Last week while reviewing some of my dissertation data with the research assistants, we dove into some contradictory remarks.
My data consist of interviews, or “semi-structured conversations,” with veterans at a university during their first semester as undergraduates. During these conversations, I have a set of questions that guide my question-asking. I like this method because it seems to relax the participants. Although since this is all done via zoom, I’m not sure yet if that’s still true. When face-to-face, I’ve noticed only once that a participant oriented towards the recording device (i.e they looked at it while talking to me). If this sounds interesting, I’d check out my advisor’s work on the observer’s paradox.
Anyway, in my data, I talk with each of my participants about their decision to join the military. One participant first described their hometown of blue-collar workers (many who joined the military), and that they felt the collective call of 9/11. Later on in the same interview, while explaining their interest in sports and working out, they prefaced how they played sports throughout high school. And, that they had hoped to go to college and continue playing sports. However, one summer they experienced an injury that prevented that dream. They then explained joining the military as an opportunity. This “opportunity” aligns with my other participants’ explanations for joining the military. They saw the benefits (e.g. paying for school, career, work experience) of joining the military. This also parallels Martinez and Huerta’s (2020) findings in their study about Chicano/Latino males who enlist in the military. They found, among their participants, that joining the military was a pathway to upward social mobility and a career.
What I find interesting about this is the way the participants talk about their reasons for joining the military. It’s transactional. This contrasts with the 9/11 collective call narrative that is in the beginning of my participant’s interview, and contrasts with the narrative I hear so often by folks who joined when I did – around 9/11.
But how do I explain this? I don’t. I think identities are complex and how they emerge in interaction is complex (and messy at times). As a researcher, I think of my role is observing and describing what is going on. If there are contradictory and paradoxical behaviors manifested in the language, then I say “oh that’s interesting” .. and think about it more. What I think is happening is that the participant is drawing on sociably recognizable discourses – the collective call to service that was invoked by President Bush during 9/11 (See Podvornaia, 2013) and the military as a bunch of benefits (this is the stuff that recruiters talk about). All of which they are using to construct their identity.
What I think is interesting and will explore further is the development of a sense of service in my data. Each one of my participants talk about being proud of their service and how they want to continue doing something that benefits people around them.
Martinez Jr, E., & Huerta, A. H. (2020). Deferred enrollment: Chicano/Latino males, social mobility and military enlistment. Education and Urban Society, 52(1), 117–142.
Podvornaia, A. (2013). The discursive battlefield of the “War on Terror.” In A. Hodges (Ed.), Discourses of war and peace (pp. 69–91). Oxford University Press.
