This article was downloaded by: [King's College London]On: 05 November 2014, At: 01:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The RUSI JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rusi20

Service Life and Beyond – Institution or Culture?Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett & Neil GreenbergPublished online: 04 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett & Neil Greenberg (2014) Service Life and Beyond – Institution orCulture?, The RUSI Journal, 159:5, 60-68, DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2014.969946

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2014.969946

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE RUSI JOURNAL

DOI:10.1080/03071847.2014.969946©RUSIJOURNALOCTOBER/NOVEMBER2014VOL.159NO.5pp.60–68

Around22,000peopleleavetheUKregular armed forces annually.1The majority cope well with

the change,2 but a substantialminorityexperiencedifficultyintransitioningfrommilitarytocivilianlife;3theseindividualsare at increased risk of developingmental-healthproblems.Predictingthosewho are at risk of a difficult transitionwouldhelpwiththeprovisionoftargetedsupport.

Theproblemsthatmayresultfromreintegration into civilian life followingmilitary service have been recognisedsince at least the eighteenth centuryandcontinuetogiverisetoconcern.4Adifficulttransitionisnotspecifictothosewho have experienced combat, andindeed may disproportionately affectthosewhohaveseentheshortestservice.Both the British and US armed forceshaveputinplaceinitiativeswhichaimtoassistthenewveterantoreintegrate,andthecommissioningbytheUKgovernmentin September 2012 of the Veterans’TransitionReviewdemonstratedastrongcommitmenttoaddressthisissue.5IntheUK,anemploymentsupportprogrammeisprovidedtothosewhohavecompletedfourormoreyearsofservice,whilstthosewhohavecompletedsixormoreyears,oraremedicallydischarged,areentitledtoafull‘resettlement’programmeaimedat

retraining for,andgaining,employmentin the civilian sector. Those who leavebefore completing the minimum termof engagement are known as EarlyService Leavers and have been showntobeat increasedriskofmentalhealthproblems.6Morethantwo-thirdsofEarlyServiceLeavershavenotcompletedinitialtraining. Early leavers are not currentlyeligible for resettlement programmes,but are only entitled to a minimum ofa verbal briefing and a resettlementinterview with signposting to civilianemployment support.7 Concern thatthey may be disadvantaged has ledto the piloting of the Future Horizonsprojectwhich, like the full resettlementpackage, is labour-market oriented.8 Ina welcome development, however, therecentlypublishedindependentVeterans’Transition Review has recommendedthat the full resettlement package bemade available to all service leaverswho have completed initial training,withresponsibilityforthosewhodonotcompleteinitialtrainingtobehandedtotheDepartment forWorkandPensions(DWP).9

Whilst thepossibleadverseeffectsoftransitiontocivilianlife–includinglossofstatus,financialdifficultiesandfamilyreadjustment – are now recognised,an understanding of the psychosocial

mechanisms underpinning the processoftransitionhasprovedelusive.10Someauthorsconsider theeffectsofcombat,and in particular the recognition andmanagement of Post Traumatic StressDisorder(PTSD),tobeespeciallyrelevantto theprocess of transition.11 However,inrealitytheissuesinvolvedintransitionare more complex, and many veteranswho have never experienced combathavenonethelessfaceddifficultieswhenmovingbackintoacivilianenvironment.12Astudypublishedin2003oftransitionedUKveteranswhohadservedduringthe1990–91 Gulf War and in Bosnia from1992 to 1997, and had been identifiedasbeing ‘at risk’due tounemploymentor symptoms of poor mental health,identified the lack of advice on socialaspectsof resettlement tobe themainsourceofdissatisfactionwiththeexistingresettlementprocess.13

A comprehensive understandingof the issues involved in transition isessentialtotheprovisionofappropriatesupporttopersonnelleavingthearmedforces; an inappropriate model willmarginalise thosewhoseneedsarenotrecognisedandhindertheidentificationandadoptionofoptimummanagementstrategies. The aim of this article isto examine a widely used model oftransition, that of ‘institutionalisation’

SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND – INSTITUTION OR CULTURE?BEVERLY P BERGMAN, HOWARD J BURDETT AND NEIL GREENBERG

In the UK, armed services personnel are perceived to become institutionalised during service, with negative connotations, especially in the process of transition to veteran status. Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett and Neil Greenberg argue that institutionalisation is an inappropriate model, and that becoming a member of the armed forces is better represented by a model of culture shock, with reverse culture shock being experienced upon leaving. The adoption of this model would be useful both in preparing UK service personnel for civilian life and in supporting them after transition, and may help to predict vulnerability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

61

as a result of military service, and topropose the wider adoption of analternative,lessstigmatisingmodel–thatofreversecultureshock.

InstitutionalisationThe perception that soldiers become‘institutionalised’ during service asa result of living and working withina protected environment – in whichtheir basic needs in terms of food,accommodation, clothing, welfare andadministrative support are provided –hasgainedcurrencyamongtheUKarmedforcesandpublic.Thereisawidespreadbelief that this ‘institutionalisation’hinders their reintegration into thecivilianworldas veterans. Ina studyofover 9,000 serving personnel and 508employers conducted in late 2011 andearly 2012, 25 per cent of the servingpersonnel considered that civilianemployers would perceive them asinstitutionalised, and 10 per cent ofthe employers surveyed felt that thephrase ‘aggressive, institutionalised orlikely to have problems’ best describedthose leaving the armed forces afterseveralyears’service.Ofthe4percentofemployerswhosaid that theywouldview an application from someone

who had spent time in the armedforces less favourably, over half gaveinstitutionalisationorlackofadaptabilityasthereason.14

However,theoriginsoftheconceptof ‘institutionalisation’suggest that it isnot a goodmodel for either the socialor societal effects of military service.15The termarose in the1950s,when theBritish psychiatrist Denis Martin notedits use in clinical records compiled bynursing staff in long-stay, in-patientpsychiatric facilities.16 It was originallyused to describe a patient who hadceased to rebel against incarcerationin a mental hospital and had passivelyacceptedhis lot, although the scopeofthe word has obviously broadened inrecent years. Academic references to‘institutionalisation’ofmilitarypersonnelor veterans are rare and are largelyrestrictedtoadiscussionoftheimpactofserviceon thosealreadydisadvantagedby institutionalisationor thosewhoareserving under an authoritarian politicalregime.17Inoneofthefewstudieswhichhave examined the societal concept of‘institutionalisation’inveterans,DrHughMilroy, a former RAFwing commanderandnowCEOofBritishcharityVeteransAid,studiedfortyhomelessveteransfor

his2001PhDthesisattheUniversityofEastAnglia and concluded thatmilitaryservicedidnotprecludenormalsocietalfunctioning.18 A 2009 study by theUniversityofLeicesterCentreforLabourMarket Studies noted that ‘Notionsof problematic institutionalisation forthose who serve in the armed forcesseemmore likely in thosewhoserve inthemilitaryforshortperiods’.19Thiswassupported by a study of transition andresettlementof5,000UKserviceleaversby theNational Audit Office, publishedin2007,whichalsofoundthatyounger,juniorserviceleaversreportedthemostdifficult transitions. Civilian social lifeandfamilyrelationshipswereperceivedas themost difficult issues.20 The sameconclusionwasreachedinLordAshcroft’s2014Veterans’TransitionReview.21Theseconsistentobservationsexposeacriticalflaw in the use of the terminology;theoretically, institutionalisation shouldworsen, not ameliorate, with longerexposure to the institutionalisingenvironment.22

Culture ShockThe US armed forces recognise cultureshockasafactorintransition,23buttheconcept is still a novel one to their UK

Manyveteransofthearmedforces–andparticularlyEarlyServiceLeavers–exhibitsymptomsofreversecultureshock.Image courtesy Crown Copyright/ Sean Clee.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND

©RUSIJOURNALOCTOBER/NOVEMBER2014

counterparts. This article proposes amodel of culture shock on becoming amember of the armed forces, followedby reverse culture shock on returningto civilian life, and postulates that thispresents a betterfit than themodel ofinstitutionalisation.

Geert Hofstede defined cultureas ‘the collective mental programmingwhich separatesmembers of one groupfromtheother’.24Theconceptofcultureshock,whichhasbeendefinedas‘astateofdistressordisorientationbroughtaboutbysuddenimmersioninorsubjectiontoan unfamiliar culture’,25 was describedbyanthropologistKalervoObergin1960in the context of overseas travellers.26Althoughlaterstudiesfocusedongroupssuch as international students, overseasaidworkers,missionaries,anddiplomatsandtheir families, theyprovideamodelfor other situations. The concept hasbeen extended to encompass any life-change which involves adjustmentto an unfamiliar culture including jobchange and new relationships, althoughthe term ‘transition shock’ has beenused recently to describe this widerinterpretation.27 Psychologist PaulPedersen described how psychologicaldiscomfort arises from the need tofit into an unfamiliar social situationwherepriorlearnedresponsesnolongerapply; anxiety results from not knowingwhat to do in a new culture. Reactionsmay range from mild discomfort toprofound disorientation. Culture shock,mostly, represents a normal state ofadjustment; it isnotpathological,and isprobablyuniversallyexperienced.Indeed,ithasbeendescribedashappening‘insideeachindividualwhoencountersunfamiliarand unexpected circumstances’.28 It isa learning and developmental processwhichmay take place simultaneously atdifferentlevelsifthenewenvironmentiscomplex.Theprocessisnotsmooth,butischaracterisedbyaseriesofcrises,eachone of which generates a new learningexperience.Responsesmaybeemotional,psychological, behavioural, cognitive orphysiological – the latter commonly inresponsetoexposuretochangedlevelsofphysicalactivity,climateorhealththreats,ortoextremestress.

The armed forces have a distinctculture, founded on tradition, that is

clearly different from that of civiliansociety.29 Wearing uniform, saluting,militarydiscipline,militaryranks,strictlyhierarchicalmanagementstructures,useof acronymsand technical terminology,learning to use a weapon and acommunal lifestyle are all alien to newsoldiers, even to those recruits whocomefrommilitaryfamilies.Thearmedforces’culture–encompassingcourage,determination, loyalty, integrity andcommitment to duty – is embodied inBritishdefencedoctrineand thesingle-service principles derived from it,30andthe acceptanceof those cultural valuesis central to the transition from civilianto military life. For many recruits, thetiming of entry to the armed forcesalso coincideswith the culture changesinherent in emerging fromadolescenceintoearlyadulthood.31

Pedersen described five stagesof culture shock: honeymoon;disintegration;reintegration;autonomy;and interdependence,32 based on thefive-stagemodeldescribedbyPeterAdlerin 1975.33 A number of other modelsexist but all have broad similarities.34This article presents Pedersen’s stagesfromboththeoriginalviewpointandaninterpretedmilitaryperspective.

Stage One: HoneymoonThe first phase of adjustment to anew culture is of one of anticipation,excitement and enthusiasm. The newculture may represent the realisationof a long sought-after ambition – ashort-term objective might be to goon an exotic holiday, or a longer-termonemightbe joining thearmed forces;both may be associated with idealisedimagery.Adlerdescribedtheexcitementand euphoria of new experience, withan emphasis on similarities rather thandifferences.Differencesareperceptuallydeselected since the individual has fewpsychological mechanisms for dealingwith radically new stimuli.35 Althoughthis phase is relatively brief, for theshort-term traveller itmay be the onlyexperience they have of culture shockas their journey comes to an end andthere is a return to the familiar homeenvironment.Forthenewmilitaryrecruit,whomayhaveenjoyedthechallengeofinitialmilitary selection, the realities of

militarylifeareabouttobeginwiththecommencementofrecruittraining.

Stage Two: DisintegrationAdler described the second stage ofadjustment as representing the frankrealisationofthedifferencesbetweenthenewcultureandthefamiliar.36Individualsmay feeldisorientatedoroverwhelmedas they realise that they are dislocatedfromtheir‘comfortzone’.Theremaybea sense of loss of status, especially inthose who were well adjusted to theirformer environment or who formerlyenjoyed high social or occupationalstatus and who have moved into anentirely different role.37 The long-staytraveller begins to see the realities ofpoorhygiene,corruptionorcrime,whicharepartoftheirnewenvironment;theymustlearntoco-existwiththis(adaptedfrom Lesser and Peter38). The militaryequivalentofthisstageistherealisationby the recruit that they are beingstretched both physically andmentally.However motivated and well-preparedtheyare,military training ischallengingand unfamiliar. In the communalenvironmentofthetrainingunit,thereisnohidingplace.Therecruitisthe‘naivenewcomer’;39 onemember of a squad,who is no longer the school prefect orthegangleader.Everyfailuretoconformtotheexpectedstandardisnoticedandcorrected, or even punished.40 For thewell-motivated, these episodes maybe viewed pragmatically as learningexperiences but for the less-motivated,theremaybebewilderment,alienation,withdrawalandfeelingsofdepression.41Therealityoftrainingmaydiffermarkedlyfromtherecruit’sexpectations.42Asenseof having made a mistake in choosingmilitaryserviceiscommon.43

Stage Three: Reintegration Inthethirdstage,theindividualbeginstoadjusttohisorhernewculturalsetting,althoughAdlertookamorenegativeviewthanPedersenanddescribedahighlevelofangerandresentmentagainstthenewcultureduringthisphase.44Nonetheless,new skills and coping strategies havebeen learned and the environmentbeginstofeellessalien.45Friendshipsandgroup cohesion have been established,andthreatshavebeenidentifiedtogether

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

63

BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG

withstrategiesformanagingthem.Intheexpatriatemodel,thetravellerbeginstofitintolifeinthenewcountry;inmilitaryterms, this stage corresponds to therecruit beginning to ‘feel like a soldier’,whilst at the same time the sense of‘self’ is beginning to be subordinate tothe demands of the new culture. Thevalues and standards which form thecore of British defence doctrine,46 havebeen taught and form the basis of thepsychological contract that binds thenewcomer to the organisation he orshe has joined.47 Some authors havedescribedthisprocessasindoctrination;48however, the word has derogatoryconnotations as discussed in generaltermsbyRichardGatchel,whopreferredthe term ‘enculturation’.49 Personalitychangesalsobegintoemergeduringthisperiod.50 The changes that have takenplacemaybehighlighted to the recruitduring the first weekend’s leave withcivilian friends (normally several weeksafter the commencement of recruittraining),whenshorthair,neatclothes,and the knowledge that drunkennessandrecreationaldruguseareproscribedemphasise the differences and maycreatebarrierstoformerlifestyles.

Stage Four: AutonomyPedersen’s fourth stage represents oneof balanced adjustment. Whilst thefirst threestagesarerelevant torecruittraining and the early years of service,thefourthandfifthstagesofthemodelareapplicableonlytothelonger-servingindividual.

There is a clear sense of ‘self’ inharmony with the new culture when,for example, the long-term travellerfeels at home in their adopted countryof residence. Psychologist TeresaLaFromboise and her colleaguesdescribed a behavioural model ofcultural competence encompassing astrong personal identity, knowledge ofthe beliefs and values of the culture,sensitivity to the affective processesof the culture, communication inthe language of the cultural group,negotiating the institutional structuresofthegroup,behavinginawaywhichissanctionedbythegroupandmaintainingactive social relationswith the group.51This is anaptmodel for the successful,

well-adapted, long-serving memberof the armed forces, and the militaryequivalent is establishment in a fullmilitary career, when the military wayof life has become what the individual‘is’, not what he ‘does’. At this stagethough,thecareersoldiermaybegintofeel frustration with the civilian world,whichmaybeperceivedtobeineptanddisorganised incontrastwith thehighlyregulatedmilitaryenvironment.52

Stage Five: Reciprocal InterdependenceThe final phase represents maturebiculturalism, also known as thealternationmodel,wherebyanindividualis able to know and understand twodifferent cultures, and is able to switchbetween them without compromisingtheir cultural identity. Such individualsarebetterabletowithstandthestressesassociatedwithculturechange.53 In theexpatriatemodel,thelong-staysojournerwill be equally at ease in his or heradopted country or back home in theparentcountry.Inthemilitarymodel,thesoldier is able tomove seamlessly andbidirectionallybetweenthecivilianworldand the military. This level of culturaladjustmentmaybedifficulttoachieveinamilitarycontext,andperhapsitisonlyseen in senior serving personnel whohavehad theopportunity to liveout inthecivilianworld,whosejobhasinvolvedcivilian contact (for example, in aneducationalsettingthroughundertakinghigher education) or who have strongciviliancontactsthroughmembershipofsocietiesor religiousgroupsexternal tothemilitary.

Re-entry or Reverse Culture ShockExposure to, and adjustment to, a newculture can have profound implicationsfor the way in which an individualinteracts when they eventually returnto the parent culture, especially for aunidirectionalmovesuchas leavingthearmed forces. In a study focused onstudents and business travellers, NanSussmanhighlightedtheunexpectednessof re-entry problems, as few peoplewould anticipate any difficulties onreturn to an environment with whichthey expect to be familiar, but after

a prolonged period of absence andadjustment to a new culture, boththe individual’s frame of reference andthe environment he or she left havechanged.

There is also amismatch betweenhowthereturneeandthoseleftbehindperceive each other.54 In a 2004 study,Bethany Mooradian interpreted theunexpected nature of reverse cultureshock as an example of expectationviolation theory.55 In another example,Professor Mitchell Hammer and hiscolleagues examined risk factors forre-entry difficulties in internationalmanagers and their families and foundthat only expectation of re-entrysatisfaction or difficulty was relevant;neither age, prior experience of thesecond culture, length of stay nordegree of social interaction with thesecond culture was a predictor ofre-entrydifficulty.56 Inamilitarysetting,sociologistsRobertFaulknerandDouglasMcGaw conducted a study on Vietnamveterans in the 1970s, describinginadequatepreparationforhomecomingfrom Vietnam and leaving the military.They noted the contrast betweenthe ‘rites of passage into service’and ‘programming for socializationat home’57 – findings which mirroredthoseofProfessorofMilitarySociologyChristopherDandekerandhiscolleagues,whose2003study identifiedthe lackofpreparationofUKveteransforthesocialaspectsoftransition.58

Although formally recognisedonly in the latter half of the twentiethcentury,59thephenomenonnowtermed‘re-entry shock’ or ‘reverse cultureshock’ has long been acknowledged,particularlyinconnectionwithtransitionto veteran status.Manymen from lessprivileged backgrounds who servedas officers during the First World Warexperienced difficulty in reintegratinginto civilian society at the end of theconflict, a phenomenon which wasto become known as the ‘ex-officerproblem’.60 Writing towards the end oftheSecondWorldWar,thephilosopherandsociologistAlfredSchuetzattemptedto analyse the issues associated withhomecomingandnotedthatduringtheperiodofservice,boththesoldierandhis‘home’willhavechangedirreversibly.Any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND

©RUSIJOURNALOCTOBER/NOVEMBER2014

aspirationtoreverttothestatusquoanteis doomed to fail.61 This commonly feltsense of discomfort and disorientationonreturningtowhatshouldbeafamiliarenvironment was perhaps most aptlydescribed in literary form by ThomasWolfe, who highlighted this duality ofchange inhisnovelYou Can’t Go Home Againwhenhewrote‘Youcan’tgobackhometoyourfamily,backhometoyourchildhood’.62 And, in theeighth centuryBC,Homerwrote:

in the land of his fathers. Not that heknew his whereabouts. Partly he hadbeen absent for so long ... He rose tohis feetandstoodstaringatwhatwashisown land,thensighed ... ‘Alas,andnow where on earth am I? Shall I bespurnedandsavagedby thepeopleofthisplace,orfindthempious,hospitablecreatures?’

Although in 1981 psychologistNancyAdlernotedalackofliteratureonreverse culture shock,63 just five yearslater Sussman reported an increasingbody of research.64 In a wide-rangingreview of the theoretical literature,published in 2000, psychologist KevinGaw noted that no returnee is exemptfromreversecultureshockandobservedthatreportedsymptomsincludedanxiety,depression, interpersonal difficulties,anger, hostility and helplessness.65There is wide variation in the levelto which individuals experience suchproblems. Furthermore, the impact ofreverse culture shock is not limited tothe returnee; the family and friendsto whom they return may also needto adjust to a changed individual. It is,however, reassuring that contemporaryresearch has shown that the majorityof service personnel do not experienceany lasting psychological difficultieson returning home,66 consistent with astudyofinternationalstudentsintheUSwhichfoundthatfewexperiencedsevereproblemsonreturninghome.67

TheUSarmedforcesrecognisetheconceptofreversecultureshock,whereprogrammes are in place in order toexplicitlymanagetheseissuesinrelationto thosewho are returning home aftercombat,68 or transitioning after injury.69Reverse culture shock in peacekeeping

soldierstransitioningtocivilianlifeisalsoexplicitlymanagedintheCanadianarmedforces,forexample.70BasedonCanadianmilitary guidance, Jennifer Andersondefinedreversecultureshockas:71

a term that is typically used todescribe theunanticipatedadjustmentdifficulties that many military peopleexperience when returning to civilianlife.Peopleattemptingtomovebeyondtheir military experiences can findthemselves feeling disorientated andconfused,neglectedorfrustrated,oftenunemployed, or under employed andgenerally struggling in their careers aswellaspersonalrelationships.

Adler found that skills acquired asa result of the new cultural experiencecouldparadoxicallyhinderreadjustmentby creating a ‘xenophobic’ barrier withcolleagues in the home setting whichmay have particular relevance fordeployed reserve personnel returningto their former employment with newor enhanced skill sets.72 Furthermore,the strong social resilience collectivelydevelopedbymilitarypersonnelastheyprogress through training and servicetogether is no longer available forsupportastheindividualreadjuststolifeoutsidethemilitary,73leavinghimorherto rely on personal resilience, which islikelytobelowestinthosewhoaremostvulnerable.74

Ithasbeensuggested that reverseculture shock follows a staged process,similar to that seen in culture shock.John Hogan proposed a four-stagemodel of re-entry comprising: naivetéordenial;disillusionmentornegativism;perspective; and commitment orreorganisation. In this process, theexpectation that re-entry will be easy(naiveté)giveswaytoa realisationthatreturn is more problematic than wasexpected (disillusionment). A sense ofperspective returns as the individualbegins to make sense of his or hersituation, before settling down, in thefourthstage,tomorerealisticgoalsandexpectations. However, an unsuccessfultransition may progress to alienationand rejection.75 Parallels in successfulandunsuccessfulmilitary transitioncanbedrawnreadily.

Culture Shock and Transition The process of cultural adaptation hasbeen mapped to a U-shaped curveencompassing a lowering of moodduringthehoneymoonanddisintegrationphases, followed by improvement ofmood during the reintegration phaseand, ultimately, a return to equilibriumas the stage of autonomy is reached.TheU-shapedcurvemodel–attributedto Lysgaard but modified by MichaelZapf76 – reflects the initial reduction inwellbeing followed by recovery.77 RuthJolly identified a similar arc when sheinterviewedmorethansixtytransitioningindividuals of all ranks and services inthe mid-1990s. She described a three-stage process of change, comprisingacknowledgement of the need for anddesirability of change, disengagementfrom the previous lifestyle, and finallyresocialisation.78

However,JohnGullahornandJoanneGullahorn proposed that the shape ofthe curve is better described as a letterWoradouble-U,inordertoencompassthe total experience of adjusting to adifferentculturalenvironmentand then,eventually,returningtotheparentculture.TheirresearchwasbasedonstudiesofUSacademicstaffandstudentsinreceiptofgrantstoworkandstudyoverseas,whichfoundthattheprocessofre-acculturationonreturntotheUSwasproblematic,butonlyminimallysoforsenioracademicstaff(professorsandlecturers).Theirresearchsuggestedthatthepriorsocialexperienceof thesemore senior returnees enabledthemtomakethetransitionbacktotheirfamiliar environments relatively easily.However, students were much morelikely to feel ‘lost’ on returning to theUS,andtheauthors foundthat thiswasparticularlylikelyamongstthosewho,oninitialrelocation,feltthatthey‘hadnotyet“foundthemselves”intheirownculture’.They had enthusiastically embraced theculture and stability offered by the newenvironment and felt its loss keenly on

An unsuccessful transition may progress to alienation and rejection

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

65

BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG

return to what should have been their‘home’environment.79

Kate Berardo,meanwhile, rejectedboth theU and theWmodels, arguingthatalthoughtheywerewidelyused intrainingforreadjustment,thesupportingevidencebasewas insufficient;thatthelimitations of the model were oftenoverlooked; and that it had becomedistorted from the original conceptover time. She proposed an alternativemodel on which to base training andpreparation,comprisingacontinuumof‘what’,‘why’,‘how’and‘whatnow’.80

Nonetheless,theWmodelremainswidely used, and may have utilityin mapping and understanding theprocessofenteringthearmedforcesonrecruitmentandultimately returning tocivilianlifeontransitiontoveteranstatus.Recruit training and the early monthsspentasatrainedsoldierencompassthestagesofcultureshockastheindividualadapts to military service, eventuallyreaching ‘a steady state’ at Stage 3(reintegration) for a private soldieror junior non-commissioned officer(NCO), or equivalent; lesser peaks andtroughsofcultureshockwillfollowwithdeployments, periods of adventuroustrainingandotherchallenges.Manywillleave and return to civilian life at thisstage,havingcompletedtheirperiodofengagement,enteringthereversecultureshockpatternofreadaptationtocivilianlife; those who stay on will generallyreachahigherrank(seniorNCO,warrantofficer or commissioned officer) andprogress to the more mature culturaladaptionofStage4(autonomy)orevenStage 5 (reciprocal interdependence).Themorematurethelevelofadaptation,the easier the process of readjustmentis likely to be, especially if Stage 5 isachieved.

Indeed,researchhasshownthattheEarlyServiceLeaver–theindividualwholeaves before completing basic trainingor before completion of the minimumengagement (which varies from threeto four-and-a-half years, dependingon the branch of the armed forces andthe designated period of service) – isespecially at risk of developing mental-health problems. Those in this categoryare likely to leave prematurely becausetheyareunabletoadjusttothedemands

of military training, because they havefailed to achieve the required standard,because they have developed healthproblems (including those of mentalhealth) that are incompatible withcontinuedservice,orbecausetheyhavebeendischargedfordisciplinaryreasons.81Theywillbeunlikelytolookbackpositivelyontheirshortmilitarycareer;bycontrast,satisfaction with the previous militarycareer was a key factor in successfultransitionidentifiedbyJolly.82

Furthermore,ifmappedtoacultureshock model, these veterans’ dischargecomes before they have completed theprocess of cultural adjustment; they arestill in the negative phase of the firstU-shapedcurveonentrytoservice,andwillnotyethavereturnedtothebaselineof a sense of normality. Thus they willcommencethere-entryphasebacktothecivilianworld,andtheright-handloopoftheW,atadisadvantage.Alreadyculturallydisorientated from commencing theprocessofbecomingasoldier,theynowhavetofacereturningtoacivilianworldwhichalreadyregardsthemas‘different’.Selfperceptionsandthewayinwhichtheyare received by family and their formerpeersarealso likely tobe influencedbytheir failure. If youngand inexperiencedon enlistment, or from a disadvantagedbackground,theymayequatetoGullahornandGullahorn’sstudentswho‘hadnotyet“foundthemselves”intheirownculture’,and they are likely to find the processof returning to civilian life especiallychallenging. It may be postulated thattheywillexperienceadeeper troughonre-entryasaconsequenceofenteringthisphaseata lowebb,withouthavingfirstreturned to stability. Anne Braidwood’s2009 study of Early Service Leaversconfirms that this group is particularlyvulnerable,83asrecognisedbytheMinistryof Defence,84whilst at the other end ofthe spectrum, McDermott’s 2009 study

The Early Service Leaver is especially at risk of developing mental-health problems

of NCOs and warrant officers who hadcompleted twenty-two years of servicefoundthatmostdidwellonreturningtotheirhomeenvironments.85

It is reassuring to note that therecently published Transition MappingStudy identifies cultural differencesbetween the services and the civilianworld as an important factor in thetransition process, although theperpetuation of stereotypical examplesearlyinthereport(‘Intermsofeffectivetransition,oneofthebiggestdifferencesis that the Armed Forces have drinkingcultures and increasingly the world ofcivilianworkdoesnot’)detractsfromthemore fundamental cultural differencesof teambonding, discipline andmilitaryethos,correctlyidentifiedinlaterchaptersofthereport,whichdistinguishbetweentheservicememberandthecivilian.86

The adoption of a culture-shock model would facilitate betterunderstanding of the importantpsychological processes associated withbecomingamemberofthearmedforces– and likewise, reverse culture shockprovides a more appropriate model forunderstanding the transition to veteranstatus.Unlikeinstitutionalisation,culturaladaptation improves with increasinglength of exposure. By contrast, reverseculture shock is most likely to impactadversely on recruits who are youngerandlessexperienced,whichisconsistentwiththeeffectobserved inEarlyServiceLeaverswhoareknowntohavesufferedconsiderable childhood adversity.92 Anunderstandingofthismechanismwillaidthedevelopmentofappropriatestrategiesto assist leavers to cope with transitionand further reduce the numbers whoexperience adverse outcomes, and mayhelpinpredictingvulnerability.

Beverly Bergman is a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow. A

The adoption of a culture-shock model would facilitate better understanding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

©RUSIJOURNALOCTOBER/NOVEMBER2014

consultant public health physician, she is a retired Army Colonel and former professor of preventative medicine at the Army Health Unit, Camberley. Her PhD study is on the long-term health of Scottish military veterans.

Howard Burdett is a post-doctoral researcher based at the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, King’s College London. He has previously worked at the Surgeon General’s Department of the

Ministry of Defence. His PhD thesis explored the epidemiology of veterans’ transition and the resettlement process, and he currently works on the mental wellbeing of military personnel and their families.

Neil Greenberg is an academic psychiatrist and Professor of Defence Mental Health, based at King’s College London, and is a consultant occupational and forensic psychiatrist. He served in

the British armed forces for more than twenty-three years, earning the coveted Royal Marines’ Green Beret, and has deployed, as a psychiatrist and researcher, to a number of hostile environments including Afghanistan and Iraq. He has been the Secretary of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and is the President-Elect of the UK Psychological Trauma Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lead for Military and Veterans Health.

Notes

1 DefenceStatistics(TriService),MinistryofDefence,‘UKArmedForcesQuarterlyPersonnelReport’,1October2013.

2 AmyCIversenandNeilGreenberg,‘MentalHealthofRegularandReserveMilitaryVeterans’,Advances in Psychiatric Treatment(Vol.15,No.2,March2009),pp.100–06.

3 Theterms‘military’,‘soldier’andthemaleorfemalepronounareusedgenericallytorefertomembersofallthreeservicesandtobothgenders,exceptwhereotherwisedictatedbythecontext.SeeAmyIversenetal.,‘WhatHappenstoBritishVeteransWhenTheyLeavetheArmedForces?’,European Journal of Public Health(Vol.15,No.2,April2005),pp.175–84.

4 Forexample,inWilliamWordsworth’spoem‘TheDischargedSoldier’,writtenin1798andwidelybelievedtodescribeasoldierreturningfromwarserviceintheWestIndiesin1796.SeeJonathanFBorus,‘TheReentryTransitionoftheVietnamVeteran’,Armed Forces and Society(Vol.2,No.1,Fall1975),pp.97–114;ForcesinMindTrust,‘TheTransitionMappingStudy:UnderstandingtheTransitionProcessforServicePersonnelReturningtoCivilianLife’,August2013,<http://www.fim-trust.org/images/PDFs/20130810-TMS%20Report.pdf>,accessed16September2014.

5 LordAshcroft,‘Veterans’TransitionReview’,February2014,<http://www.veteranstransition.co.uk/vtrreport.pdf>,accessed16September2014.

6 MinistryofDefence,‘EarlyService

Leavers:GuidanceNotesforResettlementStaff’,JSP575,No.4,March2010;JoshuaEJBuckmanetal.,‘EarlyServiceLeavers:AStudyoftheFactorsAssociatedwithPrematureSeparationfromtheUKArmedForcesandtheMentalHealthofThosethatLeaveEarly’,European Journal of Public Health(Vol.23,No.3,2013),pp.410–15.

7 MinistryofDefence,‘EarlyServiceLeavers’.

8 Forfurtherinformation,seeCOBSEO,‘ABrighterFutureforEarlyServiceLeavers’,21February2012,<http://www.cobseo.org.uk/news/a-brighter-future-for-early-service-leavers/>,accessed18September2014.

9 LordAshcroft,‘Veterans’TransitionReview’.

10 DavidIWalker,‘AnticipatingArmyExit:IdentityConstructionsofFinalYearUKCareerSoldiers’,Armed Forces and Society(Vol.39,No.2,April2013),pp.284–304.

11 ChristinaLLaffertyetal.‘“DidYouShootAnyone?”APractitioner’sGuidetoCombatVeteranWorkplaceandClassroomReintegration’,SAM Advanced Management Journal(Autumn2008),pp.4–18.

12 Buckmanetal.,‘EarlyServiceLeavers’.

13 ChristopherDandekeretal.,‘ImprovingtheDeliveryofCrossDepartmentalSupportandServicesforVeterans:AJointReportoftheDepartmentofWar

StudiesandtheInstituteofPsychiatry,King’sCollegeLondon’,July2003.

14 Ashcroft,The Armed Forces and Society: The Military in Britain – Through the Eyes of Service Personnel, Employers and the Public,May2012,<http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/THE-ARMED-FORCES-SOCIETY.pdf>,accessed17September2014.

15 Inthisarticle,theterm‘social’isusedtorefertoindividualinteractionsand‘societal’isusedtorefertothewayinwhichwidersocietyperceivesthearmedforcesanditsmembers(andviceversa).

16 MiriamMcNownJohnsonandRitaRhodes,‘Institutionalization:ATheoryofHumanBehaviorandtheSocialEnvironment’,Advances in Social Work(Vol.8,No.1,2007),pp.219–36.

17 NoahRiseman,‘TheStolenVeteran:Institutionalisation,MilitaryService,andtheStolenGenerations’,Aboriginal History(Vol.35,2011);FelipeAgüero,‘LegaciesofTransitions:Institutionalization,theMilitary,andDemocracyinSouthAmerica’,Mershon International Studies Review(Vol.42,No.2,November1998),pp.383–404.

18 WilliamHughMilroy,Pathways to the Street for Ex-Service Personnel: An Examination of Various Routes to Homelessness for Ex-Service Personnel(Norwich:UniversityofEastAnglia,2001).

19 JimMcDermott,‘StrugglingonCivvyStreet?’,Defence Management Journal(No.44,2009),pp.168–69.

SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

67

BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG

20 NationalAuditOffice,Leaving the Services,HC618(London:TheStationeryOffice,July2007).

21 LordAshcroft,‘Veterans’TransitionReview’.

22 DenisMartin’sdiscussionofinstitutionalisationinTheLancet,undertheheading‘IntheMentalHospital’,describeshowpatients‘settledown’intothehospitalroutine,graduallybecomingco-operativeandsubmissiveastheybecome‘wellinstitutionalised’.Itiseasytoappreciatehowthistheoreticalmodelcametobeappliedtothenewsoldier,learningtoacceptmilitarydisciplineandauthority.SeeDenisVMartin,‘Institutionalisation’,TheLancet(1955),pp.1188–90.

23 ElizabethCulhane,PatriceReid,LoringJCrepeauandDanielMcDonald,‘TheCriticalRoleofCross-CulturalCompetenceintheMilitary’,Industrial-Organizational Psychologist(Vol.50,No.1,2012),pp.30–37.

24 GeertHofstede,Allemaal andersdenkenden: Omgaan met cultuurverschillen(Paris:LesÉditionsd’Organisation,1994),citedinRiseman,‘TheStolenVeteran’;BernadetvandenPol,‘TheConnectionbetweenCultureandClimateChange’,<http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/cs-bernadet-van-den-pol.pdf>,accessed17September2014.AsdefinedintheOxfordEnglishDictionary,3rded.,(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008).

25 AsdefinedintheOxfordEnglishDictionary,3rded.

26 KalervoOberg,‘CulturalShock:AdjustmenttoNewCulturalEnvironments’,Practical Anthropology(Vol.7,1960),pp.177–82.

27 JudyEBoychukDuchscher,‘TransitionShock:TheInitialStageofRoleAdaptationforNewlyGraduatedRegisteredNurses’,Journal of Advanced Nursing(Vol.65,No.5,May2009),pp.1103–13.

28 PaulPedersen,The FiveStages of Culture Shock: Critical Incidents around the World(Westport,CT:GeenwoodPress,1995).

29 WilliamsonMurray,‘DoesMilitary

CultureMatter?’,Orbis(Vol.43,No.1,1999),pp.27–42.

30 MinistryofDefence,‘BritishDefenceDoctrine’,JointDoctrinePublication0-01,4thed.,November2011;MinistryofDefence,‘ValuesandStandardsoftheBritishArmy’,January2008.

31 DennisPHoganandNanMarieAstone,‘TheTransitiontoAdulthood’,Annual Review of Sociology(Vol.12,August1986),pp.109–30.

32 Pedersen,The Five Stages of Culture Shock.

33 PeterSAdler,‘TheTransitionalExperience:AnAlternativeViewofCultureShock’,Journal of Humanistic Psychology(Vol.15,No.4,1975),pp.13–23.

34 MarkHeyward,‘FromInternationaltoIntercultural:RedefiningtheInternationalSchoolforaGlobalizedWorld’,Journal of Research in International Education(Vol.1,No.1,September2002),pp.9–32.

35 Adler,‘TheTransitionalExperience’.

36 Ibid.

37 HoganandAstone,‘TheTransitiontoAdulthood.’

38 SimonOLesserandHollisWPeter,‘TrainingForeignNationalsintheUnitedStates’,inRensisLikertandSamuelPHayes,Jr(eds),Some Applications of Behavioral Research(Paris:UNESCO,1957),p.160,asquotedinPedersen,The FiveStages of Culture Shock.

39 HelenaDThomasandNeilAnderson,‘ChangesinNewcomers’PsychologicalContractsduringOrganizationalSocialization:AStudyofRecruitsEnteringtheBritishArmy’,Journal of Organizational Behavior(Vol.19,No.S1,1998),pp.745–67.

40 WilliamArkinandLynneRDobrofsky,‘MilitarySocializationandMasculinity’,Journal of Social Issues(Vol.34,No.1,1978),pp.151–68.

41 Adler,‘TheTransitionalExperience’.

42 WilliamHMobleyetal.,‘Pre-RecruitTrainingValues,Expectations,and

IntentionsofMarineCorpsRecruits’,UniversityofSouthCarolina,CenterforBusinessStudies,1977.ReportpreparedundertheUSNavyAllVolunteerForceManpowerR&DProgramofTheOfficeofNavalResearchunderContractNOOO14-76-C-0938.

43 AFlachetal.,‘FightorFlight?TheDrop-OutPhenomenonDuringInitialMilitaryTraining:Homesickness’,paperpresentedatthe42ndAnnualConferenceoftheInternationalMilitaryTestingAssociation,Edinburgh,November2000.

44 SeerespectivelyAdler,‘TheTransitionalExperience’andPedersen,The Five Stages of Culture Shock.

45 AugustBHollingshead,‘AdjustmenttoMilitaryLife’,American Journal of Sociology(Vol.51,No.5,1946),pp.439–47.

46 MinistryofDefence,‘BritishDefenceDoctrine’.

47 ThomasandAnderson,‘ChangesinNewcomers’PsychologicalContractsduringOrganizationalSocialization’.

48 ArkinandDobrofsky,‘MilitarySocializationandMasculinity’.

49 RichardHGatchel,‘TheEvolutionoftheConcept’,inIASnook(ed.),Concepts of Indoctrination(Abingdon:Routledge,2011).

50 JoshuaJJacksonetal.,‘MilitaryTrainingandPersonalityTraitDevelopment:DoestheMilitaryMaketheMan,orDoestheManMaketheMilitary?’,Psychological Science(Vol.23,No.3,2012),pp.270–77.

51 TeresaLaFromboiseetal.,‘PsychologicalImpactofBiculturalism:EvidenceandTheory’,Psychological Bulletin(Vol.114,No.3,1993),pp.395–412.

52 Dandekeretal.,‘ImprovingtheDeliveryofCrossDepartmentalSupport andServicesforVeterans’.

53 LaFromboiseetal.,‘PsychologicalImpactofBiculturalism’.

54 NanMSussman,‘Re-EntryResearchandTraining:MethodsandImplications’,International Journal of Intercultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

©RUSIJOURNALOCTOBER/NOVEMBER2014

Relations(Vol.10,No.2,1986),pp.235–54.

55 BethanyLMooradian,‘GoingHomeWhenHomeDoesNotFeelLikeHome:Reentry,ExpectancyViolationTheory,Self-Construal,andPsychologicalandSocialSupport’,Intercultural Communication Studies(Vol.13,2004),pp.37–50.

56 MitchellRHammer,WilliamHartandRandallRogan,‘CanYouGoHomeAgain?AnAnalysisoftheRepatriationofCorporateManagersandSpouses’,Management International Review(Vol.38,No.1,1998),pp.67–86.

57 RobertRFaulknerandDouglasBMcGaw,‘UneasyHomecomingStagesintheReentryTransitionofVietnamVeterans’,Journal of Contemporary Ethnography(Vol.6,No.3,1977),pp.303–28.

58 Dandekeretal.,‘ImprovingtheDeliveryofCrossDepartmentalSupportandServicesforVeterans’.

59 Sussman,‘Re-EntryResearchandTraining’.

60 MartinPetter,‘TemporaryGentlemenintheAftermathoftheGreatWar:Rank,StatusandtheEx-OfficerProblem’,Historical Journal(Vol.37,No.1,2004),pp.127–52.

61 AlfredSchuetz,‘TheHomecomer’,American Journal of Sociology(Vol.50,No.5,1945),pp.369–76.

62 ThomasWolfe,You Can’t Go Home Again(NewYork,NY:SunDialPress,1942),p.741.

63 NancyJAdler,‘Re-Entry:ManagingCross-CulturalTransitions’,Group and Organization Management(Vol.6,No.3,1981),pp.341–56.

64 Sussman,‘Re-EntryResearchandTraining’.

65 KFGaw,‘ReverseCultureShockinStudentsReturningFromOverseas’,International Journal of Intercultural Relations(Vol.24,No.1,2000),pp.83–104.

66 NicolaTFearetal.,‘WhatAretheConsequencesofDeploymenttoIraq

andAfghanistanontheMentalHealthoftheUKArmedForces?ACohortStudy’,TheLancet(Vol.375,No.9728,2010),pp.1783–97.

67 SarahBrabant,EddieCPalmerandRobertGramling,‘ReturningHome:AnEmpiricalInvestigationofCross-CulturalReentry’,International Journal of Intercultural Relations(Vol.14,No.4,1990),pp.387–404.

68 MichaelEDoyleandKrisAPeterson,‘Re-entryandReintegration:ReturningHomeafterCombat’,Psychiatric Quarterly(Vol.76,No.4,2005),pp.361–70.

69 JenniferAndersonandChristenMason,‘ReverseCultureShock:MilitaryTransitionsforReturningSoldiersWithTraumaticBrainInjury’,Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation(Vol.23,No.5,2008),p.350.

70 MarvinJWestwood,TimothyGBlackandHollyBMcLean,‘ARe-EntryProgramforPeacekeepingSoldiers:PromotingPersonalandCareerTransition’,Canadian Journal of Counselling(Vol.36,No.3,2002),pp.221–32.

71 JenniferAndersonandChristenMason,‘ReverseCultureShock’,2009,Slide3,<http://www.slideshare.net/denveroptions/reverse-culture-shock-operation-tbi-freedom>,accessed18September2014.

72 SeeAdler,‘Re-Entry’.Thereisanecdotalevidencethattheenhancedskillsetswithwhichreservistsreturntotheworkplacefollowingdeploymenthave,insomecases,hinderedreintegrationbycreatingresentmentamongformercolleagues,especiallywhentheskillsandexperienceacquiredhaveledtoacceleratedpromotion(DavidMcArthur,personalcommunication,citedwithpermission).

73 JohnTCacioppo,HarryTReisandAlexJZautra,‘SocialResilience:TheValueofSocialFitnesswithanApplicationtotheMilitary’,American Psychologist(Vol.66,No.1,2011),pp.43–51.

74 KathleenTusaieandJanyceDyer,‘Resilience:AHistoricalReviewoftheConstruct’,Holistic Nursing Practice(Vol.18,No.1,2004),pp.3–10.

75 JohnTHogan,‘Culture-ShockandReverse-CultureShock:ImplicationsforJuniorsAbroadandSeniorsatHome’,paperpresentedattheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanCollegePersonnelAssociation,Houston,Texas,13–16March1983),quotedinYumiMiyamotoandNatalieKuhlman,‘AmelioratingCultureShockinJapaneseExpatriateChildrenintheUS’,International Journal of Intercultural Relations (Vol.25,No.1,2001),pp.21–40.

76 SeerespectivelySverreLysgaard,‘AdjustmentinaForeignSociety:NorwegianFulbrightGranteesVisitingtheUnitedStates’,International Social Sciences Bulletin(Vol.7,No.1,1955),pp.45–51andMichaelKimZapf,‘RemotePracticeandCultureShock:SocialWorkersMovingtoIsolatedNorthernRegions’,Social Work(Vol.38,No.6,1993),pp.694–704.

77 LStewartandPALeggat,‘CultureShockandTravelers’,Journal of Travel Medicine(Vol.5,No.2,1998),pp.84–88.

78 RuthJolly,Changing Step – From Military to Civilian Life: People in Transition,1sted.(London:Brassey’s,1996).

79 JohnTGullahornandJeanneEGullahorn,‘AnExtensionoftheU-CurveHypothesis’,Journal of Social Issues(Vol.19,No.3,1963),pp.33–47.

80 KateBerardo,‘TheU-CurveofAdjustment:AStudyintheEvolutionandEvaluationofa50YearOldModel’,MAthesis,2006.

81 Buckmanetal.,‘EarlyServiceLeavers’.

82 Jolly,Changing Step.

83 AnneBraidwoodandCWilliams,‘PilotMentoringSchemeforEarlyServiceLeavers:ReportoftheSupervisoryGroup’,2009.

84 MinistryofDefence,‘EarlyServiceLeavers’.

85 McDermott,‘StrugglingonCivvyStreet?’.

86 ForcesinMindTrust,‘TheTransitionMappingStudy’.

92 Buckmanetal.,‘EarlyServiceLeavers’.

SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND

SDSR 2015Hard Choices AheadIn the run-up to the UK’s 2015 StrategicDefence and Security Review, RUSI will host aseries of briefings and publish research to explorethe choices ahead for policy-makers.

Latest Publication:The Financial Context for the 2015 SDSR:The End of UK Exceptionalism?

In this inaugural Briefing Paper in this SDSR series, ProfessorMalcolm Chalmers, RUSI’s Director of Research, arguesthat on current spending plans and growth projections, UKdefence spending is set to fall below the NATO 2 per centtarget for the first time in the next financial year, to anestimated 1.88 per cent of GDP in 2015/16.

The Paper shows that existing Ministry of Defence (MoD)planning assumptions (for modest real-terms growth inits budget after 2015/16) would also, in the context ofprojected GDP growth, see spending fall to around 1.7 percent of GDP by 2020/21.

Breakfast BriefingsThese panel discussions will launch RUSI’s SDSR 2015 workby examining how the UK could and should respond tosecurity concerns and debating whether the adaptableposture is still fit for purpose.

• Implications of Geopolitical Trends for the UK: The MiddleEast – 12 Nov 2014

• ImplicationsofGeopolitical Trends for theUK:Asia – 19Nov2014• ImplicationsofGeopolitical Trends for theUK:Africa –3Dec2014• Countering Terrorists and Non-State Actors – 14 Jan 2015• Defence Engagement and Exports – 21 Jan 2015• Pan-Governmental Intelligence and Information -– 18 Feb 2015• Resilience - 4 Mar 2015• Skills and Force Structures to Meet National Security

Demands - 11 Mar 2015• Future Force Structures - 18 Mar 2015

Find out more: www.rusi.org/SDSR2015

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kin

g's

Col

lege

Lon

don]

at 0

1:54

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14