SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF Last, D., et al. (2021). Collaborative Multinational Military Education: MILITARY STUDIES Arctic Simulation. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 4(1), pp. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.41 RESEARCH ARTICLE Collaborative Multinational Military Education: Arctic Simulation David Last1, Carsten F. Roennfeldt2 and Brytan Mendes3 1 Royal Military College of Canada, CA 2 Norwegian Defence University College/Norwegian Military Academy, NO 3 McGill University, CA Corresponding author: David Last ([email protected]) This article presents an on-line simulation exercise for cadets at military colleges in Canada, Norway, and the United States in 2019. The pilot project aspired to learn whether it is possible within a normal professional military educational program to gain cross-cultural and international relations competence by creating peer-to-peer contact between cadets on digital platforms. Working across language and cultural barriers in an international environment is a valuable professional skill, but military academies face constraints of regulation, cost, scheduling, and organizational culture which can preclude multinational simulations, however valuable these might be. This article describes the background research and preparations, method of execution, constraints on the conduct of the pilot project, considerations for future events, and advan- tages or learning opportunities identified in running the pilot. It concludes with suggestions for future military peer-to-peer simulations. Keywords: Professional military education; experiential learning; problem-based learning; simulation; cross-cultural communication; international relations Introduction It is widely accepted that young adults benefit from international exposure, and many universities have international programs. Moreover, military leaders from many countries are likely to conduct their most challenging professional work in multinational environments. However, military training schedules and budget restrictions combine to limit opportunities for cadets to have international exposure early in their careers. This was true even before the 2020 pandemic crisis. To solve this dilemma, in 2019 military colleges in Canada, Norway, and the United States organized an on-line simulation exercise for their cadets. It aimed to answer the question, is it possible within a normal professional military educational program to gain cross-cultural and international relations competence by creating peer-to-peer contact between cadets on digital platforms? The teaching experiment was held as a low-key event involving cadet volunteers with a limited commitment of time, no cost, no travel, and no marks or performance review assigned to the activity. Nineteen cadets from Canada, Norway, and the United States participated in an online seminar-style simulation of international cooperation within the framework of the Arctic Council. Both faculty and cadets indicated that it was worthwhile and should be repeated, although areas for improvement were identified. The exercise was repeated in February 2020 under Professor Ian Parenteau of the Royal Military College, Saint-Jean. This article describes the background research and preparations, method of execution, constraints on the conduct of the pilot project, considerations for future events, and advantages or learning opportunities identified in running the pilot. It concludes with suggestions for future military peer-to-peer simulations. Background Research Prior to the Simulation The gestation of the Arctic Simulation involved exploration of simulations and games, experiential learning, cross-cultural communication, pre-commissioning cadet exchange opportunities, practitioner research, and 2 Last et al: Collaborative Multinational Military Education the actual subject of the simulation—arctic cooperation. Space precludes a complete report, but some key references are included on each. The Arctic Simulation may be compared to military simulations but there are important differences. In the armed forces, simulations are often framed as wargames. In his seminal work Peter Perla traces their ori- gins back to Asian board games of 3000 BCE and describes their variants including sand tables, Kriegsspiel and computer-supported games (Perla 1990: 16, 31, 177; United Kingdom Ministry of Defence 2017). The Arctic Simulation adopted a form that may be compared to role-play simulation where teams of players are assigned the role of respective actors, often governments, interacting with other teams ‘to maximize their goals and minimize their loses’ (Perla 1990: 110). A major difference between the Arctic Simulation and such traditional military simulations is that the former seeks to engage theoretical knowledge from international relations courses to solve practical problems whereas the latter often draws on doctrines and personal experiences to test plans or gain warfighting competence in a safe-to-fail environment. In addi- tion, the Arctic Simulation differed from more common computer-driven simulations. Cadets used free and open internet platforms to allow peer-to-peer communication across continents. The simulation could have been conducted without such platforms if time and financial resources had allowed players to be brought together in one location. We should understand how the Arctic Simulation may develop more competent junior officers in order to justify even minimal time and resources expended. Experiential learning–understood as learning by reflect- ing on experiences–can help young officers to learn cross-cultural communication skills and to understand international relations. Military training is experience- based, and science and engineering programs include lab-based courses, but social sciences and humanities courses often fall back on traditional lectures and sem- inars with written evaluations, because these learning strategies require relatively few resources and give a sense of control over education and socialization. Yet, civilian universities supplement traditional didactic methods with simulations, understanding that students learn in different ways (Kolb 1985). Simulations can narrow the gap between education and work by spurring students to use academic competence to solve real- world problems. Simulations in seminar groups stimulate collaborative problem-solving and peer learning (Ruben 1999). In a study of experiential learning Kolb (1984) found that such interpersonal experiences are the major source of socially useful learning and development. In the more specific field of education about international relations, which the Arctic Simulation is designed to promote, studies conclude that simula- tions are superior to traditional lectures for students to understand, remember and apply theories and con- cepts (Newmann & Twigg 2000: 835; Simpson & Kausler 2009: 427). Approaches to experiential learning have evolved (Lewis & Williams 1994) and technology has taken experiential learning into the virtual world (Jarmon et al. 2009). NATO’s Centre for Excellence on simulation has developed technology to use avatars in structured learning of soft skills, and this area is advancing rapidly (Trochowska 2018). Designing the Arctic Simulation drew on the literature about use of simulations in teaching international relations. It was understood from the outset that professional development of junior officers in national military academies or defense universities will be different from general education for civilian students. Most of the scholarly literature on using simulations emerges from British and US civilian universities, and these don’t necessarily accommodate the needs of pre-commission military leaders-in-training, especially schedule constraints. The Arctic Simulation drew on Model UN and Model NATO practices widely used in civilian and military universities (McIntosh 2001; Obendorf & Randerson 2013). It tasked cadets to role-play representatives of different governments but rather than playing with civilians from their own country, cadets interacted with peers of other nationalities, stimulating cross-cultural learning. The Arctic Simulation adapted the Model UN idea of dealing with real-world security problems at a political level, focusing more on how military and other national assets could cooperate in practice to achieve political ends. Any new educational project is an invitation to practitioner research, but research in military academies raises operational and security concerns in addition to the usual questions about teaching and learning environments and impact on students (Campbell & Groundwater-Smith 2007; Anderson, Heer & Nihlen 1994/2007). The conduct and utility of the pilot simulation and its successors are the subject of ongoing research in Canada and Norway. Research agendas Research about education in a university falls in a grey zone, between research on the teaching techniques, and research on the students’ learning; research on students is subject to more restrictions. Canadian Forces training development procedures (Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System, CFITES) allow for standardized course evaluations and student feedback to support programme evaluation (J. Kam, personal communication, June 19, 2018) but these seldom reveal anything useful about actual learning Last et al: Collaborative Multinational Military Education 3 processes. To understand why and how students learn requires making student learning the subject of the research. The