English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Stakeholders use a number of different terms to refer to the contractors supporting expeditionary military operations. Often, these terms are inconsistently-applied, stigmatising, and unclear. This analysis uses the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as a case study for exploring the efforts that the U.S. military has taken to improve contractor terminology. The study finds that DoD uses the terms  contractor, contractor personnel,  and  contractor employee  to refer to organisations, groups of employees, and individual employees providing outsourced expeditionary services. DoD also uses a number of more specific terms to refer to certain contractors and relationships. However, there are gaps and inconsistencies in DoD’s terminological scheme, and challenges remain in differentiating contractors from other actors in war and in reconciling terminology across the U.S. Government and the international community. By contextualising DoD contractor terminology within the framework of the Confucian  Rectification of Names , this study offers insights regarding contractors’ normative roles.

What’s in a name? Confucian considerations for referring to U.S. military contractors