Boundary Work and Power in the Controversy Over Therapeutic Touch in Finnish Nursing Science

Minerva

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 359-380

  Vuolanto, Pia ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Boundary work; Bourdieu; Controversies in science; Nursing science; Power; Science and technology studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948573840     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: 15731871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-015-9284-3     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, and Brian D. Hodges. 2009. Boundary-work in the health research field: Biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research. Minerva 47(2): 171–194.
2. Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, Brian D. Hodges, Glenn Regehr, and Lorelei Lingard. 2008. Biomedical scientists’ perception of the social sciences in health research. Social Science & Medicine 66: 2520–2531.
3. Albert, Mathieu, and Daniel Kleinman. 2011. Bringing Pierre Bourdieu to science and technology studies. Minerva 49(3): 263–273.
4. Amsterdamska, Olga. 2005. Demarcating epidemiology. Science, Technology & Human Values 30: 17–51.
5. Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
6. Beddoes, Kacey. 2014. Methodology discourses as boundary work in the construction of engineering education. Social Studies of Science 44: 293–312.
7. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14: 19–47.
8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus (trans: Peter Collier). Cambridge: Polity Press.
9. Brosnan, Caragh. 2011. The significance of scientific capital in UK medical education. Minerva 49(3): 317–332.
10. Brosnan, Caragh. 2015. ‘Quackery’ in the academy? Professional knowledge, autonomy and the debate over complementary medicine degrees. Sociology. doi:10.1177/0038038514557912.
11. Burri, Regula Valérie. 2008. Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Social Studies of Science 38: 37–64.
12. Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont (eds.). 2011. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
13. Ceccarelli, Leah. 2001. Shaping science with rhetoric. The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger and Wilson. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
14. Derkatch, Colleen. 2008. Method as argument: Boundary work in evidence-based medicine. Social Epistemology 22: 371–388.
15. Derkatch, Colleen. 2012. Demarcating medicine’s boundaries: Constituting and categorizing in the journals of the American Medical Association. Technical Communication Quarterly 21: 210–229.
16. Evans, John H., and Michael S. Evans. 2008. Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 87–105.
17. Evans, Michael S. 2009. Defining the public, defining sociology: Hybrid science-public relations and boundary-work in early American sociology. Public Understanding of Science 18: 5–22.
18. Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. The rhetoric of the natural sciences. In Sage handbook of rhetorical studies, eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, and Rosa A. Eberly, 175–195. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
19. Findlow, Sally. 2012. Higher education change and professional-academic identity in newly ’academic’ disciplines: the case of nurse education. Higher Education 63: 117–133.
20. Forstorp, Per-Anders. 2005. The construction of pseudo-science: Science patrolling and knowledge policing by academic prefects and weeders. VEST 18(3–4): 17–71.
21. Friman, Mathias. 2010. Understanding boundary work through discourse theory: Inter/disciplines and interdisciplinarity. Science Studies 23(2): 5–19.
22. Gal, Susan, and Judith T. Irvine. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62(4): 967–999.
23. Gallagher, Peter. 2004. How the metaphor of a gap between theory and practice has influenced nursing education. Nurse Education Today 24: 263–268.
24. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.
25. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 393–443. London: Sage Publications.
26. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
27. Guston, David H. 1999. Stabilising the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29(1): 87–111.
28. Harding, Sandra. 2008. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities. Durham: Duke University Press.
29. Huitema, Dave, and Esther Turnhout. 2009. Working at the science-policy interface: A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands environmental assessment agency. Environmental Politics 18(4): 576–594.
30. Huuhaa-palkinto. 1996. [Humbug Award 1996] Skeptikko [Sceptic] 4: 10–11.
31. Kalkas, Hertta. 1997. Eettiset pulmatilanteet ‘Mikä on tutkimuksen ja opetuksen suhde hoitotieteessä? [Ethical dilemma column ‘What are the ethics of research and teaching in nursing science like?’ Question by Perplexed Bystander]. Sairaanhoitaja [Nurse] 70(2): 32.
32. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1996. Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
33. Lam, Alice. 2010. From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 307–340.
34. Laiho, Anne. 2012. The evolving landscape of nursing science in the 21st Century—The Finnish case. In Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education, eds. Paul Trowler, Murray Saunders, and Veronica Bamber, 107–117. London: Routledge.
35. Laiho, Anne, and Tarita Ruoholinna. 2013. The relationship between practitioners and academics—Anti-academic discourse voiced by Finnish nurses. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 65(3): 333–350.
36. Lyne, John, and Henry F. Howe. 1990. The rhetoric of expertise: E. O. Wilson and sociobiology. Quarterly Journal of Speech 76: 134–151.
37. Maben, Jill, Sue Latter, and Jill Macleod Clark. 2006. The theory-practice gap: Impact of professional-bureaucratic work conflict on newly-qualified nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 55(4): 465–477.
38. Macklin, Ruth. 1987. The forms and norms of closure. In Scientific controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology, eds. H. Tristram Engelhart, and Arthur L. Caplan, 615–624. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. McMullin, Ernan. 1987. Scientific controversy and its termination. In Scientific controversies. Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology, eds. H. Tristram Engelhart, and Arthur L. Caplan, 49–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Meerabeau, Liz. 2005. The invisible (inaudible) woman: Nursing in the English academy. Gender, Work and Organization 12(2): 124–146.
41. Meeting minutes. 1996. Nursing science departmental committee. University of Tampere 17(12): 1996.
42. Nader, Laura (ed.). 1996. Naked science. Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. New York and London: Routledge.
43. Nieminen, Heli. 1996. Fenomenologia, Parse ja hoitotiede [Phenomenology, Parse and nursing science]. Hoitotiede [Nursing Science] 8(3): 158–161.
44. Nieminen, Paula. 2008. Caught in the science trap? A case study of the relationship between nurses and “their” science. In Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education, eds. Jussi Välimaa, and Oili-Helena Ylijoki. New York: Springer.
45. Oakley, Ann. 1993. Essays on women, medicine and health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
46. Ollikainen, Marketta. 1996a. Huuhaa ei kuulu hoitotieteeseen. Professori Marita Paunosen haastattelu [Humbug does not belong in nursing science: interview with Professor Marita Paunonen]. Skeptikko [Sceptic] 4: 12–15.
47. Ollikainen, Marketta. 1996b. Henkiparannusta hoitajille? [Spiritual healing for nurses?]. Yliopisto [University] 20: 38–39.
48. Paunonen, Marita. 1996. Monenlaisia mietteitä muutoksesta. [Various thoughts about change!]. Epione [Nursing science student bulletin] 2: 3–5.
49. Pera, M. 2000. Rhetoric and scientific controversies. In Scientific controversies. Philosophical and historical perspectives, eds. Peter Machamer, Marcello Pera, and A. Baltas, 50–66. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Rautajoki, Anja. 1996. Terapeuttinen kosketus ei mitään huuhaata. [Therapeutic touch is no humbug] Aamulehti [Morning News], 28.12.1996, 4.
51. Saano, Veijo, and Raimo Puustinen. 1997. Uskomuslääkintä—sairaanhoidon uusi suunta? Esimerkkitapaus: Terapeuttinen kosketus [Belief medication—The new direction for nursing? The example of therapeutic touch]. Suomen lääkärilehti [Finnish Medical Journal] 18–19: 2306.
52. Segal, Judy Z. 2009. Rhetoric of health and medicine. In Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, and Rosa A. Eberly, 227–245. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
53. Skepsis. 2015. Skepsis in English. http://www.skepsis.fi/Yhdistys/MikaSkepsisOn/SkepsisinEnglish.aspx. Accessed 3 March 2015.
54. Small, Mario. 1999. Departmental conditions and the emergence of new disciplines: Two cases in the legitimation of African-American studies. Theory and Society 28: 659–707.
55. Taylor, Charles Alan. 1996. Defining science. A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
56. Tuunainen, Juha. 2005. Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 173–210.
57. van Egmont, Stans, and Roland Bal. 2011. Boundary configurations in science policy: Modeling practices in health care. Science, Technology & Human Values 36: 108–130.
58. Virtanen, Mika. 1997. Hoitotieteilijöiden kannat herättävät ihmetystä [The views of nursing scholars provoke astonishment] Aamulehti [Morning News], 2.1.1997, 4.