• darkblurbg





    CPSA Students Caucus Meeting








    Congrès annuel de l'ACSP 2019 - 4 juin 2019
  • darkblurbg




    Workshop: The Official Languages Act at 50
    Le 50e anniversaire de la Loi sur les langues officielles








    Congrès annuel de l'ACSP 2019 - 4 juin 2019
  • darkblurbg




    Reception: Department of Political Science
    University of British Columbia








    Congrès annuel de l'ACSP 2019 - 4 juin 2019
  • darkblurbg
    Association canadienne de science politique
    Programme du congrès annuel de l'ACSP 2019

    LA POLITIQUE AUTREMENT;
    PARLER FRANC, PARLER VRAI

    Organisé à l'Université de la Colombie-Britannique
    Mardi le 4 juin 2019 au jeudi 6 juin 2019
  • darkblurbg
    Discours présidentiel
    François Rocher, CPSA President

    Vie et mort d’un enjeu
    la science politique canadienne
    et la politique québécoise

    Location: CIRS 1250
    Mardi le 4 juin 2019 | 17 h 00 - 18 h 00
  • darkblurbg
    Keynote: UBCIC Grand
    Chief Stewart Phillip

    Asserting Indigenous
    Title and Rights in 2019

    Location: CIRS 1250
    Mardi le 4 juin 2019 | 10 h 30 - 12 h 00
  • darkblurbg
    Keynote Speaker: Wendy Brown
    In the Ruins of Neoliberalism:
    Our Predicaments:
    the Rise of Anti-democratic
    Politics in the West

    Location: CIRS 1250
    Mercredi le 5 juin 2019 | 14 h 00 - 15 h 30
  • darkblurbg
    Keynote Speaker: Roland Paris
    Canada Alone?
    Surviving in a Meaner World

    Location: CIRS 1250
    Jeudi le 6 juin 2019 | 10 h 30 - 12 h 00

Droit et analyse de politiques



D05(b) - Health Policy

Date: Jun 4 | Heure: 01:30pm to 03:00pm | Location: SWING 405

Chair/Président/Présidente : Daniel Béland (McGill University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Olivier Jacques (McGill University)

The Social Construction of Naturopathic Medicine: Evidence from the Provinces: Dave Snow (University of Guelph)
Abstract: Since 2008, five of Canada’s six most populous provinces have legislated to bring naturopaths under the governance structure for self-regulated professions. While proponents claim this has legitimized the profession and should improve patient care, critics argue that it has done little to improve governance and may encourage unsafe practices. However, there has been little empirical research on the factors behind the provinces’ decisions to regulate and thus legitimize naturopathic medicine. Drawing from the Social Construction of Target Populations (SCTP) approach, this paper explores the way in which naturopathic medicine was conceptualized by policymakers in legislative discourse and in the actual language of public policy. To do so, it draws from two original datasets. The first is a collection of every Hansard debate and committee hearing concerning the regulation of naturopaths from the five provinces that have legislated (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia). The second, using Canadian Newsstream, is a collection of all newspaper stories from 2013-2017 involving naturopathic medicine. Using the SCTP framework, I hypothesize that although public policy ought to have made naturopaths “advantaged,” the media analysis suggests that naturopaths remain “contenders” due to overwhelmingly negative social constructions in media outlets. These negative social constructions stem from the “boundary work” being done by medical and scientific professionals skeptical about naturopathic medicine. While naturopaths have been legitimized through public policy, they remain delegitimized in public discourse, leaving their social construction—and professional legitimacy—in flux.


(Re)defining Legitimacy? Expertise and Public and Patient Involvement in Canadian Drug Assessment: Katherine Boothe (McMaster University)
Abstract: This paper investigates shifting ideas about legitimacy related to scientific evidence and public participation in health policy decision making, specifically recommendations about which drugs should be publically funded. Public drug plans in Canada rely on drug advisory committees to review clinical and economic evidence about new drugs, and make recommendations about reimbursement. Starting in 2006, committees that were previously entirely made up of technical experts began to include patients and members of the public. In 2010, committees began accepting submissions from patient groups. This paper asks how these changes affected understandings of legitimacy on the committees, focusing on the views of committee members. My previous research suggests there are important tensions between democratic conceptions of legitimacy linked to the inclusiveness of the policy process and which drive public and patient involvement, and moral-scientific conceptions of legitimacy that are linked to objectivity and specific norms of scientific evidence. The paper uses interviews with three Canadian committees as well as evidence of participants’ early views in published reports to analyze stability and change in participants’ ideas, and to compare the views of lay and technical member of the committees. It addresses issues about the nature of evidence and the inclusion of different voices in policymaking. It responds to calls in the literature for more rigorous measurement of ideas and ideational change, and develops hypotheses about links between ideational and institutional change that may apply to other policy areas, particularly those that involve highly specialized knowledge and questions about legitimacy and public values.




Acceuil