Examining the Impact of Peacekeeping Operations on Soldiers' Militarized Masculinities: The Case of Korean Peacekeeping Soldiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender studies of militaries and the dynamics of war suggest that ideas of militarized masculinity are central to the creation of soldiers who are willing to fight and perhaps die in combat. With the rise of national militaries? involvement in peacekeeping operations, feminist scholarship has asked whether employing soldiers as agents for peace is appropriate, or whether involvement in peacekeeping shapes different forms of militarized masculinities. Some scholars argue that due to militarized masculinities that are often associated with violence, aggressiveness, and misogyny, soldiers are unlikely to be effective at achieving peace. On the contrary, other scholars argue that involvement in peacekeeping can produce alternative militarized masculinities that adopt some important qualities for effective peacekeeping such as empathy, respect, and equality. To contribute original research to feminist literature on this question, the thesis examines the impact of peacekeeping on soldiers? militarized masculinities with the case study of Korean soldiers. The field research involved two rounds of interviews with two groups of Korean men: a group consisting of men who completed military service in Korea but who were not deployed in peacekeeping operations; and a group consisting of men who were deployed in various types of peacekeeping abroad. By comparing these two groups, the thesis concludes that while involvement in peacekeeping does not fundamentally challenge the gender norms traditional militarized masculinities rely on, it does contribute to constructing alternative militarized masculinities which are more open to empathy, respect, caring and equality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".