Cultural Intelligence (merged thread)

[marct]

Hi Rob,

I guess I got hung up on what bothered me. The reason I said it was out of reach is because I don't like statements like "with minor adjustments" which really mean units are supposed to do all the stuff they are currently doing, plus all the "good idea fairy" products put forward by folks with good knowledge, but a frame of ref. that may be a bit distant on what these guys on tactical staffs are being asked to do with limited resources.

I've had the same problem with people "tacking on 'minor' questions" during my fieldwork. Half the time they made no sense . That "minor adjustments" is really a key phase saying "get us what we want but we can't tell you what we want 'cause our model sucks except in ppt presentations to the brass".

Ron, I've read a couple of the papers you've written and, on the whole, I would say that you probably have a much better idea of what is going on than the "academic" types who came out with that article. If you want, I can track down the references that they are basing that entire system on (95% sure it's Selznick's stuff on groups from the 50's and 60's). Honestly? I think yu are learning more and getting a better view of "their" reality by sitting around chatting and doing whqat you normally do. Forget acting as a data collection device. If they want to "know" what's happening, tell them to get their fundaments over to Mosul and stick around for a couple of months.

The authors had some good points about types of info to collect, but did not offer up ideas on how to collect all this great info from unbiased residents, how to set the criteria for what it meant or how to ensure the analysis on the info would be unbiased.

Therefore, this is pie in the sky modeling - you get blamed for not getting the right data, and they get more money to build useless models. One of the tricks of doing social science research is to figure out how to communicate it. The model in this article is brilliant at communicating results to funders but, on the whole, I really wonder about how well the taxonomy they use applies to the people they are supposed to be studying.

Years ago I was asked to critique an interview schedule by an MA student who wanted to look at modern Witchcraft (this was just after I finished my MA looking at it). One of the questions on the schedule was "When did you decide to worship Satan?" Since 99.9% of modern witches consider Satan to be a member of the Christian pantheon (long story that I won't get into), the question was, actually, meaningless to the group being studied. However, since her supervisor was a fundamentalist Christian, it had great meaning for him. This is the type of disjuncture I see happening in this article.

[quote=Rob Thornton;8865] BN and BDE level staffs are generally tapped out with tasks. Its possible they might be doing the wrong stuff, but if so it may be because that is what the CDR told them to do. If we want taffs to be able to do the many things we'd like them to do, its going to take allot more then "minor changes" I think.[/QUOTE}

In my totally biased and un-humble opinion, I would suggest that everyone who is embedded in an IA or ISF unit get a quickie lesson in Anthro fieldwork. My grandmother gave me a saying that really synopsizes Anthro fieldwork well - "God gave you two ears and one mouth - that's a hint!" Listen and learn how people see things; ask questions, and don't act like an arrogant know it all (yeah, I have had troubles doing fieldwork ). Pretty soon, you end up with a fairly god idea of what te people you are working with / living with think and how they see the world. Then you can explain it to the REITIs (Rear Echelon Ivory Tower Idiots).

Sorry about the link - I should have tested it first (but it worked in the email I got )

No worries - it was a "current article" link rather than the permanent one.

Marc