QUEST, 1998,SB,213-224
O 1998 American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education
Critical fssues for the Future
A House Divided
Roberta 3. Park
This paper looks to the past in an effort to shed light on thefuture.
The small-town lawyer addressed his audience: "Mr. President, if we could
first know where we are, we could then better judge what to do and how to do it."
The subject was that "vast moral evil," slavery, and the impending dissolution of the Union. The speaker continued: "A house divided against itself cannot
stand" (Oates, 1977, p. 156). Within 3 years the American Civil War would pit
brother against brother, father against son. Before it was over, more than 600,000
lives would be lost.
When president-elect Jack Wilmore asked members of the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education (AAKPE) to assess the current state
of our field, Abraham Lincoln's 1858 "House Divided" speech sprang to mind.
Recent AAKPE programs reflect a growing sense of malaise. In the 1980s, the
Specialization/Fragmentation debates and meetings such as the Big Ten Leadership Conference, sponsored by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC)
and the AmericanAcademy of Physical Education (AAPE) (Wade & Newell, 1989),
had been ominous indicators of an impending crisis. During this same period, I
had served as an external reviewer for several departments of kinesiology, exercise science, or whatever name was currently in vogue, and devoted much of 10
years as chair of the Department of Physical Education' at the University of California to thwarting the administration's attempts at usurpation. (Whereas academic
senate committees had been supportive, administratorshad coveted our resources.)
Such experiences have led me to conclude that in spite of many positive achievements during the last 3 decades, the field of physical education has inflicted upon
itself some very serious wounds.
During the last 3 decades, ourfield has become "a house divided." It
is time to recapture something akin to the shared vision that motivated
early leaders of our profession.'
The Problem of Centrifugal Tendencies
Nearly 20 years ago, in a sagacious article, "2001: The Profession is DeadWas It Murder or Suicide?" Elizabeth Bressan (1979) outlined two scenarios that
were likely to rupture the fabric of a field whose members once had shared certain
fundamental commitments. The following sections look briefly at three events
Robert J. Park is with the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of
California, 200 Hearst Gymnasium, Berkeley, CA 94720-4482.
214
PARK
that gathered momentum during the 1970s. Each had serious dislocating tendencies. I also comment on a profession that rose to "sovereign" power (Starr, 1982)
during the first half of the 20th century but is currently under siege. That profession is medicine, which along with law is typically regarded as paradigmatic of
"the learned professions" (Morrell, 1990). These passages are followed by brief
observations regarding links between medicine and the embryonic profession of
physical education (rarely discussed in most historical accounts of our field) and
certain developments in the 1920s. The paper ends with an assertion that something of the shared vision that once animated our field must be rekindled.
Like physical education, medicine has been-and will continue to beaffected by shifting political, economic, and ideological forces. Two decades ago,
the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine warned readers that the "new
medical-industrial complex" would threaten "ethical assumptions underlying the
health-care system" (Relman, 1980, p. 963-964). In the 1990s, matters are reaching critical proportions. As medical costs escalate, physicians are losing control of
the enterprise they once had struggled, with considerable success, to regulate. The
dean of the School of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University
recently observed: "The health care system in this country is in chaos, with its
leadership up for grabs." Exacerbating this problem, "Great research schools of
medicine have shown little interest in understanding and responding to the health
of populations" (Sommers, 1995, p. 660). Likewise, research universities consumed
with outward appearances and hierarchical rankings that resemble the frenzied
annual ratings of college football teams have abdicated any responsibility for advancing physical education. In light of such developments, we might note that
physician and historian Kenneth Ludmerer (1985) and medical historian Charles
Rosenberg (1987) are among several who point out that the field of medicine is
essentially confronting many of the same problems it faced a century ago.
I f the same problems recur in medicine-the brightest star in health
sciencesJimzament-should we be surprised by the need to revisit "key
issues" in physical education?
Revisiting Three Key Issues
Issue #I: Abusing the Academic Discipline Paradigm, or to invoke a phrase ofen
associated with late 19th century British athletics, "A good thing gone mad!"
The improvements in science and scholarship that emerged following Franklin
Henry's (1964) "Physical Education-An Academic Discipline" have been commendable. Change creates new problems while solving old ones, however. A kind
of hubris emerged that could be characterized as "Me researcherNou practitioner"
and a pecking order that sought to elevate the natural sciences to a position of
omnipotence. These tendencies were flawed on two counts. First, physical education involves motivations as well as muscles and requires knowledge from both
the psychosocial and biological domains. Second, as with engineering, law, and
certainly medicine, the notion of discipline makes little sense when divorced from
the profession that gives it meaning.
Issue #2: The Dark Side of Title IX, or to gloss the satirist Juvenal, "Panum et
circuses ad libitum!"
A HOUSE DIVIDED
215
The ancient Greeks distinguished hygiene (i-e., the laws of life) and gymnastics (i.e., physical education) from agonistic athletics. Even at their numerical height,
the Pan-Hellenic and local festivals did not reach the pervasiveness and intensity
of the Ludi Romani of the 2nd century A.D. or the highly organized athletics in the
late 20th century. Females now demand their fair share of opportunities in the
agonistic realm. While such equity is important, we should ask whether the
ascendance of high performance athletics for females has contributed, however
unintentionally, to the decline of quality physical education for all students. The
demise of school-based physical education in recent decades has been particularly
damaging, because one of the few places where our profession has attained anything approaching authority and control has been in school and college programs
that purportedly provided children and youth with basic information about healthful behaviors and regular exercise.
Within the larger society, where a host of fitness and exercise entrepreneurs
long have plied their trade, we have been ineffectual. The inability to convince
governing agencies to regulate such activities is a problem that physical education
has shared-and will continue to share-with numerous other health sciences.
Historian of health and allied medical matters James Harvey Young (1992) contends that "health quackery7'at the end of the 20th century is no less pervasive than
it was a century ago (although the specifics differ). John Duffy (1990) concludes
his history of American public health with the telling observation: "The more successful public health measures are the less the public sees a need for them7'(p.
313). Consequently, public health education must "start in grade school and continue for life" (p. 313). Duffy's observations are equally applicable to physical
education!
Issue #3: Associates, Allies, and Other Arrangements, or "Winning skirmishes
and losing wars!"
Was an association stronger than an alliance? This question has been asked
many times since the restructuring of the American Alliance for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) in 1974. Are we capable of creating our own politically strong organization and forging significant working relations with other organizations? Such questions are of no small consequence. Does
the AAHPERD have clearly defined core objectives and a unanimity of purpose
that will enable it to speak with a~thority?~
If I have read correctly the diffuse
"advocacy activities" reports that were submitted by five AAHPERD associations
(AAALF, AAHE, NAGWS, NASPE, and NDA)4 to the Board of Governors on
February 18, 1997,*it is difficult to discern any of that "sense of corporate identity," one of the hallmarks of a profession (Morrell, 1990). Small wonder the current AAHPERD president has issued an appeal calling for the need to "create a
vision" and communicate this to relevant groups.
The nation's largest medical society, which includes individuals from a vast
array of specialties, seems to be aware that no professional organization worthy of
that name can achieve status and authority in the absence of a well-defined sense
of corporate identity. In 1997, on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary and in the
midst of its own crises, the American Medical Association (AMA) articulated its
"core values" in a concise "vision" statement6that should serve as an example for
AAHF'ERD.
PARK
What, then, might we learn from medicine-and from physical
education-100 years ago?
A Quest for Authority: Medicine in the Late 1800dEariy 1900s
In the late 1800s,American medicine was in .turmoil (Ludmerer, 1985). Proprietary schools with 2-year curricula and no clinical or experimental work were
the norm. Dr. John Shaw Billings (1886), founder of the Army Medical Libraryl
National Library of Medicine, lamented the low standard of American medicine
and the fact that the public entrusted "the care of health... to almost anyone who
announced himself prepared to take charge of them" (p. 123). In 1893, Johns
Hopkins was the first American institution to require a bachelor's degree for admittance to medical school. However, only after the 1910Flexner Report did medicine set itself f m l y on the path to becoming a respected profession (Stan; 1982).
As reforms began to occur, the uneasy specter of the need to specialize was raised.
William Osler (1892), professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, expressed concern that a "narrow and pedantic spirit" was emerging (p. 457). The
proliferation of specialized societies and journals at the turn of the century exacerbated the problem. In October 1900, articles in the Boston Medical and Surgical
Journal (today, the New England Journal of Medicine) agonized over what they
characterized as an unhealthy splintering of "the fundamental branches of medical
science" and a growing rift between the scientific and the clinical perspectives. An
"extraordinary spectacle" had arisen, one writer declared, wherein those "confessedly striving toward the same general end" were now "arrayed against each other,
as if they represented two opposite tendencies, which they have been pleased to
call on the one hand 'scientific' and on the other 'practical"' ("Opening of the
Medical Schools," 1900, p. 352).
Three years later, AMA President Frank Billings applauded the tendency to
align medical schools with universities that required studies in French, German,
history, and philosophy as well as mathematics, chemistry, physics, anatomy, and
the biological sciences. Billings (1903) maintained that a foundation in the humanities as well as the sciences "would help ensure that a physician would be, in
truth, a member of a learned profession" (p. 491). Speaking at the dedication of
new facilities at the Harvard Medical School, William H. Welsh (1906), professor
of Pathology at Johns Hopkins University, upheld the merits of specialization as
"the great instrument of progress" but cautioned: "The further division of labor is
carried, the more necessary does it become to emphasize unity of purpose and to
secure co-ordination and cordial co-operation" (p. 369).
Do our curricula ensure that students will be scholars as well as technicians ?
Have we instilled in young women and men, who indeed may be specialists, the importance of "cordialcooperation" with their colleagues?
Physical Education: An Embryonic Profession
Speaking at the same dedication ceremony, Harvard president Charles William Eliot (1906) declared that in the final analysis, "health is eminently a social
product" and that in the future, medicine must be more attentive to prevention (p.
A HOUSE DMDED
217
366). Although Eliot did not refer to physical training in this address, he did so on
many other occasions. One of several distinguished speakers at the 1899 American Association for the Advancement of Physical Education (AAAPE) Convention, Eliot had asserted that physical training should be accorded a "dignified and
influential" place in the curriculum because of its contributions to physical, intellectual, and moral development (pp. 230-232). At the same meeting, William James
(1899) noted that recent neurological research confirmed the role of exercise in
psychophysical development. William T. Porter (1899), founder of the American
Journal of Physiology, stated that the field of physical education offered to "the
investigator of scientific problems" as many significant research questions as did
"any other field of intellectual effort"(pp. 218-220).
According to contemporaries, the goals of the new field were hygienic and
educational. Hygiene was concerned with promoting health, with a focus on fitness of the muscular, circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems. Education
goals embraced the motor functions, the relation of the nervous system to mental
function, and social development. Physicians and educators supported establishing a physical education profession. The Massachusetts Medical Society, as only
one example, stressed the importance of "training the body as...a healthy organism," endorsed the platform of the newly founded AAAPE, and urged the Massachusetts State Board of Education to encourage teaching physical education in all
"towns and cities of the Commonwealth" (Adams, Bradford & Withington, 1888,
p. 182). The Journal of the American Medical Association and other medical journals published a growing number of articles and editorials supporting exercise and
physical training.
In 1897, the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal published AAAPE president Dr. Edward M. Hartwell's article, "Physical Training, Its Function and Place
in Education," which opened with reference to Lincoln's "House Divided" speech.
Support for (or rejection of) physical training, Hartwell observed, was profoundly
influenced by "conceptions concerning the nature of the human body and of its
relations to the human mind" (p. 357), which were held by those charged with
shaping educational policy. Neurologist D.F. Lincoln (1876), psychologist G.
Stanley Hall (1904), Dr. A.H.P. Leuf (1889), director of the gymnasium at the
University of Pennsylvania, and many others endorsed Hartwell's assertion that
the findings of the modern medical sciences and the "implications of modern
neurology...[are] sufficiently clear and definite to warrant the claim that physical
training" (p. 362) is basic to all education. Hartwell (1897, p. 357) maintained that,
because the general public--even most educators-did not understand "the teachings of modem science with regard to the interdependence of body and mind,"
people who were qualified must educate them.
How well have we educated the public and those charged with shaping educational policy (at the state level or on our individual campuses) about the true nature of ourfield?
Developments in the 1920s
In the decade preceding World War 1, as medicine was struggling to improve
in status, leaders of the American Physical Education Association (APEA) had
grappled with these questions. What subjects should a person preparing for a ca-
218
PARK
reer in physical education study? Should the curriculum be extended? While describing for the Berliner Klinische Wochenschrifthis 3 years studying medicine in
the United States, Max Boehm (1908) had commented favorably upon that unique
feature of the American college: the "department of physical culture." These, the
German physician believed, were producing "annually large numbers of well-trained
teachers, who contribute extraordinarilyto interest in physical exercise and thereby
improve the health of the whole people" (p. 42). By 1914, eight state universities-California (1897), Nebraska (1897), Illinois (1905), Washington (1906),
Oregon (1909), Wisconsin (191l), Missouri (1914), Utah (1914)7-had established
"major units" (Elliott, 1927). That same year, Wilbur Bowen's (1914) report on
the "Preparation of Teachers" at the APEA Convention was followed by calls for
some type of accreditation like the AMA was seeking to implement.
The exigencies of the World War I brought a temporary halt to such endeavors and prompted calls for state legislation to require physical education in the
public schools. Although such laws were not always well implemented, the existence of a mandate signaled at least modest recognition of the profession. In the
early 1920s, the United States Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board assigned
to physical education a significant role as "Applied Hygiene" and recommended
greater integration among what it called "applied physical education," hygiene,
and the student health service (Storey, 1927).
During this same period, the APEA also was seeking to clarify the objectives
of the physical education program and define its relationship with intercollegiate
athletics (Meylan, 1922).Asked to address meetings of the Society of Directors of
Physical Education, leading educational theorist William H. Kilpatrick (1922) urged
the physical education profession to "enlarge your conception of your power and
of your possibilities" (p. 268) to help remedy the rampant commercialization in
athletics and encourage the average American to engage in healthful activity. Dr.
John Sundwall (1922), director of the Division of Hygiene at the University of
Michigan, called for better cooperation among the physical educator, physician,
pediatrician, psychiatrist, nurse, sanitarian, and teacher of hygiene. Athletics had
so diverged from any educational purpose, Sundwall insisted, that they were "in
large measure strangl[ing] physical education" (p. 421). Dr. J.W. Wilce (1922) of
Ohio State University was one of several who agreed that intercollegiate athletics
were impeding the Athletics for All model, but he hoped that the situation might
still be remedied. Dr. Edgar Fauver (1922) at Weslyan was less sanguine, holding
that intercollegiate sports were a definite handicap to the advancement of physical
education.
Leaders of women's physical education rejected the highly competitive,male
model and labored diligently, at times furiously, for an Athletics for All model, as
reflected in the slogan, "Every Girl in a Sport: A Sport for Every Girl" (e.g., Hult,
1985). Since the 1970s, it has become fashionable to condemn female physical
educators for hindering athletic opportunities for females but to ignore the fact
that, for various reasons, they were far more successful than their male counterparts in adhering to the hygienic and educational goals of the founders of their
profession. Moreover, the numerous, excellent, historical accounts of women's
struggles to gain a place in science, medicine, and "the professions" (e.g., Bonner,
1992; Morantz-Sanchez, 1985; Rossiter, 1982) as yet have ignored the fact that
from the association's founding in 1885, women have enjoyed an importanteven if not equal until recent decades-presence in the affairs of the AAHPERD.
A HOUSE DIVIDED
219
Some authors, however few, have begun to shed light on the fact that physical education offered American women career possibilities-and a certain amount
of independence-at a time when such opportunities were denied in almost all
other professions. Such works include Martha Verbrugge's (1988) study of 19th
century Boston, Alison Wrynn's (1996) investigation of the contributions of three
physicians who worked closely with the field of physical education, and Susan
Zieff's (1993) examination of the work of Drs. Lilian Welsh and Clelia Mosher.
We await, for the American situation, a work such as Shelia Fletcher's (1984)
study of the female tradition in English physical education, where the single-sex,
specialist, training college persisted through the 1960s and 1970s.Among the several provocative questions that Fletcher raises is whether in adopting the male
model, which indubitably enjoyed-and still enjoys-power and prestige, women
may have ended in reaffirming "male supremacy and control" (p. 2).
Constant diligence has been and will continue to be necessary to insure that athletics do not overwhelm physical education.
More attention needs to be given to the achievements of female physical educators.
The welfare of the general student needs to be rearticulated.
How Accurately Was the "Academic Discipline" Paper Read?
Henry's (1964) "Physical Education-An Academic Discipline" is often cited
as the catalyst for specialization. However, prevailing characterizations of the views
expressed therein may not be entirely accurate. True, the author insisted that more
individuals must become producers of scholarship and science. True, he hoped
that AAHPERD, through appropriate committees, might do more to support and
elevate the researcher. True, he did not hesitate to criticize in professional venues.
Yet, in the public arena, whether on his own campus or in the state capitol, Franklin
Henry consistently upheld the importance of physical education as a field that was
worthy in its own right (e.g., Park, 1994). Moreover, he was fully aware that the
field needed well-qualified practitioners as well as those who would advance its
intellectual foundations. Universities and colleges differ in their objectives. Therefore, programmatic emphases will differ among institutions. Such differences notwithstanding, a core of scholarly and scientific knowledge should be shared among
all physical educators (Henry, 1978, p. 14).
Differences among institutions do not axiomatically have to lead to a
loss of shared vision.
Divisiveness at the departmental level can be dangerous. In other arenas it is likely to be fatal.
Shaping degree programs to satisfy the dictates of a particular institution is
no easy task. Yet, as Shirl Hoffman and others have observed, without a "core of
knowledge it is extraordinarily difficult to explain what unity of thought and perspective bind a...faculty together."' When individuals identify more with a "parent" discipline than their own (Hoffmann, 1985,p. 21), a tendency that accelerated
in the 1970s and 1980s, the effects on departmental integrity will likely be severe.
In a review essay of two works on higher education, Hal Lawson (1989) offered an
220
PARK
insightful commentary on the fate of physical education in those institutions that
came to be known as "multiversities." Research universities, intent on their comparative rankings, do not view either education or physical education as contributing
to prestige. (At state institutions that have tacit if not explicit responsibilities to
public education, abandoning such programs actually may be tantamount to a breach
of public trust.) If individuals in other departments co-opt certain aspects of the
work that the unit had claimed as its domain (i.e., agenda piracy), the situation
worsens. And when an "absence of strong leadership" prevails (Clifford & Guthrie,
1988; Lawson, 1989, p. 74), the fate of a department or school will likely be precarious. Yet, departments or schools such as architecture and engineering, whose
work is recognized as having a significant, applied component and whose subject
matter intersects (often considerably) with that of other units, have created a secure--even if not central-presence on campus.
What might we learnfrom the experiences of units like architecture or
engineering?
Coming Apart at the National Level
Adding to the centrifugal tendencies of the last quarter century, AAHPERD
underwent its own fragmentation. Reacting to desires for greater self-determination
on the part of various divisions (e.g., health or girls' and women's sports), a new
alliance structure was implemented in 1974. However, as Bruce Bennett (1985)
has observed: "The concept of an alliance of associations working together for the
common good [has not been] readily accepted" (p. 65). Dissatisfied with
AAHPERD's unwillingness'to adequately accommodate research, individuals interested in science and scholarship transferred their allegiances to one or more of
the disciplinary societies that were founded in the 1970s and 1980s and/or the
American College of Sports Medicine. The generalized sense of corporate identity--even though member constituencies were often at odds over specific itemsthat once might be found at annual AAHPERD conventions dissipated.
Presently, there is some consideration of replacing the alliance model with a
more decentralized federation model.9As appealing as this may seem to those who
favor what is loosely called autonomy, the consequences will likely be even more
devastating. However weak it may have been, for more than half a century
AAHPERD was recognized as the voice of the profession. Again, we might reflect
upon the situation in medicine. Although a wide array of organizations exist that
serve specialties ranging from cardiology to pediatrics to orthopedics and more,
when the general public thinks of the entity that represents the field of medicine, it
almost certainly thinks of the AMA.
It is time for the associations to put aside petty dzferences and for
AAHPERD to become the majorplayer in the arena that once was ours.
Standing or Falling in the 21st Century
The first decades of the 20th century were a watershed for the field of medicine. Might the first decades of the 21st century be a watershed for physical
education? The times seem propitious! Physical Activity and Health: A Report of
the Surgeon General was released in summer 1996. Physicians are now being
A HOUSE DIVIDED
22 1
urged to counsel patients about physical activity as part of "preventative medicine" (e.g., Calfas, Sallis, Oldenberg, & Ffrench, 1997). Certainly, AAHPERD has
an important role in such endeavors, but we delude ourselves if we think that we
will become major players in the medical arena. Where, then, might our profession exert significant and sustained influence? The public school and college curriculum traditionally have been our domain. And we are perilously close to letting
these slip entirely from our grasp. Children and youth, it is reported, are even less
fit than they were in the 1950s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1996). Children and youth, it is reported, fill their extensive leisure hours in hazardous pursuits ("Measuring Health Behaviors of Adolescents," 1993), in substantial measure for want of the constructive activities that once were provided on
playgrounds and schoolyards, where physical educators and recreation specialists
once made major contributions.
As I read the Centers for Disease Control's (1997) "Guidelines for School
and Community Programs to Promote Lifelong Physical Activity Among Young
People," I was overwhelmed by a sense of d6jh vu. The goals set forth are the very
same that our predecessors had espoused-and did a creditable job of carrying
out-for the first 6 decades of the 20th century. Paradoxically, at the same time
that we can point to a very substantial body of scientifically derived evidence that
confirms the health and developmental benefits of exercise, we have allowed our
authority to become severely compromised.
Over 100 years ago, the Boston Medical and SurgicalJournal cautioned that
it was time to "secure co-ordination" among those who were engaged in the same
endeavor. This is a call we should heed. Do we have the will to take the necessary
actions to repair the divisiveness of the last 3 decades and shape a vision that will
enable us to move forward with "cordial co-operation"? To paraphrase the 16th
president of the United States: "A house divided will surely fall!"
References
Adams, Z.B., Bradford, E.H., & Withington, C.F. (1888). Report on physical culture in
schools. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 119, 179-182.
Bennett, B. (1985). 1975-1985: A time of travail and travel. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 56(4), 63-66.
Billings, F. (1903). President's address: Medical education in the United States. Boston
Medical & Surgical Journal, 148,487-493.
Billings, J.S. (1886). Medicine in the United States and its relations to co-operative investigation. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 115, 121-128.
Boehm, M. (1909). Reminiscences of America. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 160,
4146.
Bonner, T.N. (1992). To the ends of the earth: Women'ssearch for education in medicine.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowen, W.P. (1914).The preparation of teachers of physical education. American Physical
Education Review, 19,421-425.
Brassie, P.S., & Razor, J.E. (1989). HPERD unit names in higher education-A view toward the future. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation, 60(7), 33-40.
Bressan, E. (1979).2001: The profession is dead-Was it murder or suicide? Quest, 31,7782.
Calfas, K.J., Sallis,J.F., Oldenberg, B., & Ffrench, M. (1997).Mediators of change in physical
activity following an intervention in primary care: PACE. Preventive Medicine, 26,
297-304.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Guidelines for school and community
programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people. Journal of School
Health, 67,202-219.
Clifford, G.J., & Guthrie, J.W. (1989). Ed school: A briefforprofessional education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duffy, J. (1990). The sanitarians: A history ofAmerican public health. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Eliot, C.W. (1899) [Remarks in] Physical training in the educational curriculum.American
Physical Education Review. 4,217-221.
Eliot, C.W. (1906). The future of the medical profession. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 155,365-367.
Elliott, R. (1927). The organization of professional training in physical education in state
universities. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Fauver, E. (1922). The place of intercollegiate athletics in a physical education program.
American Physical Education Review, 22,272-276.
Fletcher, S. (1984). Womenfirst: Thefemale tradition in Englishphysical education, 188&
1980. London: The Athlone Press.
From Mike Davis' desk . . . On a mission for change. (1997, JuIylAugust). Update, p. 2.
Hall, G.S. (1904). Adolescence, its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime and education. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
Hartwell, E.M. (1897). Physical training, its function and place in education. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 137,357-362.
Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education-An academic discipline. Journal of Health, Physical
Education & Recreation, 35, 32-33,69.
Henry, F.M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 29, 13-29.
Hoffman, S.J. (1985). Specialization X fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Joumal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
56(6), 19-22.
Hult, J.S. (1985). The governance of athletics for girls and women: Leadership by women
physical educators, 1899-1949. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise & Sport [Centennial Issue], 64-77.
It's time to choose (President's message). (1997, SeptemberIOctober). Update, p. 2.
James, W. (1899). [Remarks in] Physical training in the educational curriculum. American
Physical Education Review, 4,220-221.
Kilpatrick, W.H. (1922). Certain moral and social aspects of college athletics. American
Physical Education Review, 27,262-268.
Lawson, H.A. (1989). Review essay-The multiversity and issues of discipline, profession,
and centrality. Quest, 41, 68-80.
Leuf, A.H.P. (1890). Physical education in children. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 14,493496.
Lincoln, D.F. (1876). The nervous system as effected by school-life. Joumal of Social Science, 7,87-110.
Ludmerer, K. (1985). Learning to heal: The development of American medical education.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Measuring the health behavior of adolescents: The youth risk behavior surveillance system
and recent reports of high-risk adolescents. (1993). Public Health Reports, 108.
A HOUSE DIVIDED
223
Meylan, G.L. (1922). Intercollegiate athletics and the department of physical education.
American Physical Education Review, 27,268-271.
Morantz-Sanchez, R.M. (1985). Sympathy and science: Women physicians in American
medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morrell, J.B. (1990). Professionalisation. In R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, &
M.J.S. Hodge (Eds.), Companion to the history of modem science (pp. 980-989).
London, Routledge.
National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity (NCPPA). (1997, March). News about
the national coalition for promoting physical activity. Motion, 1, 1.
Newell, K. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest, 42,
227-242.
Oates, S.B. (1977). With malice toward none: The life ofAbraham Lincoln. New York: New
American Library.
Opening of the medical schools. (1900). Opening of the medical schools. Boston Medical
& Surgical Journal, 143,352-353.
Osler, W. (1892). Remarks on specialism. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 126,457459.
Park, R.J. (1994). A long and productive career: Franklin M. Henry-Scientist, mentor,
pioneer. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise & Sport, 64, 295-307.
Porter, W.T. (1899). [Remarks on] Physical training in the educational curriculum. American Physical Education Review, 4,217-221.
Relman, A.S. (1980). The new medical-industrial complex. New England Journal of Medicine, 303,963-970.
Rosenberg, C.E. (1987). The care of strangers: The rise ofAmerica's hospital system. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rossiter, M.W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sommers, A. (1995). W(h)ither public health? Public Health Reports, 110,657-661.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transfornation of American medicine: The rise of a sovereign
profession and the making of a vast industry. New York: Basic Books.
Storey, T.A. (1927). The status of hygiene programs in institutions of higher education in
the United States. (Vol. 2, no. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sundwall, J. (1922). Training of supervisors of student health and physical education activities. American Physical Education Review, 26,421-426.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Patterns and trends in physical
activity. In Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeon general (chap. 5).
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
Verbrugge. M.H. (1988). Able-bodied womanhood: Personal health and social change in
19th century Boston. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wade, M.G., & Newel, K. (Compilers). (1989). Big ten leadership conference report. Chicago, December 8-1 1.
Welsh, W.H. (1906). The unity of the medical sciences. Boston Medical & Surgical Journal, 155,367-372.
Wilce, J.W. (1922). Possible purposes of intercollegiate athletics. American Physical Education Review, 27,455460.
Wrynn, A.M. (1996). The contributions of women researchers to the development of a science of physical education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
224
PARK
Young, J.H. (1992).American health quackery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zieff, S. (1993). The medicalization of higher education: Womenphysicians and physical
training, 1870-1920. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Notes
'The decision to rename the Department of Physical Education at the University of California as the Department of Human Biodynamics was probably ill advised. A change of name
was pressed by ad hoc review committees, which otherwise were surprisingly supportive of the
department. The negative consequences of the plethora of descriptors have become increasingly
recognized (e.g., Brassie & Razor, 1989; Newell, 1990).
'Association for the Advancement of Physical Education (1885); American Association
for the Advancement of Physical Education (1886-1902); American Physical Education Association (1903-1937); American Association for Health and Physical Education (1937-38);American Association and Health, Physical Education and Recreation (1938-1974); American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (1974-1979); American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (1979-present).
'The mission statement of the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity (NCPPA),
created in 1995 "to build upon the opportunities that would emerge from the release of the Surgeon General's Report as well as other positive developments" is far more precise: "To unite the
strengths of public, private, and industry efforts to inspire Americans to lead physically-active
lifestyles to enhance their health and quality of life."
4AmericanAssociation for Active Lifestyles and Fitness; American Association for Health
Education; National Association for Girls and Women in Sport; National Association for Sport
and Physical Education; and National Dance Association.
5To: The Board of Governors, From: National Associations, Date: February 19, 1997,
Subject: Advocacy Activities of National Associations.
6AMA's Vision Statement, adopted by the AMA Board of Trustees, June 19, 1997.
'According to Elliott (1927), there had been a temporary suspension of the major unit in
three instances: Utah (reorganized in 1912), Illinois (reorganized in 1919), and Nebraska (reorganized in 1921).
'Numerous efforts have been made to achieve such a goal. At the University of California,
for example, graduate students were accepted in one of three areas: motor learning, performance,
and development; historical and social-scientific aspects; or neuromuscular aspects of human
performance. A student emphasized one aspect of the chosen area (e.g., exercise physiology) but
was expected to take coursework in cognate subjects. Students were also required to undertake a
modicum of coursework "on the other side of the house" (e.g., an exercise physiology student
might enroll in the "History of Exercise Science and Sport" seminar).
'It's time to choose (President's message). (1997, SeptemberIOctober). Update, p. 2. See
also: From Mike Davis' desk. . . On a mission for change. (1997, JulyIAugust). Update, p. 2.