The information arena is today incorporated into all types of conflicts and offers, in addition to conventional methods, different approaches whose purpose is to influence and undermine their adversaries and thus shape the battlefield to their own terms. Information warfare embraces everything from propaganda and disinformation to cyber warfare where the concept's embeddedness really depends on who uses it and in what context. The term tends to spread in its meaning in the sense that the definition differs within the discipline. In order to be able to perceive, understand and counteract threats linked to information warfare, an understanding of what the concept actually means is required. This study is based on a conceptual model consisting of John Gerring's theoretical framework "Good Concepts" and aims to explore the concept of information warfare, how it is understood and elucidate its multifaceted meaning. Gerring's criteria examines the concept's underlying attributes, which emphasizes that the concept itself risks conveying different meanings. The study highlights ambiguity by identifying for instance cyberattacks, psychological operations,electronic warfare, political / strategic objectivesand a mix of different methodssuch as possible perceptions linked to information warfare. The results of the study show that an ambiguity exists within the concept of information warfare and that an understanding of the concept is of importance in the discipline of war science. In the end, it is about an understanding of the threats that accompanies the concept, but also the current need for a critical approach to how others use and interpret the concept.

Everyone seems to agree that a nation's willingness to fight is vital for its defense and resilience in the event of an attack. In Swedish history, interpretations of this concept have varied, but no lasting scientific definition has emerged. Previousresearch in the field has taken a quantitative approach, focusing on identifying variables that seem to influence the willingness to fight. Few researchers have attempted to explain the significance of the concept itself. This study aims to bridge the gap that arises when researchers measure willingness to fight without truly understanding what the concept entails.Using Gerring’s conceptual theory, this study analyzes the understanding and application of the concept willingness to fight within the context of the Swedish total defense. The result reveals a broad interpretation, emphasizing the necessity of finding a common definition of the concept to mitigate potential misunderstandings and enhance its scientific and practical utility.

Mission command is one of the most common styles of command and control in modern armies, and much has been written about it. However, the theories have taken different turns and developed into different understandings of mission command. Is it a question of leadership, command and control or a cultural phenomenon? What attributes can be ascribed to mission command? This study investigates how mission command should be understood from the perspective of three theorists’ take on mission command: Eitan Shamir, Martin van Creveld and Berndt Brehmer. John Gerrings metatheory about good concepts is applied to the characteristics of mission command, in order to limit the concept of mission command to its core. The method used in this study is a conceptual investigation with a qualitative text analysis, in order to analyze the concept in depth. The results of this study have shown that training and education should be regarded as a pre-requisite, rather then an attribute, as well as the commanders’ responsibility. It has also shown the complexity in regarding the concept from a leadership- or a command and control point of view, hence it shows in the attributes.

Today’s view on an ever-changing world brings new phenomena and consequently new concepts. Hybrid warfare is one relatively new concept, about which today’s scientists have a fragmented view, and this makes it a subject of research interest. By examining seven scientific articles about Hybrid Warfare from 2007 up to the present day, the aim of this study was to examine how the concept could be defined in today’s science, and in doing so, also increase the understanding of Hybrid Warfare. The research design is that of a concept analysis, using John Gerring’s Good Concepts theory as a model. The result of the analysis showed that a majority of researchers defined the concept as, at least, a mixture of conventional and irregular aspects of warfare and of terrorism, criminality and cyber warfare. However, the research also confirms that the concept is disputed. The study contributes to existing research by showing how a concept analysis model could be used to investigate contested concepts. It also strengthens the thesis that hybrid warfare lacks a universal definition.

The aim of this study is to systematically analyze the theoretical concept of ‘credibility’ in the context of conventional deterrence by using John Gerrings theoretical framework ‘Conceptual Goodness’ for understanding concept formation. It is a qualitative study based on four selected scientific articles about conventional deterrence. By exploring and categorizing the usage of the concept of ‘credibility’ the theoretical understanding of the concept is problematized and analyzed by using six different criteria described by Gerring. By increasing the theoretical understanding of how the term is used in the relation to conventional deterrence the concept analysis contributes to clarify the extent of what the concept entails and the limits of how it can be used in the military doctrines of the Swedish armed forces. The results show that the concept of credibility is a complex but useful concept to describe the interactive process how military deterrence is achieved. The analysis also highlights the potential limitations of using a concept as comprehensive as ‘credibility’.

The military concept of asymmetric warfare has become both popular and ambiguous in military scientific discourse. Even though the debate amongst scholars has been focused on what kinds of power may cause a conflict to become asymmetric, the concept is also often used to describe unconventional war against former colonial nations.   The purpose of this study is to compare how asymmetric warfare has been described by the Swedish Armed Forces, in military theory literature and the article which founded the concept. By concept analysis, asymmetric warfare is analysed through John Gerrings metatheory.   The result shows that the concept is indeed ambiguous and broad in its meaning. The scientific literature describes the concept as debated and imprecise; the Swedish Armed Forces describe asymmetry in warfare as inequality of motives between two actors. This study contributes to the military discourse by highlighting the concept of asymmetric warfare as uncertain in its meaning. It also explains what approach the Swedish Armed Forces takes to the concept.