Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Complementary and Alternative Medicine pp 1–29Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Introduction: Reconceptualising Complementary and Alternative Medicine as Knowledge Production and Social Transformation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Health, Technology and Society ((HTE))

Abstract

This introduction proposes new directions for the social science of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). It firstly reviews trends and gaps in the sociology of CAM, which has largely focussed on issues related to motivations for use, professionalisation struggles, and CAM’s relationship to biomedicine. CAM is more often treated as a signifier of social change than as a set of practices shaped by, and implicated in, epistemic and social transformations. By drawing on approaches from Science and Technology Studies (STS)—including actor-network theory and theories of boundary work, social worlds, co-production, and epistemic cultures—the chapter calls attention to CAM’s contingency, situatedness, materiality, and co-production within various spheres of governance and knowledge production. Such perspectives, it is argued, offer fruitful ways of comprehending what CAM is and how and why it is evolving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the term ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM) throughout this introduction because of its common usage in sociology, yet we are aware that the name itself is a political and social construction (Gale 2014) that reinforces some of the dualistic thinking we seek to undermine. We have left other contributors to decide on the terminology most appropriate to their work, hence some chapters refer to traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM), while others simply to alternative medicine.

  2. 2.

    Aside from transforming science, Lin (2017) has recently argued that engaging more symmetrically with CAM (specifically, Chinese medicine) also opens the door for CAM concepts to transform and potentially decolonise Science and Technology Studies (STS).

References

  • Adams, J., & Tovey, P. (Eds.). (2008). Complementary and alternative medicine in nursing and midwifery: Towards a critical social science. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amsterdamska, O. (2005). Demarcating epidemiology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30, 17–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, G. J., Evans, J., & McAlister, S. (2013). “Creating the right therapy vibe”: Relational performances in holistic medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 83, 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C. A. (2006). The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Social Science and Medicine, 62(11), 2646–2657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge Direct Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume, S. (2006). Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations. Social Science and Medicine, 62(3), 628–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brante, T., & Elzinga, A. (1990). Towards a theory of scientific controversies. Science Studies, 2, 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, A. F., & Doron, A. (2013). Traditional medicines, collective negotiation, and representations of risk in Indian cancer care. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, C. (2015). “Quackery” in the academy? Professional knowledge, autonomy and the debate over complementary medicine degrees. Sociology, 49(6), 1047–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, C. (2016). Epistemic cultures in complementary medicine: Knowledge-making in university departments of osteopathy and Chinese medicine. Health Sociology Review, 25(2), 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, C., Chung, V., Zhang, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Regional influences on Chinese Medicine education: Comparing Australia and Hong Kong. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Article ID 6960207, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6960207.

  • Brossard, D. (2009). Media scientific journals and science communication: Examining the construction of scientific controversies. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 258–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Webster, A. (2004). New medical technologies and society. Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R., & Gasior Altman, R. (2004). Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(1), 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, E. F. (2017). Quackademia? Mass-media delegitimation of homeopathy education. Science as Culture, 26(3), 380–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociological Review, 32 (1_Suppl.): 196–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology and Society, 4(1), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cant, S., & Sharma, U. (1996). Introduction. In S. Cant & U. Sharma (Eds.), Complementary and alternative medicines: Knowledge and practice (pp. 1–24). London: Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, J., & Tovey, P. (2006). Regulation and the positioning of complementary and alternative medicine. In A. Webster (Ed.), New technologies in health care (pp. 224–231). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Montini, T. (1993). The many faces of RU486: Tales of situated knowledges and technological contestations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(1), 42–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Star, S. L. (2008). The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 113–137). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1981). Son of seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Social Studies of Science, 11(1), 33–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B. (2003). Book review: Science de la science et réflexivité. Cours du Collège de France 2000–2001, by Pierre Bourdieu. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28, 538–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danell, J.-A. B. (Forthcoming). “I could feel it!”—An actor network study on how users of complementary medicine experience and form knowledge about treatments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danell, J.-A. B., & Danell, R. (2009). Publication activity in complementary and alternative medicine. Scientometrics, 80(2), 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derkatch, C. (2008). Method as argument: Boundary work in evidence-based medicine. Social Epistemology, 22(4), 371–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derkatch, C. (2012). Demarcating medicine’s boundaries: Constituting and categorizing in the journals of the American Medical Association. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 210–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derkatch, C. (2016). Bounding biomedicine: Evidence and rhetoric in the new science of alternative medicine. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dolby, R. (1979). Reflections on deviant science. In R. Wallis (Ed.), On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge, Sociological review monograph (pp. 9–47). Keele, UK: University of Keele.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. H., Lewith, G., Witt, C. M., Linde, K., von Ammon, K., Cardini, F., et al. (2014). High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: Guidelines for future research. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-14-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flatt, J. (2012). Decontextualized versus lived worlds: Critical thoughts on the intersection of evidence, lifeworld, and values. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 18(5), 513–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forstorp, P. A. (2005). The construction of pseudo-science: Science patrolling and knowledge policing by academic prefects and weeders. VEST: Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 18(3–4), 17–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fries, C. (2013). Self-care and complementary and alternative medicine as care for the self: An embodied basis for distinction. Health Sociology Review, 22(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, N. (2014). The sociology of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 805–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, N., & McHale, J. (2015). Introduction: Understanding CAM in the twenty-first century—The importance and challenge of multi-disciplinary perspectives. In N. Gale & J. McHale (Eds.), Routledge handbook of complementary and alternative medicine: Perspectives from social science and law (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, E. M. (1983). Scientific work and social worlds. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Medicine, 131, 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, M. (2000). Integrative medicine: Issues to consider in this emerging form of health care. In J. Jacobs Kronenfeld (Ed.), Health care providers, institutions, and patients: Changing patterns of care provision and care delivery (research in the sociology of health care, volume 17) (pp. 215–236). Bingley: Emeraldpp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, M. (2004). The dynamic interplay between western medicine and the complementary and alternative medicine movement: How activists perceive a range of responses from physicians and hospitals. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(6), 710–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heirs, M. (2015). Research, evidence and clinical practice in homeopathy. In N. Gale & J. McHale (Eds.), Routledge handbook of complementary and alternative medicine: Perspectives from social science and law (pp. 321–340). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2004). Medical modernisation, scientific research fields and the epistemic politics of health social movements. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(6), 695–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., & Martin, B. (2008). Science, technology, and social movements. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 473–498). Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenberg, D., & Muzzin, L. (2010). Epistemological challenges to integrative medicine: An anti-colonial perspective on the combination of complementary/alternative medicine with biomedicine. Health Sociology Review, 19(1), 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, D. (2005). Review: Pierre Bourdieu, Science of Science and Reflexivity. European Journal of Social Theory, 8(3), 375–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., & Scambler, G. (2007). Perceptions of evidence-based medicine: Traditional acupuncturists in the UK and resistance to biomedical modes of evaluation. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(3), 412–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, H. (2007). Body praxis and the networks of powers. Anthropology & Medicine, 13(3), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelner, M., Wellman, B., Welsh, S., & Boon, H. (2006). How far can complementary and alternative medicine go? The case of chiropractic and homeopathy. Social Science and Medicine, 63(10), 2617–2627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keshet, Y. (2009). The untenable boundaries of biomedical knowledge: Epistemologies and rhetoric strategies in the debate over evaluating complementary and alternative medicine. Health, 13(2), 131–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keshet, Y. (2010). Hybrid knowledge and research on the efficacy of alternative and complementary medicine treatments. Social Epistemology, 24(4), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2007). Alternative medicine’s encounter with laboratory science: The scientific construction of Korean medicine in a global age. Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 855–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (2005). Objectual practice. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 184–197). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition, enlarged. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific fields. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor network—Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Treweek, G., & Heller, T. (2005). Introduction: Change and development in complementary and alternative medicine. In G. Lee-Treweek, T. Heller, S. Spurr, H. MacQueen, & J. Katz (Eds.), Perspectives on complementary and alternative medicine: A reader (pp. xi–xv). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. Y. (2017). Shi (勢), STS, and theory: Or what can we learn from Chinese medicine? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(3), 405–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, H. (2004). Pragmatic clinical trials. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 12(2), 136–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, H., Hammerschlag, R., Coeytaux, R. R., Davis, R. T., Harris, R. E., Kong, J. T., et al. (2016). Unanticipated insights into biomedicine from the study of acupuncture. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 22(2), 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B., & Richards, E. (1995). Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision making. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 506–526). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (2012). Grafting together medical anthropology, feminism and technoscience. In M. Inhorn & E. Wentzell (Eds.), Medical anthropology at the intersections: Histories, activisms and futures (pp. 23–40). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, F. (2003). Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), 509–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meurk, C., Broom, A., Adams, J., & Sibbritt, D. (2012). Bodies of knowledge: Nature, holism and women’s plural health practices. Health, 17(3), 300–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizrachi, N., & Shuval, J. T. (2005). Between formal and enacted policy: Changing the contours of boundaries. Social Science and Medicine, 60(7), 1649–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizrachi, N., Shuval, J. T., & Gross, S. (2005). Boundary at work: Alternative medicine in biomedical settings. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(1), 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. P., Xue, C. C., Cohen, M. M., Phelps, K. L., & Lewith, G. T. (2012). The legitimacy of academic complementary medicine. Medical Journal of Australia, 197(2), 69–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (Ed.). (1979). Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHMRC. (2015). NHMRC statement: Statement on homeopathy. Canberra: Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council. Retrieved July 2016, from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02_nhmrc_statement_homeopathy.pdf.

  • Ning, A. M. (2013). How “alternative” is CAM? Rethinking conventional dichotomies between biomedicine and complementary/alternative medicine. Health, 17(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (1975). Controversies in science: Remarks on the different modes of production of knowledge and their use. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 4(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, K. (2015). Boundary objects in complementary and alternative medicine: Acupuncture vs. Christian Science. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polich, G., Dole, C., & Kaptchuk, T. J. (2010). The need to act a little more “scientific”: Biomedical researchers investigating complementary and alternative medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(1), 106–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1990). The logic of scientific discovery. 14th impression [Originally published in 1934/Logik der Forschung]. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, L., & Easthope, G. (2001). Postmodern consumption and alternative medications. Journal of Sociology, 37(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagli, G. (2010). The contested reality of acupuncture effects: Measurement, meaning and relations of power in the context of an integration initiative in Norway. Anthropological Notebooks, 16(2), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1995). Professions and the public interest: Medical power, altruism and alternative medicine. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1996). From quackery to complementary medicine: The shifting boundaries between orthodox and unorthodox medical knowledge. In S. Cant & U. Sharma (Eds.), Complementary and alternative medicines: Knowledge in practice (pp. 27–43). London: Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. L. (1998). The symbolizing body and the metaphysics of alternative medicine. Body and Society, 4(3), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuval, J. T., Gross, R., Ashkenazi, Y., & Scharchter, L. (2012). Integrating CAM and biomedicine in primary care settings: Physicians’ perspectives on boundaries and boundary work. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1317–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siahpush, M. (2000). A critical review of the sociology of alternative medicine: Research on users, practitioners and the orthodoxy. Health, 4(2), 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 13–31). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science. A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoef, M. J., Lewith, G., Ritenbaugh, C., Boon, H., Fleishman, S., & Leis, A. (2005). Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 13(3), 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva-Russell, Y. (2009). Chiropractors as folk devils: Published and unpublished news coverage of a moral panic. Deviant Behavior, 30(2), 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuolanto, P. (2015). Boundary work and power in the controversy over therapeutic touch in Finnish nursing science. Minerva, 53(4), 359–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (1979). Scientific controversy and socio-cognitive metonymy: The case of acupuncture. In R. Wallis (Ed.), On the margins of science: The social construction of rejected knowledge, Sociological review monograph (pp. 121–137). Keele, UK: University of Keele.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2002). Innovative health technologies and the social: Redefining health, medicine and the body. Current Sociology, 50(3), 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2006). Introduction: New technologies in health care: Opening the black bag. In A. Webster (Ed.), New technologies in health care (pp. 1–8). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2007). Health, technology and society: A sociological critique. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, L. S., Manheimer, E., & Berman, B. M. (2011). Development and classification of an operational definition of complementary and alternative medicine for the Cochrane collaboration. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 17(2), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, E. (1983). Medical dominance: The division of labour in Australian health care. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, M. (2009). Other-worldly: Making Chinese medicine through transnational frames. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, M. (2014). The empirical as conceptual: Transdisciplinary engagements with an “experiential medicine”. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(2), 236–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Caragh Brosnan

  2. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Pia Vuolanto

  3. Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Jenny-Ann Brodin Danell

Authors
  1. Caragh Brosnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pia Vuolanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenny-Ann Brodin Danell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

    Caragh Brosnan

  2. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Pia Vuolanto

  3. Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Jenny-Ann Brodin Danell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brosnan, C., Vuolanto, P., Danell, JA.B. (2018). Introduction: Reconceptualising Complementary and Alternative Medicine as Knowledge Production and Social Transformation. In: Brosnan, C., Vuolanto, P., Danell, JA. (eds) Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73939-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73939-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73938-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73939-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation