Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2010;34(5):563-572 563

Formation and Early History of TheAmerican Academy of Health BehaviorRobert J. McDermott, PhD, FAAHB; Elbert D. Glover, PhD, FAAHB

Robert J. McDermott, Professor and Co-Direc-tor, Florida Prevention Research Center, Depart-ment of Community and Family Health, Univer-sity of South Florida College of Public Health, FL.Elbert D. Glover, Professor & Chair, Departmentof Public & Community Health, University of Mary-land School of Public Health, and Director, Cen-ter for Health Behavior Research, College Park,MD.

Address correspondence to Dr McDermott,Florida Prevention Research Center, Departmentof Community and Family Health, University ofSouth Florida College of Public Health, 13201Bruce B. Downs Boulevard (MDC 056)Tampa, FL33612. E-mail: rmcdermo@health.usf.edu

Objective: To document the for-mation and early history of TheAmerican Academy of Health Be-havior. Methods: Recollectionsand interactions with selectedfounders of The Academy activein building the organizationthrough its formative years. Re-sults: A professional organizationcame into existence whose solemission is fostering research skilldevelopment and research dis-semination across health behav-ior-related disciplines that in-

creases the likelihood of improvedtranslation and evidence-basedpractice. Conclusion: Creation andsurvival of this organization re-quired visionary leadership, dedi-cated early adopters, a commit-ment to excellence, and outreachto new researchers.

Key words: The Academy, re-search, AAHB, American Acad-emy of Health Behavior, healthbehavior, organization formation,meritocracy

Am J Health Behav. 2010;34(5):563-572

The inspiration for a new and differ-ent kind of professional organiza-tion came from Dr Elbert D. Gloverand evolved from a dream and vision hehad for more than 2 decades to create anacademy of scholars. Dr Glover trained asa health educator and, similar to a cadreof his contemporaries, believed that aca-demic health educators often were lessrespected (and less rewarded) on univer-sity campuses than their peers in other

academic disciplines. Part of this “lesserrespect” seemed to emanate from a per-ception that in many research-intensiveand doctoral degree-granting institutions,health education research often lacked“centrality” with respect to the mission ofthe university compared to the researchcarried out in other disciplines. The no-tion also persisted that a significant pro-portion of health behavior-related re-search that was not subject to this allega-tion was emerging from fields such aspsychology, behavioral medicine, andother social science areas. In addition,some health education programs and pro-fessional organizations appeared to befocused heavily on their teaching andservice missions, with high-quality re-search being relegated a lower priority.Concurrent with these developments, anumber of long-standing and tradition-rich health education professional prepa-ration programs around the country (in-cluding doctoral degree-granting pro-grams) were closing, being merged withother academic units, or otherwise beingdiminished in stature, arguably becausetheir faculties were not meeting the com-

The American Academy of Health Behavior

564

petitive demands of the new researchenvironment. Whereas there most cer-tainly were professionally prepared doc-toral-level health educators who conductedresearch of substantive quality and quan-tity, these “heavy hitters” were only rarelypresenting original research at meetingsof national health education organiza-tions. Moreover, when they publishedtheir work, frequently they were doing soin more prestigious or higher impact peer-reviewed journals whose readerships werenot comprised principally of health edu-cators.

Taking the initiative and attempting tobring life to the dream he had envisioned,beginning on April 1, 1997, Dr Glover in-vited many of the aforementioned “heavyhitters,” particularly ones whose researchhe knew best, to join him in founding TheAmerican Academy of Health Behavior.Initially, he identified 34 researchers withwhom he shared his vision, along with adraft of proposed organizational bylaws. Ul-timately, 32 individuals accepted the invi-tation and formed the body of FoundingMembers of The Academy between April 8and May 29, 1997. The Founding Memberslisted in Table 1 are presented in thechronological order in which they joinedThe Academy.

Dr Glover’s belief and intention wasthat by forming a solid member base oflike-minded prolific researchers, thesewell-known and widely respected schol-ars would attract other researchers toThe Academy. Because even these com-mitted individuals were skeptical aboutthe likely acceptance and success of anew professional association for healtheducators focused principally on the re-search enterprise, Dr Glover provided acompelling incentive by subsidizingFounding Members’ first 2 years of orga-nizational dues, including a subscriptionto the American Journal of Health Behavior,which was designated in the bylaws asThe Academy’s official professional jour-nal. At that time, the American Journal ofHealth Behavior had been in existence forover 2 decades and owned by Dr Glover.The Journal was already well respectedand gaining traction as a venue for pub-lishing quality health-behavior research.Dr Glover reasoned that by naming theJournal the official publication of The Acad-emy the organization would gain immedi-ate visibility and credibility. Today,whereas the Journal remains a privatefor-profit business and The Academy anonprofit organization, Dr Glover’s rea-soning was prophetic, and the 2 entitieshave flourished in their coexistence.

After recruiting The Academy’sFounders, Dr Glover opened up the orga-nization for membership to other quali-fied applicants. Each of the 18 personswho joined during the subsequent year orso was given the designation of CharterMember. Arguably, the Charter Membersbecame the backbone of this new organi-zation, earning themselves a deservedspecial status in The Academy inasmuch

1. Elbert D. Glover2. Chudley E. Werch3. Mark B. Dignan4. Terri Mulkins Manning5. David R. Black6. Robert F. Valois7. Mark J. Kittleson8. Cheryl J. Rainey9. Kenneth R. McLeroy

10. Robert J. McDermott11. David F. Duncan12. Scott J. Leischow13. James H. Price14. James M. Eddy15. Michael Young16. Ray Tricker17. Robert M. Weiler18. John P. Foreyt19. Ian M. Newman20. Min Qi Wang21. Thomas W. O’Rourke22. Beverly S. Mahoney23. Mohammad R. Torabi24. Stuart W. Fors25. Robert S. Gold26. Molly T. Laflin27. Paul D. Sarvela28. Melody P. Noland29. Mary S. Sutherland30. Cheryl L. Perry31. Lawrence W. Green32. Rick A. Petosa33. Nicholas K. Iammarino

Table 1Chronological List ofFounding Members of

The American Academyof Health Behavior

McDermott & Glover

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2010;34(5):563-572 565

as they were the first dues-paying mem-bers. These Charter Members can bedescribed aptly as “risk-takers” for em-barking on an organization whose finaldestiny was an unknown. They are listedin Table 2 in the chronological order inwhich they joined.

Some Conceptual Underpinnings ofThe AcademyThe Academy was founded to transform

the health promotion and health educa-tion field from one that some authoritiesfelt had become dominated by its teach-ing and service missions to one with astronger research foundation in whichdiscovery would be valued as a means ofimproving practice and enhancing popu-lation-based health. Thus, the origin ofThe Academy was based on the belief thatthe credibility of the health promotionand health education field rested on cre-ating a strong research evidence baseand disseminating this work on at least anational level. It was felt that improvingthe “science” of health behavior researchwould indeed combat the image of lowrespect for health education within theacademic community as well as create apotential for launching the profession intothe national spotlight in a way that medi-cine, engineering, the biological and natu-ral sciences, and other disciplines hadlong enjoyed.

Establishment of The Academy set inmotion a new direction for the field thatwas grounded in a distinctive set of con-ceptual underpinnings. The first of theseprinciples was the establishment of ameritocracy that acknowledged the com-petitive nature of the research environ-ment, challenged members to producequality research, and recognized out-standing research contributions. Thesecond belief was that advancement ofevidence-based practice would be morelikely to occur if nurtured by a profes-sional organization that explicitly identi-fied research as its primary focus. Thethird tenet recognized a need for a forumto review and evaluate research beingconducted so as to improve its quality anddissemination. The fourth underpinningwas the desire to overcome partisan, pro-tective agendas of traditional disciplinesby stimulating multidisciplinary researchand learning. Finally, The Academy wasestablished to inform and educate schol-ars about the latest in research innova-

tions as well as to inspire a commitmentto high-quality investigation amongemerging researchers and students indoctoral education programs. By acknowl-edging and pledging commitment to thesephilosophies, The Academy began to se-cure its unique niche among professionalorganizations.

To represent its underpinnings as aprofessional society, The Academy adoptedthe lamp of learning (the intellectualsource of light) as the central focus of itsofficial seal (Figure 1). The lamp is archedby a banner containing The Academymotto that Founding Member Dr RobertM. Weiler proposed. It reads: “MoresScientia Sanitas” (Behavior-Knowledge-Health). The lamp is underscored by 2laurel branches, symbolic of conquest (ie,of knowledge); a series of 5-pointed stars,which from heraldry represents knightlyrank and is an ideogram for seeking outthat which is mystic; and finally, the yearof The Academy’s founding, 1997.

Scientific Meetings of The AcademyThe Founding Members and Charter

Members of The Academy had partici-pated in their share of professional con-

Table 2Chronological List of Charter

Members of The AmericanAcademy of Health Behavior

1. Dennis L. Thombs2. Ansa Ojanlatva3. Gregory H. Frazer4. Patricia D. Mail5. Raymond L. Goldsteen6. Eugene C. Fitzhugh7. Lynda B. Ransdell8. Randall L. Cottrell9. Mark. G. Wilson

10. Michael W. Felts11. Patricia C. Dunn12. John P. Sciacca13. Mary A. Nies14. Susan K. Telljohann15. Jennie J. Kronenfeld16. Karen D. Liller17. Stephen B. Thomas18. David A. Sleet

The American Academy of Health Behavior

566

ferences that had attracted 10,000 ormore attendees and necessitated thatthese meetings be held only in largecities such as New York; Chicago; LosAngeles; San Francisco; Boston; Wash-ington, DC; and the like. Moreover, activeparticipants in these conferences rarelyhad opportunity to enjoy the venue inwhich their conference took place and, asoften as not, became overwhelmed by thesize of the meeting and the chaos of themetropolitan location. Founding Membersand other early joiners who had enjoyedboth widespread professional and personaltravel saw the advantages of having asmall scientific meeting and pledged thatThe Academy would leverage this advan-tage to host its scientific meetings in“unique and unusual” settings – loca-tions that did not require space for thou-sands, but rather, for 125-150 partici-pants. From its inception, the FoundingMembers never envisioned The Academyas needing to become a large organiza-tion in order to thrive, nor did they be-come aggressive in soliciting members.The Academy’s mission was to promoteand disseminate high-quality researchand be a home for persons conductingrigorous health-behavior investigative

studies. The absence of great concernabout organizational size opened the doorto the distinctive elements of exceptionalhotels and venues of quaint hospitalityand other unique features. The first sci-entific meeting of The Academy was heldin Santa Fe, New Mexico, in September2000. Subsequent to that meeting, theBoard of Directors moved to make thescientific meeting one that was held inthe first quarter of the year. Consequently,no meeting was held in 2001; and thetradition of having an early-year meetingbegan in 2002 with the meeting in NapaValley, California. The full iteration ofmeeting sites to date is shown in Table 3.

In addition to the unique and unusualfeatures of the locations for the scientificmeetings, it was determined that the sci-entific program itself would be entirelyplenary rather than diluted into multipleconcurrent sessions. Moreover, some ofthe most renowned researchers availablewere recruited as speakers for each ses-sion. Whereas the emphasis of the plenarysessions of the first several scientific meet-ings was to expose attendees to examplesof rigorously conducted, cutting-edge re-search and a diverse set of presenters andtopics, meeting organizers gradually be-gan to plan around specific themes. Thefirst theme-directed conference occurredat the fourth scientific meeting in 2004,“Translating Health Behavior Researchinto Action.” The Academy returned to amore generic program structure for its2005 scientific meeting, but since 2006,again has taken a thematic approach toconstruct its plenary sessions.

Finally, the philosophy guiding the pro-gram plan was that a portion of each daywould be free for persons to participate inoptional workshops, meet informallyaround professional interests, or disdainprofessional affairs for a period of the dayto return in the early evening for struc-tured social activity concurrent with sci-entific poster presentations. Thus, theoverscheduling that occurs in many con-ferences was avoided, and the opportu-nity to enjoy the comforts and attractionsof the host site with professional col-leagues was encouraged.

The Development of MembershipCriteriaMost of the Founding Members and

Charter Members of The Academy be-longed to one or more of the traditional

Figure 1The Official Seal of

The American Academy ofHealth Behavior

McDermott & Glover

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2010;34(5):563-572 567

professional health education organiza-tions – the American Public Health Asso-ciation, the Society for Public Health Edu-cation, the American Association ofHealth Education, the American SchoolHealth Association, and the AmericanCollege Health Association – as well as anumber of other professional groups.Some had even held leadership positionsin one or more of these associations.Whereas few of these early joiners of TheAcademy abandoned other organizations,indeed they saw the potential of The Acad-emy to play a unique role in advancingboth practice and the status of the profes-

sion through the stimulation of research.Members of the first Board of Directors

of The Academy were appointed by DrGlover. This Board was described as a“worker bee” group inasmuch as therewas no true executive director, no his-tory, and no previous modus operandi. Inaddition to Dr Glover, members of theFounding Board included Dr David R. Black,Dr James M. Eddy, Dr Nicholas K.Iammarino, Dr Mark J. Kittleson, Dr MollyT. Laflin, Dr Terri Mulkins Manning, DrRobert J. McDermott, Dr Mohammad R.Torabi, Dr Robert M. Weiler, and DrChudley E. “Chad” Werch (Figure 2). Be-

Table 3Sites and Content Elements of The Academy’s Scientific Meetings

Santa Fe, NMSeptember 23-27, 2000Hotel Loretto"Tobacco and Alcohol, Nutrition, Obesity, DataSources"

Napa, CAMarch 24-27, 2002Embassy Suites"Theory-Driven and Qualitative Research, Riskvs. Protective Factors, Technologies"

St. Augustine, FLMarch 16-19, 2003Casa Monica Hotel"Environment and Policy, Prevention Science,Ethics, Health Communication, andMethodological Advances"

Sedona, AZFebruary 29-March 3, 2004Enchantment Resort"Translating Health Behavior Research intoAction"

Charleston, SCFebruary 20-23, 2005Charleston Place"Alternative Paradigms for Health Promotion,Research with Racial Minorities, Genetics andBehavior, Chronic Disease Management,Substance Abuse"

Carmel, CAMarch 5-8, 2006Carmel Valley Ranch"Components of Theoretical or ConceptualModels"

Savannah, GAMarch 25-28, 2007Westin Savannah Harbor"Multilevel Health Behavior Research throughTrans-disciplinary Partnerships"

Oxnard, CAMarch 9-12, 2008Embassy Suites Mandalay Beach"Addictions: From Cells to Societies"

Hilton Head, SCMarch 8-11, 2009Sea Pines Resort"Adoption, Adherence, and Maintenance ofHealth Behavior Change"

Clearwater Beach, FLFebruary 7-10, 2010Sheraton Sand Key Resort"Implementation Science: Translating Evidence-Based Health Behavior Research to Practice"

Hilton Head, SCMarch 20-23, 2011Westin Hilton Head Island"The Art and Science of Community-BasedParticipatory Research: Methods, Measures,and Evidence for Health Behavior Change"

The American Academy of Health Behavior

568

cause Dr Glover’s vision for The Academywas that it was going to be different fromother health education groups, it wasnecessary to cast aside some belief sys-tems so as to maintain a dedicated focuson high quality with respect to all endeav-ors.

Initially, the Board strongly supported 3types of members: Qualified, Associate,and Affiliate. In addition to meeting othermembership criteria (detailed below),Qualified Members had to possess at leastone of their formal degrees in healtheducation. Associate Members met thesame criteria but could have their formaldegrees and training outside of healtheducation. Affiliate Members were ex-pected to be new researchers who did notyet meet the qualifications to be Qualifiedor Associate Members. The Board also

strongly supported a bylaws statementindicating that no more than 25% of themembers of The Academy would be fromfields outside of health education. Withina few years, that statement was elimi-nated from the bylaws, in part, because itwas the antithesis of the multidisciplinaryand “hybrid vigor” approach that was oneof The Academy’s underpinnings. Basedupon similar reasoning, the AssociateMember category also was eliminated,and requirements specific to membershaving a health education degree weredropped altogether.

Joining most professional organiza-tions merely involves completing a facesheet of personal information and profes-sional data, followed by submitting it alongwith payment of member dues. The Acad-emy was the first organization of its type

Figure 2Members of the Founding Board of Directors of The Academy

February 11, 1999

Front row L to R: David R. Black, Elbert D. Glover, Molly T. Laflin, Chudley E. WerchBack row L to R: Terri Mulkins Manning, Mark J. Kittleson, Robert J. McDermott,James M. Eddy, Robert M. Weiler, Mohammad R. Torabi, Nicholas K. Iammarino

McDermott & Glover

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2010;34(5):563-572 569

to require that applicants meet certainminimum qualifications related to re-search prowess. To be a Qualified Mem-ber, applicants needed to: (1) provide evi-dence of scientific training beyond theundergraduate level; and (2) have authoredor coauthored at least 10 data-based pa-pers (quantitative or qualitative) publishedin national or international journals thatregularly report the findings of originalhealth behavior, health education, orhealth promotion research. Thus, themembership criteria fulfilled another ofThe Academy’s basic tenets – that ofbeing a meritocracy. The category of Af-filiate Member was open to new profes-sionals and doctoral students holding orworking toward a doctoral degree whodemonstrated evidence of scientific train-ing beyond the undergraduate level andhad at least 2 refereed data-based papers(quantitative or qualitative) published innational or international journals. Re-quiring data-based publications even ofnew researchers made an emphaticallypowerful and proactive statement aboutthe importance that The Academy at-tached to research as well as serving as asegue later on for mentoring of AffiliateMembers by Qualified Members.

Skeptics and Naysayers within theProfessionIt is accurate to say that the emer-

gence of The Academy was not uniformlyembraced by everyone in the health edu-cation field. Some said that creating andpromoting a new health education orga-nization in what was already a crowdedand fractionated field would only confoundthat situation further. Others viewed TheAcademy as an unnecessary upstart be-ing promoted by “a small minority of mal-contents.” Some saw The Academy as acompetitor. Still others described it withactual contempt, identifying The Acad-emy as being “elitist” (presumably be-cause of its membership eligibility crite-ria and choices of scientific meeting sites)and “sexist” (presumably because just 14of the original 51 Founding Members andCharter Members were women). What iscertain is that The Academy by and largedid not go unnoticed by persons in theprofession. As time has passed, The Acad-emy has established a niche for itself,has ongoing discussions with some of itssister associations, and for a period ofmore than 5 years, was a member of the

Coalition of National Health EducationOrganizations (CNHEO) before opting towithdraw in 2009 to pursue other direc-tions.

Leadership and AchievementWithout question, The Academy came

into existence and survived its infancy asa result of the vigilant oversight and fi-nancial infusion provided by Dr Glover.The legal name and nonprofit status ofthe organization, the establishment of ameans of dealing with income and expen-ditures, the assignment of a professionaljournal, and the creation of an organiza-tional logo were activities brought intofocus by Dr Glover. The Board of Directorsand an Executive Committee of the Boardheld semimonthly teleconference callsfor more than 2 years to hone the bylaws,review applicants, identify officer rolesand responsibilities, and forecast a timeand a place for the first scientific meet-ing. While a faculty member at West Vir-ginia University, Dr Glover hosted a meet-ing of the Executive Committee at hishome in Morgantown during the summerof 1998. The first face-to-face meeting ofthe full Board of Directors was hosted byDr Werch at the Sea Turtle Inn at AtlanticBeach, Florida, in February 1999.

Dr Glover and others had been namedFellows in other organizations where of-ten one’s service contributions, namerecognition, and organizational longevityalone seemed to satisfy inclusion crite-ria. Research and other scholarship, ifrequired at all as credentials, needed tobe only modest. In contrast, Dr Gloverwanted The Academy’s Fellow status tonecessitate meeting explicit, rigorous,and verifiable criteria based exclusivelyon one’s demonstrable scholarship withrespect to research – peer-reviewed pub-lications, grants, and presentations toscholarly audiences. Thus, in keepingwith the meritocratic theme of the orga-nization, Dr Glover established the Fellowstatus for researchers who had 50 ormore data-based peer-reviewed publica-tions in journals of at least national dis-semination, and who met at least one ofthe following criteria: (1) had made atleast 75 scientific presentations, (2) hadbeen awarded at least 25 grants, (3) hadbeen awarded cumulative grant fundingof at least $1.5 million, or (4) had contrib-uted significantly to the advancement ofknowledge in health behavior through

The American Academy of Health Behavior

570

research conducted and disseminated ofsuch magnitude as to equal any of theother categories above. The Board of Di-rectors embraced and approved the estab-lishment of these criteria.

Moreover, the Board discussed DrGlover’s recommendation and eventuallyagreed to the establishment of a uniqueaward designated for Fellows whose ca-reer made them stand out, even in a fieldof accomplished individuals. This awardbecame the Research Laureate Medal-lion of The Academy. Unlike the variousplaques, trophies, or certificates that arecommonly received by individuals whoemerge as the best in their field, theResearch Laureate Medallion was in-tended to be an exceptional and prizedrepresentation of excellence. The con-cept of the medallion and its eventualdesign was a consequence of the com-bined labor of Dr Glover; Dr Robert M.Weiler, a Founding Member; and Dr MollyT. Laflin, a Founding Member, and later,President of The Academy. Dr Glover in-spired the belief that being a recipient ofthe Research Laureate Medallion couldone day be the benchmark of fame forhealth behavior researchers. The firstrecipient of this prestigious award was DrLawrence W. Green, a highly respectedresearcher, theoretician, and philosopheracross numerous disciplines related tohealth behavior and health care. TheAcademy quickly established the tradi-tion of having the previous year’s recipi-ent become the presenter of the ResearchLaureate Medallion to the subsequent

year’s awardee. A complete list of recipi-ents to date is provided in Table 4.

In 2000, the Board of Directors grantedspecial recognition to Dr Glover in theform of The American Academy of HealthBehavior Lifetime Achievement Awardin acknowledgment both of his researchand his tireless work as the visionary inestablishing The Academy. The awardhas been presented to only one otherindividual, the noted psychologist, re-searcher, and theorist, Dr Albert Bandura,in 2006. Lifetime Achievement Awardrecipients clearly represent the “rarest ofcompany” in The Academy.

By consensus approval of the Board forspearheading establishment of the orga-nization, Dr Glover served as TheAcademy’s first President for its forma-tional period. He was succeeded by DrChudley E. Werch, The Academy’s first

Table 4Recipients of the Research

Laureate Medallionof The Academy

Table 5Presidents of The Academy

2000 Lawrence W. Green2002 Brian R. Flay2003 John P. Elder2004 Cheryl L. Perry2005 Steven Y. Sussman2006 Herbert H. Severson2007 Bruce Simons-Morton2008 Elbert D. Glover2009 Raymond S. Niaura2010 Kenneth R. McLeroy

Elbert D. Glover1997-2002

Chudley E. “Chad” Werch2002-2003

Robert J. McDermott2003-2004

Mohammad R. Torabi2004-2005

David R. Black2005-2006

Bruce Simons-Morton2006-2007

Steve Y. Sussman2007-2008

Molly T. Laflin2008-2009

Dennis L. Thombs2009-2010

David W. Seal2010-2011

McDermott & Glover

Am J Health Behav.™™™™™ 2010;34(5):563-572 571

official Founding Member, who also hadbeen instrumental in performing a num-ber of the organizational tasks to launchthis new professional group. Following DrWerch’s one-year term, The Academybegan electing its President and otherBoard members, choosing Dr Robert J.McDermott to lead the transition from theFounding Board of Directors to its new eraof a member-elected Board. Under DrMcDermott’s leadership, The Academy’sstrategic planning process was launched;developed further by his successor, DrMohammad R. Torabi; and completed dur-ing the term of Dr David R. Black. A list ofall of the Presidents to date of The Acad-emy appears in Table 5.

No less important in leadership func-tion was the assignment of a person totake on the role of first Executive Directorof The Academy. This role was capablyhandled by Dr Terri Mulkins Manningfrom 1999 to 2005. Although an adminis-trator in an academic institution at thetime of assuming her responsibilities, DrManning was also a professionally pre-pared health educator, a Founding Mem-ber of The Academy, and someone whohad a clear understanding of the inten-tions of Dr Glover and the other FoundingMembers for developing this new group.Using a set of skills established beforeshe entered academia, Dr Manning wasin large part responsible for the financialaffairs of The Academy and the negotia-tion of venues for the first several scien-tific meetings. The increasing demandsplaced on the Executive Director as TheAcademy matured as an organization,accompanied by the evolving responsi-bilities of her academic career, necessi-tated her departure as Executive Direc-tor. She was succeeded by Dr Lori Marks,also a professionally prepared health edu-cator, who guided The Academy for thenext 2 1/2 years. She, in turn, was suc-ceeded briefly by Cindy Hooker and, later,by Joanne Sommers, the current Execu-tive Director.

The Academy has attracted scholarsfrom several disciplines, shaping it intothe multidisciplinary group that was en-visioned. Its scientific meeting receivedits first recognition of extramural fundingin 2008 through a $12,750 grant from theUS Centers for Disease Control and Pre-vention administered through the FloridaPrevention Research Center. The an-nual scientific meeting is now a coveted

Table 6Selected “Firsts” among

Members of The Academy

Member:Elbert D. Glover

Male Founding Member:Chudley E. Werch

Female Founding Member:Terri Mulkins Manning

Male International Member:Lawrence W. Green (Canada)

Female International Member:Ansa Ojanlatva (Finland)

Male Charter Member:Dennis L. Thombs

Female Charter Member:Patricia D. Mail

Conference Registrant:Mark Tomita

Master’s Degree Member:Penny N. Glover

Male Fellow:David R. Black

Female Fellow:Cheryl L. Perry

President:Elbert D. Glover

Member-elected President:Robert J. McDermott

Female President:Molly T. Laflin

Judy K. Black Award: Lisa A. Benz Scott

Lifetime Achievement AwardElbert D. Glover

Executive Director:Terri Mulkins Manning

The American Academy of Health Behavior

572

venue to be either an invited speaker ora research poster presenter. The meet-ing has become an avenue for thementoring of young researchers – throughroundtables, special mentoring work-shops, and by means of the numerousinformal opportunities provided to inter-act with highly accomplished research-ers. To give formal recognition to anemerging researcher, The Academy es-tablished the Judy K. Black Early CareerResearch Award as further demonstra-tion of its commitment to nurturing re-search. Judy K. Black was the wife of DrDavid R. Black, one of The Academy’sFounding Members. She died in a tragicautomobile accident in 2003. She washerself a dedicated professional, motiva-tor, and mentor to students. This specialrecognition has been awarded 4 timessince its establishment, with the firstrecipient being Lisa A. Benz Scott in2006. Subsequent recipients includedYvonne Brooks (2007), Meena Fernandes(2009), and Yan Hong (2010). The Acad-emy indeed has had a number of “firsts”that are worthy of acknowledgment. Inaddition to some of those previously iden-tified, a list of significant firsts is providedin Table 6.

A Reflection – What It Takes toCreate and Build a New OrganizationThere is insufficient space to account

for every note and detail to explain what ittakes to evolve an organization from anotion in one person’s mind, throughconcept development and, ultimately, toone that has completed its 10th scientificconference and is on the cusp of surpass-ing the 200-member benchmark. How-ever, a glimpse of the requirements mightinclude

· A person with an inspired idea,· A cadre of dedicated individuals mo-

tivated to help see it through,· A group of members with a commit-

ment to excellence,· Time to grow and succeed,· Outreach to a new generation of

scholars,· A pledge to take on new research

challenges, and· A bond to hold on to cherished con-

stants – high standards of excel-lence and a passion for discovery.

As The Academy completes its firstdecennial of scientific meetings, it canreflect favorably on what has been accom-plished. It has abandoned neither its stan-dards nor its passion. It has silenced mostof its skeptics and detractors. Most impor-tantly, it has fulfilled the promise of itsvisionary: to place science and discoveryas the premiere values of a field of en-deavor and to draw upon the richness ofskilled investigators from a wide array ofdisciplines. Whereas the richness ofthought and tradition among members ofThe Academy alone may never succeedentirely in conquering every health-be-havior research challenge on the hori-zon, The Academy can take pride in hav-ing encouraged the spirit of many re-searchers to seek out further discoveriesand new solutions. To that end, and asThe Academy guard has changed, everynew member-researcher has within hisor her grasp the possibility of contributingto its further evolution.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge

The Academy’s Founding Members, itsCharter Members, and those memberswho have stepped forward to uphold thestandards upon which The Academy wasfounded. They also thank selected mem-bers of the Founding Board of Directorswho reviewed and provided feedback toearlier draft of this paper: Drs David R.Black, James M. Eddy, Nicholas K.Iammarino, Mark J. Kittleson, MohammadR. Torabi, and Chudley E. Werch.