探索为什么警察和军事指挥官做他们所做的:混合战争决策的实证分析

Jostein Mattingsdal, Roar Espevik, B. Johnsen, S. Hystad
{"title":"探索为什么警察和军事指挥官做他们所做的:混合战争决策的实证分析","authors":"Jostein Mattingsdal, Roar Espevik, B. Johnsen, S. Hystad","doi":"10.1177/0095327x231160711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, a total of 102 high-ranking commanders from a military and police background were included in a simulation involving hybrid attacks on Norway. The aim was to explore the commanders’ decision-making in the context of hybrid warfare and changing threats. Data were collected in a simulated national headquarters and analyzed by a multinominal logistic regression method using a scenario that transformed from peacetime into war and returned to peace. The results demonstrated significant differences in the commanders’ preferences for unilateral or interagency forces depending on whether decisions were made in peacetime, war or the post-conflict phase. The results also showed how the commanders’ level of operational experience was associated with an increased preference for interagency forces. The current findings are new empirical insights into a thus far neglected aspect of decision-making research and have implications for improving police-military interoperability in major security crises.","PeriodicalId":130147,"journal":{"name":"Armed Forces & Society","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Why Police and Military Commanders Do What They Do: An Empirical Analysis of Decision-Making in Hybrid Warfare\",\"authors\":\"Jostein Mattingsdal, Roar Espevik, B. Johnsen, S. Hystad\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0095327x231160711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, a total of 102 high-ranking commanders from a military and police background were included in a simulation involving hybrid attacks on Norway. The aim was to explore the commanders’ decision-making in the context of hybrid warfare and changing threats. Data were collected in a simulated national headquarters and analyzed by a multinominal logistic regression method using a scenario that transformed from peacetime into war and returned to peace. The results demonstrated significant differences in the commanders’ preferences for unilateral or interagency forces depending on whether decisions were made in peacetime, war or the post-conflict phase. The results also showed how the commanders’ level of operational experience was associated with an increased preference for interagency forces. The current findings are new empirical insights into a thus far neglected aspect of decision-making research and have implications for improving police-military interoperability in major security crises.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Armed Forces & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x231160711\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Armed Forces & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x231160711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这项研究中,共有102名来自军队和警察背景的高级指挥官参与了对挪威的混合攻击模拟。其目的是探索指挥官在混合战争和不断变化的威胁背景下的决策。在一个模拟的国家总部收集数据,并使用多项逻辑回归方法分析了从和平时期转变为战争并恢复和平的场景。结果表明,根据决策是在和平时期、战争时期还是冲突后阶段做出的,指挥官对单方或跨部门部队的偏好存在显著差异。结果还表明,指挥官的作战经验水平与对跨部门部队的偏好增加有关。目前的研究结果是对决策研究中迄今为止被忽视的一个方面的新的实证见解,并对改善重大安全危机中的警察-军队互操作性具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring Why Police and Military Commanders Do What They Do: An Empirical Analysis of Decision-Making in Hybrid Warfare
In this study, a total of 102 high-ranking commanders from a military and police background were included in a simulation involving hybrid attacks on Norway. The aim was to explore the commanders’ decision-making in the context of hybrid warfare and changing threats. Data were collected in a simulated national headquarters and analyzed by a multinominal logistic regression method using a scenario that transformed from peacetime into war and returned to peace. The results demonstrated significant differences in the commanders’ preferences for unilateral or interagency forces depending on whether decisions were made in peacetime, war or the post-conflict phase. The results also showed how the commanders’ level of operational experience was associated with an increased preference for interagency forces. The current findings are new empirical insights into a thus far neglected aspect of decision-making research and have implications for improving police-military interoperability in major security crises.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Risk Factors for Homelessness Among Post-9/11 Era Veterans Captain Mayor and Sergeant Councilman? An Assessment of the Reach of Military Politicization in Brazilian Politics The Science of Charles C. Moskos: From Institution to Occupation How Does Military Experience Affect Employment: Evidence From China Partners in Love/War: An Explorative Study of Ukrainian Soldiers’ Lived Experiences of Being in a Romantic Relationship in the Russo-Ukrainian War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1