Faculty Blog

Communications and computers remain the backbone for directing and controlling U.S. forces. Attempting to gain joint operational access without resilient technical systems makes command and control significantly problematic. Such as the case when conducting Arctic operations and up to this point is an area that the U.S. Navy has lacked sufficient capabilities. The findings of the Fleet Arctic Operations Game (2011) remind us that tactical reach back for forces operating above the Arctic Circle do not exist. Historically, operators have used multiple communication methods and accepted reduced bandwidth to operate in the region. No material solution until now has been able to satisfy this requirement. Last week the U.S. Navy made great strides in the communications arena by successfully testing the handheld distributed tactical communications system (DTCS) in austere weather conditions across the polar region for the first time. Despite these conditions, engineers in Barrow, Kotzebue and Anchorage were able to carry out conversations via push-to-talk hand held devices with personnel at Navy headquarters in Colorado and Virginia.

Developed by the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory and the Naval Surface Warfare Dahlgren Division, DTCS leverages the Iridium low-earth orbiting satellite constellation to provide on-the-move, over-the-horizon, beyond line-of-sight voice and position location information without the need for local ground infrastructure. This capability will likely provide an unprecedented level of situational awareness for disadvantaged personnel traveling deep into the Arctic Circle to perform missions such as search-and-rescue, maritime patrols, and disaster relief. To ensure fleet proficiency, new techniques and procedures should be adopted, reflected in the U.S. Navy’s Arctic Maritime Response Force Concept of Operation (CONOP), and subsequently practiced in joint exercises such as Operation Nanook and Northern Eagle. However, developing this proficiency is heavily dependent on Commandant Commanders adopting and integrating this capability into a broader joint Arctic strategy – a strategy that has yet to be defined. DTCS is the most significant tactical communications improvement in the Arctic to date.

This demonstration showed how the U.S. Navy can effectively leverage commercial space systems to command and control forces in the Arctic region. The ability to conduct satellite surveillance in the Arctic using High Resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) also remains a significant capability gap for maritime forces. Combining SAR with automatic identification system (AIS) data may provide the navies and coast guards of the eight Arctic states improved maritime domain awareness – perhaps another area which the U.S. Navy can leverage industry and mark another significant milestone in developing greater Arctic capabilities and capacity.

One of the fundamental aspects of gaming that influences your research and game design are the research questions. What questions are you attempting to answer in this game? Accordingly, a purpose statement is first developed which establishes the central direction of the game. Mainly in qualitative games, the purpose statement will describe the central phenomenon, indicate the strategy of inquiry and may even mention the players or individual, group or organization of which a game may support.  From the broad, general purpose statement, the research team narrows the purpose down even further into the game’s objectives. Specific research questions are then developed. In a heavy qualitative, inductive game such as the Global Maritime Partnerships (GMP) Game 2010, the research questions developed assumed two forms: a central question and subsidiary questions. The central question is a broad question that asks for an exploration of the central phenomenon or concept being explored in this game. Ask yourself, “What is the broadest question I can ask in this game in order to effectively investigate the sponsors underlying problem?” The intent of many games is to explore the complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon and present the varied perspectives or meanings that the game participants hold.

Applying Creswell’s model to the development of research question in gaming, the following are some general principles that may assist you in writing broad, qualitative research questions:

a) Ask one or two central questions followed by five to seven sub questions. The several sub questions follow each general central question; the sub questions help narrow the focus of the game and bound the problem you’re exploring.

b) The central question(s) and subsidiary questions should be grounded from the game’s purpose, objectives and related literature (military documents, scholarly articles, etc.).

c) Begin the research questions with the words what or how to convey an open and emerging research and game design.

d) Expect the research questions to evolve over the course of the game in a manner consistent with the assumptions of an emerging game design.

e) Use open ended questions, without reference to the literature or theory. However, in a game where you’re examining specific polices, plans or strategies, or using a document to generate specific hypothesis, it may be appropriate to cite or use this document as part of your research question. For example, one may consider a central research question to be, "Based on the existing Fleet CONOPS, what are the gaps that limit the Navy’s ability to sustain maritime operations in the Caribbean? The specific mission sets outlined in the CONOPS, which are then applied in the game, is your independent variable, and the gaps that preclude you from accomplishing those missions is your dependent variable.

Your independent variables are those that almost certainly cause, influence, or affect outcomes. Your dependent variables are those that depend on the independent variable; they are the outcomes or results of the influence of the independent variables. We may have intervening or mediating variables that stand between the independent and dependent variable (Creswell, 2009). These could be viewed as other factors that may also influence an outcome.  

Once we are equipped with the research questions and hypotheses, we will then be prepared to apply the appropriate model of gaming to a project (e.g. one-sided, one and a half sided, and two sided), develop the data collection instruments, and prepare the scenario and game products.

Quite often in gaming, the research being conducted to address the problems or questions raised by sponsors is highly inductive and qualitative in nature. An inductive approach in gaming, of which is described in the Data Collection and Analysis Plan (DCAP), calls for the collection and analysis of data to identify any patterns emerge that suggest a relationship between variables. The team of gaming professionals will undertake a comprehensive literature review at the very beginning of the research project. However, the literature review is not something that is just conducted early on in the gaming process. Many of the new insights and implications garnered from the data during post game analysis encourages the analysis team to investigate even further in the literature.    

With an approach grounded in learning from the game participants, the literature review is used to frame the problem in the introduction of the game report. This provides a useful backdrop for the reader or sponsor of the problems or issues leading up to the need for the game. Periodically, the literature is often broken out towards the end of the game report, where it is used to compare and contrast with the results that emerged from game play.  However, when a grounded theory or phenomenological study is employed, such as in the case of the Navy Irregular Challenges Game (October 2010), the literature is less often used to set the stage for the game.

The literature review enables the research team to identify the gaps in knowledge that are worthy of future study, challenge current ideas in the field and acquire an accepted theory and apply to a specific area being explored in a game. The review of related literature assist in bounding the scope of the problem, developing the research questions, and understanding the various perspectives garnered from the game’s sponsor. Quite often the most practical and useful application of a games findings occurs when those new insights and ideas can be applied and examined to future games, such as in serial gaming. Between the inner war years, the War Gaming Department was successful in building upon many of the previous games executed, which in turn, assisted in identifying the growing naval threat in the pacific.

When a deductive approach is applied to gaming, such as in the case of the MDA Operational Game (July 2010), the literature review helps provide a source for the focus of the research, which included the development of the games objectives, research questions and hypothesis. Conversely, if a game favors more toward an inductive approach, as it did in the Global Maritime Partnerships Game (October 2010), the analysis team will begin with the collection and analysis of data, ‘a process that leads to questions that are then addressed through engagement with the literature’ (Gray, 2009).

The other component of a literature review that has yet to be mentioned focuses on research methods. The DCAP will discuss not only the research design, approaches and tools used for that particular game, but also for other studies and games and the academic sources used to justify the use of them.