Translating disability in a Muslim community: a case of modular translation.

This study examines how Muslim religious leaders (imams) introduce the liberal notion of disability to their communities in Israel. The project described, initiated and supported by an American NGO, provides a case for exploring how the secular notion of disability rights is cast and recast in a Muslim world of meaning. It focuses on the mediation strategy that I call modular translation, employed by imams in sermons delivered for the purpose of altering or improving the status and conditions of people with disabilities. This strategy, as it emerged from the analysis, entails decoupling norms of conduct from their underlying justifications. It thus suggests that norms of conduct are open to change so long as the believers' cosmology remains intact. As such, this turn may offer new avenues of thinking and acting about globalizing human rights within the arena of health and disability.

The field worker's fields: ethics, ethnography and medical sociology.

Sociologists who do field work in medical settings face an intractable tension between their disciplinary field, which takes a critical perspective toward medicine, and their ethnographic field, which often includes physicians. This paper explores the ethical problems that result from the collision of the two fields. While in the field, ethnographers are forced to choose between sociology and their obligations to host members, as they decide whether to disclose their actual research agendas, whether to ask tough questions or to reveal their concerns, and whether to give advice. The tension persists when field workers leave the field to write, forcing them to choose between competing interpretations and to decide what to reveal or conceal in the interests of confidentiality. Through these moral choices about what to ask, record or present to the reader, ethnographers shape the academic field even as it shapes them.

Boundary at work: alternative medicine in biomedical settings.

The study explores the process of boundary demarcation within hospital settings by examining a new phenomenon in modern medicine: collaboration between alternative and biomedical practitioners (primarily physicians) working together in biomedical settings. The study uses qualitative methods to examine the nature of this collaboration by calling attention to the ways in which the biomedical profession manages to secure its boundaries and to protect its hard-core professional knowledge. It identifies the processes of exclusion and marginalization as the main mechanisms by which symbolic boundaries are marked daily in the professional field. These processes enable the biomedical profession to contain its competitors and at the same time to avoid overt confrontations and mitigate potential tensions between the two medical systems.

Between formal and enacted policy: changing the contours of boundaries.

This study examines the strategies of the biomedical discourse vis-à-vis the growing public demand for alternative medicine by comparing formal and informal claims for jurisdiction. The analysis is based on two main sources of data from Israel: (a) two formal position statements, and (b) a series of participant observations and interviews with practitioners in clinical settings where biomedical and alternative practitioners collaborate. At the formal level, the biomedical discourse seeks to secure its dominant position by drawing strict cognitive and moral lines differentiating "proper biomedicine" from "improper alternative medicine." At this level alternative medicine appears morally "contaminated" and its knowledge-base delegitimized by extreme forms of boundary-work. At the informal level, the contour of boundaries change. In the hospital field where alternative and biomedical practitioners are collaborating, mutual respect was expressed even as social and symbolic boundaries were being demarcated. Modifying the forms of boundary-work appears to be biomedicine's reactive strategy in the field to changing environmental and market demands. It is a strategy that allows biomedical discourse to absorb its competitor within its professional jurisdiction with no battle, while retaining absolute epistemological hegemony and Institutional Control.

Changing boundaries: modes of coexistence of alternative and biomedicine.

In this article, the authors address the boundaries of institutional structures, the dynamics of their configuration, and the nature of their permeability. The authors explored these issues in Israel, where the changing relationship of bio- and alternative medicine elucidates recent processes of professional boundary redefinition. They used qualitative methods to analyze in-depth interviews in clinics and hospitals where alternative and biomedical practitioners work under the formal auspices of publicly sponsored biomedical organizations. The findings show an incursion by alternative practitioners into territories viewed until fairly recently as the exclusive domain of biomedicine. However, the "alternatives" are not defined as regular staff members, and their marginality is elucidated by a variety of visible structural, symbolic, and geographical cues. The authors used decoupling theory in interpreting the findings. Changed boundary contours signal underlying processes of social change that could have meaningful implications in defining membership criteria in the biomedical community.

Entering the well-guarded fortress: alternative practitioners in hospital settings.

There is a growing evidence that alternative health care practitioners and physicians are working together in collaborative patterns. The paper examines these collaborative patterns in hospital settings in Israel. On the theoretical level, the specific issues relate to theories concerning relationships between dominant institutional structures which enjoy the benefits of epistemological legitimacy as well as extensive, supportive social structures and groups of non-conformists who seek to attain many of the same goals by utilizing different methods based on other epistemologies. In the most general sense, the issues involved concern processes of accommodation and social change. Data were collected by means of semi-structured, qualitative interviews in four general hospitals in Jerusalem during 2000. Nineteen persons were interviewed including 10 alternative practitioners working in a variety of fields and nine biomedical practitioners who worked with them (six physicians and three nurses). Interviews focused on background and training, reasons for entry into the hospital, length of practice, status in the hospital system, mode of remuneration, content of work, modes of interaction with others in the hospital and problems encountered. The findings suggest a dual process of simultaneous acceptance and marginalization of alternative practitioners. While small numbers of alternative practitioners were found to be practicing in a wide variety of hospital departments and in a broad spectrum of specialties, they were in no way accepted as regular staff members and their marginality was made clear by a variety of visible structural, symbolic and geographical cues. There is a division of labour expressed by focusing on the biomedical practitioners on the diagnosis and treatment of specific disease entities, while the alternative practitioners work in the illness context, concentrating of feelings and affective states involving the alleviation of pain, suffering and efforts to improve the quality of life.