Canada’s Civil–Military Seminar: An Approach to Narrowing the Civil

Abstract

The “civil–military gap” is a significant factor that can hinder the success of complex comprehensive approach missions. Perhaps nowhere is this gap more apparent than in the relationship between military and civilian nongovernmental organizations. Interagency education and training have been suggested as ways to diminish this divide. This research describes one Canadian approach to interagency education: the Civil–Military Seminar. Quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate the promise of both the assessment approach used and the positive outcomes that may help to narrow the civil–military gap.

Keywords

civil–military relations interagency education psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abiew

F. K.

(2003). From civil strife to civic society: NGO-military cooperation in peace operations (Occasional Paper No. 39). Ottawa, Canada: Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Norman Patterson School of International Affairs, Carlton University.

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Brewer

M. B.

Miller

(1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller

Brewer

M. B.

(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Brown

Hewstone

(2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 37, pp. 255–343). New York: Academic Press.

Button

K. S.

(2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365–376.

Byman

D. L.

(2001). Uncertain partners: NGOs and the military. Survival, 43, 97–114.

Chan

(2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In Lance

C. E.

Vanenberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309–336). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cohn

(1999). The evolution of the civil-military “gap” debate. Paper prepared for the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) Project on the Gap between the Military and Civilian Society. Retrieved from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1472877/18563652/1338821276343/Cohn_Evolution+of+Gap+Debate+1999.pdf?token=1yLZU5S7mGrKlzxmHG%2FEjKRbTjc%3D.

de Coning

(2009). Implications of a comprehensive or integrated approach for training in United Nations and African Union peace operations (Security in Practice 6 [NUPI Working Paper 766]). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Department of Security and Conflict Management.

10.

Doughty

Stull

(2011). The role of education in the comprehensive approach. In Neal

Wells

II (Eds.), Capability development in support of comprehensive approaches: Transforming international civil-military interactions (pp. 143–160). Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy.

11.

Febbraro

A. R.

Piasentin

K. A.

Thompson

M. M.

Turnbull

(2012). Whole of government training for the comprehensive approach to operations: A survey of the final planning conference for Exercise Frontier Sentinel 2012, DRDC Technical Memorandum (DRDC-RDDC-TM 2012-132), Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development Canada.

12.

Fris

Jarmyr

. (2008). Comprehensive approach: Challenges and opportunities in complex crisis management (NUPI Report Security in Practice no, 11). Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved from http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/Friis_2008_06_Comprehensive_Approach.pdf

13.

Gaertner

Dovidio

(2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

14.

Gaist

P. A.

(2010). Igniting the power of community: The role of CBOs and NGOs in global public health. New York, NY: Springer.

15.

Gourlay

(2000). Partners apart: Managing civil-military co-operation in humanitarian interventions. In Disarmament Forum, 3, 33–44.

16.

Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. (2015, 3 18). Challenges of civil-military engagement in humanitarian action: An overview. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from http://atha.se/blog/challenges-civil-military-engagement-humanitarian-action-overview

17.

Hewstone

Brown

(1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the Contact Hypothesis’. In Hewstone

Brown

(Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

18.

Holmes

J. G.

(1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In Jones

W. H.

Perlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57–104). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

19.

Holton

Febbraro

Filardo

E.-A.

Barnes

Fraser

Spiece

(2011). The relationship between non-governmental organizations and the Canadian Forces. In Rostek

Gizewski

(Eds.), Security operations in the 21st century: Canadian perspectives on the comprehensive approach (pp. 215–226). Montreal & Kingston, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

20.

Jenny

(2001). Civil-military cooperation in complex emergencies: Making it work. European Security, 10, 23–22.

21.

Kilcullen

D. J.

(2006). Three pillars of counterinsurgency. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from http://www.au.af.mil/au/AWC/AWCgate/uscoin/3pillars_of_counterinsurgency.pdf

22.

Krishnan

Martin

Noorderhaven

N. G.

(2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49, 894–917.

23.

Leslie

Gizewski

Rostek

(2008). Developing a comprehensive approach to Canadian forces operations. Canadian Military Journal, 9, 11–20.

24.

Lewicki

R. J.

Bunker

B. B.

(1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

(Eds.), Trust in organizations, frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Major

(2012). Cross roads or cross purposes? Tensions between military and humanitarian providers. Parameters, 42, 86–96.

26.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

27.

McAllister

(1995). Affect-and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

28.

Menhinick

R. T.

Gregory

N. R.

(2011). Education and training for a comprehensive approach: An Australian perspective. In Neal

D. J.

Wells

(Eds.), Capability development in support of comprehensive approaches to transforming international civil-military interactions (pp. 161–180). Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.

29.

Ministry of Defence. (2006). The comprehensive approach (Joint Discussion Note 4/05). Retrieved from http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BEE7F0A4-C1DA-45F8-9FDC-7FBD25750EE3/0/dcdc21_jdn4_05.pdf

30.

Mishra

A. K.

(1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organisations (pp. 261–287). London, England: Sage.

31.

Mockaitis

T. R.

(2004). Reluctant partners: Civil-military cooperation in Kosovo. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 15, 38–69.

32.

Morcos

. (2005). Principles for good international engagement in fragile states. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD(2005)8/REV2&docLanguage=En

33.

NATO. (2015). A “comprehensive approach” to crises. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51633.htm

34.

Olson

Gregorian , (2007). Side by side or together? Working for security, development and peace in Afghanistan and Liberia. The Peacebuilding, Development and Security Program (PDSP), Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/pdsp/files/pdsp/sidebysideortogether_oct2007.pdf

35.

Patrick

Brown

(2007). Greater than the sum of its parts? Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. New York, NY: International Peace Academy.

36.

Paulhus

D. L.

Vazire

(2009). The self-report method. In Robins

R. W.

Fraley

R. C.

Kruger

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). New York, NY: Guilford.

37.

Pedhazur

E. J.

Pedhazur Schmelkin

(1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrenece Erlbaum Associates.

38.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

39.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

40.

Pugh

(1998). Military intervention and humanitarian action: Trends and issues. Disasters, 22, 339–351.

41.

Rahbek-Clemmenson

. (2012). Conceptualizing the civil-military gap: A researchnote. Armed Forces & Society, 38(4), 669–678.

42.

Rietjens

S. J. H.

(2008). Managing civil-military cooperation: Experiences from the Dutch Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. Armed Forces & Society, 34, 173–207.

43.

Ruffa

Vennesson

(2014). Fighting or helping? A historical-institutionalist explanation of NGO-Military relations. Security Studies, 23, 582–621.

44.

Sherif

(1966). In common predicament. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

45.

Speelman

J. L.

(2010). Military education and training. In Bradford

J. C.

(Ed.), A companion to American military history (Vol. 3: Military Specialties, pp. 709–721). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

46.

Spence

(2002). Civil-military cooperation in complex emergencies: More than a field application. Journal of Peacekeeping, 9, 165–171.

47.

Stephenson

Schnitzer

M. H.

(2006). Interorganizational trust, boundary spanning, and humanitarian relief coordination. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17, 211–233.

48.

Thompson

M. M.

Febbraro

A. R.

Blais

A. -R.

(2011). Interagency training for the Canadian comprehensive mission in Afghanistan. In Rostek

Gizewski

(Eds.), Security operations in the 21st century: Canadian perspectives on the comprehensive approach (pp. 203–213). Montreal, QC, & Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

49.

Thompson

M. M.

Gill

(2010). The role of trust in whole of government missions. In Leuprecht

Troy

Last

(Eds.), Mission Critical: Smaller democracies’ role in global stability operations (pp. 225–244). Montreal & Kingston, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

50.

Thynne

Cherne

(2016). Preparation starts at home: Education and training for civil-military interaction. In Lucius

Rietjens

(Eds.), Effective civil-military interaction in peace operations (pp. 61–75). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

51.

U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2015). Challenge and innovation: Civil-military relations in a changing world. NGO-Military Contact Group Conference. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from http://reliefweb.int/report/world/ngo-military-contact-group-conference-2015-challenge-and-innovation-civil-military

52.

Van der Kloet

(2006). Building trust in the mission area: A weapon against terrorism? Small Wars and Insurgencies, 17, 421–436.

53.

Walton

R. E.

McKersie

R. B.

(1965). A behavioural theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

54.

Wentz

. (2006). An ICT Primer: Information and communication technologies for civil-military coordination in disaster relief and stabilization and reconstruction. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University. Retrieved from http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP31%20ICT%20Primer.pdf

55.

Winslow

(2002). Strange bedfellows: NGOs and the military in humanitarian crises. The International Journal of Peace Studies, 7. Retrieved from http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol7_2/cover7_2.htm

Canada’s Civil–Military Seminar: An Approach to Narrowing the Civil–Military Gap

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References