What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue?
The two articles contain several facts aimed to support the authors’ arguments. Thus, Devilly and Cotton (2008) mention the outcomes of the terroristic attacks in New York in 2001. The authors claim that many debriefing services were carried out at that time. The authors also mention the legal case Howell vs the State Rail Authority of New South Wales to verify the necessity of effective debriefing services at the workplace (Devilly & Cotton, 2008). Mitchell (2008) also mentions the legal case and argues that Devilly and Cotton (2008) misused the case. Mitchell (2008) provides another legal case to confirm his argument.
What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue?
Devilly and Cotton (2008) also reveal their opinion on CISD and CISM claiming that the practices are interchangeable, or CISD may be a component of CISM. The authors also argue that psychological debriefing often leads to paradoxical outcomes. However, Mitchell (2008) claims that CISM is incompatible with CISD as the former is a multi-step effective procedure. The author also stresses that CISM is an effective procedure, adding that Devilly and Cotton (2008) come to erroneous conclusions as they do not research the literature available thoroughly.
What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses?
Some of the strengths associated with the arguments provided by Devilly and Cotton (2008) are as follows: the authors state that rather scarce data are available on the matter and the researchers should carry out more experiments and surveys. The authors also mention that the percentage of successful debriefing procedures is rather low. Though, the weakness of the study is that the authors fail to provide enough evidence to support their claims.
What are some of the strengths associated with the Con side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses?
As for strengths associated with the arguments provided by Mitchell (2008), the author argues that Devilly and Cotton (2008) misrepresent CISM. The author also provides a detailed description of CISM and its benefits. However, Mitchell (2008) fails to provide conclusive evidence of the procedure’s effectiveness. The author does not reveal specific data or various experiments’ results.
How credible were the authors of each argument? Explain your answer.
It is necessary to note that the authors of the two articles fail to provide credible data to confirm their arguments. The authors simply provide a rather superficial analysis of the effectiveness of debriefing procedures. More precise data could make the articles more credible. The articles reveal the author’s opinion rather than specific and credible data which can confirm the arguments provided. The authors only manage to prove that further research should be implemented.
Based on the statements presented in this critical issue, which author do you agree with? Why?
I agree with Mitchell (2008) as I think that CISM can be an effective practice if implemented in the right way. I believe that properly conducted multi-session debriefing procedures can be effective in many cases. I also agree that there is still a certain need for further research as it is important to work out effective procedures to make them fit different situations. People need to be taught how to cope with severe psychological traumas as untreated traumas can lead to loads of negative outcomes.
Which side of this critical issue does contemporary research support? Please provide specific examples in your response.
Notably, contemporary researchers also claim that it is still unclear whether debriefing procedures are effective. Though the discourse has been going on for more than 15 years, there is no definite answer to this question. However, Rose et al. (2009) state that single session individual debriefing procedures are often harmful. Therefore, the researchers note that ‘screening and treatment’ practice is more effective than compulsory treatment. At that, the researchers claim that compulsory treatment (especially single session individual debriefing procedures) should be abandoned.
Reference List
Devilly, G.J., & Cotton, P. (2008). Psychological debriefing and the workplace: Defining a concept, controversies and guidelines for intervention. In R.P. Halgin (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views in abnormal psychology (pp. 61-76). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Mitchell, J.T. (2008). A response to the Devilly and Cotton article, “Psychological debriefing and the workplace”. In R.P. Halgin (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views in abnormal psychology (pp. 77-84). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Rose, S.C., Bisson, J., Churchill, R., & Wessely, S. (2009). Psychological debriefing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Cochrane Library, 1. Web.