PDT&C 2017; 46(1): 17–31

Edward A. Benoit, III* Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier: Preliminary Findings from the Virtual Footlocker Project

DOI 10.1515/pdtc-2017-0023 through email, video calls, and social media, while also Abstract: Changes in technology challenge the preserva- facilitating the creation of digital photographs and video tion of personal military communication and doc- of deployed military life. As with other digital information, umentary records. The Virtual Footlocker Project ad- the sheer amount of records expands annually, however dresses this issue through the development of an open- the amount of physical/analog records rapidly decreases. source, cross-platform system or application for capturing Lacking a tangible record, military families will not have and preserving the personal communication and doc- the same heirlooms to pass down, potentially eventuating umentary record of the modern soldier. This article dis- in the loss of military history. cusses the preliminary findings of the project’s survey of The Virtual Footlocker Project (VFP) addresses these veterans’ and active-duty personnel’s use of communica- issues through the development of an open-source, cross- tion and documentary methods. platform application for capturing and preserving the personal communication and documentary record of the Keywords: Digital Preservation, Military Records, modern soldier. Designed specifically for their unique Personal Archives needs, such a system will support veterans and active- duty personal. In its entirety, the VFP consists of three distinct phases: survey, development, and distribution. 1 Introduction The goal of the initial phase is identifying the types of communication methods used by modern soldiers during Since the Revolutionary War, U. S.-deployed military deployments and while at home stations. Additionally, members relied on postal communication for a vital con- this phase seeks to understand the types of personal doc- nection with their home. Even with the adaptation of new umentary records created, and what storage and dis- technologies, most soldiers primarily wrote and received tribution platforms soldiers prefer. The second phase fo- 1 letters. Additionally, soldiers would document their cuses on the initial development of the VFP application, wartime experiences in personal journals, photographs, alpha and beta testing, and preparing the application for and home movies (as technology allowed). These personal distribution. During the final phase, the application will records often became precious family heirlooms as mem- be launched and distributed to veterans and active-duty ’ ories of their loved one s service to the county. Over time, personnel. This article describes the preliminary findings some would donate the records to archival repositories. of the first phase of the VFP, and in doing so addresses the Researchers would use these rich personal records to ex- following research questions: plain the military experience. RQ1: What modes of communication and types of Over the past twenty years, the introduction of the documentary records have military members been using/ Internet, digital cameras, and mobile digital devices pre- creating during the past ten years? sented significant challenges to the ongoing preservation RQ2: What is the difference, if any, between military of personal military records. Digital technologies allow for members’ non-deployed and deployed modes of commu- quick and easy communication with military personnel nication and types of documentary records? I begin with a contextualization of the research within 1 Throughout the article, the term soldiers will be used to describe the broader literature of contemporary military records the sample population rather than always including the full descrip- and personal information management. The methodology tion of veterans, soldiers, airmen, Marines, and sailors. section describes the research design for the study, and is followed by a description of the resulting data. I conclude *Corresponding author: Dr. Edward Benoit, School of Library & with a discussion of the findings and the future directions Information Science, Louisiana State University 269 Coates Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, E-Mail: [email protected] of the VFP. 18 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

2 Literature Review partly due to the controversial nature of the war, but also due to its contemporary proximity whereby families still placed significant sentimental value on the materials. The issues integrated in this study are grounded in three Stevens notes the importance of the donation process in areas of literature: personal information management healing the veterans’ long-term anguish by allowing ve- (PIM), military archives, and non-LIS military commu- terans to tell their stories. The Wisconsin Historical So- nication research. Increased reliance on born-digital re- ciety project also included several letters that were taped, cords provided a renewed interest in PIM research, fo- a format specific to the Vietnam War. While most Vietnam- cused specifically on the intersection of PIM and archival War-era collections focus on analog materials, Harrison theories. Several authors summarize the PIM literature discusses the importance and challenges of preserving the with specific attention to its connection to archival prac- computer data from the war. He discusses the untapped tice. Bass, for example, notes the addition of “long-term records available to researchers, and challenges archivists preservation of personal digital information” to the tradi- of the era (the late 1980s) to begin addressing the emer- tional PIM technological functions as a specifically archi- ging issues. val intervention (52). Furthermore, he discusses how PIM Soyka and Wilczek offer the most relevant archival concepts assist us with appraisal of digital records since research for the VFP in their recent article on military re- determining value now requires active intervention by cords from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation archivists during the creation process. Since appraisal Enduring Freedom (OEF). Although focusing on official requires an understanding of value, it is also important to records, Soyka and Wilczek highlight dispersed and vo- realign archival value with personal value as identified by luminous modern military records. They discuss the PIM research. In doing so, archivists can advocate for the challenges personal milblogs, or military blogs, placed on importance of digital preservation. As he states: the community. They say, “Because soldier-authored Never before have the records that constitute a personal fonds or milblogs are, for the most part, scattered, unofficial crea- collection been so widely distributed across multiple locations, tions of individuals, they are not captured as part of offi- and as shown in this paper, PIM research elicits key information cial documentation of the experiences of the wars in Iraq on how and where individuals preserve their valuable records in both online and offline environments. This is especially ger- and Afghanistan. The varied form, structure, and pre- mane in an era where personal digital records are being kept by sentation of these informal creations also blocks their non-familial third parties more for their commercial value than potential capture, preservation, access, and use” (Soyka for their cultural and historical value. (Bass, 75) and Wilczek, 184). Soyka and Wilczek conclude that any complete documentary record of the wars will invariably Cushing also connects archival principles to PIM research, involve multiple repositories and the inclusion of personal specifically to the work of Catherine C. Marshall and military records. Adrian Cunningham. A vital difference between analog While not focused on preservation, PIM, or archival archives and digital PIM is that “the computer desktop approaches, several additional studies from outside dis- does not provide a decent central space for the valuable ciplines explore the nature of modern personal military documents as the shoebox [under the bed] did” (Cushing, communication and documentation. An earlier study by 305). The same could be said for the military footlocker. Schumm et al., analyzed the uses of various communica- The VFP responds to Reyes’s call for archivists (and other tion methods for deployed peacekeepers in the 1990s. LIS professionals) to educate the public on the fragility of They found that married personnel used all communica- digital records, on issues with social-media-based storage, tion methods at higher rates, and that peacekeepers pre- and on how to begin digital preservation and format mi- ferred telephone calls for more engaged communication. gration themselves. More recent studies focused on activities during OIF and As noted earlier, military records and archives have a OEF. Many of these analyze the increased availability of long relationship. Early archival literature, for example, communication technologies, and their impact on main- discusses the indexing of military records by Major Gen- taining spousal and child relationships. Cigrang et al. eral Fred C. Ainsworth who argued against the historians’ found that a spousal relationship’s condition prior to de- use of personal military accounts since they were not in- ployment dictated the communication rate during de- tended to be public documents (Riepma). The Vietnam ployment. Durham notes the new challenges soldiers face War changed many views of personal military records and with increased access to communication technologies— their importance in archival institutions. Focusing on the specifically, the “pressures from home to stay intimately physical records, Stevens discusses the difficulty of col- involved in the day-to-day lives of their families,” which lecting veterans’ personal records from the war. This was Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 19 can place additional stress on the soldier (Durham, 558). could opt into an raffle for one of twenty $50 payments. Greene et al. provide similar findings. And Houston et al. Participant recruitment used a wide variety of methods found that increased communication with military chil- including social media, email listservs, online forums/ dren improved the quality of the parent-child relationship groups, veteran service organizations, and word of mouth. during deployment compared to its pre-deployment state. Although I did not meet the initial recruitment goal of Finally, children and non-deployed spouses benefit from 500 participants as of June 1, 2015, the initial survey closed the use of social networking as a peer support network with 87 participants. I subsequently opened a duplicate during deployment (Rea et al., McGuire and Steele). survey for ongoing data collection since recruitment will continue until the study reaches at least 500 participants. The 87 participants provide enough of a sample popula- 3 Methodology tion for the preliminary findings and analysis of the data presented in this article. The sample population contains the following demo- The first phase of the VFP required a broad understanding graphic divisions. Nearly three-quarters of participants of the types of communication methods used, and perso- were male (73 % male, 27 % female) with a division of 14 % nal records created, by veterans and active-duty military officer and 86 % enlisted. This closely reflects the current members in the twenty-first century. A direct survey of a personnel in the military of 84 % male/17 % female and sample population best addressed the research questions. 17 % officer/83 % enlisted (U. S. Department of Defense). The study used a Qualtrics-based online survey with Similarly, the participants’ branch affiliation closely re- closed- and open-ended questions. The survey included flected the DOD statistics. The sample population com- 140 possible questions; however, each participant an- prised 9 % Air Force (USAF), 45 % Army (USA), 3 % Coast swered 76 questions based on previous answers. The Guard (USCG), 17 % Marine Corps (USMC), 10 % Navy questions focused on communication methods (e. g., let- (USN), and 15 % National Guard/Air National Guard (NG/ ters, email, social media, etc.), platforms (e. g., Facebook, ANG). The 2014 DOD demographic statistics indicate a Skype, Gmail, etc.), documentation methods (e. g., pho- branch division of 17 % USAF, 33 % USA, 2 % USCG, 12 % tographs, video, blogs, etc.), and digital record storage USMC, 17 % USN, and 19 % NG/ANG. Participants ranged (e. g., Flickr, Dropbox, iCloud, etc.). Participants initially between23and65yearsoldwithamean of35andmodeand answered the questions reflecting on their non-deployed median age of 34. This does not reflect the current military activities, and answered an identical set of questions re- average age of 28.6 because the survey asked participants garding their deployed activities. Finally, participants re- for their current age rather than the age during service. flected on the importance of preserving their personal re- cords. The data were analyzed using descriptive and in- Table 1: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and ferential statistics. Since the collected data were in de- Deployed Communication Methods with Family pendent groups (paired groups), and the survey used or- dinal Likart scales, comparison of non-deployed and de- Method State x̅ Zp ployed responses used a Wilcoxon sign-rank test. Open Letters/Mail Non-deployed 2.44 –1.092 0.275 coding analysis of the qualitative questions highlighted Deployed 2.55 common trends and patterns in the data. Email Non-deployed 3.43 –0.412 0.680 Deployed 3.46

Telephone Non-deployed 3.76 –3.65 0.001* 4 Sample Population (Landline or Mobile) Deployed 3.20 – The study used a sample population limited to those who SMS/Texting Non-deployed 2.72 4.824 0.000* either served or are serving in the United States military at Deployed 1.50 some point between 2005 and 2015. I decided not to in- Video Calls (Skype, etc.) Non-deployed 2.31 –0.52 0.959 clude those serving prior to 2005 to limit the data to a ten- Deployed 2.34 year period, and to include currently serving military. Social Media Non-deployed 2.83 –1.167 0.243 Additionally, many of the contemporary social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Deployed 2.66 platforms did not exist prior to 2005, such as Facebook * Indicates statistical significant findings and Twitter. Upon completion of the study, participants 20 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

5 Results display of a weighted combined score for the friends and family categories.

The survey asked participants to rate how often they used the following communication methods on a five-point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, most of the time, and always): letters/mail, email, telephone, sms/texting, video calls, and social media. Participants answered the question regarding communication with friends and family sepa- rately, since they often differ. Table 1 presents the average rankings for non-deployed and deployed communication. When considering non-deployed activities, participants indicated a high use of email (x̅= 3.43) and telephonic (x̅= 3.76) communication with family members. Interest- ingly, the use of traditional mail ranked second to last (x̅= 2.44) followed only by video calls (x̅= 2.31). While several communication methods increased during periods of deployment (letters, email, and video calls), the only two Figure 1: Weighted Friends and Family Communication Scores statistically significant differencesoccurred with telephone and texting. This reflects the limited access to telephones Email communication has supplanted the letter in con- and mobile devices during deployments. temporary correspondence. Based on this assumption, participants provided additional detailed information re- garding their email preferences. The majority of re- Table 2: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and Deployed Communication Methods with Friends spondents rely on web-based email providers such as Gmail (x̅= 3.91) when compared to Internet service pro- Method State x̅ Zpvider (x̅= 1.93) or military (x̅= 1.91) accounts (see Table 3). Participants’ preference for military or web-based ac- Letters/Mail Non-deployed 1.83 –1.752 0.080 counts does not significantly change when they are de- Deployed 2.06 ployed; however, the use of ISP accounts significantly Email Non-deployed 2.74 –0.23 0.981 decreases (Z = –3.681, p = 0.000). Deployed 2.80

Telephone Non-deployed 2.87 –4.415 0.000* (Landline or Mobile) Deployed 2.10 Table 3: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and Deployed Email System Types SMS/Texting Non-deployed 2.70 –4.607 0.000* Deployed 1.54 Method State x̅ Zp Video Calls (Skype, etc.) Non-deployed 1.76 –0.676 0.499 Military Email Non-deployed 1.91 –1.299 0.194 Deployed 1.71 Deployed 2.10 Social Media Non-deployed 2.83 –0.040 0.968 Internet Service Provider Non-deployed 1.93 –3.681 0.000* (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Deployed 2.87 Email (Comcast, Time Deployed 1.30 * Indicates statistical significant findings Warner Cable, etc.)

Web-based Email Non-deployed 3.91 –1.006 0.314 Soldiers’ communication with friends provides a tighter (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) Deployed 3.73 cluster of preferred methods (see Table 2) with telephone, * Indicates statistical significant findings texting, and social media each averaging between a 2.70 and 2.85 rating. The low reported use of letters and video The remainder of the questions related to communication calls reflects the family question, although with friends it methods focused on specific online providers to gauge the is considerably lower for both. Additionally, communica- potential preservation needs of the VFP future users. Al- tion with friends during deployments also saw a statisti- though participants did not report a high use of video cally significant change with only the decrease of tele- calls, the division between providers offers some insight phone and texting. This is further highlighted in Figure 1’s Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 21

Table 4: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and (see Table 4). Skype (x̅= 2.30) and FaceTime (x̅= 1.98) Deployed Video Chat Providers are the most often used platforms during non-deploy- ment periods. FaceTime’s limitations as an iOS applica- Video Chat Provider State x̅ Zption explain the statistically significant decrease in its Skype Non-deployed 2.30 –2.552 0.011* use during deployments (Z = –2.294, p =0.022).This Deployed 2.92 may also explain the significant deployment increase

FaceTime Non-deployed 1.98 –2.294 0.022* with the use of Skype, as FaceTime users shift platforms – Deployed 1.41 (Z = 2.552, p = 0.011). The vast amount of contemporary social media ooVoo Non-deployed 1.21 –0.447 0.655 platforms remains breathtaking—even more so when one Deployed 1.18 considers the number of short-lived, or near-extinct sites Google Hangouts Non-deployed 1.08 –2.000 0.046* from the past decade. Participants indicated their non- Deployed 1.00 deployed and deployed use of fifteen social media plat- * Indicates statistical significant findings forms with two additional “other” fields. Twelve of the platforms received ratings for non-deployed use with a Table 5: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and clear preference for Facebook (x̅= 4.87) followed by Deployed Social Media Use YouTube (x̅= 2.98), and LinkedIn (x̅= 1.89). Table 5 displays the average rankings for non-deployed and de- Social Media Provider State x̅ Zpployed platform use along with the results of the Wil- Facebook Non-deployed 4.87 –2.658 0.008* coxon sign-ranked tests. Although there is a wide range Deployed 4.10 of the types of social media accounts used while the re- spondents were home, their use while deployed alters Twitter Non-deployed 1.64 –2.799 0.005* significantly. Three of the platforms are no longer used Deployed 1.31 (Tumblr, Vine, and WhatsApp) and the use of seven Tumblr Non-deployed 1.27 –1.826 0.068 others are statistically significantly reduced: YouTube Deployed 1.00 (Z=–3.330 p = 0.001), Twitter (Z=–2.779, p = 0.005), LinkedIn Non-deployed 1.89 –3.553 0.000* Pinterest (Z=–2.120, p = 0.034), Instagram (Z=–2.530, Deployed 1.12 p = 0.011), LinkedIn (Z=–3.553, p = 0.000), Google+ – – Google+ Non-deployed 1.32 –1.983 0.047* (Z= 1.983, p = 0.047), and Snapchat (Z= 2.680, Deployed 1.08 p = 0.007). Only Facebook remains highly used during deployment periods (x̅= 4.1), although it also reveals a Snapchat Non-deployed 1.66 –2.680 0.007* statistically significant decrease (Z=–2.658, p = 0.008). Deployed 1.04 Figure 2 displays a weighted total of the non-deployed Pinterest Non-deployed 1.54 –2.120 0.034* and deployed use frequency for the social media plat- Deployed 1.23 forms and the significant environmental shift. YouTube Non-deployed 2.98 –3.330 0.001* Deployed 1.96

Instagram Non-deployed 1.75 –2.530 0.011* Deployed 1.19

Vine Non-deployed 1.13 –1.604 0.109 Deployed 1.00

WhatsApp Non-deployed 1.23 –1.604 0.109 Deployed 1.00

Myspace Non-deployed 1.46 –1.411 0.158 Deployed 1.29 * Indicates statistical significant findings

Figure 2: Weighted Social Media Use Scores 22 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

Table 6: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and 6 Documentary Records Deployed Photograph Storage Method

The survey explored the creation of several methods of Photograph Storage Method State x̅ Zp personal documentary records including blogs, jour- Personal Mobile Phone Non-deployed 3.07 –2.733 0.006* nals, photographs, and video. Of those who blogged, Deployed 2.38 27 % indicated they increased their blogging rate while they were deployed. Despite this, a Wilcoxon signed- Personal Computer Non-deployed 4.00 –0.384 0.701 rank test showed that blogging rates did not statisti- Hard Drive Deployed 4.09 cally significantly change between non-deployed and Flickr Non-deployed 1.09 –1.134 0.257 deployed periods (Z = –1.134, p = 0.257). While home, Deployed 1.02

7.1 % of participants kept an online blog with an ad- Facebook Non-deployed 3.09 –3.352 0.001* ditional 17.9 % writing in an offline journal. Both ca- Deployed 2.48 tegories increase slightly while the respondents are Google+ Non-deployed 1.11 –0.577 0.564 deployed, with 7.5 % blogging and 18.9 % journaling Deployed 1.10 offline. Those who kept an offline journal mainly used a physical journal (60 % non-deployed, 50 % deployed) Photobucket Non-deployed 1.16 –1.732 0.083 with the remainder using a computer file for their Deployed 1.10 journaling. Apple iCloud Non-deployed 1.57 –1.450 0.147 Most of the soldiers documented their military ex- Deployed 1.33 perience with digital photographs while they were non- Snapfish Non-deployed 1.07 –1.000 0.317 deployed (89.1 %) and deployed (88.7 %). An exact Deployed 1.02 McNemar’s test determined that there was not a statis- – tically significant difference in the proportion of those Picasa Non-deployed 1.14 1.000 0.317 Deployed 1.10 who took digital photographs of their activities while non-deployed and deployed, p = 1.000. Participants in- Shutterfly Non-deployed 1.02 0.000 1.000 dicating they took digital photographs were asked how Deployed 1.02 often they stored and shared their photographs with Dropbox Non-deployed 1.20 –1.730 0.084 seventeen hosts. Similar to the social media platforms, Deployed 1.07 two additional spaces were left for any unlisted hosts. Amazon Non-deployed 1.09 –1.000 0.317 The hosts included local solutions (e. g., mobile phone, Deployed 1.07 hard drives, etc.) and cloud-based hosts (e. g., Face- – book, Snapfish, etc.). OneDrive Non-deployed 1.11 1.342 0.180 Although participants used thirteen different Deployed 1.00 hosts, three platforms were preferred above the rest * Indicates statistical significant findings for use during non-deployed and deployed periods (see Table 6). When not deployed, soldiers preferred Only a slim majority (52.7 %) of participants recorded di- to keep digital photographs locally on either hard gital videos of their military life while not deployed, with drives (x̅= 4.00) or their mobile phones (x̅= 3.07). even fewer doing so while deployed (44.2 %). An exact Only Facebook rated as high (x̅= 3.09) with the re- McNemar’s test determined that there was a statistically maining ten hosts averaging below 1.6. The ranking of significant difference in the proportion of those who re- the top three hosts did not change for deployed peri- corded video of their activities while non-deployed and ods, however Facebook (Z = –3.352, p =0.001)and deployed, p = 0.031. Similar to the digital photographs, mobile phone storage (Z = –2.733, p = 0.006) de- participants who recorded videos also indicated their use monstrate a statistically significant decrease in use. of fourteen hosts (local and cloud-based) for storage and Overall, the results indicate only a slight difference sharing. Participants indicated the use of only ten hosts between deployed and non-deployed preferences in- while they were not deployed, and eight during deploy- dicating that most people tend to rely on the same ments (see Table 7). Similar to digital photographs, sol- hosting/sharing methods. Digital video sharing and diers prefer local hosting on hard drives (x̅= 4.21 non-de- storage reflect these results as well. ployed, x̅= 4.09 deployed) or mobile phones (x̅= 2.79 non- deployed, x̅= 2.5 deployed). Likewise, only Facebook (x̅= 2.36 non-deployed, x̅= 2.18 deployed) received a rat- Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 23 ing close to those of the local hosts. Platform preference likelihood of donating their digital materials to an archive did not significantly change between non-deployment focused on the American military experience. Nearly half and deployment for any of the hosts. of the respondents (47 %) indicated they probably or de- finitely would, and a quarter signaled that they would not consider it at this time (25.5 %). Table 7: Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test Comparison of Non-deployed and The final questions provided participants the oppor- Deployed Video Storage Method tunity to discuss any concerns and/or additional thoughts they had regarding their records, preservation, and the ̅ Zp Video Storage Method State x VFP as a whole. Many of the responses focused on addi- DVD/Bluray Non-deployed 1.46 –1.414 0.157 tional digital preservation needs not addressed in the Deployed 1.64 survey. For example, Participant 82 suggested support for Personal Mobile Phone Non-deployed 2.79 –0.973 0.331 Microsoft Office documents since many rosters, maps, Deployed 2.50 orders, and squadron graphics were saved in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint formats. Another participant would like Personal Computer Non-deployed 4.21 –1.633 0.102 the VFP to include a mechanism for recording “oral his- Hard Drive Deployed 4.09 tories/interviews for memories that were never captured – YouTube Non-deployed 1.57 1.633 0.102 with photos or give context to the digital artifacts” (P32). Deployed 1.50 Several others noted the continued need for preservation Facebook Non-deployed 2.36 –1.642 0.101 support of analog materials such as challenge coins, pat- Deployed 2.18 ches, printed photographs, and physical journals. Parti- Vine Non-deployed 1.04 –1.000 0.317 cipant 28 highlighted the continued importance of analog Deployed 1.00 materials, stating:

Dropbox Non-deployed 1.15 –1.000 0.317 I have my pocket-sized weather-proofed notebooks that I used Deployed 1.09 during deployment. [These] notebooks have information about military operations (which I presume is no longer sensitive in- Apple iCloud Non-deployed 1.52 –1.069 0.285 formation). In addition to the mission information these note- Deployed 1.27 books have glimpses of Soldier life. I have jokes and doodles and random thoughts jotted down throughout. I've thought about Amazon Non-deployed 1.11 0.000 1.00 scanning these and saving the scanned images, which is what Deployed 1.00 I'll probably do, but it’s a lot of little pages (and I cannot scan Google+ Non-deployed 1.15 –0.816 0.414 more than one page at a time without unbinding the notebook). Deployed 1.05 Participants also desire a method for reconnecting with * Indicates statistical significant findings other veterans whom they lost contact with over time. As described, this would be a closed social networking sys- tem for veterans. Additionally, a social support network could help soldiers with the transitional period after de- 7 Preservation ployment or active duty—although, this would never be the primary purpose of the VFP. The final section of the survey asked participants specifi- The other main theme of the final questions focused cally about the preservation of their personal digital mili- on security concerns of any future system. Participants are tary records (including communication and doc- concerned that others could access material uploaded into umentary). Most of the soldiers (72 %) viewed long-term any system. In some cases they focused on outside inter- preservation as either very or extremely important, with ests compiling data while others were specifically con- only 8 % reporting it as either very unimportant or not at cerned with authorities seeing the material. Participant 9 all important. When considering the possible use of an summarized this view stating, “…it was brought to my at- online application or software to capture and preserve tention that there is digital media out there that is not their records, a majority (58.8 %) indicated they definitely authorized (dead bodies, sacred shrines, etc.). You would or probably would use the application/software, and have have to find a way to keep it from entering the data about a fifth of the soldiers (19.6 %) would not. Since one warehouse, otherwise the entire system is at the mercy of of the goals for the VFP is to increase the number of col- an FBI investigation.” Overall, participants would need lections eventually donated to archival repositories, a fi- assurances regarding the public/private data barrier in the nal close-ended question asked participants to rate their 24 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier system and ensuring that public dissemination or display EXIF metadata, whereas those uploaded to social media would occur only on an opt in basis. sites often are stripped of their metadata during the pro- cess (Embeded Metadata Manifesto). Finally, participants indicateda high degreeof concern 8 Discussion and Conclusion regarding the potential loss of their digital records and a majority showed interest in using the future VFP applica- tion. While this demonstrates that the VFP addresses a real Analysis of the study data provided useful, and occa- need, the subsequent open-ended comments must be sionally surprising, findings. As I suspected, con- weighed heavily as the project moves forward. As initially temporary soldiers use a wide variety of communication conceived, theVFP’s primaryconstituency must remain the methods while at home stations and when they are de- soldiers and veterans rather than the archival repositories. ployed. Not surprisingly, email and other digital technol- More than a quarter of respondents would not, at this time, ogies surpassed the use of traditional mail, however tele- consider donating their files, with an additional quarter phone communication is the preferred non-deployed unsure. If further development of the project was ap- method. Only telephone and texting displayed statistically proached from a purely archival perspective, with the in- significant differences in their declined use while soldiers tentionoffacilitatingfuturedonations,asignificantportion were deployed for family and friend communication. This of soldiers could be offended (with the focus more on cap- may indicate that soldiers prefer continuity in their com- turing and preserving the data than on their lives and ex- munication methods, and/or that digital methods are ea- periences) and not use the application. Participants want a sily accessible while soldiers are deployed. Schumm et al. systemthatcaterstotheirneedsandisdesignedspecifically found that deployed peacekeepers in the 1990s still relied for them. As one noted, “Ensure that whatever application/ heavily on mail and telephone communication, although platform is developed does not become just another social new technologies were beginning to become available media/digital media site. Too many are out there that all (including email, and mailed video and audio tapes). The basically do the same thing” (P73). current study indicates modern soldiers are adapting to An area of concern not addressed in this study is the newer technologies more quickly than before. opinions of those whose loved ones died in their service. With respect to platforms, the data demonstrate a How could a system best support their needs? Acker and consistent preference for a select number of video chat Brubaker discuss the use of social media for memor- providers and social media platforms. Skype stands alone ialization, and it would be important also to explore the as the preferred deployed video chat provider, most likely preservation needs for other platforms as well (include due to the lack of cell phone coverage and availability in local digital storage). As I noted above, the findings pre- deployment areas (thus limiting use of FaceTime). Simi- sented in this article are preliminary results of the on- larly, Facebook became the primary social media platform going study. Participants will continue to complete the for non-deployed and deployed periods, ahead of You- survey until at least 500 responses are recorded. The Tube and Twitter. While there are statistically significant higher sample will allow for additional analysis based on differences in both areas, the preferred methods are un- smaller sub-groupings, such as divisions by rank, years wavering, which allows focused planning for the future served, age, branch, etc. The subsequent analysis will be development of the VFP software. used as the VFP moves into its second phase and with the Several previous studies highlight the use of military development of an application prototype. blogs, or milblogs, as an important development over the last decades (Shapiro and Humphreys, Soyka and Wilc- zek). This study found that a lower-than-expected num- ber of soldiers actively keep online blogs, while a sur- 9 Appendix prisingly high number still kept physical journals of their activities. This area requires additional research. As ex- Virtual Footlocker Project Survey Instrument pected, many soldiers capture their military experiences with digital photographs and video. Their preference for Note: The online survey included several uses of display localized storage of both (on phones or hard drives) logic to customize the survey based on answers to previous suggests either a lack of access to or trust of cloud-based questions. Some of the questions below used different storage. One benefit of having the videos and photos phrases based on the participant’s status (active duty or mainly stored on local media (DVDs, personal computer, veteran). For brevity, the instrument below does not in- cell phones) is that they most likely still have all of their clude all variations. Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 25

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. The  Marine Corp survey is broken into four parts beginning with some  Navy background information. The second and third parts will  Air National Guard ask you questions about your communication habits dur-  National Guard ing non-deployed and deployed periods. Finally, the fourth part will ask you questions related to the long-term Q10 Where were you last stationed? [list of all bases] preservation of your records. Completion of the survey – should take approximately 20 30 minutes. Q11 What year did you enter military service? [list of years]

Q1 Which of the following best describes your current role: Q12 What year did you leave military service? [list of years]  Active Duty  Reservist, Air National Guard, or National Guard Q13 What was your last military job? [open ended]  Veteran

Q2 Were you on active duty sometime between 2005 and Q14 In your time in the service, did you have any other 2015? military jobs besides your final one?  Yes  Yes  No  No

Q3 Were you on active duty or reserves sometime between Q15 What were your other military jobs (up to 5 past jobs)? 2005 and 2015? [open ended]  Yes  No Q16 What year were you born?

Q4 Were you in the reserves, Air National Guard, or Na- Q17 Gender tional Guard sometime between 2005 and 2015?  Male  Yes  Female  No  Other ______Q5 Were you deployed at least once between 2005 and Q18 Race (Select at least one): 2015? q White  Yes q Black  No q Hispanic or Latino q American Indian or Alaska Native Please complete the following background questions q Asian/Indian subcontinent about your service: q Pacific Islander Q6 Which of the following were you? q Other ______ Officer q Prefer not to state  Enlisted

Q19 What is the highest level of education you completed? Q7 What was your highest enlisted rank? [list of all pos-  Grammar school sible ranks]  High school or equivalent  Vocational/technical school (2 year) Q8 What was your highest officer rank? [list of all possible  Some college ranks]  Bachelor’s degree  Master’s degree Q9 Which branch of service were you in?  Doctoral degree  Air Force  Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.)  Army  Other  Coast Guard 26 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

Q20 Are you currently a student? Never Rarely Some- Most of Always  Yes, Full-time times the Time  Yes, Part-time Telephone  No (Landline or  Mobile) Q21 In what state/territory are you currently a resident? SMS/  [list of states/territories] Texting

Video Calls  Q22 What is your citizenship status? (Skype, etc.)  U. S. Citizen Social Media   Permanent Legal Resident of U. S. (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)  Other ______Other  Q23 What is your current marital status?  Single Q29 How often did you use the following to communicate  Married with friends?  Divorced  Widowed Never Rarely Some- Most of Always times the Time Q24 Were you married at any time during your military Letters/Mail  service?   Yes Email  No Telephone (Landline or  Mobile) Q25 Did you marry your spouse while serving in the mili- SMS/ tary?  Texting  Yes  Video Calls  No (Skype, etc.) Social Media Q26 Did you divorce your spouse while serving in the (Facebook,  military? Twitter, etc.)  Yes Other   No

Q30 How often did you use the following types of email Q27 For the following set of questions, please consider accounts to email friends or family? your typical activities while serving and not during peri- ods deployed. Never Rarely Some- Most of Always Q28 How often did you use the following to communicate times the Time with family members? Military Email  Internet Ser- vice Provider Email (Com- Never Rarely Some- Most of Always  times the Time cast, Time Warner Cable,  Letters/Mail Verizon, etc.)  Email Web-based Email  Account (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 27

Q31 Which of the following web-based email providers did Q34 Did you blog online or keep an offline journal? you use? (select all that apply)  Yes, I blogged online q Gmail  Yes, I kept an offline journal q Outlook  No q Yahoo Mail! q AOL Q35 What format was your offline journal? q Hotmail  Computer file (word document, etc.) q Other (1) ______ Physical journal q Other (2) ______ Other ______

Q32 How often did you use the following video call provi- Q36 Where did you blog online? [open-ended] ders/services (if at all)? Please add any additional provi- ders if they are not listed. Q37 How often did you blog?  Never Never Less Once a 2–3 Once a 2–3 Daily  than Month Times Week Times Less than Once a Month Once a a Month a Week  Once a Month Month  2–3 Times a Month Skype  Once a Week  – FaceTime  2 3 Times a Week  Daily ooVoo  Tango  Q38 Did you take digital photographs of your military life/ Google experiences? Hangouts  Yes Other (1)   No Other (2)  Q39 How often did you use the following to store/share Q33 How often did you use the following social media your digital photographs? platforms (if at all)? Please add any additional platforms if they are not listed. Never Rarely Some- Most of Always times the Time – – Never Less Once a 2 3 Once a 2 3 Daily Your mobile  than Month Times Week Times phone Once a Month a Week Your compu- a Month  ter hard drive Facebook  Flickr  Twitter  500 Pixels  Tumblr  Facebook  LinkedIn  Google+  Google+  Photobucket  Snapchat  Canon Irista  Pinterest  SmugMug  YouTube  Apple iCloud  Instagram  Snapfish  Vine  Picasa  WhatsApp  Shutterfly  Foursquare  Dropbox  Myspace  Amazon  Other (1)  OneDrive  Other (2)  28 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

Q39 (continued) Q44 While deployed, how often did you use the following to communicate with family members? Never Rarely Some- Most of Always times the Time Never Rarely Some- Most of Always Picturelife  times the Time Other (1) Letters/Mail  Other (2) Email  Telephone  Q40 Did you take digital video of your military life/ex- (Landline or Mobile) periences?   Yes SMS/Texting  No Video Calls  (Skype, etc.) Q41 How often did you use the following to store/share Social Media (Facebook,  your digital videos? Twitter, etc.) Other  Never Rarely Sometimes Most of Always the Time DVD/ Q45 While deployed, how often did you the following to  Bluray communicate with friends? Your cell  Never Rarely Some- Most of Always phone times the Time Your com-   puter Letters/Mail  YouTube Email Facebook Telephone (Landline or  Vine  Mobile) Vimeo  SMS/Texting  SmugMug  Video Calls  Flickr (Skype, etc.) Dropbox Social Media Apple (Facebook,   iCloud Twitter, etc.) Amazon Other  OneDrive  Google+ Q46 While deployed, how often did you the following Other (1) types of email accounts to email friends or family? Other (2)  Never Rarely Some- Most of Always times the Time Q42 During the period of 2005–2015, how many times were Military Email  you deployed for more than 30 days? [open ended] Internet Service Provider Q43 How many of your deployments from the previous Email (Com-  question were to the Middle East or Afghanistan? [open cast, Time ended] Warner Cable, Please respond to the following questions thinking only of Verizon, etc.) the time you spent deployed between 2005–2015. Web-based Email Account  (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 29

Q47 While deployed, which of the following web-based Q50 While deployed, did you blog online or keep an offline email providers did you use? (select all that apply) journal? q Gmail  Yes, I blogged online q Outlook  Yes, I kept an offline journal q Yahoo Mail!  No q AOL q Hotmail Q51 What format was your offline journal? q Other (1) ______ Computer file (word document, etc.) q Other (2) ______ Physical journal  Other ______Q48 While deployed, how often did you use the following video call providers/services (if at all)? Please add any Q52 Where did you blog online? [open ended] additional providers if they are not listed.

Never Less Once a 2–3 Once a 2–3 Daily Q53 How often did you blog? than Month Times Week Times a  Never Once a a Month Week  Less than Once a Month Month  Once a Month Skype  2–3 Times a Month FaceTime  Once a Week  – ooVoo  2 3 Times a Week  Daily Tango  Google Q54 While deployed, did you take digital photographs of Hangouts your military life/experiences? Other (1)   Yes Other (2)   No

Q49 While deployed, how often did you use the following Q55 While deployed, how often did you use the following social media platforms (if at all)? Please add any addi- to store/share your digital photographs? tional platforms if they are not listed. Never Rarely Sometimes Most of Always – – Never Less Once a 2 3 Once a 2 3 Daily the Time than Month Times Week Times Your mo- Once a a Month a Week  Month bile phone Facebook Your com- puter hard   Twitter drive  Tumblr Flickr   LinkedIn 500 Pixels   Google+ Facebook   Snapchat Google+   Pinterest Photo-  YouTube bucket Instagram  Canon  Vine Irista  WhatsApp SmugMug Foursquare Apple  iCloud Myspace  Snapfish  Other (1)  Picasa  Other (2)  30 Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier

Q55 (continued) Q58 In your opinion (and life), how important is the long- term preservation of your military-related digital files Never Rarely Sometimes Most of Always the Time (social media, photographs, emails, etc.)?  Not at all Important Shutterfly   Very Unimportant  Dropbox  Neither Important nor Unimportant  Amazon  Very Important OneDrive  Extremely Important Picturelife  Other (1) Q59 Would you use an online app or software that cap- Other (2) tures your digital files and preserves them for future ac- cess/use?  Definitely would not Q56 While deployed did you take digital video of your  Probably would not military life/experiences?  Don't know  Yes  Probably would  No  Definitely would

Q57 While deployed, how often did you use the following Q60 Would you ever consider donating your digital files to to store/share your digital videos? an archive focused on the American military experience?  Definitely would not Never Rarely Some- Most of Always  times the Time Probably would not  Don't know DVD/Bluray   Probably would Your cell  Definitely would phone Your compu- Q61 Is there any aspect/memory of your deployed or non- ter deployed life that you would like help preserving that was YouTube  not discussed earlier? [open-ended] Facebook  Vine  Q62 Do you have any additional comments for this study? Vimeo  [open-ended] SmugMug  Flickr   Dropbox References Apple iCloud   Amazon Acker, Amelia, and Jed R. Brubaker. “Death, Memorialization, and OneDrive  Social Media: A Platform Perspective for Personal Archives.” – Google+  Archivaria 77 (Spring 2014): 1 23. Bass, Jordan. “A PIM Perspective: Leveraging Personal Information Other (1)  Management Research in the Archiving of Personal Digital Other (2)  Records.” Archivaria 75 (Spring 2013): 49–76. Cigrang, Jeffrey A., G. Wayne Talcott, JoLyn Tatum, Monty Backer, Daniel Cassidy, Scott Sonnek, Douglas K. Snyder, Christina This study serves as a foundation for developing an ap- Balderrama-Durbin, Richard E. Heyman, and Amy M. Smith Slep. plication which will help veterans and active military “Intimate Partner Communication from the War Zone: A members preserve their personal records and memories. Prospective Study of Relationship Functioning, Communication Please complete the following questions about preserva- Frequency, and Combat Effectiveness.” Journal of Marital and – tion of your records. Family Therapy 40.3 (July 2014): 332 43. Cushing, Amber L. “Highlighting the Archives Perspective in the Personal Digital Archiving Discussion.” Library Hi Tech 28.2 (2010): 301–12. Edward A. Benoit, Digital V-Mail and the 21st Century Soldier 31

Durham, Susan W. “In Their Own Words: Staying Connected in a Schumm, Walter R., D. Bruce Bell, Morten G. Ender, and Rose E. Rice. Combat Environment.” Military Medicine 175.8 (2010): 554–59. “Expectations, Use, and Evaluation of Communication Media Embeded Metadata Manifesto. “Social Media Sites Photo Metadata among Deployed Peacekeepers.” Armed Forces & Society 30.4 Test Results.” http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/ (accessed (Summer 2004): 649–62. 7/5/16). Shapiro, Seth, and Lee Humphreys. “Exploring Old and New Media: Greene, Talya, Joshua Buckman, Christopher Dandeker, and Neil Comparing Military Blogs to Civil War Letters.” New Media & Greenberg. “How Communication with Families Can both Help Society 15.7 (2012): 1151–67. and Hinder Service Members’ Mental Health and Occupational Soyka, Heather, and Eliot Wilczek. “Documenting the American Effectiveness on Deployment.” Military Medicine 175.10 (2010): Military Experience in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.” American 745–49. Archivist 77.1 (Spring/Summer 2014): 175–200. Harrison, Donald Fisher. “Computers, Electronic Data, and the Stevens, Michael E. “Voices from Vietnam: Building a Collection from Vietnam War.” Archivaria 26 (1998): 18–32. a Controversial War.” American Archivist 64.1 (Spring/Summer Houston, J. Brian, Betty Pfefferbaum, Michelle D. Sherman, Ashley G. 2001): 115–20. Melson, and Michael W. Brand. “Family Communication across United State Department of Defense. 2014 Demographics: Profile of the Military Deployment Experience: Child and Spouse Report of the Military Community. http://download.militaryonesource. Communication Frequency and Quality and Associated mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2014-Demographics-Report.pdf Emotions, Behaviors, and Reactions.” Journal of Loss and (accessed 7/5/16). Trauma 18.2 (2013): 103–19. McGuire, Austen B., and Ric G. Steele. “Impact of Social Networking Sites on Children in Military Families.” Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review 19.3 (2016): 259–69. Bionote Rea, Jennifer, Andrew Behnke, Nichole Huff, and Kimberly Allen. “The ” Role of Online Communication in the Lives of Military Spouses. Dr. Edward A. Benoit, III Contemporary Family Therapy 37.3 (2015): 329–39. Reyes, Vanessa. “We Created It, Now How Do We Save It? Issues in Edward A. Benoit, III, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Library Preserving Personal Information, a Review.” Preservation, & Information Science at Louisiana State University, and coordinates Digital Technology & Culture 42.3 (2013): 150–54. the Archival Studies and Cultural Heritage Resource Management Riepma, Siert. “A Soldier-Archivist and His Records: Major General programs. He earned his doctorate from the School of Information Fred C. Ainsworth.” American Archivist 4.3 (July 1941): 178–87. Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research focuses on participatory and community-based archives.