I think there's a lot of good points and overlap, here. Mike, a really good literature review should do what you say although, in my experience, a lot of them set up the "opposition" as straw men.
If we were to slightly expand the subject or, rather, to situate it within the context of a "course" of some type, then I think we have a pretty good idea of how it should appear. Start with a quick and dirty theory / methods overview (i.e. paint a very broad picture) with an emphasis on the language used ("Centre of gravity? yeah, like Newton, man! Got it!!!!"), and then follow it up with Wilf's a.-e.
I'll admit, I aim to try and get my students to think and argue for themselves, so I would probably modify some of Wilf's points c & d a touch, probably along the lines of "This is why I find this useful. What in the work struck you as being useful for you? Why would we have different opinions of what is and is not useful?".... stuff like that.
Case in point; I'm teaching a COIN course in the summer, and what struck me about a particular work will, I have no doubt, be quite different from what would strike Mike who has actually been doing the stuff. Even if Mike and I actively colluded on "Why this work is important", we would both have flashes of insight while we were teaching that would be in our own areas of experience. Also, I wouldn't have the experience base to know, in my gut I mean, why something was important to Mike and vice versa. What would be really interesting is where we both went "Yeah, THIS is why it's important" and we were pointing to the same thing .
Which brings up something that has been churning in the back of my mind for a bit. If we were to take Wilf's list which, if I haven't said it yet is great, Wilf , and modify points c. & d. such that, say, four or five people from different backgrounds all pointed out the uses and the flaws of a given book, would that work better? (BTW, I'm assuming that there are some type of pocket bios for the people involved so that the students / readers would know where people are coming from).
Cheers,
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
We have the same problem in our MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) and TLPs (Troop Leading Procedures) during Enemy and Friendly Course of Action development. We're supposed to provide 3 options for the commander. Most take the easy way out and offer one with two strawmen. We cover up our intellectual lazyness with "bright shiny objects" to distract, we try to minimize complex issues by citing, "KISS- Keep it simple stupid." My own personal crusade is trying to explain that for the officer corps, our job is to do the hard, rigorous intellectual process in order to produce a simple plan.
Conversely, without good academics to help me ask the right questions, teach me the prevalent theory, and help deconstruct and put back together my own experiences, then I'd still be using the F-word as a noun, verb, and adjective .
More to the point, in another thread I mentioned the CORE Lab at NPS as a good example of where to be- a "huddle" of theorists, academics, and practisioners founded by Dr. Nancy Roberts and Dr. Doug Borer. This works, but to date, based off the limited funding and manpower, it is limited to helping SOCOM. If I determine that I cannot go back into operations, then I'm going to pursue setting something up in NC at UNC or Duke to assist Bragg or something at USMA to assist the Regular Army.
v/r
Mike
"I'm sorry, I didn't have time to write a short letter". I always keep that in mind when I hear about the KISS principle. Writing something short, sharp and to the point is hard work that requires a lot of discipline (and beer ). It's not for the weak and lazy at all. It's also why I tell me students that whatever they write, I will read (no maximum page length); I'll also judge accordingly, which does scare some of them.....
You mean it isn't ?!?!?! Oh,...., er.... Drat!
The best thing, IMHO, that an academic can do for a practitioner isn't to "teach" them stuff, it is to sit back, listen to their stories, and ask them questions so that they build their own theories that can account for both what they are bringing to the table and what we bring. That, of course, doesn't apply to undergrads who have no experience ...... <GRIN>
Yeah, I remember you mentioning it. It sounds wonderful [ wistful sounds of longing....... ]
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Maybe a useful resource:http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/...e/view/134/273
Abstract:Abstract
Since 9/11 the field of (Counter-) Terrorism Studies has expanded exponentially. With the simultaneous expansion of Internet-based resources, it has become almost impossible to maintain an overview of the field – the more so as a variety of sub-fields have emerged, dealing
with specific aspects of the phenomenon of terrorism. Any researcher dealing with (counter-) terrorism issues on a regular basis would be aided by a guide of web links directing him or her to areas relevant for particular research needs. However, since the knowledge requirements of researchers differ, there can be no universal list that satisfies all.[1] The following short list is
admittedly subjective, serving my individual research needs. They are all from Open Sources. I have grouped them in 15 fairly general categories; much more specialised categories could be selected. By visiting these sites and exploring what is available on each of them, the reader might get further ideas as to where to look to satisfy his or her specific needs. Most of these websites have their own list of additional web resources which can also be very useful. In the following, I will introduce each category with some explanatory notes.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-25-2016 at 04:21 PM. Reason: 16300v before merging.
davidbfpo
Bookmarks