Sheesh--the fact that every sentence in the manual isn't footnoted isn't due to a lack of time or labor. There were slews of Ph.D.s who worked on it. The reason is IT IS NOT A WORK OF SCHOLARSHIP AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE.
Printable View
Sheesh--the fact that every sentence in the manual isn't footnoted isn't due to a lack of time or labor. There were slews of Ph.D.s who worked on it. The reason is IT IS NOT A WORK OF SCHOLARSHIP AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE.
We all know that but even the Forces occasionally succumb to the siren lure of 'process.' Seemingly forgetting every few years that form over function is antithetical to success in combat.
We can disagree on that. I think the process of producing the document and compiling and annotating and filing the references to include detailed cites is adequate. Seems to me your approach would add to costs with no tangible benefit to the doctrinal producer. Admittedly, such an approach would be an asset to scholars but I submit that's an ancillary effect not justifying the expense of tax dollars -- or effort on the part of the developers..
Why do you think Ken mentioned those two? You may not have known or may have forgotten to add that "their ideas" were rolled back into military training (and not just in the US) with poor modifications in the 70s and 80s, much to the detriment of said training. Great detriment...Quote:
...First, when Ken mentioned Taylor, I really had to laugh since Taylor actually took many of his ideas, filtered 3rd and 4th hand (without citations :eek:), from the beginnings of modern warfare going back to William the Silent and Maurice of Nassau. Second, Demming actually got a lot of his ideas from Mao via, in part, the 1st Marine Raider BTN...
Much 'modern' management theory actually was developed in the US in the 1940-45 time frame by the armed forces and industry for the worldwide conduct of the war. After the war, industry continued to adapt it and then some of the civilian Educational Specialists hired by DoD and the services reinvented the wheel by 'introducing' these techniques in the service schools in the 70s -- not realizing that many of the precepts had been modified to maximize profit and lessen costs. Need in industry, dangerous in combat. Thus the Armed forces of the US began to teach what to think instead of how to think.
With the note that SWC is an informal 'QC' of sorts -- and thus works simply because it has not been institutionalized, we again disagree. That too has been done with almost ludicrous effects; I've seen it attempted in the training institutions and on high level staffs. The effort has merit where widgets are made and a tax write off can occur if they are improperly assembled -- it has less merit where unnecessary deaths can recur from cockamamie ideas. That doesn't even address the problem of convincing a crusty flag officer that a group of lesser mortals has determined his idea in not sound... :)Quote:
...The idea of using quality control circles, or some modern variant of them, is actually not too bad. In some ways, the SWC is just a giant quality control circle, as are many of the informal communications networks that exist.
The second point is not trues in all cases, in those where it is, it needs to be corrected; no question the services are too heirarchical in many respects. However, the first is the real problem. :(
Fortunately, the experimentation with Deming et.al, QC and such like seems to have run its faddish course. Before QC we had Organizational Development (O.D) and then Organizational Effectiveness (O.E.). My fear was that the next step would be O.F. -- organizational failure -- and we almost achieved that. :D
Hi Ken,
It might and you are quite right that it may just be my academic biases at work. Again, I would like to know, in this particular case, if there were cites in the original drafts. If there were, and they were later edited out for training clarity, then the time and effort to add them back in for a critical edition, such as the U of C one, would be minimal.
Because he is a really smart dude who knows his history :D? I did know that they had been brought back in, but I wasn't sure when. I also knew, at least from the Canadian side, that they had been butchered almost beyond recognition.
I didn't know that it had been tried - thanks for letting me know :). BTW, I do agree that most of the attempts at institutionalization I have run across, mainly in private industry, have been abject failures (if anyone really wants the cites, I can get them ;)).
Oh, yeah, business fads come and go. I keep hoping and praying that we as a species can develop some type of institutional form that focuses on integrating results and theory. I'm still waiting...
Doctrine writers don't have interns. A guy or gal gets tasked to write it if it's done in the armed forces. If it's contracted, the writer may or may not have interns but in either case, much of the effort is individual and the modifications come from meetings with subject matter experts. As Steve Metz pointed out, most of it is simply distilled knowledge.
The development file for the doctrine is voluminous and generally contains tons of references and cites, some used and some not used. If any copyright releases were required, they were obtained and will be in that file.Quote:
... Also, if they had time to wait for comments on the manual they certainly had time for this. This FM was not turned out in such short order (3-8 weeks) that I could understand this justification. I don't have a problem with them quickly sending off a version to the troops, but before letting U of C publish it they should have polished things up and put in the citiations for them. This is not a matter of copyright law. It is a matter of plagarism.
Plagiarism is defined as claiming credit for someone else's work -- it is essentially an academic issue (and lately, it seems, a political one...). Since military doctrine writers have nothing to gain and are essentially parts of group efforts producing government publications for the common good, I believe that accusations of plagiarism are specious. Even silly, in fact.
I suggest that if the nominal authors were CPT Eward Heebley, an OCS graduate with no degree at this time and SFC Tetranore Schwazkopf, there would be no outcry.
This is all political foolishness.
Would you footnote an operational order (tactical)? Doctrine from what I understand and the FM's specifically are the materials to write those orders from (strategic).
What is lost is the audience and the specific needs of the document. It's not for academics. It was released because academics wanted to read it. Now it is being judged not on it's merits or how it effects the audience but on an artificial expectation of academic citation. If it were cited in MLA (English) would it then be characterized as wrong by the APA5 (Psychology) crowd? If entire pages were ripped off from sources (above lets say 250 words) there would be a copyright violation. However, copyright and scholarship are NOT bound at the hip. In fact they could be considered mutually exclusive concerns since scholarship is exempt from most copyright by the fair use doctrine. Citation in academia is about attribution, claim of original authorship, proof of reflection on the science, and ability to recreate the study/science.
I can only see this being used in funny shaped building to drive more research to contractors and away from academia. I can see this as being used as a wedge for secrecy and used as a reason for less transparency. The obvious political punditry of Dr. Price may be heralded by his colleagues but the tone and tenor brings into question his actual goals. I wonder what Steven Aftergood would say about this... I'll think I'll ask him.
If this is in response to what I wrote, I did not argume in my post that the manual should be footnoted, I merely responded to the notion that it could not be footnoted due to a lack of adequate resources.
However, as to whether a manual such as this should be footnoted, I can think of several reasons why the effort might be worthwhile. For example, one of the end-users, finding some piece particularly useful, might want to know more about the subject. A footnote to a source will provide a starting point from which to learn more about that particular issue. Writers of future manuals would certainly benefit from having recourse to the captured knowledge of previous generations.
At some point during the research phase, when the information was collected, a decision was made to leave off the citation details. They had it and chose not to use it. Even if this is not a scholarly work for academic purposes, I don't think there is a definitive answer that such a manual would not benefit from the utilization of certain scholarly forms. There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of that decision, no matter the outcome of that discussion. If the creation of the manual were likened to a combat operation, what we are engaged in is akin to an after action review.
Cheers,
Jill
Those and any copyright releases will be in the Background File and were almost certainly not included in the Drafts. I strongly believe that the inclusion of references and notes excessively enlarge and complicate doctrinal material and that such inclusion should be totally avoided. In my experience, the Army is pretty punctilious about such stuff.
I suspect the major issue here is essentially political, is very much predicated on the fact that several contributors have advanced degrees and that the U of Chicago sought or was sought to publish a 'civilian' edition. Why the Manual wasn't simply okayed for release by the GPO or picked up by Praeger or one of the publishers who specialize in such stuff I don't know. Maybe because someone got stooopid? :wry:
Same down here. It almost seemed they picked out the bad to implement while discarding the good...Quote:
...I also knew, at least from the Canadian side, that they had been butchered almost beyond recognition.
Yet, the seekers of Nirvana press on. Are Consultancy and Snake Oil related... :DQuote:
... BTW, I do agree that most of the attempts at institutionalization I have run across, mainly in private industry, have been abject failures (if anyone really wants the cites, I can get them ;)).
Me, too. Sigh...:(Quote:
Oh, yeah, business fads come and go. I keep hoping and praying that we as a species can develop some type of institutional form that focuses on integrating results and theory. I'm still waiting...
My argument was that doctrine could or should have a bibliography, but not footnotes. The reason is that adding footnotes creates the illusion that it is a scholarly document, which creates unrealistic expectations (such as those of Dr. Price). I do not think it's accurate to say that "At some point during the research phase, when the information was collected, a decision was made to leave off the citation details" because the overwhelming amount of information in a doctrine manual is not collected from "citable" sources, but from the collected wisdom of the body of professional experts. So a point is not considered valid by whether it was lifted from some published article, but--to be honest--by whether key flag officers considered it valid.
Are you saying it was doctrine, and not a scholarly work?
*grins and ducks behind his dead horse*
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/con...dead_horse.jpg
Indeed, 110% corrrect. I want to point out that Steve's rendition is simply the way things are, and I suspect will be for some time to come.
Real Life Version - I just returned from a tour in Korea and was instructed to go directly to Michigan with a team of authors, mechanics, and senior military representatives. Our mission was to take the dash 10, 20, and 30 manuals for the XM1 and do each and every task and function therein, regardless of faults, quotes, etc. 5 inches of paper later, few things worked out and arguments ensued.
Ever have an argument with a maintenance manual 'writer' who never saw an M1 ? I did, several times.
I wished there were quotes and sources to refer to and call, but they were absent as they often are.
This is not doctrine, but a 30-level maintenance manual.
I somewhat see Dr. Price's point, but this subject is not about punctuation and journalistic ethics. Military manuals are written and designed for a Soldier's use. It is, IMHO useless to waste paper quoting sources when the end user is under fire and reading short passages that should save his Alpha.
Marc,
You are a hopeless romantic and I think that's great to have a real human with your intellect at our side. Hang in there...we're on your side, come hell or high water !
Regards, Stan
This whole thread has convinced me that someone with extensive experience in doctrine development needs to write a scholarly article on what doctrine is and how it is developed--Doctrine For Dummies or something. Maybe I'll put that on my "to do" list. It would be item #3458 on the list.
Footnotes and endnotes have NOTHING to do with scholarship (other than that they are quite often neccesary for scholarship), they are simply a common method used to achieve clarity, depth as well attributions. Footnotes are used in a lot of ways. Put a bibliography in fine, but make sure you can reference it if anything specific is taken from a source.
Adam
Could be :D!
One thing I find fascinating is the backflow. I remember spending 20 minutes trying to explain to a very intelligence business colleague of mine what the differences were between Strategy, Operations and Tactics. Personally, I find the inclusion of military conceptualizations of organization, the 70's and 80's variety that is, to be totally counter-productive in any business that couldn't be fully automated.
Probably, although I hate to say it since one of my other hats is as a consultant :wry:.
Marc
The key word there is "if." In doctrine, only a small portion of the information is taken from a discernible or discrete source. That's the point I've been trying to make--if you do, in fact, cite those few things that are citable, people outside the military community are going to be critical because so much of it is not cited. To me, that is not a flaw in the doctrine development process, but simply an indication that some in the scholarly world don't understand that process.
I think it's relevant here that the Army and Marine Corps, as institutions, are not responding to Dr. Price. John Nagl happens to care because he is both a scholar and a soldier. While I could be proven wrong, I don't think the Army and the Marine Corps as institutions given a gnat's posterior about what Dr. Price thinks.
This has struck a raw nerve with me because it is one element of a bigger issue: in order to grant degrees, military staff and war colleges have had to take on some of the trappings of academia. But because of their nature, they do it half way--they have to have "academic freedom" policies in order to get accredited, but they have subtle and not so subtle ways of enforcing a type of academic freedom that no civilian institution would tolerate. They require their students to do "research," but it's often research that no quality civilian graduate institution would accept.
Being caught in the middle of this, I wish the staff and war colleges would just stop trying to be ersatz universities and be what they are. The problem is that once one service started giving graduate degrees (and this means YOU, Naval War College), penis envy kicked in and the other ones had to follow. Basically, the Navy recognized that because of its deployment patterns, it was very hard for its officers to get advanced civilian degrees. This was seen to put them at a competitive disadvantage in higher level joint staffs. So the Naval War College became an accredited degree granting institution. So then all the rest had to follow.
The Army War College is a case in point. Something like 80% of our Army students come with a master's degree, but we insist on giving them another. I know lots of Army officers with 2, 3, even 4 master's degrees. In other words, there wasn't really a need for the degree but we couldn't have the Naval and Air war colleges giving master's degrees and us not. So that put us in a position of having to do things to get accredited which, in my opinion, did not contribute the professional education of senior military leaders.
OK, /rant.
For what its worth, the US Army publishing guidelines (including copyright clearance and citations of material) can be found here:
The Army Publishing Program (AR 25-30) 27 March 2006
Army Publishing: Actions Officers Guide (PAM 25- 40) 7 November 2006.
Hi Folks,
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible, and possibly profitable, to reframe the debate a touch. I'd like to toss out a few statements and see what people think about them.
1. Field manuals are designed for an audience that will apply their contents, whether it be a manual on how to repair a vehicle or a counter-insurgency manual. As such, their writing focus should, and must, be on the application of the knowledge contained in the manual and anything else is, for that audience, unimportant.
2. The subject matter of field manuals varies widely in terms of the predictive validity of the knowledge contained in the manual. In some cases, the knowledge should be prescriptive (i.e. do X, Y and Z and the equipment will work), while in other cases the knowledge should be either descriptive (i.e. this has worked in some situations) or attempting to produce highly interactive and adaptable courses of action in a broadly defined environment (sorry, can't come up with a single word for that).
3. The value add of references, citations, links to other sources in any format vary based on the nature of the knowledge presented.
4. Manual are NOT scholarly works but, in both the second and third case, contain or may contain scholarly elements.
- In cases where the writing is prescriptive, references, citations, etc. are just useless verbiage.
- In cases where the writing is descriptive, they may prove useful but could easily be in the form of an bibliography and reading list.
- In that third, unnamed, case they may be useless in the immediate form for training, but are quite useful for those who wish to go deeper into the subject since they help frame the debate.
5. Especially in that 3rd case, the scholarly elements contained in the work are likely to be part of ongoing debates with a low predictive value. In other words, since they can't be tested directly in many cases, they are interpretations. Being able to follow up on these debates, should individuals choose to do so, is valuable to the long term reworking of the doctrine.
Marc
Let me reframe the reframing ;)
I don't think FM 3-24 would have been strengthened with citation notes, actually--a recommended further reading list, perhaps, but not citations per se. This is an efficacy issue (and on this aspect of it I agree with Steve).
That is, I think, an entirely different issue from whether one needed to use unsourced verbatim or near-verbatim text from the works of others, rather than simply express similar ideas in original language. This is an intellectual property rights and "fair use" issue, and since none of us are copyright lawyers we're probably exhausting our ability to effectively discuss this.
This, in turn, is a different issue from the question of public relations—whether the obvious political liabilities of unsourced quotations, the packaging of FM 3-24 in its UChicago release, and the Army's subsequent handling of the Price critique.