EGG Strand 1 and 2 Brief March 2009

Engaging with Indigenous
Groups in Complex Operations
Dr Kathryn Tomlinson, Strategic Analysis Gp

17 March 2009
© Crown copyright 2009. Published with the permission

of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on
behalf of the Controller of HMSO.
Overview
• Project summary
• Strand 1 How Societies Operate and Change
– Nature of people and relationships between people
– Nature of groups and relationships between groups
– Why change happens
– Political systems, statehood and the international system
• Strand 2 Engaging with Local People
– Principles of engagement
– Approaches to engagement.
27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

© Dstl 2009
UK UNCLASSIFIED Ministry of Defence
Study summary
• Research Question
– ‘How should the UK Armed Forces engage with indigenous groups in
complex operations?’
• Strand 1: How do societies operate and change?
– Analytic understanding of societies
– A range of disciplines: anthropology, development studies, sociology,
political science, political economy, social psychology
• Strand 2: How might UK Armed Forces engage with multiple
groups?
– Practical strategies for engagement
– A range of experiences: MoD, DFID, NGOs, police, evangelical religion,
multi-national corporation, social movements.

© Dstl 2009
How Societies Operate and
Change

© Dstl 2009
1. Nature of people
Naval Officer
• It is human nature to form
groups La
ily
bo
m
ur
Fa
– People have multiple groups Vo
te
– These identities are not static r
– ‘Friendly, neutral or hostile’

does not take account of
multiple influences Brunel Graduate Protestant
• Encouraging identification is
more effective than coercion or
M
b
persuasion an
lu
MOD Main Building

C
C
g
ity
fin
– Finding a group in common
ur
FC
ds
could help gain local support.
in
W

© Dstl 2009
2. Relations between people
• All people behave according to
the norms of their social groups
– People cooperate against their
self-interest
• Kinship relations affect their
allegiances and obligations
• All exchange sets up obligations to give, to receive and to
reciprocate = create social ties
– What we call ‘corruption’ might be legitimate ways of developing
relationships
– What unspoken obligations do the military establish in theatre?

© Dstl 2009
3. Nature of groups
• Groups define themselves in relation to other groups

– Contact with other groups can increase the cohesiveness of one’s
own group
– Labelling people as members increases their group identification
• Cooperation requires trust, which is built within groups
through reputation and repeated interaction
• Messages from groups that are not trusted will not be well-
received, irrespective of the message content.

© Dstl 2009
4. Relations between groups
• Trust also required for cooperative relations between

groups
– Less easily obtained than within groups
• In in-group policing systems, each group uses the other
group’s access to information about its members
– Collective punishment occurs when individual perpetrators from
another group cannot be identified
• Cross-group initiatives unlikely to succeed if imposed
from above
– Must be developed from pre-existing ties and shared interests.

© Dstl 2009
Attack by unidentified
outsider
OTHER GROUP
The group, unable to distinguish between

individuals in the other group, retaliates
against all of them
5. Why change happens
• Groups form complex adaptive systems

– Outcomes of interactions within that system are difficult to predict
• Individuals are constrained by shared ways of doing things
– Superficial changes may not bring about enduring change
• Major change more likely from external shock than internal evolution
– Threat of external shocks can increase group cohesion
– Our presence as a threat may make a group stronger
• It is difficult to predict the unexpected consequences of interventions
• Targeting individuals will not necessarily sway groups.

© Dstl 2009
6. Political systems
• Centralised systems
– A head and layers of authority positions (e.g. states)
• Leadership societies
– Group members follow a leader if in their interest to do so
– Appointing ‘leaders’ from outside is counter-productive as it
undermines their authority
• Headless or segmentary systems
– Groups come together to cooperate when beneficial, but at
other times exist separately, sometimes in conflict (e.g. tribes)
• It’s not easy to convert one system to another.

© Dstl 2009
Territorial political units in a segmentary system
People
Tribes
Primary
segments
Secondary
segments
Villages
7. States & the international system
• States are the dominant form for international interaction

– But insurgent groups challenge states as exclusive international
actors
• UK Government sees state-building as central to
development
– UK involvement in other societies must take into account local
political and social systems
– External involvement will have unintended consequences
• Position of elites is not static; struggles for power lead to
change.

© Dstl 2009
How societies operate: summary
People • Targeting rational calculations of
• ‘Friendly, neutral or hostile’ does not individuals in order to sway groups is
take account of people’s multiple insufficient; we needs to also consider
groups group processes
• People act in ways that are not • As people act according to engrained
necessarily in their individual self social norms, enduring social change is
interest, due to kinship, economic and difficult to bring about - though external
other social obligations shocks make it more likely
Groups Political Systems
• Interaction changes groups. Our • Imposing a state or representative
presence as a threat may make a group leadership system on headless or
stronger ‘leadership’ systems is problematic
• Messages from groups that are not • Different types of elites need different
trusted will not be well-received, key leader engagement (KLE)
irrespective of the message content strategies.
Change
• Inter-group initiatives are unlikely to
succeed if imposed from above and
unless developed from pre-existing ties
and interests

© Dstl 2009
Engaging with Local People

© Dstl 2009
Why engage with local people?
reputation + repeated interactions → trust → cooperation
(exchange) relationship =
obligations to give, receive and reciprocate
+ identification ↔ persuasion ↔ coercion –
popular support highly significant in state and insurgent

political and military success.

© Dstl 2009
Therefore…
Positive engagement with local people is

essential in order to build cooperative
relationships, leading to popular support
for the campaign through ensuring
identification with UK armed forces or our
goals.

© Dstl 2009
Kinds of engagement
• Outcome-focussed engagement
– To achieve specific effect or present a message, short-term focus
• Proactive engagement
– For its own sake and to build trust, long-term focus
• A cooperative relationship better for spreading information
– People use trusted groups to access information
• Outcome-focussed engagement not conducive to building
trust
– may be counter-productive.

© Dstl 2009
The military approach
• Current approach is ad hoc

– Relies on personal skills
– Limited guidance on how to engage
• Proactive engagement not explicitly valued
• Leads to lack of consistency, which affects our reputation
• Short-term focus does not encourage long-term practice
of repeated interactions.

© Dstl 2009
From whose perspective?
• Looking from others’ perspective

– Gives insights into their beliefs and values
– aids identification of them with us and vice versa
• Look for needs and concerns underlying positions and
behaviours
• Engagement involves change in both parties
• The perspective from which we approach it will effect
ownership, sustainability, relationships.

© Dstl 2009
Levels of engagement
• Direct engagement
– Face-to-face, ideal approach
– Enables observations, reactions, more people, consumption
• Indirect engagement
– Mediated via technology, when direct engagement inappropriate
– Best undertaken following direct engagement to build trust
• Third party engagement
– Good when groups fear or unwilling to engage directly
– NGOs in good position but reluctant to share information
– Interpreters and UK military need for cultural awareness.

© Dstl 2009
Levels of engagement continued
• Non-engagement
– Concerns of those not coming forward may be most important
– Resources lacking at our end e.g. female soldiers
– Need openness about engagement purpose?
– Find common goals (identification) for collaboration → cooperation
• Failed engagement
– When engagement has gone wrong: reputation damaged
– Difficult to (re)establish cooperative relationships
– Risks encouraging engagement with our opponents
– Importance of delivering what we promise.

© Dstl 2009
Engaging Well
• Repeated interactions → cooperation, but needs time

– Six month rotation erodes locals’ trust and institutional memory
– Improved data management essential
• Need to understand local culture
– Basic knowledge of cultural and language
– Analysis skills to understand social dynamics
• Cultural training and CULADs in development.

© Dstl 2009
Engagement conclusions
• Improving military engagement with local people

requires
– building relationships before expecting outcomes from them
– avoiding coercion and persuasion wherever possible
– enabling people to identify common goals.

© Dstl 2009
Engagement recommendations
• Formalise the value of proactive engagement

• Keep the approach flexible and creative
• Dialogue rather than messages
• Improve cultural awareness training
• Staggered deployment of Engagement Specialists
• Improve data capture, storage and sharing.

© Dstl 2009
Engaging with local people: summary
Why engage? • If people are not engaging we may miss
• Positive engagement with local people is important concerns. We may lack
essential to build cooperative resources for engagement (e.g. female
relationships, leading to popular support soldiers)
for the campaign through identification • If engagement fails, our reputation is
with UK armed forces damaged, and it is difficult to re-
Principles establish cooperative relationships
• Outcome-focussed engagement to Engaging well
achieve specific effects/messaging is • Trust building needs time: 6 month
less effective than proactive engagement rotation and data limited management
for its own sake systems work against trust building
• Current military approach is ad hoc and • Engagers need to understand local
lacks consistency culture, both basic knowledge and
Approaches socio-cultural analysis skills
• Direct engagement (face to face) is ideal • Use dialogue rather than messages
• Indirect engagement, mediated via • Build relationships before expecting
technology, and third party engagement outcomes, and avoid coercion and
beneficial when groups unable or persuasion wherever possible
unwilling to engage directly

© Dstl 2009
Any questions?
ktomlinson@dstl.gov.uk
01252 455341

© Dstl 2009

EGG Strand 1 and 2 Brief March 2009

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EGG Strand 1 and 2 Brief March 2009

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Engaging with Indigenous

Groups in Complex Operations

Dr Kathryn Tomlinson, Strategic Analysis Gp

© Crown copyright 2009. Published with the permission

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

– ‘Friendly, neutral or hostile’

MOD Main Building

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Groups define themselves in relation to other groups

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Trust also required for cooperative relations between

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

The group, unable to distinguish between

• Groups form complex adaptive systems

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• States are the dominant form for international interaction

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

reputation + repeated interactions → trust → cooperation

+ identification ↔ persuasion ↔ coercion –

popular support highly significant in state and insurgent

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

Positive engagement with local people is

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Current approach is ad hoc

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Looking from others’ perspective

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Repeated interactions → cooperation, but needs time

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Improving military engagement with local people

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

• Formalise the value of proactive engagement

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

27 March 2010 Dstl is part of the

Вам также может понравиться