Exercise
Physiology Power: Professionalism
Tommy Boone, PhD,
MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise
Physiolgoy
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN
What do you see when
you look at someone dancing, moving, and speaking about health, fitness,
and exercise without missing a beat? I’m not sure what you think
of the aerobic dancer who moves and talks without breathing hard, but I
have always felt that it isn’t easy to do. Have you tried to talk
while jogging? Most of us realize that our voice goes up and down.
At times what comes out of our mouths doesn’t even sound right. We
are either too loud or too choppy, and some words never make it at all.
Often, when I bring up the topic
of aerobic dance in my classes, my comments are mis-understood. Some
students, I fear, believe my reason for living is to make fun of the instructors.
Far from it, my life is much too complicated to find the time to focus
on just one thing. But, just in case, please understand that I am
not interested in running down aerobic dance or stair stepping or the instructors
of either. Both forms of exercise appear to be a mixture of fun and
some hard work. However, to my knowledge, neither requires an academic
degree in exercise physiology nor do most exercise physiologists go to
college so that they can become aerobic dance or stair stepping instructors.
Several days ago, I stopped to watch
a class of about 10 students who were stair stepping, dancing, and “getting
with the program”. The owner of the facility stood smiling, if not
puzzled, and surprised as he watched me stop in my tracks to look at the
teacher and the students. I had seen other classes before, but for
some reason this one really got my attention. It was not until a
few minutes into the dancing and moving that the owner approached me.
His posture was interesting. Smiling, as he glanced towards me to
get my attention, I could see that he was interested in what I thought
of the class. After all, as an exercise physiologist, I am supposed
to know something about fitness and exercise.
I should have known the right thing
to say to the owner, but other thoughts and words seemed to justify themselves.
I walked to my car reflecting on what I had said when he commented that
the instructor was a certified exercise physiologist. He was surprised
when I responded, “It looks to be a fun class. But, I don’t think
your instructor in an exercise physiologist, and I know for certain that
she isn’t certified as an exercise physiologist.” From our brief
conversation, it was apparent the owner didn’t know that the instructor
had just recently graduated from college as a biology major. Since
she attended the college where I work, I knew her and had talked with her
several times about the exercise physiology major. Apparently, it
didn’t occur to the owner that he should ask about Liana’s education.
The single most important factor that resulted in the hiring of Liana was
that she looked the part, knew how to teach aerobic dance, and that she
had recently been certified as a Health and Fitness Instructor.
As you might realize, I should have
known to drop it and move on. There are times when nothing else is
possible but placing your foot (or both) in your mouth. My explanation
that the instructor was not an exercise physiologist, regardless of the
certification, didn’t sit well with the owner. As it turned out,
the owner wanted an explanation. It was his way of affirming that
his business was “the” fitness facility in the city. He considered
his instructors the best in the city. He had also paid for several
similar certifications of other instructors in the facility. In other
words, given his investment in the costs of the various certifications,
he wanted to know why the health and fitness certification did not define
the instructor as an exercise physiologist. He knew of other fitness
facilities with exercise physiologists, and he wanted his instructors to
be exercise physiologists. It was odd to discover that he had no
idea that exercise physiology is an academic major, and that the path for
being recognized as an exercise physiologist is through a college education.
Given the diversity of kinesiology,
human performance, exercise science, and other forms of exercise physiology
programs of study, it is easy to see why the owner was confused. Frankly,
I thought that his instructors were excellent. No one said that a
person had to have an academic degree in exercise physiology to teach aerobic
dance, stair stepping, or any of the other popular forms of exercise.
Most of us know of excellent coaches and instructors who didn’t play the
sport, but nonetheless are excellent at teaching it. To push the
point further, all of us have heard of men and women who have practiced
medicine without being a medical doctor. Others have practiced law
without a law degree. No doubt some may even be better than a few
with the actual degrees. Whether that is the case isn’t the point,
however. What is important is that most great instructors have played
the sport before coaching it, and that it isn’t uncommon to expect the
medical doctor to have attended medical school. The same thinking
applies to the exercise physiologist even though the instructor may very
well be a professional at what she is doing. It is possible that
she is equal in her understanding of fitness and exercise to anyone with
a college degree in exercise physiology. It is also possible that
she isn’t, and that the value of a college education should (and does)
define the professional from the non-professional.
Following my brief conversation with
the owner, it was clear that he believed the instructor’s certification
was all she needed to be an exercise physiologist. After all, as
I learned from him, exercise physiology is really the same thing as physical
education. And, since physical educators are instructors of health
and fitness programs, the health and fitness certification is a logical
thing to do. Interestingly, instead of considering that the instructor
had been certified as a physical educator, the owner preferred the title
exercise physiology. Whether the instructor understood the academic
difference between the two, I don’t know. Whether he cared that a
difference existed, I don’t know. My impression is that it is easier
to believe something that isn’t true if it serves to benefit our thinking
and value system. We can find the unfolding of this type of thinking
in all walks of life.
So, “What do you see when you look
at an instructor leading virtually any type of exercise?” In short,
the answer is usually someone other than an exercise physiologist.
This is true even if the instructor has an academic major in exercise science,
and is especially true if the academic degree is in kinesiology or one
of a dozen other department names. The substance of these degree
programs isn’t in question. Rather, it is the difference between
what is a library and books in my office. Both represent a collection
of books. Only one is a library, and it is not my office. Is
it possible that what the “weekend warrior” certifications do for us is
to confuse us and to mislead us into thinking that a certification is the
same as a college education? Both require thinking and hard work,
but both are not the same. Only one is a college education, and it
is not the certification.
I used to believe that everyone understood
the differences between a college graduate and a person with technical
skills. I also had the impression that the PhD academic exercise
physiologists had all the answers. However, after three plus decades
in the field, I realize my perspective is wrong. They don't understand.
In many instances, a certification is believed to be just as good as a
college education, and I suspect that some sports medicine professionals
believe the certification is more important the education! At times,
it appears that many of the academic exercise physiologists haven’t begun
asking the right questions much less looking for solutions to the sport
medicine myth. Behind the obvious interest in health and fitness
in college classes, students have been left to their own when challenged
to think about the extraordinary lack of discussion of professionalism,
certification, licensure, and accreditation. This non-committed side
of the professors to talk about the glaring absence of professional development
in exercise physiology is remarkably hard to understand, given the obvious
circumstances before our students at graduation.
Just yesterday, I felt the same frustration
when talking about job possibilities with one of my graduate students.
I imagined that he would finish his internship and locate a job fairly
fast. Many of my students have done just that, and it helps to put
closure on the entire academic process. For whatever reason, his
job prospects didn’t look good. As we know, it may take a year or
more before a student lands that first job and even then it may not last
long. Now that I am responsible for an academic department of students
and faculty, it is much more important to me that my students find good
paying jobs. I think it should also be important for all chairs and
the faculty.
However, it very likely, regardless
of whether we like it or not, that we have not done a good job of connecting
what we do with the public sector. No wonder the owner of the fitness
facility was engulfed in an unaltered belief that has no reality.
It is as if our communication with students occurs only at the graduate
level (if at all), and we appear to have no communication whatsoever with
the public sector. All of us have heard a professor say, “When you
graduate with the master’s degree, you must get the PhD if you want a real
job.” Occasionally, I have been compelled to say the very same thing.
I’m trying to learn from my mistakes. Part of the reason for the
statement is directly related to the “non-analyzed and, at times, hidden
mess of academic offerings” at the undergraduate level and, frankly, the
graduate curriculum across the board isn’t all that great either.
Since the exercise science (or kinesiology)
program of study for most departments is typically the non-teacher physical
education track, most faculty members don’t expect their students to locate
meaningful employment. This is the crux of the problem. Being
in rhythm with the oneness of physical education, the same faculty is likely
to not say much at all about exercise physiology. They may refer
to their particular academic program as exercise science, but they weren’t
born yesterday and, unfortunately, the victims are not those who teach
in the program. The victims are the students. They are taught
by exercise physiologists who often times, either directly or indirectly,
encourage the students to think that they will be exercise physiologists
at graduation. But, a professional title is the same as building
a castle on the beach. It may sound good or look good on paper or
in theory, but it has little respect by castle builders with a solid foundation
of academic course work.
I believe the gap between our programmatic
reality and the students’ academic perception can be narrowed, but only
if our classrooms are filled with the right-thinking professors.
The art of seeing isn’t easy, especially when reality is defined by a narrow
vision. The right vision, one that embraces all exercise physiologists,
is essentially hidden from the academic exercise physiologist because it
requires a way of thinking that is based on trust and critical reflection.
Commanded by ethics and philosophy, most members of other professions (such
as law and medicine) have come to terms with this point and, thus are contented
with the continued study and pursuit of professionalism.
Exercise physiology, on the other
hand, is a collective experience of failure to act in accordance with what
is right for exercise physiology. Its members have been guided far
too long by the sports medicine myth that has allowed for little growth
along these lines. Put simply, we have been more concerned with ourselves
than with the steps towards professionalism. Inspired by the unchanging
consciousness of our traditional thinking, today’s definition of an exercise
physiologist is a mirror image of yesterday’s ambition.
All this is a simple way of saying
that the understanding of who is an exercise physiologist is guided by
a view that isn’t well thought out.
For example, some believe that if
a person looks the part of being physical fit, that person must be an exercise
physiologist. Even more so, if the person is a runner, then he/she
must be an exercise physiologist. At one point, I believed if you
were not continually preaching about the negative effects of cholesterol
or passive smoke, then you couldn’t be an exercise physiologist.
Of course, most of us know that the important thing is to look good.
It doesn’t matter if you have an academic degree in exercise physiology
or a few courses in kinesiology. The public doesn’t know the difference,
and the professors aren’t telling anyone. Anyone can say that he
or she is an exercise physiologist. There are no regulatory controls
so the barn door is wide open. If there is an impulse within you,
which urges you on, then do as you please. Call yourself what you
wish! Who will know the truth if the employers do not carry out a thorough
job of checking credentials and letters of recommendation? No one
will know except you, and that is in itself a problem. The past decades
have been characterized by an increasing number of individuals with less
than an accurate set of credentials.
The secret of doing the right thing
is just that, doing it. But, first, we must learn how to explore
our inner feelings to think right. For what reason do we exist as
part of an emerging profession, and why haven’t we made the academic distinction
that is necessary between kinesiology (or exercise science) and exercise
physiology? Why do we continue to offer a concentration in exercise
science as if it is an academic major in exercise physiology? Is
it as simple as society’s view that, as descendants of physical education,
we don’t have the intellectual ability to define who we are and what we
do? Or, is our silence and failure to update our academic thinking
a function of our emphasis on doing research and/or trying to believe we
are “physiologists”? Is it our lack of a thoughtful caring or a way
of thinking that is necessary to doing the right thing? Challenged
by these questions and more, many of us are left with a feeling of whether
we will ever get our act together. Strange as it may sound, it seems
as though the idea of something different simply hasn’t occurred to most
academic exercise physiologists. That is, they appear disinterested
or unable to dream something different for fear of their stature being
diminished.
All professions, including the emerging
profession of exercise physiology, understand the importance of both the
dream and the concept of professionalism. Hence, it is hard to understand
why there has been so little published about our collective spirit to drive
us to build a link between exercise physiology and society. The role
of society is acknowledge or to recognize the professional qualities of
an emerging profession. Professional knowledge and expertise are
at the core of the “emerging” process. How exercise physiologists
develop their knowledge and professional expertise are important, as well
as by whom it is deployed and for what reasons. These are distinctively
important issues that demand answers, thus allowing for self-regulation
and self-policing. But, what is missing in exercise physiology is
the simple fact that no one has forced us to take inventory of the kind
of world we have created for ourselves much less the world we may wish
to live in. So, you can see that I’m intrigued by the notion of “what
is” and “why it must remain so” especially when we have so much potential
for positive and rewarding service in the public sector. I am also
frustrated when I wonder why we haven’t taken inventory of our less than
challenging stride along side other obvious competitors. If we don’t
start soon doing some serious reflection on our history and thinking about
our future, I believe in time, the meaning of what we are meant to be will
pass in much the same way the spirit leaves a dying body. Please
don’t tell me this isn’t possible. I’ve been a college professor
far too long not to understand some of what I’m writing about. I’ve
seen academic programs, some with a history of licensure and accreditation,
dropped from the list of offerings by different colleges.
Nothing is forever, and it isn’t
very consoling for me to be defined as a fitness instructor. I am
more, and I have invested a good part of me to discover the possibilities
within me and the mis-understood treasures within our emerging profession.
I am now in a straight line with anyone to register my thoughts and to
offer my perception of our ability to create the future we need to separate
ourselves from other occupations. Emotionally liberated from the
almost moral understanding of the exercise physiologist’s contract with
sports medicine, it is easy for me to think about exercise physiology from
a new view; one that is not trapped by tradition. Perhaps, in time,
more exercise physiologists will move towards the day when they will demonstrate
that they want control over their body of knowledge and its application
in the public sector. Who knows, maybe it is just around the corner
that they, too, will come to understand that professionalism gives reality
to our social involvement in the public sector. Maybe, next year
or the year after, several seriously important exercise physiologists will
stand up to their colleagues and department heads and express a trust in
ASEP. Just maybe, we can hear them say, “It is time that our department
name is changed from exercise science to exercise physiology because we
are exercise physiologists. We teach exercise physiology not exercise
science. And, the bottom line is that we owe it to our students and
their parents that what we teach is consistent with the academic major.”
So, what do you see when you look
at a fitness instructor, a personal trainer, or an aerobics instructor?
You may see an exercise physiologist but, if so, how would you know?
My answer is rather simple. If the fitness instructor has an academic
major in biology (with or without a certification) or a major in kinesiology
with an academic concentration in exercise science, the instructor is not
an exercise physiologist. On the other hand, if the instructor has
an academic degree in exercise physiology, then he/she is an exercise physiologist.
I just never expected an exercise physiologist to be anything else but
someone who is an academically prepared professional. Contemporary
scholars of professionalization have always understood this point, which
brings me to a problem that shouldn’t exist. That problem is the
same problem anyone would admit to when calling an orange and apple.
Both are round and both taste good, and both are very different from each
other. The problem is that the exercise science student is called
an exercise physiologist at graduation. Both are related and both
have a future in health and fitness, and both are excellent areas of study.
But exercise science is not exercise physiology and an orange is not an
apple. A person may jokingly refer to an orange as an apple and get
a laugh. Referring to exercise science, as exercise physiology isn’t
a joke. Instead, it is a problem and it isn’t funny either.
Nowhere in the literature have I
been able to find a similar problem, although I’m sure the problem must
exist with other emerging professions. Physical therapy doesn’t have
the problem. Occupation therapy doesn’t have the problem, and nursing
doesn’t either. All three have an academic major that defines three
professional titles. They don’t have the problem that exercise physiologists
have because they identified and agreed upon an academic major consistent
with their professional title. Conversely, without having a strategic
side of professionalism, exercise physiologists dropped the ball decades
ago. By failing to develop an undergraduate academic major, any academic
offering or program that looks like exercise physiology or desires to be
exercise physiology can (and often times does) call itself exercise physiology.
Worst yet, the students from these programs often refer to themselves as
exercise physiologists.
If department chairs aren’t going
to make the necessary changes towards becoming an exercise physiology profession,
then it will remain exercise science. Similarly, if the exercise
physiology faculty isn’t going to fight for professional changes within
the department, exercise science or one of the other dozen names will remain
the unfortunate offspring of physical education. If this is the case,
there will be no profession of exercise physiology in the United States.
There will be pockets of academically prepared exercise physiologists,
mostly from private institutions, who will have to continue the evolution
of the professional process by themselves. The changes will be much
slow in coming, and the claims for superior knowledge in health, fitness,
athletics, and rehabilitation will be challenged by a variety of members
from other occupations. Meantime, there will become a recognizable
problem for exercise physiologists in demonstrating a measure of control
over the market for their services.
Not until exercise physiologists
decide to make the necessary changes in both the curriculum and the professional
title will they gain the respect of others. Why it is so hard for
them to do so is an interesting question. It is clear that health
educators have separated themselves from physical education years ago.
Sure, there are some combinations of health with other programs but, in
general, health education can be found as a separate department in many
colleges and universities. There are also well-recognized departments
of management, departments of sports psychology, departments of coaching,
and so forth. In every instance, the reason for the existence of
these departments was not to get away from the tradition or history of
the other departments but to set the circumstances so that each could grow
into its own. This view is consistent with the study of professionalism,
and the exchange of a lesser responsibility to society for a higher standard
of competence and moral responsibility.
At this point, it is important to
emphasize that I’m not suggesting that all exercise physiology majors (i.e.,
the few that exist) have resulted from a fragmentation of “what was” (such
as the traditional view that everything began with the title “physical
education”). Clearly, there are exercise physiology programs where
physical education never existed, and this is similar to the development
of management programs where physical education did not exist either.
I’m not sure that it is even correct to think of the development of exercise
physiology as an absolute outcome of academic specialization anymore.
If the view is correct, so be it. The facts remain that the development
of exercise physiology is a good thing, having its origin from research
and the thinking of important men and women who are recognized scholars
in the field.
But, rather than pushing the idea
of exercise physiology to its fullest extent possible, especially as a
profession versus a discipline or a sub-discipline or specialization, it
has been left hanging. Even with a considerable degree of autonomy,
the academic exercise physiologists have essentially turned their heads
from the undergraduate curriculum. Hence, I am not impressed by what
I have read about the undergraduate work in the field of kinesiology, exercise
and sport science, exercise science, human performance, and so on.
The undergraduate courses are based on a curriculum that is decades old
with very little reason for anyone to define it as challenging. To
my mind, if the directors and faculty can’t update their program, both
in title and curriculum, it is just a matter of time before a university
administrator will inform the chair of an exercise science or kinesiology
department that a disclaimer should be attached to the “application for
major” or even the “diploma” stating: “I have just graduated from
a university with a degree in kinesiology. I am not an exercise physiologist.
I am a kinesiologist by title or, perhaps, you can think of me as an exercise
professional.”
If the disclaimer is not put into
place, then, it is my belief that the department chairs can be held accountable
for putting the department’s welfare above that of the students.
This can be interpreted as a direct result of the department encouraging
students to become majors to increase the number of majors for obvious
reasons, and yet the students aren’t properly informed about the academic
major and its implications relative to the market place and exercise physiology.
If the department that offers an academic degree in human performance,
as an example, and offers as well a concentration in exercise science,
the department should be discouraged from doing so. This view is
also consistent with a department that offers a degree in kinesiology or
exercise and sport science. Concentrations, specializations, and
emphasis tracks are essentially meaningless whether at the undergraduate
level or at the doctorate level. Students are seldom placed a position
to benefit from the few courses that make up the concentration and, after
all, it is clear that a concentration does not lead to a professional title.
To comprehend the enormity of the
problem, the reader is encouraged to look at the ASEP web site and click
on the academic programs that have been identified. The URL for each
department has been linked for a quick reference to the department name,
the mission statement, academic degrees, curricula, faculty, and concentration
tracks. The web site was designed to: (1) help ASEP members and others
locate the best school of choice in their location; and (2) identify the
exercise physiology academic programs throughout the United States.
In spite of what we may think, our well-intentioned PhD exercise physiology
faculty, who are mostly impressed with teaching doctorate level courses,
has not been a major force in developing the academic side of exercise
physiology. There has been essentially no articulated transformation
of the profession by doctorate prepared exercise physiologists. On
the hand, for several decades, there appears to have been a window of opportunity
within the sports medicine model where several significant ideas by exercise
physiologists have been embraced by medical and sport medicine authorities.
However, neither this relationship has not created separate departments
of exercise physiology nor redefined exercise physiology throughout the
marketplace. The focus has been on sports medicine, research, and
the development of sports medicine certifications.
Interestingly, while the association
of exercise physiologists with sports medicine, even from its beginning
in the early 1950s, was suppose to produce a major effort to organize the
specialty of exercise physiology, the input of the exercise physiologists
served only to develop sports medicine. The association has only
indirectly developed exercise physiology within academia, and that development,
as been more along the lines of doctorate work. Within the context
of other academic degrees, the association with sports medicine has been
essentially meaningless. Sports medicine has done nothing across
50 years to encourage the academic development of exercise physiology at
the undergraduate level. Stated somewhat differently, specific exercise
physiologists within sports medicine have done nothing to promote undergraduate
exercise physiology either by curricula development or by title.
As time has past, the determination of sport medicine officials has been
to bring sports medicine to the forefront of health, fitness, athletics,
and rehabilitation. Only once in the history of the organization
did several physical education/exercise physiologists even try to bring
about changes within the evolving field of exercise physiology. They
were met head on with major criticism from within sports medicine itself.
You would think that the authors
of various “Exercise Physiology” texts would be interested in the undergraduate
curriculum and its educational purpose. However, the textbook authors
have not demonstrated an interest in scrutinizing the curriculum to help
make it better. I am aware of only one popular author who actually
proposed that exercise nutrition ought to be organized from within its
own separate department. The same author doesn’t seem to have the
same interest or beliefs about exercise physiology, although his popular
text has the title exercise physiology. It is time that the specializations
of the 1980s, such as exercise physiology, biomechanics, motor development,
sport psychology, sport management, and others make the dramatic transformation
to separate departments. There isn’t any question that the study
of biomechanics, for example, is challenging and worthy of its own curriculum,
professional title, and national certification. Each area has a central
role in understanding the multi-complexity of the athlete and life-style
management that has its roots in separate areas of scholarly inquiry.
Imagine the problem before other
professions had they not developed into individually distinct areas of
scholarly
inquiry that, in time, developed into separate professions. Had this
not occurred, members of any one profession would be overwhelmed with trying
to keep abreast with the latest ideas and implementations of one comprehensive
profession. They would be continually frustrated as many of the academic
exercise physiologists are when predisposed to teaching a variety of science-related
courses within the physical education department. The underlying
idea is that we aren’t able to learn everything, and we are better off
if we concentrate on the important aspects of exercise physiology.
Having said this though, we must be more than technical experts in oxygen
consumption and percent body fat.
The whole point and purpose of professionalism
is to realize our true potential for public good, which begs the question:
“Do exercise physiologists understand that to have public legitimacy, they
must understand the full range of their autonomy as academically prepared
professionals in meeting the needs of the public sector?” If they
don’t understand the goods and services to meet the needs of every citizen,
then no wonder the public sector is confused. Why should they be
able to recognize an exercise physiologist from a fitness instructor with
a weekend certification? We from within the field have not come to
terms with these issues. There is no reason for the owner of the
fitness facility to know more about us than we do. And, since we
appear to collectively know very little or, at least, it is fair to say
that we aren’t interested in studying the future of the profession, then
the notion of yesterday is simply a continuation of our thinking today.
We were physical educators back then and, in the eyes of most fitness and
strength-building professionals, we are still physical educators.
What should have been a major change
from physical education departments with a concentration in exercise physiology
to departments of exercise physiology has instead been non-existent.
Occasionally, there has been some debate about the need for the change.
But, here again, there has been no serious action taken. Part of
the reason appears to be directly related to lack of questions about the
assumptions of what departments have been doing for decades. In many
ways, it is this lack of the logical expectation to expand not only our
professional body of knowledge but to not have done so within the walls
of our own department that has quantitative defined our lack of leadership
at the PhD level. Unfortunately, neither our exercise physiology
textbooks nor our research seems to be able to address this point.
The implication is that exercise physiologists aren’t concerned with the
professional development of exercise physiology, as well as with the quality
of its pedagogical foundation.
Pedagogy has not evolved within our
field. It seems certain that if we are to understand the importance
of professionalism, we must pay more attention to what we teach and how
we teach. Very likely, the major obstacle that exercise physiology
has to overcome is the attitude of the faculty towards its ability (or
inability) to surmount the necessary curriculum changes. The lesser
obstacle to surmount is society’s attitude toward exercise physiology.
If exercise physiology is to have a future, both obstacles must be subject
to change as mainstream exercise physiology demonstrates evidence of a
more positive attitude and increased awareness of collaborative thinking
to build the profession. It cannot function as a doctorate education
without good faith on part of the faculty to provide an undergraduate curriculum
that demonstrates quality and integrity. Those responsible are clearly
the academic exercise physiologists. This point could be phrased
as: “Exercise physiologists must treat exercise physiology with the same
respect and care as given to exercise physiology research.”
One huge and absolutely imperative
step towards organizing as a profession is the collective agreement on
a name. Obviously, there is little universal consensus at this time.
The term “exercise science” is very common, and is used in an umbrella
fashion. The support of the term is centered on two factors.
First, there is the rather common but mistaken notion that only the PhD
professional can be an exercise physiologist. Second, the umbrella
term is thought to enhance job opportunities across diverse settings.
The idea isn’t supported by research or commonsense. Any title adopted
by a collective body of professionals is likely to give rise to employment
in many diverse settings, provided there is agreement on a name and a focus
on the intended purpose of the curriculum. To do this, exercise physiology
must take the lead in discussions about the professional development of
its core parts.
Another step in organizing our emerging
profession, given that exercise physiologists now have their own professional
organization, official professional and research journals, code of ethics,
body of knowledge, and standards of professional practice, is the importance
of having the support of the universities in offering undergraduate and
graduate degrees in exercise physiology. However, at the present
time, all one can say is that there is questionable support. Until
many of the considerations mentioned for professional development have
been implemented, there will be continued maturation of the discipline
but relatively little serious movement towards the professional.
In other words, we need shared interested in developing the profession.
That interest must come from the exercise physiology faculty, and the interest
must be directed towards the undergraduate program (both in name and curriculum).
Exercise physiologists need to take the necessary steps within their own
professional organization and the college or university where they work
to make the future come true.
With these final thoughts in mind,
it is anticipated that the ideas in this article will be the springboard
towards realizing the future all of us want for our students and the emerging
profession of exercise physiology. We have the opportunity to establish
ourselves as respected, influential, and useful professionals within the
public sector. To take advantage of this opportunity, we must continue
our efforts: (1) to place first the students and the idea of a quality
education redefined specifically to help them fulfill their obligations
to society; (2) to help exercise physiologists understand professionalism;
and (3) to help exercise physiologists assume a greater responsibility
for their state and national associations.
Copyright
©1997-2001 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights
Reserved.
ASEP
Table of Contents
Questions/comments
