Universities as Safe Spaces: A Place to Learn and Building Resilience? A Case Study on Education of US Military Veterans

Abstract

This study investigates how US military veteran students perceive the transition from the military to university and how education facilitates their adaptation to society. US military enlistees are often recruited from populations of lower socioeconomic status, and upon completion of military term, are returning to society disillusioned as to future employment and feeling apart from society. Low self-value and hopelessness haunts these men and women. Veterans are offered support for both education, housing and living expenses after ending service through the GI Bill, to help ease this transitional time back into civilian life. The teaching model to approach teaching this population is grounded in andragogical care and in active facilitation. The findings are based on a case study with interviews of veterans attending universities and earning academic degrees. The main findings indicate that professors who are working as relationship mentors in addition to being academic educators is of high value for creating safe spaces for university-society relationships, engagement, and confidence.

1. Introduction

Reintegration into a civilian community following military service can be a stressful time for veterans. As a means to ease the transition back to civilian life, the veterans in the US are offered financial support for further education at universities [1]. Such efforts are reflecting a view of universities as providers of educations that can help individuals to improve their prospects in labour market and thereby support the weakest in society [2]. In the US, the military actively recruits soldiers from populations of lower socioeconomic status (SES). By offering education to the lower SES, the universities are delivering on their social mission [3]. While the service members are within the military system, they receive both education and a salary to provide for themselves and their families, but the retirement age is young. Many are returning to society with an education that is not giving them further job opportunities, so taking education can be of high importance to avoid many of the hurdles that many veterans are facing.

When ending the military career, the veterans are leaving a shared culture behind and this can lead to lack of belongingness, hopelessness and emotional distress [4]. The incidence of depression and suicide is higher than in other groups of society [5]. The adjustment from the control and command environment that characterizes the military to the openness that characterizes life as a student, might be a daunting or at least challenging task [1, 6]. Without the uniform, the veterans are not visible as veterans (and the acknowledgement that includes from the surroundings) and they can feel isolated with no social network and this enhances the struggle to adapt to this new environment [6]. Veterans share experiences that are unique and can be difficult to understand for non-military people. Much of the literature on military veterans are focusing on “wounded warriors”, veterans that are suffering from physical or psychological disabilities following their service [7]. However, most of the military undergraduates that enter higher education are not wounded, but there is a risk of being stigmatized as such. The veterans are often motivated and serious students, with a goal to achieve career development [6]. Such engagement also influences development of the area where the soldiers are living, either this is in rural or urban regions. Most of the ex-military are applying for education at colleges and universities close to home and intend to return to their neighborhood to apply their new skills and knowledge [6, 8]. In a report from the American Council of Education [9], it is claimed that 75% of the undergraduates are choosing education according to place. Thereafter the choice of program is of importance for selection of education (52%), followed by cost of education (47%). The ability to combine work or focusing on career advancement with studies is also of high value for non-traditional and mature university learners [10], as the veterans.

In our chapter we are focusing on education and how this can contribute to sustainable development related to education of veterans. In the literature on sustainability in place-shaping and development of regions, there is an increasing focus on education [11], and universities as part of their mission are expected to contribute to regional engagement, together with teaching and research [12]. On this background we are posing the following research question to guide our study:

How does the university create a space for educating veterans and facilitate their return to society?

In the continuation of this chapter, we are introducing what options for US veterans are offered regarding education after service. We thereafter present our theoretical framework and methodological approach. The analysis is discussed in the light of theories thereafter and the chapter ends with a concluding section.

2. The US context

When soldiers are returning home after ended service, they are granted different kinds of readjustment benefits. Examples of such benefits are educational. The veterans can get funding to cover college tuition, living expenses and housing during their educational period. This arrangements goes back to second world war, to make the transition from the strict and hierarchical military life back to civilian life more soft [1]. This support system started in 1944 with The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also called the GI Bill), and the act has been expanded several times to come in line with the costs of education and living conditions [1]. Most recently, the Post 9/11 GI Bill increase the education benefits from 2009. Between 2007 and 2008 and 2011–2012, the use of Veterans’ education benefits by military students increased amongst both undergraduates from 36 to 55% and graduate students from 22 to 46% [8].

In 2011–2012 there were about 1.1 million military students enrolled in undergraduate education, up from 914,000 in 2007–2008 [8] and the prognosis was that this number would pass 2 million enrolled students around 2020 [1]. It is interesting to note that based on statistics from 2016, more veterans than non-veterans in the US have earned and taken some college courses, have earned an associate degree and/or an undergraduate bachelor’s degree than non-veterans. And though graduate (master) and doctorate level numbers compared veteran to nonveteran populations are similar, veteran numbers are higher than non-military populations in every category of degree completion [13].

The largest campus group of military undergraduates is prior-service military veterans: individuals who have served in the military for at least three years, have been medically discharged for physical or mental injuries. Others have completed their service commitment and are transitioning to their next career path or life goal and returning home to family. Compared to traditional students, this demographically diverse tends to be older and married or partnered than the traditional student. The majority are male (26% female) [14].

Faculty grounded in best practices to reach this particular population of adult learners approach their classroom interaction through the andragogical model of learning, a model specifically designed for working with adult learners [15]. The andragogical classroom acknowledges that students and faculty are equal, that both teach and learn together and that students want to be pro-active in their learning process. Additionally, students and professors constructing learning together through intimate and intense interactions is a methodology respected for effective adult education experiences [16].

3. Theoretical framework

As a framework to study US veterans entering higher education, we are drawing three theoretical strands from the literature: placemaking, culture and social cognitive theory. The reasoning for this is to have theories that are suitable to analyze different aspects of our theme. Placemaking emerges from anthropology and urban planning fields within academia and is suitable for highlighting the relationship between institutions and individuals in development of regions. Cultural theories are suitable to analyze characteristics of society we are living and operating in, and the social cognitive approach is suitable for studying individuals and their reflections of personal development and how this tie into regional development.

4. Place-making and role of higher education

From the view of place-making, all human beings creates places to live from the areas they are finding themselves [17]. Place making happens in a physical space, and such spaces can be public or private, they can be marked by physical walls, maps, they can be found on GPS monitors and boundary or geographic dividers [18]. The physical space is more than a physical space, it is ‘space plus meaning’ [18], This meaning is socially constructed and operated through the individuals or groups that is taking part [19]. Place-making focuses on the processes between different actors to shape and develop the geographical area they are living in [20]. Placemaking is discovered through the experience of being within it and allows for the transformation of one to be in the space and the space as a reality and a space for exploration [21]. The sense of space is referred to as a reflection upon a space of individual experiences and the emotional ability to be able to identify a place of familiarity and awareness [22].

Placemaking for military personal can in the light of this population, be less engaged to specific geographical places, as the workspace for military personal is not confined to an office and during active duty, they risk moving several times during their career. Military life is characterized by work and deployment in shifting environment. Still, as placemaking depends on that the individuals and communities are willing to engage in bottom up activities through direct citizen participation or citizenry to make the places [23], serving in the military can be seen as such activities to build the places they are sited. Our focus in this chapter is not directed to the military space, but rather to the spaces they are entering after returning to their communities to follow up on placemaking activities when they are entering the classroom space while pursuing higher education.

In this study we are applying the lenses of “safe spaces”, areas where students can feel accepted, not isolated or alienated, threatened or intimidated [24]. Active-duty combat is a space of danger, and military workers know their life may be lost due to the space in which they are fulfilling their job requirements and their commitment to their country and being in such an environment can influence the students’ perceptions of their surroundings. From the educational side, there has been a focus on creating ‘safe spaces’ that can ease the transition to civilian life. But the concept of safe spaces is contentious and are meeting critics for coddling the students. Gill [25] is addressing this ongoing debate and is emphasizing that this is not a context for such coddling. The spaces are supposed to provide room for the contestants to be challenged on their abilities, ideas and views and encouraged to grow personally and professionally, but within the frames of freedom of abuse. Some American universities and colleges are specialized in targeting ex-militaries to enhance their educational background and increase their capacities to engage in community and work life and in that way participate in development of the local communities they are living. Acknowledging the experiences former military bring to the classroom is an enhancement, rather than an accommodation [26] and thus, the totality of the course experience in enriched for all involved.

In our chapter, placemaking is hereby divided in two: Firstly, from the educational side, the university and faculty contribute directly into shaping society through supplying education, performing research, but also third mission activities. Our focus is narrowed to the classroom and teaching related activities spurred towards improving living conditions for former military, but we also take a closer look at the education situation and how this can create a safe space where the students can be equipped for getting a job and otherwise contribute to their surroundings. Secondly, we focus on how the individual veterans are bringing the capabilities they have gained through education back to the communities they are living. From the view of place-making, the veterans are not passive recipients of teaching and education, but co-creators together with the faculty. The development of society relies on this interaction and co-creation between the actors involved. This perspective provides a framework to look at the co-creation that goes on through education of the veterans, between university and the individual students. In placemaking, the focus is on ‘locatedness’, being here – what is special for this region or location [20]. This could be followed up by taking a closer look in relation to social elements (e.g., what characterizes this particular social setting); political elements (what problems are to be addressed and prioritized and what framework are available or hindering development) or managerial elements (e.g., within the educational or local setting). Placemaking is both a policy and a practice [19].

5. Cultural features of society and the military

To focus on culture of military and education, we are applying Hofstede’s model of cultural differences within society and between countries [27]. Hofstede’s model remains the most widely adopted in the field of education [28, 29], still, critiques are raised towards applying this model on the study on education. E.g. Signorini et al. [30] claims that there is a lack of empirical evidence from this sector, and there is a risk of treating culture as static and not dynamic. We are further investigating this critique and claims by incorporating some questions from Hofstede’s theory in relation to our study, individualist/collective cultures, and power distance.

The American society holds cultural characteristics that is considered opposite of the culture in the military, and this can influence the potential confusing path back to society. Culture provide patterns of thinking and feeling with huge impact of the acting of individuals [27]. The American society is by the surveys of Hofstede [27] characterized as the most individualist country in his study, whereas the military can be considered by a collectivistic approach. In individualistic societies, people are expected to look after themselves and the ties between people are loose. People prioritizes their own goals over others and are motivated by personal preferences, needs and rights [31]. In collectivistic societies or groups of society, the culture is based on (and depend on) tight coupling between people [27] and the cultural norms reflect that the group dominates over the individual [32]. The participants are integrated into groups with unquestioning loyalty in exchange for protection of the members. This is particularly salient in war situations, but the soldiers are socialized into such a mindset in the pre-war service. In such groups, the individuals are willing to prioritize the collective goals over own preferences, and another hallmark is collaboration, teamwork, and relationship-building. Due to a mutual dependency and loyalty are other features, and the interest of the group shadows the individual [33]. There are of course individual differences also in collective groups, but collectivistic oriented people are more motivated by the norms and obligations following the group. When the former military are entering higher education, the approach are shifting from the collective military that fosters more of a communal and collaborative work environment [34] towards an individualistic approach. Assignments and university coursework in higher education is a strongly individualistic endeavor and from this approach we are interested in studying how the ex-militaries are experiencing this transition and what experiences they are bringing into the student life that is of value for a student.

Another feature studied by Hofstede [35, 36] which can be of importance for ex-militaries returning to society is the power distance. Power distance is related to the distribution of power amongst people (e.g., leaders have more power than subordinates or followers). This distance tend to be rather low in English speaking countries [35, 37], while the military is built by a hierarchical system that is based upon power distance between the levels. The level of inequality is supported and endorsed by the leaders as well as the followers (ibid). When the veterans are leaving the military, they are leaving a culture where everybody has their place and tasks within the hierarchy and entering higher education where they as students are individually responsible for finding their way. This gives the soldiers two sets of contradictive cultures to relate to (high power distance in the military, and low in civil society). Even so, the image is perhaps not so simple, as the university system also has its hierarchy of academics and managers and where the students are at the bottom of the knowledge hierarchy. In our study we are following up on how the power distance is perceived by the students and how this is influencing their benefit of education.

6. Social cognitive theory

We now turn to a theoretical angle that is oriented towards the individual student and how they assess their abilities to learn and develop, social cognitive theory. In this perspective, the actors are also perceived as pro-active agents who exercise control of their own development and change [38, 39]. People are not passively adapting as re-active organisms towards the influences that are coming their way. Still, such human adaption takes place within socio-structural settings, so this is not solely an individual project. Bandura [40] therefor claims that people are both active agents that are producing social systems, at the same time as they are products of the systems.

Individuals are able to reflect on their abilities to regulate behavior, feelings and thoughts [41]. These self-reflective actions can be studied from different angles. Self-assessment relates to what ability the individuals have to consider their personal qualities and qualifications. Self-esteem reflects the ability individuals have to appreciate themselves and their self-worth [42]. The self-efficacy relates to the ability of individuals to work towards specific goals and achieve the outcomes they wanted [40]. This is closely related to confidence and perceived capability [43]. In the regulation of behavior, the choice of actions relies on past experiences and the social systems they are a part of [44]. Persons who have been performing well, tend to have higher level of self-efficacy and motivation than persons with low performance [42]. The effort from HEIs to create so-called safe places can be of importance to influence the self-efficacy of students with lower confidence. Here we are following up on how students are working on assignments and how this is influencing their self-esteem. The contact between students and professors, but also though the different types of networks that is built through education can also be of importance here. And Knowles’ [15] method of weaving real life experiences into a classroom of active learning evokes real-time learning from both faculty and from students.

One aspect of being in a social environment, is that attitude and behavior is learned by observing others in similar situations [45]. Perceptions of self-assessment can spread to others within the social setting and work as a model between groups at a collective level. As mentioned above, the veteran students are often older than other students [1], since they have been in the military for years before they are entering colleges or universities. Through their service, they can have developed a high level of self-efficacy due to mastering their work but entering a new scene like the HEI-sector can have negative impact on their confidence. Many of the veteran students come from segments of society that have not received higher education, and many of the students are the first in their families to get into higher education. How do this influence of their self-efficacy? Is there anything the HEIs can offer to support the learning environment for this student group? Studies have shown that enjoyment and positive learning related emotions have a positive effect on learning and academic performance [46].

7. Methods

Our study adopts a mixed-methods approach [47], combining desk-top analysis of policy initiatives regarding education of the ex-military and interviews with reflections recalled during these educational experiences post-military service. We interviewed eight US military personnel of various rank and branch, all of whom were university students in the US following their service in the US military. To secure the anonymity of the participants, we are labelling them P1–P8. It is to be noted that study participants represent all four branches of the US military and various rankings are mentioned in interview responses. For example, E7 is a first non-commissioned officer rank, designated as a senior non-commissioned officer.

The interviews took place via Zoom during the global COVID-19 pandemic, and were conducted in traditional, 1-1 style. While both authors conducted interviews, there was only one author and one subject on each zoom call. The interviews ranged in length from 30 minutes to 90 minutes and were recorded and transcribed verbatim by a third party for this study. The interview guide was following by authors for each interview and a consent form was sent and returned via email by each candidate.

8. Analysis in the light of the theoretical framework

In this part we present the empirical observations from our study and analyze these in the light of the theoretical framework.

8.1 When placemaking is shifting from the global to the regional

The participants in our study were based at different parts of the US, through their service, depending on where their military branch was sited. The veterans had also been stationed farther out at different parts of the world during their services. After retirement, the world map has been replaced with local maps into the classroom, but the impact of changing geographical surroundings is a part of the experiences the students are bringing into the classroom. What we emphasized from this is not their efforts in placemaking and building (or harming) societies in relation to battles and preparations for going into armed forces, but how their experience from the military is intertwined with their further education when entering higher education.

The motivations for pursuing higher education amongst our participants varied, some had deliberately served in military so they could be able to get education afterwards, others wanted to fulfill educations they started during services, others wanted to elaborate on their skills and qualifications, and one was tired of manual work and wanted to get more education so he could use his talents differently:

I think it was probably about the 1000^th time that I had to scrub rust off a diesel engine and pickup heavy things and carry them around I decided, that… actually, I would rather do things where I am paid to think rather than paid for what I am capable of lifting and carrying. P7.

Placemaking emerges from the meetings between the actors in the geographical areas they are acting [20], and through the interactions and processes they are developing the spaces. Through the classrooms and campuses at the HEIs, the veterans are engaging with several groups. The students emphasized the support from a range of people in different positions within the educational system:

I was engaged with the finance department to make sure that everything was taken care on that side. That they didn’t need anything else. I was engaged with the advisor from the Military Club. I was engaged with my professor, or the Dean of Academics there and even some of the campus deans and so yes, there was a connection there. There was a connection to other veterans. There was a connection to other students. P4.

Most of the participants highlighted the importance of other students. One told that the other students; …understood the struggles we go through. These secret codes, like, you know, just little things… like the showing up 15 minutes early or having a hard time focusing (P2). On this background, it seemed like the students also contributed to building the ‘safe spaces’ [24] needed for being able to pursue education. The contribution from the faculty was also of importance to create the safe spaces. Professors who were giving extra attention to the students, in addition to classroom education, were valuable for the student group. They taught me more than just getting a great education, they really helped me getting a lot of things into place, P4 illustrated. P3 highlights:

There is… like… a professor that I had for… like… 3 semesters in my undergrad. I had a connection with her, the reason being is because she actually took the time. You know, sacrifice her personal time, to actually meet up with students and she guided us and actually answered the questions that we were actually confused about. Some other professors would tell us: Review the syllabus! But, I mean, that was not answering my question. P3.

The experiences from the military were supplemented by education after service and through the education, the students gained further qualifications to participate in bottom-up activities to build society through citizen participations [23]. In placemaking the focus on locatedness is also of importance, what is special in this region [20]. The student came from different areas, and some of them came from poorer regions and lower SES. By being in the educational system, they were giving opportunities to contribute with third mission activities that was gaining the society around. In such areas, placemaking activities could be practical activities, as: …going to read for the [local annual] Dr. Seuss weeks, go reading to the schools and stuff like that. Giving back to the community that way (P1). Third mission activities could also be geared towards supporting other veterans, as illustrated here form the establishment of the “PCs for Vets”-group:

We started the “PCs for Vets” [Personal Computers for Veterans]. When we started that, it created an atmosphere, not everybody needed a computer, but some people wanted to learn how to refurbish a computer, so that became magnetism and some people needed computers and that became a magnetism. And then the professors were talking about it in class. Like if you don’t have a computer at home, go see PCs for Vets and we would look and see and make sure they were veterans. There were a couple people that weren’t veterans, you know, they were poor. We tried to help them out too. You know, it is not only veterans, but we tried to help others too. P5.

Placemaking are dependent on contact between different actors [20], and the professors, students and through student activities they elaborated on their networks. These networks were also of importance to getting into the job market in the region – but also at national and even international level.

Now I have these lifelong friends who are so supportive, and I think that as veterans, we need that network of support and I have gained that through education, but it has also opened so many doors… I have gotten the opportunity to do some really high-level work and now I’m… um you know… my goal is to work for the United Nations and do UN work and I am already on track for that. I am also doing other things that I could never imaging. I have to pinch myself because, yeah, a door is going to but international level also?... It is without me even seeking it. P2.

But not all the students are telling those ‘Happy stories’. We want to follow up on the concern of Benneworth et al. [48] regarding presenting simplistic stories. The university do play a significant role in providing a base for people to sustain and improve their lives, but the role of universities to improve lives for the individuals by strategies and leadership is questioned [49]. Most of the participants in our study are representing such success stories, but the path is not without hurdles and some of the students are telling stories of struggle to find their place. For the youth entering the military, the transitions from civil society to the military might be challenging, to fit into the military system likewise, but also the return to society can be a daunting task – regardless of education. Some of the students were also relating to the downsides of being poor and seeing the military as a solution for a steady income to support themselves and their families. One of the participants entered the military and felt he did not fit into the system:

I actually got uncomfortable with not fitting in. Because I was very nerdy, kind of precocious… um… and went into the Marine Corp and was enlisted and did not entirely fit in there. And then I got out of the Marine Corp and went through academia and was a former enlisted Marine amongst a bunch of people who had gone to college, gone to college, gone to college, until finally college kicked them out. Yeah, I have never really fit in and that was just kind of an extension of that. So, I may not be a good example of I guess a more standard transition. P7.

Later in the interview this participant is telling about how it was to enter the civil labour market and the skepticism he was meeting in the job situation, due to his former military background. “Overall, they hold me at arm’s length a little bit more than somebody who did not go in the military.” (P7).

8.2 The return to the individualist society

The veterans grew up in the individualist US society, before entering the more collectivistic oriented military life. The transition period from military to civilian life can be a highly anticipated time and a turning point in the life of a military professional. This is also a time of fear, fear of the unknown, of what is to come and the trepidation with not knowing the future. When asked about this transitional period, we heard a variety of responses from our participants, but most of them found the transition unproblematic. The quote from participant 7 is illuminating this transition from being part of a collective culture where the participants were depending on each other [27, 32] for survival until the role as individuals and students where the student were embracing this new situation:

…We should all be having fun doing this…Nobody dies because of what we do….I guess my first job in the Marine Corp, I was responsible for keeping a vehicle crew alive if anyone started shooting at us. And now, my job amounts to filing paperwork and coming up with new research. (P7)

The participants also highlighted that even in collectivistic societies as the military, the individuals also must take responsibilities, and staff with higher ranks are in more autonomous situations.

Well, even in the military you had to figure out some things on your own. Especially as you get up higher rank, so you are developing everything else. My job when I was in the military was in training, planned training and operations. So, we naturally used prior exercise, prior scenarios to build a new one. So, we didn’t have to reinvent the wheel all the time. So, with that, transition between the military and schoolwork wasn’t any problem for me at all. (P6)

Still, the transition from the military life to life as a student was a shift in pace and lifestyle, that the participants had to deal with on the individual base. In the individual society, the persons are supposed to look after themselves [27] and that can be challenging:

It was very difficult because I was, actually, like… on the go… and very rapid lifestyle. Now that I am in school, it was actually kind of a hard transitioning because I have so much energy. I actually had to try to learn how to experience that by myself. (P3)

As mentioned in the introduction, some veterans are ending their service due to injuries. The militaries are socialized and trained to the collectivistic approach, and the greater good is trumping individual needs. By the end of the service, it can be a daunting task to start looking after yourself to heal and be able to function in society:

It was not realizing I had PTSD and also because it is so taboo to ask for help in the military. Because you are trained to keep pushing, keep going. You could be bleeding to death, and you will be trying to get to the finish line, whatever that finish line is. So, for me, the transition was difficult because, um… I now had these disabilities, that I had to deal with while going to school, working and now with these disabilities, it was like a big bomb! (laughing). You know, so that was the difficult part for me. (P2)

We were also curious about how the professors were meeting the participants and how they were a part of this transition. Some professors are just… they just want to do their job and go. Some professors they care (P5). It seems like meeting professors who actually cared about the students who struggled, was of high importance for easing the transition period, and this is in line with creating the safe spaces for the students [24].

…There were some professors that were actually hands on, actually explained everything so you can better understand it. Or, like, when I turned an assignment in, they didn’t hit me on too many points. They actually explained it, like, how this is going to be important… going for your Master’s degree and moving forward and I will be when compared to like some other professors where just how I explained about the Master’s program, you need to follow the ... they actually just deducted all those points without an explanation” (P3)

The last thing we highlight in this section in related to race and the experiences both in the military and the university, here expressed by one participant:

First of all, all of those things [race, gender, religion] mean a lot more in academia than in the military. In the military, they really couldn’t care less what colour anybody was. You are all there for the same reason …Relate that to academia and suddenly all these things matter a lot more. To be honest, I still have a hard time taking them seriously. I really don’t think it should matter (P8)

If we are interpreting this in the light of the cultural framework, it seems like the collectivistic culture were depending on each member [32], no matter race, gender or religion. This became more of an issue when entering higher education and thereby the individualistic culture. We are not saying that discrimination is not to be found in the military, but it is more subtle, not so easy to catch as in the university. Still, such themes seem to influence the exit from the military, the transition process and ability to come back to society, as reflected on by participant 2: Um… I think the underlying to everything to my personal trauma was definitely racism. And I think that is what drove me out (P2).

The second theme we focused on in relation to Hofstede [35, 36], is the power distance and how this was influencing the managerial styles of the professors in comparison to the military.

Oh, so different! I mean, I think that the beautiful part of having the professors that I did … they are really interested in your success. Really interested in seeing you succeed, versus telling you what to do, which is very different. In the military, its orders. We are given orders, so I guess it could be a little bit of a loss in translation sometimes [at university] because that transition, right, and no one is telling you what to do directly can be a little bit challenging when you are the receiver ….There can be a little bit of a loss of translation there like not being ordered, or being like so respectful and I think that sometimes the professors are like okay, you know, this is too anal, you know like too robotic and perfect and I think that veterans, I can speak for myself, we are always really worried about doing things super right, super perfect. It was about learning so, yeah, so as far as the difference in leadership was that they are teaching you, they are not ordering you. (P2)

The managerial style in the military, as reported here, was influenced by higher power distance and the hierarchical structure [37]. In such a system receiving orders also provide a kind of security, and the veteran is telling that it can be challenging to transfer to the managerial style in the university where the professors are taking more of an inspirational leadership style. This is particularly challenging because the ex-militaries are focused on not doing anything wrong, and now no one is telling them what is right or wrong. The same bias is reported by other veterans, it is nice to be treated as equal, but easier to deal with the strict hierarchy were everybody know their place.

Another aspect in relation to managerial styles, is that the veterans also adapted their personal managerial styles as a part of their transition into society.

... I was a military instructor. If someone came into my class 5 minutes late, or they were 2 or 3 minutes late, they went to the office and found out what the heck happened to them. They were accountable that way. The leadership style… you can’t conduct yourself the same way that you did in the military. You are going to burn too many bridges to get the result that you are trying to so...That was a lot to try to take in, but it was good that we were exposed to that because now I would much rather learn that lesson inside of a classroom then inside of a boardroom. (P4)

It seems like the educational period offered an environment where the students could adapt to the managerial style that was more appropriate in the environment they were going to work, and that the university was a preparing them for that. The university by the professors were establishing a safe space [24], where the student got feedback that the military way of leading would not function in a job in the civil society.

8.3 The development of self-esteem

One aspect of transition from the military life to becoming a student is confidence. People with high achievements tend to have a higher level of self-efficacy and this also influence the motivation for working on new kinds of tasks [42], as becoming a student. The veterans gave stories on how their self-esteem were changing through their years of service, but also through the climbing in ranks. Here illustrated by one participant:

It has been changing. Once I hit E7, that is when my confidence level went up. It is like very hard to make E7 in the Navy. It is already like an elite force. And then when I did that, I actually gained the courage to actually speak up to like my bosses compared to when I was younger sailor. I just did what they told me to do and that was the end of it. P3.

Bandura [38, 39] claims that people are not passively adapting influences that are coming their way, but being in lower ranks in the military, you are expected to accept what is coming your way, obey and fulfill orders, as illustrated in the quote above. In higher ranks they told there was room for expressing individual views, discuss and raise critical questions and this rank climbing seem to build their self-esteem and gave them confidence to give input to their superiors. The transition to becoming a student also influences their perceptions. The self-assessment in relation to their achievements in the military might have a positive impact of their base of self-worth, but entering higher education gave them new knowledge that was useful for other types of positions in society, and this was boosting their confidence. This link is expressed by participant 2:

To be honest, when I received my undergrad diploma, I cried so much! It meant so much because of all that the work that I put into it. So, although I was already pretty confident coming out of the military, because I was, like… wow… if I can do that…[laughing]! …then I can bring some skills to your company because I have been through all this, right? Um, but I think… what education has brought to me, is being able to articulate and expand on those skills. P2

When we tried to dig deeper into this, and what was contributing to build their self-esteem, we focused on the learning processes and what particularly was of importance for them, but we also explored what role the other actors, as professors, had in this. The students were taking different types of education, and gave examples on qualifications they were learning, that was of high importance for them in pursuing a career after military. Also, the working methods as writing papers and doing research was highlighted. Participant 6 were in line with this view: “I really liked to be able to write papers, more so than to just take a test, which I don’t think really test what you really learn or what you really know and stuff.” Working in groups with other students seem to suit most of the students, and this also match the collective approach they were used to from the military. But one important factor on building their self-efficacy and support their ability to work to reach their goals, was the influence from the professors. The professors that went ‘the extra mile’ to support them, pointing them into new directions, helped them build their networks and in that way also influenced their possibilities to get interesting jobs after graduation.

I suffered from imposter syndrome for the longest time… Just not believing in myself, and um… that confidence had to be nurtured and developed and the professors… like encouraging you and telling you how… you know… like giving you feedback on your work… and helping you open your eyes to your possibilities, and its thanks to professor’s encouragement and their constructive feedback that helps you with that. And also… I think it is just also like them believing in you can do… where you can go in life. P2.

Attitude and behavior is learned in social settings [45] and the group of participants share characteristics that is reflecting their time in the military; they are punctual (rather 15 minutes early than on time), they deliver (rather in good time than too close to deadline) and many of them took the lead in the group assignments they were working on. By working with other veterans like this, can influence the perceptions of the veterans at a collective level [45] and such an image can work as a model for other veterans entering higher education.

9. Discussion

The main elements from the analysis above will be discussed in this section. In the first framework to analyze how universities create spaces for education of military veterans, we focus on the physical spaces as the universities in the light of place-making. The meaning of universities are socially constructed [19] and whether this would be considered a space of value for the veterans seems to depend on the group of students they were enrolled with, but also how the educators were dealing with this group of students. By studying together with other veterans, they felt ‘at home’ with a group of people who had been socialized into a similar culture through the military service. This gave the space a sense of familiarity [22] and this is building up on the feeling of safe spaces [24] which seems to be of importance for the veteran students. By this, they could use their energy and focus on the education, instead of trying to fit in and hiding their struggles. Having professors who not only were dedicated regarding providing good quality education, but also caring, were of high importance for the students. By going the ‘extra mile’ and follow up on the students according to their needs, to support and encourage when they were struggling, to challenge and make the students exploit their abilities, they were also building the resilience of the students [50].

This study takes place amongst American participants who were raised in the individualistic culture [27], before entering a military career focusing on the collective. Returning to society as adults who now had to find their own ways, they were supposed to provide for themselves and their families, could be challenging. To figure out what education they wanted to pursue and how to handle the finances and other practicalities, all the choices and options was an individual responsibility that was far away from their military experience. Once more the role of the professors was emphasized. Professors who took time and explaining systems and options were helpful through their education process and the transition back to civilian life. Still, the inspirational leadership style of the professors was not all easy. The students liked to be treated as equals with low power distance [36] between professors and students. This supported the notion of safe spaces [24], but it could also underline the struggles. As ex-militaries they were focused on doing the right things and now the professors did not tell them what was good or wrong. They had to find their own path, and that included their own styles as leaders. The professors were both modeling a way of being leaders, but also provided frames where they could work on their leadership styles that was more in line with the part of society they were entering after graduation.

The last angle we are applying for studying the veterans is through social cognitive theory. According to this framework, people are not passive agents but they also participate in producing the social systems they belong to [38, 39]. This goes for both the military systems as well as the educational system, even though the students are supposed to be more pro-active when leaving the military behind. The ability to be pro-active and work towards desired goals depends on how the individuals reflects on their personal qualifications and qualities [40]. The self-esteem built through a military career seemed to be of value for their confidence and this was further developed through education. The individual learning processes as e.g. writing papers and doing research, in combination with working in groups helped the students to reach their goals. In this way they could benefit from their experience of the collectivistic approach in learning to build knowledge and self-esteem amongst the individual students. The students were active in building safe spaces [24] for the learning environment and supporting each other to increase their self-efficacy, but the role of professors was also highlighted in this process. How the professors saw the potentials in the students and tried to nudge them in the right directions was something the students were appreciating and helped to boost their self-worth and self-efficacy. Also, how the professors included students in networks had an impact on how the students perceived themselves and had practical implications for life after graduation. In this way, not only the education itself, but the networking and third-mission activities also was of importance for their path back to civilian life.

The takeaway from analyzing universities as safe spaces for educating military veterans is a combination of two things: the value of studying together with others who had served in the military and the role of engaged professors. This knowledge can have implications for how the educations are organized.

10. Conclusion

In the title of this chapter, we are asking the question regarding how universities as safe spaces are providing a place for learning and building resilience of the students. Findings from our study indicate that veterans entering higher education might struggle and the transition is not necessarily effortless. The veterans are offered support for both education, housing and living expenses after ending service through the GI Bill. The participants in our study are reflecting findings in other studies, where it is emphasized that the students are highly motivated and serious students [6] – despite suffering from previous and still-present obstacles such as physical injuries, and from psychological damage such as Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). To dig further into how the university is taking part in preparing veterans for life after service, we have analyzed this from three different theoretical angles.

In the light of placemaking, the students emphasized the value of getting an education that could provide a career and, in that way, contribute to placemaking where they were living. The focus in this chapter is on placemaking at an individual level under the auspices of the university, and the interaction between the students and the professors, but also between the group of veteran students. This cluster of actors were building a room where the students felt safe. The contact between students who were familiar with military experiences also built on this feeling of being in safe spaces, they did not need to explain themselves. From this safe base, the individual students were educated, and trained into new skills, but also challenged on their view of society (e.g. regarding leadership styles) and not at least on their own capabilities. They were challenged to perform task they newer expected to do – and the ambitions raised. From this ‘cocoon’ of safety, the veterans went back to their scattered communities (either they were rural or urban) and took on new types of jobs. One of them even went much farther out to a job in a high profiled international organization.

The students who were socialized to work in the hierarchic system in the military, where the individual voices were less emphasized, were retrained to cope in society again. Entering the more individualistic educational course, were liberating for some of the participants, while it was challenging for others. In the military you were told what to do and your job was to figure out how to do that the best way. Now they, on their own, had to figure out what to do, while they still were keeping the attitude of doing it the best way. This could be a bit overwhelming. Having professors that were building up on a safe space, was helpful through this transition. The low power distance and leadership style was supporting and guiding the students, and the professors also took on the role as mentors for the students. This mentorship was of high value for the students as they were finding their way through academia towards a job in society. The safe space also provided an arena where the veterans could get input and adjust their own behavior as leaders, so they did not continue give command in a hierarchical way.

Education – both as a process and an outcome was boosting the self-efficacy amongst the veterans. By viewing education as a process, we are thinking of the interactions between the students, professors and other actor within the educational sector that is supporting the students. This is contributing to the safe spaces that are needed for building confidence and enhance the ability to learn. It also contributes to the learning process, ending with a degree that is useful for the purpose of gaining employment. Working on assignments, individually or in groups, doing research, developing speaking, and writing skills were also confidence building of soft skills. The veterans had accomplished climbing in the hierarchical ladder in the military and this had been contributing to building their self-esteem. The past was a good base for setting new goals and working towards fulfilling their educational place in the present and gaining momentum and acceleration of networking and people skills for the future. These results also support androgogical approaches to effective adult learning as presented early in this paper. The safe classroom space and faculty methodology of acknowledging students as having an important and relevant past to bring into the learning process enhanced the student experience for safe learning.

It seem like the term ‘safe space’ [24] can be seen as a meta-element that was crosscutting through all three of the lenses we were using in our analysis. The educational space for military students was physical and mental, safe, and supportive. In the academic space, students had the time and the support to apply military experiences into coursework and for classroom relationships. Formerly learned military skills of survival and dreams of desiring a new career and future, became reality through assignment completion and coursework objectives. The academic environment opened possibilities for a population of people who did not know their potential and did not have a former benchmark to consider the possibilities. This path was not smooth and straight forward. The students were challenged, they might not be able to participate in the social environment with the other students, the academic assignments could be challenging, the feedback from tutors and fellow students could feel harsh, to maneuver in the system with so many choices and opportunities could be daunting. From this view, the university might not feel like a safe space, but is contributing to build the resilience of the students if they are able to deal with this. Resilience can be described as: “the ability of an individual to adapt to and overcome harmful stimuli in healthy ways that lead to good outcomes [50]. Resilience is an elasticity and sponginess. Resilient people can bounce back from traumatic events. They bend, but they do not break. They absorb. They retain. They have the ability to take in others’ viewpoints.” ([25], p. 4). The universities need to gain better knowledge on how to assist veteran students and ease the transition back to society [51]. And by this study we have shed light on this. The main finding is that the professors ‘going the extra mile’ seem to have the most impact on the students for finding their own path. Those professors were creating a space for learning, and they were mentoring the students and guiding them through andragogical approaches. The students were challenged to build on their self-reliance, instead of leaning to the chain of command in the military and in that way build resilience that is needed if they shall function in the complex settings at their home areas.