Abstract
The field of athletic training has initiated curricular reform in its preparation programs as part of an effort to upgrade its status from an occupation based in athletics to a profession based in medicine. These efforts mirror those of other fields where professional status is sought by claiming authority over a body of specialized knowledge and adopting rigorous curriculum standards. Athletic training has changed from an apprenticeship to a medical school model of extended coursework and certification through examination. This change has raised questions within the field about what professionalism in athletic training is, the value of clinical education, and specifically, whether preparation should emphasize an ethic of care and relationship as well as expertise. I explore these questions about professional development and clinical education, using an interpretive research design and practice theory (Wenger, 1998).^In conducting fieldwork in the athletic training programs at contrasting universities, my observations focused primarily in the athletic training room where participants learn to use the knowledge they have gained in coursework. I also conducted structured interviews with faculty, staff, and students and examined relevant documents, such as national standards and local policy manuals. My analysis documents that the national standards for clinical education are locally interpreted. For example, whereas faculty in courses rely on the national standards and direct instruction, practitioners in the athletic training room rely on time-honored local practices, distributed expertise, and learning by doing. As a result, clinical education emphasizes that both expertise and caring relationships are crucial to effective health services.^My research challenges assumptions in the field of athletic training that recent, top-down curriculum reform is being adopted in local programs or that following medicine's example will result in either professional or successful health care. Implications of this study also include challenges to the formal role of athletic training educators in the clinical setting, which insist that students must be supervised by instructors for education to take place. I also raise questions about how national views on professionalism are being interpreted at the local level.