Recruit Perspectives on Gender Integration at Recruit Training: A Comparison by Service and Gender

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction Recruit training is the initial entry for enlisted personnel in the military. The Services execute gender-integrated recruit training differently. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) maintains same-gender platoons led by same-gender drill instructors in integrated companies; further integration occurs at select training events. The other Services train recruits in gender-integrated units with mixed-gender drill instructor teams. We examine recruits’ experiences and perceptions of gender integration at recruit training, their desired level of integration, and preferences for increasing gender integration, comparing by Service and gender. Materials and Methods Recruit perspectives and experiences were captured in a 19-question survey (n = 632) and 90-min focus groups (n = 260) near graduation from recruit training. Data were collected from June to November 2021. Because of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions, the Navy and Air Force were not conducting gender-integrated recruit training during data collection. Outcome variables were compared cross-Service by gender and within Service by gender using chi-squared tests or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate; focus group data were analyzed using initial and secondary coding schemes. Three USMC training models, varied by level of integration, were also analyzed (Male-Only, Series Track, and Integrated Company). Results Significant gender differences across and within Service emerged in recruits’ experience being trained by an opposite-gender instructor. Male recruits had significant differences by Service (P < .001), and USMC female recruits reported being trained by male instructors more than their male peers by female instructors (Series Track P = .002; Integrated Company P < .001). In the focus groups, recruits described common differences with how men and women embodied being a drill instructor. Significant gender differences across (both male and female P < .001) and within Service were reported for closeness of training with opposite-gender peers (Air Force P = .028; U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Integrated Company P = .010; Army P = .048), an expected finding given varied integration during data collection. Male and female recruits had significant differences by Service in their preference for integration at the lowest unit level (both male and female P < .001), with those who experienced integrated training showing higher levels of endorsement. In the focus groups, recruits articulated benefits and challenges of gender-integrated recruit training. Significant gender differences across Service emerged in preferences for more integration in specific training activities. Within Service, female USMC Integrated Company recruits wanted more integration in tactical/field, physical fitness, and classroom training than their male peers (P < .001 for all). In the focus groups, USMC recruits of both genders desired more integrated training events, particularly those involving combat and tactical skill development. Conclusions This study provided an opportunity to examine recruit perspectives on gender-integrated training. Services valuing opposite-gender instructor exposure in recruit training must ensure that male recruits are being taught and led by female instructors given disproportionate demographics. Recruits who experienced integrated training were more supportive of integration, indicating that this experience may increase their support for gender-integrated training units and environments. Today’s recruits understand that they are entering gender-integrated working environments, and our results indicate that they expect recruit training to mirror that reality.