Reflections on being a civilian researcher in an ex-military world: expanding horizons?

Abstract

This paper provides a series of critical reflections on the tensions involved in researching the lives of military veterans. In particular, tensions arising when civilian researchers attempt to speak on behalf of veterans, combined with problematic attempts to achieve an academic 'understanding' of veterans' lives generate concerns regarding the potential misrepresentation of their unique experiences. Following recent examples in critical military studies, these issues are brought to the fore through dialogue and critical debate with colleagues and research participants. The paper first introduces a theoretical backdrop to the tensions being debated. Following Gadamer, the concept of 'horizons of understanding' is then introduced to suggest how we might usefully consider and addresses these tensions. Horizons comprise that which we are able to understand based on prior knowing. It is argued that 'dialogical' research constitutes one possible means of expanding our horizons in work with veterans. Challenges to dialogical research are discussed in light of prevailing conditions within and beyond neoliberal academia, before concluding with practical suggestions of how dialogical research might generate more productive and responsible research with military veterans.

Researching retired ex-servicemen: reflections on ethnographic encounters

“…The following conversation with Simon (69yrs/RAF) was taken from R's field notes, and the geographical reference relates to his operational deployment: The men were amused by how little R appeared to know about the military and the geographical locations where they had previously served. R felt that to some extent, her position as a female researcher and her limited knowledge and experience of the military lifeworld served to reduce any potential power imbalances (see also Caddick et al 2017) that may have been present had she also had a military background, and might have been construed as 'questioning' the men's expertise. Schwalbe and Wolkomir (2002: 207-208) have suggested various tactics for interviewing men, which correspond well with R's experiences in the field; for instance, allowing 'symbolic expressions of control' -by letting the men ask her questions and engaging light-heartedly with their jocular remarks.…”

“…Recent research has highlighted how veterans' own voices and perspectives can become lost through the research process, due to the current, complex political landscape (Caddick et al 2017) and the interests of those who seek to represent them (Bulmer and Jackson 2016). Thus, within the realm of critical military studies, authors such as Jenkings et al (2008), Rech et al (2015), Jackson (2016), andCaddick et al (2017) are calling for more dialogic forms of research that embrace honesty and openness in communication and exchange, and which respect experiences which fall outside of our own horizons (see Frank 2012); horizons are the very limit of a person's knowledge and understanding.…”

“…After reflecting on focus group encounters with participants, particularly the instances when participants spoke of loss and PTSD experiences, R became acutely aware, through discussions with Professor Jacquelyn Allen-Collinson and Dr John Hockey, of the dangers of misrepresentation and how misguided generalisations could potentially cause damage to her participants' 'veteran' identities (see Caddick et al 2017). Although R sought to manage incidences of interactional discomfort and potential 'loss of face' (Goffman 1967) in the focus group setting, her reflections and an informal conversation with George (77yrs/retired RAF serviceman) after his focus group session, caused her to question whether the men's openness about loss and PTSD and the moments of silence that tended to follow these discussions were interactions that actually needed to be managed, especially by a young, female researcher with no comparable experience and limited by her own horizons of understanding (see Caddick et al 2017): R: Thank you for continuing discussions with me, I was worried that you would find it difficult to discuss these things in the focus group setting.…”

“…To promote further dialogue and to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresenting the men's experiences, R invited participants to become active collaborators in the research process (Caddick et al 2017), by reading and discussing R's initial understanding and interpretation of the data, including the military terminology used by the men. Later on in the research process, a draft summary report of the key findings was sent via email to all of the participants for their comment.…”

“…The last decade has seen a growing literature on reflexivity in military studies, including UKand US-based studies (e.g., Jenkings et al 2008, Enloe 2015, Rech et al 2015, Bulmer and Jackson 2016, Carreiras and Caetano 2016, Carreiras and Castro 2016, Hockey 2016, Caddick et al 2017. Ethnographies of the military have, however, been predominantly conducted by male researchers employing participant observation; examples include: Pipping (1947Pipping ( , 2008 who gathered extensive empirical data on his own Finnish experience during and after World War II; Ben-Ari (1998), an officer and professional anthropologist, who studied an elite unit in the Israeli Defense Force; King (2006), who explored how military forces in Britain actually train and operate; Tortorello (2010), who investigated conceptions of 'courage' among US Marines;and MacLeish (2012), who conducted fieldwork with soldiers, veterans, military families and community members at and around the U.S Army's Fort Hood, Texas.…”