Women and Men Together in Recruit Training.

INTRODUCTION

Although men and women recruits to the Australian Army have trained in mixed-gender platoons since 1995, restrictions on women joining the combat arms were only removed in 2016. As part of a longitudinal study starting with recruit training, this article examined recruit records collected before 2016 with the aims of delineating (1) the relative performance of women versus men in mixed-gender platoons and (2) the relative performance of men in mixed-gender platoons versus all-male platoons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

De-identified instructor ratings for 630 females and 4,505 males who completed training between 2011 and 2015 were obtained. Recruits were distributed across 128 platoons (averaging 41.6 members, SD = 8.3) of which 75% contained females, in proportions from 5% to 45%. These analyses were conducted under defense ethics approval DPR-LREP 069-15.

RESULTS

Factor analyses revealed that instructor ratings generally loaded onto a single factor, accounting 77.2% of the variance. Consequently, a composite recruit performance score (range 1-5) was computed for 16 of 19 competencies. Analyses of the scores revealed that the distributions of the scores for females and males overlapped considerably. Observed effects were negligible to small in size. The distributions were all centered between 3.0 and 3.5. In mixed-gender platoons, 51% of the females and 52% of the males fell in this band, and 44% of recruits in all-male platoons had scores in this band. The lower three bands (1.0-3.0) contained a slightly greater proportion of females (18%) than males in either mixed-gender platoons (12%) or all-male platoons (12%). Conversely, the upper three bands (3.5-5.0) contained a slightly smaller percentage of females (31%) than males in either mixed-gender platoons (36%) or all-male platoons (44%). Although scores for females were reliably lower than those of males in mixed-gender platoons, χ2 (4) = 16.01, p < 0.01, the effect size (V = 0.07) did not reach the criterion for even a small effect (0.10). For male recruits, those in mixed-gender platoons had scores that were reliably lower than in all-male platoons, χ2 (4) = 48.38, p < 0.001; its effect size (V = 0.11) just exceeded the criterion for a small effect (0.10). Further analyses revealed that male scores had a near-zero correlation (r = -0.033) with the proportion of females in platoons (0-45%).

CONCLUSION

This large-scale secondary analysis of instructor ratings of female and male recruits provides a platform for monitoring the integration of women into the combat arms. The analyses revealed nearly complete overlap in the performance of female versus male recruits. The detected gender-related differences were negligible to small in size. These small differences must be viewed with considerable caution. They may be artifacts of rater bias or other uncontrolled features of the rating system, which was designed for reporting individual recruit performance rather than aggregate analyses. Even with these limitations, this baseline snapshot of recruit performance suggests that, at recruit training, women and men are already working well together, which bodes well for their subsequent integration into the combat arms.