First, I want to say how much I am enjoying this new blog format, the new contributors, and the exchange of ideas. All of the contributors here have strong recovery orientations, but that doesn't mean there's no disagreement among us. So, let's catch you up: Austin posted Building a New Science of Recovery I responded … Continue reading (Final) Response to: New Science, New Dangers
My first task in this response is to assert that I do not speak for the RSRC collectively, nor is there any one authority within the RSRC. So my responses will be buttressed with my own work, and by drawing from some lessons of history within various sciences as they emerged. Recovery science, is, after … Continue reading New Science, New Dangers; A Response to Concerns
Anyone who's followed my blogging knows I've been concerned about the destabilization of our understanding of recovery. And, if I'm being honest, the Recovery Science Research Collaborative's definition (which Austin blogged about yesterday) has been characteristic of the the kind of definition that concerns me. Well, I think I finally get what he's going for … Continue reading Response to: Building a New Science of Recovery
One question I often get from treatment providers and recovery organization is "What type of data should we be tracking on our populations?" Before we jump into this, we should take a look at why we need evidence of recovery. This is the RSRC consensus definition of recovery. It is purposefully broad, and casts a … Continue reading Building a New Science of Recovery
recoveryreview.blog 