Please appreciate that
I write
from both passion and concern.
The
passion is my desire to help students find better career opportunities
in the
public sector.
My concern comes from
watching and hearing about students having such great difficulty in
finding
respect and credibility after graduating from college.
As a college teacher of nearly 40 years, I am
of the belief that an undergraduate degree should set the stage for
meaningful
employment.
It is that simple for
me.
Since the founding of ASEP in 1997,
I have been convinced that we can and should come together to deal with
challenges and obstacles to being an exercise physiologist.
The ASEP way is clearly the best way of doing
just that.
After all, it is the reality
of exercise physiology as a profession.
Much,
if not most, of what it is has been designed specifically from
that of other established organizations, such as physical therapy,
occupational
therapy, and nursing.
The idea that exercise physiology
should stay within the generic organization of the American College of
Sports
Medicine (ACSM) makes no sense at all.
The
ASEP exercise physiologists understand that they need their own
professional organization just as
other healthcare professionals have their own individual organizations.
They get this point.
Why
other exercise physiologists are so slow to do
so isn’t a mystery.
It is more of the
gaming that goes on within the context of the existing ACSM
organization.
In general, academic exercise
physiologists support the traditional paradigm of ACSM as their primary
organization.
Of course this is a major
mistake that is obvious to anyone with his or her eyes open.
The second way of seeing exercise physiology,
the ASEP way, has been around just over 10 years.
It
is the product of the necessity to change
direction from just being a research discipline to a healthcare
profession.
Research itself benefits
exercise physiologists with the doctorate degree, but does little to
help the no-doctorates find employment.
This article seeks to explain
some of the difficulties with the change process.
Understandably,
there is conflict between the old and new way of thinking about
exercise physiology. A lot
of work is yet to be done, especially across the next serveral decades.
However, what is
at the heart of the transition from the old to the new is the need to
update the way exercise physiologists think about themselves.
Even if the majority of academic exercise physiologists refuse to
listen to the needs of their students, it isn't a credible reason to
not work to change "what is" to "what can be."
Not
surprisingly, many college teachers are interested only in doing
research.
That's why they are happy when they can
get their teaching load reduced.
In retrospect, being part of the
ASEP experience has been educational on many different fronts.
The most obvious change is that teaching is
recognied as being important in helping college students develop as
professionals. There is also the appreciation for the struggle to
move from ACSM
to ASEP. It hasn't been easy, and it isn't likely to get much
better for several years.
To state the
obvious, how the reader sees exercise physiology is to a large extent
the
product of what is teachers are willing to share with
them.
It is also based on what the reader has read about the change process
and the work towards professionalism in exercise physiology. To
ask the obvious question, "How many articles have you read in PEPonline
or JPEP?" How often do college teachers relate the content of
these articles to class work? Probably, the answer is not very
many. After all, it is also obvious that hardly any academic
exercise physiologists actually publish in either ASEP professionalism
journal.
So, let me ask you this
question:
“What is the real reason for
not abandoning the comfort of our familiar beliefs and practices?”
I believe two things.
There is the obvious answer and the unobvious
answer.
First, the obvious answer is that
the
existence of decades of failed leadership has set the stage for
deception and
indifference.
The desire to be recognized
as a physiologist and scientist is
so strong that it is a psychological indication of weakness and the
lack of
courage to acknowledge the truth.
The
end result is the continuing repetition of mistakes.
Why? Because it is very
difficult to break free from decades of thinking, history, and familiar
practices
of the prevailing culture.
In plain
words, if the academic exercise physiologists are not fearful and
overwhelmed by the
ASEP paradigm shift, then, they must be too caught up in their status
and promotion issues.
Perhaps, they
believe
it is too risky or that they will have to abandon the comfort of
their position with sports medicine.
Whatever
the reason, many turn a blind eye to changing.
The second reason is this:
There exist
within the old paradigm the need
to defend its hierarchy, power, and bureaucracy.
The
essential lesson is that both exercise
physiologists and non-exercise physiologists come together to maintain
the sports
medicine path of organizational status.
Their
shared power (and often times, their greed) is exploited however
necessary to effectively destroy the competition.
In short, then, they aren’t
interested in losing membership to another organization even if it is
right
thing to do.
If this is the case, is it
selfish
and non-productive. I think so, but without a doubt the behavior
exists under the false perception of
necessity.
Without the ability to think
straight, their unrecognized fear and insecurity
moves them to act in unprofessional ways.
This
is a sad statement of the collective actions of many academic
exercise physiologists.
However, this analysis is appropriate and
relevant, and I have learned that it is difficult for my colleagues to
break
free from the prevailing failed rhetoric of yesterday's thinking.
Traditional ways and strong communities of
shared thinking tjat research and publishing are the only thing
important have created a belief of
security.
And yet, while they feel
comfortable in sports medicine and exercise science, they
have failed to
think beyond themselves.
Students suffer from the lack of financially sound career
opportunities in exercise physiology.
Just think
about it. It wasn't until ASEP surfaced did anyone
realize that exercise physiologists did not have their own Code of
Ethics much
less their own professional standards of practice. No one
questioned the fact that students were not accessing credible
jobs. The so-called "clinical" exercise physiology path isn't the
answer. Indeed, it gradually being consumed by physical therapy
and nursing.
The question is this:
Where are the
leaders in exercise physiology?
The only
logical answer is there haven’t been any leaders
because they have been taught to think as healthcare professionals.
This shortage of leadership has allowed the leadership from the
established professions to bring into their practice documents the
power of exercise as medicine.
It has encouraged
behaviors that are simply inappropriate for adults.
The ASEP vision is entirely
different.
The leadership is not acting
in isolation to their problems, but rather addressing them with a
meaningful interconnectedness between professionalism and credibility.
This has been done through very specific
developments in accreditation, board certification, and standards of
practice.
Now, the challenge for the ASEP
leaders is to learn how to deal with the change process and the
isolation, criticism, and indifference
from the old paradigm.
Also, while it
obviously becomes challenging on occasion to deal with these
conditions, the ASEP leadership is mentally and spiritually at work to
stay the course, to stay focused, and to stay on target.
What I understand is that I am not a failure,
regardless of the lack of help or their unwillingness to get the big
picture.
So, I say to myself,
perhaps,
more often than I need to:
“Just do the
job.
Don’t take it personally.
Time will take care the issues, obstacles,
and challenges.
Change is process that
takes place on many years if not decades.
It
is not an event.
So, stay the course.
Never give up.”