PEPonline
Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline

An international electronic
journal for exercise physiologists
ISSN 1099-5862

Vol 5 No 7 July 2002

 



Professional Behavior in the Academic Ranks of Exercise Physiology
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MA, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiology
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811

“In any business, the toughest things to succeed at, with the highest failure rates, are the newer things, the less certain thing.  It should be a very high priority to put the best darn senior relevant person you have full-time on a new product in order to make that acron become an oak tree.”  -- Josh Weston
FOR SEVEREAL YEARS, I’ve written about professionalism.  Today, I write about “professional behavior”.  Why aren’t exercise physiologists talking about professionalism?  Is it acceptable to avoid the discussion?  How can we know if our behavior is professional?  These are important questions that need answers.  Here, I’m reminded of what Russel Crow said in the movie, Gladiator: “What we do in life echoes in eternity.”  If this is true, then we must be sure that our words echo what we wish to be heard years from now if not forever! 

Professional behavior does not appear to be a topic of concern among academic exercise physiologists.  With emerging professions, this is not uncommon.  However, it is a problem, especially when an emerging profession appears resistant to planning for its own behavior.  Many members of different professions have not only discussed and measured their professionalism, but they understand their work is always ongoing.  They understand conflicts among different professions, and they realize the need to investigate and resolve issues in accordance with acceptable professional behavior.  Without assessment and without the right behavior, becoming and being a professional much less a profession are in question.

Indeed, who will promote professionalism when no one is discussing professional behavior?  This is an important question.  The appropriateness of how academic exercise physiologists should consider the emerging profession needs critical evaluation and analysis.  College teachers who call themselves exercise physiologists can not avoid getting involved in the Society of exercise physiologists.  By default if not for any other reason, they must examine their thinking and assess how it bears on current initiatives in the ASEP organization.  The success of exercise physiology professionalism sits with the practitioners in the academic institutions.  They are the backbone of every young person who searches for altruism and duty in the care of others.

Many students have come to believe that exercise physiology is a profession.  They approach the undergraduate education, as they should, with the expectation that a body of knowledge is defined by exercise physiology research.  They also believe that the knowledge has been put into service for the good of others [1].  Many have come to understand that the point of exercise physiology is not fitness at the local gym, however important.  It is not even about running faster or jumping higher, both are also important.  Rather, exercise physiology, like any profession, is about serving the social interests of the public sector.  The literature is replete with how exercise physiologists, through their specialized publications, can help with health, fitness, athletic, and rehabilitation issues.

Today, it is irresponsible to look upon the concepts of profession and professionalism as topics less than worthy of our thinking and/or research.  It simply is no longer logical to do so even among those who dislike the ASEP leadership.  Professional respect and integrity are important, if not more so, than the emphasis placed on research.  Honesty and responsibility for communicating the academic program accurately to the students are more important than self-improvement and responsibility towards promotion and tenure.  This is the essence of altruism where professionals define their behavior on behalf of their responsibility for others.

Members of the three Boards of ASEP, such as the American Society of Exercise Physiologists [2], the Certification of Exercise Physiologists [3], and the Accreditation Board of Exercise Physiologists [4], have come to an understanding of professionalism, and they agree on the criteria and elements that compose it.  Respect for others is absolutely critical.  This also pertains to students as well as the public sector.  Integrity is especially important as it defines the fundamental foundation of the highest standards of practice and professional code of ethics.  Accountability is the essence of what college teaching is about.  When teachers fail to live up to their commitment to get past traditional views on behalf of their students, they fail as teachers.

Self-regulation outside of the influence of sports medicine is a professional and organizational responsibility.  To emerge as a profession, we must get beyond our individual differences and interpretations of what is exercise physiology.  There are simply too many challenges to our field of work.  Too many personal trainers with weekend warrior certifications think they are the professionals.  They fail to understand the abuse of their lack of scientific knowledge and application.  Conflict in this regard will be with us for years to come.  Hence, it is imperative that the college teachers get past their destructive arrogance.  Not supporting ASEP is the same as jumping ship in favor of enabling the evolving needs of another organization.

It is time to communicate with students and faculty that professional behavior is important.  Altruism, compassion, integrity, and ethical behavior are elements of professional behavior.  Exercise physiologists are no different than other professionals.  They are responsible for guiding the growth and distinct dimensions of professionalism.  If they fail to carry out their responsibility on behalf of their students and the emerging profession, then the abdication of their responsibility predicts unprofessional behavior.  The significance of this point can not be overlooked.  Self-involvement and assessment are critical components of professionalism. 

How much continued lack of commitment to the ASEP effort is too much?  Is it okay to overlook the obvious lapses of behavior on behalf of status quo?  Do college teachers recognize their behaviors as helping exercise physiology and, if so, what is the connection?  Do they believe that it is appropriate to criticize the ASEP leadership and their beliefs about professionalism?  Behavior is a central issue to understanding professionalism.  As a college professor, I am especially concerned that academic exercise physiologists throughout the United States have been slow to draw reasonable conclusions from the ASEP effort and vision.  Some even appear to be teaching their students “what to think” about ASEP versus “how to think”.  In an attempt to move this issue before the public, I continue to examine as many views about exercise physiology as possible.  I teach my students about the importance of a professional organization, the simple rules of “what is a profession?” to make it easier to comprehend what the ASEP leadership believes is true. 

According to Lett [5], the rule of falsifiability argues that if the claim by the proponents of sports medicine that exercise physiology belongs within its boundaries is false, the evidence will prove it false.  Clearly, the founding of ASEP and its membership guarantees that the claim is false.  Therefore, to continue the denial of ASEP and its leadership before students is no longer a factual assertion.  Instead, it is the continued declaration of the way professors feel about exercise physiology after years of association with sports medicine. 

An additional action that seems to result from trying to prove that the feeling is true is characterized by the variety of explanations used to down play the evidence that ASEP is the right road into 21st century exercise physiology.  It is both a sound and valid argument because the ASEP premise is true.  For obvious reasons, when all is said and done, it seems logical that college professors should be honest with themselves about the ASEP effort.  In other words, if the evidence that ASEP is doing the right thing for the right reason contradicts the sports medicine claim, then the feelings associated with the claim should be evaluated if not abandoned.

Here again, Lett [5] concludes “The rule of honesty means that you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence.”  In other words, if ASEP falsifies the professors’ beliefs, then the professors must conclude that the beliefs are incorrect.  Literally speaking, this means that the professors are required to face up to the implications of their misplaced feelings.  From all indications, the reality of "facing the ASEP perspective forthrightly” has been less than forthcoming.  Even if the teachers are telling students what they sincerely believe to be true, it really does not matter.  They could be wrong.  This is exactly the point with ASEP where the perception of the disbeliever is a selective belief and should be regarded as unreliable evidence in and of itself.

Exercise physiology innovators in the United States have drawn heavily on the notion of independence in thinking and attention given to policies for redirecting the literature on responsible participation.  No longer is it appropriate to devote attention to just research initiatives.  While important for obvious reasons, without the political skills that other professions demonstrate daily, the scientific basis of exercise physiology by itself is insufficient to campaign for professional status.  Officials at all levels of different professions rarely discount the importance of regulation and standards of professional practice.  Many of them have written the statutes that embrace a fundamental belief of shared responsibility in committing resources to formulate law and political support.

This is exactly the direction physical therapy has taken in recent years whereby if they are successful they will control the market of fitness and health matters [6].  Exercise physiologists seem completely mindless of this systematic step by the American Physical Therapy Association.  They have years of experience, including a mix of lawyers, money, and members, and professional credibility to implement their plan.  And, when it happens, the exercise physiology teachers and others from a variety of disciplines can throw in the towel.  College administrators may value different academic majors, but they are accountable to their boards for generating an end-of-the-year profit.  Any one who thinks otherwise has not been around long enough to see departments disappear, faculty released from tenured positions, and even Presidents dismissed.

These are real concerns.  The circumstances are such that college teachers need to pay attention to contemporary educational events.  In short, all the work towards tenure is essentially useless if there is no academic department to continue the exercise physiology job.  Unfortunately, aside from the articles that appear in PEPonline, there is a gross shortage of content and discussion thereof to fully illustrate this point (i.e., to bring home the seriousness of the problem).  Clearly, however, a person does not have to be diagnosed with cancer to understand the implications of the disease.  It is time that everyone involved in the field “wake up and smell the coffee”.  Independence from control by sports medicine is a statement of autonomy that also defines the character of the members of the emerging profession.  This is actually no different from the declaration of independence by nurses from control by hospitals and organized medicine [7]. 

By gaining control of exercise physiology away from sports medicine, the ASEP leadership has sought to do for exercise physiologists what the American Nursing Association did for nursing and what the Flexner [8] report did for medicine. It is clear that the sports medicine period of control was not about helping students through improved academic programs, but rather about sports medicine certifications.  The certifications are, in effect, a means to an end (i.e., increased financial income and organizational authority).  The influence, while positive decades ago, has been rather unimportant during the past 10 years in that it has not resulted in change within the academic setting with professional credentials specific to exercise physiologists.  Obviously, the years of working in the system and taking charge of different certifications via committee membership and/or offerings at a professor’s institution have developed strong bonds of loyalty between sports medicine and academic exercise physiologists throughout the United States.  Sports medicine leadership has come to expect the commitment and stability that exercise physiology brings to it.

Sports medicine has, therefore, had a significant influence on exercise physiology's identity.  Only in recent years has it been determined that this traditionalized monopoly on exercise physiology has depressed salaries and limited career opportunities to primarily cardiac rehabilitation.  Hence, in a very important way, academic exercise physiologists have come to think of what they do and what they are as synonymous with sports medicine.  The “exercise specialist certification” and now, the “registered clinical exercise physiologist certification” have set the minds of the uninformed that exercise physiology can only be an occupation, that their loyalty is first to sports medicine, and that exercise physiologists are subservient to the vision and mission of sports medicine. 

With the writing of bylaws and constitution for the American Society of Exercise Physiologists, there came the opportunity to differentiate exercise physiology from sports medicine.  Part of the process has been the development of the first-ever standards of professional practice [9].  Professional and financial control and career opportunities are directly related to the standardization of the exercise physiology education, hence the reason for accreditation [4].   Today’s exercise physiologist has the opportunity to earn a professional credential.  Tomorrow’s exercise physiologist will have a license to practice.  The face of exercise physiology has changed in the period following the founding of ASEP. 

 “In the public or private sector…we observe that there are only two ways to create and sustain superior performance….First, take exceptional care of your customers…. That’s it.  There are no alternatives in achieving long-term superior performance….” – Tom Peters and Nancy Austin
Who are our customers?  Students are our customers.  There are no alternatives to a successful transition from an occupation to a profession.  That's it.  Working on behalf of our students is everything.  At best, we can say that our research probably has been a positive mark for what academic exercise physiologists do.  At worst, without re-evaluation, it could continue to encourage teachers to defer more effective forms of interaction and support of our students.  Research on behalf of the professors' position is closer to the idea "students are here to provide a job for me" than "I'm here to work for students", yet research is being promoted by respected college teachers as the only thing that is important.  What has never been challenged is the fact that the academic credential or gateway into the university position to teach is awarded to an individual in recognition of a primary obligation to do research.  This model nurtures the researcher and rewards the department with funding.  It has failed to nurture the education of the students.  If nothing else is achieved, it is imperative that a balance is recognized as important.

We need a clear picture of the service provided by academic exercise physiologists.  Students need the knowledge and skills necessary to meet significant professional responsibilities in the public sector.  Preparing for practice requires a standardization of educational requirements, an increased interest in teaching, and more emphasis placed on student teaching experiences.  These three elements provide a transition to professional accountability that has not been appreciated or planned for during the past 40 or so years.  A major part of the problem is still the resistance by college teachers to the normal course of professional development.  They must make a commitment to advance the educational foundation for professional practice.  It is no longer justifiable to sit back and wait and see what is playing out in the institution across town or in another state.  The changes that have taken place in just five years, the ASEP practice document, the board certification, the intellectual growth about professionalism, and the increased demands of our service in the public sector require all of us to consider ASEP as a positive and complementary change in exercise physiology.

"Time has come to face a reality from which exercise physiologists cannot hide."

References
1. Stufflebeam, D.L., Foley, W.J., Gephart, W.J., et al. (1971). Educational Evaluation and Decision-Making.  Itasca, IL: Peacock.
2. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2002). Board of Directors. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/execbod.htm
3. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2002). Board of Certification. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/EPCManual.html
4. American Society of Exercise Physiologists. (2002). Board of Accreditation. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/accredit.htm
5. Lett, J. (1999). A Field Guide to Critical Thinking. Skeptical Inquirer. [Online]. http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
6. American Physical Therapy Association. (2002). APTA's Fitness and Wellness Consultation Course. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.apta.org/pt_practice/prevention_wellness/fit_and_well
7. Donley, R. and Flaherty, M.J. (2002). Revisiting the American Nurses Association’s First Position on Education for Nurses. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 
Vol. 7 No. 2, Manuscript 1. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic18/tpc18_1.htm
8. Flexner, A. (1925). Medical Education: A Comparative Study.  New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.
9. American Society of Exercise Physiology. (2002). ASEP Board of Certification - Standards of Professional Practice. [Online]. Accessed June 25, 2002. http://www.css.edu/ASEP/StandardsofProfessionalPractice.html

Copyright ©1997-2007 American Society of Exercise Physiologists   All Rights Reserved.