Abstract
Despite the fact that chiropractic has been accepted by more and more Canadians and Americans, it has yet to gain a foothold on a large American or Canadian university campus. In Canada, the primary chiropractic educational institution, the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), has attempted to affiliate with many universities including the University of Victoria, Brock University, the University of Waterloo, and, most recently, York University. The benefits of association with a university include eligibility for many research grants and academic legitimacy for the profession. While chiropractic has been denied university affiliation, other “subordinate” health occupations, such as nursing and midwifery, are currently taught in Ontario universities.
The objective of the current research is to analyse the reasons for the failure of the CMCC to affiliate with York University. The major focus of the investigation is whether CMCC's lack of success can be viewed as a manifestation of the dominance of a medical model at York or whether arguments similar to those raised against CMCC are common in mergers in higher education. The first possibility is consistent with closure theory in general in which professions attempt to limit competition for scarce resources (in this case patients and status), and to the notions of medical dominance and medical sovereignty that are related to closure theory. The second explanation is consistent with “mutual-growth merger theory” in which it is postulated that mergers in higher education are successful when they are of benefit to both parties and a series of steps have been taken ranging from institutional self-assessment, that may involve conducting surveys of the university community, to post-merger consolidation and community building. Overall, it will be argued that the failure of the proposed affiliation is best explained by reference to closure theory, as manifested in medical dominance and medical sovereignty. Because of medical dominance and sovereignty. Because of medical dominance and sovereignty, even if steps consistent with mutual growth merger theory had been followed at York, it is questionable that affiliation would have been successful.
Keywords: chiropractic, university, affiliation
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Cherkin D. C., Deyo R. A., Battié M., Street J., Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1998 Oct 8;339(15):1021–1029. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199810083391502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coburn D., Biggs C. L. Limits to medical dominance: the case of chiropractic. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22(10):1035–1046. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(86)90204-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coburn D. Phases of capitalism, welfare states, medical dominance, and health care in Ontario. Int J Health Serv. 1999;29(4):833–851. doi: 10.2190/57WB-A3D1-GE4V-B437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coburn D. State authority, medical dominance, and trends in the regulation of the health professions: the Ontario case. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Jul;37(2):129–138. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90449-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coburn D. The development of Canadian nursing: professionalization and proletarianization. Int J Health Serv. 1988;18(3):437–456. doi: 10.2190/1BDV-P7FN-9NWF-VKVR. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coburn D., Torrance G. M., Kaufert J. M. Medical dominance in Canada in historical perspective: the rise and fall of medicine? Int J Health Serv. 1983;13(3):407–432. doi: 10.2190/D94Q-0F9Y-VYQH-PX2V. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koes B. W., Assendelft W. J., van der Heijden G. J., Bouter L. M. Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996 Dec 15;21(24):2860–2873. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199612150-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Willis E. Doctoring in Australia: a view at the bicentenary. Milbank Q. 1988;66 (Suppl 2):167–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]