A Critical Review of the Sociology of Alternative Medicine: Research on Users, Practitioners and the Orthodoxy

Abstract

The popularity of alternative therapies in the past two decades has been accompanied by a proliferation of sociological works investigating different aspects of this phenomenon. 1,2 A major strand of the literature in 'the sociology of alternative medicine', which concerns three social actors: users of alternative therapies; practitioners of alternative therapies; and physicians (the orthodoxy). Research on users of alternative medicine has mainly investigated the causes of people's use of these modalities and has focused on three questions: Why do people use alternative medicine? Why has alternative medicine become popular in recent times? and, What is the sequence of events that leads to alternative medicine use? Research on alternative practitioners has mainly investigated the issue of professionalization of these practitioners. Research on physicians has mainly investigated: physicians' views on and professional relationships with alternative therapists; physicians' views on the efficacy of alternative therapies; the orthodoxy's views on the knowledge base of these therapeutic systems; and physicians who use alternative techniques. The article argues that a paucity of empirical research is a major weakness of the present state of the sociology of alternative medicine and thus several research possibilities are delineated. Its aim is to provide a critical review of the literature on each of the above topics and suggest future research possibilities.KEYWORDS alternative medicine; the sociology of alternative medicine ADDRESS

Developing a Dynamic Model of Treatment Perceptions

“…However, Siahpush (1999) notes that analyses focusing specifically on chronology are needed in order to establish whether factors such as beliefs consistent with complementary therapy precede or follow successful therapy experiences. Interestingly, while the treatment perceptions described above were organized chronologically as 'pretreatment' versus 'treatment-based', an alternative but related categorization can be derived from the distinction between abstract and concrete aspects of perceptions that has been applied to 'illness representations' (Leventhal, Idler, & Leventhal, 1999).…”

New Scope for Research in Traditional and Non-conventional Medicine Comment on "Substitutes or Complements? Diagnosis and Treatment with Non-conventional and Conventional Medicine"

“…The first is that a health economist should be studying the subject, and applying research models that are typical of the quantitative approach. With the exception of clinical studies, CAM tends largely to be studied in a qualitative light, 2 even though scholars have long shown it to be a suitable area 3 for empirical investigation and not to be confined to the classic diatribe on either biomedicine or CAM. The other prevailing issue has been, of course, whether such medicine works or not -which some scholars have called "the big question.…”

Boundary objects in complementary and alternative medicine: Acupuncture vs. Christian Science

“…The most common threads of this research are studies of CAM use, practitioner professionalization, and physician views and relationships with CAM (Siahpush, 2000). My research builds on another common and fruitful CAM research trend -examining the boundaries between CAM and conventional medicine (Keshet et al, 2013;Derkatch, 2008).…”