Advertisement

Shaping of ‘Embodied Expertise’ in Alternative Medicine

  • Inge Kryger Pedersen
  • Charlotte Andreas Baarts
Chapter
Part of the Health, Technology and Society book series (HTE)

Abstract

By exploring ‘embodied expertise’ in alternative treatments, this chapter endeavours to help us to account for the popularity of alternative medicine. Embodied expertise has been a much-neglected area in healthcare research for alternative medicine compared with ‘negative’ explanations such as studies of practitioners’ (lack of) education, treatment effects and effectiveness, or users’ dissatisfaction with conventional healthcare. Drawing on a concept of expertise different from ‘expert’ and ‘profession’ allows us to identify dimensions such as skills, knowledge, and spatiality developed not only by practitioners but also in the practitioner-user encounter. Based on a study of three of the most popular forms of alternative medicine in Denmark, we demonstrate how these dimensions are central to developing relationships between (1) expert and lay, (2) experience and evidence-based knowledge, and (3) clinic and home. We argue that such relationships develop the embodied expertise of practitioners, as well as that of users of alternative medicine.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. (2005). Linked ecologies: States and universities as environments for professions. Sociological Theory, 23(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baarts, C. (2009). Stuck in the middle: Research ethics caught between science and politics. Qualitative Research, 9(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baarts, C., & Pedersen, I. K. (2009). Derivative benefits: Exploring the body through complementary and alternative medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(5), 719–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, C. A. (2006). The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Social Science & Medicine, 62(11), 2646–2657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyerstein, B. L. (2001). Alternative medicine and common errors of reasoning. Academic Medicine, 76(3), 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boon, H., Brown, J. B., Gavin, A., Kennard, M. A., & Stewart, M. (1999). Breast cancer survivors’ perceptions of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM): Making the decision to use or not to use. Qualitative Health Research, 9(5), 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broom, A., & Tovey, P. (2008). Therapeutic pluralism: Exploring the experiences of cancer patients and professionals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brosnan, C. (2015). “Quackery” in the academy? Professional knowledge, autonomy and the debate over complementary medicine degrees. Sociology, 49(6), 1047–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cant, S., & Sharma, U. (1999). A new medical pluralism? Alternative medicine, doctors, patients and the state. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  11. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connor, L. H. (2004). Relief, risk and renewal: Mixed therapy regimens in an Australian suburb. Social Science & Medicine, 59(8), 1695–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coward, R. (1989). The whole truth: The myth of alternative health. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, J., & Milligan, C. (2004). Embodying emotion sensing space: Introducing emotional geographies. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(4), 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druss, B. G., & Rosenheck, R. A. (1999). Association between use of unconventional therapies and conventional medical services. JAMA, 282(7), 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekholm, O., Christensen, A. I., Davidsen, M., & Juel, K. (2015). Alternativ behandling. Resultater fra Sundheds- og sygelighedsundersøgelsen. Copenhagen: SIF, Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
  19. Ekholm, O., & Kjøller, M. (2007). Brugen af alternativ behandling i Danmark: resultater fra den nationalt repræsentative Sundheds- og sygelighedsundersøgelse 2005. Tidsskrift for Forskning i Sygdom og Samfund, 6, 15–24.Google Scholar
  20. Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fadlon, J. (2004). Meridians, chakras and psycho-neuro-immunology: The dematerializing body and the domestication of alternative medicine. Body & Society, 10(4), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foote-Ardah, C. E. (2004). Sociocultural barriers to the use of complementary and alternative medicine for HIV. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gale, N. K. (2011). From body-talk to body-stories: Body work in complementary and alternative medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33(2), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Givati, A., & Hatton, K. (2015). Traditional acupuncturists and higher education in Britain: The dual, paradoxical impact of biomedical alignment on the holistic view. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hycner, R. H. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (Vol. III, pp. 143–164). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Johannessen, H. (2007). Body praxis and the networks of powers. Anthropology & Medicine, 13(3), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee-Treweek, G. (2002). Trust in complementary medicine: The case of cranial osteopathy. The Sociological Review, 50(1), 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lupton, D. (2013). Risk and emotion: Towards an alternative theoretical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 15(8), 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michael, M. (1996). Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 107–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mizrachi, N., & Shuval, J. T. (2005). Between formal and enacted policy: Changing the contours of boundaries. Social Science & Medicine, 60(7), 1649–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ni, H., Simile, C., & Hardy, A. M. (2002). Utilization of complementary and alternative medicine by United States adults: Results from the 1999 national health interview survey. Medical Care, 40(4), 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nissen, N. (2013). Women’s bodies and women’s lives in western herbal medicine in the UK. Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 32(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ong, C. K., & Banks, B. (2003). Complementary and alternative medicine: The consumer perspective. London: The Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health.Google Scholar
  34. Patel, S. (Ed.). (2017). Spatial sociology: Relational space after the turn. Current Sociology, Monograph 2, 65(4).Google Scholar
  35. Paterson, C., Baarts, C., Launsø, L., & Verhoef, M. (2009). Evaluating complex health interventions: A critical analysis of the ‘outcomes’ concept. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 9(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pedersen, I. K. (2012). Kampen med kroppen. Alternativ behandling i et bruger- og samfundsperspektiv [The Body in Borderland: Alternative Medicine in a Societal and Users’ Perspective]. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  37. Pedersen, I. K. (2013). ‘It can do no harm’: Body maintenance and modification in alternative medicine acknowledged as a non-risk health regimen. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pedersen, I. K. (2014). Lytninger i alternativ behandling – en fænomenologisk analyse [Listenings in session-based alternative medicine: A phenomenological analysis]. Tidsskriftet Antropologi, 69, 45–63.Google Scholar
  39. Pedersen, I. K. (2017, October 14). Striving for self-improvement: Alternative medicine considered as technologies of enhancement. Social Theory & Health.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-017-0052-3.
  40. Pedersen, I. K., & Baarts, C. (2010). ‘Fantastic hands’ – But no evidence: The construction of expertise by users of CAM. Social Science & Medicine, 71(6), 1068–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pedersen, I. K., Hansen, V. H., & Grünenberg, K. (2016). The emergence of trust in clinics of alternative medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saks, M. (2001). Alternative medicine and the health care division of labour: Present trends and future prospects. Current Sociology, 49(3), 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sered, S., & Agigian, A. (2008). Holistic sickening: Breast cancer and the discursive worlds of complementary and alternative practitioners. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(4), 616–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sointu, E. (2013). Complementary and alternative medicines, embodied subjectivity and experiences of healing. Health, 17(5), 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler, 86(1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wahlberg, A. (2007). A quackery with a difference: New medical pluralism and the problem of “dangerous practitioners” in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 65(11), 2307–2326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ziguras, C. (2004). Self-care: Embodiment, personal autonomy and the shaping of health consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inge Kryger Pedersen
    • 1
  • Charlotte Andreas Baarts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations