Delivering Cultural Competence

[Commando Spirit]

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

[BayonetBrant]

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

[Commando Spirit]

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

[marct]

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 ), 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"

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 .

Cheers,

Marc

[Commando Spirit]

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.

[marct]

Hi Commando Spirit,

Okay, I've got more than a few thoughts on that (just ask Red Rat !). 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

[Stan]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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?

[Jason Port]

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?

[Commando Spirit]

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!

[William F. Owen]

......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.

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.

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.

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.

[Surferbeetle]

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

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.

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

[Jedburgh]

...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

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

....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.....

[Commando Spirit]

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

[nichols]

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.

[Commando Spirit]

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.

[nichols]

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.