Abstract
Despite being defined in the West as alternative medicine and often seen as incommensurable with biomedicine and bioscience, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has, paradoxically, assimilated into dominant spaces of knowledge production and legitimation, such as the International Classification of Diseases. In Australia, TCM comprises a designated area of cooperation with China, and TCM research is carried out in numerous universities by otherwise mainstream scientists. Focusing on the Australian case, we examine how and why TCM has transcended scientific skepticism to become an object of scientific study. Through interviews with Australian TCM researchers (n = 10), we identify aspects of TCM that function as conceptual and material boundary objects, facilitating its uptake in bioscientific disciplines. Furthermore, we locate TCM research in the wider context of Australian-Chinese knowledge exchange, highlighting the role of “coordinating boundary objects,” such as institutional agreements, in enabling scientific work, as well as the supportive role performed by boundary actors who translate across social worlds. By illustrating how these objects/actors enact TCM research in Australia, as well as their interdependence, the paper contributes a deeper understanding of the operation of boundary objects in international scientific collaboration and the factors determining the scientific success of this alternative medicine.
Acknowledgments:
We thank the participants along with Gupteswar Patel, Justine Groizard and Troy Saxby who provided research assistance.
Notes
1 Although acupuncture has been somewhat integrated into Western healthcare arenas (Owens Citation2015), Chinese herbal medicine studies appear to have achieved greater research output in recent years (particularly pharmacology studies) (Huang et al. Citation2015; Nguyen Citation2019).
2 Interestingly the opposite has been the case in Taiwan, where public institutes have not been able to accept funding from industry, thereby constraining TCM commercialization (Fung and Tan Citation2021). The orientation of Australian universities to industry partnerships has possibly provided an advantage in the TCM research field within the Asia-Pacific region.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Caragh Brosnan
Caragh Brosnan is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Her research focuses on the construction, legitimation and use of knowledge in scientific and health professional work and education. Her books include Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Knowledge Production and Social Transformation (with Vuolanto and Danell, 2018), Bourdieusian Prospects (with Adkins and Threadgold, 2017) and Handbook of the Sociology of Medical Education (with Turner, 2012).
Fran M. Collyer
Fran Collyer has published widely in the history of sociology, the sociology of knowledge and health sociology. Her books include Knowledge and Global Power (with Connell, Maia and Morrell, 2019), the Palgrave Handbook of Social Theory in Health, Illness and Medicine (2015), and Mapping the Sociology of Health and Medicine (2012).
Karen Willis
Karen Willis is Professor of Public Health at Victoria University, Melbourne, and joint editor-in-chief of Health Sociology Review. Her work focuses on the social dimensions of health and illness, particularly the intersections between individuals and the health care system. Her books include Navigating Private and Public Healthcare (with Collyer, 2020), The COVID-19 Crisis: Social Perspectives (with Lupton, 2021) and Experiences of Health Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic (with Bismark, Lewis and Smallwood, 2022).
Anthony L. Zhang
Tony Zhang is Professor and Associate Dean (Allied Health) in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University (Melbourne) with research expertise in clinical trial, meta-analysis/systematic review, population surveys, Chinese medicine, and acupuncture.