2
acupuncturists/traditional Chinese practitioners (TCM) and homeopaths) in the province of
Ontario, Canada to establish professional dominance through statutory regulation. Although we
acknowledge that gaining statutory regulation does not guarantee public acceptance or full
professional status, the groups in our study are currently focused on this goal. By comparing
these three CAM groups we are able to identify issues that are unique to each group as well as
common to all.
In this paper, we argue that these CAM groups are using a variety of strategies, based on
claims to knowledge of medical science, to demarcate which groups should receive statutory
regulation. The CAM groups are attempting to create boundaries around who is considered a
credible CAM practitioner with a valid knowledge base, versus those that are not. This paper
highlights how these battles over the infusion of medical science into the knowledge base are part
of the process for establishing legitimacy (Cant and Sharma 1996). We base the rationale for our
study on earlier work in the professions that shows the importance of boundary-work for
distinguishing the line between “insiders”, and “deviant” or “pseduo” members of a professional
group (e.g. Gieryn, 1982, p. 792; Norris 2001, Cant and Sharma 1996). We explicitly focus on
the internal boundaries and extent of cohesion of CAM groups and how their internal boundary-
work involves debates over the inclusion of medical science. Although the relationships of
CAM groups to external groups such as doctors and government are key to their ability to gain
professional dominance, we believe the internal battles are also key to understanding the success
(or lack of success) of CAM groups. In the following section, we discuss our overall theoretical
perspective for the study of CAM occupations and their efforts to professionalize.
Convention