A good war? Exploring British veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment.

Karen Burnell, Niall Boyce, Nigel Hunt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Historically, war trauma research has concentrated on the relationship between level of exposure and development of post-traumatic symptoms. More recently, it has been recognized that intra- and inter- personal differences can mediate how service personnel are affected by their experiences. This paper is a qualitative study exploring moral evaluations of 30 British male veterans towards their deployment in conflicts from WWII to the most recent Iraq War (2003–2009). Retrospective thematic analysis is used to explore moral evaluation and societal support. Four categories emerged based on veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment: justifiable, implicitly justifiable, unclear, and unjustifiable. Analysis revealed broad differences between these groups. Veterans able to justify their experiences reported more posi- tive aspects of both deployment and societal support than those unable to justify their deployment. These findings make clear the importance of future research exploring the interactions between civilians and service personnel, and the impact this has on mental health
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)36-42
JournalJournal of Anxiety Disorders
Volume25
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Veterans
Iraq
Mental Health
Wounds and Injuries
Research
Warfare

Cite this

@article{6c672a1b9e734d558deadcafdef152d0,
title = "A good war? Exploring British veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment.",
abstract = "Historically, war trauma research has concentrated on the relationship between level of exposure and development of post-traumatic symptoms. More recently, it has been recognized that intra- and inter- personal differences can mediate how service personnel are affected by their experiences. This paper is a qualitative study exploring moral evaluations of 30 British male veterans towards their deployment in conflicts from WWII to the most recent Iraq War (2003–2009). Retrospective thematic analysis is used to explore moral evaluation and societal support. Four categories emerged based on veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment: justifiable, implicitly justifiable, unclear, and unjustifiable. Analysis revealed broad differences between these groups. Veterans able to justify their experiences reported more posi- tive aspects of both deployment and societal support than those unable to justify their deployment. These findings make clear the importance of future research exploring the interactions between civilians and service personnel, and the impact this has on mental health",
author = "Karen Burnell and Niall Boyce and Nigel Hunt",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "36--42",
journal = "Journal of Anxiety Disorders",
issn = "0887-6185",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

A good war? Exploring British veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment. / Burnell, Karen; Boyce, Niall; Hunt, Nigel .

In: Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2011, p. 36-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A good war? Exploring British veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment.

AU - Burnell, Karen

AU - Boyce, Niall

AU - Hunt, Nigel

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Historically, war trauma research has concentrated on the relationship between level of exposure and development of post-traumatic symptoms. More recently, it has been recognized that intra- and inter- personal differences can mediate how service personnel are affected by their experiences. This paper is a qualitative study exploring moral evaluations of 30 British male veterans towards their deployment in conflicts from WWII to the most recent Iraq War (2003–2009). Retrospective thematic analysis is used to explore moral evaluation and societal support. Four categories emerged based on veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment: justifiable, implicitly justifiable, unclear, and unjustifiable. Analysis revealed broad differences between these groups. Veterans able to justify their experiences reported more posi- tive aspects of both deployment and societal support than those unable to justify their deployment. These findings make clear the importance of future research exploring the interactions between civilians and service personnel, and the impact this has on mental health

AB - Historically, war trauma research has concentrated on the relationship between level of exposure and development of post-traumatic symptoms. More recently, it has been recognized that intra- and inter- personal differences can mediate how service personnel are affected by their experiences. This paper is a qualitative study exploring moral evaluations of 30 British male veterans towards their deployment in conflicts from WWII to the most recent Iraq War (2003–2009). Retrospective thematic analysis is used to explore moral evaluation and societal support. Four categories emerged based on veterans’ moral evaluation of deployment: justifiable, implicitly justifiable, unclear, and unjustifiable. Analysis revealed broad differences between these groups. Veterans able to justify their experiences reported more posi- tive aspects of both deployment and societal support than those unable to justify their deployment. These findings make clear the importance of future research exploring the interactions between civilians and service personnel, and the impact this has on mental health

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 36

EP - 42

JO - Journal of Anxiety Disorders

JF - Journal of Anxiety Disorders

SN - 0887-6185

IS - 1

ER -