American Homefront Story: 3 MacDill Air Force Reservists return from NYC

In the latest story in my local NPR station's (WUSF) American Homefront series, reporter Stephanie Colombini talks with three Air Force Reservists from MacDill Air Force base in Tampa who recently returned home from New York City. Nurse Lt. Joseph O'Brien, physician Lt. Col. Raja Talati, and orthopedic surgeon Col. Jennifer Robyn Ratcliff (commander of the 927th Aerospace Medical Squadron), were just three of hundreds of Air Force medical reservists who worked alongside civilian healthcare professionals during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in NYC.

All three reservists talk about what they witnessed while working in the emergency room at Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx including comforting patients who died separated from family as well as signs of hope that emerged over time. Based on what they saw, they stress why it is critical we all remain mindful that the pandemic isn't over and follow public health guidelines about physical distancing and wearing masks. You can listen to their story here.

Military and Civilian Families Tackling Tough Times Together - Part 4

Photo by Wokandapix from Pixabay

As part of the Purdue University Health and Human Sciences College initiative "Families Tackling Tough Times Together," I continue to interview military and civilian families about how they've gotten through tough times and how lessons learned might be relevant to all of us dealing with the challenges on today's COVID-19 pandemic. My fourth interview in the series is with Aspen Bergmann, a military spouse (16 years), mother of two, and program data analyst with the National Military Family Association.  NFMA is a non-profit that lobbies on Capital Hill, offers scholarships for military spouses, and sponsors summer camps for military youth.

During our conversation, Aspen talks about the importance of adaptability for creating resilient families.  Her comments resonate with one of the key themes - flexibility to change - from Froma Walsh's model of family resilience.  Walsh argues that families build resilience when members simultaneously adapt to change flexibly while also providing leadership and structure.  She's built her model based on decades of research as well as clinical experience working with diverse families (e.g., those experiencing trauma, serious illness/disabilities, as well as poverty and discrimination).

Walsh's theme of flexibility to change also resonates with a large body of research by communication scholars on transitions and resilience.  Leanne Knobloch and her colleagues have applied relational turbulence theory to understand how - when a service member returns home from overseas deployment - military families sometimes struggle to coordinate their lives and adapt routines in ways that support rather than interference with each other's needs.  During the interview, Aspen talks about how she and her husband initially struggled with adapting routines after he returned home from his most recent deployment, and how they got through it by talking openly and non-defensively over time about how they could support one another.

In her communication theory of resilience, Patrice Buzzanell outlines five processes by which individuals, families, and communities can enact resilience in the face of disruptive events, one of which is crafting normalcy. Crafting normalcy involves holding onto and/or adapting meaningful rituals and routines while also creating new routines that fit the changed circumstances. Aspen talks about how she and her children have created new routines during the COVID-19 pandemic now that work and school no longer structure their days, while the family also adapted routines after her husband started working long hours outside of their home as an essential employee.  Here is the link where you can listen to my interview with Aspen.

  

Military and Civilian Families Tackling Tough Times Together - Part 3

Photo by Wokandapix from Pixabay

I continue working with Purdue University's College of Health and Human Resources on their initiative called "Families Tackling Tough Times Together."  Grounded in Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience, the initiative is creating a series of weekly activities and resources (even recipes!) - with each week focused on one specific aspect of Walsh's model.  As part of the initiative, I am interviewing both military and civilian families about how they have gotten through difficult life experiences and how the lessons learned are relevant for many of us facing challenges and uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this third interview in the series, I talk with retired Brigadier General Marianne Watson. Before retiring in 2013, General Watson served 30 years in the Army National Guard, rising to the position of Director of Manpower and Personnel (J1) at the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, VA - where she oversaw programming that supported nearly half a million Guard members as well as their families.  Based on her personal and professional experience, General Watson has important expertise to share about family resilience during tough times.

In our interview, General Watson talks about the role that being able to express emotions openly for individual and family resilience. It is important to say at at the outset that being "open" does not mean saying anything and everything that comes into your head.  Communication scholars have documented how Americans tend to equate being "open" with "good" communication even though the story isn't that simple.  Dr. Walsh emphasizes the importance of sharing painful feelings with others who are likely to understand, as well as also sharing positive feelings and finding humor amid difficult circumstances and respecting individuals needs and differences. These suggestions cohere with advice from communication scholars to balance openness with people's needs for privacy and discretion.  Having said this, avoiding talking about topics during tough times - under most (though not all) conditions - is associated with lower relationship and family satisfaction.

General Watson reinforces the importance of open emotional expression for family resilience at two places in our interview. First, when I ask her to describe a difficult life situation and how she got through it, General Watson talks about how her spouse (also a military officer) took his life shortly before she retired - and more generally why service members often are reluctant to talk openly about behavioral health issues (e.g., stigma) and how the military is attempting to recast doing so as a leadership skill.  This portion of her interview corresponds with some of my own research, where spouses and parents report that military culture (with it's emphasis on strength and self-sacrifice) can reinforce the notion that mental health issues are a sign of weakness for service members, and recommend trying to reframe seeking help (and talking about it) as a sign of strength.

Second, General Watson recommends that during the current COVID-19 pandemic, parents share their own uncertainties and frustrations (in age appropriate ways) with their children while also listening to and validating their children's concerns. Her advice nicely illustrates how open emotional expression can be critical for helping create resilience in our families during tough times.

Special Memorial Day Edition Communication Matters Podcast - NCA's Communication and Military Division

Image by Liam Ortiz from Pixbay

In a special Memorial Day episode of the National Communication Association's podcast Communication Matters, I had the privilege of participating in a discussion about NCA's newest division - the Communication and Military Division.  Hosted by Dr. Trevor Parry-Giles, NCA's Executive Director, the podcast includes a conversation with two military veterans who have been active in helping create the new NCA division.  Dr. Elizabeth Desnoyers-Colas, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Arts at Georgia Southern University, retired at the rank of Major after serving 16 years in the United States Air Force as a public affairs officer including during the first Gulf war.  Dr. William Howe, who just completed his PhD in organizational communication at the University Oklahoma and is beginning as an Assistant Professor in the Department of the Communication at University of Kentucky this fall, served as a combat medic in the U.S. Army during the conflict in Iraq.

In the podcast, Dr. Desnoyers-Colas, Howe, and I talk about the new NCA Communication and Military Division's mission.  The division promotes research, teaching, and community-engaged work that highlights and critiques messages and discourses within and about the military. Collectively, the division does not take a “for” or “against” stance on the military as an institution; rather, we work to enhance understanding between military and civilian communities, critique policies/practices, and contribute to positive changes concerning military/veteran-related topics.

Among other topics, we talk about why there was a need for the division at this point in time, how the division is helping connect faculty and students from many areas across the communication discipline (e.g., rhetoric, critical/cultural studies, and media as well as family, health, organizational, and intercultural communication), and how communication scholars bring a unique perspective to military- and veteran-connected issues.  Dr. Desnoyers-Colas reflects on the role that women play in the military, and Dr. Howe describes what it was like to return to the classroom as a student veteran.  I also discuss my own research on how military spouses and parents attempt to encourage service members or veterans to seek behavioral healthcare as needed, including why those conversations are challenging and what advice they would give others about navigating them.

Finally, we talk about the meaning of Memorial Day, especially at a time when our country is social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic.  Dr. Howe suggests getting on the site iCasualties.org, which allows users to search fatalities in the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and tailoring the search for individuals from your own city or state.  He suggests that doing this may help make the sacrifices we celebrate on Memorial Day a bit more personal than otherwise might be the case.

Military and Civilian Families Tackling Tough Times Together - Part 2

As I've mentioned before, I am working with Purdue University's College of Health and Human Resources on an initiative called "Families Tackling Tough Times Together."  Grounded in Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience, the initiative is creating a series of weekly activities and resources (even recipes!) - with each week focused on one specific aspect of Walsh's model.  As part of the initiative, I am interviewing both military and civilian families about how they have gotten through difficult life experiences and how the lessons learned are relevant for many of us facing challenges and uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this second interview in the series, I talk with Meagan Carrero from Purdue's Autism Research Center. Meagan is an ABA certified therapist who spent five years working with children with autism before accepting her current position. Meagan and her spouse also parent their 10-year old son with autism as well as three other children.  During our conversation, I asked Meagan what she would like people to know about autism (and children with autism), how her son James was diagnosed at 3.5 years of age (and why the diagnosis process is frustrating for many families), and how her family pulled together at that time to support her son.  In response, Meagan talks about one of the key themes in Walsh's model - the role of communication processes in creating family resilience. Meagan talks about how she, her husband, and her older stepchildren worked together to support efforts at strengthening her son's social skills (i.e., collaborative problem-solving).  She also highlights the importance of creating a safe space where family members can share both painful and positive feelings over time.  Here is a link where you can listen to my interview with Meagan. 

Creating resilience during tough times: What can we learn from military and civilian families?

                                                              Image by Wokandapix from Pixabay

As I mentioned in my last post, I am working with Purdue University's College of Health and Human Resources on an initiative called "Families Tackling Tough Times Together."  Grounded in Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience, the initiative is creating a series of weekly activities and information - with each week focused on one specific aspect of Walsh's model.

As part of the initiative, I am interviewing both military and civilian families about how they have gotten through a difficult life event in the past, and what they learned that might be useful for all of us as we cope with today's uncertainties and challenges during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Military families face unique challenges, but both military and civilian families have lessons to share about how to adapt and create a new normal during difficult times.

In my first interview in the series, I talk with Richard and Shaneika Williams. Richard has served 12 years in the U.S. Army, Shaneika works in the mental health field, and they are parenting three children. They describe a situation where Richard was assigned a new role in the military - working as a military recruiter.  With this new assignment, the family had to move and both parents were working long hours while commuting long distances to work. They then talk about how they got through the situation by maintaining a positive outlook while also taking turns supporting each other.  Maintaining a positive outlook does not mean ignoring or sugar coating difficult circumstances. Rather, it means acknowledging difficulties while trying to remain hopeful and see the positive; it can also involve working together to try and reduce stressors as is possible over time. The couple does a great job of sharing how they did this - I'm sharing a clip from my interview with them as it has real relevance for what many of us are facing today.

Families Tackling Tough Times Together Initiative

We are all - military and civilians alike - facing uncertainties and challenges in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.  In response, some of my former colleagues in Purdue University's College of Health and Human Services are launching a new initiative - creating a variety of online resources to help build family resilience in the coming months.  As they describe it:

"Families Tackling Tough Times Together is a new Facebook group and community of support helping families to strengthen their resilience while they cope with a multitude of challenges brought forth by the COVID-19 pandemic. Every week, new materials and activities that focus on a specific aspect of resilience will be released. Families with children, youth, young adults and elders will find materials tailored for them.  All are welcome; we especially welcome military families. This program is led by Purdue University’s College of Health and Human Sciences with contributions from partners at Purdue and across the country."

The program is based on Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience.  Rather than viewing resilience as an individual trait or characteristic (e.g., hardiness, grit) that some people have and others don't, Walsh argues that resilience is relational - i.e., it is built as family members support each other and reach out to others for resources.  Resilience is a process that unfolds when families encounter major disruptions (e.g., families exposed to the traumas of war, living in communities with factory closings and major layoffs, coping with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina).  Family members naturally are distressed by such events but resilient families manage to draw/build on their strengths (maybe strengths they didn't know they had until that point), rally, reach out to others for help, and adapt their lives over time.  Walsh's views are similar to those of a number of communication scholars, such as Tamara Afifi and Patrice Buzzanell, who also have conceptualized resilience in terms of how people think, talk, and relate to each other over time.

One of the first things posted on the program's Facebook page is an interview that Professor Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Director of Purdue's Military Family Research Institute, did with Dr. Walsh.  During the 15 minute interview, they talk about what led Dr. Walsh to create her model, her own views on what does (and doesn't) count as resilience, and how her views run contrary to some cultural beliefs in the U.S. (which tend to glorify  the "rugged individual" who struggles alone).  Walsh describes ways in which families can create resilience in three areas (roughly, their beliefs/values, their roles/structure, and their ways of communicating).  She also argues that some families - those who have had to face uncertainties and challenges together in their past - maybe be better prepared than others to cope and adapt together during today's COVID-19 pandemic - but that all families have strengths that they can pull and build on during tough times.

As part of the initiative, I'll be interviewing family members - both from military and civilian families - about their family's strengths and how their family has gotten through a particularly tough time together.  Military families are interesting in this regard as they often have learned to live together: (a) in an environment where big changes (e.g., deployment, change of duty station) happen suddenly and affect the entire family, (b) elements of the future are unpredictable, (c) loved ones carry out essential roles that may put them in danger, and (d) members are physically separated for extended periods of time.  Military families may have lessons to teach all of us about how our families can enact resilience during today's events.  I'll post some short clips from those interviews over time.

A female veteran reflects on her service in Afghanistan

Last week, National Public News reporter Noel King interviewed Afghanistan Army veteran Kristen Rouse about her views on the proposed peace deal between the U.S. and Taliban as well as on military service more broadly.  Kristen Rouse is President and Founder of the NYC Veterans Alliance.  She served 25 years in the Army, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard, and deployed to Afghanistan three times (2006, 2010, and 2012).  You can listen to the full six-minute interview here.

Three things struck me as important while listening to the interview.  First, Rouse voices feelings shared by many military and veteran families - that the burden of service during the post-9/11 conflicts has fallen on a small number of families, and that the U.S public has been largely unaware of these conflicts (see my earlier post on fewer and fewer Americans having immediate family connections to the military).  When asked about her thoughts about the U.S. military still being involved in Afghanistan after 19 years, Rouse replies:

"To be involved in a bloody conflict for 19 years is - it should stun us. We should be shocked daily and aware daily that Americans are going halfway across the planet and risking their lives...I mean there's troops who have been lost in combat within the past year who have had 10 deployments. We're asking the same troops, the same families, over and over and over again, and for that to barely reach political consciousness, daily media consciousness, it's still stunning to me."

Second, Rouse talks about intersections of gender and culture when describing relationships she formed with the Afghans with whom she worked. Rouse perceived that the Afghans were more willing to talk about their families with her than they were with most male U.S. service members, and she learned about why they were fighting from listening to stories about their families.

Third, Rouse hesitates momentarily when asked if she felt like the 31 months she spent in Afghanistan had served a purpose, and then replies "part of the story I've told myself, that I have conversations...with other veterans...is that, you know, I believe that all good faith efforts in the world amount to something." She goes on to say that she grieves for the colleagues she lost by telling their stories.  All of us want to believe that the things we do in life make a difference, and research has shown that (controlling for many other factors) post 9/11 veterans who have a strong sense of purpose in their lives are less likely to report considering suicide.  This helps explain why it is so important to create spaces in which the public can listen nonjudgmentally as veterans tell the stories.

I encourage you to listen to the interview and would love to hear your thoughts.

Four Military-Civilian Gaps

Academics, policymakers, and the general public tend to agree that a "military-civilian divide" exists, but it's not always clear what these groups mean by the term.  It's a bit like Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's famous 1964 remark that although he could not precisely define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." As Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, Associate Professor at the Institute for Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defense College, and his colleagues wrote in a 2012 article published in the journal Armed Forces and Society:

"Among those scholars who argue that a divide does in fact separate civilian society from the military, almost everyone believes it is important...Despite the prevalence of claims about serious implications of the gap...scholars have failed to clarify how to best conceptualize it and they sometimes reference quite distinct phenomenon when they discuss the military-civilian gap" (p. 670).

Professor Rahbek-Clemmensen and his colleagues propose that four types of military-civilian gaps may exist - in terms of culture, demographics, policy preferences, and institutional relations.  Their framework is useful for thinking about issues I'll be writing about in this blog.

The first gap, cultural, refers to "whether the attitudes and values of civilian and military populations differ" (p. 671).  As my colleagues Professors Leanne Knobloch (University of Illinois) and Erin Wehrman (Missouri State University) explain in a chapter on military culture and family relationships, the military stresses values such as discipline, unity, and self-sacrifice whereas U.S. civilian culture tends to prioritize independence, individual achievement, and self-gain.  Due to these cultural differences, military veterans may hold negative attitudes about civilians and feel like outsiders as they transition back to civilian life.  For example, some student veterans in an interview study were critical of their civilian peers, seeing them as immature, undisciplined, and focused on having a good time rather than a larger purpose in life.  Although these perceptions are understandable, they can lead student veterans to feel isolated on campus.  Over time, veterans may fare better by adopting what acculturation scholars call "integration" (recognizing positive elements as well as drawbacks in both military and civilian culture) as opposed to "separation" (rejecting civilian culture in lieu of military culture).  Separation may make it difficult for veterans to accomplish tasks such as building and maintaining friendships with civilian neighbors and coworkers or feeling like they fit into the larger society that are important for transitioning to civilian life.

The second gap, demographic, refers to "whether or not the military represents the U.S. population in its partisanship and demographic makeup" (p. 672).  A recent New York Times article offered important insights about this demographic gap. The article shows how the advent of the All-Volunteer force plus closure of military bases in the northeastern and western U.S. has led to a situation where the majority of Army recruits now come from particular counties in the south as well as counties surrounding military installations across the country. Not only do Army recruits tend to come from families where others (often parents) have served, but they grow up where other adults in their social networks (e.g., teachers, neighbors, coaches) often have served as well.  This creates a very different social environment than for youth who grow up where few adults in their network are veterans, with implications for thinking about the military as a career.  These demographic trends also mean that the military does not always represent the larger U.S. population in terms of political views. A Pew Center research report released last year shows that nearly six in 10 veterans (59%) identify with or lean towards the Republican Party, as compared to only 44% of the general U.S. public.  Still, strong partisan divides exist among veterans just as they do in the U.S. public.  Veterans who identify with or lean Republican, for example, have much more positive views about President Trump's leadership of the military as compared to their Democratic veteran counterparts. Aside from geography and partisanship, demographic gaps also exist in terms of race/ethnicity.  According the the U.S. Department of Defense's 2018 demographics profile, African Americans are over-represented among the enlisted ranks -- but underrepresented among the officer corps -- relative to their percentage of the overall U.S. population.

The third gap, policy preferences, refers to "whether a policy preference gap separates military and civilian elites who may agree or disagree about a range of public policy issues" (p. 673).  Professor Rahbek-Clemmensen and his colleagues review evidence that civilian leaders with prior military experience hold policy views closer to military leaders than their civilian counterparts who have not served in the military.  According to the authors, military leaders tend to believe that U.S. military forces should be deployed only for practical reasons clearly tied to our national interests and that when deployed, overwhelming force should be brought to bear.  Civilian leaders are more likely to favor limited engagements grounded in moral or ethical motives (e.g., peacekeeping or humanitarian missions).

The fourth and final gap, institutional relations, refers to "whether the relationship between military and civilian institutions such as the media, the courts, and the education system can be characterized in terms of harmony or conflict" (p. 673). For example, when universities like my own establish an Office of Veteran Success with the mission of providing "a seamless transition for our nation's veterans from military life, through campus life an into a meaningful career," then military and educational institutions are well aligned. When urban high school districts restrict access to military recruiters out of concern (expressed by Patricia Heideman of the Los Angels United school district), that they "are targeting our black and brown students and students of poverty," then greater institutional tension exists. Purdue University's Military Family Research Institute (MFRI) does important work bridging institutional gaps; for example, in conjunction with the Center for Deployment Psychology, Indiana National Guard, and Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, MFRI has developed "Star Behavioral Health Providers," a program that trains civilian health providers to work competently with military veterans and families.  The program has now trained thousands of civilian behavioral health specialists in at least 17 states.

As an interpersonal and family communication scholar, I am primarily interested in cultural and demographic gaps, including how language use can make these gaps more or less salient during conversations between military-connected individuals and civilian family members, friends, and coworkers (see my last post).  Focusing only on the first two gaps, however, may inadvertently downplay issues of power and politics, such as the role that the American Psychological Association has played in questioning the evidence on which the Trump administration has barred transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. Thus, at times I will be writing about all 4 types of military-civilian gaps in future posts.

How language can magnify (or help bridge) military-civilian divides

Veterans often feel most comfortable discussing their military experience with other veterans rather than civilians.  As ingroup members, veterans understand the language, customs, rules, and values associated with military culture.  Veterans often perceive that civilians, as outgroup members, do not understand what it means to serve or be deployed to a war zone.  A student veteran in Rumann and Hamrick's (2010) interview study put it this way: "The civilians have their drinking stories, and 'This chick I met last night' stories, and the veteran's got the 'No shit, there I was' stories. It's kind of like we're a different breed of person after we get back" (p. 446).  A second student veteran went on to explain "The biggest thing was probably the fact that people didn't understand what we've been through, and didn't understand how to approach us...It takes work on both sides to get everything figured out" (p. 446).

My colleagues and I heard similar comments when we recently interviewed 78 female US military veterans who had screened positive for PTSD about who they did and didn't talk with about their mental health issues.  When asked how she described her mental health symptoms to her family, one of our veteran participants stated: "My family has no clue, no idea about what it's like to be in the military.  I can't talk to them" (p. 5).  Yet some veterans did experience circumstances where they could talk with others who had not served.  One participant said that she could talk with her civilian husband because he worked as a firefighter: "He does [get it] a little bit because, you know, he's on the fire department and he's seen, like, stuff on the fire side similar to stuff I've seen" (p. 5).  A second explained why she found it helpful to talk with her sister: "She's not a veteran...but she's super compassionate."

So what distinguishes conversations in which veterans feel like civilians at least partially understand their experiences from conversations in which veterans feel misunderstood?  Certain forms of language can quickly signal that civilians do not "get it" and magnify military-civilian divides.  One example are inappropriate questions such as "have you killed anybody?"  Veterans and military spouses both report being offended by this question.  A student veteran in DiRamio and colleagues (2008) interview study explained:  "They always end up asking me if I killed somebody over there...That's a question I don't like people asking me" (p. 88). Similarly, a military spouse in my colleague, Dr. Kelly Rossetto's, 2015 interview study said "If somebody comes up and they like want to talk about it, that's fine, but...for God's sake don't ask if he's killed somebody" (p. 303).  Asking such a personal question marks the civilian as "outgroup" in the sense that any military-connected individual would know this is a sensitive subject that the veteran may not want to talk about.

Second, comments based on stereotypes are not well received by military veterans.  As noted in my previous blog, media commonly frame military veterans in terms of being "heroes" but also "victims" who all suffer from PTSD.  Hence, many veterans are sensitive to comments implying that all military veterans are "broken" or likely to go "postal."

Third, inaccurate comparisons - even  if well intentioned - can highlight divides. Another military spouse in Dr. Rossetto's study described the following example: "[civilian friends] are like, 'Well, yeah, [my husband] went on a three day business trip the other week and I missed him so much!'  I just want to punch you in the face...come on! Three days?  Seven months!" (p. 299).  Such inaccurate comparisons are an example of what communication accommodation theory might describe as over-accommodation - attempts by civilian friends to relate that "miss the mark" and end up inadvertently communicating the friend's lack of understanding.

So how can civilians talk with veterans about their military experiences in ways that help bridge rather than magnify military-civilian divides?  Dr. Robert Dingman, Director of the Military and Veterans Psychology Concentration at William James College, suggests the following questions as places to start in a Psychology Today blog:

• What inspired you to serve in the military?
• How did others respond to your decision to serve?
• What branch did you serve in, and what was your military occupation?
• I'd love to hear a story about the people you served with.
• What was a typical day like during your deployment?
• How has your military training been useful to you at home?

These questions have several things in common - they move beyond cliches such as "thank you for your service" and attempt to communicate a genuine interest in the veteran's military service and a willingness to learn more.  They begin with relatively "safe" topics and let the veteran decide how much they want to share about their experiences.  They communicate a desire to understand without implying that civilians can ever totally understand.  In this sense, they represent part of the work civilians can do to "help both sides to get everything figured out."