Diaspora migration is one of many types of migration likely to increase considerably during the early twenty-first century. This article addresses the many ambiguities that surround diaspora migration with a view to developing a meaningful theoretical scheme in which to better understand the processes involved.The term diaspora has acquired a broad semantic domain. It now encompasses a motley array of groups such as political refugees, alien residents, guest workers, immigrants, expellees, ethnic and racial minorities, and overseas communities. It is used increasingly by displaced persons who feel, maintain, invent or revive a connection with a prior home. Concepts of diaspora include a history of dispersal, myths/memories of the homeland, alienation in the host country, desire for eventual return -which can be ambivalent, eschatological or utopian -ongoing support of the homeland and, a collective identity defined by the above relationship.This article considers four central issues: How does diaspora theory link into other theoretical issues? How is diaspora migration different from other types of migration? Who are the relevant actors and what are their roles? What are the social and political functions of diaspora?On the basis of this analysis a theoretical paradigm of diasporas is presented to enable scholars to move beyond descriptive research by identifying different types of diasporas and the dynamics that differentiate among them. Use of the proposed typology -especially in comparative research of different diasporas -makes it possible to focus on structural differences and similarities that could be critical to the social processes involved.

The study explores the process of boundary demarcation within hospital settings by examining a new phenomenon in modern medicine: collaboration between alternative and biomedical practitioners (primarily physicians) working together in biomedical settings. The study uses qualitative methods to examine the nature of this collaboration by calling attention to the ways in which the biomedical profession manages to secure its boundaries and to protect its hard-core professional knowledge. It identifies the processes of exclusion and marginalization as the main mechanisms by which symbolic boundaries are marked daily in the professional field. These processes enable the biomedical profession to contain its competitors and at the same time to avoid overt confrontations and mitigate potential tensions between the two medical systems.

No abstract

Between 1993 and 2007, CAM use in the Israeli urban Jewish population aged 45-75 years increased significantly. As in other countries CAM grew from an infant industry and entered the mainstream of health care. The evidence reported here highlights the urgent need for the design of health and social policies aiming to achieve more effective integration between CAM and conventional medicine.

In this article, the authors address the boundaries of institutional structures, the dynamics of their configuration, and the nature of their permeability. The authors explored these issues in Israel, where the changing relationship of bio- and alternative medicine elucidates recent processes of professional boundary redefinition. They used qualitative methods to analyze in-depth interviews in clinics and hospitals where alternative and biomedical practitioners work under the formal auspices of publicly sponsored biomedical organizations. The findings show an incursion by alternative practitioners into territories viewed until fairly recently as the exclusive domain of biomedicine. However, the "alternatives" are not defined as regular staff members, and their marginality is elucidated by a variety of visible structural, symbolic, and geographical cues. The authors used decoupling theory in interpreting the findings. Changed boundary contours signal underlying processes of social change that could have meaningful implications in defining membership criteria in the biomedical community.