The following transcript was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Paul: Today we’re joined by Dr. Jo Morrissey, who is the Workforce Strategy Lead at the Forensic Capability Network with a career in police and forensics that began back in 1991 as a fingerprint and crime scene examiner. That was with the Met. Jo brings with her a wealth of experience to the table.
She’s a passionate advocate for workforce development and having led initiatives in apprenticeships, recruitment and wellbeing across forensic disciplines. Jo is the driving force behind the FCN’s partnership toolkit and the introduction of the level four digital forensics apprenticeship.
Her work bridges the gaps between police and academia and industry making her a true innovator in the field. Welcome to the podcast, Jo.
Jo: Thank you Paul, and what a lovely introduction. Apart from the fact you reminded me, I’ve been in forensics for a very long time now. 31 years.
Paul: Yeah. I’m not giving away how long I was in forensics. Is there anything I missed off your CV, which we should know about?
Jo: No, I think that covers it.
Paul: Awesome. Can we start by telling us a little bit about the study that you guys are about to run?
Jo: Yeah, so the FCN have been doing quite a lot of research over the last four to eight years since we’ve existed on wellbeing. And so the current phase that we’re in is I’ve just sent out a survey.
So forensic practitioners across all disciplines, including digital forensics, but for all disciplines and worldwide, because what I’ve found from conversations with colleagues in Canada and Australia and New Zealand is we all have the same challenges.
Forensic practitioners are having the same challenges, the same wellbeing issues, wherever they are. And so I wanted to understand a little bit more about what the challenges are. Is it different for different disciplines?
So this survey has gone out to forensic practitioners, current and past in any discipline, so that we can have a look at fingerprint examiners, crime scene investigators, the DFIs, to see what challenges they have and what interventions they’ve had available to them in the workplace, which ones they’ve used, and then which ones they think are most useful.
Because I think in policing we offer a lot of interventions and a lot of tools that people can use, but I really wanted to get a good understanding of what there is, what exists, what’s been used, and how useful the practitioners found it. That’s what this survey’s all about.
Paul: Excellent. And the survey doesn’t just cover digital forensics does it? It covers traditional forensics crime scene investigators.
Jo: It covers policing. The public sector, the private sector, and those that are working independently. Any forensic practitioners, I want to know what it’s like for all of them across all of the different areas. But yeah, digital is one of them. But fingerprint examiners, DNA analysts, anyone in forensics.
Paul: Anyone in forensics.
Jo: Yeah.
Paul: Yeah. I just wanted to make that clear for those watching the podcast. So what specific wellbeing challenges are you hoping to capture across the different disciplines?
Jo: A couple of years ago we had a forensic appendix in the national Police Wellbeing Survey. And that told us a lot about the kinds of challenges that our forensic practitioners in England and Wales have.
Some of the things in relation to workloads, some of the hindrance stresses that they have to do with working hours and shifts. But what I wanted to see was, is that the same across all of the disciplines and is that the same worldwide?
I did actually live and work in the US for six years, and I was a practitioner out there. And what I found from my experience there is the people that worked with me and for me, were the same as the people that worked with me and for me in the UK. The same experiences, the same challenges, the same problems, the same wellbeing problems.
But I wanted to see, did it differ across disciplines? So our digital forensic practitioners may be affected by different things than CSIs are, than fingerprint examiners are, because for some of them it might be the primary trauma of the things they’re going to. For others, it could be secondary trauma, or it might just be the workload.
Or the shifts and the hours and the time away from their family that is actually causing the problem. So it’s to build on what we already know, because there is, as you know very well, a lack of research out there about the challenges for our practitioners in forensic science.
Paul: Yeah, there is. I’ve been giving this a little bit of thought actually, and I was thinking in terms of the traditional crime scene investigators. And quite often how small their teams are, which will of course cause repeated exposure to some quite traumatic scenes which they have to attend.
And obviously that repeated exposure would then affect them from a mental health perspective, wouldn’t it?
Jo: Yeah. Oh yeah, definitely. But interestingly, some of the things we’ve found is that it’s not actually the traumatic incident that’s affecting some of them.
It’s the fact that there’s no one to talk to when they come back. As you’ve just said, if they’re part of a very small team. And we’ve lost a lot of our canteens and places where people could get together and talk with colleagues about what they’ve been to. And that’s causing some of the challenges.
I think that there aren’t those places where you can talk with people who understand what you’ve been through and what you’ve seen. And so I think that’s one of the things that’s affecting people more is if you’re working in a small team and there’s no one to ask questions of or to talk to, that will affect you.
Paul: It’s actually quite interesting you say that because that’s reflected also into digital forensics. From the research that I’ve done, DFIs often talk about the lack of availability of a private safe space where they can go and decompress together.
Jo: Yeah, it’s not something you want to go to a friend for Costa coffee and sit and talk about, because there’s people around who don’t need to hear the things that we see.
Not everybody can go home and talk to their spouse or partner or family or friends outside of work about it because it’s not something you necessarily want to share with people who haven’t been exposed to that. And if you can’t talk to your colleagues, who can you talk to?
Paul: Exactly. And you’ve just touched on something that I quite often talk about. I’ve said on numerous occasions now, I worked in digital forensics for 14 years. I never once went home and told my wife what I saw that day. Not once.
You just cannot do it because you run the risk of traumatizing your partner or your friends.
Jo: Yeah. Yeah. Because we’re very conscious that things we’re exposed to as forensic practitioners are not things that the average person will ever see in their life. And if they did see it once, it would be a very traumatic incident for most people. And we are, as practitioners, seeing them over and over again.
And I guess even for people who probably feel they haven’t been affected or had that major incident because of it. The next scene they went to could have been the one that took them over the limit. We never really know when we’re gonna get to our breaking point with what we see.
Paul: No, we don’t.
Jo: It’s constant. And it’s also that you don’t know when you, what you’re going to see and when you’re going to see it. For a digital forensic practitioner, they don’t know what the next photograph, the next image they look at is going to be. And it could be that next one that’s the one that triggers them.
Paul: Yep. Absolutely. Absolutely. I totally agree. So going back to the survey, does the survey include any discipline specific questions to account for the differences between the disciplines?
Jo: It doesn’t include any different questions, however, there are a few that you can select different areas. And so there are some questions like what has affected your wellbeing. And so exposure to CSA material is included, which is focused on digital forensic practitioners.
That probably won’t be something that would be ticked for a lot of other practitioners, but it would be for the digital. So no, there aren’t any specific questions for specific disciplines, but it will be interesting. And that’s deliberate actually. Because I want to see how the different disciplines select the responses differently.
Paul: Yeah. Yeah. That’ll, yeah, exactly. We don’t know.
Jo: No.
Paul: Because the research is spanning multiple forensic disciplines, isn’t there?
Jo: Yeah. Yeah. There’s a paucity of research just for single disciplines. We know that crime scene investigators and digital forensic investigators are those that are highest at risk. We know that, there’s evidence for that, but there’s still not a lot of research even for those disciplines.
But for the others, the people that would be more exposed to probably secondary trauma, reading information, we really don’t know very much about them at all. So I’m really hoping that we get a little bit more information about that. And this is just the first stage of some research I’m gonna be doing.
This is just like the initial investigation, which depending on the results we get, will lead into further research moving on.
Paul: And as far as I’m aware, there’s no research out there currently which has compared the different disciplines to see if similar mental health stressors are experienced by them all?
Jo: I’ve not seen it. If it exists, I haven’t seen it, so no.
Paul: Not me. No.
Jo: Yeah.
Paul: So are you aiming for a representative sample across all forensic disciplines, or are certain groups like police employed versus the private sector being prioritized, or are they all being analyzed together?
Jo: They’re all gonna be analyzed together. I haven’t aimed for a representative sample because the way I’ve sent the survey out has been through FCN channels. It’s been to forensic leads across the country. It’s been via social media to contacts that I’ve got in police forces across the world.
I sent the survey out last Friday and I’ve already got 110 responses. Which is fantastic, including about 20 to 30 from Australia and New Zealand. So they’re really engaging with it.
And everywhere I’ve sent it out, I’ve said, please share. So it’s a snowball sampling. Just send it out to anybody. So the results I get at the moment, I’ve got more CSIs that have responded than anyone else, but it’s about a third.
Digital forensics about half CSI and then the rest cross disciplines. So I really don’t know what I’m gonna get, but no, it’s not been prioritized for anyone, public or private. Just anyone.
Paul: That’s really good. That’s really good. So what criteria are being used to assess the effectiveness of wellbeing interventions?
Jo: That’s where I guess it’s gonna be a bit subjective because it’s just the individual’s perception of how effective it was. I’ve not used any clinical measures because that’s outside of my expertise and that’s something that I think potentially we can think about as we move forward. Maybe we could do that in future, look at it, make it more clinical.
But it is going to be how the practitioner who has interacted with the intervention thinks it worked or not. So is it scientific? Is it clinical? No, but it gives us a good indication of how people felt.
As a practitioner, if you’ve done something and you feel better and you can go back to work. Then that’s worked for you. So that’s the sort of level this survey is at.
But as I say, this is just the first phase of a project that will go on hopefully for the next year or so, getting more detailed and starting to look more at it with people like you helping to look at it maybe from more of a clinical point of view.
Paul: I have to say, when the other stages start to be publicized and shared with the practitioners, I’m sure we at Forensic Focus would love to help do that.
Jo: Yeah, that’s fantastic.
Paul: So just drop me a line and we’ll get something arranged.
Jo: I will. And we’ve got some academic partners from University of Birmingham who have interacted with the questionnaire with me which is just gonna be published through the FCN. And then we are applying for ethical approval for the next stages of it through the university. So yeah, I’m happy to work with Forensic Focus as well on that.
Paul: Amazing. So will the study explore whether interventions were used preventatively, or in crisis situations?
Jo: It doesn’t, there’s not actually a question that asks that. I’m not going into that level of detail. It asks them do they know what interventions are available to them or are there any interventions available to them in their workplace? Do they know what they are?
And then there’s a long list for them to select from. Or they can add others. And then if they used them, which ones did they use? And then if they did use them, how effective did they think they were? And those are spaced on a Likert scale of whether they thought, how useful they thought they were.
Paul: Whether they were effective or not. Yeah. Is the study gonna explore barriers to accessing wellbeing services?
Jo: Some of the questions are about are the resources available to them? So rather than the barriers, it’s about what is there, what’s available? Do they know what’s available? And then there are some free text questions where they can put information like that.
I don’t ask that explicitly. But that is one of the questions I want to pursue into the next phase is what are the barriers? Why don’t they use interventions? Or if they are available to them, what are the barriers? Because we know that there are barriers.
Paul: Yeah, we do. Yeah. That’s been well researched. I think probably the biggest barrier that immediately springs to my mind is the stigma around help seeking behavior, which we all know still continues and still exists.
Jo: And that’s a really interesting point, Paul. Because one of the answers I read today from someone who submitted their form said exactly what they said, that the barriers are the stigma to asking for it or asking what’s available and then using it afterwards. There’s still a stigma for them.
Paul: Yeah, I was talking about this with someone else actually earlier today. And it wasn’t just a stigma, it was the worry that, how can I put this, the worry that it would affect their future prospects.
Jo: Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s definitely, as I say, just looking at this one answer that I looked at today, that was exactly what it said. They’re worried about their career prospects. They’re worried about, especially for digital forensic practitioners, they’re really concerned that if they say I’m struggling at the moment, and I don’t really want to look at any more of these images, that they’re gonna be taken away from the job that they love.
And sometimes they just need a short break. Sometimes a month, two months, three months out doing something else is all they need. And then they’re happy to come back. Or maybe they’re happy to do three days a week looking at it, but they’d like two days doing something else.
But they’re worried that if they ask for that, they’ll be moved out of the section and away from doing a job that they love.
Paul: Yeah, I can echo that. I’ve spoken to dozens of DFIs through the work that I do with Forensic Focus, and it is a common theme that they are terrified to speak up and say, I need a break in case they are moved away.
And the problem is with many DFIs are civilian investigators and unlike police investigators who would just be moved to another section, another shift, another department. That’s not the case for civilian DFIs, is it?
Jo: No. You’re right in policing in England and Wales, that is a challenge. What else do you do if you’re not doing your primary role? There’s only so many project teams or validation studies that can be done.
And so for managers it is, to be fair to managers, it’s a challenge for them because they’ve got backlogs and workloads that they need to meet, and if they identify that their practitioners need to move, it’s like, where do I put them? There’s nowhere for me to put them to do something. And I need somebody else to fill that space.
And it’s not that easy because they’re skilled, trained practitioners, highly trained practitioners. And so it is not an easy answer for anybody, but what we need to do is build it into practices so that everybody gets that respite, whether they ask for it or not, everybody gets it so that we are protecting everyone.
Paul: Yeah. Yeah, I agree. So has the survey received ethical approval from a university or a professional body, or is it something that’s being managed by the FCN?
Jo: Yeah, it’s being managed internally by the FCN. It’s been reviewed by our internal departments. So we are compliant with GDPR and all the things that we need to be.
It’s not going to be published in any professional journals. It’s part of an FCN report that we are going to issue, that we will share. But it’s not gonna be an official publication in relation to a journal. But it will feed into that kind of research going forward.
So that’s why I said stage two, which I’m hoping to do some interviews with practitioners, will go through an ethical process with the University of Birmingham, get it ethically approved so that we can then publish our results in a professional journal, in an appropriate journal.
So this report will be shared. It will be available to everybody who’s taken part and everyone in policing. So it needs to be done so that it benefits people. I don’t wanna write a report that just sits on a hard drive somewhere. It needs to be something that is useful and usable.
Paul: I was gonna ask, how are the findings gonna be fed back? So will they be published via the FCN website?
Jo: Yeah, so it’ll be an open report on our website. And I’ll also share it obviously with any police force who’s interested in reviewing it, or forensic practitioner who wants to review it.
Paul: Yeah, I was gonna say, if you could share it directly with us and we could share it via Forensic Focus.
Jo: It’s not gonna be something that is a protected document only available to UK law enforcement. Everyone will have access to it.
Paul: So from all the research that’s being done, obviously it’s very early stages for this study, but from all the research that’s being done, do you think there might be an intention to develop new national guidelines on minimum standards for the provision of wellbeing based on the research as a whole? In the UK.
Jo: I think it will definitely form part of the discussion for national standards. So previous work that I’ve done on wellbeing for practitioners has been shared with Oscar Kilo and they’ve, which is our national police wellbeing service in the UK, in England and Wales. And they’ve been really interested in what we’ve done.
The results from this will be shared with them as well. And we are engaged in that conversation constantly through the National Police Chief’s Council on how we can make sure that we protect the wellbeing of our staff and whether it will lead to minimum standards or guidelines.
Minimum standards are exactly what I would like to see that we do issue some kind of good practice. This is what we would expect, and if we could have some kind of national guidelines that everyone had to follow? That would be the ideal.
Paul: Yeah, it would. Something that quite often crops up during conversations that I’ll have with DFIs is the fact they do mention the guidelines that are published quite often around digital forensics by Oscar Kilo, which I have to say I have read and they are really good.
There’s some really good guidelines, really good pieces of work published by Oscar Kilo. But because the guidelines, they are not being put in place on the ground. So whereas if it were national standards, then there would have to be adhered to,
Jo: Yeah. So I work with the National Police Chief’s Council, Recruitment Retention and Wellbeing Investigators Group. And they are very keen. They’re looking at the wellbeing of investigators across the whole of policing.
So this will also be fed back into the work that they’re doing and they’re the NPCC body that would lead. So I would love it to become minimum standards. Definitely. That’s what I would like to see.
National guidelines everyone has to adhere to. But I think before we can have those guidelines, we need the evidence base to support that. And that’s why we’re doing this, so that those guidelines aren’t just based on what you or I think they’re actually based on the evidence from research.
I think it might be a way before we get those standards because as we’ve already said, there’s a lack of research, there’s a lack of evidence, and it needs to be evidence based to support it, to make sure we’re doing the best for our practitioners.
Paul: I absolutely agree. It’s something I’ve thought about quite a lot actually, because from an operational point of view, you’ve got ISO 17025, which has come in, and it dictates the procedures and policies around the actual work that’s done in the labs. So it makes everything safe and sound and secure. Yet the same approach isn’t applied to the wellbeing of forensic practitioners, is it?
Jo: No. And that’s because those guidelines you are talking about? The forensic regulation that we’ve got, it’s based on research, it’s based on validation of methods, and we’ve not done that with wellbeing. We’ve never really analyzed it and we’ve not got enough of an evidence base.
We’ve got some research, but not enough, and so that’s where the work that you’ve done, the work that we are doing, the work that others out there are doing. Because it is becoming, people are aware of how much of a risk it is to our workforce.
And so people are really keen on it and there is some research going on now. Hopefully we will get that depth and quality of research and responses so that we’ve got the evidence base so that we can create those minimum guidelines so that forces are obliged to stick to them.
Paul: And I think what you’ve just said about those kind of guidelines being based on evidence, which comes from the research that you do, just shows how important it is for practitioners to actually take part and complete this survey that is going out via Forensic Focus.
Jo: Yeah. I would love to get a thousand responses. My analysis would be difficult, but it would be fantastic. As I say, it’s only been open four days and I’ve already got 110 responses or something. We are doing well and a lot of those have come internationally already.
I’m really keen to get as many responses as we can. We’ve got 4,500 forensic practitioners in the UK. If we could get at least 10% of those to respond, it would be fantastic.
Paul: It would be amazing, wouldn’t it?
Jo: Yeah.
Paul: And that would really put quite a lot of weight behind the requirement for national standards, wouldn’t it?
Jo: Yeah. And that was the problem with the National Police Wellbeing Survey that gets filled out every year. The response rates are so very low that whilst it’s really interesting, the results that we get, the people that tend to respond to surveys are those that are either very happy or very unhappy.
Paul: Yeah. And there’s no middle ground, does it?
Jo: Yeah. No. So I would really like it if as many people as possible filled it out, even if they just say, yeah, I haven’t had any wellbeing problems. I’m fine. Thanks. At least then I know that.
Paul: And that’s equally as important to know, isn’t it?
Jo: Exactly. Exactly. It is. Definitely.
Paul: So will the data that’s collected be used to support funding bids for pilot schemes or interventions, for example?
Jo: I haven’t, it’s interesting. I haven’t really thought yet about applying for funding, but I guess that is something that we could think about depending on what I get out of this first stage, the second stage.
As I say, is gonna involve more work with, interviewing people and analysis of interviews. So yeah, potentially. And it doesn’t even have to be FCN if other people have got ideas and they want to come in and collaborate with them on funding bids. Getting the money is always the challenging bit.
But there are, there is funding available. I have seen some funding available for wellbeing initiatives, especially if we use technology. It’s about thinking smarter and thinking about what else we can do. It isn’t at the moment, but I don’t think that will preclude us doing that in the future. Definitely.
Paul: So have you identified any differences in wellbeing outcomes or services used between digital forensics and more traditional disciplines?
Jo: At the moment it’s such early stages. I haven’t really had a chance. As I say, it only opened on Friday, so I haven’t had a chance to look at it.
My experiences from policing in England and Wales, probably not because police forces offer the same interventions to everybody in the organization. So I don’t think that there’s gonna be any huge differences. Not that I’ve seen yet, but I might be surprised. That’s why I want to do this. Because I don’t know.
Paul: Exactly. We just don’t know, do we?
Jo: I don’t know. No. So that will be a really interesting question and that’s why I’ve opened it to every forensic discipline. Because I want to see, are fingerprint examiners more likely to do one thing than DFIs are? Are CSIs more likely to do something?
Does the fact that they work shifts or anti-social hours affect what interventions they ask for? Does the fact that CSIs are more frontline mean that they’re more likely to do one particular thing than someone working in a forensic enhancement laboratory who’s based in a police station all the time?
I don’t know. I wanna see are there nuances, are there differences or does it not matter?
Paul: I think you’ll get some really interesting results when you start to compare the answers from the different disciplines. I think it’ll be really interesting to see.
Jo: Yeah. And one of the other things I’m really interested to look at is the differences between male and female. Are there differences in responses about that? Are the interventions that are chosen different depending on age group? Are the interventions that are chosen different depending on your time in the role?
So is someone that’s very new into the role, more likely or less likely, is someone a bit longer in the tooth like yourself or I, Paul, that we’ve been around a bit longer. Are we less likely than somebody who’s 20 and has been brought up with mental health being talked about all the time?
Mental health was not talked about when I joined policing in 1991.
Paul: No.
Jo: It was a get on with it, shut up and don’t moan. Go and get another job if you don’t like it sort of approach.
Paul: Pull your pants up and get on with it.
Jo: Yeah. If I’d have said, I’m struggling a little bit with that, they would’ve just said, go down the pub, or, you’ll be fine. So does that make a difference? I think it probably will, but I could be completely wrong.
Paul: I think you touched on a really interesting sort of comparison there between new investigators and old investigators, because obviously from a cultural perspective, the youngsters who are coming through now are far more educated and far more open to talking about their emotions and feelings as opposed to the dinosaurs. Who are you and me?
Is it, does that make a younger investigator less susceptible because they’re more open to talking about it than an older investigator who’s less likely to talk about it?
Jo: Yeah. One of the other things I’ve really thought about is there a sweet spot as well where if you’ve been in policing for a certain amount of time, so maybe is there, if you’ve been in two, three years, does that education you’ve had not matter anymore because it’s the policing culture that takes over that you feel like you can’t?
Do these people change? Do they, for the first year or so, maintain that? I can say what I feel. Does that change with time in policing? Are you more likely after a certain point to no longer think, oh, I can talk about it because my colleagues don’t, so maybe I shouldn’t or. Is that not true anymore? Has the culture of policing changed that everyone feels comfortable talking about it? That’s the kind of thing I want to get into.
Paul: I think time’s a really interesting factor in this because I’ve published a few studies now. In one of the studies I looked at, which wasn’t actually in digital forensics, it was in general policing, and it looked at the effect of it looked to see if cops suffered from anxiety and depression.
And one of the really interesting things I found in that study, I did moderation analysis to see if over time those reported symptoms reduce and I found by the time they’d served 15 years, the reported symptoms actually did begin to reduce. Which was really interesting.
Now, I wondered, I gave this some thought and I wondered, is it because they develop protective measures themselves, or is it the ones who are more resilient stay within the force and the less resilient leave?
Jo: Yeah.
Paul: Which would result in the same findings.
Jo: Which, that’s another whole area that I think resilience that we can look into is resilience inherent in our personalities that some people are just more resilient than others? Is it something that we build throughout our career? Is it something we can learn and that we can teach people?
Because resilience is something that you bring up all the time. You have to be resilient. How do you measure resilience? How do you build resilience? That’s how do you capture that?
Paul: Yeah. That’s a whole project in itself.
Jo: And I totally agree because it’s something that I’ve thought about. How do you become more resilient than the next person you’re sitting next to, because you’re both faced with the same material. But how does one stay longer than the other?
And I’ve hypothesized that maybe, and this is a hypothesis, it’s not tested, maybe individuals who live through ACEs, adverse childhood experiences, who become very resilient from a very early age. Maybe that continues in the adulthood and into these posts. And it increases that person’s resilience and ability to stay in the job longer and deal with the exposure that they do.
Paul: Or does that actually work in reverse?
Jo: Yeah, we don’t have, and is it something to do with personality? Because you could get two children that have been brought up in the same household where they’ve both experienced the same ACEs or very similar, where one will be very resilient and the other one struggles to cope with life after the ACEs.
And so you wonder, is part of it your experiences or part of it inherent personality? It’s fascinating. It really is fascinating. And there is some work on that. There is some research on that. Looking at adverse childhood experiences and resilience.
There is some research about that. So maybe that’s something we could look at to how we could use that to build it with our practitioners.
Paul: Yeah, I think that would be a really, that would throw up some really interesting results.
Jo: Definitely. Definitely.
Paul: Good. I know, Dr. Tehrani has done some research around adverse childhood experiences, but I think I’m only aware that she’s done one study about it, so I think it’s worthwhile doing more exploratory work around that.
Jo: Yeah, definitely. She did some work for us about the digital for the level four digital forensic technician apprenticeship. Because we were concerned that bringing 18 year olds into a DF environment looking at some of the images they’re gonna be looking at will affect their brain because they’re only 18.
Paul: It’s still developing at that age, isn’t it?
Jo: Exactly. So she did some work, some really good work for us on that to reassure us that we could bring 18 year olds into the workplace. So yeah there’s some really good research we could ask to get done or we could initiate. Definitely.
Paul: So before we have to cut this off what’s the closing date for the survey?
Jo: It’s the 4th of July. Easy date to remember. 4th of July. Any Americans who might wanna do it, the 4th of July is the last date. But if anyone misses the cutoff and they really wanna do it, they can drop me an email, my email’s on the survey, and I’m happy to extend it if need be.
Paul: Perfect. Jo, thank you very much for joining us today on the Forensic Focus podcast. We’ll get this out to the users of the platform and we’ll include a link directly to the research study. And if you wouldn’t mind coming back and reporting the results, we’d love to talk to you again.
Jo: Yeah. And I would love to do that as well. And at the end of the survey, if anyone wants to be involved in future research, the interviews I was talking about, they can put their email on there. No one, I won’t share that with anyone else. Their results, all their other results will stay anonymous. But I’ll get in touch with them for the latest stages of this research if they’d like to take this further.
Paul: And actually, you mentioned you would like some participants to be interviewed via teams?
Jo: That will be later in the year. So if I come back and report the results from this survey to your viewers, then I can then ask for volunteers. Anyone that will be interested in the next stage can contact me then.
But thank you for giving me this opportunity, Paul. Really a good opportunity for me to share the work we’re doing.
Paul: Oh, that’s great to catch up with you, Jo.
Jo: Yeah, you too.
Paul: Thanks. Bye for now.
Jo: Thank you. Bye-bye.
