Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The main objective of this article is to analyse the sceptical movement’s discourse on complementary therapies in Spain, as well as comprehend its mobilisation against these therapies. Over the past 2 years, the Spanish sceptical movement, constituted by citizen’s associations against unconventional therapies and in favour of evidence-based medicine, has increased its activism which, as a result, is now more familiar to the public. To perform this study, three sources of information were selected: (a) the #StopPseudociencias campaign, with a corpus of 6252 tweets; (b) 153 news articles published during the study timeline and (c) 7 interviews with members of the sceptical movement, journalists and politicians. The results of the content and discourse analyses have shown that the sceptical movement occupies a dominant discursive position on Twitter, while the perspective is more balanced in digital dailies.

Keywords

complementary therapies discourse media politics sceptics social campaigns Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boiron (2018) Information meeting of 15 March 2018. Available at: http://www.boironfinance.com/Shareholders-and-investors-area/Financial-information/Analysts-meetings/2018/Information-meeting-of-March-15-2018-webcast (accessed 13 July 2018).

Bravo

Hoffman-Goetz

(2016) Tweeting about prostate and testicular cancers: Do Twitter conversations and the 2013 November Canada campaign objectives align? Journal of Cancer Education 31(2): 236–243.

Brosnan

(2015) ‘Quackery’ in the academy? Professional knowledge, autonomy and the debate over complementary medicine degrees. Sociology 49(6): 1047–1064.

Caldwell

(2017) Quackademia? Mass-media delegitimation of homeopathy education. Science as Culture 26(3): 380–407.

Cano-Orón

Moreno Castro

(2017) Las terapias no convencionales en la campaña de las elecciones generales de 2015 [Non-conventional therapies in the 2015 general election campaign]. Revista de Comunicación y Salud 7(1): 29–47.

Chatfield

Partington

Duckworth

(2012) The place of the university in the provision of CAM education. The Australian Journal of Homoeopathic Medicine 24(1): 16–20.

CIS (2018) Barómetro de febrero 2018: Estudio nº3205 [Barometer February 2018: Study No 3205]. Available at: http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/3200_3219/3205/es3205mar.pdf (accessed 10 April 2018).

Colquhoun

(2007) Science degrees without the science. Nature 446(7134): 373–374.

Colquhoun

(2013) Alternative medicine: My part in its downfall. European Review 21(Suppl. 1): S62–S67.

10.

Cortiñas-Rovira

Alonso-Marcos

Pont-Sorribes

Escribà-Sales

(2015) Science journalists’ perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain. Public Understanding of Science 24(4): 450–465.

11.

Cragun

(2015) Who are the “new atheists”? In: Beaman

Tomlins

(eds.), Atheist identities-spaces and social contexts. Cham: Springer, pp. 195–211.

12.

Croeser

Highfield

(2014) Occupy Oakland and #oo: Uses of Twitter within the Occupy movement. First Monday 19(3). Available at: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4827/3846

13.

Dudo

Besley

(2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0148867.

14.

Earl

Kimport

(2011) Digitally enabled social change. Activism in the internet age. Cambridge: MIT Press.

15.

Eardley

Bishop

Prescott

Cardini

Brinkhaus

Santos-Rey

, et al. (2012) CAM use in Europe – The patients’ perspective. Part I: A systematic literature review of CAM prevalence in the EU. Final Report. Available at: http://camdoc.eu/Pdf/CAMbrella-WP4-part_1final.pdf (accessed 13 April 2018).

16.

El escéptico (2014) Especial Homeopatía: Introducción [Special on Homeopathy: Introduction]. Available at: https://www.escepticos.es/repositorio/elesceptico/numeros_pdf/EE_41.pdf (accessed 16 March 2018).

17.

Ernst

(2004) The improbability of complementary and alternative medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine 164(8): 914–915.

18.

Esmail

(2017) Complementary and alternative medicine: Use and public attitudes, 1997, 2006, and 2016. Report, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April. Available at: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/complementary-and-alternative-medicine-2017.pdf (accessed 17 March 2018).

19.

FECYT (2017) VIII Encuesta de percepción social de la ciencia [VIII Social perception of science survey]. Available at: http://www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Cultura/FICHEROS/2017/Dossier_PSC_2017.pdf (accessed 16 March 2018).

20.

Flatt

(2013) Critical discourse analysis of rhetoric against complementary medicine. Creative Approaches to Research 6(2): 57–70.

21.

Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) (2011) Media release: Prominent doctors & scientists challenge universities that are giving undeserved credibility to ‘alternative’ therapies. Friends of Science in Medicine. Available at: http://www.scienceinmedicine.org.au/2017/01/28/media-release-prominent-doctors-scientists-challenge-altmed-in-unis/ (accessed 10 April 2018).

22.

Farley

(2009) Skepticism via YouTube. Skeptical Inquiry 33(6): 32–34. Available at: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2009/11/skepticism_via_youtube/?%2Fsi%2Fshow%2Fskepticism_via_youtube

23.

Funk

Kennedy

Hefferon

(2017) Vast majority of Americans say benefits of childhood vaccines outweigh risks. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. Available at: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/02/01172718/PS_2017.02.02_Vaccines_FINAL.pdf (accessed 20 March 2018).

24.

Gale

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

25.

Gibson

(2018) Homeopathy, Western medicine and the discourse of evidence: Negotiating legitimacy in a public online forum. Current Sociology 66(7): 1013–1030.

26.

Hallin

Briggs

(2015) Transcending the medical/media opposition in research on news coverage of health and medicine. Media, Culture & Society 37(1): 85–100.

27.

Jiménez

(2017) No te pueden condenar por decir que la homeopatía es una estafa, pero sí por llamar estafador a un homeópata [You can’t be condemned for saying that homeopathy is a scam, but you can be condemned for calling a homeopath a scammer]. Xataka, 26 June. Available at: https://www.xataka.com/medicina-y-salud/no-no-te-pueden-denunciar-por-decir-en-twitter-que-la-homeopatia-es-una-estafa (accessed 14 March 2018).

28.

Kemppainen

Reippainen

Salmenniemi

Vuolanto

(2017) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe: Health-related and sociodemographic determinants. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 46: 448–455.

29.

Kettell

(2014) Divided we stand: The politics of the atheist movement in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion 29(3): 377–391. DOI: 10.1080/13537903.2014.945722.

30.

Lewis

(2019) De-legitimising complementary medicine: Framings of the FSM-CAM debate in Australian news reports. Sociology of Health & Illness. Epub ahead of print 21 February. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12865.

31.

Loxton

(2013) Why is there a skeptical movement. Skeptics Society, 22–23. Available at: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/Why-Is-There-a-Skeptical-Movement.pdf

32.

MacArtney

Wahlberg

(2014) The problem of complementary and alternative medicine use today: Eyes half closed? Qualitative Health Research 24(1): 114–123.

33.

Mercea

(2012) Digital prefigurative participation: The entwinement of online communication and offline participation in protest events. New Media & Society 14(1): 153–169.

34.

Noelle-Neumann

Petersen

(2004) The spiral of silence and the social nature of man. In: Kaid

(ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 339–356.

35.

Schreiber

(2005) The importance of precision in language: Communication research and (so-called) alternative medicine. Health Communication 17(21): 73–90.

36.

Simmons

(2018) ‘Not that kind of atheist’: scepticism as a lifestyle movement. Social Movement Studies 17(4): 437–450. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2018.1434500.

37.

Smith

Cimino

(2015) The creation of Secularists Space on the Internet. In: Brunn

(ed.), The Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics. Springer, pp. 3733–3749. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9376-6_196.

38.

Stocking

Holstein

(2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science 18(1): 23–42.

39.

Trench

(2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng

Claessens

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

Schiele

Shi

(eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts. New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 119–135.

40.

Van Laer

Van Aelst

(2010) Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society 13(8): 1146–1171.

41.

Vigario

(2017) Boiron: ‘Las ventas han caído un 14% por los ataques a la homeopatía en España’. elEconomista.es [Boiron: ‘Sales have fallen by 14% due to attacks against homeopathy in Spain’], 7 December. Available at: http://www.eleconomista.es/sanidad/noticias/8795818/12/17/Boiron-Las-ventas-han-caido-un-14-por-los-ataques-a-la-homeopatia-en-Espana.html (accessed 6 March 2018).

42.

Wahlberg

(2007) A quackery with a difference – New medical pluralism and the problem of ‘dangerous practitioners’ in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine 65(11): 2307–2316.

43.

Wahlberg

(2015) Making CAM auditable: Technologies of assurance in CAM practice today. In: Gale

McHale

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. London: Routledge, pp. 355–373.

44.

Chiu

Chen

Mukehrjee

(2015) Twitter hashtags for health: Applying network and content analyses to understand the health knowledge sharing in a Twitter-based community of practice. Quality & Quantity 49(4): 1361–1380.

45.

Yeo

Liang

Brossard

Rose

Korzekwa

Scheufele

, et al. (2016) The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review. Public Understanding of Science 26: 937–952.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

A Twitter campaign against pseudoscience: The sceptical discourse on complementary therapies in Spain

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material