PEPonline
Professionalization
of
Exercise Physiologyonline
An
international electronic
journal
for exercise physiologists
ISSN
1099-5862
Vol
3 No 8 August 2000
|
The ASEP Perspective
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP
Professor and Chair
Director, Exercise Physiology
Laboratories
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN
ALTHOUGH I HAVE BEEN TEACHING
and publishing in exercise physiology for many years, not until several
years ago did I understand that exercise physiologists had inadvertently
put sports medicine professionals in charge of their future. For
more than two decades, I failed to understand that their agenda dominated
exercise physiology. I simply didn’t realize, despite appearances,
that exercise physiologists were not running the show. Instead, they
abdicated their professional and academic responsibilities to the awesome
power and flexibility of the emerging multi-organization known as the American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). We have let the sports medicine
agenda run the show.
When sports medicine professionals
run the show, it is hard for them to see clearly the nature of the problems
faced by exercise physiologists. They see everything from their perspective
and overlook the fact that the organization is not design to empower exercise
physiologists. They see the power of the organization, its accomplishments,
and their function in elevating the "college" of sports medicine.
They ignore the fact that its agenda is sports medicine, and not sports
medicine and exercise science (and certainly not exercise physiology)!
As a result, exercise physiologists have let (and even assisted) sports
medicine professionals in defining what they think exercise physiology
should be.
This problem of letting sports
medicine run the show has puzzled and confounded me for almost a decade.
Finally, in 1997, I ceased all support of sports medicine to devote one
hundred percent of my time to helping other exercise physiologists understand
the importance of developing their own professional organization. In so
doing, I immediately discovered that after I freed myself from the sports
medicine/exercise science model, I also saw for the first time that exercise
science is not exercise physiology. This presented yet another hurdle
to confront, which I have done in many different articles in the PEPonline
journal.
Sports medicine is such a
difficult and interesting field of study with professionals from many different
academic backgrounds that it tends to dominate all other considerations,
including the concerns of the exercise physiologist. As I have said,
I didn’t realize this until I made the decision to work solely on behalf
of exercise physiologists. Upon coming to this realization, as Chair
of a Department of Exercise Physiology, I began to see what influences
drove (and continues to drive) exercise physiologists to embrace sports
medicine. Sports medicine thinking, at least within ACSM, dominates
all other considerations, including the concerns of exercise physiologists.
But, to be a good professional, individuals and/or organizations must be
sympathetic to the ideas, needs, and development of all professionals even
those who may disagree with you.
However at odds the two professions
are with each other, and however different the goals of each might be,
both organizations must come to terms with their differences. They
need to stop squandering time and opportunity. By working together,
we can continue the development of each and, therefore, go well beyond
the expectations of even the wildest dreams of each organization.
All that is required is the partnering of interaction designed with personal
concern for all professionals. An interaction based on building trust
is important. The benefits of working together are incalculable.
It’s one thing to see that
there is a problem, but it’s quite another to build trust. One key
part of solving differences is the attitude we demonstrate towards each
other. Over the past three years, in particular, I have framed sports
medicine in different ways but never in a degrading manner. I have
respect for the many professionals, both in sports medicine and exercise
physiology, who have worked hard on behalf of ACSM. But, unlike in
the past, things today require a different solution to the previously unseen
dimensions of frustrated, unhappy, and dissatisfied graduates in “exercise
science”.
Today’s exercise physiologists
are no less capable than years past, so I must deduce from this that their
decision to share and continue the development of sports medicine and “exercise
science” has to be respected. Yet, some remain clueless about the
problems inherent in keeping exercise physiology under the sports medicine
priorities. They have strong opinions about what they believe is
right, so they do what they do, designing and supporting sports medicine
for themselves while imagining that they are helping exercise physiologists.
The personal preferences, familiarity, and fear of a different approach
all play a major role in their thinking. Even recently, as a example,
it was stated by a colleague, "No one should think ASEP is "the" exercise
physiology organization. ACSM has been and will always be known as
"the" exercise physiology organization."
It is easy to picture hard
working exercise physiologists who enjoy the tough challenges and the opportunities
to make a difference, where they can stand out. Clearly, their behavior
reflects their point of view. They defend their actions based on
their power and capability to do so. When approached on serious issues,
they tend not to answer the questions but instead talk of the newly added
features and capabilities of their organization. They ignore the
fact that the organization is not designed to professionalize exercise
physiology. In so doing, they ignore the most obvious. There
are reasons (specific, personal, and professional) for the existence of
different types of organizations.
It is hard to picture a time
when they will come to understand that what they are doing is radically
wrong. Why they can’t see that there is a problem, and why they don’t know
there is a better way for exercise physiologists is a mystery. The
implication of these two thoughts is that as long as both go unanswered,
the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP) blueprint for
change must be presented wherever possible and as often as possible.
Above all, ASEP is logical and its right. Time will prove both points
to be true! Confirmation of this belief is derived from the
fact that it’s founding resulted from the need to help “all” exercise physiologists.
The non-PhD exercise physiologists
are, therefore, customers who have demonstrated their desire and willingness
to purchase the existing product, ASEP. They are responsible for
drawing out the idea for the new ASEP organization and only subsequently,
then, challenged certain exercise physiologists to build and sell it.
This is exactly what has happened, and it has significant advantages to
pulling out the best in everyone involved. Most importantly, it is
about focusing on the unmet needs of all exercise physiologists.
The most obvious need is professionalism that is not possible without having
their own professional organization. Certification, licensure, and
accreditation are also equally important; all having a direct relationship
with the professional goals and objectives of the organization.
Creditability is important
to the success of exercise physiology. ASEP members understand this
point and they desire it very much, thus they are loyal to ASEP because
they believe increased creditability will make them happier. As a
result, members tell their colleagues and friends about ASEP. As
long as ASEP gives its members creditability, it generates strong member
loyalty. In fact, the upcoming “first-ever” certification for exercise
physiologists is already increasing ASEP membership as the new members
seek out the new product instead of the competitor’s product. This
will continue to happen because the “Exercise Physiologist Certified” (EPC)
status is more desirable than the other certifications, regardless of the
number of certifications offered by other organizations.
Sports medicine is too generic
to continue to benefit exercise physiology. It is also without proper
academic footing to support the development of exercise physiology.
So, what ASEP, the only professional organization of exercise physiologists,
has done is to build new certification products rather than improve upon
the decades of ignoring member satisfaction. The history of the lack
of support for the bachelor and master prepared exercise physiologists
has left both treaded upon. For decades, the academic exercise
physiologist’s number-one problem has been the willingness to support the
mainstream thinking of sports medicine while ignoring the lack of balance
between sports medicine and exercise science (particularly, the lack of
acadmeic consistency from one college to the next). There is a tremendous
difference between belonging to an organization that is designed to build
sports medicine and one that is building sports medicine and exercise
science.
The lesson in this experience
is that membership satisfaction issues are related to the academic setting.
As an exercise physiologist who presented lectures on behalf of sports
medicine at several colleges and universities, my failure was in understanding
that there is a major difference between presenting a workshop at a college
and the academic offerings at the college. On one hand, anyone who
fulfills a generic list of requirements may sit for the sports medicine
exam and, subsequently, refer to him- or herself as an “exercise physiologist”
without anyone or any particular organization taking legal issue with it.
Yet, how does this reflect on the students at the same college who are
paying significant tuition fees to earn an academic degree in exercise
physiology? Somebody needs to make the point that it is wrong!
I believe that our failure to admit that the problem exists is proof that
most PhD exercise physiologists have their heads in the sand.
To recognize the degree of
narrowmindedness that I believe is evident, all you have to do is bring
up the topic with an exercise physiologist who is working to keep sports
medicine in control. Such individuals are responsible for having
developed a complex sports medicine organization that has abdicated its
role in exercise physiology professionalism. I’d rather have a less
complex organization with a better view of how to create better jobs with
higher pay for all exercise physiologists. To do so required the
founding of ASEP; an organization with a far more important prerequisite
to success. That is, to understand the reason an organization exists
in the first place: its members. This point is indisputably true.
In fact, arguably, the single most important difference between sports
medicine and exercise physiology is ASEP’s emphasis on preparing academic-degreed
exercise physiologists. Accomplishing this single goal goes a long
way towards overcoming the most obvious problem faced by many non-PhD exercise
physiologists, that is, the profusion of poorly prepared and unwanted health,
fitness, and rehabilitation pseudo-experts. While some are very sharp
at what they do, others have no idea what they are doing. For certain,
the exercise physiology profession does not benefit from non-academic-degreed
so-called experts working in the same areas within the public sector.
I am still flabbergasted
when asked, “What do you do?” Should I say I’m a physiologists simply
because the public sector is more likely to understand? I can’t do
that even though some of colleagues do so thinking that they elevate themselves
in the eyes of those asking the question. As I have written before,
unless an individual has an academic degree in physiology, that person
is not a physiologist. No doubt I have hesitated at times.
But, primarily because I knew that after saying “I’m an exercise physiologists”
I would feel compelled to explain what exercise physiologist do.
However, not everyone is interested in the specifics just the title, which
is usually the strongest evidence for why ASEP should exist. I know
for certain that I am not a personal trainer or one of many other such
titles that can be acquired in six months or less. Hence, part of
the reason for why we need our own professional organization is to market
ourselves as professionals. We need also to allow the organization
to market what we do by sharing and publishing such information within
the public sector.
As you can see, I believe
rather strongly that there is a clear need for ASEP. Just as we never
let football players referee their own football games, we should never
let just the PhD exercise physiologists dictate what is exercise physiology
to all members of the profession. The trap otherwise is insidious
not because of the difference in academic levels between the PhD exercise
physiologist and the non-PhD exercise physiologist, but because of the
different goals between each. It’s relatively easy to succeed when
you have little serious competition as a college professor and you are
backed by the department chair, research lab, and naïve students.
By far the most difficult job is working as an exercise physiologist without
the PhD degree. Many professors seem to be ignorant of all of the
things important to their students, namely the right credentials and the
boundless energy to keep trying when one manager says “no” and another
says “part-time, 20 hr/wk". While it is next to impossible to make
the financial demands, the non-PhDs keep going. It is almost inexplicable
why they do so except for their love and belief in the profession.
As Albert Einstein said,
“You can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.”
The most obvious approach to finding an answer to the non-PhD problem is
not through sports medicine. Rather, it consists of developing a
precise understanding of the non-PhD exercise physiologist and what he/she
wishes to accomplish. Sounds simple but, in actuality, it means consulting
with non-PhD exercise physiologists and foregoing the present interests
in making the PhD exercise physiologists even more powerful. When
done properly, as we believe it has been the case, it means that ASEP is
designed specifically to satisfy and accommodate the bachelor-prepared
exercise physiologist. This distinctive specificity is very powerful,
and ASEP is armed to do precisely that in its design of the EPC exam.
While the temptation might have been to require a master’s degree to sit
for the exam, that is not the case. ASEP is not designed to shut
out a segment of its members (the bachelor-prepared) to benefit other segments.
This truth is probably surprising to the reader because it runs counter
to the sports medicine view.
The President and Board of
Directors of ASEP are interested in its members, forthcoming in the ASEP
Vision, share a common sense approach to professional development, anticipate
the needs of the profession, and are responsive even to non-verbal cues
of the members. Through the ASEPNewsletter,
they keep the members informed of issues that might influence them.
They are self-confident, focused, and trustworthy and yet, “How can you
know whose advice to follow and whose to ignore?” Who are you to
believe? The answer is, “Believe the person who calls him- or herself
an exercise physiologist who states that exercise physiology takes precedence
over other professions." The Board of Directors understand this point,
and is committed to exercise physiology professionalism.
The first ASEP “product”
is designed according to the Board’s inside vision of how things should
be done to professionalize exercise physiology. After the EPC exam
(September 28, 2000) is finally delivered, members will become increasingly
interested in certification because they, in part, will have invested their
time and energy into a new way of thinking about exercise physiology.
The steps in developing the certification represents the Board's desire
to “listen to” its members while also filtering out the wrong information.
For example, while licensure is important, the Board of Directors agreed
on placing its importance first on certification and then on licensure.
This thinking was consider imperative to keeping ASEP a “professional product”
organization versus the more common “service organization”. The first
approach helps to ensure that the members are provided the right products
in the right order to ensure their creditability. The latter approach
is more attuned to performing a service on demand for its members, which
may not always be in their best interest if the order is confused.
In summary, the solution
that ASEP proposes is taking responsibility for its own future, taking
time to do it right and, in essence, taking control of its competitive
edge to ensure lucrative opportunities for its members. This is necessary
for the survival of exercise physiology in the long term. Above all,
it is absolutely necessary to careful planning and thinking, with precision
and detail, in terms that make sense and is emphatically clear to everyone.
A clear, written vision, goals and objectives, and scope of practice documents
create a more tightly focused organization that is responsive to its members.
Understanding the vision, in particular, helps to ensure that everyone
involved is working to achieve the same goals. My life, and I believe
others too, have become for evermore centered around the ASEP Vision (or
otherwise, the ASEP Perspective). That is, (1) to be recognized as
the leading professional organization of American scholars and practitioners
in the study and application of exercise physiology to fitness, health
promotion, rehabilitation, and sports training; (2) dedicated to unifying
all exercise physiologists in the United States and worldwide to promote
and support the study, practice, teaching, research, and development of
the exercise physiology profession; and (3) through proactive and creative
leadership, empower its members to serve the public good by making an academically
sound difference in the application of exercise physiology concepts and
insights.
Copyright
©1997-2000 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights
Reserved.
ASEP
Table of Contents
Questions/comments