This article reports on the analysis of an online forum on the UK’s National Health Service website where participants debated the provision of homeopathy as publicly funded medical treatment. Using membership categorisation analysis, the article looks at how members negotiated a category distinction between homeopathy and ‘orthodox Western medicine’, focusing on the discursive resources that the participants drew on to position each other and the website itself in moral terms. This analysis contributes to our understanding of the institutionalisation of complementary and alternative medicine by demonstrating the strong polarisation of views that are present in the public domain, and the ways that public institutions become held accountable to ideologies of evidence and choice. In this way, the study adds to our growing knowledge about public engagement in pluralistic healthcare systems, showing further the limitations of the ‘rational choice’ assumptions that underlie pluralism.
ArmstrongNKoteykoNPowellJ (2012) ‘Oh dear, should I really be saying that on here?’: Issues of identity and authority in an online diabetes community. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine16(4): 347–365.
2.
BarcanR (2011) Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Bodies, Therapies, Senses. London: Bloomsbury.
3.
BorlescuAM (2011) Being a homeopath: Learning and practice in a homeopathic community. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology2(2): 11–31.
BroomAMeurkCAdamsJ, et al. (2013) Networks of knowledge or just old wives’ tales? A diary-based analysis of women’s self-care practices and everyday lay expertise. Health18(4): 335–351.
6.
CollyerFMWillisKFFranklinM, et al. (2015) Healthcare choice: Bourdieu’s capital, habitus and field. Current Sociology63(5): 685–699.
7.
CucheratMHaughMCGoochM, et al. (2000) Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology56(1): 27–33.
8.
DegeleN (2005) On the margins of everything: Doing, performing, and staging science in homeopathy. Science, Technology and Human Values30(1): 111–136.
9.
DonelleLHoffman-GoetzL (2008) An exploratory study of Canadian aboriginal online health care forums. Health Communication23(3): 270–281.
10.
ErnstE (2016) Current popularity, acceptance, and regulation of homeopathy. In: Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts. New York: Springer, pp. 17–20.
11.
FischerFHLewithGWittCM, et al. (2014) High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine14: 46.
12.
FrankR (2002) Integrating homeopathy and biomedicine: Medical practice and knowledge production among German homeopathic physicians. Sociology of Health and Illness24(6): 796–819.
13.
FrankfordDM (1994) Scientism and economism in the regulation of health care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law19(4): 773–799.
14.
FriedsonE (1988) Profession of Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GilesDStommelWPaulusT, et al. (2014) Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of ‘digital CA’. Discourse, Context and Media7: 45–51.
16.
GoffmanE (1968) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
17.
GoldenbergMJ (2006) On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Social Science and Medicine62(11): 2621–2632.
18.
Gonzalez KorzeniewskiMASalviaVVMarina ConzalezA (2006) La construcción de legitimidad a través de una revista. Lucha por el reconocimiento jurídico de la homeopatía en Buenos Aires (1933–1940). Question: Revista Especializada en Periodismo y Communicacion1(10).
19.
GreenhalghT (2006) Narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. British Medical Journal318: 323–325.
20.
HallMGoughB (2011) Magazine and reader constructions of ‘metrosexuality’ and masculinity: A membership categorisation analysis. Journal of Gender Studies20(1): 67–86.
21.
HansenKKappelK (2010) The proper role of evidence in complementary/alternative medicine. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy35(1): 7–18.
22.
HartJ (2018) Complementary and alternative medicine use and initiatives in Europe. In: Alternative and Complementary Therapies. New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
23.
Hoffman-GoetzLDonelleLThomsonMD (2009) Clinical guidelines about diabetes and the accuracy of peer information in an unmoderated online health forum for retired persons. Informatics for Health and Social Care34(2): 91–99.
24.
HousleyWFitzgeraldR (2003) Moral discrepancy and political discourse: Accountability and the allocation of blame in a political news interview. Sociological Research Online8(2).
25.
HousleyWFitzgeraldR (2009) Membership categorization, culture and norms in action. Discourse and Society20(3): 345–362.
26.
JayyusiL (2014) Categorization and the Moral Order. Abingdon: Routledge.
27.
JonesRHChikAHafnerCA (2015) Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. Abingdon: Routledge.
28.
JonesRK (2004) Schism and heresy in the development of orthodox medicine: The threat to medical hegemony. Social Science and Medicine58(4): 703–712.
29.
KirbyEBroomASibbrittD, et al. (2015) Suffering, recognition and reframing: Healthcare choices and plural care pathways for women with chronic back pain. Current Sociology63(5): 652–668.
30.
KirmayerLJ (2012) Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism. Social Science and Medicine75(2): 249–256.
31.
LambertH (2006) Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine. Social Science and Medicine62(11): 2633–2645.
32.
LuptonD (1997) Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Social Science and Medicine45(3): 373–381.
33.
MathieRT (2015) Controlled clinical studies of homeopathy. Homeopathy104(4): 328–332.
OngCKBodekerGGrundyC, et al. (2005) WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Kobe: World Health Organization.
36.
SacksH (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
37.
SaksM (2003) Bringing together the orthodox and alternative in health care. Complementary Therapies in Medicine11: 142–145.
38.
SalkeldEJ (2005) Holistic physicians’ clinical discourse on risk: An ethnographic study. Medical Anthropology24(4): 325–347.
39.
ShangAHuwiler-MüntenerKNarteyL, et al. (2005) Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet366(8487): 726–732.
40.
StommelWKooleT (2010) The online support group as a community: A micro-analysis of the interaction with a new member. Discourse Studies12(3): 357–378.
41.
TurnerA (2017) Evaluating the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s position on the implausible effectiveness of homeopathic treatments. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics38(4): 335–352.
42.
VallanceAK (1998) Can biological activity be maintained at ultra-high dilution? An overview of homeopathy, evidence, and Bayesian philosophy. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine4(1): 49–76.
43.
Villanueva-RussellY (2005) Evidence-based medicine and its implications for the profession of chiropractic. Social Science and Medicine60(3): 545–561.
44.
WaisseS (2017) Clinical research in homeopathy: Systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials. Revista de Homeopathia80: 121–133.
45.
WelshSKelnerMWellmanB, et al. (2004) Moving forward? Complementary and alternative practitioners seeking self-regulation. Sociology of Health and Illness26(2): 216–241.
46.
WillisKCollyerFLewisS, et al. (2016) Knowledge matters: Producing and using knowledge to navigate healthcare systems. Health Sociology Review25(2): 202–216.
