Medicine, rhetoric and undermining: managing credibility in homeopathic practice

This article examines homeopathic practitioners ‘real life’ accounts, and illustrates the ways in which they negotiate their homeopathic practices as contingently formulated ongoing social events in research interview settings. Interview transcripts were analysed in a qualitative framework using discourse analysis. The findings show that practitioners construct homeopathy and defend their own individual practices either by ‘alignment-with-medicine’ or by ‘boosting-the-credibility-of-homeopathy’. Homeopathy is also negotiated and sustained as an ‘alternative’ to notions of conventional medicine, which is the accepted yardstick for practice or as a practice that is portrayed as problematic. Overall, managing personal credibility is accomplished through specific ways of accounting that tend to marginalise homeopathy. Developing and establishing homeopathic practice further as a discipline in its own right is offered as a ‘nucleus’ to reduce continuing marginalisation.

Keywords

Homeopathy - Homeopathic discourse - Discourse analysis - Credibility - Marginalisation - Progress

• References

• 1 Atkinson P. Medical talk and medical work: the liturgy of the clinic. London: Sage Publications; 1995. pp 28–90.
• 2 Foucault M. The birth of the clinic. London: Tavistock Publications Limited; 1993. pp 195–199.
• 3 Degele N. On the margins of everything: homeopathy as science, anti-science, or semi-science? University of Freiburg 2002, pp 1–19.
• 4 Degele N. On the margins of everything: doing performing and staging science in homeopathy. Sci Technol Human Values 2005; 30: 111-136.
• 5 Baggot R. Health and healthcare in Britain. 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2004. pp 29–54.
• 6 Gilbert G.N., Mulkay M. Opening Pandora's box: a sociological analysis of scientists discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. pp 18–39.
• 7 Ruusuvuori J. Managing affect: integration of empathy and problem solving in healthcare encounters. Discourse Stud 2007; 9 (05) 597-622.
• 8 Seymour-Smith S., Wetherell M., Phoenix A. ‘My wife ordered me to come!’: a discursive analysis of doctors' and nurses accounts of men's use of general practitioners. J Health Psychol 2002; 7: 253-267.
• 9 Brewster O'Reilly W. Organon of the medical art by DR. Samuel Hahnemann. Washington: Birdcage Books; 1996. pp 8–57.
• 10 Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G. et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834-843.
• 11 Taylor M.A., Reilly D., Llewwllyn-Jones R., McSharry C., Atchinson T.C. Randomised controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. Br Med J 2000; 2: 471-476.
• 12 Edwards D., Potter J. Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications; 1992. Chap 7, pp 153–177.
• 13 Horton-Salway M. Narrative identities and the management of personal accountability in talk about ME: a discursive psychology approach to illness narrative. J Health Psychol 2001; 6: 247-259.
• 14 Stoke E., Hepburn A. ‘You can hear a lot through the walls’: noise formulations in neighbour complaints. Discourse Soc 2005; 16 (05) 647-673.
• 15 Sacks H. Harvey Sacks – lectures on conversation, vol. I. Edited by G. Jefferson with an introduction from Emanuel A. Schegloff, 1992, pp 215–221.
• 16 Wooffitt R. Telling tales of the unexpected: the organisation of factual discourse. Hemel Hampstead: Harvest Wheatsheaf; 1992. pp 102–154.
• 17 Potter J. Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Publications; 1996. Chap 4–7, pp 97–201.
• 18 Ruusuvuori J. Empathy and sympathy in action: attending to patients' troubles in Finnish homeopathic and GP consultations. Soc Psychol Q 2005; 68: 204-222.
• 19 Wetherell M. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse Soc 1998; 9: 387-412.
• 20 Simon A., Wooffitt R. Negotiating consciousness: parapsychology and the social organisation of reports of mental states. In: Hepburn A., Wiggins S. (eds). Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction . 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 70-87.
• 21 Potter J., Hepburn A. Qualitative interviews in psychology – problems and possibilities. Qual Res Psychol 2005; 2: 281-307.
• 22 Atkinson J.M., Heritage J. Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984. pp ix–xvi.
• 23 Barnes R.K., Moss D. Communicating a feeling: the social organisation of ‘private thoughts’. Discourse Stud 2007; 9 (02) 123-148.
• 24 Gergen K.J. Social construction in context. London: Sage Publications; 2001. pp 163–168.
• 25 Gergen K.J. Construction in contention: toward consequential resolutions. Theory Psychol 2001; 11: 419-432.
• 26 Austin J.L. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1962. pp 1–12.
• 27 Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1967. pp 1–75.
• 28 Heritage J. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984. pp 103–231.
• 29 Schelgloff E.A. Whose text? Whose context?. Discourse Soc 1997; 8: 165-187.
• 30 Edley N. Analysing masculinity: interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In: Wetherell M., Taylor S., Yates S.J. (eds). Discourse as Data: a Guide for Analysis . 2001. Milton Keynes: The Open University; 189-228 Chap 5.
• 31 Burman E., Parker I. Introduction – discourse analysis: the turn to the next. In: Burman E., Parker I. (eds). Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action . 1993. London: Routledge; 1-13 Chap 1.
• 32 Wooffitt R. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: a comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage Publications; 2005. pp 137–157.
• 33 Edwards D., Potter J. Language and causation: a discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychol Rev 1993; 100: 23-41.
• 34 Potter J. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In: Silverman D. (ed). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice . 2004. London: Sage Publications; 200-221 Chap 10.
• 35 Jefferson G. List construction as a task and interactional resource. In: Psathas G. (ed). Interactional Competence . 1990. Washington: University Press of America; 122-143.
• 36 Pomerantz A.M. Extreme case formulations: a new way of legitimising claims. Hum Stud 1986; 9 (01) 219-230.
• 37 Jefferson G. “At first I thought”: a normalising device for extraordinary events', unpublished manuscript. Katholieke Hogeschool: Tilburg. 1984, pp 131–159.
• 38 Edwards D. Categories are for talking: on the cognitive and discursive bases of categorisation. Theory Psychol 1991; 1 (14) 515-542.
• 39 Jefferson G. One stepwise transition from talk about trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In: Atkinson J.M., Heritage J. (eds). Structures of Social Science in Conversation Analysis . 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 192-222 Chap 9.
• 40 Jefferson G., Lee J. The rejection of advice: managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles telling’ and a ‘service encounter.’. In: Drew P., Heritage J. (eds). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings . 1992. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 192-222 Chap 15.
• 41 Foucault M. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1992–1997. New York: Prentice Hall; 1980. pp 78–108.