A Portrait of the ASEP Organization
as a Positive Force for Change and Professional Accountability
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MA, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
“Reasonable people can have reasonable
differences of opinion, so long as nothing really important is at stake.”
– Ashleigh Brilliant [1]
It would be difficult to imagine any other
time in the history of exercise physiology when non-doctorate exercise
physiologists are in charge of the profession. The founding of the
American Society of Exercise Physiologists (ASEP) has not just set
the stage for change, but has completely reframed exercise physiology.
The United States is the background for these changes that will no doubt
in time spread worldwide.
Created first in the minds of individuals
in Minnesota and New Mexico, the enormous hope of something better is now
a reality among exercise physiologists everywhere. They see the opportunities
of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession. Understanding
this difference is critical to their beliefs. They no longer see
themselves as experts in just sharing information to jump higher, run faster,
and lift more weight. However important each of the three is to succeed
in athletics, exercise physiology is more!
One of the better examples of the effort
of the ASEP leadership is the understanding of diversification of career
opportunities. Exercise physiologists are no longer required to think
that the only important job is in cardiac rehabilitation. However
important working with post-myocardial infarction patients is for obvious
reasons, simply stated, ASEP exercise physiologists have created new thinking,
new opportunities, and a first-ever standards of professional practice
spurred by healthcare costs and the aging population (among numerous other
factors) to benefit society.
In other words, the ASEP exercise physiologist
is a product of exercise physiology research, the desire to help others,
and of course the necessity to be financially responsible. This 21st
century understanding has created unfortunate backlashes among colleagues
who are not flushed out from their jobs because everything is fine.
These issues are likely to become less of a concern with the passing of
time.
Just as efforts to professionalize physical
therapy or nursing have allowed members of both organizations to do well
in the public sector, it is also important that exercise physiologists
step up to the professional, political plate. It is a requirement
for professional development, if not strength of character. No longer
can members of a discipline simply sit back unless they confine themselves
to something less than they could be. Most of the exercise physiologists
I speak with understand the wasted time and resources of many outdated
certifications.
Despite at least five decades of work in
the certification area, sports medicine is still not exercise physiology.
It has produced vast amounts of interesting if not a worldwide notion that
exercise physiology is housed within sports medicine. This may have
been true at one time. It is not true today. In fact, title
"sports medicine" is pretty much what the title "exercise science" is understood
to be; both are not exercise physiology.
The effects of ASEP range from such developments
as vision and mission statements, goals and objectives, code of ethics,
accreditation, board certification, and standards of professional practice.
There is no going back. The vision, if not the idea itself, has changed
us. There is no going back even though it is obvious that the transformation
is not complete. And, yet it has essentially replaced yesterday’s
thinking with a soon-to-be global understanding of exercise physiology
in the United States as a healthcare profession. This does not mean,
however, that exercise physiologists are not interested in athletics.
The decades of specialized research in sports training defines the exercise
physiologist as do a variety of other types of exercise physiology research.
The ASEP organization is causing all of
this to come to a new reality. There is no other explanation or reason
to think differently. It is clear that the only change agent in exercise
physiology is ASEP. It is also becoming increasingly clear to others
as they evaluate their position and the consequence of their thinking.
No one wants to sacrifice years of hard work and a sense of a guaranteed
future and, yet that is what they will do if they should stay the original
course.
Until exercise physiologists realize that
their thinking has been intentionally influenced to evolve in only one
direction, that is, the sports medicine view of exercise science, they
will remain at the technician level of thinking. The pertinent question
here is: “Why haven’t exercise physiologists promoted themselves through
their own thinking?” Why have they endured yesterday's thinking
at their own personal and professional expense? Why have they avoided
developing their own momentum for change?
These questions and dozens like them persist
but not without answers. The ASEP exercise physiologists understand
the lack of change in the poverty of the academic setting. They have
figured out how to give back to their students and dispose of all the wasted
time and effort. Simply put, in the world of the American Society
of Exercise Physiologists, members go about their work, as any member
of an evolving profession would typically do.
This is how organizations evolve, how they
grow, and the work that is understood to distance themselves from yesterday’s
patchwork in academic degrees. It is intensive, although not necessarily
committee-intensive. The work of many is mirrored in the work of
single individuals or the input of three or four members dedicated to doing
something rare and different.
Even today, after thinking back on the
founding of ASEP, it is so less troubling to fix one’s mind on career possibilities.
Redundancy is no longer the guiding light. Discussions having to
do with creating a certification for only one market area are no longer
appropriate. It is a breath of fresh air that we now understand our
potential. And, we also know that our everlasting influence on yet
untapped career opportunities awaits us as we evolve into the professionals
we believe we are.
Does this mean that ASEP exercise physiologists
do not want to work with exercise physiologists from other organizations?
No. Does it mean that ASEP exercise physiologists do not want to
share in the development of exercise physiology with other exercise physiologists?
Of course not. But the idea that exercise physiology can be defined
or driven by non-exercise physiologists is no longer a free-market for
all.
Everybody knows that athletic trainers
control athletic training. The reason different professional organizations
exist is to respond to the needs of the respective members. One of
the goals of the ASEP organization is to help exercise physiologists focus
on the connection between professionalism and a self-sustaining link to
healthcare. Here, no sensible person can fail to be astonished by
work of the ASEP organization on behalf of all exercise physiologists.
The obvious fact that the ASEP leadership
has done everything possible in a very short period of time to professionalize
exercise physiology has its elements of strength. When occasion should
arise, one would expect the membership to acknowledge the labor and interests
on behalf of waging something new and better for all exercise physiologists.
There is a question, of course, whether
students will in fact get the message that exercise physiology is not sports
medicine. The possibility of rational discussion in undergraduate
classes is not high and, yet it can hardly be denied. Very probably
the differences between the two organizations will be mitigated by time.
At least this is a likely and interesting speculation. All one can
say of the obvious conditions is that truth prevails, and there is enough
truth in the ASEP’s right to exist to turn the scales.
So long as this understanding exists, despite
differences otherwise, increasingly, individuals who have been entrenched
in the actions of yesterday’s thinking are likely to be impressed by the
effectiveness of the ASEP exercise physiologist to stand his ground.
In practice, this is exactly the exceptional effort of other professionals
who stood the test of time. And, yet compared to physical therapy
and nursing, exercise physiologists have a long way to go to realize their
career opportunities.
ASEP is without a doubt the door to freedom.
It is first step to economical productivity. To argue otherwise can
only mean a failure to understand the vision of the ASEP organization.
Also, to not understand that time heals imperfections is to deny the right
of new organizations to grow, to learn, and to do what is necessary to
strengthen exercise physiology. Only the unobserving would fail to
appreciate this point.
To be sure, anyone who has his eye on the
shaping of exercise physiology by ASEP in recent years understands that
the organization is custom-made for exercise physiologists at all levels.
I find it hard to believe otherwise, except among those who enjoy exercising
their rights in the form of griping and “putting down the ASEP leadership”.
This habit of a deconstructive use of freedom is all too obvious an exercise
in futility. For certain it does not invalidate the work of the ASEP
leadership.
The market power of the concentrated ASEP
effort is huge. To know that ASEP is working for “you” to unlock
doors of opportunities is big. All anyone should have to do is weigh
the changes that are evident under the ASEP leadership against decades
of disregard by sports medicine. The answer is easy since the problem
is obvious. The ASEP wisdom is revealing the truth and no less.
Sometimes the truth is too much for some to deal with.
They dislike learning that others have
figured them out. And, at the same time, they want to remain in control.
The trend of the last 50 years of sports medicine and one hundred years
of nursing has gone in one direction. Sports medicine is beyond questioning
what it does if it thinks it is important for its survival. Such
thinking is risky, if not unethical. History has often been unkind
to organizational leaders who fail to place their members above the organization.
Those who take the time to look at the
present trends from the ASEP viewpoint will see the bigger picture.
There isn’t the need for a magic formula to uphold the ASEP perspective.
What the leaders have done and continue to do is itemize specific changes
important to exercise physiology and the professional socialization of
exercise physiologists. It is not about the “survival of the fittest”
per se. Rather, this thinking is a calculated response to
control for the successive deterioration in exercise physiology.
Under the rule of sport medicine specialist,
the internal conflicts among exercise physiologists and others, and the
apathy that is obvious with the academic gatekeepers, the yardstick for
change is ASEP. There is little evidence, truths, or symbols of credible
service to state differently. This leaves us with the hard work of
the ASEP leadership upon which we rely to produce a viable and credible
professional future. There is no use pretending that is not important
to the hierarchy of jobs.
Lack of an accredited education keeps individuals
from becoming professionals. It also influences their financial income
and credibility. Will the ASEP effort pay off, in income, satisfaction,
and credibility? You bet! As a founding member, I have come
to realize that when the cause is right there are individuals who are increasingly
willing to pay the price to attain their goals. Professionalism is
one of those causes.
References
1. Banner, D.K. and Gagne, T.E.
(1995). Designing Effective Organizations: Traditional and Transformational
Views. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., p. 396
