Pursuant to the theoretical orientation that shapes the primary methods of data collection (discussed in the previous chapter) which establish the framework of the inquiry, this chapter examines the actual research strategy itself including the sampling methods, the collection, management and analysis of data involved. It also reflects upon the ethics of the study and the research methods chosen. From the enthusiastic faces of first year cadets to the placid, confident faces of officers from SAS, infantry and armour corps to the faceless persona of the military social environment and the regulatory regime found there every research subject has an integral part to play. Each is a significant piece of the framework. From theory to practice this chapter explains how those pieces fit together. This chapter will examine and explain the choices behind the actual methods. It will trace the way in which those methods were applied to the task in light of practical circumstances and in the face of (often) considerable practical obstacles. It will also trace how the survey and semi- structured interviews were designed, how the data was managed and ultimately how it was analysed.
Even with framework and methodology successfully established the journey toward field work and understanding cannot depart without overcoming significant barriers from the practical and the legal to the bureaucratic and the ethical. This study encountered virtually all of those barriers which required an uncommon patience and resourcefulness from me to overcome. My quickly growing knowledge of MOD terminology and slang began immediately, followed by a detailed understanding of security, authorization protocols and access procedures, UOTC administrative structure and hierarchy. It is an understanding that was rigorously ingrained in me over the course of the autumn 2008 and spring of 2009. There are serious and concrete rationales for all these structures. I have been trained in all of them. They are lessons I will never forget and the starting point for where this research truly begins.
When a researcher, anxious to begin a field project considers potential barriers and problems he or she may face in the field, especially in as field dynamic and ever-changing as that of military training the imagination tends to run wildly and not always in practical directions. This was the point at which 2009, the second year of this study began. Following an exhaustive exploration of the philosophical and methodological dimensions of research in the first year (September of 2008 to June of 2009), including ethical considerations, the assurance of the safety of hundreds of minority and non-minority cadets, the critical evaluation of dozens of methods and approaches began.
Once a researcher understands the complex sociological concepts of identity, social structure/regulatory regime, division of labour and the total institution
of the military, and is able to relate them to the goals of the study; the daunting task of designing a methodology to assess such concepts in real life begins to unfold. The survey is the primary foray into the cadet training environment. Its demographic questions will define them as a nationwide community. Its substantive questions will define their acknowledgement of and response to minorities as well as how well they function and identify as a team. Understanding what to ask and how to ask it is an unusual challenge. What became very clear very quickly was that the survey would have to be prepared to elicit data from cadets in a manner consistent with their normal everyday classroom activities. Only years of experience within the military classroom environment and a thorough understanding of its goals and objectives can successfully inform this process.
Research Aim
The objectives of the research include surveying UOTC Army cadets as to (1)
their perception of cohesion, morale and unit effectiveness in their respective battalions alongside (2) their awareness of minorities (including sexual
minorities; gay, lesbian bisexual) in their military occupational environment, (3) their attitude toward those minorities and (4) determining the impact (or lack thereof) of gay and lesbian cadets on the perceived cohesion, morale and unit
effectiveness of their battalion. A second objective of the research is to achieve data that will allow me to isolate and question the invisible third party in the military environment; that of the social structure and resulting
regulatory regime embedded there. What are the perceived affects of military social structure upon individuals and groups within the environment?
Identifying an appropriate theoretical orientation and methodology to
elucidate the perception and directive elements of this social structure was just the first of many steep hills. The structured and organized research of Weber, the philosophically-salient lines of Durkheim and the structured observations of Talcott Parsons and countless other authors reviewed for this study present a deceptively simple take on social science to a researcher first entering the field. The smooth consistent contours of social behaviour depicted by Goffman evoke images of a reasoned understanding of sociology that seems to open
itself up for clarification in a civilized and rational manner. Almost all theoretical research examined for this study was characterized by a soft and gentle rhythm of logic in which discernable patterns of observable behaviour quietly unfolded.
However for me as a researcher doing this work, the real world is loud and inconsistent made up of more the rough edges and inconsistency of reality than of the prosaic metaphorical smoothness and open doors to understanding which seem to characterize classical theory. In the search for doors to
understanding in sociology, especially in the military, one often finds walls. Not simply metaphorical walls of social structure or walls to understanding but tall ones made of concrete and topped with barbed wire, sometimes guarded by very large and armed men with little appreciation for the researcher’s sense of humour and social skills. Informing effective policy by assessing individual attitude alongside elements of social structure and group perception is a complex and multi-faceted task. When the group to be assessed is assembled and trained for the pragmatic duties of military service that assessment is rarely a clear-cut or simple one.
Many studies examine the social theory of groups as applied to a variety of frameworks. Families, human resources, politics and even team sports are areas of focus. However the military is less frequently investigated for many reasons. Unlike the public sector, the defence sector is a much more highly specialized and ostensibly closed environment. While few if any occupational environments are completely closed (even prisons have citizen and advisory panels), the closed environment of the military exhibits this closed nature of the total institution24 on many levels. Not only are members of its community restricted as to travel and other basic freedoms, they also share elements of a common language that is not used outside their community. The nature of this closed environment is detailed in other chapters, including how its nature as a closed environment enhances the solidarity cultivated by the communities who populate it. Proposals for research of any kind inside the military of any particular nation, especially by a non-citizen, especially in the time of war (as this study was done) are looked upon with an unusual degree of scepticism to say the least.
The closed environment of the military is not one that outwardly promotes a ‘come on in and have a look round’ sort of feeling and for good reason. Military bases, including those tasked for reserve and UOTC operations (e.g. the Territorial Army Battalion Headquarters at Northumbria) contain everything necessary for leadership in a massive emergency response both abroad but also in the battalion’s local area. This includes medical supplies, weapons, and live ordinance as well as hazardous equipment and heavy, high powered vehicles for military use. Even in the interest of basic public safety a battalion headquarters is typically isolated and/or heavily secured. The occupational environment is unique in many ways and the demands that such an environment make on the researcher and his/her tools and processes are unique as well. Aspects and demands of the environment shape how the tools are prepared as well as how the fieldwork unfolds. The demands are binding
24
The ‘total institution’ is a concept introduced by Erving Goffman in 1968 to refer to “institutions” sequestered from the general population with characteristics that “provide a barrier to social intercourse with the outside, ...often built into the physical plant such as locked doors, high walls, barbed wire, (etc)” (Goffman, 1961, pp. 16). This concept is applied theoretically and practically to this thesis’ treatment of the military environment as will be elaborated on in relevant sections.
and never leave my mind throughout the term of the fieldwork. Such demands influence the choice of methodology and the techniques and devices within that methodology like perhaps no other environment can.
The environment of the battalion headquarters, i.e. the environmental dynamics of the military are as much a subject of the research as the individuals within it and so great care was taken not to disturb or affect the environment while it was being assessed and observed. The researcher wears the same type of clothing (usually polo shirt, khaki pants and black leather shoes) as do non-uniformed staff and officers in the battalion headquarters for preliminary base visits and interviews.
The training environment, even that of the UOTC/Reserve exists for one ultimate overriding purpose and one purpose only. It contributes to the security of Britain via the recruitment of its military officer (and in some cases enlisted) personnel. While there are differences between battalions based upon such things as region, and the occupational specialties of instructors they all share some key characteristics consistently across all regions. The home of a battalion (its battalion headquarters) consists of formal offices, classrooms, gymnasiums, munitions and military vehicle storage more often than not surrounded by high masonry fences often topped with barbed or razor wire. When not training undergraduates in military tactics and protocol they may be leading team-building exercises for local businesses or the NHS. The primary functions of these headquarters are reservist activities or other practical military purposes as dictated by the MOD such as munitions, supply and storage.
Interviews with officers and cadets are scheduled during periods on base when only administrative functions of lower urgency (such as pre or post camp equipment inventory) are scheduled. No recording devices of any kind or cameras are used. Notes for interviews are handwritten on plain paper and transcribed onto a laptop computer only after departure from the base. No materials other than those used by staff are present at any time. I am not in uniform however the differences between me and subjects are reduced to the
point that my presence visibly does not raise any attention. Groups of cadets sorting materials and stacking equipment do not pause or react as I pass. The ecology of the environment is respected and undisturbed.
The plan to have the survey administered by PSI (Permanent Staff Instructors) who have been in charge of the environment from the beginning is a critical first step. Nothing distracts the cadets from the dynamics and dimensions of their environment while they are taking the survey, not even the administrator who gives it to them. He is dressed in his usual fatigues going about his usual duties. The surveys are completed in minutes and sealed by the survey taker (cadet) before they are collected by the PSI and then ultimately the adjutant. Indoors or out, with nothing but a pen, the system could not be simpler or more effective.
This study is unique to other military sociology studies of its type as it seeks to gauge the social structure of the military environment from inside that environment. It surveys cadets and interviews cadets and professional staff
currently inside the military training environment as opposed to those
returning to civilian life outside the military in an exit interview format as most other studies are conducted. This insider’s view is extremely important as the view one has from inside this total institution varies dramatically from that available (or appreciable) to one on the outside in ways that even military personnel themselves do not fully understand. These research subjects are inside, embedded in the social structure with the effects of the regulatory regime impinging upon them and their interaction. Cadets and under officers of the UOTC and reservists just entering the military do so with the purview, the range of perception of those looking forward to years on the inside and not the perhaps reflective perspective of exiting veterans. Their area of concern revolves completely around their unit and their identity as a soldier without the socioeconomic circumstances or geopolitical encumbrances of civilian life.
This study, The Mechanism of Defence assesses how they feel while they are there with all of these elements of the military environment impinging upon them at the time. It was important (as a unique attribute of the study) that the
survey be completed by cadets in uniform within the military environment. The road to achieving the authorization to question cadets and professional officers inside that environment during their training was neither a short nor easy one. A background in public policy and organizational theory such as mine afforded me a unique understanding of bureaucracy and a unique insight into the closed environment of military life and social structure.
Gaining Access: Getting Authorization
The physical structure of a UOTC headquarters, as previously said is secure and exclusive. Those who enter must have authorization. Those who do not are out and there is no discussion. Unless a student or an individual is born in Britain, or (secondarily) a commonwealth country of the United Kingdom they are not offered the opportunity to fitness test with the battalion. My status as a non-commonwealth citizen places me squarely in the category of outsider. My access to the environment for research purposes begins as a protracted and difficult gauntlet of negotiation involving dozens and dozens of written letters, emails and phone calls across the country.
I began with an approach to the chair of the military education committee at the University where my research is based. The chair directs me to contact the Ministry of Defence first in order to obtain authorization. Without a specific contact, I reached a clerk at the Battalion Headquarters of the London
University OTC. It is the largest of all sites and one that I assumed that as such had the authority to hear and approve the proposed research. I made an appointment with the Adjutant and conduct a presentation in his London Office a few weeks later.
We met for a few hours and discussed the research, specifically the aims and objectives and the process by which I hoped to secure data (survey, group and individual interview). We reviewed the rough draft of the survey I had
developed. The adjutant suggested various edits and the 26-question survey was whittled down to 19 substantive survey questions. It establishes the level of company and battalion-wide cohesion, morale and unit effectiveness perceived by the cadets within it. Additionally the survey provides a direct
evaluation of each individual’s awareness of and attitude toward working with cadets of other sexualities, other genders, other religions and each individual’s level of comfort with the group and the level of support they feel they receive.
The adjutant provides a few names of other adjutants (or ‘adjes’ as they are called) to contact at other university systems in England and Wales. This part of the proposal meeting is central to the success of the overall project. This allows me to open my negotiations with other battalion commanders by saying “I was referred to you by the Adjutant of London University”. I collect other referrals to University OTCs local to each of those from their respective Adjutants as well. This in turn allows me to rephrase the referral to keep it local and comfortable for the next adjutant approached. This simple
declarative statement in the opening paragraph of two-page proposal letters accompanying the survey to a dozen other adjutants opens the door
immediately to establishing the substantial (snowball) sample enjoyed for this assessment exercise.
UOTC Administrative Structure and Hierarchy
There is a pronounced hierarchy to the military community that is unlike virtually any found in civilian life and the UOTC battalion headquarters is a prime example. A commanding officer, typically a Lieutenant Colonel oversees the Adjutant. In smaller Battalions there is often no commanding officer in residence and the adjutant oversees the entire operation himself. The
adjutant (usually at the rank of Captain) supervises the work of instructors who conduct the theoretical classroom and practical leadership training of cadets.
Such personnel can include a Sergeant or an RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major) who may also carry out other duties with the battalion such as supply and inventory tracking. These officers supervise senior cadets and under officers who assist in the training of new recruits. It is the PSI’s (permanent staff instructors, Sergeants and RSMs) who serve as the battalion’s officers who will distribute the surveys to their respective companies (first, second and third
year cadets). I will meet these personnel and interview them at a later date after the surveys are collected.
A single battalion of the UOTC of a university or of a system of local colleges and universities within the national UOTC system is typically composed of three companies (A, B and C); the first years, the second years and the third years (respectively). The upper level cadets assume some administrative responsibilities including office management and helping to train the lower level cadets and new recruits at given intervals. By the close of the term, a single company of cadets in their respective year is small enough to allow each individual member to have effectively observed and been enabled to
appreciate the efforts and input (or lack thereof) of other individuals within his/her company (and thereby able to evaluate the level and quality of exchange, level and quality of interaction, solidarity, etc.). Their evaluation (opinion) of the cohesion, morale and unit effectiveness around them will be well defined.
The early indications of these levels (noted in field work as (Co/Mo/UE) are positive. There is no longer any pay for participation in the program (due to M.O.D. budget cuts) however participation (according to adjutants and officer instructors is as strong as it has ever been). This assertion by Adjutants and