I did a presentation of my Dissertation research last Friday at work. The audience was polite (only a few went to sleep) and the Q/A period after was tame. But I received one question that I could neither answer, nor comfortably dodge: "This is a fabulous description, now how about a prescription?"

To backtrack, my research focuses on the professional workers who staff a drug court program. My analysis focuses on their treatment efforts (essentially how they bridge inflexible institutions) and their control efforts (how they ensure that defendants maintain the law). My analysis gravitates to the theoretical, suggesting that the drug courts constitute a new form of Panopticonism [a surveillance oriented mode of social control] without providing any real recommendations.

Is this responsible? Or, should I identify recommendations for practictioners?

Right now I don't know the answer to that question. On one hand, I may think that the entire enterprise is bankrupt and accordingly should be dumped. On the other, some thousand programs now operate and my state is looking for ways of adding more. That is, these programs will persist. Is there nothing constructive that I can throw into the arena?

I'll stop with this post for now and write more at a later time. I want to try and sort through these ideas in a responsible way. Thus, it will be published in the blog for all my readers to consider [all 1 of you].

Cheers,

/CoReY