According to a House of Commons Library report published in August 2022, from March 2020 to 2021, women made up about 12% of the total intake in the British Armed Forces, below the 15% target for new recruits which had been set for 2020.
The next ‘Level of Ambition’ stated by the Ministry of Defence is to have women make up 30% of the inflow into the Armed Forces by 2030, with a focus on recruitment rather than retention. Although this number out of context might seem to indicate a willingness to engage with and integrate women in the Armed Forces, there are a plethora of barriers to women's service that remain poorly addressed. This is a massive project which will require cross-Forces engagement, but how does that cross-Forces mindset shift happen? How will the institution suddenly incentivise vast numbers of women to join, and how will it integrate them safely and productively?
Before jumping into such a complex project, what needs to be addressed is the uncomfortable question about whether for the institution, the presence of women in the broader defence space challenges core features of the institution's sense of self. The continuous failings to address these obstacles to women’s service and to integrate women more safely and wholly indicates there might be an existential or ontological threat element here that has been under researched.
This is where the ontological security approach comes in. Ontological security is essentially the idea that we are as individuals trying to secure our own sense of self and sense of identity by repeating patterns and behaviours in a way which reinforces that particular sense of self. This can also be applied in a broader context to states, and I argue, to institutions.
Through my research over the last few years, I have noticed a significant gap in the empirical application of this approach. There has been a lack of engagement with the role of institutions in reinforcing and supporting ontological security seeking practices for individuals, for states, and for institutions themselves.
What connects individuals and states in part, is the creation of institutions which uphold shared values and help the state organise and function productively. The institution which most prominently demonstrates the connection between physical and ontological security-seeking practices is the defence institution, the armed forces. For the purposes of my PhD research, I am looking predominantly at the British Armed Forces (BAF) as a case study.
The BAF has represented power, strength, and uniformity, both physically and ontologically. This connection between the state, the institution and the individuals that comprise and support it is something that has been crafted and reinforced over time.
Importantly, this does not mean that there are no fluctuations in actor behaviour. For instance, when there are changes with new leadership or in the event of controversies. What I am interested in, however, is investigating those core, fundamental values and beliefs that the actor continuously embodies over time, how other actors might challenge those, and how the institution responds.
By ascertaining that institutions hold identities, we can examine the frameworks of selfhood and existence that they perpetuate. Within that framework, there are certain values and behaviours that take primacy over others, and there are some people who fit within that model as well as those who might not fit as neatly in the eyes of the institution. This is not saying that they are incapable of fitting in or that they should not be contributing to that space. Rather, the defence sector keeps them somewhat on the fringes and fails to integrate them fully. It is this challenge that ontological security can help us to unpack more comprehensively.
For example, women have been allowed to serve in any role in the British Armed Forces since 2018. However, there have been a slew of reports released about the treatment of women across the institution. This is disappointing and unacceptable in any case, but particularly in an institution which has at its core a responsibility to defend and protect.
What is missing from those reports is an explicit recognition or acknowledgement that this pertains to a broader ontological security issue, but we can see that this is the case from the way the institution behaves.
It does not actively engage with women in the way that it could make their service better or safer for them, because there is a perceived conflict with historically dominant values and what the institution represents and believes about itself.
The BAF gives the appearance that it has integrated these women or that it is working to that end by, for example, including women more prominently in recruitment campaigns. However, according to Protecting those who protect us: women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life (2021), "64 percent of female veterans and 58 percent of currently-serving women reported experiencing BHD [bullying, harassment, and discrimination] during their careers. The MOD's representative statistics show that BHD and sexual harassment are gendered."
Why would the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces make policies, prepare research and public statements, publish these recommendations and statements, fail to effectively implement them, and then continue to repeat that process? It is a waste of resources and does not help to build reliance on the defence sector as an inclusive space. For example, in Protecting Those Who Protect Us, more than a third of servicewomen who were surveyed rated their experience of the complaints system as "extremely poor."
My research seeks to engage with service members to better understand more about the ways in which we can counteract these challenges around integration and inclusion. Particularly, it aims to strategise as to how constructive policy recommendations can be developed to reinforce the idea that the presence of women in the defence space is not a threat to operational effectiveness; it is an asset.
In the Ministry of Defence’s own Diversity and Inclusion plan, it states that "diversity and inclusion (D&I) contributes directly to operational effectiveness." This disconnect between policies on inclusion and the challenges faced by service personnel is a great example of the ontological challenge that is currently confronting the MOD and the armed forces in the UK and illustrates the importance of unravelling this tension to better integrate and support servicepeople.