by Paul Gullon-Scott BSc MA MSc MSc FMBPSS
Digital forensics often involves content related to child sexual abuse, terrorism, extreme violence, or murder, leaving investigators vulnerable to vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, and burnout. Despite growing awareness of the mental health risks associated with such work, organisational attitudes frequently perpetuate unhelpful narratives. Phrases such as “you need to be made of the right stuff” or “you knew what you were signing up for” are commonly reported by digital forensic professionals and reflect deeper organisational cultures that may inadvertently contribute to psychological harm.
Comments like this, which minimise and individualise stress responses, are not merely insensitive—they can be psychologically damaging. They reflect and reinforce an organisational culture that externalises responsibility for mental health, stigmatises vulnerability, and obstructs access to support, with serious implications not only for individuals but also for the organisations themselves. This article explores the psychological impact of these narratives, grounding the discussion in theories of trauma, resilience, organisational justice, and occupational stress.
Vicarious Trauma and the “Right Stuff” Myth
Vicarious trauma (VT) refers to the transformation that occurs in professionals as a result of empathetic engagement with trauma survivors or traumatic material. McCann and Pearlman describe VT as a process that can result in significant cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal changes. In digital forensics, where exposure to graphic and distressing content is routine, the risk of VT is pronounced.
The phrase “you need to be made of the right stuff” implies a binary distinction between those who are innately suited to cope and those who are not. It reflects a flawed perception of resilience as a static trait rather than a dynamic process. Bonanno and Lee et al emphasise that resilience is influenced by multiple factors, including family and/or peer support, coping strategies, and organisational context—all of which have been identified in previous research in this area as protective factors—as opposed to inherent toughness or stoicism.
In effect, this narrative not only places blame on the individual for experiencing stress but also discourages them from seeking help, for fear of being perceived as lacking the “right stuff” or as somehow weak. This can lead to suppression of symptoms, reduced engagement with occupational / mental health services, and delayed interventions, which ultimately increases the risk of long-term psychological injury.
The Impact of Organisational Invalidation
The phrase “you knew what you were signing up for” is particularly invalidating. It dismisses the cumulative impact of trauma exposure by suggesting that suffering is the expected consequence of the role. This can generate moral injury, defined as the psychological distress resulting from actions (or inactions) that violate one’s moral or ethical beliefs.
In this context, the injury arises not from the traumatic material itself, but from the organisational response to distress and their inaction in properly addressing the issue at hand. Workers may feel abandoned, betrayed, or devalued, particularly if they perceive a lack of compassion, support or fairness in how their concerns are handled. Over time, this can lead to feelings of shame, failure, hopelessness, and detachment from the organisation, all of which are strongly associated with depression, PTSD, and burnout.
Furthermore, such comments undermine the legitimacy of mental health support and encourage a culture of silence. This culture is particularly harmful in investigative environments, where openness about psychological wellbeing is already constrained by stigma and concerns about professional credibility.
The Psychological Contract and Perceived Organisational Support
The psychological contract refers to the unspoken expectations between employees and employers. When individuals enter a profession like digital forensics, they may accept the challenging nature of the role—though nothing can truly prepare them for what they will face—but they also expect proper mental health support, respect, and acknowledgement from their organisation.
When this contract is violated through dismissive comments or inadequate wellbeing provisions, the result is psychological contract breach, which is associated with reduced job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and increased turnover intentions.
Perceived organisational support (POS) theory further explains how employees form general beliefs about how much their organisation values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. When phrases like “you knew what you were signing up for” are used, POS is undermined. Employees are left feeling that their wellbeing is secondary to operational demands, which can exacerbate stress and lower morale.
Occupational Identity and Shame
Digital forensic investigators often derive a strong sense of identity from their work. The role is typically viewed as vital, specialist, and impactful. However, when struggling with the psychological toll, these same individuals may experience shame and self-stigmatisation, especially if the dominant narrative suggests that only the weak are affected.
According to Gilbert’s model of shame, individuals internalise negative evaluations, leading to a diminished self-view. In organisational cultures that promote stoicism, this shame can prevent workers from acknowledging distress, resulting in isolation, reduced help-seeking, and potentially maladaptive coping behaviours, such as alcohol or drug use, emotional numbing, or absenteeism.
From Blame to Compassion: Organisational Responsibility
Changing the narrative begins with shifting from an individualised model of stress to a systemic, trauma-informed organisational approach. This involves recognising that these professionals are only human—they are not made of steel—and that wellbeing is shaped not only by exposure but by how exposure is managed.
A trauma-informed workplace is one that:
- Validates emotional responses to trauma exposure
- Promotes psychological safety
- Provides regular, high-quality supervision
- Normalises conversations about mental health
- Implements proactive support structures (e.g. decompression time, peer support, and access to specialist tailored counselling)
This approach contrasts sharply with the minimising language discussed earlier. By adopting a compassionate model, organisations affirm that wellbeing is not a sign of weakness, but an ethical, moral and operational priority.
Recommendations for Practice
To move beyond damaging narratives and foster a psychologically safe environment in digital forensic units, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Leadership Training: Supervisors should be trained in trauma-informed leadership and the psychological impact of secondary trauma.
- Policy Revision: Welfare policies should explicitly recognise the mental health risks of digital forensics and include tailored interventions.
- Language Audits: Organisations should reflect on the language used within performance reviews, supervision, and informal communications, actively discouraging invalidating phrases.
- Structured Debriefing: Regular and structured debriefs following exposure to traumatic content should be embedded in the workflow.
- Resilience as Collective: Promote a model of resilience that emphasises team-based support and collective responsibility, rather than individual toughness.
Final Thoughts
The work of digital forensic investigators is not only technically complex but emotionally taxing. The use of phrases like “you need to be made of the right stuff” or “you knew what you were signing up for” reflects an outdated and harmful organisational narrative that denies the psychological impact of the role.
By understanding the impact of these narratives through the lens of psychological theory, organisations can begin to take responsibility for the mental wellbeing of their staff. Moving towards trauma-informed, compassionate, and supportive organisational cultures is not just a moral requirement; it is essential for the sustainability, safety, and effectiveness of the digital forensic workforce.
These kinds of comments often come from a place of misunderstanding rather than malice. They can dismiss the very real emotional impact which inherently comes with this work. I speak from experience when I say that digital forensic investigators face things most people could never imagine and carry that weight quietly and professionally. Any suggestion that distress is a sign of weakness, or something they “signed up for,” ignores the human cost involved.
We must stop using outdated narratives and instead show compassion, listen without judgment, and create space for people to talk openly about how they’re feeling. That’s how we protect not only their mental health but also the integrity and sustainability of the profession itself.
Paul Gullon-Scott BSc MA MSc MSc FMBPSS is a former Digital Forensic Investigator with nearly 30 years of service at Northumbria Police in the UK, specializing in child abuse cases. As a recognized expert on the mental health impacts of digital forensic work, Paul now works as a Higher Assistant Psychologist at Roseberry Park Hospital in Middlesbrough and is the developer of a pioneering well-being framework to support digital forensics investigators facing job-related stress. He recently published the research paper “UK-based Digital Forensic Investigators and the Impact of Exposure to Traumatic Material” and has chosen to collaborate with Forensic Focus in order to raise awareness of the mental health effects associated with digital forensics. Paul can be contacted in confidence via LinkedIn.
