Delphine Deschaux-Dutard

“One cannot do without a method to be seeking the truth of things.”

René Descartes, Discours de la méthode (1637).

The introduction of this edited volume explains the intention and scope of the book. It then explains why defence issues tend to raise specific methodological challenges by uncovering two challenges experienced by all the contributors of the book: the insider/outsider dilemma and the choice for quantitative, qualitative or a mix of both methods. Then the introduction will explain the logic underpinning the structure of the book and present the different chapters.

The past three decades have witnessed a significant growth in social science research on defence issues. With  the rise of global  terrorism, the return of the use of armed force  in international relations after the Cold War, the growing  professionalization and the rising technologization  of defence matters, academic research on defence is not only relevant but also indispensable. Indeed, the use of violence, as defence’s core issue, is probably  one of the most unpredictable topics in human society (e.g. Soeters et al. 2014). And though numerous works on defence issues have been published in recent decades,1 only a limited number of these are specifically  dedicated to metho- dological  questions (see Soeters et al. 2014;  Williams  et al. 2016; Carreiras  et al.

2016). However,  in the past few years, some methodological  reflections have arisen on how to conduct research on the military.  Researchers from different countries have started to consider method  as a research topic per se when it comes to investigating defence issues (see in particular Carreiras and Castro 2011; Soeters et al. 2014; Car- reiras et al. 2016). Boëne proposed for instance a stimulating thinking on methods and theories in military studies (Boëne 2008). In the past decade, five academic books and handbooks more precisely fuelled this emerging academic literature: one exclu- sively focuses on the use of qualitative methods (Carreiras and Castro 2011), while the others aim at a wider perspective and also question military sociology, reflexivity, publishing or even ethics (Soeters et al. 2014; Williams et al. 2016; Carreiras  et al.

2016; Caforio and Nuciari 2018). The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military  Studies (Soeters et al. 2014) is very rich but focuses mainly on methods on military questions, when researching conflict, war and military actors. The project of this book  is different in that it focuses on defence as a whole, which means also as a public policy ruled by norms, historical, economical  and geographical  aspects, and reliant on  many  factors  such as public  opinion  or parliamentary  votes. Thus, this edited book puts a specific focus on conflict  and war,  as explained  in the sections below. Last, but not least, another recently published handbook  raises some metho- dological  challenges but with a very particular focus on international  security: the Oxford Handbook of International Security (Gheciu and Wohlforth  2018). As for the French academic sphere, it seems to have taken a little more time as defence studies emerged later and with more  difficulty  in the French academic landscape, as com- pared with the British or American ones (see Holeindre  and Vilmer 2015; Holeindre

2015). Yet we can recently observe positive developments in two ways. On the one hand, a special issue of the French journal Les Champs de Mars dedicated to defence researches by social  scientists has been published  on methodological  issues with a focus on interviews in the defence milieu (Lafaye  et al. 2015). On the other hand, the Institute for Strategic Studies (IRSEM) located in Paris organized a special doctoral workshop on methodology  in strategic studies in June 2019.2  But aside from these recent works, questioning methods in defence research remains quite marginal com- pared to the increasing number of academic publications dedicated to defence issues in the past three decades. And yet this subject is not only interesting for young and senior  researchers,  but  also for students  and practitioners,  since defence  and the military raise the question of the specific features of this social field.

Why publish this volume now?

What  does this book aim to bring to the literature on methods while investigating defence  issues? The  volume  intends to complete this emerging literature by addressing a number of topics that have either not been dealt with sufficiently or even not at all before. If the case of geographical  methods, public policy  methods, or quantitative methods, for instance, has been much under-investigated in defence studies until then, some of the issues raised here are even a first, like secondary analysis in defence stu- dies. In this later case the authors of the chapter dedicated to this topic could not find any  substantial publications  on the  subject  and propose  a reflexive  analysis of a unique research experience (see Borzillo  and Deschaux-Dutard  in this volume).  The contributors to this edited book, all high-profile French and German scholars, have been chosen not only for their acknowledged  specialization in defence studies in their own disciplinary field but also for their innovative  methodologies  and openness to cross-disciplinary  research in several cases. Thus this volume aims at adding value to the emerging literature dedicated to methodological  questions regarding research on defence  issues. It will also give a valuable access in English to a large amount of the literature developed in French and German synthesized for the first time in the con- tributions of this volume, and not previously accessible to a wider non-native speak- ing audience.

Yet one could  question the timing:  why this volume  now?  The rise in academic interest in defence  issues in the aftermath of the terror attacks in France in 2015 and more generally in Europe  has been a strong impetus for the development  of defence studies in France in particular. The terror attacks in Paris in November  2015 revealed a critical lack of social sciences scientific resources on defence and security issues, which prompted the French Ministry of Defence to dedicate specific funding for research in social science on defence topics in the widest sense. Even though doctoral  and post- doctoral funding had been introduced since the end of the 1990s,3 the aftermath of the terror attacks witnessed a radical increase in such funding facilities for universities that are independent from the defence institution. In parallel, scholars have also worked at promoting the emergence of defence and war studies in France by witnessing the suc- cess of this field in Anglo-Saxon  countries where war studies have for long time become an established research field in the academia (Holeindre  and Vilmer 2015; Holeindre 2015). Yet if research on defence issues is encouraged  by the new capital inflow  released by defence institutions in France but also in some other countries as Germany  in the last decade (see for instance Gareis and Klein  2006: 12), the question of how to inves- tigate such topics also increases, as a recent controversy on these funding has shown in the French political science community.4  As the defence sphere is characterized  by its social specificity, it is important  to give intense thought to the way it can be investi- gated by social sciences using both quantitative and qualitative epistemologies.

The other important reason why this volume is being published now is the increasing interest of students in defence issues in the past decade. At the University of Grenoble Alpes alone,  the only pluridisciplinary  master’s degree on defence and international security (existing both in face-to-face and online teaching) welcomes over 400 applica- tions each academic year for only 50 places.  The same is true in many universities offering  master’s degrees in International Relations,  or security and defence issues. Thus the growing  number of students engaging  in defence studies not only in France but also in other European countries makes it all the more important to give them the tools to address defence  issues with solid methods  and informed  knowledge.

Scope of the book

Yet we need to explain more precisely what we understand under the term “defence studies” in this volume,  as it is the common  ground  for all the contributions.  It is important to define the scope of this book and what makes it different from the other existing handbooks. As Galbreath  and Deni define it, defence  studies constitutes “a multi-disciplinary field examining how agents, predominantly  states, prepare for, pre- vent, avoid and/or engage  in armed conflict”  (Galbreath and Deni 2018:  1). Thus defence studies can be considered  as a coherent area of study encompassing  the way defence policies are set up and evolve over time under a large set of constraints and the action of multiple public and private  actors. It is therefore  important  to distinguish defence studies from security studies, covering almost the totality of international and internal affairs,5  and also from war studies, focusing mainly on the fighting aspects of the military  (operations,  strategy,  tactics  but  also soldiers’  experience).  As Schmitt underlines, the link between defence studies and war studies consists in understanding war in all its aspects as a necessity to build an efficient defence policy able to cope with threats (Schmitt 2018: 18). Therefore  defence studies are a natural component of war studies (Schmitt 2018: 26). Here we understand defence studies following the definition of defence  as a policy  and a strategic action aiming  at preparing for conflicts and opposing efficiently to threats. We  also include a larger  sense of defence when con- sidering civil wars in the contribution on databases, for instance, as they constitute the majority of the 21st century’s armed conflicts.

The term “defence” has been used in a narrow sense in the military context since the end of the 12th century as the means mobilized  by a state to make war (Joana 2017). The signification of the term has then evolved  towards a much broader meaning from the 19th century and designates two main elements: a specific domain of state public action (a policy)  (Vennesson 2000; Battistella et al. 2012; Joana 2017) and a peculiar type of strategic action (Brown  et al. 2004). Broadly  speaking defence can be con- sidered as the way to translate foreign policy, and more and more often also security objectives,6  into military  means (encompassing financial means but also troops, arm procurement and even public opinion support). Defence policies result from the inter- action of a multiplicity of actors: civilian, military and administrative actors (Vennes- son  2000).  Therefore,  defence  studies lies  at the  intersection  between  internal  and international  issues. The scope of the book  is to propose epistemological and metho- dological food for thought based on defence as a specific field which not only entails the overall means public authorities dedicate to the defence of their territory, the pro- tection of their citizen through military  forces and the support of their  interests in international security but also the norms surrounding this field of public action and the strategies adopted in order to develop an effective defence. This global understanding of defence  studies  leads  us to adopt a multi-disciplinary  approach  to methods  in defence  studies, as defence  encompasses not only  political  and social issues, but also normative  and legal, economic,  historical  and geographic  issues. Defence  also requires quantification, be it for defence spending purposes or to measure the level of public support or the implication of states in defence issues such as military  deployment.  We then consider defence studies together as studies of a specific type of policy developed by political authorities within the framework of a political regime, as a specific type of normative and legal production and as a form of strategic action relying on multiple material and immaterial factors such as geography,  history (Part I) but also statistics and data, public opinion and democratic control (Part II). With our definition of the scope of the book clarified, we can now deal with general methodological  questions raised by defence studies and how we conceive of them in this volume.

Why do defence topic raise specific methodological questions?

Researching defence issues raises a singular  question:  is the defence  field a specific social field or not? And if it is, what makes it special?7 We will only outline the main arguments from the debate around the specific feature of the defence field, as this is not the main point of this introduction  but it still has some implications in the key debates we will discuss below.  On the one hand, the defence field has a clearly identified social function in human societies: defence and the military  are consubstantial with state monopoly of violence (Elias 1991; Tilly 1985). Many researchers endorse this concep- tion of defence as a specific social field (Boëne 1990; Bardiès 2011; Soeters et al. 2014), and we subscribe to it. Defence  issues are most of the time characterized by techni- cality and secrecy (think about the decision to launch a military intervention, or to develop a new military device as drones for instance). Even if most of the armies of democratic  industrialized countries have become  professional  armies after the Cold War, one cannot affirm  that defence and the military are such common  professions (Janowitz 1974; Moskos and Wood 1988; Gresle 2005). Their core social characteristic is violence and the implementation of state violence outside the national territory, and even  sometimes  inside  as the  increasing  use of the military  for securing  purposes against the terrorist threat has shown for few years in many European countries, with the  case  of the  Sentinelle  operation  in France  for instance. Therefore  producing research on defence requires to take this specificity  into account (we will discuss shortly the insider/outsider dilemma for the researcher below). This also implies reflexivity  (see interesting developments on this issue in Carreiras and Caetano 2016). In the next two sections we will focus on two core debates on methodological issues when researching defence and that all the contributors of this edited book experienced at least once: the insider/outsider dilemma, and the choice for qualitative or quantitative methods.

Uncovering the insider/outsider dilemma

The insider/outsider dilemma  is closely linked with the question of accessing the field and/or data in defence studies. Most  of this volume’s contributors have experienced it, be it for the purposes of interviews,  data or archive collection.  All of the authors gathered here either had to negotiate their way to access the defence field, or became embedded (for a short or longer time) in defence institutions as researchers and thus had to keep a critical distance from the field (see Pajon and Martin 2015).

The access to the defence field can be difficult for different reasons: danger in some cases (like a field research during some military operations; see Leonhard  et al. 2008), but  also frequently  mistrust from defence  institutions. The  researcher often  faces a common fear of secrecy-breaking towards external members who do not belong to the defence field (see Schmitt  2015 on confidentiality and secrecy issues). Researching the defence field, either by interviews, polls, statistics or archives, implies that if he/she wants to collect valid data, the researcher should not be perceived as an “intruder” by defence actors. It is therefore  crucial to raise trust not only towards the hierarchy (officers  or unity commander for instance), but also towards the soldiers or administrative actors if needed. In that matter, we experienced in our own researches that some contacts offer “open sesames”: name-dropping can be quite fruitful (Deschaux-Beaume 2012).

Getting along with the hierarchy can be even more crucial when the researcher needs to reach soldiers. If the respondents feel that  hierarchy  mistrusts the researcher,  its introduction  in the field can be difficult  and sometimes even impossible: Pajon uses the expression “managing mistrust” to describe this situation (Pajon 2005). However,  being granted  trust from the hierarchy does not guarantee that the researcher will be well introduced  among  troops:  he/she can still be seen as a relay of the hierarchy  sent to scrutinize  the  soldiers  (Hockey 2016). Thus  many  researchers contributing  to this volume not only had to ask for an authorization  to access classified  documents,  but also sometimes  chose immersion  to become a “native”. Mastering the culture and technical language of the defence sphere is not only a way of being trusted but also a way of understanding the field behind the technicality surrounding it. To put it simply: the closer one gets mentally, culturally, cognitively,  to the defence field, the higher the chances to get access, and vice versa. However,  this insider strategy raises a connected dilemma: how to publish in the open the results of research if one needs an authoriza- tion from the defence  field? How to manage  the “resurfacing”  by making  sure the researcher does not only write what the defence institution would  like him to say? There again, reflexivity on what method  is applied  and for what  research purpose  is crucial so as to manage to produce valid research results not necessarily in line with the official defence narrative. Therefore, depending on the aim of the research, the question of the access to the defence field is directly linked with methodological  choices.

Qualitative,  quantitative … or both methods?

Is there a method better suited to analyse defence issues with social sciences tools? The choice of method  is not only driven by the aim of the enquiry  but is also problem- driven in defence studies. We won’t enter the quantitative versus qualitative debate here as it would  take us far from our scope (on this question,  see Goertz and Mahoney 2006, 2012). We will only outline some implications of research on defence issues both for quantitative or qualitative methods.9

Starting with qualitative methods, though this methodology  often meets the insider/ outsider dilemma, it constitutes a very fruitful way of enquiring into the defence field.10

Following  the idea that “if one wants to know society, one first has to know it first- hand”  (Becker  2007: 44), qualitative  methods  relying  on semi-directed  interviews, participant  observation,  focus groups or the ethnographical methodology  provide  a stimulating methodology  to study defence issues.11 More  precisely, in the case of a social  science research on defence, qualitative  interviews  fulfil two main objectives: getting first-hand information,  and having interesting access to the military actors and their representations and practices (Deschaux-Beaume  2011, 2012). The same applies to archives directly gathered from the soldiers for instance (see Lafaye  in this volume). The ethnographic method seems to be particularly popular among scholars working on defence,  as it offers a unique  access to this usually closed  field (Lafaye et al. 2015; Schmitt 2015). But some also experiment with other techniques, such as focus groups (Haddad  in Carreiras and Castro 2011), participant observation (Carreiras and Castro 2011; Schmitt 2015; Hockey  2016), data collection  through databases or computing devices (Kauffmann   in this  volume),   and of course  archives  when it is  possible (Deschaux-Beaume  2011; Schmitt 2015; Lafaye  in this volume).

Concerning quantitative methods,12  they raise the question of accessing enough data and/or respondents  (in the case of a wide survey, for instance) so as to build a valid sample. The epistemology and methodological choices implied by quantitative methods will be discussed in Chapter  7, as Kauffmann  explains the epistemological  founding principles of these methods and their implementation  in defence studies. The choice for quantitative methods relying  on multiple  cases or surveys not only necessitates the agreement  of the hierarchy  but also the effective  presence of the  respondents.  For instance, if one wants to conduct an opinion  survey inside a military  unit, one chal- lenge is the rapid turnover of the soldiers: as Pajon states, in some cases, about 80% of the unit troops  are outside the national  territory  and sometimes  for many months (Pajon 2005). The same problem  occurs when the researcher wants to reiterate inter- views with officers or soldiers several months or even years after the first research phase (Settoul  2015). Another  related problem  is the researcher’s freedom  to build  his/her own sample when sometimes defence institutions would  rather propose  “representa- tive”  individuals chosen from the  inside  to prevent  any  critical  judgement  to be expressed before external persons (Pajon 2005).

Thus any method can be well suited while researching defence matters as long as the method is problem-driven  (Soeters et al. 2014; Deschaux-Dutard  2018). Several con- tributors of this book also tend to mix quantitative and qualitative methods by choos- ing a dominant method (for instance, the qualitative one) and complementing  it by a second  one: the  case is particularly  striking  in the collection  and management  of archives by Lafaye (Chapter 3).

The aim of this book is thus to provide the reader with an overview of methods used in different social sciences (political  science, sociology,  history, public law, economics, geography) in order to investigate the defence field and analyse defence  issues using both qualitative and quantitative tools and in some cases mixing methods from differ- ent disciplinary backgrounds.

Structure  of the book

Broadly  speaking, defence can be considered  as the way to translate foreign policy, and more and more often also security objectives (with the growing implication of military  actors in the internal  fight against  terrorism,  as in the framework  of the operation Sentinelle in France since 2015), into military means (encompassing finan- cial means but also troops, arm procurement and even public opinion  support). All the contributors have significant experience in research on defence topics, which they can draw upon to propose original and synthetic reflections on methods in the mul- tiple areas covered  by defence studies. The book also addresses the multiplicity  of defence  studies  by covering  not only organizational  and legal aspects,  but  also operational  and even political  topics such as the measurement of public opinion on defence matters or the construction  of an international  index to scrutinize  parlia- mentary votes on military deployment in several Western countries.

Thus this edited volume follows  a structured logic. The methods presented here and put to the test by the contributors aim at exploring  the different elements sur- rounding defence policies. For clarity  reasons, the book adopts a classical divide between qualitative  and quantitative approaches, which does not mean that one is exclusive of the other,  as a researcher  investigating  defence  issues may use both, depending on what  he/she aims at demonstrating. We will come back to this idea in the  conclusion  of this  book. Many contributors not  only explain  the  status of defence  issues in their own disciplinary field but also propose original reflexions on the methods used from their disciplinary perspective. Several contributors underline their  use of both methodologies,  but with a bigger place dedicated to one or the other  (see,  in particular,  the  chapters  by Lafaye,  Cattaruzza, Kauffmann  and Ostermann  et al. in this volume).  Most of the contributors also explain how they deal with the digitalization  of data, not only when using databases but also when using archives, geographical information  or even interviews. The book is composed of six chapters focusing primarily  on qualitative  methods, and five chapters more orientated towards quantitative methods.

The structure of the book starts with the physical, normative,  political,  social and historical dimensions of defence studies. The first part deals more precisely with quali- tative methods to uncover  these dimensions.  The logic underpinning  this part  is to explore the different elements having an impact on defence policies and defence issues, starting with material and objective ones (geography, law, history) to come to the more social  and subjective  ones  implying  representations  and social  practices. Therefore many chapters not only analyse methods from a disciplinary point of view but also need to recall first the place of defence issues in some of the disciplines represented in this volume  as geography,  law or history, so as to better reflect on methodological aspects.  More precisely  in Chapter  1,  Amaël Cattaruzza   discusses methodological questions  raised  by the geographical  approach  to defence  issues. Therefore  he first draws the links between geography  and defence studies so as to better show how geo- graphic methods can give us interesting  insights to investigate defence topics on the wider sense. He more precisely focuses on the question of data and big data, and how the spatialization of data impacts defence studies. In Chapter 2, Anne-Sophie Traversac focuses on the law methodology  when researching defence on the perspective of public law (international, European and national law). She demonstrates how defence studies have started to spread into public law by developing  more precisely from the case of French public law and its growing interest for defence issues in the last decade. She also pleads for cross-fertilization of methods between public law and political  science to grasp  the complexity  of defence  legal measures.  In Chapter  3, Christophe  Lafaye proposes an analysis of the emergence of defence and war studies in the French uni- versity system and how the historical discipline found its way in this emerging field. He then reflects on the use of archives and how to deal with immediate and digitalized archives, advocating the training of social science researchers in computing methods. In Chapter 4, Laurent Borzillo  and Delphine Deschaux-Dutard explore an under-investi- gated issue: secondary analysis of qualitative data in defence studies. They propose a reflexion on the potentialities and limits of this method in defence  studies, as it also raised ethical questions to be addressed by the researcher. Both researchers more pre- cisely focus on the re-use of qualitative interviews in defence  studies and formulate propositions to archive this kind of material in a digitalized way. In Chapter 5, Cathe- rine Hoeffler  addresses the question of method  using policy analysis  to investigate defence and focuses on some of the key issues pertaining to the links between policy analysis and defence studies. Uncovering  among others the question of agenda setting, governance, implementation and effectivity  or internationalization  of defence public policies, she furthermore advocates for methodological  pluralism and underlines some challenges  of qualitative  methods  when  researching  defence  using conceptual  and methodological  tools from policy analysis. In Chapter 6, Gregor Richter gives a critical overview on empirical sociological  methods in defence-related research. He particularly explores the way research questions are generated using sociological  analytic tools on defence issues and the challenges of embedded sociological  research, the access to the field and how to deal with research results.

The second part of the book has been conceived to focus more thoroughly on the use of quantitative  methods and statistics to investigate the defence field in several social sciences such as political science, sociology  or economics. This part logically  starts with a general reflection about quantitative methods in defence studies before more precisely focusing on some specific  uses of these methods  to build and analyse databases and data, create indexes or even opinion  surveys on defence topics. This part opens with Chapter 7, in which Mayeul Kauffman proposes a general overview of the main cate- gories of quantitative methods applied to defence studies, presenting various examples illustrating their strength and weaknesses. His primary reflections about the founding principles  of quantitative  methods  and their epistemological  foundations  furthers understanding of how useful such methods  can be used to investigate defence issues, but also the limits of such methods. In Chapter 8, Kauffmann  relies on his dual back- ground as defence economist and computer scientist to draw synthetic methodological observations from the use of databases and big data in defence studies, even introdu- cing a state-of-the-art of techniques and technologies  so as to make them accessible and fruitful to non-technical readers by providing  guidelines for the creation of data- bases on defence issues. In Chapter 9, Julien Malizard  follows the reflection on the use of quantitative methods by addressing the issue of economic methods in defence  stu- dies. He first explores the different possible economic methods used to investigate the defence topic with a particular focus on the calculation of defence spending, and then addresses the important  question of economic  data production and its limits, before proposing a critical review of the main topics and methods used in defence economics. In Chapter  10, collectively  written by Falk Ostermann  and his colleagues  from the research project  Parliamentary  Deployment  Vote  Database  (PDVD),13  the  authors analyse and explain the method used to build indexes in defence studies, with a specific case study on parliamentary votes on military deployment in several countries during the last decade. Last but not least, in Chapter  11, Markus  Steinbrecher and Heiko Biehl pursue the exploration  of quantitative data by explaining how public opinion surveys on defence  issues can be developed and what are their potential and limits to analyse the relationship between defence and public support with a case study focusing on German public opinion.  The book finishes  with  a Conclusion  by Delphine Deschaux-Dutard pleading for more cross-fertilization between the different methods and disciplines and relying on examples so as to grasp more in depth the complexity of the defence field in the 21st century.

Notes

*  The editor of this book would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their fruitful suggestions on an earlier version of this introduction.

1  When typing the key words “defence” and “military”  and browsing only in titles, Google

Scholar finds over 1180 pages of results from 1990, all disciplines included.

2  https://www.irsem.fr/agenda-enhancer/agenda/journee-d-etude-des-doctorants-de-l-irsem.html

(Accessed 24 July 2019).

3  The editor of this volume  herself benefited  from a doctoral funding from the Ministry of

Defence for her doctoral dissertation in the early 2000s.

4  See the arguments  of this controversy   online:  https://zilsel.hypotheses.org/3052 and  https://

zilsel.hypotheses.org/3071 (Consulted  on 19 July 2019). This controversy  started raising after

the  signature  of two memoranda  of understanding:  one between  the  French  National

Research Center (CNRS) and the Ministry of Defence in 2017, and one between the CNRS

and the Direction for Military  Intelligence in 2018.

5  See  for instance the concept  of securitization linking  the internal and external  levels of

security developed by the Copenhagen school of security studies (Buzan 2008).

6  The growing implication of military actors in the internal fight against terrorism, as in the framework of the operation Sentinelle in France since 2015, participates in this process.

7  A more extensive analysis on this point can be found in Deschaux-Dutard (2018).

8  For more elements on this issue, see Deschaux-Dutard (2018).

9    For more details see Deschaux-Dutard (2018).

10  See also Qualitative Methods in Military  Studies (Carreiras and Castro 2011), and the second

part of the Routledge Handbook  of Research  Methods  in Military Studies (Soeters  et al.

2014), which come as two very useful complements of this volume as it has been conceived.

11  Samy Cohen incidentally underlines how much more fruitful than archives those interviews

turn out to be in the defence field (Cohen 1999: 19).

12  The case of quantitative methods in the study of the military is interestingly investigated in

the third part of the Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military  Studies (Soeters et

  1. 2014). For an original perspective on the use of statistics in the study of international

questions (among which armed conflicts), see also Kauffmann (2008).

13  See the website of the project: http://deploymentvotewatch.eu/ (Accessed  25 July 2019).

References

Bardiès, L. (2011). Du concept de spécificité militaire. L’Année sociologique, 61 (2), 273–295. Battistella, D., Petiteville, F., Smouts, M. C., Vennesson, P. (2012).  Dictionnaire  des relations

internationales: approaches, concepts, doctrines, Paris, Dalloz.

Becker, H. S. (2007). Les ficelles du métier: comment conduire sa recherche en sciences sociales. Paris, La Découverte. [Original publication: Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It, University of Chicago Press.]

Boëne, B. (1990). La spécificité militaire. Actes du colloque  de Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan,  Paris, Armand Colin.

Boëne, B. (2008). Method  and substance in the military  field.  European Journal of Sociology/ Archives Européennes de Sociologie,  49(3), 367–398.

Brown, M. E., CotéJr, O. R., Lynn-Jones, S. M., Miller,  S. E. (Eds.) (2004). Offense, Defense, and War, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Buzan, B. (2008). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International  Security  Studies in the

Post-Cold War Era, Colchester, ECPR Press.

Caforio, G., Nuciari, M. (2018). Social research and the military: A cross-national expert survey,

27–58. In: Caforio, G. (ed.) (2018). Handbook of the Sociology  of the Military.  2nd ed., York, Springer.

Carreiras,  H., Castro,  C. (Eds.) (2011).  Qualitative  Methods  in  Military Studies,  London, Routledge.

Carreiras, H., Caetano, A. (2016). Reflexivity and the sociological  study of the military, 8–22. In:

Carreiras,  H., Castro,  C., Frederic,  S.  (Eds.). (2016).  Researching  the  Military, London, Routledge.

Carreiras,  H., Castro, C., Frederic,   S.  (Eds.). (2016).  Researching  the  Military, London, Routledge.

Cohen,  S. (1999).  Enquêtes  au sein d’un « milieu difficile  »: les responsables  de la politique étrangère et de défense, 17–50. In: Cohen,  S. (ed.) (1999). L’art d’interviewer  les dirigeants, Paris, PUF, Coll. “Politique d’aujourd’hui”.

Deschaux-Beaume, D. (2011). Studying the military in a comparative perspective: methodologi- cal challenges and issues. The example of French and German officers in European Defence and Security Policy, 132–147. In: Carreiras H., Castro C. (Eds.) (2011). Qualitative Methods in Military  Studies, London,  Routledge.

Deschaux-Beaume, D. (2012). Investigating the military field: Qualitative research strategy and interviewing in the defence networks. Current Sociology,  60 (1), January 2012, 100–116.

Deschaux-Dutard, D. (2018). Methods in defence studies, 40–52. In: Galbreath, D., Deni,  J. R.

(eds.) (2018). Routledge Handbook of Defence Studies, London,  New York: Routledge.

Elias, N. (1991) [German ed.]: Suhrkamp Verlag, (1987). La société des individus, Paris, Fayard. Galbreath D., Deni J. (Eds.) (2018). Routledge Handbook of Defence Studies, London,  Routledge. Gareis, S. B., Klein, P. (2006). Handbuch Militär  und Sozialwissenschaft, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag

für Sozialwissenschaften.

Gheciu, A., Wohlforth, W. (Eds.) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of International Security, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Goertz, G., Mahoney,  J. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.

Goertz, G., Mahoney,  J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences, Princeton, Princeton University  Press.

Gresle F. (Ed.) (2005). Sociologie  du milieu militaire. Les conséquences de la professionalisation sur les armées et l’identité militaire, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Holeindre,   J. V. (2015). Des strategic  studies aux war studies.  La structuration d’un champ d’études, 499–512. In: Henrotin,  J., Schmitt, O., Taillat, S. (2015). Guerre et stratégie: appro- ches, concepts, Paris, Presses Universitaires  de France.

Holeindre,   J. V., Vilmer,  J. B. J. (2015).  Pour  des war studies en France:  un diagnostic  et des propositions.  Revue défense nationale, 785, 53–59.

Hockey, J. (2016). Participant observation with infantry. In: Williams, Alison J.et al. (Eds.) (2016)

The Routledge Companion to Military Research Methods, London, Routledge.

Janowitz, M. (1974;  1st ed: 1960). The Professional Soldier: A Social  and Political  Portrait, Glencoe, The Free Press.

Joana, J. (2017). Défense (politique  de), 359–366. In: Durieux, B., Jeangène Vilmer, J.-B., Ramel, F. (2017). Dictionnaire de la guerre et de la paix, Paris, PUF.

Kauffmann, M. (2008). Building and Using Datasets on Armed Conflicts, Amsterdam: IOS Press. Lafaye, C, Paya y Pastor, A., Thura, M. (Eds.)  (2015). Special issue: La pratique  des sciences

sociales en milieu militaire: une opération spéciale? Les Champs de Mars, 27.

Leonhard, N., Aubry, G., Casas Santero, M., Jankowski, B. (Eds.) (2008). Military Co-operation in Multinational  Missions:  The Case of EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina  (SOWI Forum International 28), Strausberg: Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr.

Moskos, C., Wood, F. (1988). The Military: More Than Just a Job?, Washington DC, Pergamon- Brassey’s.

Pajon, C. (2005). Le sociologue enrégimenté: méthodes et techniques d’enquête en milieu mili- taire, 45–57. In: Gresle F. (Ed.) (2005). Sociologie  du milieu militaire.  Les conséquences de la professionalisation sur les armées et l’identité militaire, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Pajon, C., Martin, C. (2015). La sociologie  militaire par les personnels de la défense: une socio- logie d’insiders? Les Champs de Mars, 27, 23–30.

Schmitt, O. (2015). L’accès aux données confidentielles en milieu militaire: problèmes méthodo-

logiques et éthiques d’un “positionnement intermédiaire”. Les Champs de Mars, 27, 50–58. Schmitt, O. (2018). Defence as war, 18–28. In: Galbreath, D., Deni, J. R. (Eds.) (2018). Routledge

Handbook of Defence Studies, London,  New York: Routledge.

Settoul,  E. (2015).  Analyser  l’immigration  postcoloniale  en  milieu  militaire:  retour  sur les enseignements d’une méthode ethnographique. Les Champs de Mars, 27, 31–41.

Soeters,  J., Shields,  P., Rietjens, S. (Eds.) (2014). Routledge Handbook of Research  Methods  in

Military  Studies, London,  Routledge.

Tilly, C. (1985). War making and state making as organized  crime, 161–191. In: Evans P., Rue- schemeyer D., Skocpol T. (Eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Alison J.et al. (Eds) (2016). The Routledge Companion to Military Research Methods, London, Routledge.

Vennesson,  P. (2000).  Politiques   de  défense:  institutions, innovations,  européanisation,  Paris, L’Harmattan.