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

Kellie Owens

Social Science & Medicine, 2015, vol. 128, issue C, 18-24

Abstract: Nearly four in ten American use complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) each year. Even with a large number of patients, CAM practitioners face scrutiny from physicians and biomedical researchers who, in an era of evidence-based medicine, argue there is little evidence to support CAM treatments. Examining how CAM has or has not been integrated into American health care is crucial in understanding the contemporary boundaries of healthcare systems. An analytical tool from science and technology studies, boundary objects, can help scholars of medicine understand which practices become integrated into these systems. Using a comparative analysis based on archival and interview data, this paper examines the use of boundary objects in two alternative medical practices – acupuncture and Christian Science. While boundary objects alone cannot explain what health practices succeed or fail, juxtaposing the use of boundary objects by different CAM groups identifies the work boundary objects do to facilitate integration and the conditions under which they “work.” I find that acupuncturists' use of sterile needles as a boundary objects assists in their effective integration into U.S. healthcare because needles are both a symbol of biomedical prowess and a potentially unsafe device requiring regulation. Christian Scientists' use of the placebo effect as a boundary object has not succeeded because they fail to acknowledge the different contextual definitions of the placebo effect in biomedical communities. This comparative analysis highlights how context affects which boundary objects “work” for CAM practices and theorizes why alternative health practices succeed or fail to become integrated into healthcare systems.

Keywords: Boundary objects; Complementary and alternative medicine; Evidence-based medicine; Acupuncture; Christian Science (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614008284
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:128:y:2015:i:c:p:18-24

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.020

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian

More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().