Gregor Richter
Conceptions of defence and defence policies have been changing during the last decades. Defence and security politicians as well as military practitioners whose task it is to adopt military organizations to new economic, social, political, and cultural conditions are facing diverse and unknown challenges. Sociological and social science research in general, especially quantitative research like surveys among soldiers or public opinion research, are increasingly becoming an indispensable resource for shaping the adoption process and decision-making processes in the military field, for instance in the area of recruitment and retention of service personnel. The article gives an overview on (empirical) sociological methods in defence-related research. Since the classical studies on “The American Soldier” in the end of World War II, the military and defence organizations are – compared to other social institutions – often object to social research and quite well investigated. The reasons therefore will be shown up in this article. While sociological research methods in the military field in a narrower sense do not substantially differ from research methods in general and in other social fields (like for instance organization studies), defence research of course has some peculiarities concerning access to the field, collaboration between principals and agents in research projects, and last but not least the utilization of the results. The characteristics of this research are elaborated in the article, too.
Introduction
Almost all classics of sociology have expressed their view on the subject of war, military and society in monographs or longer statements. Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl (2013) presented a comprehensive review of the scholarly literature and chose the starting point of their analysis in the 17th century beginning with Thomas Hobbes. The considerations in sociology in this field after the end of the Cold War, however, the two authors see and deplore the prevalence of a “monothematic approach” (Joas and Knöbl 2013: 252) in most of the outlines of theory. For instance, the debates over the “new wars” are shortened to marketization and privatization: “It is always one particular macrosocial process that has guided the analysis of wars and their possible cessation” (Joas and Knöbl 2013: 252, emphasis in original). The assessment according to different sociological thought about war, military and society is often narrowed in a specific way and is insufficiently supported by social theory. What the two authors do not pronounce, is the fact that sociology too often confronts this topic in the form of macro-sociological theory with the emphasis on macro- sociological processes. At least since Robert K. Merton’s criticism of “grand theories” (Parsons) one should be familiar with the weaknesses of such theoretical conceptions: Either the conclusions have a high degree of generality and lead to trivial statements, or hypotheses cannot be tested empirically due to their high level of abstraction.
The reference point for an overview of sociological methods in defence studies are therefore reasonably micro-sociological theory concepts in the 1940s, more specifically, the entry of the US into World War II in 1941 and the launch of the Research Branch of the US War Department under the direction of Samuel A. Stouffer one year later. The result of this three-year mammoth project was over 200 reports based on hundreds of thousands of interviews with soldiers. The studies on “The American Soldier” (Stouffer 1949; Merton and Lazarsfeld 1950) not only fertilized military-sociological research for years to come, but they were also trendsetting the development of methods in the social sciences in general. This initial phase can be characterized by a high degree of practical relevance – the research should increase the knowledge base on the motivational foundations of US soldiers – and from today’s perspective by an aston- ishing high level of transparency in dealing with the research results. A newsletter with selected survey results titled “What the Soldier Thinks” was issued by the Morale Service Division in the US War Department monthly and distributed to overseas mili- tary executives from December 1943 shortly until the end of the war.
“The American Soldier” showed impressively the potential “for examining the interplay of social theory and applied social research” (Merton and Kitt 1950: 40). The well-known theory of reference groups, for example, was developed in dealing with the data of the Research Branch of the US War Department and is considered a prime example of the division of labour and the fruitful interplay of theory and empirical evidence until today. Sociologist Robert K. Merton, himself a member of the working group around Stouffer, was able to work out his conception of “theories of the middle range” with the theory of reference groups. Likewise, the core of the theory of relative deprivation may be well explained using the example of soldiers. Dissatisfaction with one’s own situation, for example the current career, is not merely the reflection of objective circumstances, but relative, and depends on the standards of comparison used by the individual, i.e. the reference group chosen by him or her. Provided with the survey data only, it was not easy to interpret, at first glance, that in US military units, where promotions were relatively more frequent than in peer groups, subjective satisfaction with career opportunities among respondents was relatively low.
Merton extended the theory of relative deprivation to a general theory of reference groups, in which non-membership groups become the reference point for the assess- ment of living conditions and career development. In this context, the notion of anticipatory socialization was formulated, which has meanwhile found its way into everyday usage. Claims to research and methodology in the sense of an incremental understanding of the progress in science and practice should therefore be to develop military-sociological theories step by step:
Systematic empirical materials help advance social theory by imposing the task and affording the opportunity for interpretation along lines often unpremeditated, and social theory, in turn, defines the scope and enlarges the predictive value of empirical findings by indicating the conditions under which they hold. (Merton and Kitt 1950: 40)
How such empirical material is systematically collected is part of the methodology that forms the starting point for the following remarks on sociological methods in defence studies. Before that, it is necessary to delimit the field of research:
Defence studies is a multi-disciplinary field examining how agents, predominately states, prepare for, prevent, avoid and/or engage in armed conflict. (Galbreath and Deni 2018: 1, Introduction)
This definition, taken from a recent textbook on the topic, should also be the refer- ence point for the chapter at hand. Defence studies are difficult to define from a neighbouring branch of research, i.e. military studies (Soeters et al. 2014; Soeters 2018). Even if the research topics and especially the traditions of military studies differ from the here examined research field, there is no reason to conjure boundaries at the level of methods and research techniques. According to Soeters (2018) military studies can be found in the works of classics of sociology such as Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Elias, and Goffman. The research field of the defence studies, on the other hand, has fewer classics, but can be characterized with its very interdisciplinary orientation:
[…] defence studies is naturally an inter-disciplinary area of scholarship that tou- ches on political science, sociology, economics, international relations, social anthropology, human geography and organisational studies. (Galbreth and Deni 2018: 1, Introduction)
Following earlier work (Richter 2017) I assume, that defence organizations and civil organizations must not be treated fundamentally different. In the case of military research, the repertoire of sociological methods and research techniques should not deviate from that of research on other types of organizations, such as corporations, churches or universities. According to my present knowledge, the opposite position had not yet been formulated. For example, if you look in the relevant anthologies (Soeters et al. 2014; Carreiras and Castro 2013; Carreiras et al. 2016), you encounter the major social science standard methods and research techniques. In the field of military psy- chology an analogous situation can be observed (Laurence and Matthews 2012). Regardless of this, a position in military sociology is advocated that advises us to take into account the respective “state of aggregation” of the organization, i.e. empirical results found in so-called in-extremis situations are not transferable to the routine area under peace conditions and vice versa (see Kolditz 2006). As with any sociological research, the same applies to defence studies. The choice of the appropriate method should be made against the background of the specific research problem and environ- mental parameters.
In what follows does not deal with sociological methods and research techniques in detail, such as survey research, experimental designs, qualitative interviews, etc. There are numerous textbooks available for this purpose (for instance Babbie 2016; Bryman 2016; Marsden and Wright 2010; and with a focus on organization research: Liebig et al. 2017). Nor will I recommend which method is best suited for researching a parti- cular topic. Rather, the focus is on the particular institutional framework of defence studies.1 This includes, as we will demonstrate in the second part of this chapter, the dominant organizational integration of research facilities, the generation of research issues, the access to the field, specific requirements for the researcher and the handling of the research results. Some of these specifics can be explained by specifics of the military organization in our first part.
Characteristic features of the organization type military
The characteristic features of military organizations include distinctive forms of recruitment and socialization, a high importance of symbols and rituals in everyday military life, military-specific camaraderie, the principle of command and obedience, and the attribution of the military as a “total institution” in the sense of Erving Goff- man (1961). All attempts, however, to want to award the military a sui generis status, run dispassionately into the void. Even the danger to life and limb that soldiers may have to face can’t be claimed as a unique proposition when one considers the often life- threatening conditions in organizations such as a fire brigade or the police. In this sense, the military and other organizations that operate under high risk and live- threatening circumstances constitute a special type of organization and a new research field known as “High-Reliability-Organizations” (Weick and Sutcliffe 2007). Instead, defence organizations are to be characterized by some contingent features which are relevant according to sociological research.
On the one hand, this contingency is to be understood in a military-historical way; for example, if one looks at the different structure of early-modern mercenary troops and the barracked mass armies of the 19th and 20th centuries. It can be understood cross-sec- tionally to note the gradual differences between defence organizations and other types of organizations on the other hand. Although economic objectives (budget compliance, effi- cient use of material resources, profit, etc.) play a role in defence organizations they are not, as is the case with private companies, the top organizational goals.
Four of such contingent features of defence organizations must be highlighted. Firstly, the special relationship of military organizations and their environment can admirably be described by the notion of “dilute feedback”:
Numerous features of the military organization are explained by the fact that it has fewer possibilities of success control compared to economic enterprises and fewer possibilities to objectively check the functional adequacy of its structure, its equipment, its training methods, and its action programs. (Geser 1983: 145, translation by the author)
Whether structures and patterns of action make sense usually only turns out in serious or warlike conditions, which are objectively the rather seldom state the organization is in. This is different for example in businesses organizations, which are continuously receiving feedback from the environment as result of sales and customer reactions.
Closely related to the diluted feedback, secondly, is the particular uncertainty for military organizations: even the best peacetime planning and the most realistic manoeuvres can only conditionally anticipate future uncertainties of war or other endangering scenarios. The Prussian officer and military intellectual Carl von Clause- witz puts this fact in a nutshell in his famous metaphor of the “fog of war”. The high degree of formalization and ritualization of actions compared to most other organiza- tions and the pronounced hierarchical centralization may be interpreted as a compen- sation attempt for such uncertainty.
Peculiarities of force-related organizational research, ranging from methodological problems, questions of access to the field, the appropriate time of collection of data, and research-ethical considerations, thirdly, result from the “Janus-face” of the military. It is most of the time in the so-called cold state of aggregation, in which the daily work in military staffs and departments hardly differs from other governmental or private organizations. Then administrative issues, the billing of business travel, and budget planning are in the foreground. On the other hand, in the so-called hot state of aggre- gation, that is under conditions of combat for example, organizational communication and decision-making processes can radically shift. Hardly any other type of organiza- tion unites two such different states of aggregation, which are activated according to changes in environmental factors.
A fourth peculiarity of military organizations concerns the relationship between individual and organization. Upon joining most organizations, as Chester Barnard (1938) depicts it, a momentous “indifference-zone” is created, which can be interpreted as a blanket agreement of the new member of the organization to obey to commands, accept regulations and instructions from superiors. It is a peculiarity of military orga- nizations that this initially unspecified general obedience can in due course receive a broad interpretation, ranging in extreme cases to the use of one’s own life in pursuit of organizational goals.
Institutional framework of defence studies
The organizational embedding of research institutions
Defence organizations and the military are among the best studied organizations worldwide. This has less to do with a fixed anchorage of military-sociological research in civilian universities, but with the many research institutions that are either part of the armed forces or financed by those at least. The Social Science Institute of the Federal Armed Forces (SOWI) in Germany, for example, was founded in 1974 as part of a general academization of the armed forces by the social-liberal federal government. It originally had the task to develop the curricula for the two newly established universities of the German Armed Forces, where military cadets should undergo an undergraduate academic study (Langer and Pietsch 2013: 33). Later the SOWI was converted into an in-house research facility and should contribute to the democratic control of armed forces as part of society. In the USA the armed forces were forced to build their own research facilities, as the academic world distanced itself from the US Armed Forces in reaction to the Vietnam War (see Ben-Ari 2016: 24). The initial close cooperation between the military and independent social science research, as it was practiced in the context of “The American Soldier”, became increased brittle. Although nation-specific tra- jectories can be found in today’s military-sociological landscape, so is the trend towards insourcing of defence studies owed to the special conditions of research on the military:
In fact, given the potential risks represented by external academic actors it is not surprising that armed forces around the world are typified by the establishment of ‘in-house’ research arms and at times a wariness of publishing their findings out- side of it. (Ben-Ari and Levy 2014: 13)
Scientific standards of the armed forces research institutes are primarily embedded in international contexts, i.e. in the International Sociological Association, Research Committee 01 (ISA RCO 01), the European Research Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS) and the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces & Society (IUS). For example in the case of Germany one hardly finds an exchange between established research in military institutions and academic sociology in universities. This can be recognized in the fact that the national sociological association in Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie – DGS) still does not have an independent platform for military sociology.
The institutional embedding of social science research in the military organizational structures must be assessed ambivalently. From the perspective of the researchers, it would be advantageous if their work is funded basically, i.e. resources are available regardless of specific project financing. In the case of the SOWI, respective its successor organization in the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the German Armed Forces, a remarkable part of the scientists is working as civil servants. Funding and organizational integration may cast doubt on the independence of research insti- tutions. The dependence of in-house research institutions may have the result that the Ministry of Defense (MoD) has influence on the research question, the methods used,
and even on item formulations in questionnaires. On the other hand, intervention options are just as present when a contractor of a research project, for example an independent polling firm, is forced to accept a research contract for economic rea- sons even if its own scientific standards are threatened. In reality, the level of intervention via contract control is likely to be even higher than via researchers, who do not have to fear great sanctions by the MoD and therefore experience more freedom in their professional decisions. Moreover, in addition to academic and military-bureaucratic mechanisms, modern societies are media societies and the public sphere thwarts encroachments of political and non-scientific interests into research activities. In the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 5 of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of scholarship. The article can be invoked if the coordination between research institution and the ministerial client about the design of a scientific study turns into an exertion of influence on the theoretical work and the use of methods.
In many cases, the commissioning of social science research projects serves legiti- macy purposes. Typically, internal employee surveys, on topics such as job satisfac- tion, management culture and working environments also reflect the efforts of an employer to take care of employee concerns. This is also the case in defence organi- zations. Much undisguised interference with the freedom of scientific research of in- house institutes undermines the credibility of research results, especially when inconceivable positive values are reported to the public. A behaviour like this defeats the purpose and misses the legitimacy function of social science studies for military leaders and defence politicians.
Generation of research questions
Which research questions are pursued and which topics do not receive any attention, have a variety of reasons that are to be found in the interests of the researchers, in the interests of decision-makers or in academic considerations. Sociological research, for example, had in the 1960s and 1970s (in the spirit of a social-technical understanding of science) its starting point often in social problems (material pov- erty, lack of education, etc.). If one ignores the social and political causes for the research project for the time being and focuses on the scientific reasons, in the field of defence studies two triggers are identified, each based on a specific handling of existing theoretical knowledge.
First, general sociological theories can be applied to the specific case of the military.
The aim of this strategy is to broaden the scope of application and thus the informa- tional content of general theories or to obtain new insight into the military or defence organizations with the new theoretical views. One can find both, for example, in Soeters (1997) and his study of military academies in 13 countries. In his empirical survey he applies the cultural concept developed by Hofstede and notes that national cultural differences – along the four cultural dimensions “power distance”, “individualism”, “masculinity”, and “uncertainty avoidance” – can be identified in defence organiza- tions as well. Nevertheless, he identified areas of a general military culture, which also can be detected in all 13 academies and are overlaying the national cultures. Soeters succeeds in this way to produce scientific evidence of the existence of an international military culture. Likewise, research in the military context may lead to irritation of previously accepted theories. This is the case, for example, in Richter (2018), where a leadership study in a multinational headquarters shows that the level of participation of followers in decision-making processes had no effect on central military-relevant variables, such as organizational commitment.
Second, research questions may arise from theories that had been developed specifi- cally for the case of the military and to some degree are validly applicable only in this field. A prime example is Charles Moskos’ well-known I/O-model. In his seminal work, he conceptualized the theory of military identity on a continuum ranging from institu- tional to occupational orientations:
An institution is legitimated in terms of values and norms, that is, a purpose transcending individual self-interest in favor of a presumed higher good. […] An occupation is legitimated in terms of the marketplace. Supply and demand, rather than normative considerations, are paramount. (Moskos 1988: 16)
His original focus was to provide a theoretical framework for the analysis of changes in the US military under an all-volunteer force. The model, originally formulated in the 1970s for the case of the US military, is still proving to be fruitful in analysing dynamics of defence organizations (see Richter 2020).
The systematic reasons why research projects emerge may be the same in other socio- logical research fields. More specific is the special interplay between the interests of the researchers and the interests of decision-makers (in the MoD). The above-average inten- sive research on military organizations compared to other types of organizations can be explained by the consequences of specific features of the organization itself, namely the high level of uncertainty, the need for special knowledge in politics, and by the need to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization:
[…] government-based research to the military (as governmental organization) can be understood as a manifestation of a will to constantly rationalize political deci- sions, make political leadership processes more effective and extend institutional attempts for order and control.(Langer and Pietsch 2013: 40)
This also has implications for the choice of research methods. The following assertion has a certain charm: The preference for “numbers, data, and facts” expressed in technical reports based on opinion and survey research is a reaction to the specific uncertainty to which the military – in a volatile organizational environment – is continuously is exposed. This uncertainty can be at least partially compensated the rationality of “hard” measurements. This may explain the methodological preference for survey research in the defence sector:
Surveys are ever-present and expanding in their use in society. So too, the military has increasingly used surveys to gather information from soldiers […] for purposes of informing the development and implementation of policies.(Griffith 2014: 191)
Experience shows that it is the search for the appropriate sociological method for a defence study that sometimes evokes different positions. Clients prefer quantitative methods, and the social researchers often prefer to use qualitative methods. For instance, nearly all social research projects launched by Germany’s MoD in the last 20 years were questionnaire-based studies. An almost inflationary use of survey studies conducted in the armed forces on all sorts of issues must be assessed critically (Richter 2017: 667). This has negative consequences for sociological research in defence orga- nizations, for example, if declining response rates are to be complained of:
For example, in the U.S. Navy, the top three reasons for non-response were a belief that surveys have no impact, general apathy towards surveys and survey length. Studies have also indicated the following reasons as pertinent: over surveying; the size and formal structure of the organization, high work demands; and lack of perceived benefit to respondents.(Davis et al. 2013: 161)
Interview fatigue as a result of ritually conducted employee surveys without defined follow-up processes and without concrete recommendations can not only be found in the defence sector, but in many other areas, too. For instance, a considerable internal ques- tionnaire-based study on leadership behaviour and its perception by soldiers and civilian employees was conducted by the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the German Armed Forces in 2016. The report had not been published until 2019, and if any consequences were drawn from the research results by the MoD at all, they were not communicated to the participants of the survey in a systematic follow-up process.
Access to the field
Reasonably two aspects of access to the field are to be distinguished:
Gaining access to the field of military studies implies two types of entrées: the organizational or institutional kind that involves being admitted into a large-scale bureaucracy and the epistemological one of encountering a certain field of knowledge.(Ben-Ari, Levy 2014: 10)
In the case of the German Armed Forces, for example, the organizational type of entrées is clearly regulated by law and includes all types of empirical surveys, in parti- cular interviewing in the cold and the hot state of defence organizations. The central service regulation (Zentrale Dienstvorschrift – ZDv) on “Empirical Studies on Attitude, Opinion and Behavior Research in the Bundeswehr” (A-2710/1) regulates the condi- tions under which personnel interviewing can take place. For example, the prescriptions stipulate that an official empirical study may only be carried out if it has received a registration number from the responsible branch in the MoD after the consultation with the respective military command units that are involved in the study. This number must be shown on the survey documents. The approval process often leads to revised study designs and survey instruments according to ministerial guidelines.
Private individuals and external research institutions may also be allowed to conduct surveys for research purposes. They undergo the same approval process as federal researchers. Applicants are obliged to submit the results of the investigation to the MoD before publication. In special cases, the MoD reserves the right not to agree to publication of the results, or only in part. From an academic point of view such restrictions are to be regretted, especially if political rationality criteria do not allow the pursuit of a certain military-sociological research question. In general, however, field access in practice is, despite the formal approval process, not a particular hurdle in relation to the usual research obstacles in other public and private organizations. The barriers for surveys, for the access to the field and for the publication of results are, according to my experience, dependent on the political leadership of the defence ministry currently in office. Nevertheless, it is true that the “gatekeeping problem” characterizes the research field “defence organizations” in relation to civilian organi- zations as at best contingent if one disregards the fact that in the case of surveys in civil organizations often alternative possibilities exist if a requested enterprise denies field access. The research question then may be examined in another organization of the same branch. Military organizations, on the other hand, are monopolies; alternatives to surveys among soldiers do not exist if the MoD refuses the conduct of interviews or the distribution of questionnaires.
The epistemological aspect of field access is closely linked to the researchers’ specific roles and their disciplinary backgrounds; this will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Specific requirements for the researchers
The challenge that researchers face in the area of defence studies can best be summed up in “Gaining entry while maintaining distance” (Ben-Ari and Levy 2014: 16). Any social science research is not just a collection of information about social reality, but an interaction process between researcher and researched subjects and requires a high degree of reflexivity (see Carreiras and Caetano 2016). Claude Weber (2016: 132) analytically distinguishes four types of interaction relationships: “complete partici- pant, complete observer, observer as participant, and participant as observer”. The possibilities to keep aloof and objectively confront the subject of research are as good as none existent in the case of the “complete participant”. In practice, this case can occur, for example, when military cadets carry out their own empirical surveys in the circle of comrades within courses in sociology at military academies. At the other extreme on the continuum, the role of “complete observer”, interaction does not take place in the true sense. One could think of document analysing, for example of pro- tocols from missions abroad. In particular, the two hybrid forms, i.e. “observer as participant” and “participant as observer”, are more typical and theoretically more relevant at this point.
Because of a relatively high degree of embedding of social science research in the defence organizations, the hybrid forms are relatively common. The role of an observer as participant is similar to that of a researcher who has received his education at a civilian university and conducts sociological studies in and about the military without having a military rank him/herself. The role of the participant as observer corresponds to a social science-educated staff officer, who goes through an assignment as a researcher in an in-house research institute. This role requires a high level of self- reflexivity to avoid the pitfalls of “going native”. In any case, experience shows that the hybrid types are not only common but also adequate for conducting defence studies: “The very position of dual membership in military and civilian organizations carries great potential for research” (Ben-Ari 2016: 30). Claude Weber highlights the advan- tages of one of the two hybrid types, too: “To be a participant observer is a very attractive position […] because it allows the researcher to be in a direct and ‘official’ contact with the studied group” (Weber 2016: 135). Overcoming access barriers to the field is then easier and stakeholders can more easily be convinced of the mean- ingfulness (and even the sincerity) of a study – especially if the research is based on an order from the MoD.
Firstly, a researcher in the area of defence studies must therefore be particularly sensitive to his/her understanding of one’s role and to the interaction process with the research subject. He or she is therefore confronted with what is discussed as the “insi- der/outsider dilemma” (Deschaux-Dutard 2018: 42). Secondly, a particular sensitivity for the point of time of the collection of data, for both qualitative and quantitative studies, should be emphasized. Here is an example from the literature. Particularly in the case of military-specific research questions such as combat motivation and morale, the method and especially the timing of a survey is to be chosen with particular care. In the leading academic journal Armed Forces & Society (AF&S), a critical debate was conducted on a field study on the morale of Iraqi and American soldiers during Operation “Iraqi Freedom” in 2003 (Wong et al. 2003; MacCoun et al. 2006). In addition to the debate over the suitability of quantitative or qualitative research methods it was critically questioned to what extent self-information from Iraqi prison- ers of war allow valid statements about their mission motivation. The problem of socially desirable responses is certainly particularly explosive in in-extremis situations: the researchers were promptly told by the interviewed Iraqis in American war captivity that they had only fought under duress on the part of the Iraqi army and by no means shared the war aims of dictator Saddam Hussein. The debate in the AF&S has led the military-sociological community once again to be aware that military-related surveys have to reflect point-of-time of data collection, the very condition of its object, espe- cially the mentioned above “state of aggregation” (cold or hot?). The starting point is the debate in the classic essay by Shils and Janowitz (1948), which referred to a survey of Wehrmacht soldiers in British war captivity. Understandable from the specific situation, the soldiers stated that their motivation to endure to the last was not based on being convinced of the mission and the goals of Hitler’s war. Rather, the morale was based on a sense of attachment and social cohesion to the comrades they did not want to abandon.
Dealing with the research results
Social Science research in the defence field raises an inherent dilemma for the researcher in the profound aim of his research: accessing military discourse, which is traditionally supposed to remain confidential and surrounded by secret, comes up against the purpose of research: disclosure and publishing of the collected data. (Deschaux-Dutard 2018: 45)
For many cases, this assessment is unequivocally correct. Nevertheless, a differentia- tion is necessary. The interests of the scholars are rather uniform. The scientific community is interested in the research results in order to expand the theoretical and empirical knowledge of military sociology; for scholars, the publication of their work is indispensable for professional and financial reasons (“publish or perish”), because the academic reputation is normally linked to a long list of own publications. In practice, results from defence studies are prepared for two different addressees. The technical reports drawn up for the client from military and politics are rather practice-oriented and recommendations are added. In addition, the results of defence studies are often prepared for publications in scientific journals, which are theoreti- cally better founded. It goes without saying that the style and wording of the two publication formats often differ.
Often less uniform are the interests of military and politics, which should not be thought of as a monolithic block with regard to dealing with research results. My own experience with several applied contract research projects shows that, for example, critical results from internal surveys on satisfaction with working conditions and accoutrement are pressured to be published as quickly as possible by the military side, while politicians in the MoD are blocking the release of research reports. With still other topics, the positions can be exactly opposite. The publication of most defence studies, including those of in-house research agencies, is in the end guaranteed, albeit with an often-not inconsiderable delay.
The assertion that military-related contract research has no effect on politicians and military leaders is rather a prejudice among the interviewed soldiers and civilian members of the armed forces, as a volume with an overview of research in the now defunct SOWI showed (see Dörfler-Dierken and Kümmel 2016). The contributions from politicians, representatives of the armed forces and researchers represent a picture according to which the scientific results have not seldom influenced political and mili- tary decision-making processes. For instance, a former member of the defence com- mittee of the German parliament, Winfried Nachtwei, reflects on SOWI-research reports and how they were utilized in the meetings of the committee. As is known, the impact of social science research is more hidden and indirectly conveyed through awareness-raising processes and thus not always directly attributable to a specific study, its results and its specific recommendations. Positive attitudes towards surveys and interviewing and a consequently higher willingness to respond arise when the respon- dents receive feedback and see the consequences from the research results (see Foster Thompson and Surface 2009).
Conclusion
Conceptions of defence and defence policies have been changing during the last dec- ades. Defence and security politicians as well as military practitioners whose task it is to adopt military organizations to new economic, social, political, and cultural condi- tions are facing diverse and unknown challenges. Sociological and social science research in general, especially quantitative research like surveys among soldiers or public opinion research, are getting increasingly an indispensable resource for shaping the adoption process and decision-making processes in the military field, for instance in the area of recruitment and retention of service personnel. Since the classical studies on “The American Soldier” in the end of World War II, the military and defence organi- zations are – compared to other social institutions – often an object of social research and are quite well investigated. The reasons therefore have been shown up in this chapter. While sociological research methods in the military field in a narrower sense do not substantially differ from research methods in general and in other social fields (like for instance organization and military studies), defence research of course has some peculiarities concerning access to the field, collaboration between principals and agents in research projects, and last, but not least, the application of the results.
Note
1 Another limitation is the focus on the “internal” perspective, that is, methods of defence stu- dies that are applied primarily within the organization, for example research on recruitment and retention, soldiers in general (including veterans, see Schulker 2017) and internal organi- zational structures. For the “external” perspective, for instance public attitudes about defense and security or strategic cultures, see Biehl et al. (2013), Giegerich (2018), and the chapter by Steinbrecher and Biehl in this volume.
References
Babbie, E. (2016). The Practice of Social Research, 14th ed., Boston, MA, Cengage Learning. Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Ben-Ari, E., Levy, Y. (2014). Getting access to the field. Insider/outsider perspectives, 9–18. In:
Soeters, J. et al. (Eds.) (2014) Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, London, New York: Routledge.
Ben-Ari, E. (2016). What is worthy of study about the military? The sociology of military-in-use in current-day conflicts, 23–35. In: Carreiras, H., Castro, C., Frederic, S. (Eds.) (2016). Researching the Military, London, New York: Routledge.
Biehl, H.et al. (Eds.) (2013). Strategic Cultures in Europe. Security and Defence Policies across the Continent, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. 5th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press. Carreiras, H., Castro, C. (Eds.) (2013). Qualitative Methods in Military Studies. Research
Experiences and Challenges, London, New York: Routledge.
Carreiras, H.et al. (Eds.) (2016). Researching the Military, London, New York: Routledge. Carreiras, H., Caetano, A. (2016). Reflexivity and the sociological study of the military, 8–22. In:
Carreiras, H.et al. (Eds.) (2016). Researching the Military, London, New York: Routledge. Davis, E.et al. (2013). Surveys: Understanding the measurements that inform decision-making,
157–164. In: Johnston, P. J., Farley, K. M. (Eds.) (2013) Military Human Resource Issues. A Multinational View, Kingston, Ontario, Canadian Defence Academy Press.
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.
Dörfler-Dierken, A., Kümmel, G. (Eds.) (2016). Am Puls der Bundeswehr. Militärsoziologie in
Deutschland zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik, Bundeswehr und Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden, Springer
VS.
Foster Thompson, L., Surface, E. (2009). Promoting favorable attitudes toward personnel sur- veys: The role of follow-up. Military Psychology (21), 139–161.
Galbreath, D., Deni, J. R. (Eds.) (2018). Routledge Handbook of Defence Studies, London, New
York, Routledge.
Geser, H. (1983). Soziologische Aspekte der Organisationsformen in der Armee und in der Wirtschaft, 140–164. In: Wachtler, G. (Ed.) (1983). Militär, Krieg, Gesellschaft – Texte zur Militärsoziologie, Frankfurt, New York, Campus.
Giegerich, B. (2018). Public opinion and defence, 291–301. In: Galbreath, D., Deni, J. R. (Eds.) (2018). Routledge Handbook of Defence Studies, London, New York, Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patient and Other
Inmates, New York, Anchor Books.
Griffith, J. (2014). Surveys in military settings, 179–193. In Soeters, J.et al. (Eds.) (2014). Rou- tledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, London, New York, Routledge.
Joas, H., Knöbl, W. (2013). War in Social Thought. Hobbes to the Present, Princeton, Oxford,
Princeton University Press.
Kolditz, T. (2006). Research in extremis settings. Expanding the critique of ‘why they fight’.
Armed Forces & Society, 32(4), 655–658.
Langer, P., Pietsch, C. (2013). Studying cross-cultural competence in the military. Methodological considerations of applied contract research for the German Armed Forces, 31–49. In: Car- reiras, H., Castro, C. (Eds.) (2013). Qualitative Methods in Military Studies. Research Experi- ences and Challenges, London, New York, Routledge.
Laurence, J., Matthews, M. (Eds.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.
Liebig, S.et al. (2017) (Eds.). Handbuch empirische Organisationsforschung, Wiesbaden, Springer
Gabler.
MacCoun, R.et al. (2006). Does social cohesion determine motivation in combat? An old ques- tion with an old answer. Armed Forces & Society, 32(4), 646–654.
Marsden, P., Wright, J. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of Survey Research. 2nd ed. Bingley, Emerald. Merton, R., Kitt, A. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior, 40–105. In:
Merton, R., Lazarsfeld, P. (Eds.) (1950). Continuities in social Research. Studies in the scope
and method of “The American Soldier”. Glencoe, IL, Free Press.
Merton, R., Lazarsfeld, P. (Eds.) (1950). Continuities in Social Research. Studies in the Scope and
Method of “The American Soldier”, Glencoe, IL, Free Press.
Moskos, C. C. (1988). Institutional and occupational trends in armed forces, 15–26. In: Moskos, C. C., Wood, F. R. (Eds.) (1988). The Military. More than Just a Job?Washington, Pergamon- Brassey’s.
Richter, G. (2017). Methoden und Daten zur Erforschung spezieller Organisationen: Bundeswehr,
657–674. In: Liebig, S.et al. (Eds.) (2017). Handbuch empirische Organisationsforschung. Wiesbaden, Springer Gabler.
Richter, G. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of leadership styles. Findings from research in
multinational headquarters. Armed Forces & Society, 44 (1), 72–91.
Richter, G. (2020). Explaining retention of medical officers: A comparison of person-organiza- tion fit and the I/O model. In: Kümmel, G., Elbe, M. (Eds.) (2020). Was es (heute) heißt Soldat zu sein, Band 50 der Reihe Militär und Sozialwissenschaften, hrsg. vom AMS. Baden- Baden: Nomos-Verlag [in press].
Schulker, D. (2017). The recent occupation and industry employment of American veterans.
Armed Forces & Society, 43(4), 695–710.
Shils, E., Janowitz, M. (1948). Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 12(2), 280–315.
Soeters, J. (1997). Value orientations in military academies: A thirteen country study. Armed
Forces & Society, 24(1), 7–32.
Soeters, J.et al. (Eds.) (2014). Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies, London, New York, Routledge.
Soeters, J. (2018). Sociology and Military Studies. Classical and Current Foundations, London, New York, Routledge.
Stouffer, S. (1949). The American Soldier. Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. 2 vol.,
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Weber, C. (2016). Immersion experiences within military organizations, 131–141. In: Carreiras, H., Castro, C., Frederic, S. (Eds.) (2016). Researching the Military, London, New York, Routledge.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected. Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, 2nd ed. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Wong, L.et al. (2003). Why they Fight. Combat Motivation in the Iraq War, Carlisle Barracks,
PA, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
