Increasing Gender Integration in U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Training: Policy Recommendations and Rationales From an Interdisciplinary Study.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes alternate models and policy recommendations created by an interdisciplinary team of researchers to increase gender integration at U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) recruit training. The USMC requested a study to analyze current approaches to gender integration at recruit training and provide alternate models that maximize integration, while continuing to train marines to established standards. USMC remains the only service that segregates recruits by gender at the lowest unit level (e.g., platoon) in recruit training and maintains gender-segregated drill instructor teams (i.e., same-gender teams train platoons of same-gender recruits). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed-method, interdisciplinary approach was used to capture multiple perspectives and informed recommendations and alternate models for gender integration. The team studied select USMC, army, navy, air force, and coast guard recruit training locations, between June and November 2021. At each site, the team collected qualitative, quantitative, and administrative data as well as physical performance metrics and human performance outcomes. Study participants included recruits, drill instructors, training cadre, service leaders, and subject matter experts on gender integration in military services. Each alternate model was designed to maximize the feasibility of implementation within current USMC training conditions. RESULTS: The research team developed three alternate models and several policy recommendations. Alternate model 1 proposed a methodology for mixed-gender drill instructor teams within the Integrated Company model, USMC's current integrated training model. Alternate model 2 proposed an Integrated Company Plus model which increases the number and types of gender-integrated training events at or below the platoon level within the Integrated Company model. Alternate model 3 outlined an integrated platoon model where recruits fall out into integrated training platoons after their morning routine, with two options of varying integration based on USMC priorities for integration. The team also proposed a set of policy recommendations independent of the three alternate models to support current and future gender integration efforts at the Marine Corps Recruit Depots. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-integrated military training has been shown to positively alter perceptions and evaluations of women in military settings over detrimental aspects developed by gender-segregated training. The study team recommended USMC train recruits in the Integrated Company model with mixed-gender drill instructor teams (alternate model 1) and integrate more training events following the priority tiers outlined in the Integrated Company plus model (alternate model 2). The combined execution of these two alternate models would provide USMC recruits increased exposure to direct, sustained training from opposite-gender drill instructors and deliver intentional training opportunities for male and female recruits to work together and interact in meaningful ways. The integrated platoon model (alternate model 3) would offer USMC recruits the most direct exposure to training and working with members of the opposite gender, but it requires substantial changes to current logistics, accountability, and training procedures.

Stigma, status, and population health.

Stigma and status are the major concepts in two important sociological traditions that describe related processes but that have developed in isolation. Although both approaches have great promise for understanding and improving population health, this promise has not been realized. In this paper, we consider the applicability of status characteristics theory (SCT) to the problem of stigma with the goal of better understanding social systemic aspects of stigma and their health consequences. To this end, we identify common and divergent features of status and stigma processes. In both, labels that are differentially valued produce unequal outcomes in resources via culturally shared expectations associated with the labels; macro-level inequalities are enacted in micro-level interactions, which in turn reinforce macro-level inequalities; and status is a key variable. Status and stigma processes also differ: Higher- and lower-status states (e.g., male and female) are both considered normal, whereas stigmatized characteristics (e.g., mental illness) are not; interactions between status groups are guided by "social ordering schemas" that provide mutually agreed-upon hierarchies and interaction patterns (e.g., men assert themselves while women defer), whereas interactions between "normals" and stigmatized individuals are not so guided and consequently involve uncertainty and strain; and social rejection is key to stigma but not status processes. Our juxtaposition of status and stigma processes reveals close parallels between stigmatization and status processes that contribute to systematic stratification by major social groupings, such as race, gender, and SES. These parallels make salient that stigma is not only an interpersonal or intrapersonal process but also a macro-level process and raise the possibility of considering stigma as a dimension of social stratification. As such, stigma's impact on health should be scrutinized with the same intensity as that of other more status-based bases of stratification such as SES, race and gender, whose health impacts have been firmly established.

Stigma and Status: The Interrelation of Two Theoretical Perspectives.

This article explicates and distinguishes the processes that produce status orders and those that produce stigmatization. It describes an experimental study in which participants were assigned interaction partners before completing a task where they had opportunities to be influenced by the partners and opportunities to socially reject the partners. Results show clear influence effects of educational attainment and mental illness but no effects for physical disability. Social distance effects are present for mental illness and physical disability but not for educational attainment. Results additionally show that stigmatizing attributes combine with task ability in affecting influence and also suggest that task ability may reduce social rejection. These results indicate that stigmatizing attributes combine with status markers in a way similar to previously studied status attributes. The findings extend traditions of research on status and stigma while also having potentially important implications for strategies to reduce inequalities based on mental illness.