UK-based digital forensic investigators and the impact of exposure to traumatic material

Abstract

Purpose Digital forensic investigators (DFIs) encounter traumatic material, and this is associated with the development of secondary traumatic stress (STS). Limited research has been conducted with UK DFIs, a significant concern given their role. This study aims to explore levels of self-reported STS by DFIs, the relationship to gender, years as a DFI, frequency of exposure to traumatic material and difficulty coping with such material. This study also aims to provide insight into the psychological impact, identify potential risk groups and explore coping strategies within this specific group of professionals. Design/methodology/approach A correlational cross-sectional design was conducted at a fixed point in time, with a sample of 114 currently employed DFIs, recruited through the Forensic Capability Network. Findings Mean STS scores fell within the moderate range, although 29.9% of participants reported high to severe levels. Significant correlations were found between STS total and subscales with difficulty viewing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). While females reported higher mean STS scores, the difference was not statistically significant, however, females did score significantly higher on the arousal sub-scale of the STS. Regression analysis included the variables (COPE scale and subscales, frequency of viewing child abuse material, years spent working as a DFI, age, gender) that identified mental disengagement, difficulty viewing CSAM and younger age as predictors of increased STS. Research limitations/implications Primarily, the reliance on self-report instruments lacks external validation of STS. Furthermore, possible response or selection basis could have stemmed from participants experiencing high stress. Hosting the study online hindered exploring this further, suggesting the potential for future research. Although the regression model explained 28% of STS variance, unaccounted factors remain, constituting 72% unexplained variance. A mixed method approach might unveil additional variables, addressing potential limitations. Additionally, this study was cross-sectional meaning that the authors cannot infer causation. Practical implications These findings underscore the need for educational efforts targeting DFI’s to raise awareness about potential mental health risks associated with CSAM-related work. Equally crucial is emphasising the hazards associated with adopting negative coping strategies. Equipping DFI’s with this knowledge may enable them to make informed decisions aimed at minimising the impact of job-related stressors. Moreover, it highlights the necessity of recognising DFIs as a group deserving access to professional and mental health support. It is pertinent to consider recent research highlighting the stigma of therapy and a prevailing perception of a “critical or judgemental workplace culture” among UK investigators. Social implications To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first known exploration of STS in UK-based DFI’s, encompassing an investigation into potential risk and protective factors. A proportion of the sample reported experiencing mild to severe levels of STS, with the mean STS score falling within the moderate range. Notably, 29.9% of participants reported high to severe levels of STS. Originality/value The findings provide an inaugural exploration of STS among UK-based DFI’s, offering crucial insight into the psychological impact, vulnerable demographics and coping strategies within this unique professional context. Practical implications based on the findings are considered.