Editing Debriefing (section)

===Military===
[[File:G for George crew debriefing 27 Nov 1943 AWM 069823.jpg|alt=|thumb|359x359px|Female intelligence officer at the Royal Air Force Station receiving a report from members of the crew of G George, [[Avro Lancaster]] of 460 Squadron RAAF, after an attack on Berlin, 26 November 1943.]]
Throughout the existence of combat and the history of war, engaging with the emotional and psychological impact on soldiers has been an ongoing and conflicting conversation. Debriefings in the [[military]] originated for three purposes: to mitigate the psychological impact of traumatic events, alleviate acute stress response, and reduce the frequency of [[Posttraumatic stress disorder|post-traumatic stress disorder]], also known as PTSD.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Adler|first1=Amy B.|last2=Castro|first2=Carl Andrew|last3=McGurk|first3=Dennis|date=January 2009|title=Time-Driven Battlemind Psychological Debriefing: A Group-Level Early Intervention in Combat|journal=Military Medicine|language=en|volume=174|issue=1|pages=021–028|doi=10.7205/MILMED-D-00-2208|pmid=19216294|issn=0026-4075|doi-access=free}}</ref> Though there are several types of debriefing strategies, the following three are frequently used within military groups:

# Historical group debriefing – refers to the process of collecting historical patterns of trauma through the use of group therapy.<ref name=":1" /> This process happens with soldiers recounting combat events in chronological order and adding their own reactions of thoughts and feelings. The key objective of this strategy is to allow men to "talk it out" in a way that they are not commonly socialized to do so. Though this group therapy process does not aim to reduce stress, it has resulted in providing a feeling of relief and connection amongst the soldiers.
# [[Critical incident stress debriefing]] (CISD) – a form of psychological debriefing that features a specific structure and format, which were developed to address critical incident stress experienced by emergency service workers.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last1=Raphael|first1=Beverley|title=Psychological Debriefing: Theory, Practice and Evidence|last2=Wilson|first2=John|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-521-64700-7|location=Cambridge|page=2|language=en}}</ref> It was developed by Jeffrey Mitchell and is considered the most widely used today.<ref name=":2" /> It operates using the following three components: pre-incident functions, on-scene support services, and post-incident interventions.<ref name=":1" /> ''Pre-incident functions'' refers to the education and coping mechanisms taught to those who are more vulnerable to traumatization before they enter combat. ''On-scene support services'' entails brief discussions and unstructured therapy sessions that occur within a few hours of an incident that may cause high stress responses in soldiers. Finally, ''post-incident interventions'' occur usually at least 24 hours after an incident to give the soldiers a bit more time to deescalate from a having high stress response to that incident. The process is peer-driven but backed-up by a group of professional counselors.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Thurmond|first=Strom|title=The Practices and Procedures of the Investigating Services of the Department of Defense and the Military Departments Concerning the Investigations Into the Deaths of Military Personnel Which May Have Resulted from Self-Inflicted Causes|publisher=DIANE Publishing|year=1998|isbn=978-0-7881-4236-9|location=Washington, D.C.|page=148|language=en}}</ref>
# Process debriefing – it is similar to the other debriefing strategies in that it focuses on the group narrative; however, it differs because it prioritizes the leadership and effectiveness of the facilitators who lead the debriefing sessions. These facilitators are provided with professional development on how to plan for and lead the group sessions. In cases of deception-based experiences where the participant was manipulated or provided with false information, the process include a discussion with the participant how the deception might have temporarily altered or influenced his self-perceptions.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Crano|first1=William D.|title=Principles and Methods of Social Research, Third Edition|last2=Brewer|first2=Marilynn B.|last3=Lac|first3=Andrew|publisher=Routledge|year=2014|isbn=978-1-317-66607-3|location=New York|page=432|language=en}}</ref>

All of these debriefing strategies maximize on the collective experience of soldiers, rather than on the individual.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=MacDonald|first=Catherine M.|date=2003-12-01|title=Evaluation of Stress Debriefing Interventions with Military Populations|url=https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/168/12/961/4820090|journal=Military Medicine|language=en|volume=168|issue=12|pages=961–968|doi=10.1093/milmed/168.12.961|pmid=14719618|issn=0026-4075|doi-access=free|url-access=subscription}}</ref> There is a growing belief that allowing soldiers to reflect and problem-solve as a group builds their relationship with each other over time and ultimately, their effectiveness as a unit. It also provides them with an outlet rather than forcing them to become consumed by their thoughts.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://usamrd-w.amedd.army.mil/assets/docs/publications/adler_et_al_2007_report_2007-001_battlemind_procedures.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161019032137/http://usamrd-w.amedd.army.mil/assets/docs/publications/adler_et_al_2007_report_2007-001_battlemind_procedures.pdf|archive-date=October 19, 2016|title=Battlemind Psychological Debriefings|last=Adler|first=Dr. Amy|date=April 2, 2007}}</ref> Typically, the role of a soldier is seen as a job and a courageous duty, which does not give value to the psychological and emotional need of reflection. Conclusively, in order to make the role of a soldier more sustainable, captains and group leaders must prioritize debriefing strategies to focus more on the whole person.