Delivering Cultural Competence

Dear SWJ patrons,

I'm about to embark on a MSc dissertation for a Human Resource Development with Performance Management masters. My intention is to look at the training delivery required to deliver cultural competence to a post-modern Army.

Why this?

Well, Cultural Competence is the way of things now and of those to come in post-modern conflict. Time being the good old ubiquitous constraint within the military where and when does this training take place? Should it be delivered as on the job training (OJT)? Or should there be bespoke courses provided for those that require it? At what stages throughout a military career should this training be delivered?

As an example, the British Army are delivering their cultural training in a framework of three levels:

a. Cultural Awareness.

b. Cultural Understanding.

c. Cultural Competence.

This is great, but what is the best way to deliver this training? Is it by categorising it into levels as the British Army has or is it in another way?

I would be very interested to know the thoughts of those out there in SWJ. If there are any people who are already delivering such training then I'd love to hear from you, if you are prepared to share your best practice.

Many thanks,

Cdo Spirit

let's get Nichols in here to talk about the USMC culture and language training... he's a great resource for that.

Thanks Brant, new to SWJ - how do I go about getting Nichols then??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

As an example, the British Army are delivering their cultural training in a framework of three levels:

a. Cultural Awareness.

b. Cultural Understanding.

c. Cultural Competence.

This is great, but what is the best way to deliver this training? Is it by categorising it into levels as the British Army has or is it in another way?

---

Welcome Commando Spirit.

If by cultural competence you actually mean "Not causing offence out of ignorance, and learning something useful about the indigenous population," then you have to be pretty careful as to what you are describing with the word "culture," - which is why I am a "cultural training" sceptic.

Yes, Rifleman Doomweeby and Cpl F*cknuts have to have some education, but why elevate that to understanding and competence? What's the point and what does it gain you?

PS: Cranfield?

I am sure Nichols will be here momentarily - and likely to disagree with me. The idea of awareness for the Corporal described my Mr. Owen (I served with a CPL F-nuts - I wonder if it was the same guy.) is critical towards doing less harm than good when interacting with the populace, and especially critical during latter phases of the operation. As we move from "Kill em all" to "make love, not war" we have to know how to approach the targets of our love.

However, ensuring that our troops are "aware" of the culture of a foreign nation is almost an impossibility today. Sure, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are in a position to train prior to deployment in theater. However, what about that Marine unit aboard ship on way to Iraq and diverted to the next hot spot, where cultures differ from their initial target. The Army's current training systems fail to address this need.

Conversely, this lower awareness is great until you need true understanding. As rank nears senior enlisted or junior officer, tact and social graces become more important. Further up the ranks, they become mandatory. This is the strongest reason for the Foreign Affairs Officer position on many staffs. This expertise becomes the commanders Culture Expert. Unfortunately, in Iraq and Afghanistan we either didn't have enough theater specific FAOs or we didn't trust them apparently, so we developed the Human Terrain team. At the end of the day, the short fix is the FAO expertise, until we can train more to be knowledgable of the area of operation. It seems to be the only approach short of hiring 20 guys to be smart on each country, and then neven letting them go. (Although, i might suggest that Defense take better advantage of the other agencies who have experts and that they share across the board better)

It is almost as though you need a digital system which you could pull out and train your soldiers on the run to the fight. Hmm, if only such a system existed. . . Nichols?

Not Cranfield; I'm out in the Field Army delivering the Training and Education! Two very distinct terms which probably aren't required to be debated in this thread as I could bang on for days!

Scepticism accepted and indeed understood, but for the moment, put aside; there are a number of Coalition partners operating in Afghnaistan who are convinced that developing the cultural understanding/awareness of our militaries at all levels from your Doomweeby's and f*cknuts' to our three and four stars is the pathway to success in that particular theatre. If that really is the case - and you clearly disagree - then how would that trg/education be delivered? If so many are that interested in it then surely there must be delivery models out there that have had varying levels of success.

I accept that whilst the lowest level of training does in some small way mitigate the risk of causing offence to the local population, do you not agree that there is a requirement to better understand how decisions are made in theatres such as Afghanistan?

In the military decisions are a way of life, often made with only 80% of the information, even less of it being factual, and often made under pressure of time or danger; maybe both. Given the military 'drive' for quick and workable solutions, if our Commanders can better understand how decisons are made in other cultures then perhaps this will enhance or success in Afghanistan for example?

Moreover, perhaps we should be looking at our own culture. By that I mean organisaitonal culture of dropping 1000lbs of high explosive on an area in which we think an insurgent grouping is in hiding? The Cultural Competence, to my simple mind, requires us to become better aware of our own culture and perhaps prejudices before we can stand a chance of investigating others.

What is the point and what does it gain you? Good questions but I'll leave those open for others to join in on before I monopolise the thread!

It is a very interesting problem that, IMHO, most militaries go about in the wrong way as a result of a) how the military PME is structured and b) the assumed requirement to have a top down model. As a bit of context for my comments, I've taught cultural Anthropology on and off for 15 years and, from what I have seen of military PME in the area, it is pretty poor on the whole.

I suspect that part of the poorness of most cultural training (awareness, understanding, competence, etc.) is due to a really poor understanding by many people of what they actually mean by the terms. Let's take those three terms or levels that you mentioned, and I'll give you my take on how I think they should be understood and what the consequences of such an understanding can be (something usually not talked about).

Cultural Awareness

At its simplest, all this refers to is that the student / soldier should realize, in their gut as well as their head (thumos vs. logos if you want to go all Greek :D), that people can and do organize themselves in different ways to achieve similar goals (actually, homeostatic, psuedo-end states).

As a consequence of this realization, students will tend to start questioning whether or not the way their own culture / society organizes to meet a given need is the "best" possible way to do so. Generally, people will still stay in their "comfort zones" (i.e. their own cultural responses), but they may get attracted to some of the "fringes" (low frequency distribution options).

Cultural Understanding

Again, in its simplest form, this should refer to two things. First is a mental set of rules or patterns on how cultures organize to meet basic needs; something along the lines of a broad topology of cultural organization, with some basic rules for how to analyze the various forms of cultural organization. The second thing is more of a "mental" or "psychological" ability of the student to move into the "head space" of at least part of another culture; think verstehen as used by Wilhelm Dilthey). This goes back to Dilthey's observation that"

Quote:

---

All science is experiential; but all experience must be related back to and derives its validity from the conditions and context of consciousness in which it arises.
Source

---

So, using this definition, someone who has achieved "cultural understanding" should be able to a) make sense of a given culture and b) be able to mentally "shift" into it after some time spent immersed in that culture.

The primary consequence of this type of understanding is that people are more likely to "detatch" themselves from their own cultures.

Cultural Competence

To my mind, "cultural competence" is a more generalized development of "cultural understanding"; sort of a graduate degree version of an undergraduate "understanding". Someone who has achieved this, however you measure it, tends to be abstracted from their own culture - they can act within it, but it does not have the "aura of Truth" that a culture needs in order to control its members. As an example, Anthropologists who have done a fair bit of fieldwork tend to tal;k of themselves as standing "betwixt and between" cultures; people who move between them, but are not solid, absolute members of any of them even while having strong ties to multiple, often conflicting, cultures.

At any rate, that's my take on how these terms should be used; probably more of a hindrance for you than a help but, then again, I'm an Anthropologist :D.

Cheers,

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

......who are convinced that developing the cultural understanding/awareness of our militaries at all levels from your Doomweeby's and f*cknuts' to our three and four stars is the pathway to success in that particular theatre. If that really is the case - and you clearly disagree - then how would that trg/education be delivered?

---

Depends on what you the training objective is. The British Army has a culture. How would you teach a "civy" about Army culture? I'm not sure an education package is going to usefully inform an outsider to the degree where he can leverage that for anything more than very limited effect. I met quite a few British Army officers who couldn't "get" British Army culture.

Quote:

---

I accept that whilst the lowest level of training does in some small way mitigate the risk of causing offence to the local population, do you not agree that there is a requirement to better understand how decisions are made in theatres such as Afghanistan?

---

You can effectively instruct soldiers how not to cause undue or unintentional offence. I've done it. Try and explain "honour killings" of family members in a way that soldiers can usefully use. - "Don't talk to their women, (she is a possession) or else their brothers may kill them," -( and that's OK?) is useful, because it has a direct consequence.

Quote:

---

Given the military 'drive' for quick and workable solutions, if our Commanders can better understand how decisons are made in other cultures then perhaps this will enhance or success in Afghanistan for example?

---

That sounds good and briefs well. Give me an actual example.

Quote:

---

The Cultural Competence, to my simple mind, requires us to become better aware of our own culture and perhaps prejudices before we can stand a chance of investigating others.

---

Why do we want to be "culturally" competent? Do we actually mean, understand things better so we might better employ force to gain success? Isn't that what it really boils down to.

Marc,

Far from it, they are very close to the definitions that we are indeed using; the trick is how to develop a training and/or education solution to best deliver in these three areas? I take the point of the PME being poor constructed for this specific area of expertise and it is for that exact reason that I have started this thread. I am keen that the emerging models are looked at critically throughout my thesis and have some views, unsurprisingly, that will be quite 'radical' in most military circles.

I think that the best solution should lie somewhere between on the job training (OJT) which looks at culture rather more generically, thus avoiding the diverted Marine unit alluded to above, and the more formal classroom based education. Of course we need to have some Mission Specific Training (MST) but in most theatres, other than those that are just opening up, this is delivered during the Receipt, Staging and Onward Integration (RSOI) phase of a roulement.

Hi Commando Spirit,

Okay, I've got more than a few thoughts on that (just ask Red Rat :D!). However, I have to rush off to meetings and won't be able to post anything for the next 6 hours or so.

Cheers,

Marc

Lack of (awareness of) one’s own behavioral rules leads to misinterpretations - I call it simply Cultural Diversity.

Not everyone is prepared to step out of their comfort zone even if it leads us to see and do things differently. I wouldn’t start trying to teach a young soldier about cultural awareness before he/she was taught self-awareness.

Teach cultural diversity as an advantage instead of some painful power point or virtual tour 10 minutes into deployment.

50 cents:

The civilian world handles this by sending its leadership hopefuls to assignments in foreign countries.

Some general statements about the current state of cultural education in the US military, as I understand it:
1. The coursework available at cultural and language centers of the Branches, part of PME (Professional Military Education), is different than the PDT (PreDeployment Training) being delivered to units en masse.
2. Each Branch has gone about creating their own distinct academic and philosphical approach to their training program design and content.
3. Most research done on cultural training programs has been done in the business management sector, which can be problematic: the same behaviors that indicate a trainee's successful implementation of a cultural training program the business setting may indicate failure in the military setting. However, management research does has something in common with military doctrine as it relates to cultural programs: it makes a distinction between education (retention of country- or culture-specific facts) and training (acquisition of techical skills for use in situations). Suggestion: Black and Mendhall are two authors from which I learned a lot about the "training/education" distinction in cultural programs.
4. Still more problematic is the moving target of training doctrine: be prepared to see a lot of doctrine changes- fast- that reflect the requirements of COIN on the US military's training system.
5. The cultural knowledge and skills requirements for training Iraqi police officers are drastically different than what is required for infantry (i.e. war and MOOW have different requirements, as do the various MOSs, as do the distinct nature of each branch...).
6. The final test of any cultural education or training program: operational relevance. Period. If you know the language and art history of Wherever-stan perfectly and score a 100 on the test, but have filled your brain with facts irrelevant to conducting succesful operations, your program is not successful. A full understanding of culture in the area of operations is not required for successful operations, but total ignorance of the culture is a good way to create unsustainable "victories".

Broadly speaking:
-USMC, after initially taking a cultural awareness ("sensitivity"?) approach, has changed course and now uses systematized questions that can be used by both planners and operators to assess both the cultural inputs to a situation and the possible outcomes of an operation. They have two great textbooks that outline their approach, both of which are available for free.
-Both the Navy and Air Force focus on "cultural competence", and teach servicemembers general behavioral tools that will enable them to succeed as they interact with the servicemembers of other countries and with "locals" in the area of operations.
-The Army focuses on job aids and PDT with general culture- and country-specific information about history, language, and broad cultural norms.

When Mr. Owen objects to cultural training and calls it "impossible", he makes a good point. However, the fact is that cultural training is a requirement of COIN, welcomed by servicemembers engaged in training local counterparts, and a permanent part of the operations planning process (the decisions for which are being made at much lower rank than they were even 5 years ago). Ship: sailed.

So if cultural training is a given, what is the appropriate "training delivery required to deliver cultural competence to a post-modern Army"? It may be too late for you, but for me, the real issues are *not*:
-the appropriateness of cultural training *at all*
-education vs. training
-cultural competence vs. cultural understanding vs. cultural awareness
-or even the "correct" academic underpinning for interpretation of cultural facts.
Instead, I wonder if the correct way to deliver the best cultural training is through computer simulation (online gaming? Second Life? individual scenarios?), practical exercises, classroom study, or some other method.

I have a lot of resources for you, and will DM you on this.

Commando Spirit,

Try 'TT' aka Terry Terriff, who has studied the USMC adaption and is now in Calgary IIRC. Occassional poster, so maybe worth emailing and a PM. Google him to find if my memory is off target and his bio has: Conduct research on change in military organizations. Most recent work has been on military change in the US Marine Corps.

CS,

Welcome.

You pose some interesting questions, and its good to see that the British Army finds them worthy of institutional support. Now if we could just get the US Army to get serious about them as well :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

My intention is to look at the training delivery required to deliver cultural competence to a post-modern Army.

Why this?

---

Understanding different cultures enable societies to effectively interact with one another in mutually beneficial/productive ways. The flip side of this understanding allows security folks to efficiently find, target, and destroy opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

Time being the good old ubiquitous constraint within the military where and when does this training take place? Should it be delivered as on the job training (OJT)? Or should there be bespoke courses provided for those that require it? At what stages throughout a military career should this training be delivered?

---

IMHO it all starts with small group language training to be followed by a few years spent living 'on the economy' where the language must be used daily. Regular reassignments to the language area over the course of ones career are key to developing ones expertise and ability to add value. This presupposes a training infrastructure focused on language excellence and resourced institutional incentives and traditions which demonstrate that such skills are indeed valued.

Daily bilingual, trilingual, or better training starting at the entrance levels of basic training, rotc, and the academies is where the rubber meets the road. Until that occurs things will be limited to case studies and continual education demonstrating the value of language/cultural training for today's decision makers/resource allocators. Much of the practicing Iraq/Afghanistan cohort has lived through the cost/benefit equation for language and culture and I suspect that as they continue to rise through the ranks we will see the needed changes...it's a slow process however.

Regards,

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

When Mr. Owen objects to cultural training and calls it "impossible", he makes a good point. However, the fact is that cultural training is a requirement of COIN, welcomed by servicemembers engaged in training local counterparts, and a permanent part of the operations planning process (the decisions for which are being made at much lower rank than they were even 5 years ago). Ship: sailed.

---

I do not say it is impossible. I'm saying that like most things the "WOW-COIN" generation has stumbled across, the intent is good, but the execution and understanding, are usually either wrong or over stated.

a.) What do we mean "culture?" - it's a woolly imprecise term of no actual use to soldiers, in the context it is being used.

b.) The primary requirement is to teach soldiers how not to cause offence or make situations worse by being rude or disrespectful.

c.) The British Army did this for 200 years and took it for granted, when and where it actually mattered, and it was done via local language training - in theatre, to officers.

We're close to making "COIN" into a pseudo-science, (some already have) and we need to start getting rid of some of the rubbish attached to that. IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

• Language training (3 levels)
• RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

Keep it simple and effective.

Quote:

---

We're close to making "COIN" into a pseudo-science, (some already have) and we need to start getting rid of some of the rubbish attached to that. IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

Language training (3 levels)
RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

---

Wilf

Stan and I were immersed in this stuff for decades. We still are. I agree that some take it too far. We need to tone it down to make it achievable and relevant. I have taught this on the platform and mentored it in the field.

Local beliefs, customs, and courtesies are the exterior trappings of what is important. If you miss those it makes communication and understanding difficult. If you only teach those, you only get the dog's bark and not why the dog is barking.

The basic rules to me remain:

1. they don't think like you
2. everything they do with, for, or to you is agenda driven

I can then hang the language, customs, etc on the framework and start to understand the effects of these things, the reasons for them, and then the golden ring--what they are likely to do next.

Best
Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

The basic rules to me remain:

1. they don't think like you
2. everything they do with, for, or to you is agenda driven

---

If "agenda driven" begins to seem a negative quality, we do well to recall that everything we do with, for, or to them is also agenda driven and that their agenda is as compelling to them as ours is to us. In many cases their commitment to their agendas is likely to exceed ours; what's being done by both parties is being doen in their communities.

I'd add one more rule:

When you see people doing things that make no sense at all to you, don't assume that they are stupid or deranged. Assume instead that there is some element in the picture that you don't see... because there are always elements in the picture that you don't see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

... and then the golden ring--what they are likely to do next.

Best
Tom

---

Dead on the mark, Tom !

This I consider to be the singular indicator of true integration - Second guessing your adversary in his own back yard ! Tom and I would literally cruise around a population of 5 million as if not a care in the world - during a civil war, social and political upheaval.

Well, we also liked the gunfire and watching the tracers every evening over a barbecue at Tom's was kinda neat too :)

However, even with the best FAO training available and purported years of experience, some just didn't get it :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

We need to tone it down to make it achievable and relevant. I have taught this on the platform and mentored it in the field.

---

My point and I concur 100%

Quote:

---

Local beliefs, customs, and courtesies are the exterior trappings of what is important. If you miss those it makes communication and understanding difficult. If you only teach those, you only get the dog's bark and not why the dog is barking.

---

Well I assumed you would teach the "Why", not just the "How", because you again are 100%.

My biggest take on this is yes, we do need to teach "common sense stuff." -cos it's not so common. - but I get annoyed when "common sense stuff," that needs pointing out, gets treated as "rocket science," and "discovery" - because its sets you for compounding the error every time. Folks love to pile on process.

Going abroad? Some language and knowledge of customs maybe useful? No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

...Well, Cultural Competence is the way of things now and of those to come in post-modern conflict. Time being the good old ubiquitous constraint within the military where and when does this training take place? Should it be delivered as on the job training (OJT)? Or should there be bespoke courses provided for those that require it? At what stages throughout a military career should this training be delivered?

---

RAND published a study along these general lines for the Air Force back in May:

Cross-Cultural Skills for Deployed Air Force Personnel: Defining Cross-Cultural Performance

Quote:

---

Because of its strong interest in providing airmen with the cross-cultural skills that have grown ever more essential to successful mission accomplishment in foreign environments, the Air Force asked RAND to provide a foundation for the design of a comprehensive Air Force program of cross-cultural training and education. RAND researchers responded by first creating a taxonomy covering all behaviors relevant to cross-cultural performance after the need for such a taxonomy became evident from a review of the literature on cross-cultural performance and discussions with Air Force personnel. From this taxonomy, the researchers developed a framework of 14 categories of cross-cultural behaviors — nine categories of enabling behaviors and five of goal-oriented behaviors. This framework was then used in designing a survey for 21,000 recently deployed airmen that asked them to rate the importance of the behaviors to their deployed performance and the helpfulness of training they had received in the behaviors (both over their careers and just prior to deployment). Respondents were also asked to indicate how much training they had received. Recommendations and suggestions for the design of a comprehensive program of cross-cultural training and education and for further research steps were made based on extensive analyses of the results, which included determining whether training needs differed by AFSC, grade (enlisted/officer), and deployment location.

---

And there's also this thesis paper from CGSC, published last year:

Cultural Competency Training in the USMC: a Prescription for Success in the Long War

Quote:

---

....The Marine Corps has made great strides towards the goal of developing culturally competent Marines to participate in the Long War. The establishment of the Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning represents the Marine Corps’ single greatest achievement thus far in its quest to produce culturally competent Marines. As the leading advocate for cultural competency training, the center has developed and implemented a robust pre-deployment training regimen for units going to Iraq and Afghanistan. The center’s work with the Marine Corps Training Command has clearly resulted in a higher level of cultural competency in the operating forces participating in OIF and OEF. Furthermore, the establishment of the center is critical in order for the Marine Corps to institutionalize the key relationship between cultural competency and military operations.....

---

Why did I not post on here sooner??? This has been, and continues to be, hugely useful for both my MSc thesis scoping study and also for my career at a time when I have been tasked to provide both language and cultural 'training/education' to some 14K military personnel.

Please keep posting as and when you see fit and very many thanks to those that have already done so.

CS

CS,

You asked to be nicholized....soooo here ya go....but first a disclaimer.

I'm a retired Infantry Gunny with a little over 15 years overseas time. I am currently a gopher for my Governement boss who is the APM for Culture & Language Training Systems........basically I manage contracts. No high speed stuff in my kit, just a simple grunt view of life.

I'm going to provide you with some links that may help you understand where we are right now.......we basically arrived here without knowing our starting point, azimuth, and distance:)

There are a few of approaches that are being used/looked at in the Marine Corps:

Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization Program (RCLF) which is PME. This evolved out of the Marine Career Regional Studies Program (MCRS)

An article about MCRS from September 2008

The idea behind this was that no matter where a MAGTF was tasked to go, there would be a few Marines in the unit that had been studying the area. The Sergeant's knowledge would not be at the level of the Major but it would be enough to cover basic culture/language for the AO on the small unit level. Through many meetings MCRS became RCLF; the meetings have been painful. Identifying the language requirement per rank has been the hardest part because some people just can't learn a second language and linking it to PME means linking it to promotion. Linking a language to a region has also been tough. RCLF has not been signed yet, I think that once it has been signed we will have a better azimuth to shoot specifically for requirements. The junior ranks (E-1-E-4) will be getting general culture awareness courses not specific to an AO;

Rudy with the rusty rifle in the third rank that never gets the word, be advised, culture is out there and you need to be aware that scratching your rearend in public will get laughs here...outside of here, people will be offended.

Predeployment Training Program (PTP). Most people a familiar with this concept and it is the easiest to get requirements for but it requires white space on the training schedule that is hard to get. We have been using multiple methods to conduct language/culture training that usually gets tested during a Mojave Viper type training event at 29 Palms before the unit deploys. I specifically manage computer based language/culture software training devices that have been used for PTP.

The third approach is the Security Cooperation MAGTF.

A pretty good article can be found here.

The idea behind this is that Rudy joins a Regiment that has a specific AO that he can focus on. While many are saying that this is a new idea, it basically follows along the lines of the UDP cycle of the early to mid 80's (From Camp Lejuene, 2nd Mar had NATO Northern flank, 6th Mar had Okinawa, 8th Mar had Med Floats). A diffence the 80's and now is that once the unit gets to its AO, small units would be task organized to saturate the AO;

Battalion sets up CP in Rota....fireteams, squads, platoons get sent to various countries in Sub Saharan Africa.

A big difference is that Rudy spends most of his career with the Regiment (sound familiar?).

The intent is that while Rudy is in the third rank he meets Francois from the third rank in the other country's military and establishes a friendship. A few years later Sgt Rudy goes back and links up with Capt Francois and maintains the friendship. Eventually Rudy may become a SNCO....Francois may become the President.....a long term lasting Lawrence type relationship is the goal.

Nichols, that's great stuff and is probably a winning solution for a military with spare capacity and the numbers that the US enjoys. The articles are very useful and if nothing else the ability to compare the way in which a much larger Armed Force is able to target its resources will be an interesting debate in my thesis. Unfortunately, the British Army is only a little over 100K strong (and likely to get smaller in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review) and so there is no spare capacity to enable our personnel to target their learning in this way.

That said, perhaps it is actually that the organisational culture of the British Military hierarchy is not sufficiently mature to approach the issue in tis way?

As an aside I completed an exchange exercise with CGSC a few years ago and the Rudy/Francois model does have some potential. The falling down point is that us men (and I mean men in particular) are rubbish at staying in touch with friends - so my wife says anyway!!

Many thanks for the links to the articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

Unfortunately, the British Army is only a little over 100K strong (and likely to get smaller in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review) and so there is no spare capacity to enable our personnel to target their learning in this way.

---

This is where the UK acquisition bubbas need to get together when they are developing new training devices. Your total active duty manpower for October was just under 180k. I've seen contractors deliver training systems to individual units and being paid by those units for use only in those units. Specific to the Corps' language and culture stuff, we contract .mil wide licenses but pay USMC only license costs. UK MOD hould probably look aty contracting for the total force which in the long run will bring the price down.

We are beginning to get the Operational Language & Culture Training System (OLCTS). This consists of an initial language/culture acquisition via desktop of server, a sustainment piece for the iTouch, and a mission rehearsal piece for the first person shooter game. I was briefing/demonstrating these capabilities to members of the UK Army 2 weeks ago at I/ITSEC. It could have been just a drive by from the Brits but they were saying that they intended on getting this capability to thier units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nichols

This is where the UK acquisition bubbas need to get together when they are developing new training devices. Your total active duty manpower for October was just under 180k. I've seen contractors deliver training systems to individual units and being paid by those units for use only in those units. Specific to the Corps' language and culture stuff, we contract .mil wide licenses but pay USMC only license costs. UK MOD hould probably look aty contracting for the total force which in the long run will bring the price down.

We are beginning to get the Operational Language & Culture Training System (OLCTS). This consists of an initial language/culture acquisition via desktop of server, a sustainment piece for the iTouch, and a mission rehearsal piece for the first person shooter game. I was briefing/demonstrating these capabilities to members of the UK Army 2 weeks ago at I/ITSEC. It could have been just a drive by from the Brits but they were saying that they intended on getting this capability to thier units.

---

I've seen, and used, the iTouch software a couple of weeks ago and it looks very good (I think those you spoke to were from my own branch!!) I'm under the impression that UK is asking for non-US phonetics to be looked into?

Not sure where you got the 180K from though - I suspect that is British Military rather than British Army? Army hasn't been that big since the cold war!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

I've seen, and used, the iTouch software a couple of weeks ago and it looks very good (I think those you spoke to were from my own branch!!) I'm under the impression that UK is asking for non-US phonetics to be looked into?

Not sure where you got the 180K from though - I suspect that is British Military rather than British Army? Army hasn't been that big since the cold war!!

---

Yes to the phonetics, the UK is thinking about doing this specifically for Pashtu & Dari. Australian MOD is looking at the same type of modifications.

180k was total active forces from last month....MOD site :)

The instructor makes a huge difference.

As it is currently practiced, doctrine prevents the Sgt. without a degree- but with years of experience training polic officers in Iraq or Afghanistan, from leading or designing the sort of training that is actually relevant to our military's needs. However, the PhD with no recent field experience in the region is qualified. In fact, I am aware of an instructor meeting that description in the system right now that has spent a career studying Ireland, has no military experience, and is teaching an Islam-specific knowledge course.

The USMC CAOCL says (and I agree): "Instead of generalist historians, religion specialists, and journalists, younger personnel who combined recent operational experience with academic study, site visits, and debriefing of returning units conducted the training. In this respect, cultural trainers have been working to shorten the lessonslearned feedback loop from deployment to
deployment…he or she must be a Soldier or Marine who has recently deployed operationally to the AO in a job requiring ongoing interaction with the indigenous population--the division combat operations center watch officer from OIF-I will not do. MOS is not important here; interaction with Iraqis on a regular basis is." (“Advances in Predeployment Culture Training: The U.S. Marine Corps Approach”, Barak Salmoni and Paula Holmes-Eber)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

a.) What do we mean "culture?" - it's a woolly imprecise term of no actual use to soldiers, in the context it is being used.
b.) The primary requirement is to teach soldiers how not to cause offence or make situations worse by being rude or disrespectful...
...IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

• Language training (3 levels)
• RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

Keep it simple and effective.

---

All points addressed in my original post, with no exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

The instructor makes a huge difference.

As it is currently practiced, doctrine prevents the Sgt. without a degree- but with years of experience training polic officers in Iraq or Afghanistan, from leading or designing the sort of training that is actually relevant to our military's needs.

---

I don't fully agree with your statement but the outcome is the same. We really don't have a doctrine for culture & language. We have some attempts at Training & Readiness manuals but nothing that we can turn to and say 'This is what we train to.'

There are lot of junior Marines and NCOs leading and designing training that hits the target culture, from my experience, this has been going on since at least 1981. The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

When the culture specialist are highered to conduct training, the KSAs play into the highering process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is highered on a subjective basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nichols

The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

When the culture specialist are highered to conduct training, the KSAs play into the highering process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is highered on a subjective basis.

---

I'm with Jennifer on this one; this is how doctrine should be produced. We identify a capability gap, develop local training solutions (as in your small unit trg) then capture that trg and the lessons learnt; which in tern identifies best practice, and this is subsequently written down as draft doctrine. Following the usual rigmarole of 2* and 1* approval it is then published.

All that noted, the cultural and language arena is a flexible one and so probably not best served by the doctrine slaves out there. How many of us read COIN manuals/papers and agree with them only to go back after another 5 yrs or so to find that we have done a complete U turn?

The Trg solution here, to my simple mind, needs to be one that is generic enough to be fit for purpose in any theatre but can also have modules of focussed trg interventions that are theatre specific - Afghanistan for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

The instructor makes a huge difference.

---

Agreed; the instructor is fundamental in all of this. These whizzo online or computerised trg solutions are fine for most but in my experience military personnel prefer to be talked to and be able to ask questions, that can't be done to an iTouch. The technical kit is a great back up, or reminder once deployed, but it does not and cannot replace a face-to-face frank discussion.

I anticipate that someone will jump on that with simulation examples; yes they do work for dvr trg and some scenarios, but as those who have done considerable work with 'indigenous populations' will know that there isn't a driver manual for it and so we have the adage of 'train for certainty; educate for uncertainty.' In the Contemporary Operating Environment it is great, and entirely appropriate, that service personnel 'know' what to do when things get noisy, or how to call in CAS but it is the thinking person that we need, who can do the 'so what' and understands the wider implications of that same air strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

We identify a capability gap, develop local training solutions (as in your small unit trg) then capture that trg and the lessons learnt; which in tern identifies best practice, and this is subsequently written down as draft doctrine. Following the usual rigmarole of 2* and 1* approval it is then published.

---

Something that is missing is that once a capability gap has been identified, a requirement has to be identified and written. Going from gap to training solution will keep us in the current loop of just in time training that doesn't answer the requirement that was never identified in the first place.

'Things' can be built to a requirement, operational & maintenance funds can be sourced to a requirement that will last longer than a just in time solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando Spirit

I anticipate that someone will jump on that with simulation examples;

---

Simulations only work if they are facilitated. No facilitation produces a game that wastes training time.

Simulations in context of culture & language also need to be facilitated. The problem is that the SMEs are not there to facilitate on a daily basis. Simulations can be looked at as the initial ball of clay being formed, it becomes a work of art once the fine details have been chisled in by the facilitator.

Quote:

---

I don't fully agree with your statement but the outcome is the same. We really don't have a doctrine for culture & language...

---

not so sure we disagree...

Quote:

---

There are lot of junior Marines and NCOs leading and designing training that hits the target culture...The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

---

I know, right? I read the materials for several of these classes while researching for something else. A lot of the materials are incredible. Too bad their makers and the contect just wanders away, and the wheel is regularly reinvented.

Quote:

---

When the culture specialist are hired to conduct training, the KSAs play into the hiring process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is hired on a subjective basis.

---

What I have heard (a *lot*) is that the opposite happens- the instructor is hired according the a strict interpretation of the rules. If they have to hire the person with the most time in the field, you get the guy 15 yr old PhD research experience because he has 5 years in the field, and not the guy with two recent tours, because he has less than 5 years. You get someone with a Masters in anthro, with work in behavioral modeling but no military experience, *not* the guy with an undergrad in criminology who worked in intelligence in Iraq.

The key to the most effective training is shortening the feedback loop that gets lessons learned from the field into the training system. While I take exception to the statement that there is not clear doctrine on the instructor hiring process, "As it is currently practiced", training (both program standards, program eval, and trainer standards), knowledge management (KM), and COIN doctrine do not support the most effective cultural training.
-COIN doctrine provides the directive that we should have it, and leaves it at that.
-KM relegates cultural lessons learned to the types of KM tools from which we could never reliably get information out
-Program eval standards allow contractors to evaluate test performance at the end of a course, then say, "We're awesome!" There is no follow up on how that culture or language training was applied (or not applied) in the field.
-Trainer standards block the most qualified, in terms of recent field experience, from being trainers unless they meet byzantine guidelines
-(and this is what we really agree on, nichols) The culture training program standards are being made up as we go along, often by the contractors that are designing the programs (talk about foxes, henhouses, etc.)

But be careful what you ask for...flexibility is also required for effective cultural training, and doctrine doesn't provide that yet. Maybe it's better to be ignored so you can do what you want...

Sidenote: The Peace Corps has done this effectively for more than 40 years. They offer immediately relevant language and culture training to the same age group as most junior enlisted and younger NCOs, that they can implement at a highly functional level within 8 weeks. I've been through it. Institute for Defense Analyses and the Strategic Studies Institute have noticed it (report is here...their methods are not secret. Modifications for a military application are already being discussed, but no one would make nearly as much money off of this type of training...;)

One more thing (I swear): If ya'll think it would be hard to a build cultural interaction simulation that's effective, you should tell the companies that are building them like gangbusters, and to the People looking at buying them at I/ITSEC a few weeks ago.

I went through the Peace Corps training 15 years ago. Language and culture training work b/c it's immersion - both classroom and homestay. Cultural training was minimal and not great at the time but we got plenty of first hand experience. Would have been better to have more tools and frameworks for understanding what we were seeing and experiencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

Sidenote: The Peace Corps has done this effectively for more than 40 years. They offer immediately relevant language and culture training to the same age group as most junior enlisted and younger NCOs, that they can implement at a highly functional level within 8 weeks. I've been through it. Institute for Defense Analyses and the Strategic Studies Institute have noticed it (report is here...their methods are not secret. Modifications for a military application are already being discussed, but no one would make nearly as much money off of this type of training...;)

---

The danger with these types of studies is that they are based off of subjective assessments.

Jennifer, I think we are talking about two different animals here. If you are talking about knowledge learned while in country, yes the Peace Corps has been doing this effectively for 40 years. On the same note there are embedded teams that are producing the same results. If you are talking about pre-deployment training, the Peace Corps does allot more time and depending on the FSI language level, the volunteers could show up with a working knowledge of the language but they were no where near culturally proficient until 3-6 months of living in thier village. My detachment provided basic self defense classes to all new arrivals and we tracked thier progress throughout thier tour. another example of WAWA at it's finest ;) The volunteers that worked with Sub-Saharan French were more prepared than the ones working with Songo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

One more thing (I swear): If ya'll think it would be hard to a build cultural interaction simulation that's effective, you should tell the companies that are building them like gangbusters, and to the People looking at buying them at I/ITSEC a few weeks ago.

---

I know it is hard but not impossible.......Between DARPA, SOCOM, and the USMC we have spent 7 years and a lot of funding to build culture interaction simulations. Numerous 'subjective' reports from returning warfighters have given favorable comments about how effective these products are. We have not drank the kool-aid fully, at the same time we can't do one on one or for that matter one on fifty instructor to student. The simulations compliment, they will never replace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

But be careful what you ask for...flexibility is also required for effective cultural training, and doctrine doesn't provide that yet. Maybe it's better to be ignored so you can do what you want...

---

Flexibility is required but to get funding you need a program of record with no kidding requirements.

BTW, USMC doctrine is all about flexibility via decision making....unfortunately the funding people don't read Wrfighting:mad:;):)

somehow you just knew this thread would be a Nichols-magnet :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BayonetBrant

somehow you just knew this thread would be a Nichols-magnet :)

---

It does seem to be a bit of a hard sell...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

What I have heard (a *lot*) is that the opposite happens- the instructor is hired according the a strict interpretation of the rules. If they have to hire the person with the most time in the field, you get the guy 15 yr old PhD research experience because he has 5 years in the field, and not the guy with two recent tours, because he has less than 5 years. You get someone with a Masters in anthro, with work in behavioral modeling but no military experience, *not* the guy with an undergrad in criminology who worked in intelligence in Iraq.

---

Yup - and it is both stupid and insulting to all involved :wry:!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jenniferro10

The key to the most effective training is shortening the feedback loop that gets lessons learned from the field into the training system.

---

Exactly, which brings us back to the hiring decisions and the simple fact that people are hired for the wrong reasons. Honestly, if a lot of the small unit internal training material could be uploaded on an ongoing basis (and geo and time coded), that material; should be immediate relevance to people deploying to that area. The same goes for Sergeant X with no degree but a lot of real world experience - they should be able to put up their lessons learned.

For most of the actual work of instruction, you don't want someone with an MA or a PhD - you want someone who knows the material, has relevant experience and who can teach. Where the grad degrees get useful as a hiring criteria are when you need someone who has access to a larger knowledge base and (hopefully) can think in multiple dimensions (okay, I'll admit, that lets out a lot of people with PhD's :wry:).

A lot of this is getting back to the difference between training and education. You need training in the immediately relevant and education to both a) triage what will be relevant and b) put it into a larger perspective.

Cheers,

Marc

I'm not sure what to make of the need to ensure that you hire instructors who have the right content.

I'm doing some work in the Canadian Forces right now. I'm one of those PhDs with no field experience. This means, as a subject matter expert, I'm pretty much useless.

I am trying to work on structure. I think I bring them the inclination to recognize each other as having knowledge and the tools to work together to separate wheat and chaff. Yes, sure, I'm delivering some content. That content is, pretty much guaranteed, out of date and otherwise irrelevant. The content is there cause that is the excuse for having people in the classroom. The real focus for me are the 2nd (how to learn and teach) and 3rd (creating a community of practice) order objectives.

These objectives are pretty much driven by accepting that doctrine and curriculum development/delivery cycles will lag behind practice and that up to date mission/theatre specific knowledge and the sorts of sensibilities that will produce coherence from one rotation to the next need to be handled, at least in good part, horizontally.

That, and the Canadian Forces is a pretty tribal organization. The tribal divisions, and a few perverse incentives, do produce incoherence from one rotation to the next. No amount of bureaucratic intervention is going to fix that.