PAXsims

Conflict simulation, peacebuilding, and development

Daily Archives: 28/06/2013

Gender and simulation participation

Simpsons-model-UNFrom time to time I’ve had several anecdotal discussions with both students and colleagues about the ways in which participation in classroom simulations might be affected by gender. In my annual classroom civil war simulation we once asked an array of pre- and post-simulation questions designed to measure self-reported learning outcomes, and found no significant gender-based differences. I’ve also collectively asked the class  whether they think gender shaped participant behaviour. Both men and women tend to split 50/50 on the issue, with around half saying there are significant gender-based differences in simulation styles and participation, and about half disagreeing. I really should study it more systematically in the future.

A new article in the Journal of Political Science Education 9, 3 (2013) by Richard Coughlin on “Gender and Negotiation in Model UN Role-Playing Simulations” does just that. His finding are as follows:

This article reports on the relationship between gender and participation at the 2010 Southwest Florida Model United Nations (SWFLMUN). Three major findings emerge from this research: (1) Even though more females participated in the SWFLMUN than males, males accounted for most of the speeches and played more decisive roles in the formulation of the committee resolutions; (2) male and female delegates employed similar negotiating styles; and (3) surveys administered to delegates suggest that males and females derived about the same amount of satisfaction from the conference but that males, paradoxically, were more likely to report barriers to participation than females. These results leave the impression that gender is a significant, but unremarked factor in shaping participation. These findings are discussed with respect to a normative conception of Model UN (MUN) as a mode of global citizenship. MUN is designed to overcome national ethnocentrism by affirming the existence of multiple perspectives on world issues and by establishing a deliberative process through which these different interests and perspectives can be negotiated. The results of this research, however, suggest that gender stereotypes may alter the kind of political socialization that is both expressed and reproduced through MUN. Substantive inequalities associated with these stereotypes may be infecting formally inclusive public spheres—such as MUN—with the effect of coding politics as a competitive, male domain.

India’s proposed Counter-Terrorism Operations Planning Tool and Wargaming System

India CT sim

Earlier this year the Indian Army’s Wargaming Development Centre (WARDEC) issued a request for proposals for a Counter-Terrorism Operations Planning Tool and Wargaming System. According to the RFP “[t]he aim of the Counter Terrorism Operational Planning Tool and Wargaming System is to aid unit commanders in operational planning and to train sub-unit commanders in planning and execution of various Operations in Counter Terrorism (CT) environment.” Other key features of the system would be:

The package will be based on actual area of Operations in a 1:5,000 scale digitised map with option to switch to 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 scale maps, provided by WARDEC. The software will have the facility of incorporating satellite images and air photographs.

[T]he package would be fielded at WARDEC and in the actual Area of Operations of an Infantry Brigade/Sector Headquarters.

The Operational Planning tool is intended to be used both in a standalone and networked mode based on a LAN configuration.

The training audience are required to be trained in planning and execution of various operations in CT environment based on “painted” situations.

The level of game play would be from the battalion down to platoon level. However, the Exercise Control (EXCON) of the game would be from a terminal, dedicated for Exercise Director, who will represent the Brigade Headquarters….

(a) BlueForces. The resolution level for Blue Forces would be down to sub section/Operational Team level for input of orders. All activities below a Team level would be depicted and resolved based on sets of Combat Rules embedded in the system. The behaviour and activity pattern of a single soldier would be modelled in the back end and aggregated to that of an Operational Team comprising 6-8 soldiers. The players would, however, play the game based on this lowest entity of an Operational Team.

(b) Terrorists. The resolution level for terrorists would be individual terrorist

EXCON would be able to set intangible factors like training, leadership, morale, fatigue, fear, support of local population, etc. These factors would have effect on the combat outcome of the forces

The aspect of civilians would be played as an EXCON function. The aspects to be played from the civilians graphical user interface would be:-

  1. (i)  Assisting terrorists.
  2. (ii)  Act as informers to security forces/terrorists (OGWs).
  3. (iii)  Act as human shield during security forces operations.
  4. (iv)  Mass gatherings.
  5. (v)  Blockades.

The closing date on the RFP was back in April. However, Colonel Sameer Chauhan (Senior Fellow, Center for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi) is currently undertaking research on simulation-based training requirements in the Indian Army, and passed on the RFP with a request for thoughts and feedback from the broader professional wargaming community. If you have any comments, feel free to leave them here, or email him directly.

Wargaming and academia

250px-Harry_cupboard_under_the_stairs

Academic wargaming?

From time to time I find myself involved in some version of a “why doesn’t wargaming get more academic respect” discussion, the most recent version of which has been via the Simulating War Yahoo group. Phil Sabin sparked the discussion by noting:

On Friday, I gave a short talk to a research symposium at King’s College about the challenges of using controversial methodologies like counterfactualism and conflict simulation. These challenges have been brought home to me even further recently through concerns that my books and articles on wargaming cannot safely be submitted to the forthcoming assessment of university research lest the assessors turn out to be sceptics, as so many academics are. We will be discussing this controversy and stigmatisation further at the final panel of Connections UK. It was interesting that the questions on Friday focused heavily on the ethics of wargaming – a salutary reminder that the uninitiated see our activities from a very different perspective.

It all has a rather let’s-hide-Harry-Potter-under-the-stairs feel to it, with UK academic assessors apparently playing the role of the Dursleys. Is it indicative of a bigger problem?

Here I think we need to distinguish between serious games and simulations (including conflict simulations) as a teaching technique, and conflict simulations as a research methodology.

Simulations and academic teaching

With regard to teaching,  I don’t think there is substantial resistance to the use of simulations as an instructional technique in most of academia. Indeed, in some social science disciplines (including political science), most undergraduate students will do a simulations or two at some point in their studies. In my own department at McGill University, I include simulation in three of my  courses, and Phil Sabin’s excellent book on Simulating Conflict: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games is required reading in one of my conflict-related graduate seminars;  Vincent Pouliot runs a negotiation simulation in his course on contemporary diplomacy;  Juliet Johnson incorporates a role play simulation into her Russian politics class; and Christa Scholtz does so in her teaching on federalism. Just down the street at Concordia University, Julian Schofield manages to include one or more  simulations in much of his teaching on international relations and strategic studies. McGill alumna Ora Szekely‘s classroom simulation of strategic interaction during the Egyptian revolution (which first appeared here at PAXsims) will be published in a forthcoming issue of the academic journal Simulation & Gaming. The professional/teaching journal of the American Political Science Association, PS: Political Science & Politics,  frequently has articles on classroom conflict simulation, while APSA’s annual Teaching & Learning Conference has so many simulation-related paper presentations they’ve had to establish to two separate conference tracks for them. There are several books by academic publishers with classroom simulation materials (like this and this), as well as online simulations designed for classroom use. In the field of history, the Reacting to the Past series of classroom historical role-playing simulations is now up to nine published volumes (with many more on the way), is used in scores of colleges and universities, and even has regular national and regional academic conferences. Journals on higher education frequently contain articles assessing the educational effectiveness of simulations.

There are, I think, three major obstacles to even greater simulation use in university teaching:

  1. Lack of expertise and familiarity by the instructor. Off-the-shelf simulations may not be entirely appropriate for a particular class, while designing your own can be quite daunting, especially for instructors who aren’t hobby gamers of some sort in their private lives.
  2. Time-effectiveness—that is, a simulation may use up too much scarce student contact time, or may require much more prior effort by the instructor to organize compared with a standard lecture.
  3. Classroom size. Simulations are much harder to manage in large classrooms.

Classroom time is a particularly serious constraint. In North America, the average one semester course involves around 35-45 contact hours in the classroom, or 15 hours per week across all of a student’s classes for students with a full-time course load. In the UK, the weekly average is similar. While the “sage on a stage” method of teaching is sometime derided, lecturing is a very efficient way of getting lots of information across to students in the relatively short time you have them in your classroom. There is thus an opportunity cost involved in running a simulation in terms of a corresponding loss of lecture time. In two of my regularly-taught courses I don’t use simulations at all because they would simply be less effective in conveying what I what to convey in the limited time I have available.

A further challenge is presented by large classroom size. It can be very hard running a simulation with classes that may have over a hundred students in them: doing them in the classroom would be chaos, while assigning them as homework requires very simple simulations that students can easily play at home. Digital simulations might make this easier, but these suffer from limited customizability.

In the specific case of wargames (rather than simulations in general),  one reason they are so little used is that military strategy—and even less so military tactics—are simply rarely taught at university. Most years my own university has precisely zero courses on military history and warfare (as opposed to the history of militarized conflicts). Similarly, my own department’s several courses on war treat it in the context of international relations theory (crisis behaviour, deterrence theory, balance of power and power transition models, and so forth) and don’t really explore issues of strategic or operational art. Within the field of history, scholarship in recent decades has swung away from focusing on great generals and great battles, and instead emphasizes either the social and economic context of conflict, or the lived and everyday experience of war. Consequently, most students of, say, European history never really examine why and how Napoleon won at Austerlitz or why and how the Germans lost at Stalingrad.

This is not, it should be added, a critique of social or political history—approaches that I greatly value, and draw upon in my own work. I do, however, think it is also useful for students to know how wars are fought and won. Indeed, the inability to learn such things at school is a frequent complaint from those of my students who wish to go on to conflict-related careers.

Wargaming and academic analysis

Although the distinction sometimes get lost in  “why doesn’t wargaming get any (academic) respect?” discussions, Phil’s main point concerned the use of wargames for analytical rather than educational purposes. Here I think the picture is more mixed.

Certainly one does not see traditional wargaming being used as an academic research method to understand conflict dynamics and outcomes. In both Simulating War and his earlier book Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, Phil highlights the extent to which wargaming, done properly, is a systematic process of modelling conflict dynamics, and how that essentially theoretical model can then be systematically applied to answer historical or contemporary conflict puzzles. While governments understand this—hence the millions and billions they spend on their own professional wargaming—few academics would even think of it as an available and viable methodology, or have any training in how to do it.

Having said that, however, one does increasingly find recognition that games (broadly understood) can be used to explore the “outcome space” of social phenomenon. Game theorists do this theoretically (and have been strikingly successful in popularizing their analyses). Agent-based modellers do it, often on game-theoretic foundations. A very rapidly growing number of behavioural scientists do it experimentally, and get published in top journals. Data from my own civil war simulation was recently used by a PhD student at McGill as the partial basis for his doctoral thesis in psychology. This broader and growing academic recognition of games-as-analysis could be used to leverage greater progress in demonstrating the potential value of wargaming as a technique of scholarly  analysis.

To do so, however, will probably require several other things. It will require greater attention to methodology itself, the “how to” of wargaming and analysis—especially with regard to issues of model validation. It will require better instrumentation and measuring of games. It will require particular attention to developing rigorous standards of qualitative interpretation, especially in social science fields that have taken an increasingly quantitative term. It may also require greater cross-fertilization between those who do qualitative and quantitative conflict analysis. Finally, it will also need articles to start appearing in mainstream scholarly journals, or, even a special issue of an well-regarded academic journal devoted to the topic–assuming, of course, one could find an adequate number of scholars even able to contribute.

%d bloggers like this: