DOCSLIB.ORG

Military Sociology June 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Military Sociology June 2013 Core Reading List for Specialty Examination in Military Sociology June 2013 Students taking comps should be familiar with the recent scholarship from members of the department posted on the Military Sociology bulletin board on the 4th floor in addition to the below readings. I. General Abbott, Andrew. 2002. “The Army and the Theory of Professions.” Pp. 523-536 in Don M. Snider, Gale L. Watkins, and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., The Future of the Army Profession. New York: McGraw Hill. Boëne, Bernard. 1990. “How ‘Unique’ Should the Military Be? A Review of Representative Literature.” European Journal of Sociology 31: 3-59. Booth, Bradford, Meyer Kestnbaum, and David R. Segal. 2001. “Are Post-Cold War Militaries Postmodern?” Armed Forces and Society 27: 319-342. Burk, James, ed. 1994. The Military in New Times. Boulder, CO: Westview. Burk, James. 2002. “Expertise, Jurisdiction, and Legitimacy of the Military Profession.” Pp. 19-38 in Don M. Snider, Gale L. Watkins, and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., The Future of the Army Profession. New York: McGraw Hill. Burris, Val. 2008. “Vietnam to Iraq: Continuity and Change in Between-Group Differences in Support for Military Action.” Social Problems 55: 443-479. Davis, James A. 2001. “Attitudes and Opinions among Senior Military Officers and a U.S. Cross-Section: 1998-1999. Pp. 101-128 in Soldiers and Civilians, edited by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn. Cambridge: MIT Press. Eitelberg, Mark J. and Stephen L. Mehay, eds. 1994. Marching Toward the 21st Century: Military Manpower and Recruiting. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Griffith, James. 2009. “Being a Reserve Soldier: A Matter of Social Identity.” Armed Forces and Society 36: 38-64. Holsti, Ole R. 2001. “Of Chasms and Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilians and Military Elites at the Start of the New Millennium. Pp. 15-99 in Soldiers and Civilians, edited by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1 Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil- Military Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Janowitz, Morris. 1960. The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait. New York: The Free Press. Kestnbaum, Meyer. 2000. “Citizenship and Compulsory Military Service: The Revolutionary Origins of Conscription in the United States.” Armed Forces & Society 27: 7-36. Kim, Hyung Min, Deokro Lee, and Richard C. Feiock. 2012. “Network Power and Militarized Conflicts.” Armed Forces and Society 38: 291-317. King, Anthony. 2006. “The Word of Command: Communication and Cohesion in the Military.” Armed Forces and Society 32: 493-512 Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Moskos, Charles C. 1977. Peace Soldiers: The Sociology of a United Nations Military Force. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moskos, Charles C. 1970. The American Enlisted Man. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moskos, Charles C., John Allen Williams, and David R. Segal, ed. 2000. The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press. Moskos, Charles C. and Frank R. Wood, eds. 1989. The Military: More Than Just a Job? Washington: Pergamon-Brassey’s. Segal, David R. 1989. Recruiting for Uncle Sam: Citizenship and Military Manpower Policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Segal, David R. 1986. “Measuring the Institutional/Occupational Change Thesis.” Armed Forces and Society 12: 351-376. Segal, David R., Peter Freedman-Doan, Jerald G. Bachman, and Patrick M. O’Malley. 2001. “Attitudes of Entry-Level Personnel.” Pp. 163-212 in Soldiers and Civilians, edited by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn. Cambridge: MIT Press. Segal, David R. and Mady Wechsler Segal. 1993. Peacekeepers and Their Wives: American Participation in the Multinational Force of Observers. Westport: Greenwood Press. Segal, David R. and Mady Wechsler Segal. 1993. “Military Sociology.” From International Military and Defense Encyclopedia, edited by Trevor N. Dupuy. Washington: Brassey’s. David R. Segal and Mady W. Segal. 2004. “America’s Military Population.” Population 2 Bulletin 59, No. 4 (December): 1-40. Segal, David R. and H. Wallace Sinaiko, eds. 1986. Life in the Rank and File. Washington: Brassey’s. Seibold, Guy L. 2007. “The Essence of Military Group Cohesion.” Armed Forces and Society 33: 286-295. Snider and Watkins. 2002. “Introduction.” Pp. 3-18 in Don M. Snider, Gale L. Watkins, and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., The Future of the Army Profession. New York: McGraw Hill. Stanley, Jay, ed. Essays on the Garrison State. Transaction. Stouffer, Samuel A., Edward A. Suchman, Leland C. DeVinney, Shirley A. Star, and Robin M. Williams, Jr. 1949. The American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life (Volume I). Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press. Stouffer, Samuel A., Arthur A. Lumsdaine, Marion Harper Lumsdaine, Robin M. Williams, Jr., M. Brewster Smith, Irving L. Janis, Shirley A. Star, and Leonard S. Cottrell. 1949. The American Soldier: Combat and its Aftermath (Volume II). Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press. {see also Sociology of Combat Section} Thornborrow, Thomas, and Andrew D. Brown. 2009. “’Being Regimented’: Aspiration, Discipline, and Identity Work in the British Parachute Regiment.” Organization Studies 30: 355- 376. Wilmoth, Janet M., and Andrew S. London, eds. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. Routledge, 2013. II. Social Representation in the Military: Race, Socio-Economic Status, Gender, and Sexual Orientation [Note: In this and subsequent sections, there are relevant chapters in the books listed under “General” above.] Asch, Beth J., et al. 2009. Military enlistment of Hispanic youth: Obstacles and opportunities. Rand Corporation. Basham, Victoria. 2009. “Effecting Discrimination: Operational Effectiveness and Harassment in the British Armed Forces.” Armed Forces and Society 35: 728-744. Bogart, Leo, ed. 1969 [1951]. Social Research and the Desegregation of the U.S. Army. Chicago: Markham. Burk, James. 1995. "Citizenship Status and Military Service: The Quest for Inclusion by 3 Minorities and Conscientious Objectors." Armed Forces & Society 21: 503-529. Burk, James and Evelyn Espinoza. 2012. “Race Relations Within the US Military.” Annual Review of Sociology 38: 401-422. Campbell, D’Ann. 1984. Women at War with America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Dunivin, Karen O. 1994. “Military Culture: Change and Continuity.” Armed Forces and Society, 20: 531-547. Glen H. Elder, Jr., Lin Wang, Naomi J. Spence, Daniel E. Adkins, and Tyson H. Brown. 2010. “Pathways to the All-Volunteer Military.” Social Science Quarterly 91(2): 455–475. Goldman, Nancy Loring, ed. 1982. Female Soldiers - Combatants or Non-combatants: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Lundquist, Jennifer Hickes. 2008. "Ethnic and Gender Satisfaction in the Military: The Effect of a Meritocratic Institution. American Sociological Review 73(3): 477-496. Journal of Homosexuality. 2013 Volume 60, Issue 2-3. Entire special issue on DADT repeal. Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod , and Judith Reppy, eds. 1999. Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Landis, Dan, Mickey R. Dansby, and Michael Hoyle. 1997. “The Effects of Race on Procedural Justice: The Case of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Armed Forces and Society 24: 183- 220. Manning, Lory. 2008. Women in the military: Where they stand. 6th ed. Washington: Women's Research and Education Institute. Moore, Brenda L. 1996. To Serve My Country To Serve My Race. New York: New York University Press. Moore, Brenda L. 2003. Serving Our Country: Japanese American Women in the Military During World War II. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Moradi, Bonnie. 2009. “Sexual Orientation Disclosure, Concealment, Harassment, and Military Cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT Military Veterans.” Military Psychology 1:513–533. Moskos, Charles C. and John Sibley Butler. 1996. All That We Can Be. New York: Basic Books. Scott, Wilbur J. and Sandra Carson Stanley, eds. 1994. Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 4 Segal, David R. and Meyer Kestnbaum. 2002. “Professional Closure in the Military Labor Market: A Critique of Pure Cohesion.” Pp. 441-458 in The Future of the Army Profession, edited by Don M. Snider and Gayle L. Watkins. New York: McGraw-Hill. Segal, Mady Wechsler. 1995. "Women's Military Roles Cross-Nationally: Past, Present, and Future." Gender & Society 9: 757-775. Sandhoff, Michelle and Mady W. Segal. 2013. "Women in the U.S. Military." in David M. Kennedy, ed., The Modern American Military. Oxford University Press, Pp. 273-294. Mady W. Segal and Chris Bourg. 2002. “Professional Leadership and Diversity in the Army.” Pp. 505-520 in Don M. Snider, Gale L. Watkins, and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., The Future of the Army Profession. New York: McGraw Hill. III. Sociology of War A. Societal and Historical Contexts Andreski, Stanislav. 1968. Military Organization and Society. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Aron, Raymond. 1968 [1957]. On War, translated by Terence Kilmartin. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Lanham, MD: University Press Of America. Aron, Raymond. 1965 [1954]. Century of Total War. Boston: Beacon Press. OR Aron, Raymond 1980 [1957]. War and Industrial Society. Translated by Mary Bottomer. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Bartov, Omer. 1996. Murder in Our Midst: The Holocaust, Industrial Killing, and Represenation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Extending the Legacy of Morris Janowitz: Pragmatism, International
    Extending the Legacy of Morris Janowitz: Pragmatism, International Relations and Peacekeeping Patricia Shields Texas State University [email protected] Joseph Soeters Netherlands Defence Academy Tilburg University [email protected] Presented at the European Group on Military and Society (ERGOMAS) Biannual Conference, June 4-7, 2013, Madrid 1 Introduction The use of force in international relations has been so altered that it seems appropriate to speak of constabulary forces, rather than of military forces. The constabulary concept provides a continuity with past military experiences and traditions ….. The constabulary outlook is grounded in, and extends, pragmatic doctrine Janowitz, 1971 p. 418 “Peacekeeping is intended to assist in the creation and maintenance of conditions conducive to long-term conflict resolution” (Bellamy et al, p.95). The resolution of these conflicts, however, is often facilitated by mediation efforts within and between nations and may not adhere to any particular traditional theory of international relations (IR). Peace support operations are carried out by dynamic international coalitions mostly under the aegis of the United Nations (UN), sometimes headed by other alliances such as NATO, the European Union or the African Union. Unfortunately, their record is mixed at best. They represent an important type of sub-national nexus event, which requires the development of new approaches to international relations theories. Throughout Europe, for example, nations are reshaping their militaries to take on new missions (Furst and Kummel 2011). Peace support and stability operations are chief among them. Conventional international relations theory, however, is weakly suited for making sense of and explaining these missions. Long-established approaches to international relations such as realism and liberal internationalism share assumptions about how the world operates.1 Unfortunately, in many international disputes strict adherence to fundamentalist thinking tends to reinforce 1 E.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Power Visible: Racialized Epistemologies, Knowledge (Re)Production and American Sociology
    Making Power Visible: Racialized Epistemologies, Knowledge (Re)Production and American Sociology Jennifer Lynn Padilla Wyse Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Sociology David L. Brunsma, Committee Chair Ellington T. Graves Lakshmi Jayaram Wornie Reed September 23, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: race, U.S. American Sociology, knowledge reproduction, power, epistemology Copyright Making Power Visible: Racialized Epistemologies, Knowledge (Re)Production and American Sociology Jennifer Lynn Padilla Wyse ABSTRACT This dissertation methodologically analyzes triangulated qualitative data from a critical race and feminist standpoint theoretical approach in order to explore American Sociology’s contemporary process of institutionalized knowledge reproduction, as well as how race structures that process. American Sociology is institutionalized knowledge that is structured into academic departments or an “institutional-structure” (Wallerstein 2007). Prestige structures the discipline, where the top-20 departments enact social closure through hiring practices and as such represent an element of elite power within the institutional-structure (Burris 2004; Lenski 1966). To be sure, institutional-structures are sites of collective memory, knowledge reproduction, professionalization and cognitive socialization processes. Therefore this dissertation data includes PhD-level required theory course syllabi, interviews with faculty that study race, Ph.D. candidates that study sociology, and defended dissertations from the year 2011, from the top-20 U.S. sociology departments that read as cultural representations of how race structures the reproduction of American Sociology’s institutionalized knowledge. This study has implications for the teaching, learning, and practice of American Sociology, as well as future scholarly research on the reproduction of knowledge and the sociology of sociology.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Criminology of War', What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing!
    The ‘Criminology of War’, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Ross McGarry and Sandra Walklate, University of Liverpool Within this short article we intend to make some brief critical comments in response to a question we have previously posed elsewhere (see McGarry and Walklate, 2016b). As per the title of this article, we ask: ‘the criminology of war, what is it good for?’ In brief, and to complete the lyric by Edwin Starr through which we posed this question, our answer is: ‘absolutely nothing!’ (or at least, potentially). In what follows, we wish to explain our reasoning for this answer in relation to the precarious co-option of ‘war’ as a criminological ‘specialism’. It is the case that ‘criminological’ attention to ‘war’ has been intermittent during the past century, but it is not a ‘new’ object of study for social science. Our own previous work has suggested that the study of ‘war’ should be of more sustained concern to ‘criminologists’ than has previously been the case, given its existence on a complex continua of (gendered) violence, harm and victimisation (qua Cockburn, 2012); a lack of concern which (for us at least) typifies the mainstream centrefolds of criminological interests in ‘street’ crime, criminal justice processes, and so on. These interests were, and remain to be, informed by a rationale put forward by Jamieson (1998) advocating for a ‘criminology of war’. From our reading of this work however, the study of ‘war’ was not intended to be pursued as a criminological ‘specialism’; quite the opposite. A later paper, penned in Studi Sulla Questione Criminale, offers this position some additional clarity whereby Jamieson (2012) continues that, “the war/crime nexus is, or ought to be, an object of enquiry that belongs to no one, not even criminology”.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Sociological Theory
    SOC 502 CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Spring l999 Professor Michèle Lamont Department of Sociology Princeton University [email protected] Office hours: by appointment. Tuesdays: 9:30-12:30 Green Hall 2-C-8 This course offers an introduction to contemporary sociological theory for graduate students aspiring to lead a life of research in the social sciences. The first and primary goal is to provide guidelines for a reflection on the role of theory in sociological research. We will examine questions such as: What is theory? How is it to be evaluated? How can we build on available theories in constructing new ones? Our second goal will be to understand how theories are shaped by the context in which they are produced. We will also discuss whether the impact of contexts should prevent us from aspiring to the production of generalizable theories. A third, broader, objective will be to provide students with bases needed for achieving a decent level of intellectual literacy within the field of sociology. Students who have not had exposure to sociological theory at the undergraduate level are encouraged to read one of the following books prior to our first meeting: Randall Collins, 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press (for true beginners) Jonathan H. Turner, 1991. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (exhaustive, with a functionalist twist) George Ritzer, 1988. Frontiers of Social Theory. New York: Columbia University Press (most up-to-date). These books will provide you with a general road-map of the field of sociological theory, as well as basic information on some of the approaches that we will not be cover due to time constrains (e.g., critical theory, exchange theory, neo-functionalism).
    [Show full text]
  • Sociology of War Sociology 40190 Spring 2015 John Levi Martin University of Chicago Fridays, 9:30 AM – 12:30 PM Classics 111
    The Sociology of War Sociology 40190 Spring 2015 John Levi Martin University of Chicago Fridays, 9:30 AM – 12:30 PM Classics 111 Overview: War is a large scale social endeavor, often the most sophisticated coordination carried out by a polity. Here we investigate the nature of war, the sociological characteristics of the organizations developed for its pursuit, and its connection with different political forms. There will be a few brief forays into the consideration of the military as an occupational world, and perhaps one into quasi-war forms of political or economic violence, but the focus here will be on the organization of sustained conflict between armies and the preparation for same. This is not a class on violence, nor is it a class on military sociology. While we will bump into these topics, our focus is on war first and foremost, the preparations for and consequences of secondly, and only thirdly these other topics. However, I do bend to reach some of the more pivotal work in sociology. In some cases, that means using a somewhat less central source by a sociologist in preference to a more central one by a historian or political scientist. This is the first time I have taught this class; I am doing it to learn more about this topic. Class Format: Each class has a focal reading or set of related readings but usually only illustrating one portion of the topics to be covered in that day. Students whose work is related to these topics are encouraged to take unusual degrees of direction for these days.
    [Show full text]
  • Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline, and the Law of War
    California Law Review VOL. 86 OCTOBER 1998 No. 5 Copyright © 1998 by California Law Review, Inc. Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline, and the Law of War Mark J. Osielt TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................... 944 General Background ......................................................................... 946 A. Genealogy of Terms ............................................................. 951 B. "Cracking the Culture" of the "Separate Community" ...... 953 C. Civilian and Military Approaches to Legal Error ................... 959 D. Current Law as Compromise ................................................. 961 E. Why Ever Excuse Obedience to Illegal Orders? ............ .. .......965 I. Obedience to Superior Orders: The Uncertain Scope of Manifest Illegality ....................................................................... 969 A. The Nature of the Defense .................................................... 971 Copyright © 1998 California Law Review, Inc. t Mark J. Osiel, Professor of Law, University of Iowa. J.D., Ph.D., Harvard University, 1987. For their helpful comments, I would like to thank Steven Burton, Eliot A. Cohen, Mary Dudziak, Sir Michael Howard, Kenneth Kress, Col. Howard Levie, Lt. Col. Mark Martins, John Norton Moore, Maj. Gen. A.P.V. Rogers, Tina Rosenberg, Col. Scott Silliman, Robert F. Turner, Detlev Vagts, Lea Vandervelde, and the participants in faculty seminars at Stanford and the University of Iowa. Conversations with several leading Judge Advocate General (hereinafter JAG) officers and civilian Defense Department lawyers, whose anonymity must be preserved, proved invaluable. Discussions with Carlos Nino and Jaime Malamud-Goti, while they were prosecuting officers for crimes arising from Argentina's "dirty war," were also very helpful. I am grateful to several members of legal academia who were willing, on condition of anonymity, to share some rather unflattering tales of their own military activities during World War II and the Korean War.
    [Show full text]
  • The Army in Peace Time: the Social Status and Function of Soldiers
    394 Rance Chapter 11 The Army in Peace Time: The Social Status and Function of Soldiers Philip Rance During the Late Roman and Middle Byzantine periods, the place of soldiers in society and their roles and activities when not at war embraced great variations of time, place and context. The evidence for soldiers’ status and function is chronologically and geographically uneven: documentation accu- mulates in late antiquity, owing to imperial law codes and Egyptian papyri, while corresponding Middle Byzantine source-material is comparatively meagre, especially during the 7th-/8th-century “dark age”. In both periods the problem of defining a “soldier” (stratiotes) arises. Although different sources employ this term with varying degrees of specificity, between c. 300 and c. 1200 its usage encompasses a spectrum of full- or part-time, indigenous or foreign servicemen, ancillary forces and semi-private retainers, ranging from an elite guardsman patrolling a palace in Constantinople to a paramilitary “irregular” on seasonal lookout duty at a frontier pass, while in 10th-/11th-century texts “soldier” can signify a landholder who personally performed no military ser- vice but contributed to the upkeep of a combatant. “Soldiers” therefore differed not merely by rank, seniority or unit-type, but in their terms and conditions of service, legal status and institutional identities, which variously reflected their environment, socio-economic background, mode of recruitment, regional affiliations and/or ethnicity. Within this diversity, different mechanisms and approximate levels of remuneration, along with fiscal and juridical immuni- ties, suggest that soldiers shared a relatively privileged position in society, even if Middle Byzantine sources record disparities in income and assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Gives a Background of the Journal and Information About Each Editor
    A Description of the Articles of the Past Five Years of Armed Forces & Society By Nathan Sexton An Applied Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Administration Texas State University Fall 2003 Political Science 5397 Dr. Patricia Shields Faculty Approval __________________________ __________________________ 1 Abstract The purpose of this Applied Research Project is to describe the substantive content of recent articles in Armed Forces & Society. This paper uses the framework of Guy L. Siebold (2001) to analyze the content of 117 Armed Forces & Society articles from the past five years. The settings chapter gives a background of the journal and information about each editor. Guy L. Siebold (2001 pp. 143) identifies four areas of military sociology that require attention. The four areas include (1) the military as a profession of arms, (2) the military as an institution or organization, (3) civil-military relations, and (4) military relations with other governmental agencies and militaries (Siebold 2001 pp140). The key facets of military sociology as set by Siebold are used to classify the content in the journal. The results found that the most discussed topics in the journal are historical development; education or training; recruitment or promotion; social issues or innovation, demographics; goals, ways of operating or the I/O debate, and the degree of conflict, harmony, or cooperation as related to civil-military relations. 2 Table of Contents Chapter One .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Gender, and the Post-Combat Transition by Victor Erik Ray
    Collateral Damage: Race, Gender, and the Post‐Combat Transition By Victor Erik Ray Department of Sociology, Duke University Date: __________________________________ Approved: ___________________________________ Eduardo Bonilla‐Silva, Co‐Supervisor ___________________________________ Linda Burton, Co‐Supervisor ___________________________________ Linda George ___________________________________ Carol Stack ___________________________________ William Darity, Jr. ___________________________________ Rebecca Bach Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Sociology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 ABSTRACT Collateral Damage: Race, Gender, and the Post‐Combat Transition By Victor Erik Ray Department of Sociology, Duke University Date: __________________________________ Approved: ___________________________________ Eduardo Bonilla‐Silva, Co‐Supervisor ___________________________________ Linda Burton, Co‐Supervisor ___________________________________ Linda George ___________________________________ Carol Stack ___________________________________ William Darity, Jr. ___________________________________ Rebecca Bach An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of Sociology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 Copyright by Victor Erik Ray 2014 Abstract Research on the military has historically focused on the potentially de‐stratifying effects of service,
    [Show full text]
  • Military Children and Families F C Hil Dr En VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 FALL 2013
    Military Children and Families T he Fu Military Children and Families tu re o re f C VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 FALL 2013 hil dr 3 Military Children and Families: Introducing the Issue en 13 The Demographics of Military Children and Families 41 Economic Conditions of Military Families 61 Military Children from Birth to Five Years 79 Child Care and Other Support Programs 99 Resilience among Military Youth 121 How Wartime Military Service Affects Children and Families 143 When a Parent Is Injured or Killed in Combat V ol um 163 Building Communities of Care for Military Children and Families e 2 187 Unlocking Insights about Military Children and Families 3 199 Afterword: What We Can Learn from Military Children and Families Nu mb e r 2 F a ll 2013 A COLLABORATION OF THE WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION The Future of Children and the Military Child Education Coalition jointly developed this issue of the journal to promote effective policies and programs for military-connected children and their families by providing timely, objective information based on the best available research. Senior Editorial Staff Journal Staff Sara McLanahan Kris McDonald Editor-in-Chief Associate Editor Princeton University Princeton University Director, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, and William S. Tod Jon Wallace Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs Managing Editor Princeton University Janet M. Currie Senior Editor Lisa Markman-Pithers Princeton University Outreach Director Director,
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Challenge of Cyberterrorism: Defining the Military Role in a Democracy
    XVII Meeting the Challenge of Cyberterrorism: Defining the Military Role in a Democracy Charles J. Dunlap, Jr: eadline grabbing events like the denial ofservice attacks1 on "dot com" H companies2 in early 2000 and the excitement over 1999's Y2K fears3 have served to tum public and governmental attention to the vulnerability of computers in an increasingly network-dependent, infonnation-oriented society. For their part, militaries-and especially the US anned forces-have for some time been grappling with the implications of the metamorphosis spawned by the enonnous advances in computer technologies of the last twenty years. A general consensus exists that emerging digital capabilities are stimulating what is popularly known as a "Revolution in Military Affairs," or RMA.4 There are many aspects to the RMA,5 but few would dispute that one progeny is the rise of infonnation operations (10)6 as a specific military discipline. In fact, the threat of cyberattack as a fonn ofrO is a major concern of the US anned forces. In its doctrine, the military gives the defense of infonnation systems open and prominent attention.7 In military circles, 10 is viewed as an asymmetric strategy because it presents an opportunity for an adversary with a narrow capability to successfully strike a seemingly more powerful opponent like the United States. One commentator eA-plains this phenomena as follows: Meeting the Challenge of Cyberterrorism No other country or group can approach the US conventional-weapon superiority. This is why many terrorists find information terrorism an attractive alternative to traditional forms of terrorism. eyber-terrorism allows terrorists-both foreign and domestic-to inflict damage with no harm to themselves and litde chance of being caught.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Morris Janowitz Collection 1940-1989
    University of Chicago Library Guide to the Morris Janowitz Collection 1940-1989 © 2009 University of Chicago Library Table of Contents Acknowledgments 4 Descriptive Summary 4 Information on Use 4 Access 4 Citation 4 Biographical Note 4 Scope Note 5 Related Resources 6 Subject Headings 7 INVENTORY 7 Series I: General Correspondence 7 Series II: Subject Files 10 Series III: Texts, Abstracts, and Proposals of University of Chicago M.A. and Ph.D.22 Theses Series IV: Research on the Military 23 Series V: Drafts of Papers by Janowitz: Articles, Prefaces, Reviews 24 Series VI: Manuscripts and Reports Gathered by Janowitz 26 Series VII: Miscellaneous Printed Materials 26 Series VIII: Biographical Materials Addenda 27 Series IX: Correspondence. Addenda 27 Subseries 1: Professional Correspondence 27 Subseries 2: Personal correspondence 30 Series X: Subject Files. Addenda 30 Series XI: Research Files.Addenda 38 Series XII: Writings Addenda 46 Subseries 1: General 47 Subseries 2: Books 47 Subseries 3: Articles, Lectures, Conference Papers 49 Subseries 4: Untitled and Miscellaneous Writings 54 Series XIII: Course Materials. Addenda 54 Subseries 1: General 54 Subseries 2: Background Course Materials 55 Subseries 3: Syllabi, Lecture Notes, Examinations, Class Materials 55 Series XIV: Student Materials. Addenda 58 Series XV: Inter-University Seminar on the Armed Forces and Society Addenda61 Subseries 1: General 61 Subseries 2: Correspondence 62 Subseries 3: Armed Forces and Society 62 Subseries 4: Conference Papers 63 Subseries 5: Miscellaneous 64 Series XVI: Psychological Warfare Documents 65 Subseries 1: Weekly Intelligence Summary for Psychological Warfare 66 Subseries 2: Information Control Intelligence Summaries 68 Subseries 3: Topical Reports of the Intelligence Section, Psychological Warfare69 Division Subseries 4: Miscellaneous Intelligence Reports 70 Series XVII: Evaluations 71 Descriptive Summary Identifier ICU.SPCL.JANOWITZM Title Janowitz, Morris.
    [Show full text]