A Diary-Based Case Study in the Development of Unit Cohesion During Basic Training in the Swedish Air Force

A Diary-Based Case Study in the Development of Unit Cohesion during Basic Training in the Swedish Air Force

By Johan Österberg & Joel Nilsson

Military training is a life-changing experience,1 and military service provides a robust set of norms and behaviours. Compliance with these requirements is rewarded and previous practices can become outdated and may even be disciplined. According to Jackson et al. (2012), this socialization process can facilitate changes in personality. However, personality traits and life satisfaction seem to remain stable, regardless of the considerable changes in an individual’s life associated with military training. Military service coincides largely with early adulthood, which is a time when most people start to live on their own, and undergo several changes in life. Throughout that period, young people tend to grow more mature personalities (Lüdtke et al., 2011), and men who join the armed services seem to be no exception.2 When novices enter a new social institution as recruits, their behaviour during the initiation period is characterized by a great deal of insecurity. In the military context, instructors (to various degrees) deliberately enforce insecurity. To some extent, the initiation period sets out to break the recruits’ civilian identities, to internalize a new set of military norms and develop a military identity (Rothacher, 1980). According to Wollinger (2000), conscription has traditionally been regarded as a fast track into adult life. In military education, there are requirements for both individual and group development. Some of the traits individuals are expected to acquire during military education are the ability to take responsibility, become independent, and develop the ability to work in a group (Lindholm, 2006). In this context, military group cohesion can be described as a particular type of cohesion, where the group is part of a large, long- standing organization that is somewhat isolated, hierarchical and highly regulated, and which the group member cannot easily leave (Siebold, 2006). Sociologist Erving Goffman used the military, among others, as an example of an institution designed to execute a specific task, which is justified solely on its instrumental foundation. He uses the term total institution and defines it “as a place of residence and work where a large number of like- situated individuals, cut off from time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life” (Goffman, 1961: p.xiii). For instance, when entering military education, individuals have a set of social values, such as how to live their lives, and how to behave in certain situations. Within total institutions, there is a departure not only from what Goffman calls the “basic work-payment structure of our society”, but also from family life

1 Elder, Gimbel & Ivie, 1991. 2 Lönnqvist, Mäkinen, Paunonen, Henriksson & Verkasalo, 2008.

Published/ publié in Res Militaris (http://resmilitaris.net), vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 2

(Goffman, 1961). In their daily routines, the recruits wear the same uniforms and are mostly subject to control 24 hours a day, as well as being surrounded by life-threatening weapons and major combat systems. Even though they are part of a larger group, individuals often carry out a number of individual tasks that are part of a more comprehensive task for a more comprehensive purpose. Therefore, the ways in which cohesion is shaped and groups are formed, in a military environment, make it difficult for them to be fully transferred to, or be of concern, in many non-military groups (Siebold, 2006). Cohesion

There are different aspects of cohesion, and different definitions. In the specific military context, the leader and the team are equally significant factors, and the military team’s social climate is often referred to as cohesion. We will use this broad definition of unit cohesion, the social climate in the group. Cohesion is seen as important both for performance and for psychological well-being.3 Earlier research makes a distinction between horizontal and vertical cohesion.4 They define horizontal cohesion as the bonding among members of a unit, and vertical cohesion as the bonding between members and their leaders. Festinger (1950) defined cohesion as the result of all the forces acting on all members to remain in the group. At that time, there were generally two definitions of cohesion. According to Cartwright (1968), the first definition (i.e. the degree to which the members of a group desire to remain in the group) is related to the attractiveness of the group for the individual member, and to the degree to which group membership is linked to personal rewards.5 Another definition refers to how resistant the group is to disturbing influences.6 This feature mirrors a degree of bonding where members share a strong commitment to one another and the purpose of the group. Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985), Hackman (1976), Tziner (1982) and Zaccaro (1991) argue that both an individual’s attraction to the group and the group’s resistance to disruption can have a social and/or task focus. Siebold (2006) makes a clear distinction between group cohesion and task cohesion, where group cohesion is found in group members’ relationships and their stated capability for cooperative action in order to accomplish their mission. In addition, individual knowledge, skill, and capability within a group have been shown to be predictors of group productivity.7 A number of attitudinal variables have been found to predict productivity, including cohesion.8 Cohesion is a well-researched topic, as esprit de corps and cohesion are regarded as fundamental concepts within the military (Manning, 1991). General Edward Meyer (ex-Chief of Staff, US Army) defined military unit cohesion as “the

3 For example, see Bartone & Wright, 1990 ; Griffith, 2002 ; Siebold, 2006 ; Ahronson & Cameron, 2007. 4 Marlowe, 1979 ; Siebold & Kelly, 1988. 5 Thibaut & Kelly, 1959. 6 Gross & Martin, 1952. 7 Tannenbaum, Beard & Salas, 1992. 8 Mullen & Copper, 1994. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 3 bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress”.9 Marlowe (1959) claims that by adding “unit” to cohesion, this definition implies that most of the literature on cohesion is based on a definition of cohesion that focuses on interpersonal issues, with no reflection of the member’s enthusiasm for an assigned task. Adding “unit” to cohesion draws attention to a group focused on a task. Case Study Case study research has been used previously to study everyday life, social interaction and networks in urban environment (Whyte, 1943), factory workers and the nature of workplace organizations (Beynon, 1973) and experiences of housework from women’s point of view (Oakley, 1974). More recently, Navarro, Arrieta and Ballén (2007) used the diary method to study the dynamics of work motivation. In the SAF, we have identified one similar study by ethnologist Susanne Wollinger (2000). In the mid-1990s, she followed a group of male recruits serving in an artillery regiment. Case study research has been defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (Yin, 2014:16). This research method is used when the aim is to examine complex phenomena in their natural setting to gain a better understanding of them (Hamel, 1993). The wide range of definitions of “case study” have made it difficult for most researchers to see the full potential of using it as a research strategy, and although frequently used, it has been described as a poorly understood method.10 However, the discussion of what should or should not be considered a case should be seen as a question of epistemology, in which a qualitative understanding of a case requires experience of the case as it takes place, and in its particular situation (Stake, 2006). To elaborate, what separates case study research from other data collecting methods is the researcher’s position in the research process. He or she needs to be even more adaptive when collecting research data. Newly encountered situations should be seen as opportunities and not threats. Even though data collection in most case studies (including ours) follows a protocol, the researcher needs to review the evidence continuously, and then evaluate why events or perceptions appear as they do (Yin, 2014). In the case study process, the researcher shifts between gathering empirical data and conducting analysis. A single case study design is applicable when the researcher wants to study a person in a specific group, or a group of people (Yin, 2014). It also gives the researcher the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of the subject at hand. However, there is no guarantee that rich theoretical insight will emerge when studying a case in detail.11

9 Little in Janowitz (ed.), 1964, p.91. 10 Sandelowski, 2011 ; Gerring 2011. 11 Dyer & Wilkins, 1991. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 4

Aim The purpose of this study was to get a clearer insight into the social life of military recruits during military basic training – which in Sweden lasts three months, followed by a six- or eight-month period of further training upon completion of which recruits can apply for employment in the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF).

The Swedish Military Context The shift from a defence force based on conscription to an all-volunteer force (AVF) in 2010 resulted in many challenges for the Swedish Armed Forces.12 There were various reasons for this transformation. The most significant was the new security situation in Europe after the Cold War, which led the SAF to focus more on participation in multinational missions abroad.13 Most countries in Europe have carried transformations of their armed forces from a large military premised on invasion defence to a defence built on voluntary service.14 After eight years of this new AVF, the reality is that the SAF’s recruitment requirements have not been met in any single year during this period. In 2018, the Swedish government decided to reinstate conscription, which this time would be gender neutral. The Unit Our recruits did their basic training in an Air Force unit. The wing concerned includes squadrons of Jas 39 Gripen fighter aircraft, which are an important part of Sweden’s emergency preparedness. Pilots continuously train to conduct operations safely and tactically, usually through exercises over the sea. As well as pilot training, the wing has a flight maintenance component, a base component responsible for ensuring that the runway is free from snow and ice, and an Air Force ranger unit. The ranger unit’s task is reconnaissance, and to protect Air Force personnel and vehicles. Method A single case study design was used, as described by Yin (2014). To add depth and richness do the data, case study research methodology often relies on multiple sources of evidence, so-called triangulation, where data from different methods are combined (Yin, 2014). The main empirical source for this study was a digital diary, supplemented with qualitative interviews and a survey covering the participants’ demographics. Data Collection Data was collected, starting in the fall of 2017, during the participants’ basic training, through a digital diary which was downloaded from a digital server every second week, and then transcribed in Microsoft WORD. Records of the transcriptions were created and held in a safe. There were 83 pages of transcripts, evenly distributed among the

12 Weber & Österberg, 2015 ; Österberg & Rydstedt, 2018. 13 Österberg & Jonsson, 2012 ; Strand & Berndtsson, 2015. 14 Szvircsev Tresch, 2010 ; Österberg & Rydstedt, 2018. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 5 participants. The authors prepared information about the study, and instructions for the participants. The participants were given cell phones and oral instructions on how to use the diary application in the cell phone. The participants were instructed to write about their daily life during basic training. The interviews were conducted in two stages. The first wave took place towards the end of basic military training, and the second was conducted after its completion. The purpose of the interviews was to gather data about the participants’ experiences during training, and to get a deeper understanding of the social processes and group dynamics. The survey covered the participants’ background demographics, and was collected at the beginning of their basic training. Ethics The data provided by a participant were only accessible by the researchers and the individual participant concerned. The study was conducted in accordance with the Swedish Research Council’s ethical guidelines for research (Vetenskapsrådet 2014), regarding voluntary participation, access to transcripts, and the option of withdrawing from the study without further explanation. The study also underwent an ethical examination by the Swedish Defence University’s institutional review board. Participants The Air Force unit in the study was chosen because it has traditionally had very few dropouts from basic training. This would ensure that all four participants would be likely to complete their training. Since the Swedish AVF was still in force when the data was collected, all participants had volunteered to do military basic training. The authors contacted the company commander and asked her to find volunteers for the study. She then asked the elected representative of the recruits, whose task is to bring up the recruits’ opinions with their officers, working as links between recruits and officers. Four recruits volunteered to participate and were chosen for this study.

The first was a 19-year-old female, who lived near the military facilities ; she had graduated from high school three months before basic training. During training, she switched from a medical role to a maintenance role. The second participant was a 25-year old female, who lived in one of the larger cities in Sweden. Before entering basic military training, she had four years of work-life experience with an insurance company. She was in the maintenance unit. The third was a 28-year old male, who had work-life experience from a variety of fields and had been interested in the military for many years. However, he said that he wanted to experience life before committing to the SAF. He was also in the maintenance unit. The fourth participant was a 20-year old female, who came from one of the larger cities in Sweden. After high school graduation, she took a job as a salesperson. Her military job was in a medical role. In total, three participants belonged to the maintenance platoon, and one to the medical platoon. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 6

Findings The results showed that the development of unit cohesion could be understood in

terms of four themes : (positive) adaptation to a new environment, (constructive) group dynamics, effective leadership, and challenge. The first survey showed that all participants reported high initial expectations of the training. The strongest motive for wanting to do military basic training was to challenge themselves in a new context. One of the participants said that she wanted to be part of a community and to make a difference in society, but expressed a more ambivalent attitude towards continuing in the armed forces after training. The other three participants reported high motivation not only to complete the training, but also continue in the SAF beyond it. Positive Adaptation to a New Environment In the diaries, all participants described different aspects of the adjustment from civil to military life ; they all viewed it as a major conversion. One of the participants described it in terms of moving to a new city and adapting to new surroundings, with routines that differ greatly from previous experiences at school and work. Another participant illustrated by describing an incident when an officer shouted at him and his comrades. The officer had found candy paper in the tent and complained about how they handled their equipment. Some of the group members viewed this as an act of collective punishment, but his diary entry shows that he defended her action, by telling the others that she was simply doing her job in trying to get everyone to follow the same procedures. He continued his description of the training by drawing parallels with his previous experiences in seasonal work, where some days were long and intense, and surrounded with uncertainty and changes in tempo. As a result, he did not see the transition from civilian life to military life as particularly difficult. However, he said he was a morning person and not used to living his life according to such a regulated time schedule. He described the beginning of military training as someone telling him when to sleep and when to get up in the morning, and giving him a clear structure. A parallel can be drawn to Goffman’s concept of total institution (1961), where a participant’s norms and values were quickly regulated. Ways in which the participants adapted to Armed Forces norms, and the unit’s code of conduct, were interesting findings in the diaries. All four participants started using terminology of a more military nature. For example, they emphasized the importance of maintaining combat readiness, referred to colleagues by their last name, and made increasing use of abbreviations. Another significant change in the diaries, which appeared three weeks into the study, was the clear shift in the participants’ focus from individual problems to challenges for the unit. In one of the interviews, one of the participants spoke a number of times about “we in the Armed Forces”, which can be viewed as the individual submitting to, and embodying the military’s values. All the respondents wrote about their tasks and how they differed from what they were used to in civilian life, due to the rather specific nature and content of military training. All participants described the period between September and Christmas (military Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 7 basic training) as hectic, where time just flew by. One month into the training, an exercise took place, where they carried weapons and live ammunition, and an instructor described it as the most dangerous part of their entire training. One of the participants described this as

an unpleasant, but at the same time peculiar realization : how quickly they went from simply learning how to maintain their weapon, to actually using it in practice. One of the participants described her experience from one of the field exercises: I was woken by the sound of shots being fired, I looked at my watch and it was 05.55. Such a strange feeling waking up in the middle of the woods after three and a half hours’ sleep with gunshots just outside the tent. I had to get dressed quickly, grab my weapon and then run to the fire position that we were assigned the day before. Being awakened this way was something completely new. To feel the adrenaline pumping through the body and immediately feel wide- awake.

After the Christmas break, the tempo reduced and the training changed from a streamlined, scheduled and hectic existence to something more like work. In this process, the training also shifted away from being so rule-centred. One of the participants described the beginning as very regulated; they were told when to eat, sleep and wash their clothes. During this transition, they were given more responsibility with the goal of gradually becoming more and more acquainted with the tasks of an employee in the armed forces. Constructive Group Development In the diaries, there are numerous descriptions of camaraderie and how to overcome certain obstacles as a group. One of the respondents viewed teamwork as a process where you make use of all the knowledge that exists in a group. To be able to do that, the key lies not only in the members’ ability to communicate, but also how the individual sometimes needs to take a step back, reflect and come up with a solution that is in the group’s best interests. In her diary, one participant illustrated one such example : I remember when the instructors gave us the task of putting up a tent. We didn’t know how to do it and, as result, nobody dared to take command. It ended up taking us an hour and a half, and then we were told to do it all over again. The second time, our skills improved, which also affected the way we communicated with each other and, as a result, it only took nine minutes to raise the tent.

Another example of group dynamics can be found when a participant suffered from a repetitive strain injury. She had significant problems with her foot during a week of practical field training. Being unable to participate in exercises made her question her own abilities. She had to use a crutch during the practical training, but in between exercises, her comrades carried her equipment so she would be able to rest and recover. In her dairy, she drew a parallel to her captain talking about “how a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” and she came to the realization that her own pride sometimes clouded her judgment. There are several examples of how much they value the relationship between the group members. There were several occasions when the recruits could have gone home on Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 8 weekends, but stayed at the unit instead. One of the participants described how a small group went to a Christmas market and spent time watching movies together, while recovering from the week’s physical activities. It was easier for her to relax “in barracks” than to go home, and she and the other recruits made it something like a social ritual where they relaxed and at the same time took care of their equipment. The strong group cohesion between members of the unit also became apparent when, for various reasons, comrades chose to leave the training. All the respondents wrote about how saddened they felt when someone decided to give up, but they also mentioned that when a person left, there were additional duties for the others to perform. This relates to Siebold’s (2006) description of group cohesion as something found in the relationship between members, but also in their capability to work together towards a specific goal. However, one participant’s experiences differed from the others’. At times, she felt distant from and occasionally left out of the group. At the beginning, she described the process of friendships emerging as a positive element and a central factor in maintaining high motivation. Together with her newfound friends, there were many laughs, no shortage of conversation topics and, in her diary, she wrote about how she loved being part of such a natural community. A month into military training, she started to feel differently, as she explained : I feel that I’m starting to move away from the “cosy friendly personality” to the slightly drier, smoother, quieter person which is the real me. I think that’s because we are starting to get to know each other better. I’m not able to simply pretend to be happy and talkative anymore, instead I’m trying to save my energy and get things done. Effective Leadership The participants emphasized the importance of the officers’ leadership, which extended beyond pedagogy and discipline to pushing them in the right direction. One of the respondents described how the instructors played a key role in their training, and that the recruits felt they were willing to go the extra mile to make sure they lived up to a specific standard. She also described how the instructors encouraged her to take more responsibility in the group, and to have more faith in her own abilities. When exercises were demanding and the participants were under stress, the instructors were able to convey theoretical and practical knowledge, and to help the recruits understand the purpose of the assignments. For example, during an extended exercise, one of the participants felt pain in her shoulders and neck. One of the instructors then advised her to attach her belt to the battle pack under her vest instead of over it. Another illustrative example shows how advice from an instructor can solve a problem, helping the recruit to maintain task cohesion (Siebold, 2006), and avoid a situation where frustration gets out of hand : Then it was time for shooting practice and I immediately noticed that I’d lost focus… Previously I’d felt good, but yesterday the body and brain weren’t working together. The brain wanted more than the body could handle and I Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 9

began to struggle. I talked to the instructor who helped me get a better shooting position and suddenly all the tension was released – the good feeling was back! I realized the importance of getting confirmation that I was doing the right thing, all I needed was a push in the right direction.

Even when there was a rotation of instructors during different segments of the training, the transitions were smooth and the participants felt that all the instructors were working towards the same goal. The officers were described as competent and inspiring, but they were also of great importance when it came to information. In the interviews, two of the participants said that they got valuable information from the officers about the Officers’ Programme, and questions related to a future career path in the SAF. Challenge

This theme will be divided into two subcategories : firstly, an overview of the more general challenges related to military training, and secondly, the experiences from one of the participants when she was relocated to another regiment. Apart from the high tempo of military training, the recruits also confronted physical challenges, which manifested itself in a heavy workload on the body. One of the participants described the beginning of the training as a phase characterized by new impressions and the constant feeling of being drained of energy, physically and mentally. There were also changes in daily routines, in terms of both eating and sleeping patterns. When the participants had the opportunity to go home for a longer period, they spent most of their time sleeping. During military training, all the participants reported minor injuries, and dealing with sickness and sleep deprivation. One of the participants described the challenges as follows : I’ve never felt so tired in my life. For the first time in quite a while, I’ve had the opportunity to really relax and, as a result, the fatigue just hit me. Unfortunately, I still feel very tired and I almost fell asleep a couple of times during today’s lectures. It’s so hard to force yourself to stay awake when it’s so nice to just relax and just let the thoughts fade away... Apparently we have hard times in front of us, so I just have to get ready for it.

In the middle of November, the recruits went on a one-week mandatory survival exercise, often referred to as optimized combat value. Before the exercise, the most notable aspects were how they all thought the task would be hard and that they needed to do their utmost to endure the week. The participants described dealing with cold weather, and food and sleep deprivation, as the main obstacles during the survival exercise. One of the participants described the fear of “coming to the point when your body gives up and you have nothing more to give” as the most frightening aspect of the exercise. After the exercise, the participants were uncertain about the most challenging aspect, not knowing either when to have their next meal, or when the exercise would end. The participants found the exercise developing and rewarding, and took great pride in making it to the end. Two of them wrote that they had realized they were capable of more than they themselves thought they were. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 10

Relocation After the Christmas break and an intensive week out in the field, the participant who trained for a medical position, left the unit for three months to pursue specialist training at another unit in the north of Sweden. This drastic change gave rise to disappointment for a variety of reasons. The cold weather and lack of sunlight reduced her motivation and, due to limited public transport and the local taxi company going bankrupt, she found it difficult to leave barracks, which made her feel very isolated. At the same time, she reported having personal problems and missing her family, even though she had great support from her comrades at the new unit. While in the process of struggling with these issues, she did not want to give up. Additional motivation was the possibility of getting the financial reward given to military recruits on completing military training and she described slight embarrassment about having the financial bonus as motivation. As time went by, it became evident that she was counting the days and waiting for the training to be over. She described this as being trapped in a state of simply trying to endure and wanting to go home, which made it more difficult for her to see the positive aspects around her. This did not change when she got back to the Air Force unit. She described the return as entering an unstructured existence without routines. She thought that the initial plan for the recruits with a medical role had failed, and that the final stages of her training consisted mostly of ad hoc solutions. However, the ceremony where she was awarded her beret was a proud moment and she felt that she had earned it. However, in the end, the turmoil of her transition to another unit, the feeling of not belonging in the group, and not seeing a career path in the armed forces, made her decide to end her military career. Discussion The aim of this study was to get a clearer insight into the social life of military recruits, and the development of cohesion, understood in terms of four themes : positive adjustment to a new environment, constructive group dynamics, effective leadership, and challenge. The shift from civilian life to the military was described as a big transition, where the norms of the Armed Forces differ greatly from previous experiences. Gradually, the participants embodied military values and norms and, as a result, the content of the diaries changed from individual experiences and problems, to how they as individuals needed to maintain combat readiness and focus on solving the group’s tasks. The results show that military training is a demanding and challenging phase and, during their nine months of training, the participants developed skills to work better in groups. Because of the demanding tasks during basic training, the officers’ leadership is an important aspect of the recruit’s development, not only at individual, but also at group level. In previous studies, cohesion has been positively correlated with the level of trust followers had in their unit’s leadership, and both leadership and cohesion have been identified as critical ingredients to unit performance (Bass et al., 2003). Having officers who acted as role models and were Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 11 able to give meaningful feedback, in a context characterized by stress and uncertainty, was of great importance. The participants describe the officers as motivating, having consideration for individuals, and exhibiting an idealized influence, all in line with the theory of transformational leadership (García-Guiu et al., 2016). Another aspect related to transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation, and the officers gave valuable information and encouraged them to apply for the Officers’ Programme. Group development, meeting new people and engaging in constructive social relations with them to complete tasks together as a group were a prominent feature in the findings, as noted by Bartone et al. (2002). The results show examples of horizontal cohesion, demonstrated in the bonding among the recruits in the group, and how they needed to work together to overcome obstacles. One of the participants described how group members carried her equipment when she suffered an injury, so she could recover and not reduce the group’s ability to perform. However, one of the respondents described experiences of not being included in the group. At first, she felt that she was part of a community characterized by friendship, but slowly realized she had distanced herself from the group. A parallel can be drawn with Baumeister and Leary (1995) and the need to belong. This presents two main features : firstly, the need for frequent personal interaction with other people, where these personal contacts should largely be free from conflict and negative affects ; secondly, the need to recognize this relationship based on stability, concern about affects, and sustainability for the near future. The participant described how, after a while, she stopped pretending to be happy and talkative, and instead tried to save her energy, and gradually started to distance herself from the others. Her transfer to another regiment for three months simply reinforced her estrangement from the group, and subsequently led to her leaving the SAF. While cohesion and esprit de corps are such fundamental features within the military (Manning, 1991), there are several indicators that groups and cohesion can be too strong. The effects of groupthink could include the exclusion of some members and intolerance of aspects that do not fit into the group’s way of thinking. Putnam (2000) described this as the dark side of social capital. Depending on the situation, high levels of unit cohesion, resulting from high levels of cohesion among comrades, may actually lead to divergence from the Armed Forces’ mission and goals. One of the advantages of using a diary as a research method is the degree of flexibility. Some days, the participants’ diaries described immediate reactions and feelings closely linked to a phenomenon. On other days, the diary entries were characterized by reflection and the participants’ views of situations from different perspectives. With the case study method, and diaries in particular, it is possible to capture the complexity of a social phenomenon in a certain context. Data was provided when participants had the time or desire to write something, and was not only limited to specific pre-agreed occasions. Additionally, the participants were able to record their feelings and experiences close to an event, not in retrospect. The boundaries between phenomenon and context are seldom clear (Yin, 2014), but we still argue that the case study approach made it possible to gain a deeper understanding of social life within a military unit. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 12

Generalizability and Limitations For some years, case-study research has been the butt of critique based on a number of conventional misunderstandings and oversimplifications relating to its theoretical and empirical limitations (Flyvbjerg, 2006). One of the greater misunderstandings is that you cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case, which leads to the view that the contribution of case studies to scientific development is restricted (ibid.). For example, Giddens (1984) described how ethnographic research of the American middle class population, based on small samples, merely said something about a limited number of individuals in a certain social environment. Flyvbjerg (2006) says this is an incorrect assumption deriving from the assertion that there’s only one way to conduct science, and that it is also incorrect to claim that you cannot generalize from a single case. It depends on the case and how it is chosen. Our case study centred around four participants and therefore generalizability is limited. However, the act of generalizing involves advancing broad general statements from specific cases (Schwandt, 2001), which was never the aim of this study. The once dominant role of the positivist tradition in social science, where the notion of generalizability is often described as neutral and unprejudiced, has given it a more quantitative slant (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Even though scientifically established criteria of what constitutes good research are important, it is problematic to evaluate a case study’s quality solely on methodological principles derived from the literature giving pride of place to statistics (Lindvall, 2007). What seems to have been forgotten in discussions of case studies, often seen as fruitful only when the researcher has a descriptive purpose, is how this type of research is significant for the development of social science. A discipline without case studies will lack the systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars will be rather ineffective in the longer term (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Even though our aim was of a more explorative nature, it is important to note that keeping a diary is time-consuming and places substantial demands on the participant. In this study, the diary instrument was designed so as to minimize the time it required of participants who already had a busy schedule. When doing this, it is possible that the diary approach may limit the depth of reporting of a phenomenon (Bolger et al., 2003). Another practical implication of the use of a diary instrument (in this a case a digital application) is that the participants need training in how to use and fully understand the protocol (Reis & Gable, 2000) and procedures. In this study, due to limited time, the participants were given a generic presentation about the software, the overall structure of the diary, how to use it, and how to make contact with the researchers if they encountered any problems. At the beginning of the study, the participants had some difficulties learning how to use the diary, which underlines the importance of giving the participants explicit information. Furthermore, we have no independent measure of cohesion. We do not know whether cohesion increased during military basic training. However, we conclude, from our results, that the progress and growth observed among our participants should be labelled as development of unit cohesion. Furthermore, these are some general challenges or problems connected to measurement in behavioural sciences (Madruck, 1989), not least Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 13 where interaction within groups is concerned. Constructs are seldom easy to define with precision, and they are rarely easy to measure, or manipulate in laboratory settings. The concept of cohesion is a group phenomenon, but the only manageable data on which to base its study consists of individual measures of, or (as in this case) reports on their feelings or attitudes. We conclude that to draw conclusions about phenomena occurring at the group level, aggregation of individual data is the only feasible approach.15 Future research should include study of the dark side of cohesion, when cohesion and bonding among military personnel is too strong, and the group’s behaviour may be counterproductive. In addition, further studies should address gaining a deeper understanding of the development of unit cohesion among officers, and among other military personnel. Finally, studies into maintaining unit cohesion, and how it differs over time, would be beneficial. Conclusion This study underlines the importance of good leadership on the part of recruits’ immediate officers in developing unit cohesion. This suggests that the best-suited officers should be assigned to training new recruits. The participants in this study volunteered for basic training and were initially highly motivated. Providing the recruits with physical and mental challenges is crucial for unit cohesion, implying that the constant downsizing of personnel and equipment during the last decade may have had a negative effect on recruits’ ability to develop unit cohesion. Another implication is that recruits could easily find themselves outside the primary group for various reasons. In such cases, the officer and/or peers should act quickly to include people in the group again, and create mechanisms for them to re-enter the group. References

AHRONSON, A. & J.E. CAMERON, “The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample”, Military Psychology, vol.19, n°1, 2007, pp.9-25. BARTONE, P.T., B.H. JOHNSEN, J. EID, W. BRUN & J.C. LABERG, “Factors Influencing Small-Unit Cohesion in Norwegian Navy Officer Cadets”, Military Psychology, vol.14, n°1, 2002, pp.1-22. BASS, B.M., B.J. AVOLIO, D.I. JUNG & Y. BERSON, “Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.88, n°2, 2003, pp.207-218.

BAUMEISTER, R.F. & M.R. LEARY, “The Need to Belong : Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, vol.117, n°3, 1995, pp.497-529.

15 This was the conclusion reached, on the strength of their mammoth work on US military personnel in the Second World War, by Samuel Stouffer and colleagues in The American Soldier (Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1949, 2 vols.). These authors were fully aware that by equating cohesion with the aggregation of individual attitudes, they left out of account the mysterious workings of internal interaction. But they deemed the task of probing it out of reach. This was later confirmed in the 1950s and 60s when repeated earnest attempts to come to grips with that problem (notably on the part of authors within the Human Relations movement’s second generation) eventually proved unsuccessful. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 14

BEYNON, H., Working for Ford, London, Allen Lane, 1973. BOLGER, N., A. DAVIS & E. RAFAELI, “Diary Methods : Capturing Life as It Is Lived”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol.4, n°1, 2003, pp.579-616. CARRON, A.V., W.N. WIDMEYER & L.R. BRAWLEY, “The Development of an Instrument to Assess

Cohesion in Sport Teams : The Group Environment Questionnaire”, Journal of Sport Psychology, vol.7, 1985, pp.244-266. CARTWRIGHT, D., “The Nature of Group Cohesiveness”, in D. Cartwright & A. Zander (eds.), Group Dynamics : Research and Theory (3rd edition), New York, Harper & Row, 1968. DYER, W.G., Jr., A.L. WILKINS & K.M. EISENHARDT, “Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, to Generate Better Theory : A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt, ‘Better Stories and Better Constructs – The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic’”, The Academy of Management Review, vol.16, n°3, 1991, p.613. FESTINGER, L., “Informal Social Communication”, Psychological review, vol.57, 1950, pp.271-282. FLYVBJERG, B., Making Social Science Matter : Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. GARCIA-GUIU, C., M. MOYA, F. MOLERO & J.A. MORIANO, “Transformational Leadership and Group Potency in Small Military Units : The Mediating Role of Group Identification and Cohesion”, Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, vol.32, 2016, pp.145-152. nd GERRING, J., Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (2 edition.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017. GIDDENS, A., The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984.

GOFFMAN, E., Asylums : Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York, Anchor Books, 1961. GRIFFITH, J., “Multilevel Analysis of Cohesion’s Relation to Stress, Well-Being, Identification, Disintegration, and Perceived Combat Readiness”, Military Psychology, vol.14, n°3, 2002, pp.217-239. DOI: org/10.1207/S15327876MP1403_3 GROSS, N. & W.E. MARTIN, “On Group Cohesiveness”, American Journal of Sociology, vol.57, 1952, pp.546-554. HAMEL, J., Case Study Methods, Newbury Park, Sage, 1993. JACKSON, J.J., F. THOEMMES, K. JONKMANN, O. LÜDTKE & U. TRAUTWEIN, “Military Training and Personality Trait Development : Does the Military Make the Man, or Does the Man Make the

Military ?”, Psychological Science, vol.23, 2012, pp.270-277. DOI : 10.1177/0956797611423545. th KERLINGER, F.N. & H.B. LEE, Foundations of Behavioral Research (4 ed.), Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. LINDVALL, J., “Fallstudiestrategier“, Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, vol.,109, n°3, 2007, pp.270-278. LITTLE, R., “Buddy Relations and Combat Performance”, pp.195-224 in M. Janowitz (ed.), The New Military, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. LÖNNQVIST, J.-E., S. MÄKINEN, S.V. PAUNONEN, M. HENRIKSSON & M. VERKASALO, “Psychosocial Functioning in Young Men Predicts their Personality Stability over 15 Years”, Journal of Research in Personality, vol.42, 2008, pp.599–621. DOI :10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08.006. LÜDTKE, O., B.W. ROBERTS, U. TRAUTWEIN & G. NAGY, “A Random Walk Down University

Avenue : Life Paths, Life Events, and Personality Trait Change at the Transition to University Life”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, vol.101, n°3, 2011, pp.620-637. DOI : org/10.1037/a0023743. MANNING, F.J., “Morale, Cohesion, and Esprit de Corps”, pp.453-470 in R. Gal & A.D. Mangelsdorff (eds.), Handbook of Military Psychology, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, 1991. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 15

MARLOWE, D.H., “The Basic Training Process”, pp.75-98 in K.L. Artiss (ed.), The Symptom as Communication in Schizophrenia, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1959.

MULLEN, B. & C. COPPER, “The Relation between Group Cohesiveness and Performance : An Integration”, Psychological Bulletin, vol.115, n°2, 1994, pp.210-227. NAVARRO, J., C. ARRIETa & B. BALLEN, “An Approach to the Study of Dynamics of Work Motivation Using the Diary Method”, Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology & Life Sciences, vol.11, n°4, 2007, pp.473-498. OAKLEY, A., The Sociology of Housework, London, Martin Robertson, 1974. ÖSTERBERG, J. & E. JONSSON, “Recruitment to International Military Service : The Officers’ View”, pp.233-245 in G. Kümmel & J. Soeters (eds.), New Wars, New Militaries, New Soldiers ? Conflicts, the Armed Forces and the Soldierly Subject, Bingley, UK, Emerald, 2012.

ÖSTERBERG, J. & L.W. RYDSTEDT, “Job Satisfaction among Swedish Soldiers : Applying the Job Characteristics Model to Newly-Recruited Military Personnel, Military Psychology, vol.30, n°4, 2018, pp.302-310. DOI : 10.1080/08995605.2018.1425585. PUTNAM, R.D., Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2000. ROTHACHER, A., “On the Effects and Non-Effects of Military Socialization”, Armed Forces & Society, vol.6, n°2, Winter 1980, pp.332-334.

SANDELOWSKI, M., “ ‘Casing’ the Research Case Study”, Research in Nursing & Health, vol.34, n°2, 2011, pp.153-159. nd SCHWANDT, T.A., Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2 ed.), Thousands Oaks, CA, Sage, 2001. SIEBOLD, G.L. & D.R. KELLY, “Development of Combat Platoons Cohesion Questionnaire”, Technical Report 817, Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory, Alexandria, VA, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences, 1988. SIEBOLD, G.L., “Military Group Cohesion”, pp.185-201 in T.W. Britt, C.A. Castro, & A.B. Adler (eds.), Military Performance. Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat, Westport, CT, Praeger Security International, 2006. STAKE, R.E., Multiple Case Study Analysis, New York, The Guilford Press, 2006. STRAND, S. & J. BERNDTSSON, “Recruiting the Enterprising Soldier : Military Recruitment Discourses in Sweden and the United Kingdom”, Journal of Critical Military Studies, vol.1, n°3, 2015, pp.233-248. DOI : 10.1080/23337486.2015.1090676. SWEDISH ARMED FORCES, Pedagogiska grunder, Stockholm, Försvarsmakten, 2006. SZVIRCSEV TRESCH, T. & C. LEUPRECHT (eds.), Europe Without Soldiers? Recruitment and Retention across the Armed Forces of Europe, London, McGill-Queens University Press, 2010. TANNENBAUM, S.I., R.L. BEARD & S.E. SALAS, “Team Building and its Influence on Team Effectiveness : An examination of Conceptual and Empirical developments”, in K. Kelley (ed.), Issues, Theory and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 1992. THIBAUT, J. W. & H.H. KELLEY, The Social Psychology of Groups, Oxford, John Wiley, 1959. TZINER, A., “Differential Effects of Group Cohesiveness Types : A Clarifying Overview”, Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, vol.10, n°2, 1982, pp.227-239. WEBER, M. & J. ÖSTERBERG, “A Principal Component Analysis of Swedish Conscripts’ Values and Attitudes towards their Military Education”, Res Militaris, vol.5, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2015. WHYTE, W.F., Street Corner Society : The Social Structure of an Italian Slum, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1943. WOLLINGER, S., Mannen i ledet: takt och otakt i värnpliktens skugga (Dissertation, Lund University), Stockholm, 2000. Res Militaris, vol.9, n°2, Summer-Autumn/ Été-Automne 2019 16

th YIN, R.K., Case Study Research : Design and Methods (5 ed.), London, Sage, 2014.

ZACCARO, S.J., R.J. FOTI & D.A. KENNY, “Self-Monitoring and Trait-Based Variance in Leadership : An Investigation of Leader Flexibility across Multiple Group Situations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.76, 1991, pp.308-315.