‘Quackery’ in the Academy? Professional Knowledge, Autonomy and the Debate over Complementary Medicine Degrees

Brosnan, C

‘Quackery’ in the Academy? Professional Knowledge, Autonomy and the Debate over Complementary Medicine Degrees

Brosnan, C

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Sociology, 2015, 49 (6), pp. 1047 - 1064
Issue Date:: 2015-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	0038038514557912.pdf	Published Version	374.38 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Brosnan, C https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-4937	en_US
dc.date.issued	2015-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Sociology, 2015, 49 (6), pp. 1047 - 1064	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0038-0385	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118775
dc.description.abstract	© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015. In 2012, the group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’, mostly comprising academic doctors and scientists, lobbied to remove teaching in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) from Australian universities. Seemingly inspired by an earlier UK-based campaign, the group approached vice-chancellors and the media, arguing that CAM degrees promoted ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘quackery’. Although epistemological disputes between biomedicine and CAM are well documented, their emergence in a higher education context is less familiar. This article explores the position-taking of those on each side of the debate, via a thematic analysis of stakeholders’ views as reported in news articles and other outlets. Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and autonomy are used to sketch out the stakes of the struggle. It is argued that the debate is significant not only for what it reveals about the current status of CAM professions in Australia, but for what it suggests more broadly about legitimate knowledge in the university.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Sociology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/0038038514557912	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Sociology	en_US
dc.title	‘Quackery’ in the Academy? Professional Knowledge, Autonomy and the Debate over Complementary Medicine Degrees	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	49	en_US
utslib.for	1608 Sociology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	49	en_US

Abstract:

© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015. In 2012, the group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’, mostly comprising academic doctors and scientists, lobbied to remove teaching in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) from Australian universities. Seemingly inspired by an earlier UK-based campaign, the group approached vice-chancellors and the media, arguing that CAM degrees promoted ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘quackery’. Although epistemological disputes between biomedicine and CAM are well documented, their emergence in a higher education context is less familiar. This article explores the position-taking of those on each side of the debate, via a thematic analysis of stakeholders’ views as reported in news articles and other outlets. Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and autonomy are used to sketch out the stakes of the struggle. It is argued that the debate is significant not only for what it reveals about the current status of CAM professions in Australia, but for what it suggests more broadly about legitimate knowledge in the university.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118775