Reframing Military Professionalism: Officers’ Justifications of the Master of Military Studies

The Danish Case: Academization and Market-Oriented Modernization

In Denmark, the MMS functions not merely as a pedagogical initiative but as a central instrument in a broader post-Cold War restructuring of the defence sector. This restructuring has been driven by the peace dividend and a turn towards efficiency and managerial rationality.

Since 1986, the Danish Armed Forces have implemented wide-ranging reforms in digitalization, decentralization, HR development, and performance-based management, reflecting new public management logics of transparency, market principles, and output-oriented governance (Holsting & Damkjer, 2020, pp. 106, 125).

The 2012 Defence Agreement further entrenched these principles, emphasizing efficiency and rationalization (Havmand, 2012; Danish Defence Command, 2013). These priorities are most clearly expressed in the Danish Armed Forces’ HR strategy, which promotes decentralized governance and formalizes military values through performance metrics and individualized career planning. The 2013 strategy replaced centrally managed career paths with decentralized, dialogue-based development, requiring officers to adopt a market-oriented responsibility for their own advancement, including applications and competence development (Danish Defence Command, 2013, pp. 1, 4, 8).

Within this framework, the MMS constitutes a key mechanism. Aligned with civilian academic standards, the programme reflects the modular, accredited, and flexible learning structure promoted by the Danish Armed Forces’ education policy (Danish Defence Command, 2013, pp. 8–13). It corresponds to a master’s degree at EQF Level 7 and is a formal requirement for promotion to OF-3. Comparable to international War Studies programmes, the MMS focuses on leadership, strategy, and operations while embedding principles of lifelong learning and employability. In this sense, the MMS operationalizes a shift toward market-oriented recruitment and career governance – where individual responsibility, accreditation, and flexibility are paramount.

The academization of Danish officer education is a dual process: it seeks to enhance academic credibility and intellectual professionalism while simultaneously reflecting a political rationality centred on efficiency, decentralization, and market governance. This duality raises critical questions about how student officers navigate overlapping – and often conflicting – logics in their professional formation.

A quantitative study conducted by the Royal Danish Defence College (RDDC) among MMS graduates and end-users sought to evaluate the programme’s relevance, quality, and future direction. This assessment included an evaluation of the implemented blended learning model, which combines work-time paid classroom instruction, while the student serves as a regular resource at their daily workplace and engages in self-study during their free time (Royal Danish Defence College, 2021).

Although the MMS is designed to enhance flexibility and efficiency, the RDDC study reveals a critical tension. For many respondents, career progression is the primary motivation for pursuing the MMS, whereas academic content and accreditation are of secondary importance. Moreover, the blended structure appears to undermine students’ ability to establish professional networks and imposes significant time pressures, as officers must navigate competing professional, academic, and private demands (Royal Danish Defence College, 2021, pp. 8, 10, 11, 17).

These findings resonate with Richard Sennett’s (2000) critique of modern work structures, where flexibility can disguise new forms of organizational control rather than enabling autonomy. According to Sennett (pp. 57–59, 62), such regimes obscure boundaries between domains of life, increase pressure for individual performance, and dissolve stable networks and institutional cohesion. The MMS structure, although framed as adaptive and career-enhancing, risks contributing to role strain, diminishing esprit de corps, and destabilizing the collective identity central to military professionalism.

This experience of structural contradiction is mirrored in the work of Holsting & Damkjer (2020), who trace a broader normative shift within the Danish Armed Forces’ assessment and promotion culture from 1989 to 2014. Their study shows, following the analytical vocabulary of Boltanski & Thévenot (2006), how Industrial (efficiency-driven) and Project-based (flexibility-oriented) logics are progressively displacing the traditional Domestic regime of seniority and institutional loyalty. But their analysis also notes the marginal nature of Market values such as cost-efficiency, suggesting that these have not yet been legitimized as core leadership criteria (Holsting & Damkjer, 2020, pp. 97, 137). This reveals a latent conflict between the values and action principles underpinning the Danish Armed Forces’ promotion structure and the emerging trends intended for implementation as part of the modernization reform and aligned HR strategy, where officers are required to navigate Market-driven employment and recruitment conditions, emerging organizational logics, and long-standing institutional expectations and ideals.

Taken together, the RDDC’s survey results and the findings of Holsting & Damkjer (2020) point toward an emerging field of normative tension. On one hand, modernization reforms and HR strategies advocate flexibility, efficiency, and individual responsibility. On the other, enduring expectations regarding cohesion, fairness, and collective career trajectories remain deeply embedded within the military ethos. Officers are thus compelled to navigate a hybrid normative landscape shaped by competing regimes of justification.

To examine how officers experience and make sense of organizational transformation, we conduct a qualitative case study grounded in active MMS students’ reflections on the 2020 study regulations. Inspired by Pendlebury’s (2019) call to engage broader sociological frameworks in military studies, we apply pragmatic sociology, as developed by Boltanski and Thévenot (2006), to explore how individuals justify action within pluralistic normative contexts.

Pragmatic Sociology: Justification through Normative Orders

Pragmatic sociology is particularly suited to analyse fields of tension where competing values, principles and action logics coexist. Boltanski and Thévenot’s typology of orders of worth provides the analytical vocabulary we use to trace how officers justify and evaluate reforms.

It facilitates a nuanced understanding of how students negotiate legitimacy, fairness, and purpose amid contradictory institutional expectations. By tracing appeals to different “orders of worth,” we identify the justificatory dynamics that underpin perceptions of fairness, strain, and institutional loyalty.

Our analysis reveals that ongoing reforms in PME, when not aligned with corresponding changes in assessment and promotion systems, risk fostering frustration, perceived injustice, and disconnection. We therefore conceptualize officers’ critique not merely as resistance, but as a form of principled evaluation of the reform’s legitimacy and sustainability.

To deepen this conceptual grounding, the next section outlines the theoretical underpinnings of pragmatic sociology. It investigates how social actions are justified in everyday life and highlights how actors articulate criticism and justification through culturally available moral repertoires, aiming to reach legitimate solutions grounded in shared values. These justifications are not universal but derived from institutionalized patterns of moral reasoning embedded in both organizations and individual perceptions (Held, 2011).

Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) framework originally identifies six “worlds of justification” – Domestic, Civic, Market, Industry, Inspiration, and Fame, each characterized by distinct principles of legitimacy and evaluation. These were developed through a grammatically informed reading of classic political philosophy and describe how values are mobilized and negotiated in social coordination. Later, Boltanski et al. (2018) formulated a seventh regime, that of the Project, to capture the moral logic of contemporary networked capitalism. The theory adopts a pluralistic view, positing that these regimes coexist in social space and that actors draw on different logics depending on context (Held, 2011).

Such coexistence generates friction when different justificatory orders collide. In these moments, actors mobilize arguments within competing regimes to assert what is just or appropriate. The aim is not only to defend a position but to restructure consensus around a new order of worth (Held, 2011).

In the following section, we translate these theoretical concepts into an analytical strategy, outlining how justificatory regimes are operationalized and used to interpret officers’ narratives.

Motivation Profiles: the Aspirational Achiever and the Pragmatic Practitioner

Characterized by a pronounced drive for upward mobility, the aspirational achiever repeatedly frames the MMS as a commodity to increase market value, viewing the degree as a Market-driven credential. Informants describe this ambition through specific “goals” to reach a given level within a few years (Henning), or as “a desire for a vertical career path with exciting positions” (Peter). Their career histories are marked by short rotations – limited to a maximum of two years – and, among Army officers, by completion of Operations and Command Training (OFU), which is particularly cited as a qualifying education for higher-ranking positions within the Danish Armed Forces. These trajectories are framed as credentials for upward appointment, and officers report being assessed and designated accordingly (Peter; Henning).

According to a student with OFU, “you sit two years in the position, and then you apply for something new. Otherwise, you are told (or tapped) on the shoulder that now you should apply for this position to learn something new” (Henning).

Conversely, the pragmatic practitioner adopts a defensive posture, pursuing the MMS as a strategy of “future proofing” to maintain employability, before becoming ineligible due to age or organizational change. Informants report acting “before they get too old” (Dennis) and acquiring skills “in relation to any future organizational requirements” (Anton). Consequently, the degree is often described as a pragmatic credential – “to be able to hold an appointed position” or simply a “requirement to hold the position they are already in” (Anton; Terkel) – and several explicitly position themselves as practitioners, framing the MMS as a pragmatic requirement rather than an intellectual pursuit. As Anton notes:

For the pragmatic practitioner, the primary purpose of the education is to secure “a good working life” and enhance employability. As Søren explains, it “broadens the playing field in terms of major-level jobs at a horizontal level”, opening up “many exciting job opportunities”, and making “oneself attractive” by increasing one’s market value – particularly in areas with a limited number of positions due to organizational cutbacks.

The logic of the Project regime, with its focus on continuous movement and development, from a time-limited position to the next position is a strong part of the military socialization, for both ideal types. The success criterion for the officer is to demonstrate flexibility and consistently move towards the next post. Without a future position to aspire to, the officer will be isolated and excluded.

The profiles diverge primarily in their strategic motivational orientation: the aspirational achiever adopts an offensive strategy, pursuing vertical advancement to achieve Grandeur. In contrast, the pragmatic practitioner adopts a defensive strategy, aiming to maintain employability and avoid sidelining.

However, both profiles are characterized by opportunistic action strategies, where they adapt and act within the organizational structures that frame the rules of the game. To understand the rationale of the profiles, we outline the Danish Armed Forces’ HR strategy and career structure from the students’ perspective.

Clashing Orders of Worth: Career Structure and Modernization Reforms

While the Danish Armed Forces have sought to modernize their educational and organizational structures in line with civilian and market-based reforms, these initiatives have not unfolded in a vacuum. They intersect with established career norms and promotion systems rooted in institutional tradition. The following section explores how these coexisting value regimes – Industrial, Project-based, Market-oriented, and Domestic – shape and complicate the career experiences of student officers navigating the reformed HR and educational framework.

Transition from Industrial-Domestic Career Paths to Market-driven Learning Projects

The students report having transitioned from a centrally controlled career path, where an “outliner planned the next position” based on the employee’s experience and assessment history. This system ensured that individuals moved safely through the organization. Students describe it as “a bottom-up pipeline designed to close gaps,” intended to prepare officers for higher-level roles in the hierarchy (Søren). It was characterized by an Industrial regime orientation, emphasizing central coordination, efficiency management, and collective responsibility. Employees demonstrated loyalty by adapting to the Danish Armed Forces’ competence needs rather than pursuing individualized advancement.

This also develops a very Project-oriented regime culture with “a tradition for extensive educating” (Peter). It is described as “an employee who is shaped and equipped by rotating through multiple positions”, and “being in a position as long as you learn something” (Henning); the employee “must constantly develop, acquire new skills, and advance through the ranks” to “avoid being sidelined” (Henning). Thus, the Industry and Project regimes coexist, as they complement each other, corresponding to Holsting & Damkjer’s analysis (2020).

With the implementation of the HR strategy, the introduction of new principles of action follows, as the Market regime now takes on greater importance for the individual student’s career path. The students perceive that today they have to be proactive and apply “equivalent to the civilian” (Flemming). Consequently, they must submit their own MMS applications, regarding it as a self-driven course pursued in parallel with their service duties. Thus, as in the Market regime, they now bear the responsibility for applying for jobs and developing their skills through education, thereby acting as opportunists.

The Market regime has displaced the previously Industrially characterized career system, which is now decentralized. To a greater extent, it is now the employee’s own learning project to stay attractive and employable in line with the principles of the Project regime. Thus the Market regime must now coexist with the Project regime. This introduces a value set based on individual autonomy and self-leadership as criteria of justification, which is immediately compatible with flexibility and movement.

However, career development still relies on Domestic traits, where advancement and nomination for education are governed by a structured merit-based assessment system, delegated through decentralized management to the employee’s superior, who is responsible for assessing and nominating personnel for the next position and educational opportunity.

Consequently, the employees are not entirely subject to market conditions. Their career progression still relies on the assessments made by their superiors within the Danish Forces central assessment system, FOKUS (Danish Defence Command, 2013). As Peter notes, “someone still has to write that it’s a good idea for me to apply now.”

Students thus navigate a structure still defined by Domestic-regime traits yet energized by a Project-regime ethos – any halt in momentum risks institutional stasis. Concurrently, the Danish Armed Forces has instituted a market-oriented career schema casting officers as opportunistic entrepreneurs who negotiate their own advancement. Yet this marketized model lacks legitimacy, since FOKUS remains embedded in traditional organizational rationality, where personal relations and hierarchical assessments continue to determine promotion.

This ambivalence is evident in students’ motivations for applying to the MMS. On the one hand, several respondents describe a genuine desire for professional development: “So I’m really happy to be on MMS, overall, because it has granted me a sense of progress” (Terkel). On the other hand, many do not experience the choice as entirely voluntary: “You might argue it isn’t truly self-initiated – if you don’t apply, you won’t move forward” (Flemming).

Taken together, these accounts reveal a tension between the MMS as “granted” by the organization and as a self-initiated choice, challenging the ideal of individual autonomy in the Market regime.

These accounts reveal a broader discrepancy between the Market-oriented HR strategy, which presumes individual autonomy and positions officers as agents of their own career and learning, and the enduring Domestic logic of traditional assessment and promotion structure, which operates as a regulatory constraint on choice. The resulting clash of justificatory logics produces criticism: delegated self-management and the rhetoric of free competition do not align in practice, undermining the Market regime’s claim to legitimate individual autonomy.

Devaluation of MMS within the Domestic Advancement System

Domestic values also serve as a guide for the standardized and traditionally oriented promotion system, where established practices dictate rules regarding rank hierarchy and merit. When discussing MMS, officers – regardless of their profile – generally emphasize the necessity to “get through it”, as they feel “forced” to obtain “that qualification that enables us to be appointed” (Henning; Peter; Terkel). As Terkel put it, “if you want to be here and have a career, there’s no other choice.”

Consequently, merit emerges as the key determinant. This is reinforced by students asserting that grades are inconsequential for future roles in the modernized MMS. Lecturers confirm this by stating that “there has been a devaluation of the education compared to the old Staff Course”, “it doesn’t carry the same career weight as before, primarily due to the elimination of the assessment component” (Mogens).

The value of MMS is primarily described by students as an “access card”. It is the assessments that are deemed significant for appointments (Erik; Henning). When compared to OFU, “OFU is prioritized over MMS” because of the “obtained network” and “assessment has a greater impact on future promotions” (Henning).

The students hint at a devaluation of education, reminiscing about a superior old staff course. The traditional promotion system, based on relationships and assessments, diminishes MMS recognition within the organization. This impacts the perception of MMS, reducing it from a competence-giving platform to enhance military capability to merely a hierarchical requirement for a vertical career path, affecting academic motivation.

One-Size-Fits-Most Conflicts with Domestic-Oriented Professionalism

In addition to MMS’s structural significance, the very structure of the education also influences the students’ individual perception of whether academization and accreditation give them benefits in terms of professionalism and employability.

The accredited MMS has become more academic and civilian-oriented to adapt to modern warfare while providing employees with civilian qualifications. The aim has been to increase the students’ market value, both inside and outside “the wire”.¹

Some students worry that accreditation undermines military expertise and professionalism, claiming the curriculum is overly theoretical and fails to prepare them adequately for service in the Danish Armed Forces. One of the aspirational achievers expresses that it becomes a “hunt for ECTS points”, without making them better officers (Henning). This also illustrates how students pursue the principles and goals of the Project regime in terms of ECTS within a traditional promotion structure, despite experiencing it as “ECTS hell” (Henning).

Some students are concerned that professionalism “is disappearing as we do it at that level” (Anton), which meets accreditation standards. They criticize the curriculum as overly academic – dense, at times irrelevant, and struggle with the unfamiliar demands of academic writing.

A lecturer states: “They excel in other areas, but writing an academic assignment is not exactly something they have been equipped for as a warrior” (Mogens). The pragmatic practitioners in particular perceive a pronounced split into A- and B-teams (Anton).

Although these officers boast extensive military careers and education, they fear being “surpassed” by civilian academics, who might explore and pursue careers within the Danish Armed Forces (Anton). The students argue that opening “the wire” to the military profession and adapting to civilian market conditions through accreditation weakens the Domestic solidarity of esprit de corps, which is now being “set aside to some extent. It’s no longer a calling; it’s a job” (Anton). They view the military profession as a unique vocation with distinct professional norms such as discipline, loyalty, and a particular kind of altruism and motivation to “sail out in a storm and try to save people” (Anton) even at the risk of their own lives. Anton further explains “We are an extraordinary entity. In the worst case, this can end up costing us our lives.”

Among the students, there is a critique of deprofessionalization, consistent with Clemmesen’s perspective (2015). This deprofessionalization is seen as potentially undermining the unique military capability built on internal education, exercise, training, and esprit de corps, when MMS must adapt and integrate into the surrounding society, particularly the civilian standardized education system and the resulting more heterogeneous intake.

The Domestic regime is based on trust, hierarchy, and personal dependency relationships, which ensure stability and functionality. This is equivalent to the perception of the classic military profession. This Domestic valuation is particularly evident with regard to the pragmatic practitioners, influencing their needs and expectations as military specialists. Traditions and adherence to established social roles are crucial for functionality. This may foster resistance to change, as it activates a Domestic critique in which the reforms are framed as deprofessionalizing and as potentially weakening the military institution by undermining the values that hold it together.

Therefore, there is criticism of the emphasis now placed on the academic market-oriented and standardized civilian education system, where academic professionalism risks displacing their specially established competencies in the military craft and thus stands in opposition to their professional wishes and development.

The professional divide risks being amplified as the enrollment for MMS has increased from the historical 40 annually to 110 today. It will be higher in the future due to an expected shortage of qualified personnel within the Armed Forces, according to the Programme Director. This shift has altered the student profile. As Søren recalls: “Previously, there were only a few study positions, and those admitted were the most ambitious, part of the elite or on the career track, and the only ones allowed to attend.”

A lecturer notes that “now that the Danish Armed Forces needs more people, the danger of expanding intake is that students may be admitted who shouldn’t be there”, “practitioners whose ambitions are to work on a ship, in a workshop, or in the engine room” (Mogens).

This is supported by a pragmatic practitioner: “Why so fixated on accreditation at level 7…maybe only 10% of us actually need to use it for something. … Maybe it’s just the more academic officers, who go that route”, states Terkel, for whom motivation consists in “what points towards what I do, and not all sorts of other things”. Terkel suggests that, for non-academic officers, education should focus more on “entitlement to wear the next rank,” arguing that this would be more efficient for the Danish Armed Forces.”

The Domestically legitimized merit system, where the MMS serves as the sole granted access card, conflicts with an opportunistic career system and pushes the pragmatic practitioner into self-chosen overqualification to avoid career stagnation. Within this framework, a Domestic valuation persists: the test of a good officer remains their standing in the lineage of the regiment rather than their ECTS points. Consequently, the academic level is perceived as irrelevant to professional wishes and development. The modernized MMS, embedded in a traditional structure, thus produces a one-size-fits-most model that restricts flexible, individual career trajectories and reinforces experiences of overqualification through irrelevant learning.

The aspirational achiever, driven by vertical motivation, also struggles to perceive the short-term professional outcomes. These cannot be immediately validated, unlike the more instrumental courses that otherwise characterize the educational programmes within the Danish Armed Forces.

MMS is more academic and abstract, spanning over an extended duration. It requires the students to continuously create the interplay between study and career. The analysis shows that introducing market-regime logic into the educational structure challenges students’ established expectations of transparency and predictability in educational outcomes – expectations that were characteristic of the earlier, industrially organised career system.

Both profiles express that they want to continue their careers in the Danish Armed Forces, which they see as their life and life’s work. They have, as a student explains, “no need for some kind of master level” and therefore do not prioritize the market value of the accredited MMS outside “the wire”. It is the value within “the wire” that matters to them (Henning, Anton, Flemming). The experience among most of the students, regardless of profile, is, furthermore, that management skills are more valuable for their future employability outside “the wire” than the accreditation itself (Peter, Terkel). But it is expressed that accreditation still holds value, as it gives recognizability “for people who are not part of our world” (Peter).

The students generally do not focus on interaction with the civilian sector and are critical of the academic element providing market value. For them, it is the classic military professionalism that holds value in relation to their career goals and development.

Consequences of the Project-Oriented Flexible Blended Learning Structure

The students can self-model the sequence of the three basic modules of the education and choose from various flex modules, providing a more flexible structure, in which students are given responsibility and control over their own learning in relation to individual preferences. The education is thus structured in the spirit of the Project regime’s flexibility, where flexibility is intended to provide officers greater autonomy.

Flexibility offers clear advantages for both profiles. The aspirational achiever, for example, has the opportunity to progress more quickly by taking two modules concurrently. As Henning explains: “If I couldn’t take two modules at once, finishing my studies would have taken three years. That’s a long time to be studying, and it would have felt really burdensome.”

In contrast, the pragmatic practitioners can spread their modules over a longer time horizon and adjust the pace according to available resources (Flemming). This flexibility allows them to flex in and out of the programme when organizational or family commitments demand full attention. It empowers students to control their own educational trajectory and enables both profiles to tailor their progress in line with personal ambitions and circumstances. Such an adaptation to a Market-driven civilian labour market aligns with students’ wishes by accommodating individual family priorities.

However, the programme’s flexible structure with brief attendance restricts the students’ ability to build enduring networks. Interaction is largely confined to functional, online groups focused on deliverables, producing only fleeting acquaintances rather than deeper connections. As a result, students miss out on a sustained, confidential study environment in which they might exchange experiences and knowledge across branches, especially through face-to-face meetings. A student reflects:

While students agree that the programme could offer valuable networking opportunities – particularly for careers in “joint service positions and branches” (Anton) – many emphasize that the fragmented structure in practice hinders the formation of lasting professional ties. As Flemming puts it, it matters to “just grab the phone” and “have dialogue at a lower level… so yes, relationships mean a lot.”

The students are critical of the structure, characterized by many transient contacts and ephemeral Project-based alliances. This conflicts with the rooted Domestic values in the assessment and promotion structure, which still have significance for their career opportunities. Within this regime, part of an educational process is to create rooted networks, where long-term personal relationships, which can be used to advance future career opportunities, mature; several students also refer to the staff training, OFU, and previous officer training, where relevant networks are rooted, and the benefit is thus perceived as greater in terms of advancing their career opportunities.

The transition to blended learning on a part-time basis has meant that, except for paid attendance days, the study takes place outside working hours. The burden in relation to part-time is very prominent. The students experience a time-pressured everyday life, where they must justify the time they spend studying to themselves, to their family, and their commander alike. Peter notes that it can be difficult for the children when “Dad is just in there, behind the closed door.” Dennis adds that it requires “good colleagues who can step in on attendance days” to keep things running smoothly. And Terkel stresses the importance of leadership in maintaining balance: “Our commander always says, ‘Family comes first, then education, then work.’ He repeats it constantly – because in the daily grind it’s all too easy to lose sight of those priorities”.

It can be difficult to navigate around a life consisting of several simultaneous projects, where the interfaces are dissolved, and you end up with time pressure when you have to be present in several places at the same time; for Dennis, “as it is now, I’m skating between doing my job, keeping up with my studies, and still trying to be somewhat present with my family.”

These challenges lead the pragmatic practitioner to a lower level of ambition during demanding periods “So if you finish with a grade of four you might just be content with that. Because what were the conditions? And in that situation, everyone loses out educationally” (Terkel). Others choose not to study at all: “I will not sacrifice that much for it” (Anton). If the pressure is perceived to be too high, then the study is deprioritized, and the ambition level is lowered. These challenges and dilemmas affect the students’ motivation in relation to the study.

Despite a longing for the staff course with its focused approach, several students prefer the flexibility that keeps them close to home and family. “It’s a trade-off”, Peter admits. “I’m not sure I’d choose a year and a half away, only able to come home on weekends.” Blended learning provides flexibility in everyday life and supports a better work-life balance, allowing them to study when it suits their family life. They acknowledge that this flexibility is particularly valuable when considering further education at this stage of their careers.

Although the students are socialized into a Project-oriented regime to the extent that development is a pleasure in itself, criticism arises of an education system which demands they sacrifice leisure time to an already demanding organization. One student, who spends long stretches at sea, notes: “I’ve sold my soul to the Danish Armed Forces… but this is too much” (Field note, 2 November 2022, Skive Barracks). The critical attitude towards blended learning stems from the students’ perception that the study is not truly self-chosen but, rather, imposed, and progress requires the investment of self-paid leisure time. This is not experienced as just: the paid hours on these days amount to 7.4 per day, after which the rest is leisure time; as another student explains, “it’s an ongoing joke among us that they call the course ‘self-applied’, because that way we don’t get any work hours for it” (Field note, 2 November 2022, Skive Barracks).

Flexible arrangements that cater to individual needs are seen as too greedy, and employees consider it unreasonable to give more of their time to the Danish Armed Forces in what amounts to a cost-saving exercise dressed up as educational choice. While employees in the Danish Armed Forces are generally prepared for deployment and irregular working hours, their motivation is based on a justification stemming from Domestic values of mutual commitment. This logic does not justify a Market-driven principle of justification tied to a structural career system that appears to restrict free choice.

To return here to our initial analysis of the relevance and value of MMS, it remains unclear which factors most strongly drive the deprioritization of its academic aspects and the strong sense of injustice around workload. Is it that “the pragmatic practitioners” feel pressured to overqualify themselves because of limited career flexibility? Is it that the academic skills are not, in practice, a requirement for service, making study feel like pseudo-learning in the face of daily operational demands? Or does the more ambitious academic approach lose its perceived value when it carries no weight in the formal assessment system?

Whatever the case may be, there is no question that the perceived devaluation of MMS, particularly due to its lack of integration with the existing structure, does not permit the successful transformation of a long-established culture founded on orthodoxies and long-held assumptions. Criticism arises from this tension.