On the margins of everything: Doing, performing, and staging science in homeopathy

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 111-136

  Degele, Nina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Alternative and orthodox medicine; Deviant knowledge; Homeopathy; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244289730     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243904270711     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Albrecht, Henning. 1996. Zum Stand der klinischen Forschung zur Homöopathie. Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitschrift 241:89-97.
2. Andritzky, Walter. 1997. Alternative Gesundheitskultur. Berlin: VWB-Verlag.
3. Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14:19-47.
5. Cant, Sarah, and Ursula Sharma. 1995. The reluctant profession - Homoeopathy and the search for legitimacy. Work, Employment & Society 9:743-62.
6. _. 1996. Demarcation and transformation within homoeopathic knowledge. A strategy of professionalization. Social Science & Medicine 43:579-88.
7. Cohen, Michael H. 1998. Complementary & alternative medicine. Legal boundaries and regulatory perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8. Collins, Harry. 1983. An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In Science observed; Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 85-113. London: Sage.
9. _. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
10. Collins, Harry M., and Trevor J. Pinch. 1979. The construction of the paranormal: Nothing unscientific is happening. In On the margins of science: The social construction of rejection knowledge, edited by Roy Wallis, 237-70. Sociological Review Monograph 27. Keele, UK: University of Keele.
11. Degele, Nina. 1998. Professionelle Alternativmedizin? Die Homöopathie zwischen Anpassung und Ausstieg. Sociotogia Internationalis 36:189-218.
12. _. 1999a. Doing knowledge: Vom gebildeten zum informierten Wissen. In Grenzenlose Gesellschaft? Tagungsband des 29. Kongresses für Soziologie in Freiburg 1998, Teil 1, edited by Claudia Honegger, Stefan Hradil, and Franz Traxler, 459-70. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
13. _. 1999b. Gender, computer, and holistic knowledge. The case of homeopathy. Proceedings of the IEEE 1999 International Symposium on Technology and Society. Women and Technology: Historical, Societal and Professional Perspectives, 153-161. IEEE Catalog no. 99CH37005. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
14. _. 2000. Informiertes Wissen. Eine Wissenssoziologie der computerisierten Gesellschaft. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus-Verlag.
15. Dolby, Robert G. A. 1979. Reflections on deviant science. In On the margins of science: The social construction of rejection knowledge, edited by Roy Wallis, 9-47. Sociological Review Monograph 27. Keele, UK: University of Keele.
16. Eskinazi, Daniel. 1998. Some questions and thoughts on research in homoeopathy. British Homoeopathic Journal 87:33-38.
17. _. 1999. Homeopathy re-revisited. Is homeopathy compatible with biomedical observations? Archives of intern. Medicine 159 (September 27): 1981-87.
18. European Commission. 1998. COST Action B4. Unconventional medicine. Final report of the management committee. EUR 18420 EN. Luxembourg: Author.
19. Fisher, Peter, and Adam Ward. 1994. Complementary medicine in Europe. British Medical Journal 309:107-11.
20. Frank, Robert. 2002. Integrating homeopathy and biomedicine. Medical practice and knowledge production among German homeopathic physicians. Sociology of Health & Illness 24:796-819.
21. Freidson, Eliot. 1970. Profession of medicine. A study in the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Fulder, Stephen. 1988. The handbook of complementary medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Hahnemann, Samuel. 1982. Organon of medicine. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. (Orig. pub. 1810.)
24. Hornung, Joachim. 1996. Quo vadis Homöopathieforschung? Über klinische Studien und Arzneimittelprüfung am Gesunden in der Homöopathie. Forschende Komplementärmedizin 3:91-101.
25. Jonas, Wayne B. 2000. Letter to the editor: The homeopathy debate. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 6:213-15.
26. Keiner, Merrijoy, and Beverly Wellman. 1997. Who seeks alternative health care? A profile of the users of five modes of treatment. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2:121-40.
27. Kiene, Helmut. 1993. Kritik der klinischen Doppelblindstudie. München, Germany: Medizin-Verlag.
28. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1995. Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch, 140-66. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Knorr, Karin D. 1985. Zur Produktion und Reproduktion von Wissen: Ein deskriptiver oder ein konstruktiver Vorgang? In Entzauberte Wissenschaft, edited by Wolfgang Boná and Heinz Hartmann, 151-77. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhock.
30. Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32. Linde, Klaus, Nicola Clausius, Gilbert Ramirez, Dieter Melchart, Florian Eitel, Larry V. Hedges, and Wayne B. Jonas. 1997. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 350:834-43.
33. Luhmann, Niklas. 1988. Der medizinische Code. Soziologische Aufklärung 5. Konstruktivistische Perspektiven, 182-95. Opladen, Germany: WDV.
34. Mason, Su, Philip Tovey, and Andrew F. Long. 2002. Evaluating complementary medicine: Methodological challenges of randomises controlled trials. British Medical Journal 325:832-34.
35. Moellinger, Heribert. 2000. Fortlaufende, wissenschaftliche HAMP. Ergebnisse der ersten HAMP mit Oleum jecoris aselli (Ol-j.). Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitschrift 245:3-19.
36. Richards, Evelleen. 1991. Vitamin C and cancer: Medicine or politics? London: Macmillan.
37. Schadde, Anne. 1995. Ozon. Eine Studie. München, Germany: Müller & Steinicke.
38. Scott, Anne. 1998. Homoeopathy as a feminist form of medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness 20:191-214.
39. Sharma, Ursula. 1992. Complementary medicine today: Practitioners and patients. London: Tavistock & Routledge.
40. Stollberg, Gunnar. 2000. Plural medicine and world society in Germany and in the U.K. New York: Routledge.
41. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1994. Grounded theory methodology. In Handbook of qualitative research, edited by Norman K. Denzin. London: Sage.
42. Ullmann, Christian, and Uwe Sieber. 1999. Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen biologischer Heilweisen. München, Germany: Verlag Gesundheits-Dialog.
43. Vandenbrook, J. P. 1997. Homeopathy trials: Going nowhere. Lancet 350:824.
44. Vickers, Andrew J. 2000. Clinical trials of homeopathy and placebo: Analysis of a scientific debate. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 6:49-56.
45. Vithoulkas, George. 1985. The science of homoeopathy. New York: Grove.
46. _. 1999. Interview with Corrie Hiwat/Harry van der Zee: A man with a mission. Homoeopathic Links 12:202.
47. Walach, Harald, and Marco Righetti. 1996. Homöopathie: Grundlagen, Stand der Forschung, Forschungsstrategien. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 108 (20): 654-63.
48. Wehmeyer, Annegret, Marianne Heger, and David S. Riley. 1996. Homöpathische Arzneimittelprüfungen - Grundlagen und Praxis. In Forschungsmethoden in der Komplementärmedizin: Über die Notwendigkeit einer methodologischen Erneuerung, edited by Joachim Hornung, 32-43. Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer.