Victims of a Failed Rhetoric
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MA, FASEP,
EPC
Professor and Chair
Director, Exercise Physiology Laboratories
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
“Skeptics who question the
validity and relevance of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists
in 21st century demonstrate the failure to understand and practice the
most essential part of professionalism -- the art of persuasion.”
--Tommy Boone
Faculty members who question the relevance
of exercise physiology as defined by the American Society of Exercise
Physiologists (ASEP) are victims of a failed thinking. That thinking
is the failure to persuade other exercise physiologists to incorporate
professionalism into their view of exercise physiology. Too many
faculty members have not taken the time to understand the importance of
having their own professional organization much less their own code of
ethics and standards of practice. They are victims of a rhetoric
that is no longer valid for exercise physiology. In a nutshell,
they are not persuaded that professional development is as important as
research.
Unfortunately, the problem is multi-faceted.
There are no simple answers. What is obvious is simply this:
To continue turning a blind-eye to the question of professional development
is to continue as a victim of failed rhetoric. If the faculty is
to get past the urgency to do research without addressing the importance
of professional development, they must demonstrate the willingness to examine
and explore exercise physiology. Integrating professionalism into
the curriculum and laboratory experiences of exercise physiology is critical
to getting past the failed rhetoric of yesterday’s thinking.
Critical, indeed, because there are
too many exercise physiologists in academic settings who are byproducts
of decades of countless non-exercise physiology thinkers. They believe
that exercise physiology is entirely about the acute and chronic adaptations
to regular exercise! That is why the typical exercise science curriculum
is centered completely on the “one” exercise physiology course that describes
the acute responses to exercise and the adaptations to training.
There is no actual curriculum as such for exercise physiology, except in
very few academic institutions. Instead, what is common, that is,
what is so typical is the chasm between exercise science and exercise physiology.
The two are entirely different. One is a generic curriculum that
has no declared career in the public sector. The other is a curriculum
that demonstrates powerful signs of professional vigor and healthcare opportunities.
The curriculum of most professional
healthcare programs reinforces the learning and hands-on practice of professional
issues and concerns. With the founding of ASEP, the introduction
and discussion of “professional development” have been met by skepticism.
Exercise physiologists need to be persuaded that professionalism is an
essential part of their education just as research is an integral part
of a profession. Unfortunately, most exercise physiologists probably
believe that anyone who is doing research is automatically a member of
a profession. Of course this is untrue. Research is research.
Research itself does not constitute a profession. Yet, many exercise
physiologists really believe they are achieving professionalism by publishing
their research. In fact, it is somewhat understandable except that
they are victims of their own failure to understand the language of professionalism
and the tradition of persuasion.
Unfortunately, this is the key to
the less than a fresh view of exercise physiology and career opportunities.
Faculty think in terms of research. Students think about graduation.
Those who work in cardiac rehabilitation think only about clinical exercise
physiology. Until the founding of ASEP, there was only the notion
that exercise physiologists who do research are either “researchers” or
“physiologists” and not exercise physiologists. It is an example
of how the physical educator / exercise physiologist has always wanted
to be known by another title or, at least, that appears to be the case.
The problem is that such misplaced thinking only obscures the challenges
of professional development. It also sets the stage for failure in
developing a common language of exercise physiology.
Frankly, it is amazing that critics
of the ASEP organization just don’t get it. They continue down the
same old path of something other than exercise physiology. It is
the complexity of what constitutes exercise and its benefits that we share
in common. To study physiology, physics, pathology, cardiology, anatomy,
nutrition, psychology, and other shared knowledge from many different academic
disciplines is to begin the exciting understanding of the human body that
is the basis for exercise physiology. What we have not shared is
the burden of understanding the professionalization of exercise physiology,
just as nurses, physical therapists, medical doctors, lawyers, and members
of other professions have done for decades. It is imperative that
we create academic courses that confront the whole nature of what is a
profession, what is professionalism, and the multiple inspections and study
of exercise physiology as a healthcare profession.
The struggle to change the face of
exercise physiology from a technician oriented discipline to a healthcare
professional that is based on scientific principles is the primary goal
of the ASEP leadership. Those who question whether it is possible
or worth the effort should step aside. The question of professionalism
is too important not to attain. Indeed, when exercise physiologists
separated from sports medicine, there was no thought of turning back.
ASEP members belong to and practice a profession. Their professionalism
is demonstrated in the ASEP code of ethics, standards of practice, and
board certification and, yet there are still major difficulties.
The major obstacle to moving exercise physiology from an occupation to
a profession lies with the lack of professional unity. Exercise physiologists
must get past their history of rhetorical failures and notions that they
are exercise scientists or physiologists. Neither view is helping
the students nor the public’s perception of their work.
The American Society of Exercise
Physiologists is the key to the professional development of exercise
physiology. It is [the] professional organization of exercise physiologists.
It is the first-ever major step in defining our profession – by finding
out what constitutes a profession, and then applying what has been learned
to make it work. For example, learning about exercise physiology
as an evolving profession begins with an interest in knowing the characteristics
of a profession. Being aware of what determines a profession comes
from a sense of purpose or direction. Since the original direction
has been influenced by a failed rhetoric, many exercise physiologists have
not been motivated by ideals of professionalism. Therefore, from
their perspective, talking about professionalism is of little value if
not a waste of time. Engaging in research (not necessarily publishing
research) seems to encourage the idea that the exercise physiologist who
thinks about or does research knows everything.
“He who thinks he knows
everything often knows nothing.”
-- Peter Urs Bender
Exercise physiologists are clearly victims
of a failed rhetoric. The problems posed by the collective professional
anemia are many. They can be corrected, however. It is a matter
of learning how to find the right path; a path that begins with caring,
courage, and conviction [1]. It is also a matter of believing in
the future of exercise physiology. Exercise physiologists must not
let anyone say otherwise, regardless of talent, position, or training.
They must also take the time to study what it means to be a member of a
profession. It is [the] way to live in harmony with our core values
and principles. There are no short cuts in the development of a profession.
This may come as a shock to the academically immature or to those who are
enslaved by the emotions of past thinking. And, yet it is common
knowledge that a new way of thinking about exercise physiology cannot be
embraced until the old paradigm is let go. Likewise, until academic
exercise physiologists get rid of unwarranted assumptions about ASEP, they
cannot expect to bring about change as fast as otherwise is possible.
Exercise physiology is a healthcare
profession. It is also a vision built on a solid academic foundation,
not a frustrated lab technician view of possibilities. And, to be
absolutely honest, the passion for change is exactly what separates ASEP
from other organizations. There is nothing vague or lacking in vitality
about the ASEP code of ethics or the standards of practice. It takes
very little time to understand the intent of who is in charge, what is
the message, and when and how it will be applied. Others might think
otherwise, but it is absolutely imperative for the public sector to understand
that a credible education is important to practice healthcare. Accountability
is important. Commitment to a caring relationship with clients is
important. The ASEP leadership understands this view.
“If your heart is in it,
the work is an act of love.” -- Tommy Boone
References
1. Boone, T. (2004). The “3-Cs”
of Leadership: Courage, Caring, and Commitment. Professionalization
of Exercise Physiologyonline. 7:5 [Online].
http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/3CsOfLeadership.html