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.