Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/60350Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.creator | Thomson, C, University of Exeter | en |
| dc.date | 2018-10-22T00:00:00Z | en |
| dc.identifier | 853043 | - |
| dc.identifier | 10.5255/UKDA-SN-853043 | - |
| dc.identifier | https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-853043 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/60350 | * |
| dc.description | 25 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with high-level members of the UK’s foreign, defence, and security policy communities over 2015-17. Their identities are protected as part of the conditions under which they could speak candidly (and due to University and MoD ethics requirements). Key personnel from different government security agencies/departments were selected based on their knowledge of and experience with the design of security policy in the UK.<p>This project seeks to explain how security policy is developed in the UK, and suggest how relationships between different security and defence agencies can be improved. Security policies protect the borders of a nation-state and the security of its citizens and include military, economic, environmental and cybersecurity policies. These policies are designed and implemented by different agencies including military organizations, the intelligence community, and government departments such as the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We live in a fast-paced world where security threats may unexpectedly emerge from state actors such as the Syrian government, or non-state actors such as terrorist organizations. In this rapidly changing security environment it is paramount that national security policies be designed with enough flexibility so as to increase the likelihood of success. Important constraints can hinder this need for flexibility. One such constraint is that members of the security and defence community might fear losing support, appearing as incompetent, or harming the reputation of their agency if they fail to implement a security policy they had previously committed to implementing. This can make them wary of significantly modifying a security policy, even in the face of important environmental changes such as budget cuts or the emergence of new information regarding the predicted effectiveness of its implementation. Such fear of domestic backlash likely played a role in American forces continuing to build up Iraqi security forces, even in the face of compelling evidence that suggested these forces were in fact fuelling sectarian conflict. The first part of this study combines theories of foreign policy decision-making with the real-life experiences of high-level practitioners developed during residencies in key government departments and military organizations. The applicant will interviews elite members of the security and defence community in the UK involved in the design and implementation of security policies. Although the interviews will be carried out with members of the security and defence communities from the UK, the theory will be pertinent to describe the development of security policy globally. In the second part of this study this theory will be tested using innovative experimental techniques to allow a detailed and empirically grounded exploration of the formation of security policy in democracies. Members of the security and defence community will be invited to participate in the online survey experiment. They will read about a hypothetical international security crisis, a policy that was initially proposed by a Whitehall agency, and whether the agency acted consistently or inconsistently regarding its implementation. They will then answer questions about their willingness to support the behaviour of the agency they read about. The answers of all participants will be analysed to determine if inconsistent behaviour is punished when it comes to the design and implementation of security policies. Knowledge will be exchanged with members of the security and defence community during the entire study. This will culminate in the third and final part of this study. Findings will be presented at agencies that design and implement security policy in the UK, so each agency can learn more about how other agencies operate and how they view each other. Also, the applicant will organize a two-day practitioner workshop. Here members of the security and defence community, members of the broader civil society such as non-governmental organizations, and representatives of the media and pressure groups will discuss how actors not directly involved security policy play a role in shaping it indirectly.</p> | en |
| dc.language | en | - |
| dc.rights | Catarina Pamela Thomson, University of Exeter | en |
| dc.subject | UK SECURITY POLICY | en |
| dc.subject | NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL | en |
| dc.subject | STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND SECURITY REVIEW | en |
| dc.subject | AUDIENCE COSTS | en |
| dc.subject | 2018 | en |
| dc.title | Security elite, interview data 2015-2017 | en |
| dc.type | Dataset | en |
| dc.coverage | United Kingdom | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Cessda | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.