pro2

Ever notice how well-meaning people resist change. They are afraid that the idea is bad or the timing isn't right. They may also see change as a fad; the latest idea that is still unproven but popular. Change may be considered an unfortunate event that may hurt credibility. Yet, change is necessary for growth, prosperity, and for getting the job done. This article will address change in exercise physiology. It will present commonsense guides for understanding the reasons for change.

At first glance, it appears that exercise physiologists are in control of the lay of the land. But, in reality, there are questions that are having a negative impact on students who are thinking about majoring in exercise physiology. For example, What is exercise physiology? Or, what is exercise science? Are they the same and, if not, how do they differ? Do they take the same courses in college? What type of work does an exercise physiologist do? What kind of certification is required? Is there licensure? What is the salary? Is sports medicine the same as exercise physiology? Is a master's degree required to get a job in the field? Is the exercise physiologist a professional (or a technician)? Are there an adequate number of jobs? Answers to these questions help students determine whether they will major in exercise physiology. However, the answers may be little more than opportunistic statements by the faculty to influence students to choose their department. A department without majors is headed for problems. The faculty may be released from their position, and the doors to the department may be closed. As a result, there is a strong importance placed on recruiting students. A high concern for their needs, as though they were customers, result in diverse academic specializations within the major.

The opportunistic specializations may be different from each other by as little as one course. But, they offer an openness and freedom that, on the surface, places the customer (student) first. Students are valued clients. They provide a certain stability within the context of change. In fact, program offerings are often prioritized around the students' interests as well as the departments' competition with other departments for students. The success of any department is measured ultimately by how well it adjusts itself to change.

Developing an attitude that is receptive to change is important. The lack of capacity to adjust as well as the lack of ability to come together and share concerns and fears, the collective sense of no hope is particularly trying. The end result is more of the same as each individual holds on to the status quo. On the other hand, if students are what departments really place value on, then they should not be ignored. The key to demonstrating a meaningful and valued relationship between students and their academic development experiences lies in supporting an organization that brings the two together.

That organization is the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP). It is a non-profit society to promote the advancement of teaching and hands-on experiences in the academic setting. Its is also designed to provide a unified forum for exchange of ideas and information about the future of exercise physiology. There are few if any avenues within sports medicine to manage the future of exercise physiology. Those who recruit exercise physiologists for sports medicine engage in similar politics for numbers (in membership) as departments do. But, there is little benefit to the exercise physiology surrounded by those who work in sports medicine when the career paths are so different.

Some where in the academic structure that divides students into specializations exists the reason for separating sports medicine from exercise physiology. Perhaps, in the simplest sense, the course work itself shows the differences between the two. Yet, when you realize that sports medicine and exercise physiology have existed for years under one organization, it is no wonder that even its members are hard pressed to know the differences between them. Then, too, as long as things are going fine, why ASEP? But what if things aren't going so well? If so, exercise physiologists need to think about ways to change the organization's culture? How do you respond to the demands made by exercise physiologists in a sports medicine organization? The past abounds with sports medicine membership who tried to create change. The truth is sports medicine is not exercise physiology, and the former isn't going to change its attitude toward exercise physiologists.

There are other concerns as well. When would you know whether the sports medicine organization really changed. The constitution and by-laws can be changed, departments can be realigned, and new policies can be instituted, but will you ever know if the mind-sets have been changed? How will the different issues be accommodated? So, what's an exercise physiologist to do? The key is in looking for ways to bring out the positive aspects of exercise physiologists. We know where our strengths and weaknesses lie with each specialization. We also know how to manipulate them to produce better results faster.

The power of an exercise physiology organization is that it shapes options for the future. In fact, it provides the first organized opportunity to put the pieces together to impact regulatory change in academic stability. It is the place to start because it increases visibility and enhances the image of exercise physiology. It also allows for setting the agenda, determine the direction, and make the decisions about the future of the profession. It is the exercise physiologists' gateway for change. Also, what is important is that the bigger sports medicine organization is no longer an attribute that is desired by all exercise physiologists. This shift in needs of exercise physiologists is a clear sign of change in the evolving history of exercise physiology.

Ultimately it is the impact of exercise physiologists that will determine whether ASEP will live up to its billing. They must be willing to support risk taking and innovation, and it is they who will define what is expected from other exercise physiologists. Collectively, they will produce change in the profession. Their vision is full of action goals and objectives that reinforces their sense of purpose. They understand that the Society is an organization of individuals linked together to operate as a system. The clarity in committee output stems from the appreciation that exercise physiology is in need of care.

The Society is the means of staying in touch with the needs of the profession. In particular, it is designed by exercise physiologists to professionalize exercise phyiology. Hence, it should be hard for anyone to disagree with its purpose. Exercise physiologists are part of the problem-solving process. Teamwork promotes the internalization of the mission and goals as well as builds the commitment to do a better job. The strategy is to manage change. The price is hard work and getting rid of fear. It is about not being involved but rather committed to a new future. It is about taking control and energizing exercise physiologists to show empathy for concerns of other exercise physiologists.

Based on our historic paradigm, exercise physiologists have carried much of what is called sports medicine. Perhaps one would have never expected the paradigm to change but it has. The necessity for exercise physiologists interacting and collaborating with each other is real. It is a critical issue for professionalization of exercise physiology. Think about it. It is our niche. Sports medicine cannot compete with us because it isn't exercise physiology. Yet we are in position, with knowledge of our professional needs, to provide the follow through. It is also the beginning of our proactive solution, though serious hard work, to manage change. The future awaits us.