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

• Author: Angela Febbraro,Tara Holton,Megan M. Thompson,Ritu Gill,Kelly Piasentin,Tonya Hendriks
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18758695
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Canada’s Civil–Military

Seminar: An Approach

to Narrowing the

Civil–Military Gap

Megan M. Thompson

1

, Tonya Hendriks

1

, Kelly Piasentin

2

,

Tara Holton

1

, Angela Febbraro

1

, and Ritu Gill

1

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

Increasingly, responses to the complexity underlying contemporary crises demand

some combination of military and civilian interaction. Often termed the comprehen-

sive approach (CA), such missions are characterized as a purposeful coordination

1

of

1

Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2

Yardstick Testing and Training, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Megan M. Thompson, Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto Research Centre, 1133

Sheppard Ave. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3K 2C9.

Email: megan.thompson@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

Armed Forces & Society

2019, Vol. 45(3) 430-451

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18758695

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

activities within a single mission area to achieve strategic objectives (Thompson &

Gill, 2010; see also de Coning, 2009; Leslie, Gizewski, & Rostek, 2008; Olson &

Gregorian, 2007; Patrick & Brown, 2007). The CA reflects the belief that over-

arching plans and activities that leverage the strengths and capabilities of diverse

mission players will result in both immediate and more enduring success in complex

missions (Thompson & Gill, 2010; Leslie et al., 2008). At a minimum, a CA should

increase shared situational awareness and the proactive sharing of appropriate,

accurate, and timely information among the various agencies in the mission area

(Spence, 2002; Van der Kloet, 2006; Wentz, 2006).

Despite its proposed benefits and assumed importance to mission success, CA

missions have faced a variety of significant challenges. These range from conflicting

political agendas or objectives to differences in organizational structures and pro-

cedures, culture, and values. Other challenges include differences in time-horizon

focus, a lack of guidance concerning division of labor, incompatible communication

systems and equipment, and a basic lack of familiarity between the two communities

(Byman, 2001; de Coning, 2009; Fris & Jarmyr, 2008; Holton et al., 2011; Mock-

aitis, 2004; Morcos, 2005; Olsen & Gregorian, 2007; Patrick & Brown, 2007;

Rietjens, 2008; Spence, 2002; Stephenson & Schnitzer, 2006; Winslow, 2002). Such

challenges reflect the various types of divides that contribute to “civil–military

gaps” (Rahbek-Clemmensen, Archer, Barr, Belkin, Guerrero, Hall, & Swain,

2012) that are conceptualized in the military sociology literature.

Perhaps nowhere is the concept of a civil–military gap more profound than

between military and civilian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Insightful,

detailed discussions concerning the particular dynamics and challenges in the rela-

tionship between these two entities exist elsewhere (e.g., Byman, 2001; Gourlay,

2000; Holton et al., 2011; Pugh, 1998; Ruffa & Venneson, 2014; Stephenson &

Schnitzer, 2006; Winslow, 2002). Suffice it to say, the dynamics and challenges that

characterize civil–military relations in general are often amplified in relations

between many NGOs and militaries. While admittedly some of these relationships

in a mission area are productive and cooperative, others are characterized as mere

coexistence. Still others, however, are characterized by mistrust, competition, and

even outright hostility evidenced by “vigourous and public mutual recrimination”

(Ruffa & Vennesson, 2014, p. 583). A major source of friction is the concern of

NGOs that militaries are co-opting the humanitarian space, which undermines their

long-term development work objectives and endangers the safety of field personnel.

Indeed, some have suggested that even when both groups have true humanitarian

goals, fundamental differences and conflict may arise because militaries are ulti-

mately political, in service of state objectives, while NGOs are apolitical in nature,

operating in the service of humanity, unity, and universality (e.g., Major, 2012).

Such concerns would appear to be justified as, in 2001, Secretary of State Colin

Powell referred to NGOs as “force multipliers and an important part of a combat

team” (Major, 2012).

Thompson et al. 431