Abstract
The subject of this study is military sociological research. The study is based on an expert survey conducted by e-mail, in successive stages, among a group of colleagues from different countries who agreed to participate. These countries are Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States. The basic questions we posed to ourselves in this study were of two types. One was of a methodological nature, namely what are the advantages/disadvantages and the prospects offered by a survey carried out by e-mail? The second area of interest regarded content and was aimed mainly at providing answers to the following questions: (1) Who is the typical military sociologist? (2) Who commissions such research, and what procedures do they use? (3) How much freedom do researchers have in this field? and (4) What is the social status of military sociological research in the various countries? There are common traits that characterize this research in the various countries as well as distinguishing ones: alltogether they provide a useful world overview on the subject. Since the study was conducted at the beginning of the 2000, a question arises about the current situation of social research within and for military institutions. Under many respects, actors are the same, and situations, even though within a more complex and often unpredictable environment, are as usual, war in its conventional meaning, conflict and non-conflict relationships, peace-keeping, institution building, humanitarian aid and civil population relief in dramatic non-war circumstances. Social research and social scientists must always work within the limits and the idiosyncratic outlook of an organization. As noticed in one of the last volumes reflecting on research methods and behaviors in military studies (Soeters et al. in Routledge handbook of research methods in military studies. Routledge, New York, 2014), if doing research in an organization is always difficult, “…studying the military is probably more complex because, more than other organizations, the military is a world on its own, an island within society-at-large on which its inhabitants work and live together” (Soeters et al. in Routledge handbook of research methods in military studies. Routledge, New York, 2014: 3). Today as in the past, military organizations want to control on-going research and dissemination of results as well, they can influence the timing of the research schedule or limit publication by means of delay or even final prohibition to let findings go “outside”. Situations as such have been experienced and accounted by experts surveyed in the 2003, and they are easy to be seen currently more or less untouched: what are the relationships between theoretical work and empirical research within the military and on crucial military affairs? What methods and subjects are preferred? Today as yesterday, as Soeters et al. say “…one can observe a societal and political push to know and an organizational tendency, however slight, to hide.” (Soeters et al. in Routledge handbook of research methods in military studies. Routledge, New York, 2014: 4).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
By this term is meant, almost always, applied research.
- 2.
As already pointed out, countries with quite different levels of development of the discipline are examined here.
- 3.
For example, an American researcher writes: “There are various agencies under the Dept of Defense that sponsor research on sociological issues of military relevance… Some research activities regarding the domain of socialization to the professional military can be found within the military training academies. In a few cases, these centres are under medical branch.”
- 4.
The situation in Germany has changed to January 1, 2013, when, for reasons of budget, the German government has unified the SOWI (dedicated to sociological research) and MGFA (dedicated to historical research) in one institute called “Center for military History and social Sciences of the Bundeswehr” (Zentrum für Sozialwissenschaften Militärgeschichte und der Bundeswehr—ZMSBw), based in Potsdam.
- 5.
For a theoretical examination of the advantages and disadvantages of an e-mail survey, see Murray and Sixsmith (1998).
- 6.
‘Researchers have four recurring nightmares about data analysis. In the first nightmare, the data are not good. They have not illuminated what they were supposed to. In the second nightmare, systematic error has occurred in the most important data. In the third nightmare, conclusions come out of the wringer of successively more sophisticated analyses looking ever trivial or trite (“You spent $77,000 to tell us that?”). And in the last nightmare, the data resist analysis, are opaque, even inscrutable.’ (Miles and Huberman 1994, p. 77).
References
Boëne, B. (1990). How unique should the military be? European Journal of Sociology, 31, 3–59.
Boron, A. A. (1999). A social theory for the 21st century? Current Sociology, 47(49), 47–64.
Janowitz, M. (1978). The last half-century: Societal change and politics in America. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Kvale, S. (1988). The 1000-page question. Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 6(2), 90–106.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage: Thousands Oaks.
Murray, C. D., Sixsmith, J. (1998). E-mail: A qualitative research medium for interviewing? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(2).
Soeters, J., Shields, P. M., & Rietjens, S. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge handbook of research methods in military studies. New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A
Below we report the “conceptual framework” of the research complete with the collected data.
Resulting framework for a multicase “research on the military” field study
% (Respondents may tick more than one response, so that the total percentage is over 100%)
Appendix B: Questionnaire
Military Sociological Research in Your Country
Part I—Research Data
First Set of Questions
Second Set of Questions
Third Set of Questions
Fourth Set of Questions
Fifth Set of Questions
PART II—Demographic Data
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caforio, G., Nuciari, M. (2018). Social Research and the Military: A Cross-National Expert Survey. In: Caforio, G., Nuciari, M. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71600-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71602-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)