns (e.g., factors likely to influence the decision to inject heroin); and to quickly and economically collect data that were useful and valid. The authors note that all members of the research team had a host of other responsibilities; thus, this study was conducted as a sort of side job, that is, researchers had to fit it in when time and circumstances allowed. Altogether, the team field research method as applied to new heroin use in Chicago has enabled the research team to quickly and economically generate data that can be used to inform public policy on this issue (Ouellet et al. 1993; Ouellet et al., submitted). The authors believe that they can make a reasonably strong case for the following: New heroin use deserves greater study--the prevalence and incidence of use are probably sufficient to form a new cohort of potentially longtime users. New users are most likely to be found where major heroin street drug markets operate. Among youth there is a need for education about heroin--current users often report being surprised by heroin's addictiveness. Intranasal use is the predominant form of heroin administration among young, new users, and there is strong peer pressure against injection. Experimentation with injection, how