Paul Gullon-Scott 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.
FF: What motivated you to explore the topic of secondary traumatic stress (STS) among digital forensic investigators (DFIs)?
DFIs are routinely exposed to extremely distressing content, particularly child sexual abuse material (CSAM), which can have significant psychological impacts. The constant exposure to such material makes DFIs a high-risk group for developing STS.
There is a lack of empirical research specifically focused on the psychological impact of viewing CSAM on DFIs, particularly within the UK. This gap in the literature can motivate researchers to explore this under-researched area to provide a deeper understanding and evidence-based insights.
The impact of STS can lead to reduced productivity, higher turnover rates, and difficulties in retaining highly trained staff. Something I find difficult to understand is the financial impact on stakeholders who invest tens of thousands of pounds into training their staff but do not invest in the wellbeing support to protect those highly skilled and highly trained investigators. Understanding STS among DFIs can help organizations implement better support systems, thus maintaining a more effective and positive workforce.
The mental health and well-being of DFIs are of paramount concern. High levels of STS can lead to serious psychological issues such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD-like symptoms. By studying this area, researchers aim to improve the mental health outcomes for these professionals.
Researching STS in DFIs allows for the identification of specific risk factors (e.g., frequency of exposure to traumatic material, gender, coping strategies) and protective factors (e.g., strong social support, effective coping mechanisms). This knowledge is crucial for developing targeted interventions to mitigate STS.
Given the crucial role of DFIs in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation and other crimes, ensuring their psychological well-being is vital for the overall effectiveness of criminal justice systems. Researchers may be motivated by the broader societal impact of supporting these professionals.
The most important motivator for myself has to be advocating for enhanced support and further research for digital forensic investigators (DFIs), along the following lines:
Enhanced Support
All of the studies carried out thus far highlight the need for implementing a monitoring system with standardized tools for the prompt identification and intervention of STS symptoms among DFIs. They also recommend increased understanding and awareness of the mental health consequences of negative coping styles to enhance resilience among DFIs.
Specific Support for Younger DFIs
Younger DFIs may need enhanced support, such as regular debriefs, limits on exposure to child sexual abuse material (CSAM), graded exposure to CSAM and role guidance.
Workshops and Mental Health Support
Research findings could inform the development of workshops to help DFIs understand the mental health impact of viewing traumatic CSAM and the negative consequences of inappropriate coping strategies. They also emphasize the need for services to provide access to appropriate mental health support for their DFIs. This is something I am currently developing – I plan to run a CPD accredited workshop which will make DFIs aware of the stressors and what they can do to combat them, this will not only help DFIs recognise these issues in themselves but also in others. This is important because when we become unwell, we don’t always recognise the signs and symptoms in ourselves.
Further Research:
Additional Variables and Mixed Methods Approach
My study acknowledges that while its regression model explained 28% of the variance in STS, there are unaccounted factors. This suggests a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data, to identify additional variables and address potential limitations.
Longitudinal Studies
Previous research has advocated for longitudinal studies to better comprehend the impact of STS over time. The current study echoes this call for longitudinal research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of STS among DFIs.
I often post developments into my research and the research of others on LinkedIn, through which I have received many messages from past and serving DFIs and many requests from stakeholders around the country who seek advice on how to support their DFIs. I’d like to share with you one such message from a past DFI (I have sought permission to share this with you). They wrote:
“Paul, this is cracking work. I thought I’d share my last ever shift with you. I was on nightshift on my own in 2020.
Because of the pressures of work, they had me grading 36500 indecent images. I went to bed that night but couldn’t sleep because of a pain in my chest and left arm. My wife called an ambulance, fearing I was having a heart attack.
They ruled out a heart attack, then further tests ruled out angina. The whole incident had been triggered by the stress I was under and many years of exposure to child abuse material.
I never returned to work. You are doing a great service to policing, Paul. Keep going.”
In conclusion, studies emphasize the importance of robust support systems and further research to mitigate the mental health consequences of traumatic exposure for DFIs.
FF: Have you compared your work to other studies which have been carried out in other countries?
I have compared my study to a study carried out by Bourke & Craun, 2014. The main findings regarding levels of STS among DFIs in both studies are:
Bourke & Craun 2014 Study
- Significant Predictors: The study identified that difficulty in viewing child abuse material (CSAM) was the most significant predictor of STS, contributing notably to higher levels of stress among investigators. However, the increase in STS reported by Bourke and Craun was lower (0.37 points) compared to other studies.
- Variance Across Studies: The outcomes of various studies on this topic showed some divergence, warranting further exploration of broader influencing factors on STS levels.
My Study
- High Levels of STS: A substantial portion of the sample reported moderate to severe levels of STS. Specifically, 33.3% reported little to no STS, while 46.6% reported moderate to severe levels.
- Age and Experience: Younger investigators experienced higher levels of STS, and the years working as a DFI did not correlate with increased levels of STS. This indicates that newer investigators might need more support compared to their experienced counterparts.
- Coping Strategies: The study found that negative coping strategies, such as mental disengagement, were significant predictors of higher STS levels. Positive coping strategies like active coping, positive reinterpretation, and social support did not significantly affect STS levels in this study.
- Gender Differences: Contrary to the hypothesis, there was no significant difference in overall levels of STS by gender. However, there were significant differences in the arousal subscale, with higher levels of arousal correlating with distress among female respondents.
- Difficulty Viewing CSAM: The difficulty experienced when viewing CSAM was a strong predictor of STS. For every 1-point increase in difficulty, there was a 7.70-point increase in STS.
These findings underscore the critical need for appropriate mental health support and interventions for DFIs, particularly those who are younger or experiencing significant difficulty in their work. They also highlight the complexity of factors influencing STS, suggesting that both individual and contextual variables play a significant role.
FF: What were the similarities between the study carried out by Bourke and Craun in 2014 and your own study entitled UK-based digital forensic investigators and the impact of exposure to traumatic material in 2024?
Based on the context from both studies and the findings, the comparisons between the two studies are:
Similarities
- Focus on DFIs
Both studies focus on secondary traumatic stress (STS) among digital forensic investigators (DFIs), particularly those exposed to child sexual abuse material (CSAM). - High Levels of STS
Both studies found that a significant proportion of DFIs experience moderate to severe levels of STS. - Impact of Exposure
The difficulty in viewing CSAM was a strong predictor of STS levels in both studies. - Importance of Support
Both studies advocate for enhanced support mechanisms for DFIs, emphasizing the need for mental health support and interventions.
Differences
- Participant Demographics
The study carried out by Bourke & Craun included a diverse range of participants with different years of experience and varied exposure levels to traumatic content. My study highlighted the age differences more explicitly, noting that younger DFIs reported higher levels of STS. - Predictive Factors
The study carried out by Bourke & Craun identified difficulty in viewing CSAM as a significant predictor but did not delve deeply into other specific coping strategies. My study examined coping strategies more thoroughly, finding that negative coping strategies like mental disengagement were significant predictors of higher STS levels. - Gender Differences
The study carried out by Bourke & Craun did not focus specifically on gender differences in STS levels. My study noted no significant difference in overall STS levels by gender but found significant differences in the arousal subscale, particularly among female respondents. - Quantitative Analysis
The study carried out by Bourke & Craun mentioned the need for further research to understand the variance in STS levels. My study provided specific statistical analysis, such as the regression model explaining 28% of the variance in STS, and suggested a mixed-method approach for future research. - Recommendations
The study carried out by Bourke & Craun focused broadly on the need for monitoring and intervention systems. My study provided specific recommendations, such as the development of workshops, regular debriefs for younger DFIs, and appropriate mental health support access.
These comparisons highlight both the commonalities and the unique contributions of each study, providing a comprehensive understanding of the impact of STS on DFIs and the necessary support mechanisms.
FF: In your own national study were there any significant differences in STS levels based on gender, years of experience, or frequency of exposure to traumatic material?
My study found the following significant insights related to gender, years of experience, and frequency of exposure to traumatic material:
- Gender Differences
Female respondents reported slightly higher mean STS total scores (39.03) compared to male respondents (34.88). However, this difference was not statistically significant.
A notable exception was found in the arousal subscale of the secondary stress scale, where female respondents scored significantly higher than male respondents (12.75 vs. 10.81, p = 0.03). - Years of Experience
Years working as a DFI did not correlate with increased levels of STS. This was contrary to the initial hypothesis but consistent with another study involving UK police officers, which indicated that more years of service might lead to the development of effective coping strategies and lower stress levels. - Frequency of Exposure
Contrary to the hypothesis, the frequency of viewing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) did not show a significant correlation with STS levels. This suggests that the period of exposure to these materials does not necessarily influence STS levels. - The primary predictor of STS was the difficulty experienced when viewing CSAM material, not the frequency or the number of cases handled.
These findings underscore the complexity of factors contributing to STS among DFIs and highlight the need for targeted interventions, particularly focusing on the difficulty of viewing traumatic material rather than the frequency of exposure. Additionally, the gender-specific response to trauma, particularly in the arousal subscale, suggests that female DFIs might benefit from specialized support strategies.
FF: Years working as a DFI did not correlate with increased levels of STS, however you might imagine that the longer you work as a DFI the more susceptible you become – why do you think years working as a DFI does not correlate with high levels of STS?
The finding that years working as a digital forensic investigator (DFI) did not correlate with increased levels of secondary traumatic stress (STS) can be attributed to several potential factors:
- Development of Coping Strategies:
• Experience with Exposure: Over time, DFIs may develop effective coping mechanisms and resilience in response to repeated exposure to traumatic material. Experienced investigators might learn how to manage their emotional responses better and employ strategies that mitigate the impact of STS.
• Training and Support: More experienced DFIs might have received additional training or support over their careers, which helps them handle the stress associated with their work more effectively. - Adaptation and Desensitization:
• Conditioning: With prolonged exposure, some individuals may become desensitized to traumatic content, leading to reduced emotional responses. This conditioning can result in lower reported levels of STS among those with more years of experience.
• Professional Identity: Experienced DFIs may have a stronger professional identity and sense of purpose, which can buffer against the negative effects of trauma exposure. - Selection and Retention Bias:
• Attrition of Vulnerable Individuals: Those who are more susceptible to STS might leave the profession earlier, leading to a workforce of more resilient individuals over time. This attrition can result in a cohort of experienced DFIs who are less affected by STS.
• Survivor Effect: The DFIs who remain in the field for many years might be inherently more resilient or have better support systems, which helps them manage stress better than those who leave the profession early due to high levels of STS. - Support Systems and Organizational Culture:
• Improved Organizational Support: Over time, organizations may implement better support systems and mental health resources in response to recognizing the challenges faced by DFIs. Experienced DFIs might benefit more from these resources due to their longer tenure.
• Peer Support: More experienced DFIs may have stronger peer networks and support systems within their work environment, providing them with emotional and practical support that helps mitigate STS. - Job Role Evolution:
• Changes in Job Responsibilities: Experienced DFIs might take on supervisory or managerial roles that involve less direct exposure to traumatic material. Their job responsibilities might evolve to include more administrative or oversight tasks, reducing their exposure to distressing content. - Individual Differences:
• Personal Resilience and Personality Traits: Individual differences in resilience, personality traits, and personal coping styles can play a significant role. Experienced DFIs might have personal characteristics that make them less vulnerable to STS.
Supporting Evidence
The lack of correlation between years of experience and STS levels found in the studies aligns with research in other high-stress professions, such as police work, where more experienced officers often report lower stress levels due to similar factors.
In conclusion, the interplay of these factors likely contributes to why years of experience as a DFI do not necessarily correlate with increased levels of STS. These insights underscore the importance of ongoing support and training for DFIs at all career stages to promote resilience and effective coping strategies.
FF: What’s next for you and the research?
I am currently developing two CPD accredited workshops, the first aimed at discussing the research which has already been carried out in this area. This workshop will focus on the findings of the current research, the identified stressors and suggestions to reduce the effects of working as a DFI.
The second CPD accredited workshop is aimed at DFIs and supervisors. This will raise awareness of each individual stressor which DFIs may become susceptible to, what they look like, how they can affect you and how to find help.
From a research perspective there is still so much to do – I’d really like to re-run my previous national study but this time using a mixed methods approach to capture any comments or personal experiences of DFIs. I’d also like to examine the current support structures in place for DFIs and correlate those with reported symptoms to see if those lucky enough to have good support systems report lower symptoms, thus reenforcing the need for appropriate support systems to be provided.
