|
A person’s status is their position within
a social system involving designated rights and obligations, and each person
holds multiple statuses within society. For each status a person holds, such as
that related to the professions of doctor, parent or soldier, there are a variety
of connected roles, called a role-set, which relate the person to various
others (Merton, 1957, p. 111). Role-sets are defined as a “complement of
role-relationships in which persons are involved by virtue of occupying a
particular social status” (Merton, 1957, p. 110). Status-sets denotes the
multiple roles a person takes on, usually from different social institutions. Role-sets
may conflict with one another (Merton, 1957), however individuals can possess
contradictory constructs that may allow for successful integration of
conflicting roles (Kelly, 1955).
Role-sets are an important consideration
for effective group cohesion. Group cohesion is a topic that has gained a lot
of attention from within the military and from scholars interested in military
studies. Cohesion is thought to be the most important variable in small-group
effectivenes (Golembiewski, 1962; Lott & Lott, 1965; Dion, 2000). For
soldiers, cohesion between individuals within the group is paramount when on
patrols where one must depend on trusting their coworkers with their life. Patrols
conducted during operations are often comprised of personnel possessing various
role-sets such as combat arms trades, which include infantry and armoured
trained personnel, as well as support trades, such as communications,
intelligence operators and medical personnel. The social dynamics at play
between these role-sets may have an effect on group cohesion.
Understanding how soldiers structure their
role-sets is important in military social structures as well as in civilian
social structures. Within the military, an understanding of how soldiers
construe role-sets can potentially increase effective group cohesion between
soldiers at home as well as out on patrols during international coalitions
where they will be required to work effectively with personnel from other
trades as well as other nations. Within civilian society, how soldiers perceive
differences or similarities between their status-set and civilians is important
when soldiers must interact with civilians, which is especially vital during
the first few months after returning from a combat deployment when disparities
between soldiers and civilians may be more salient. The perceived disparities
between civilians and soldiers may have an adverse effect upon soldiers who
desire to retire from the military and enter civilian society.
In order to investigate how soldiers
perceive their roles and status/role-sets, their constructs pertaining to
different statuses within society were elicited using repertory grids, a
technique from personal construct psychology (PCP). First developed by George
Kelly, PCP is centred upon the notion that humans construct personal theories
to help them understand and make sense of the world around them (Kelly, 1955). PCP
regards the participant as an observer trying to make sense of the world as
they experience it, and able to make changes to their interpretations depending
upon their observations and experiences, making the individual a personal
scientist (Raskin, 2002). These theories (called ‘constructs’ in PCP) are
constantly tested and revised by the individual in accordance to their efficacy
to life events, and are organised by each individual differently (Kelly, 1955).
One of many techniques used within PCP to
understand another person’s constructs is repertory grids, which allow the
researcher to obtain various perceptions from the participants without imposing
the researcher’s own bias and allows the participants to discuss what they feel
is pertinent with regards to the subject matter (Kelly, 1955; Denicolo &
Pope, 2000; Fransella, 2003). Repertory grid technique is a powerful tool that is
capable of obtaining participants’ core beliefs and values in a relatively
short period of time. Repertory grid technique has been widely used in
psychology studies on identity, self, and applied organisational psychology
(Goffin, 2002; Baldauf, Cron, & Grossenbacher, 2010; Winter, Bell, &
Watson, 2010; Cipolletta, 2011).
The repertory grid technique proposes that
the interpretations, or constructs, people make of their world are created on a
bipolar scale, what Kelly referred to as the dichotomy corollary (Kelly, 1955),
for instance, ‘hot’ can really only be understood as it relates to ‘cold’, while
what contrast label people provide tells more about the meaning of the
construct, for instance using ‘boring’ as opposed to ‘challenging’ and ‘boring’
as opposed to ‘lively’. These constructs then develop over time through a
‘validation cycle’, where constructs are tested and revised in accordance to a
person’s experience (Walker & Winter, 2007). There has been recent interest
in using repertory grids in military specific studies, although these tend to
focus on leadership and management issues within the military (Dunn, 2007; Woodward
& Jenkings, 2011).
In addition to using repertory grids, this
project also employed, to a limited degree, the laddering technique, which is a
hierarchical technique whereby the investigator elicits superordinate
constructs at increasingly higher levels of abstraction by asking participants
to explain why one pole of a construct is preferred over the other and then
delving further step-by-step (Hinkle, 2010). Laddering can be used in
conjunction with the repertory grid technique in order to obtain more detailed
information on the participant’s constructs associated with the project’s
specific focus. Laddering enables the investigator to begin with a diverse
range of constructs and swiftly results in identifying superordinate constructs
that are related to the participant’s ‘philosophy of life’ (Bourne &
Jenkins, 2005, p. 425). This allows for efficient use of time, an important
factor when participants have very limited time available for lengthy
interviews, as was the case in this project.
This study investigates the constructs
elicited from 16 serving Canadian Army soldiers, when asked to compare the
status within society of different categories of soldiers and civilians in
order to understand the dynamics of soldiers’ role-sets. It was anticipated that
combat arms soldiers would perceive the largest difference between their role
and civilians due to the unique nature of their job, which is to engage with
the enemy, and support trades with no deployment experience would perceive the
least amount of difference between their role and civilians. It was also
anticipated that non-commissioned officers (NCOs) would perceive a large
distinction between themselves and officers due to the differences in their job
requirements that affect the mechanisms of their role-sets.
METHOD
Participants
The participants (N=16) for the study were
all serving Canadian Regular Force Army personnel. Canadian National Defence
allocated specific Regiments to this project on the basis of operational
commitments and participation in other research projects. Personnel within the
chosen Regiments were informed of the project and volunteers were invited to
participate. All of the participants were informed that they could cease
participating in the project at any time. Due to operational and training
commitments, a large sample size was not feasible for this project; however, a benefit
of the repertory grid technique is that a large sample size is not required in
order to achieve a level where data would become redundant from the addition of
more participants (Frost & Baine, 1967; Downs, 1976).
The sample was stratified to include
different categories of soldiers and included 6 combat arms officers with
deployment experience, 3 combat arms officers without deployment experience, 2
combat arms Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) with deployment experience, 1
combat arms NCO without deployment experience, 3 support trade NCOs with
deployment experience, and 1 support trade officer without deployment
experience. The participants’ ages were between 19 – 43 years, and all were
male.
In total, there were four focus groups
consisting of 3-5 personnel per group that were arranged such that participants
were grouped with their cohorts in order to reduce any adverse effects that may
be experienced by grouping together participants from different ranks and
trades. The exception to this was in instances where there was only one
volunteer from a category, in which case they were grouped with similar trade,
for example, a support trade junior officer was placed with support trade NCOs.
The four focus groups were conducted throughout one day in October 2012, in a
private meeting room in the Land Forces Western Area Headquarters, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Repertory grids
Repertory grids enable complex sorting of
elements on the basis of elicited bipolar constructs (Adams-Webber, 1987). The bipolar scale is prompted through triadic elicitation, which
involves presenting participants with three elements at a time and asking them
which two are similar in terms of status and thereby different from the third. Repertory
grids administered in focus groups were used to elicit the participants’
constructs as they pertain to certain elements in relation to their status
within society.
Individual repertory grids were completed
by each participant within the focus group and a group discussion ensued while
working through the entire grid. Laddering technique was used to a limited
degree during the discussions in order to clarify mentioned constructs or to facilitate
construct elicitation when the participants felt they could not elicit a new
construct.
The elements in this study were supplied to
the participants in order to assist in the efficiency of the elicitation
process and enable the investigator to compare grids elicited from different
participants, consistent with Fransella, Bell, & Bannister (2004), and were
based on different roles within the armed forces and civilians (see below). The
elements were chosen after two pilot studies with serving Regular Force Army
soldiers, and were deemed the most meaningful to the soldiers. The original
elements included various civilian categories such as police officer, teacher,
and nurse; however the pilot participants felt that these categories were not
required as the constructs were repeatedly the same for these elements and the
pilot participants suggested that ‘civilian’ be used to capture these
categories.
The following elements were chosen by the
pilot study soldiers as the most meaningful to the soldiers in terms of status
within society:
- Civilian
- New recruits, not yet trained
- Combat Arms (such as Infantry or Armour)
Non-commissioned Officers (NCOs), with no combat experience
- Combat Arms NCOs with combat experience
- Combat Arms Officers with no combat experience
- Combat Arms Officers with combat experience
- Support Trade (such as Logistics or
Medical) NCOs with no combat experience
- Support Trade NCOs with combat experience
- Support Trade Officers with no combat
experience
- Support Trade Officers with combat experience
At the beginning of each focus group the
element labels were explained so that each participant understood their meaning.
For example, ‘Combat Arms’ represented infantry, cavalry or armoured personnel,
while ‘Support Trades’ referred to logistics, engineers, medical, and
intelligence personnel. ‘Combat experience’ referred to personnel who had been
deployed in Afghanistan or a similar conflict zone.
The participants were instructed to think
of a person they know for each element who characterizes that element or role,
and to write their initials in the element box, which would assist them in
eliciting constructs related to that specific role.
The participants were asked to compare
three of the supplied elements at a time and asked to identify which two
elements they felt were similar in terms of status within society, and thereby
different from the third element, and then they were instructed to write what
made those two elements similar in a column on the grid titled ‘similar’. The
pole construct, what made the third element different, was then written in a
column titled ‘different’. The words the participants provided on what made the
elements the same or different are the participants’ constructs. The
participants then rated each element on a score of 1 to 5, where 1 was closest
to the ‘similar’ construct pole and 5 was closest to the ‘different’ pole. After
rating the three elements they had compared, the participants then rated all
the other elements using the elicited construct. Once this was completed the
participants then moved onto another triad of elements, eliciting further
constructs and following the same steps until the grid was complete and
approximately 16 triadic elicitations had been conducted, although each
individual will differentiate aspects of their world using a small or large
number of constructs depending on their interest, experience, etcetera.
The participants were asked to place an
asterisk beside each construct pole that they considered a positive attribute. A
group discussion then followed on how their constructs were used.
Analysis
The group discussions were recorded,
transcribed, and coded using NVivo 10 qualitative analysis software to conduct
content analysis on the discussions and the comments written on the back of the
grid sheets (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2013) .
The completed grids were analysed using RepGrid
5 V1.04 software, developed
by Gaines and Shaw (2010). Spatial representation, which RepGrid 5 V1.04
produces with PrinGrids, uses factor analysis of the elicited repertory grid
and plots the constructs and elements that are the most similar closer
together, and plots those that are unalike further apart. The spatial
representation graph also shows the range of convenience of constructs as they
relate to the elements, as it plots both on the graph, creating two-set
principal component representations of the elicited grids (Bell, 1988; Gaines
& Shaw, 2010). Dendrograms are produced by RepGrid 5 V1.04’s Focus Grid
output, to show the level of similarity between constructs as they relate to
the elements (Bell, 1988). Both of these outputs were used in the analysis of
the participants’ constructs.
RESULTS
Constructs
The
repertory grids generated a total of 437 statements from the participants, with
approximately 10-16 bipolar constructs elicited from each participant. The
following tables provide a sample of common constructs elicited from the focus groups;
with an asterisk beside the perceived positive construct (not all participants
included an asterisk).
Canadian Combat Arms NCO Constructs
|
Non-frontline soldier
|
Supposed to be combat leader *
|
Combat arms more dangerous *
|
Desk job
|
More chances for front line service *
|
Less chance of combat or danger
|
Education/experience *
|
Not tested in combat
|
Serves country maybe willingly *
|
Doesn’t serve country
|
Demonstrates ability to act *
|
Doesn’t understand what combat is
|
Willingness to go to combat *
|
May not be willing
|
Most chose to stay home
|
Chosen to go fight *
|
Willing to pass on knowledge *
|
No knowledge to pass on
|
Belong
to a combat arms trades
|
No
commonality of experience
|
Combat
experience * will change somebody's perspective. Understands hardship that
fellow man has to go through. Appreciates things that he has. Brothership.
|
No combat experience
|
Long
deployment under difficult conditions, dangerous
|
No
common experience with people who have been deployed
|
No,
or negligible military experience
|
Seasoned
member of the military
|
Canadian Combat Arms Officer Constructs
|
Lack
of understanding of military ethos/values/sacrifice of service
|
Better
understanding of military ethos/values/sacrifice *
|
Service
provider attitude
|
Warrior
attitude *
|
Officers/leader
*
|
Soldier,
non-commissioned Member
|
Lack
of understanding of military and tactical leadership
|
leadership
level in high levels of stress
|
Command
presence
|
Technical
understanding
|
Theoretical
understanding
|
Practical
understanding
|
Tactical
leadership
|
Technical
advisor
|
Focused
*
|
Difficulty
with stress
|
Conforms
*
|
Relaxed
|
Resourceful
*
|
Cannot
multitask
|
Management
skills *
|
Lacking
authority
|
Multitask
skills *
|
Unorganised
|
Lacks
fitness
|
Hardened
fitness *
|
Requires
supervision
|
Determined
*
|
Learning
leadership
|
Referent
leadership *
|
Inexperienced
military
|
Robustness
*
|
Flexibility
*
|
Rigid
|
Spins
|
Patient
*
|
Commissioned
with operational experience *
|
No
operational experience, no commission
|
Concerned
with logistics
|
Concerned
with engaging threats
|
Training
complete, responsibilities of leadership
|
No
training, no responsibility
|
Little
military training, no combat experience
|
Leads
soldiers in engagements with enemies of Canada *
|
Most
likely removed from direct contact
|
More
exposed to threats *
|
Perceived
as 'Real Soldier'
|
'Not
a Real Soldier'
|
Shared
experience / hardship, leading soldiers in combat *
|
No
experience leading soldiers or living in cbts/field
|
Experience
as an NCO/time in ranks *
|
Lack
of experience 'on the shop floor'. Probably more formal education
|
Canadian Support Trade Constructs
|
Logistical training
|
No logistical training
|
Combat education
|
No combat education
|
Officer/commission
|
Worker
|
Rounds down range
|
Management of rounds
|
Spins out of control
|
Calm collect
|
Makes a lot of speeches
|
Deeds not words
|
Just a paycheque
|
Lifestyle
|
By the books/rules
|
Free thinking
|
Push paper
|
Kinetic op, face to face
|
Physically fit
|
Not fit
|
Military NCO
|
Less ‘army like’
|
Military members
|
Civilians - different laws
|
Work endurance
|
No work endurance
|
Enduring poor living conditions
|
Unable to endure poor living conditions
|
Perception of danger
|
No perception of danger
|
Calming
demeanour
|
Inability
to provide a calming demeanour
|
unique
solutions for problems
|
Unable
to have unique solutions for problems
|
Ability
to deal with death or grave injury
|
Inability
|
Written
communication
|
Unable
to communicate written
|
Communicating
oral
|
Unable
to communicate orally
|
working
under extreme pressure
|
Inability
to work under extreme pressure
|
Both support trades and combat arms trades
made a distinction between those who have been deployed and those who have not
been deployed, however support trades rated their own element closer to combat
arms trades than to civilians, while combat arms trades emphasised a
distinction between themselves and the other elements. Combat arms trades
placed support trades with no deployment experience closer to civilians/new
recruits.
All participants, except for one, placed
officers and NCOs of similar trade and deployment experience closest together. Officers
were more likely to emphasis rank and leadership. Indeed, after constructs
pertaining to military service/training, the second most common construct theme
elicited from the officers was whether a person was an officer or a leader. Interestingly,
rank was never mentioned by the combat arms trade NCOs who had been deployed;
instead their constructs emphasised knowledge and experience from military service/training
and deployments.
One combat arms NCO drew a table at the
bottom of his repertory grid to explain the status relationships within the
military. The table was as follows:
Most Military
|
|
Least Military
|
Combat Arms
NCOs
Combat Experience
|
Logistics [Support Trades]
Officer
No Combat Experience
|
Non-Military
|
This table summarises the data collected
from the combat arms trade personnel, however it does not reflect how support
trades perceive statuses within the military. The repertory grids showed that
support trade personnel who had been tasked with infantry units in Afghanistan
and subsequently spent more time on patrols outside a base, tended to rate
support trade NCOs with deployment experience closer to combat arms trades with
deployment experience.
Focus
group discussions
Defining
‘civilian’
The
‘civilian’ element presented a problem for the participants. The majority of
the participants expressed that they did not think civilians could be compared
to soldiers. One participant stated, “personally, I
don’t think civilian and new recruit should be on this paper. That’s what I
think” (CDN SUPP NCO 3).
During the pilot tests, the ‘civilian’
element had been broken down into separate categories to include the various
roles civilians can hold such as police officer, nurse, and teacher; however
the pilot participants had stated that it didn’t make sense to them to include
extra roles for civilians. During the actually focus groups only two
participants mentioned that civilians need to have more categories to reflect
their different roles.
CDN CA Off 5: The problem I have with
civilian is I’m just thinking general public. But there are a lot of aspects in
civilian world, like policing, fire-fighting, that are very similar, but… I’m
thinking the [civilian] people I know… are just general civilians: accountants,
businessmen, you know. They are definitely different… If it was a police or
fire-fighter, prison guard, it would definitely have changed how I would have
evaluated it…. Some of the words I’ve used for civilian… there are some pretty
strong civilians out there who could do very well in the military.
Society does not understand
The initial aim of the project was to investigate
how soldiers perceived they fit into society. During the discussions,
participants from each focus group mentioned that they found it difficult, if
not impossible, to articulate how society perceives the different categories of
soldiers. Typical responses included:
CDN CA NCO 1: I don’t think society
recognises the infantry soldier who goes on patrols every day, twice a day and
the supply tech that just went overseas and didn’t actually go anywhere besides
be in the same country. Society in general can’t tell the difference.
CDN CA Snr Off 1: I have relatives who have
known that I am in the Infantry for however many years and they still don’t
know the difference between an infantry officer and an artillery officer, no
matter how many times I explain it to them. They are just like, ‘you are
wearing green and that is all that matters.’
Civilian society
With regards to fitting into society, the
majority of participants felt that combat arms personnel would find it more
difficult to readapt to civilian society:
CDN CA Off 5: Combat arms have a harder
time fitting back into society. No matter what their combat experience is, or
the combat experience of a logistics trade. Because I believe inherent to the
mind-set of a logistical officer and NCO is a service provider mentality.
Versus a warriors attitude. Warriors don’t do well as bankers.
A few participants mentioned that new
recruits would have the easiest time fitting into civilian society because the
new recruit had not spent enough time in the military to become used to the
‘comforts’ of the military:
CDN CA NCO 2: The new recruit [would fit
back into society easier]. Because he hasn’t been institutionalised. He doesn’t
know the comforts of what the army gives you… the comforts: It’s a secure job. I
have a secured salary. Whereas the civilian market you don’t know what you’re
gonna make… In civvy world you want to try to make that same amount of money,
but you gotta work three times as hard to get it.
Defining ‘combat’
While comparing elements with ‘combat
experience’ a group discussion ensued in each focus group regarding how combat
was being defined in the grid. There was a difference between how the combat
arms and support trades defined combat. Combat arms placed an emphasis on not
only going off the Base and conducting patrols, but also returning fire when
engaged with the enemy. Support trades had a more complex definition of combat
experience, as the following conversation shows between two support trade NCOs
– one who had conducted patrols outside Base and one who stayed on Base the
entire tour:
CDN SUPP NCO 1: I went out every day, for nine
months.
CDN SUPP NCO 2: And I watched my friends come back.
CDN SUPP NCO 1: We were on the same tour, but in
our minds it doesn't count as the same… went
out meant went outside the wire. For repeated times. Not just drove out from
point A to point B and stayed there for three months then drove back. Going
outside the wire twice doesn’t count. There’s logistics people who go outside
the wire all the time because resupply and delivery, they are out there all the
time. We’d consider that combat experience.
While the combat arms trade personnel were
more likely to emphasis the differences between their trade and support trades,
the support trade NCOs were more likely to emphasise the ‘Big Green Machine’ of
the military and say that their primary roles – that of an Army soldier – were
all similar.
DISCUSSION
Some of the participants expressed having
some difficulties when completing the repertory grid, however these
difficulties help illustrate their role-set constructs. For instance,
participants found it difficult to rate the elements when an element lay outside the range
of convenience for an elicited construct. This was often the case when asked to
rate the element ‘civilian’ after a construct and its pole had been elicited
that were purely military in the minds of the participants. The ratings applied
to the element ‘civilian’ are not necessarily accurate, as there was confusion
by most participants on how to rate civilians for the ‘military’ constructs. However,
this confusion in itself can be regarded as a construct, as the participants
who found it difficult to relate certain constructs to the ‘civilian’ element
obviously hold other constructs which impede this comparison. This can be seen
in the actual grids where participants scored civilians with middle-ground
ratings, such as ‘3’ – perhaps to allude to a ‘neither agree nor disagree’
rating – for constructs that generated ratings that included 1 to 5 for the
different soldier elements.
The
participants expressed difficulty in articulating how
different soldiers fit into society, as they felt that civilians were unable to
differentiate between soldiers who had been deployed or who were from specific
trades. Combat arms soldiers expressed concern regarding civilians not being
able to differentiate between trades, whereas all trades expressed concern
regarding civilians not understanding that some soldiers do not deploy. One soldier
even stated that as a soldier with no deployment experience ‘I receive FAR more
respect than I deserve’. There was a lot of discussion focussing on the issue
that civilians will pay respect to soldiers regardless of what job they
actually did while deployed. This seemed to be most important to the
participants in terms of receiving respect from other soldiers and civilians.
The majority of the participants felt that
combat arms trades with deployment experience would have the most difficulty
fitting into society, a point emphasised with the constant extreme rating of
combat trades against civilians. Almost all participants rated combat arms
trades on the extreme opposite pole from civilians, consistently throughout the
repertory grid, whereas support trades were often rated in the middle between
combat arms trades and civilians. In addition, elements that had deployment
experience were rated the most different from civilians.
Combat arms NCOs with deployment experience
are perceived as the most respected within the military. Conversely, while
acknowledging that the rest of the military views combat arms personnel as the
epitome of ‘soldier’, support trade personnel made attempts to legitimise
themselves within the military system. This was evident during the support
trade personnel focus group discussions where those participants who had been
deployed and participated in patrols outside of the base mentioned a number of
times that although they were in a support trade their tasks and experiences
while in Afghanistan were similar to the combat arms trades. According to
support trades, it was only while engaging in their secondary duties that
differences emerged between combat arms trades and support trades. Canadian
support trade soldiers are told during their training that their primary role
is that of a soldier, their secondary role is their trade, which may be a
medical assistant, intelligence operator or communication technician. Some
support trade participants emphasised that there is a distinction between those
support trades who deploy and stay on base, and those support trades who deploy
and go out on patrols with the combat arms, as shown in the repertory grids of
support trade personnel who had been deployed to Afghanistan, who tended to
rate support trade NCOs with deployment experience closer to combat arms trades
with deployment experience and rated all other categories – those with no
deployment experience – similarly to civilians and new recruits.
It had been hypothesised that combat arms
soldiers would perceive the largest difference between their role within their
role-set and civilians due to the dangerous nature of their job, and support
trades with no deployment experience would perceive the least amount of
difference between their role and civilians. This was found to be partially
correct. Combat arms soldiers did place a large distinction between the roles
of combat arms personnel who had been deployed and all other categories. Although
combat arms personnel placed support trades who had been deployed and combat
arms trades who had been deployed separate from those who have not been
deployed, they still emphasised a difference between combat arms and support,
placing support trades closer to civilians. Support trades made a distinction
between those who had been deployed versus those who had not been deployed, but
placed support trades and combat arms closer together.
The hypothesis also anticipated that NCOs
would perceive a large distinction between NCOs and officers due to the
differences in their job requirements that affect the mechanisms of their
role-sets. Interestingly, this was not the case and there was almost no mention
of rank. The participants who did place a distinction on rank were the combat
arms officers, however there were not enough support trade officers (N=1) in
the study to determine whether this is purely a combat arms officer construct
or whether it is a more generalised construct for officers.
CONCLUSIONS
Role-sets serve to reduce conflicts that
may be raised due to being an occupant of a specific status. Role-sets provide
a means of identifying the social mechanisms that express the expectations of other
people within the role-set of the status occupier (Merton, 1957, p. 111). A
soldier holds a specific status within society and tends to perceive that
society views all soldiers as one type. In addition, soldiers of different
trades and experiences hold differing statuses within the military. Thus, a
support trade soldier who has not been deployed may behave in a different
manner when interacting with the rest of society than he/she would behave when
interacting with a soldier of a higher status within the military. The issue
that soldiers perceive the rest of society as unable to identify the different
statuses of soldiers may lead to potential role conflict, as was the case with
one participant who stated that he felt that he did not deserve the respect
society was giving to him. This possibly leads to negative interactions between
soldiers – since society is perceived as not acknowledging important
differences. The participants in the study were adamant that there is a ‘big
difference’ between trades and combat experiences, which is fundamental to the
social stratification within the military.
It is notable that soldiers felt civilians
viewed all soldiers in the same way. This is interesting, as it is how the
participants – all soldiers – perceive they are construed by society. The
participants did not think that civilians could differentiate between the
different trades, ranks and experiences within the military, all of which are
very important for the participants as status legitimisers for their role-sets.
Although the participants felt that support trades would find it easier than
combat arms trades to fit into society, this is an issue of their own perceived
self-efficacy with regards to fitting in, not how society will accept them,
since they all felt that society cannot differentiate between them. Similar to
findings from British soldiers (Dentry-Travis, 2012), the participants all felt
that society values and respects ‘soldiers’ – regardless of specific trades,
ranks and deployment experience.
In terms of group cohesion, the findings
pertaining to the soldiers’ role-sets show that the large distinction combat
arms soldiers place between themselves and the other trades potentially
increases friction within the military role-set. While combat arms NCOs with
deployment experience enjoy high-status within the army, it was generally felt
amongst the project participants that this group would be placed at the low-end
of the social stratification system within the rest of society. Conversely, it
was felt amongst the participants that support trade personnel with no
deployment experience, while experiencing low-status within the military, would
fit into the rest of society better than the combat arms trade personnel. This
may lead support trades to feeling a need to legitimise their status of
‘soldier’ in reflection of their perceived non-valued role within the military
structure, when compared to combat arms trades.
Although the participants’ statements in
the study became repetitious, the disproportionate stratification of
participants within the categories inevitably raises the concern of the
project’s generaliszability to all soldiers. The present investigation was
designed as an exploratory study and subsequently further research will be
conducted to investigate the generalizability of the findings.
Future directions stemming from this
project will include collecting data from Land Force Central Area (LFCA) and
Land Force Atlantic Area (LFAA), French Canadian soldiers and female soldiers
in order to make comparisons between LFWA, LFCA and LFAA soldiers, English
Canadian soldiers and French Canadian soldiers, as well as male and female
soldiers in Canada.
|
|
|
Adams-Webber, J. R. (1987). Personal
construct theory. In R. Corsini, Concise encyclopedia of psychology (pp.
824-825). New York: Wiley.
Baldauf, A., Cron, W., & Grossenbacher,
S. (2010). The convergent validity of structural measures of differentiation
derived from repertory grids. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 23, 321-336.
Bell, R. (1988). Theory-appropriate
analysis of repertory grid data. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1, 101-118.
Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2005).
Eliciting managers' personal values: An adaptation of the laddering interview method.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 410-428.
Cipolletta, S. (2011). Self-construction
and interpersonal distances of juveniles living in residential communities. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 24, 122-143.
Denicolo, P., & Pope, M. (2000). Transformative
Professional Practice: Personal Construct Approaches to Education and Research.
London: Whurr Publishers.
Dentry-Travis, S.J. (2012, June). Saint or sinner – soldiers’ perceptions of their social status. Presented
at the European
Personal Construct Association 11th Biennial Conference: Raising
Constructivist Voices: anticipating 21st century challenges, Dublin, Ireland.
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From
“field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 5, 7-26.
Downs, R. M. (1976). Personal constructions
of personal construct theory. In G. T. Moore, & R. G. Golledge, Environmental
Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods (pp. 72-87). Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchison & Ross.
Dunn, M. (2007). British army leadership:
Is it gendered? Women in Management Review, 22, 468-481.
Fransella, F., (2003). International
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister,
D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. Chichester: Wiley.
Frost, W. A., & Baine, R. L. (1967).
The application of the repertory grid technique to problems in market research.
Commentary, 9, 161-175.
Gaines, B., & Shaw, M. (2010). Rep 5:
Conceptual Representation Software. Cobble-Hill, British Columbia: Centre for
Person-Computer Studies.
Goffin, K. (2002). Repertory grid technique.
In D. Partingdon, Essential Skills for Management Research (pp. 199-225).
London: Sage.
Golembiewski, R. (1962). The small group.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hinkle, D. (2010). The change of personal
constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications. (Original 1965). Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 7, Suppl. No 1, 1-61.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of
Personal Constructs (Vol I). New York: Norton.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. D. (1965).
Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction:A review of relationships with
antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
Merton, R. (1957). The role-set: problems
in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2013). NVivo
10. Victoria, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.
Raskin, J. (2002). Constructivism in psychology:
Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism.
American Communication Journal, 5, 1-25.
Walker, B., & Winter, D. (2007). The elaboration
of personal construct psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 453-477.
Winter, D., Bell, R., & Watson, S.
(2010). Midpoint ratings on personal constructs: Constriction or the middle way?
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 23, 337-356.
Woodward, R., & Jenkings, K. (2011).
Military identities in the situated accounts of british military personnel. Sociology,
45, 252-268.
|
|