Delivering Cultural Competence

[nichols]

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.

[jenniferro10]

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...

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.

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.

[Beelzebubalicious]

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.

[nichols]

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.

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.

[nichols]

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

[BayonetBrant]

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

[Commando Spirit]

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

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

[marct]

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 !

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 ).

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

[ptamas]

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.