Nov 06
23

Massage Research

2 Comments

Research in and about the massage profession is becoming more available.

The Touch Research Institute (TRI) is the most popular source of research along

with the Massage Therapy Foundation.

TRI is funded by Johnson & Johnson Pediatric Institutes, National Institutes of Health, March of Dimes, Biotone and other companies

But how effective or accurate can massage research really be (or any research for that matter?) How can you control a technique and find people with the same exact fiber of muscle that is in spasm or injured to prove anything anyways.

I think we may be too caught up in trying to prove what it is that we do with massage and bodywork to somehow impress the medical profession or whoever or to make the public think we are more credible. I think the only way to achieve credibility is to be more credible.

And after all of the research why can we not cure cancer yet? and look what happened to poor Pluto after all of these years¦

Share on Facebook
If you like this Digg it!, Stumble Upon it or Del.icio.us it!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis

Related posts:

  1. Relaxation vs Medical Massage
  2. Massage and cancer
  3. Evidence Based Massage

Tags:

This entry was posted on November 23, 2006 at 1:30 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Posted in Massage Research by Julie Onofrio 2 Comments

2 Responses to "Massage Research"

  • Sean says:
    November 24, 2006 at 4:50 pm
    Reply

    I wouldn’t completely write-off research for massage as you might be implying. While you are correct in your statement that results from research of massage might be difficult to replicate case-to-case in terms of repeatablity, one thing research does do often is weed out claims of “cure” or “remedy” where there often are none. The burden of proof always lies with the claims maker, therefore if it’s true, let he/she prove it, lest, best to shut thy mouth.
    Also, important to remember that research comes in two forms: Quantitative analysis (usually proving a hypothesis or claim) is most known by the public, perhaps the type to which you are referring.
    While not as exciting, Qualitative analysis may not prove a certain claim of massage, but will show from an objective standpoint, all of the things that massage may have done for a subject group. Sometimes this type of research leads to some very interesting and unpredicted results (sometimes negative/sometimes positive).
    You are correct with one statement being that we need to be more credible. One way I often see masage therapists shoot themselves in the foot with crediblity is by the use of logical fallacies while explaining their profession to others (medical people or lay person). Appeals to Authority, argument from ignorance and argumentum ad populum are commonly used when we try to “prove” our massage to others. Because the logical fallacies used to prove our point(s) turn out to sometimes be true, it’s a lot easier to use them than to do the work that’s required using the scientific method.

  • Paul Manley, MT, PDMT says:
    November 24, 2006 at 2:13 pm
    Reply

    Julie:

    I am not sure how to take your post. Are you for or against research? If we don’t continue to forge ahead whether it be medicine or astronomy we will never advance or at the very least know when to change course for the better. As a therapist I am reading all the time on the benefits of Massage It is to my benefit as well as my patients. My value to them is as a good muscle person but also as a good muscle educator.

Leave a Comment