Edited version of the answer I gave to questions to an undergraduate health education student.
3. In your opinion, why is it important for a health educator to belong and actively participate in professional organizations? Have you actively participated in professional organizations? If so, which organizations and why?
Answer:
The importance of belonging, but how much does it cost?
I believe it's important to belong to and participate in your professional organization(s). It's important because it's a win-win: if there's participation, you learn and grow as does the profession. But....which professional organization?
Yes, I've presented at APHA, SOPHE, AAHE, ASHA and AWHP meeting locally, statewide, regionally, and nationally. Have been or am a member of the organizations above.
I participated as a member and, sometimes, as committee chair of SIGs or subgroups. I was elected state health ed person for the Health and PE group in Iowa ( I left for another job and resigned my post). My contribution to my profession has been mostly via presentations (see vitae).
Why- I think we need to share with each other to grow professionally. I grow via the feedback I get. It's our responsibility.
That reminds me: I have paid over $500 in membership fees and earn less than 1/3 of what an average physician earns. The MD pays about the same for his/her professional organization(s). Nurses pay MUCH LESS.
However, there are too many . We need to focus our resources....
And that brings me to another point. I am a proponent of health education professional organizations. However.......
Health education has too many splintered professional organizations. Health Education needs ONE, unified professional group. Not a coalition of groups with deep rooted individual agendas. We need one unified professional organization with one agenda: supporting the health education professional not the professional organization. And until such time that we do this, we can't get what other professionals get out of belonging and participating in professional organizations. That doesn't mean that we must get rid of the others at the expense of creating a unified professional organization. It means we need one leadership group, a group that defines the profession clearly to consumers, to take this profession into the next century.
Case Study for the Need for a Defining Organization?
This kind of abnormal/anti-status quo thinking, on my part, started after an experience I had at a national APHA meeting in New York City, circa 1980. I went to one of those round table meetings. I couldn't wait. It was on television and I was writing, producing and evaluating a health education television production (after being in a 25-part TV series for South Carolina Educational Television). The round table featured an ABC-TV Programming Executive, all the way from TV-land, California. He was going to talk about the inclusion of health ed issues in TV programming. At the time, many scripts of popular TV sitcoms either focused on, or included, social and health issues. For example, Meathead on "All in the Family" had a case of impotence; the main characters on "The Jeffersons" were learning CPR; Ms. Bunker, also of "All In the Family" was sexually assaulted; Fonzie, of "Happy Days," was dealing with special needs populations, etc.
It was so exciting. I wasn't the only one who thought sol; it was a very popular round table session! There were over 80 people around two tables that were intended for 15 to 20.
After listening to this guy for about 20 minutes, a frail public health educator from Brooklyn asked a question that changed my thinking on professional organizations.
"So, we want to be involved. How can we do that? Should we call you? Sounds like you can use health educators in reviewing scripts, for example. You use physicians, right? We're more qualified." she said.
"Yeah, we would like to do that," he said, pausing,
(here it comes)
"But, who do I call? I mean, do I get in touch with this
organization, American Public Health? I didn't even know you guys
existed," he continued
"Oh, my goodness," several attendees in the crowd
were heard to gasp.
" I mean, when I need a doc, I call the AMA, or my local
medical society," he continued, as several large men and
women (poor health ed model types) in the group began to clench
their fists.
"They helped us with all the information we needed."
"How do I find you guys?" he queried.
Then it hit me. While only about 33% of all physicians belong to the AMA, this TV guy goes to them for health ed support. That AMA clearly represents their profession as well as the word "health" in general. Health Education equals hea\lth, right?
Calling all Health Educators, where are you........
It was clear then as it is now. The TV producer doesn't need to call one of five or six professional organizations to find the professional he needs to do the health ed. He doesn't need to know which organization to go to to find "the" type of health educator he needs; he doesn't need to know what each organizations' specialty is (ASHA- School Health, AAHE- Health and PE, SOPHE- Public Health Ed, etc.) to find the "right" health educator for the script. He simply picks up the phone and calls the one organization he needs. "One call, that's all."
An organized focused singular organization has managed to clearly and simply define their profession. Through effective marketing, in their effort to protect their turf and represent the profession,the consumer, as well as other professional know who they are and what they do. In the process they've also managed to corner the market called "health" through their lobbying efforts. They serve as a clearinghouse for the consumer. Using the AMA example again, most physicians don't belong! They usually belong to their specialty groups or subgroups of the AMA. The consumer doesn't know this or need to know because the AMA, the one singular organization, has done its job supporting its professionals.
Call out the Coalition?
One could argue that that TV executive could've called the coalition of health education organizations, right? Wrong. Firstly, a meeting would've had to take place to decide which group got credit for placing a health educator in a major television studio. Gosh...can you imagine the meeting?! I'm not sure, but I think that TB execs don't have that kind of time.
I'll bet that the AMA doesn't have to meet, or get their boards together to decide what action to take, for an action that needs immediate attention.
Secondly, who do you call? Is there a telephone number, an address for our "coalition?"
That was then......this is now.....
That was around 1980, and nothing much has changed since. The only "innovative" thing that has happened since 1980 is that AAHE changed their name, in 1996, from "Association for the Advancement of Health Education" to "American Association of Health Education." Their name change occurred shortly after it was announced that an American Health Education Association (AHEA) was being formed. AAHE, whatever they want to be called is still part of the mother ship, AAHPERD, and, to some extent, has to answer to them. Is it a financial thing keeping them securely attached to the alliance? Yes. It's time to take the risk, don't you think.
Health Educators don't have that singular focused support we desperately need. We need the focus of one inclusive professional organization so we are better understood by consumers.
"Resistance is futile...."
It seems to me that the resistance, to merge groups, so there's less than six (or seven?), or to form one all encompassing professional organ, has come from folks with all sorts of misinformation, fears (fear of failure, fear of innovation- see above technology issue), and agendas. The most appalling response I had to this concept, came from, not too long ago, a Board Member, from one of the major public health education groups: "I would never want to join an organization where the health educators are jocks and/or run around in shorts with whistles around their necks. I would rather stay small, with true health education professionals like myself as members" -a bit of embelishment here. Much of the resistance, anger and passive aggressive attacks to proponents of this idea have come from folks who have vested interests in existing organizations. I don't think anyone could argue that the overt and covert mud slinging was and is a product of self interests, and interests in the status quo.
It's most important, at this stage in our development, for our emerging health educators to form the focused organization we need. If they don't take action on the development of this singular professional organization, whether AHEA or something else, they are doomed to losing more jobs to nurses and social workers, getting paid less than they're worth, and continuously having to define their role (and explaining themselves and their capacity to help society), to other health professionals and consumers.
Older cats like me, who have been hung by their kazoo-eees because they spoke out about this issue, are not as powerful as emerging health education professionals.
The point of all of this is this: we need to participate in professional organizations, but because we have too many, we expend our meager resources, money, energy and human resources, and we're all over the place, as opposed to being focused. Being professionally involved may be a losing effort. I'm not certain that we can afford it. We need to do more than a coalition. We need to take the next step, create the one, defining professional association, and/or merge. We need an AHEA, a health education AMA, so other professional know who we are, what we do, what role we play on the health team, and that they need to stay off of our turf. We need an AHEA, a health education AMA, so consumers know us and know that we are key to the success in prevention, health promotion and wellnes.
I'm still waiting for evidence that it wouild be a BAD thing for the profession to form a singular professional group. The folks who have been nasty and mean over all of this, and have had a terrible time with this idea, have yet to come up with reasonable arguments against it.