The Eleventh Dudley Allen Sargent

Commemorative Lecture 1992

If Sargent Could See Us Now: Values and Program Survival

in Higher Education

by Don Hellison

photo courtesy of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Reston, Virginia

QUEST, 1992.44.398-4 11

If Sargent Could See Us Now: Values and Program Survival

in Higher Education

Don Hellison

The elimination of programs in physical education in higher education is both a cause for concern and an opportunity to reflect on the values that dominate physical education in higher education. In this essay, I argue that current values in the socialization of doctoral students, induction to the professoriate, and gatekeeping of scholarly journals primarily support specialized knowl- edge production and technical rationality. Alternatives to current values are reviewed, including "consultation" with Dudley Allen Sargent. I conclude with an argument for more diversity in purpose, scholarship, and definitions of excellence.

Physical education in higher education (PEHE) has been concerned about its standing in the academic community throughout my experience as a faculty member of four institutions. Recently, our collective anxiety was cranked up a couple of notches in response to the termination of PEHE units in Washington and Oregon. The demise of physical education at Portland State was particularly painful for me because I spent 17 (happy) years as a faculty member there. The purpose of this essay is to describe and reflect on the values that currently dominate PEHE and to suggest changes that could enhance our chances for program survival. Because this essay honors Dudley Allen Sargent, I thought it only appropriate that I try to collaborate with him in this endeavor, albeit long distance.

A couple of caveats are necessary before I make my case: First, in generaliz- ing about our state of affairs, I will no doubt gloss over some of the things taking place and emphasize others, reflecting my own biases and interpretations as much as anything else. Enough has been written on perceptions and reality (e.g., Polanyi, 1958) to suggest that this is nothing very startling. I don't apologize for looking at the world through a particular lens, but I want you, the reader, to understand that your views may legitimately differ. To drive this point home, let me note that one respected scholar in PEHE referred to an earlier version of these remarks as "a plan for final disaster"!

Second, lectures that are converted into essays for publication are often

Don Hellison is with the College of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 901 W. Roosevelt, Chicago, IL 60608.

PROGRAM SURWAL 399

accused of sounding like AAHPERD (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance) Convention hallway conversations. I plead guilty to this charge. I am an integral part of what I am writing about; I cannot distance myself from it. I can only try to share my biases, as Myrdal (1944) recommended many years ago. I could of course change the language so that it would sound more objective and scientific, but that would only be an effort (feeble at best) to fool the reader and would represent something of which I am critical in this essay.

Dominant Values in PEHE

What do we value? That is, what do we believe to be most important about what we do? What qualities best represent our work? What do we stand for? Dominant values, those that really matter, socialize newcomers and provide the basis for evaluating the performance of both junior and senior faculty. The socialization process is most evident in three areas: doctoral education-how we socialize our students, what we teach them to value; induction to the professoriate-how we socialize our assistant professors, what hoops we require them to jump through to remain in PEHE (e.g., tenure and promotion through the ranks); and publication criteria-what requirements the gatekeepers of our scholarly journals use to let in and keep out submitted articles.

These three are related, of course. We prepare our doctoral students to be assistant professors, who, along with tenured faculty desiring to be promoted, must publish in certain respected journals. Some might argue that I am taking a narrow view of values, that people in PEHE value lots of things that are not part of this process. I will review some of those alternative values shortly, but my argument is that to really understand what is valued, we must look to those areas that control the socialization process-where the stakes are high and conformity is most important. Another objection might be that tampering with dominant values is out of our hands, that this is the way universities work. My view is that we must try to do what we believe to be right, but I will also address the issue of university values later in this essay.

One way to bring Sargent into this discussion and at the same time situate current values is to look briefly at the dominant values during Sargent's time. My impression of the Sargent years (Gerber, 1971; Spears & Swanson, 1988) is that PEHE professors (or their equivalent) expressed passion for physical education (not kinesiology), for the improvement of practice, and for some social issues and that their advocacy far outdistanced their data. They did collect data, especially anthropometric measurements (Sargent conducted some 50,000 physical exams), but their commitment to improving people's lives was not restricted to collecting and analyzing data. Two of Sargent7s contributions, programs for the weak and physical education for women, reflect his social conscience and activism. He also wrote of the potential contributions of sport to personal and social development. Even C.H. McCloy, who represented the next era of PEHE, was an activist with a passion for the improvement of practice and a generalist in his scholarship, despite his longstanding opposition to the education-through-the-physical move- ment.

If we restrict our focus to the socialization of doctoral students, induction into the professoriate, and publication criteria, it seems that, although something

400 HELLISON

has been gained since Sargent's time, something important has been lost as well. We seem to have lost our collective social conscience, our activism, our passion for the improvement of practice. We have replaced these values with an emphasis on expanding the PEHE body of knowledge, primarily through data collection and analysis in a variety of specializations. Our collective social conscience, activism, and passion for the improvement of practice have been reduced to what Schon (1990) called technical rationality, the belief that the production and dissemination of "systematic, preferably scientific knowledge" (p. 4) guided by prevailing standards of rigor will solve the problems of practice, both social and otherwise. In Schon's view, practice is too unique, uncertain, and value-oriented to fit the assumptions of technical rationality. Cuban (1992) put it this way: "When the template of technical rationality is laid over a messy social or educa- tional problem, it seldom fits" (p. 6). An example of technical rationality in PEHE is Jerry Thomas's (1990) recent argument that the role of scholarship is to provide a knowledge base and "hope" that practitioners take advantage of it. Even those of us who are inclined to help practitioners more directly are often influenced by a technical orientation characterized by top-down linear thinking and sequentially arranged behavioral outcomes.

There is little room for teaching and service, even of the top-down, linear, outcomes-based kind, in our prevailing value orientation, as evidenced by the weight given these activities in doctoral education and junior faculty induction. A bit of anecdotal evidence came at a recent meeting I attended that included heads of three prestigious PEHE units. A doctoral student, apparently frustrated with the direction of the conversation, finally blurted out, "What about service?" The three looked at him as if he were speaking in a foreign tongue-and did not answer. Teaching fares better, but not much, despite small signs of a renewed interest in it at research universities. Teaching can be viewed as a transmitter of the body of knowledge, but this rationale has been insufficient to elevate its status. Our inability to scientifically evaluate university teaching may partially account for its exclusion from our technocentic value system.

Two structures support these dominant values and make change difficult. The first is PEHE's subdisciplinary structure, which, although under fire for at least the past decade from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Bressan, 1982; Broek- hoff, 1982; Locke, 1990; Newell, 1990), appears to remain entrenched as the organizational structure for the field. This structure fully supports data collection and analysis in order to expand the bodies of knowledge (the subdisciplines) and relegates questions of value and purpose to sport philosophy and physical educa- tion curriculum. Applied questions are not as appealing as those of basic science (and perhaps to a lesser extent the humanities) because applied questions distance the researcher from the parent discipline and make publication in parent-discipline journals more difficult. Nonpositivist (or less positivist) paradigms have made small inroads, but these have been more or less subsumed in the subdisciplinary structure. The trend for a name change from physical education to kinesiology or other science-sounding labels formally recognizes the technical character of the subdisciplines.

A second supporting structure is the university. Grants and published re- search in prestigious journals drive the modem university, and this is to a large extent true of middle-range universities as well. In addition. research-oriented

u

universities are the major training sites for future faculty at all institutions,

PROGRAM SURVIVAL 40 1

resulting in the spread of these values beyond doctorate-granting universities. The university has spawned and continues to provide a very hospitable environment for current PEHE values.

Dominant Values and Program Survival

The argument that current values in PEHE differ significantly from histori- cal values in the field does not, in itself, cause PEHE units to be more vulnerable to attack and possible elimination. The major issue is whether these values are defensible. Certainly they are in relation to the priorities of the modern university and from a traditional research perspective. We have worked hard for credibility in the academic community, and we have been largely successful. However, both moral and political questions need to be raised about the defensibility of these values.

The moral question is primarily one of purpose. Activism, service, and a concern for social problems and for the improvement of practice no longer characterize the purpose of PEHE except as problematic by-products of knowl- edge production and dissemination (i.e., technical rationality). The subdisciplines produce and disseminate knowledge that is assumed to make some contribution to society, despite the questionable fit of university research to the problems of practice. Meanwhile, considerable energy is expended on changing the name of the field (to something more "scientific"). The central moral question is whether we really matter to anyone but ourselves. Would the elimination of whole sub- disciplines really affect anyone other than those whose careers are at stake?

The second question is political. As Yiannakis (1979) observed, if moral issues do not motivate us to do something, perhaps political realities will. Al- though we have established credibility with the academic community, what about our credibility with taxpayers? Do they perceive us to be doing anything useful, anything they want to pay for? And what about our credibility with practitioners, those wading in the "swamp" of practice while we occupy the "high, hard ground" of research (Schon, 1990, p. 3)? Ellis (1988) recently argued that professionals who practice physical education in schools, social agencies, health clubs, and other places no longer have anything in common with us. What is their opinion of the worth of our activities?

The Search for Alternatives

To find answers to these moral and political questions, we must explore alternatives to our current values. Perhaps the first place to look is at the growing backlash to these values in the literature both in and outside of PEHE. This literature is clustered around four themes: minimal interest in questions of purpose, the failure of technical rationality, weaknesses in the subdisciplinary structure, and a critique of the modem American university.

Three essays (Burt, 1987; Hellison, 1987; Hoffman, 1987) that appeared in the same publication but were prepared independently all identified the irrelevance of much current scholarship, the trend toward specialization, the loss of interest in the whole person, the disinterest in practice, and the direction of the wellness movement as current problems in PEHE. Underlying these three critiques was a concern for the direction of the field, for its mission and values. Others have

raised purpose questions as well. For example, Lawson (1991) pointed out the complexities of problem setting (i.e., identification of purpose and goals) in a fragmented field. The subdisciplines have also struggled with matters of purpose. In sport pedagogy, for example, Dodds and Placek (1991) and Griffey (1991) recently complained that questions of purpose are bypassed in sport pedagogy research.

In sport philosophy, one of the subdisciplines usually charged with address- ing issues of value and purpose, separation from the other subdisciplines and a disinterest in applied problems has rendered it "anorexic," according to Meier (1991). Bandy (1987) was even more critical when she wrote that sport philosophy "has been guilty of a narrow and self-serving posture and view which fails to realize the significance of anything beyond itself. . . . This reeks of elitism, ethnocentricity, and indifference7' (p. 3). Meier (1991) was particularly concerned about sport philosophers' disinterest in applied problems, which in his view was not unique to sport philosophy:

It is not all that rare for scholars of sport to disregard applied research, to eschew proselytizing endeavors, or to focus their work in such a manner as to be of limited assistance to either the coaching or physical education professions. (p. 60)

Other recognized PEHE scholars in a variety of subdisciplines have also lamented the failure of research to impact practice, even when it is intended to do so, for example in sport pedagogy (Lawson, 1990; Martinek & Schempp, 1988), sport psychology (Martens, 1987), and sport sociology (Sage, 1987).

The postpositivist critique of research methodology (e.g., McKay, Gore, & Kirk, 1990) is growing in PEHE, and advocacy of alternative research methodolo- gies, especially various forms of qualitative inquiry, is evident (e.g., Locke, 1989; Martens, 1987) and may help bridge the gap between research and practice. Schon's (1990) observation that the high, hard ground of research ignores the value judgments, uniqueness, and uncertainty that characterize the swamp of practice opens the door even further to practice-oriented research approaches. Perhaps for the reasons that Schon identified, practitioners are not impressed with research findings. Cuban's (1992) observation matches my own over the past 23 years of working with practitioners: "There action is prized. The knowledge that is admired is concrete, relevant, drawn from experience, and applied to the practical dilemmas [they face]." (p. 8)

Practitioners are impressed with experiences, with stories that express ideas being put into practice, and with being empowered to make value judgments regarding the worth of these ideas in their own settings, with their own students and their own teaching philosophy and style. Fortunately, such stories are now being recognized as a form of research (Schubert & Ayers, 1992), and Georgiadis (1992) has recently demonstrated how they can be generated in PEHE from the practical inquiry paradigm.

The top-down, linear, outcomes-based technology that characterizes much of our direct assistance to practitioners is also being challenged by the trend toward practitioner empowerment. Two of the most widely respected sport peda- gogy scholars, Daryl Siedentop (1991) and George Graham (1992), have built some choice into their guidelines for practitioners, and in their latest work both

PROGRAM SURVIVAL 403

have more clearly identified the top-down components of their models. Outside PEHE, research on the brain (Willis, 1991), in cognitive and constructivist psy- chology (Shepard, 1991), and on the education of low-socioeconomic status students (Knapp & Shields, 1990) challenges the assumptions of top-down, linear, outcomes-based approaches. Moreover, prominent education scholars such as Ernest Boyer (1990), John Goodlad (1983), Linda Darling-Hammond (l990), and Elliott Eisner (1991) have been highly critical of technical answers to complex educational problems.

Another trend, loosely connected to the postpositivist critique of research methodology, is the recent interest among some PEHE scholars in feminism, critical theory, and poststructuralism/postmodernism (e.g., Bain, 1988, 1990; Dewar, 1991; Kirk, 1992; Tinning, 1991; Whitson & Macintosh, 1990). These are fresh breezes that, while not of gale force, should have some influence on future values of the field.

Current university priorities that support the dominant values of PEHE are under attack as well, in trade publications such as ProfScam (Sykes, 1988) and by respectable watchdogs (e.g., Boyer, 1990) as well as within the university (e.g., Von Blum, 1986; Wilshire, 1989). So is the subdisciplinary structure of PEHE as cited earlier, most recently in volumes 42 and 43 of Quest.

These rumbles of dissatisfaction with current values have coalesced into concrete alternatives in a few instances. Perhaps the most successful is the applied intersubdisciplinary work being conducted at Adelphi University (Rees, Feingold, & Barrette, 1991). Feingold and his associates have retained the struc- ture of subdisciplines but are collaborating across them on a number of applied projects. Both the collaboration and the applied focus distinguish these efforts from dominant values. Another alternative was proposed by Siedentop (1990) in response to Newell's (1990) restructuring of PEHE. He argued that Newell's proposal did not alter the intent of the subdisciplinary structure and that perhaps a separate professional wing of PEHE needs to be created alongside the current structure or Newell's version of it. One might be called kinesiology, the other physical education.

Kleinman (1992) has been suggesting a third alternative for years. His proposal is to place what he believes to be the true subject matter of physical education-badminton, volleyball, dance, and so on-at the center of the field. I have heard several colleagues support his conceptualization, until they realized that graduate study would be transformed to advanced badminton, advanced dance, and so on! Needless to say, these changes would have a dramatic impact on doctoral education, the induction of junior faculty, and publication criteria.

Personal Experience as a Source of Insight

Another source of insight into dominant PEHE values and possible altema- tives is the autobiography (Schubert & Ayers, 1992). For example, Linda Bain (1990) shared her personal journey and its impact on her perspective, and Tom Martinek (Graham, Anderson, Hellison, & Martinek, 1991) shared his struggle to break free of the research tradition in which he was trained and that provided the context for his academic life. In like fashion, my own journey has provided a particular lens through which to view, critique, and develop alternatives to current PEHE values. Of course, a risk in autobiographical work is the distinct

404 HELLISON

possibility of creating one's autobiography, of conveniently forgetting some things and embroidering others. As someone once said, "I'm not the person I once was, and I never was!"

I came into PEHE relatively late in life and by a circuitous route: a major in history, a master's degree in sociology, and a stint in the United States Marine Corps. While a Marine, I began to work with youth in trouble (Judge: "It's jail or the Marines! ") in several settings: sport (wars are won on the playing fields), fitness (and by being in shape), and, of course, a certain version of outdoor education (and by practicing "in the field"). This experience led to an investiga- tion of doctoral programs in physical education, several rejections ("Go back to sociology," one letter read), and a sympathetic reception from Ohio State (if I would first get certified to teach PE in the state of Ohio). At last, I had "found myself"! Much to my dismay, the subdisciplinary/technical rationality perspec- tive was just staking out its temtory in PEHE, and I apparently looked like a good candidate for sport sociology. But I did not want to study sport sociology; I wanted to learn to use physical activity as an intervention medium for troubled youth and perhaps to teach these skills to others. Fortunately, because the sub- disciplines had yet to gain a strong foothold at Ohio State (except for exercise physiology), I was able to specialize in being a generalist(!); and, although no one knew much about at-risk youth, the faculty were supportive and allowed me to write papers and do projects in this area.

My first job, at Portland State University, lasted 17 years. Here again, I sidestepped the developing subdisciplinary/technical rationality value system. My teaching load was heavy and included most of the current subdisciplinary "core" courses as well as sport pedagogy and activity courses. Committee assignments and advisees filled the time between classes. None of this was unusual at the time, but these activities did not meet all of my needs, so I taught "at-risk" teenagers in Portland's inner city and diversion-detention program gyms "on the side." However, I found myself stripped of the authority of being a Marine Corps officer, and consequently my bag of tricks shrank considerably. Gradually, however, I developed some goals and strategies for these kids based on my experiences and began to share my ideas for at-risk youth and for a more humanis- tic physical education in general. The ideas were not based on research as the term was understood at the time, but some teachers both in and outside of physical education as well as youth workers and even a few administrators and coaches adopted and adapted my ideas in their gyms, classrooms, schools, and social agencies.

(An insightful aside to these experiences occurred when I became eligible for promotion to associate professor with tenure. The committee wrote an enthusi- astic letter but omitted mention of the book and other publications I had written! These activities were just not deemed to be that important by the faculty, a testimony to the recency of currently dominant values.)

I first referred to my work as research in 1983 (Hellison, 1983), thanks to the prodding of Tom Templin, and soon after it was described as curriculum theory (Jewett & Bain, 1985; Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986; Steinhardt, 1992), quasicritical theory (Bain & Jewett, 1987), and, very recently, practical inquiry (Georgiadis, 1992). I began to try to be a bit more systematic in evaluating the extent of impact of my goals and strategies while at the same time collaborating with teacher colleagues as "coresearchers." Also in the '80s and '90s I was

PROGRAM SURVIVAL 405

invited to present at meetings of five of the subdisciplines, perhaps a tribute to the intersubdisciplinary nature of my work, but just as likely an indication of confusion about where I "belong."

These personal experiences have influenced my thinking in at least four ways. First, my record is not very tenurable at most middle-range and research institutions, because it does not meet criteria based on the dominant values. But I am tenured (and happy), so I have no complaints, only an observation: If a person is left alone for awhile, he or she might develop enough of a reputation to survive despite the current system. However, the current induction process does not allow doctoral students and junior faculty that freedom. Our current system not only discourages creative, alternative thinking, it eliminates those who will not submit to the dominant values.

Second, my experience has been not only that teaching and service are important PEHE activities but that, in combination with research, they can be conceptualized as different dimensions of the same activity. For example, working with at-risk youth serves the community, and if undergraduate majors and graduate students become involved, they learn to teach in difficult circumstances. And if insights emerge from these experiences and are shared with others, a kind of research also takes place. The PEHE classroom provides another opportunity for teaching (obviously), service (if students do work in the community as in my mentoring project [Kallusky, 1991]), and research (see Hellison & Templin, 1991).

Third, the search for purpose has been central to my work, and this search has not been constrained by dominant values (which, to be fair, were not firmly in place when I got started). The resulting values-personal and social develop- ment, "at-risk' ' youth, the "swamp' ' of practice, reflective teaching40 not fit easily into one subdiscipline nor do they meet the assumptions of technical rationality.

Fourth, there is nothing very technical, linear, sequential, or outcomes- oriented about my work. I have developed some structure for myself and others (e.g., Hellison, 1985), but its limitations have been pointed out repeatedly (Georgiadis, 1992). In research, my goal is insight rather than prediction; in teaching, the quality of the process is more important than behavioral outcomes (Raywid, Tesconi, & Warren, 1984). I think that Eliot Wigginton (1985) was right when he said that sometimes the best we can do is to provide islands of decency and that Maxine Greene's (1987) notion of providing images of possibil- ity is a worthwhile, although not behavioral, goal. Perhaps my thinking about process and outcomes has mostly been influenced by my own modest ''victories" with the kids I work with (e.g., Hellison, 1988).

Some Suggestions for the Future of PEHE

Both the literature and my autobiography suggest a range of alternatives to the specialized knowledge production and technical rationality embedded in current PEHE values. Although I am on record in support of an applied model for PEHE (Hellison, 1982, 1987), I now believe that our best hope not only for survival but for making a useful contribution to society lies in diversity. One model, whether the one we have now or some alternative, closes off some of our potentialities and exaggerates others. Shutting down basic research would reduce

the capability of PEHE to make a contribution to society (Kroll, 1971). However, our dominant values do not give equal footing to different viewpoints on purpose, scholarship, and the definition of excellence. As a result, inbreeding of ideas and methodologies occurs, diversity declines, and our potentialities are reduced. To move toward more diversity in PEHE, we need to broaden our conceptualization of purpose, scholarship, and excellence.

Our current definitions of excellence in graduate education, the professorial induction process, and publication criteria are quite narrow; favorable judgments are reserved for those who play the game a certain way. Rather than devalue current forms of excellence, I suggest we simply add alternative criteria, toward what Norton (1976) called a complementarity of excellences. This will be difficult, not only because the development of such alternative criteria is no easy task but because we will need to overcome the likely resistance of those who now control and benefit from the narrow definitions.

Notions of excellence are connected to both purpose (excellence in what) and scholarship (how to demonstrate excellence). By broadening our sense of purpose, we could diversify current values and provide some guidance for the development of alternative criteria for defining excellence. To accomplish this, we need to widen the PEHE mission beyond expanding and disseminating the subdisciplinary bodies of knowledge. We need to legitimize applied work and put the improvement of practice back in our purpose, not just in schools but wherever professional practice takes place. Subdisciplinary development in PEHE led to a clear separation of theory and research from practice (e.g., Kenyon, 1969). Perhaps it is time to recognize that these activities are interdependent and that some of us are helping professionals as well as scholars.

A second way to develop alternative criteria for excellence while promoting diversity is to broaden our conceptualization of scholarship. We must legitimize approaches that currently lie outside our values. As I have already argued, improv- ing the swamp of practice requires several changes. First, if we want to improve the swamp, some of us need to go wading in it! We cannot remain on the high, hard ground. Both process-product and interpretive research have taken steps in this direction and have been legitimized at least to some extent in PEHE scholar- ship, but it is not enough to describe behaviors (even in the very sophisticated ways that Sharpe and Hawkins [I9921 have suggested) or meanings. We need both, but we need much more. We need insights that can only be derived from reflective practice. Such insights will not produce the predictive capability of positivistic research, but they may be the best we can hope for (Cronbach, 1975). We also need alternative ideas from a variety of sources, such as the literature and practice itself. One of these sources is our own creativity; we need a physical education imagination to generate ideas for practice. Siedentop's (Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986) sport education is one such idea. Although some data are now being collected regarding this model's effectiveness, the idea itself has merit as scholarship. This is so because practitioners make judgments based on their values and on what they believe will work in their settings. As Schon (1990) stated, the world of practice involves value judgments and uniqueness, characteristics generally ignored by researchers.

If helping people is to be part of the PEHE mission as I have argued, some of our scholarship needs to support this goal. The suggestions already made would help, and so would Mitroff and Kilmann's (1981) conceptualization of particular

PROGRAM SURVlVAL 407

humanism as a kind of scholarship that attempts to help particular people in a particular setting. For example, if a professor lent her expertise to helping the local Boys and Girls Club improve their attendance (adherence) but did not publish or present the results, her work could still stand alongside other kinds of scholarship. PEHE has traditionally called this kind of work service; Mitroff and Kilmann make a compelling argument for calling it scholarship.

Another form of scholarship, the study of one's own teaching, would help move teaching back toward the center of the academic enterprise. Boyer (1990) has suggested that teaching be considered a form of scholarship. Teaching itself may or may not be very scholarly, but the study of one's teaching is clearly within the purview of legitimate scholarship.

If Sargent Could See Us Now

What would Sargent say if he could see us now? He would no doubt be impressed by our technology, not only the computers and faxes and whatnot but the impact of technology on his major interest, fitness. I think he would see these developments as tools to enhance the mission of PEHE, but I believe when he learned that the mission itself has been significantly altered, that expanding the body of knowledge and technical rationality have become the dominant values of graduate education, the faculty induction process, and the criteria for publica- tion in prestigious journals, he would be shocked and profoundly discouraged--or angry.

So what? Why should some historical figure, resurrected by my imagination, have any bearing on what we do today? The case against us cannot be waged solely or even primarily from a historical perspective, nor need it be. Program survival is a palpable issue with both moral and political dimensions. In my judgment, our current values are both morally and politically problematic. I am no longer arguing for their dismissal as I have in the past, but I am convinced that our mission, our forms of acceptable scholarship, and our definitions of excellence must be broadened.

Not long ago Linda Bain (1990) suggested that

if we want to create a new world, we must have new ways of seeing the world. We must have new visions and new voices. What inquiry in the post- structural world involves is not a quest for certainty but a celebration of ambiguity and competing discourses. (p. 9)

Bain's poststructural perspective supports the kind of diversity I am suggesting. Perhaps Sargent's perspective could help as well, by renewing some old visions. Of course, as Bain reminded us, our heritage is tarnished and needs shining:

We must be willing to set aside our past, to sunrive a series of trials, and to return to the world with renewed strength and vision. I believe it is time that physical education set aside its technocentric and patriarchal and racist history and become engaged in the central moral dilemmas of our time. Let's not just predict the future; let's transform it. (p. 104)

In my judgment, there must be room in our mission and our scholarship for the central moral dilemmas of our times. Those of us who are protected by tenure

408 HELLISON

and who have not been fully socialized by the dominant values are the most likely to lead such a transformation, but perhaps the political issues involved in our fight for survival will stir others to action as well.

But how does one begin to challenge current values? With speeches and publications such as this one? Perhaps we need to look to alternative voices for answers. Tom Robbins, in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976), had this to say about putting values into practice:

If you believe in peace, act peacefully. If you believe in love, act lovingly. And if you believe in every which way then act every which way. But don't try to sell your beliefs to the system. You wind up contradicting yourself, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world, change yourself. (pp. 35 1-352)

I think those of us in PEHE who want to "change the world" could benefit by heeding this message. If I heeded it, I would certainly write fewer essays such as this one.

References

Bain, L.L. (1988). Beginning the journey: Agenda for 2001. Quest, 40, 96-106. Bain, L.L. (1990). Visions and voices. Quest, 42, 1-12. Bain, L.L., & Jewett, A.E. (1987). Future research and theory building. Journal of Teaching

in Physical Education, 6, 346-362. Bandy, S.J. (1987). Editorial. Philosophy Academy Newsletter, 7 , 3. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. Bressan, E.S. (1982). An academic discipline for physical education: What a fine mess!

NAPEHE Proceedings, 3, 22-27. Broekhoff, J. (1982). A discipline-Who needs it? NAPEHE Proceedings, 3, 28-35. Burt, J.J. (1987). Three dreams: The future of HPERD at the cutting edge. In J. Massengale

(Ed.), Trends toward the future in physical education (pp. 153-168). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 1 16-127.

Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educa- tional Researcher, 21, 4- 1 1.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Achieving our goals: Superficial or structural reforms? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 286-295.

Dewar, A. (1991). Feminist pedagogy in physical education: Promises, possibilities, and pitfalls. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62, 68ff.

Dodds, P., & Placek, J.H. (1991). Silverman's PT-PE review: Too simple a summary of a complex field. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 365-368.

Eisner, E.W. (1991). What really counts in schools. Educational Leadership, 48, 10-17. Ellis, M. (1988). Warning: The pendulum has swung far enough. Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance, 59, 75-78. Georgiadis, N. (1992). Practical inquiry in physical education: The case of Hellison's

personal and social responsibility model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Illinois at Chicago.

PROGRAM SURVIVAL 409

Gerber, E.W. (1971). Innovators and institutions in physical education. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Goodlad, J.I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 552-556.

Graham, G. (1992). Teaching children physical education: Becoming a master teacher. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Graham, G., Anderson, W., Hellison, D., & Martinek, T. (1991, January). Research in the service of teachers: Ruminations on why we do it. Panel discussion at the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education/AIESEP World Congress, Atlanta, GA.

Greene, M. (1987). From thepredictable to thepossible: Recapturing a vision. Presentation to the Chicago Area Schools Effectiveness Council Spring Forum, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Griffey, D.C. (1991). The value and future agenda of research on teaching physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 380-383.

Hellison, D. (1982). The advantages of NAPEHE developing an image as a scholarly organization with a focus on theory into practice. Proceedings of the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education, 3, 3-10.

Hellison, D. (1983). It only takes one case to prove a possibility . . . and beyond. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 102-106). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. (1987). Dreaming the possible dream: The rise and triumph of physical education. In J. Massengale (Ed.), Trends toward the future in physical education (pp. 137-151). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. (1988). Cause of death: Physical education-a sequel. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 59, 18-21.

Hellison, D., & Templin, T.J. (1991). A reflective approach to teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hoffman, S.J. (1987). Dreaming the impossible dream: The decline and fall of physical education. In J. Massengale (Ed.), Trends toward the future in physical education (pp. 121-136). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jewett, A.E., & Bain, L.L. (1985). The cun-iculumprocess in physical education. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Kallusky, J.P. (1991). A qualitative evaluation of a physical education mentoring program for at-risk children. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Chico.

Kenyon, G.S. (1969). A sociology of sport: On becoming a subdiscipline. In R.C. Brown & B.J. Cratty (Eds.), New perspectives of man in action (pp. 163-180). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kirk, D. (1992). Physical education, discourse, and ideology: Bringing the hidden cumcu- lum into view. Quest, 44, 35-56.

Kleinman, S. (1992). Name that discipline. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63, 11-12.

Knapp, M.S., & Shields, P.M. (1990). Reconceiving academic instruction for the children of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 753-758.

Kroll, W.P. (1971). Perspectives in physical education. New York: Academic Press. Lawson, H.A. (1990). Sport pedagogy research: From information-gathering to useful

knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 1-20.

410 HELLISON

Lawson, H.A. (1991). Specialization and fragmentation among faculty as endemic features of academic life. Quest, 43, 280-295.

Locke, L.F. (1989). Qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 1-20.

Locke, L.F. (1990). Commentary: Conjuring kinesiology and other parlor tricks. Quest, 42, 323-329.

Martens, R. (1987). Science, knowledge, and sport psychology. Sport Psychologist, 1,29- 55.

Martinek, T.J., & Schempp, P.G. (1988). An introduction to models for collaboration. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 160-164.

McKay, J., Gore, J.M., & Kirk, D. (1990). Beyond the limits of technocratic physical education. Quest, 42, 52-76.

Meier, K.V. (1991). Philosophical anorexia. Quest, 43, 55-65. Mitroff, I.I., & Kilmann, R.H. (1981). The four-fold way of knowing: The varieties of

social science experience. Theory and Society, 10, 227-248. Myrdal, G. (1944). The American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy.

New York: Harper. Newell, K.M. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest,

42, 227-242. Norton, D.L. (1976). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. New York: Harper & Row. Raywid, M.A., Tesconi, C.A., & Warren, D.R. (1984). Pride and promise: Schools of

excellence for all the people. Westbury, NY: American Educational Studies Associa- tion.

Rees, C.R., Feingold, R.S., & Barrette, G.T. (1991). Overcoming obstacles to collaboration and integration in physical education. Quest, 43, 319-332.

Robbins, T. (1976). Even cowgirls get the blues. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sage, G. (1987). Pursuit of knowledge in sociology of sport: Issues and prospects. Quest,

39, 255-281. Schon, D.A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for

teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schubert, W.H., & Ayers, W.C. (Eds.) (1992). Teacher lore: Learning from our own

experience. New York: Longman. Sharpe, T., & Hawkins, A. (1992). Field systems analysis: Prioritizing patterns in time

and context among observable variables. Quest, 44, 15-34. Shepard, L.A. (1991). Psychometricians' beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher,

20, 2-16. Siedentop, D. (1990). Commentary: The world according to Newell. Quest, 42, 315-322. Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed.). Mountain

View, CA: Mayfield. Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education: Curriculum and

instruction strategies for grades 5-12. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Spears, B., & Swanson, R.A. (1988). History of sport andphysical education in the United

States (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Steinhardt, M.A. (1992). Physical education. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research

on curriculum (pp. 964-1001). New York: Macmillan. Sykes, C.J. (1988). ProfScam: Professors and the demise of higher education. Washington,

DC: Regnery Gateway.

PROGRAM SURVIVAL 41 1

Thomas, J.R. (1990). The ten cardinal principles of physical activity. Physical Educator, 47, 169-171.

Tinning, R. (1991). Teacher education pedagogy: Dominant discourses and the process of problem setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 1-20.

Von Blum, P. (1986). Stillborn education: A critique of the American research university. Lantham, MD: University Press of America.

Whitson, D.J., & Macintosh, D. (1990). The scientization of physical education: Discourses of performance. Quest, 42, 40-51.

Wigginton, E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Willis, S. (November, 1991). Teaching to the brain. ASCD Update, 33, 1, 3. Wilshire, B. (1989). The moral collapse of the university: Professionalism, purity, and

alienation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Yiannakis, A. (1979, July). From the editor. NASSS Newsletter, 1(2).