The strategic utility of New Zealand Special Forces
In: Small wars & insurgencies, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 119-141
ISSN: 1743-9558
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Small wars & insurgencies, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 119-141
ISSN: 1743-9558
In: Small wars & insurgencies, Band 22, Heft 1, S. 119-142
ISSN: 0959-2318
In: Intelligence and national security, Band 39, Heft 4, S. 709-728
ISSN: 1743-9019
In: Intelligence and national security, Band 38, Heft 6, S. 920-937
ISSN: 1743-9019
In: Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism: JPICT, Band 14, Heft 3, S. 191-207
ISSN: 2159-5364
In: International journal of intelligence and counterintelligence, Band 33, Heft 2, S. 248-277
ISSN: 1521-0561
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 42, Heft 4, S. 575-595
ISSN: 1467-9221
Building on the U.N. human security taxonomy of 1994, this article aims to explore the constructability of a reliable, valid, parsimonious, useful measure of human security that is relevant to contemporary environments and situations? A seminal 1994 U.N. report, Human Security in Theory and Practice, outlined seven types of human security (personal, health, food, community, economic, environmental, political). A quarter‐century on, we added two more, cyber and national security, and tested if a single measure could capture all nine security concerns. A national sample of N = 1033 New Zealanders completed a brief online measure in which participants reported yes or no to experiencing each type of security and basic demographics. Guttman scaling placed these needs in an ascending order of difficulty. Analogous to a staircase, security may be scaled from personal up to political security (coefficient of reproducibility = .88), with three distinct but interrelated flights: (1) proximal (personal, health, food security); (2) social (cyber, community, economic, environmental); and (3) distal (national, political). We confirmed this nine‐step, three‐flight measure in our sample (Χ2 = 81.72; df = 24; RMSEA = .048, 90%CI [.037, .06]; CFI = .976; TLI = .964; SRMR = .028). The measure showed configural, metric, scalar, and factorial invariances (across random‐split subgroups). Ethnic groups and the precariously employed scored significantly differently, in coherent ways, on the security staircase scale.