Spiritual_Wellness_Holistic_Health_and_the_Practic

88 Philosophical Foundations of Health Education
reflected in practice as depicted by choices made in response to the education scenarios
depicted by the vignettes. For example, even though subjects stated that
decision - making was the philosophy closest to their beliefs in the rank order exercise,
choices made in response to the vignettes reflected the philosophies of behavior
change or social change . Very few written comments were given to justify
decision - making philosophy. This suggested that although health educators hold the
principles of decision - making as ideals, application of this philosophy in educational
settings did not result. Overall, the ability of learners to decide their own fate was
desired, yet it did not seem appropriate to any of the particular health education settings
offered for judgment. This philosophical trend is pervasive and important for
health education. For example, the theme for the 1995 national convention of the
American Public Health Association (APHA) [was] Decision - Making in Public
Health: Priorities, Power, and Ethics. How health educators choose to put decision -
making principles into action will greatly affect the health education profession into
the next century.
Health educators, regardless of stated philosophical beliefs, often change philosophy
according to health education setting: Philosophy is considered the foundation
that guides and gives directions in educational situations (Nolte, 1976). For the sample
population in this study, theoretical professional philosophy had little apparent impact
on educational decisions as offered in the vignettes. Many health educators are “ action
people ” rather than philosophers. They do what works, pragmatically, without much
philosophical forethought. Health education professionals also seem to let alternative
or external factors dictate educational decisions.
Health educators, even ones with strong philosophical beliefs, demonstrated great
adaptive ability. If health educators cannot bend/blend a little, they could do more
harm for the overall profession than good. An example of this might be sexuality education
in the schools. If health educators are too rigid, they might alienate a group they
could potentially impact. On the other hand, are philosophical principles compromised
too much? The determining factor in this dilemma is that health educators need to recognize
the philosophy of the agency and determine if it is too different from personal
philosophy. In a certain setting, can a health educator make the adaption and be
comfortable with it?
Health educators are comfortable in many settings adopting an eclectic approach
to directing learning. The importance of eclecticism in health education has been theorized,
yet never proven (Russell, 1975, 1976). Health educators who adopted this
approach demonstrated comfort in pulling bits and pieces of all/any philosophies to
justify their educational decisions. There are advantages and disadvantages in a profession
that operates eclectically. Timmreck and his colleagues (1987, 1988) hypothesized
that for health education to become a distinct profession, the adaptation of
eclecticism could hurt this development. This “ lack of distinction ” as a profession
clearly hampers participation in a number of contemporary issues. For example, health
education as a profession was largely ignored in the recent health care reform debate.
How can external organizations and institutions obtain input or help from a discipline