The possibilities and limits of impact and engagement in research on military institutions

Rachel Woodward,Antonia Dawes,K Neil Jenkings,Paul Higate,Timothy Edmunds

doi:10.1111/area.12629

Rachel Woodward, Antonia Dawes + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12629

Copy DOI

Abstract

Military geographical research often requires direct engagement with military institutions. Although the morality of such engagements is often debated, the details of engagement in practice have been less scrutinised. Scrutiny is important, as military engagements can shape research‐derived critiques and can influence the communication of research outcomes to both military and academic research communities. Military engagement comprises the communication of data, theories, and concepts about military activities and phenomena, with military personnel and institutions, in textual, representational, and interpersonal modes. The paper examines Geography's history of research engagement to show the complexities and debates around this seemingly straightforward idea. It then introduces a research project and wider research programme on the UK armed forces reserves which provides the empirical context from which we draw our observations about military engagement. We then consider two issues, language and institutional cultures, for their insights into the complexities of military engagement. We conclude by considering the politics of engagement in contemporary critical military geographical research.

Highlights

The evolution of Geography's disciplinary interest in military and security phenomena has been well documented (Flint, 2004; Forsyth, 2019; Palka & Galgano, 2005; Woodward, 2014)
We are concerned with the detail and practicalities of engagement with military institutions, around policy change, how this engagement in turn might shape the critiques and arguments emergent in research, and how engagement influences the communication of research outcomes
As Yagil Levy (2015) notes, critical military research is vital in revealing to military policy and policymakers the unintended consequences of policy

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

The evolution of Geography's disciplinary interest in military and security phenomena has been well documented (Flint, 2004; Forsyth, 2019; Palka & Galgano, 2005; Woodward, 2014). We are concerned with the detail and practicalities of engagement with military institutions, around policy change, how this engagement in turn might shape the critiques and arguments emergent in research, and how engagement influences the communication of research outcomes. The key FRRP findings based on the four projects' results around the challenges reservists face were all drawn directly from qualitative data and analysis (Catignani & Basham, 2018; Catignani & Connolly, 2018; Cunningham‐Burley et al, 2018a, 2018b; Giga et al, 2018a, 2018b; Woodward et al, 2018a, 2018b) It is in the detail of our military engagement that it becomes possible to trace more clearly its effects on the critiques that emerge through research, and its influence on the communication of research findings. It transpired that the issue of churn had meant that publication clearance had been devolved to someone who – unknowingly – had not realised that ideas explored in the paper ran contrary to the established MoD narrative or “lines to take.” Churn, as a feature of military institutions, was both a source of exasperation and a practice that enabled the publication of critical findings

| CONCLUSIONS

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT