“Like a frog boiling in water”: A qualitative analysis of stress, vicarious trauma, and mental health among forensic sciences professionals

Abstract

Forensic science professionals play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, but due to the nature of forensic science careers, exposure to traumatic material and occupational stressors remains common within the profession. The impacts of these aspects of the career field are not negligible, with prior research suggesting that forensic science professionals experience various forms of psychological distress, including but not limited to burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, secondary traumatic stress, and vicarious trauma. The present study sought to analyze open-ended responses to survey questions from forensic science professionals (N = 223) to better understand their experiences of occupational stressors and mental health. Using a qualitative approach, the results highlight several insights into stress and mental health among forensic science professionals. First, sources of stress are not limited to occupational stressors, and stressors may compound on one another. Second, the impact of stress has negative psychological outcomes, at times leading to both positive and negative coping mechanisms. Said coping mechanisms reflect not only stressors and the psychological impact of work, but also barriers to help-seeking behaviors, as well as the role of stigma for forensic science professionals seeking mental health assistance. We conclude with discussions of policy implementations, drawing from the perspectives of respondents.

Highlights

• •Qualitative analysis identified four central themes of stress in forensic work.
• •Coping and help-seeking were shaped by stigma, barriers, and workplace culture.
• •Stressors were multidimensional, spanning occupational, case, and life domains.
• •Findings inform policy needs for qualified mental health support in forensic settings.

1. Introduction

Forensic science is commonly defined as the application of scientific principles, methods, and expertise to resolve legal disputes and investigate criminal activities [1]. The forensic science field encompasses a wide range of disciplines, including chemistry, biology, physics, the social sciences, and behavioral sciences [2]. Forensic science professionals work at the intersection of science and the law, often serving as expert witnesses who translate complex technical findings into understandable information for judges and juries [3,4]. As of 2024, the United States employs approximately 20,700 forensic science technicians, with the workforce projected to expand by 13% to 14% by 2034 [5].

The daily tasks for forensic science professionals vary widely from digital evidence collection/analysis and medicolegal death investigation to forensic pathology, toxicology, and on-scene examination [4]. However, their work is unified by close interaction with the criminal justice system, and for some fields, there is routine exposure to potentially traumatic materials as well (e.g., odontology [6]; digital and multimedia forensics [7,8]; and forensic nursing [9]).

It is well-established that criminal justice professionals, specifically law enforcement personnel, experience high work-related stress as a part of the investigative process [10]. However, only recently has there been an emphasis on investigating the impact of work-related stress and trauma exposure on the mental health and well-being of forensic science professionals [4].

1.1. Mental health & well-being

In day-to-day work, many forensic professionals are regularly exposed to traumatic material, such as graphic crime scene images, disturbing digital exploitation content, decomposed remains, and the emotional strain of interacting with grieving families [4,11]. This exposure leads to several distinct forms of psychological distress, such as burnout [[11], [12], [13]], post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [11,13], secondary traumatic stress (STS) [[11], [12], [13]], and vicarious trauma [[11], [12], [13]]. PTSD is a result of direct exposure to a traumatic incident, whereas STS is a result of indirect exposure to the detailed information of other people's traumatic experiences [10]. Although vicarious trauma is often used interchangeably with secondary traumatic stress, it more precisely refers to pervasive and permanent shifts in an individual's internal cognitive schemas and worldview, particularly regarding safety, trust, and personal security [11]. For instance, forensic examiners, particularly those in autopsy and medico-legal roles, frequently confront severe injuries, decomposed remains, and child fatalities, putting them at risk for vicarious trauma, STS, and PTSD [14]. Moreover, existing research distinguishes between laboratory-based and field-based forensic examiners. Field-based forensic examiners, such as crime scene and death investigators, experience significantly higher levels of STS and PTSD compared to laboratory-based analysts due to direct scene involvement [13,15].

Additionally, the distressing exposure for forensic professionals in some fields, resulting in vicarious trauma, may lead to a fearful view of the world and to experiencing disrupted beliefs about safety and the trustworthiness of others [11,16,17]. For example, a qualitative study on crime scene investigators indicates that nearly half (48%) of the participants reported trauma-related symptoms involving negative beliefs about themselves, other people, and the world [11]. Furthermore, it can also lead to social isolation and difficulties in personal relationships, including decreased sexual desire and intimacy with partners [4,11]. Some forensic professionals also report difficulty sleeping, exhaustion, and fatigue [4,18].

1.2. Occupational hazards

Existing research highlights common stressors among forensic professionals, including high caseloads [[18], [19], [20]], escalating evidence volume [20], time pressure [18], limited control over work [18,19], administrative burdens [18,19], personal stress [14] and a chronic sense of being “overstretched” with limited resources [20]. These stressors are compounded by the anxiety of making a career-ending mistake or compromising justice, creating a constant, intense cognitive load for some forensic professionals [16]. For example, a systematic review concluded that forensic personnel across multiple countries report substantial stress and burnout, driven by exposure to trauma, heavy workloads, and organizational constraints [14].

Moreover, some studies suggest that female forensic professionals report significantly higher levels of occupational stress, burnout, and psychological distress compared to their male counterparts [4,18,21]. For example, a study surveyed 41 forensic examiners and found that major sources of stress included case backlogs, managerial and supervisory issues, and perceived lack of support, with women and mid-career examiners (11–15 years’ experience) reporting particularly high stress levels [22]. Furthermore, a study found that women are more frequently targets of workplace bullying and are more prone to harassment, which exacerbates their psychological strain [21]. On the other hand, the relationship between years of work experience and occupational stress has contrasting results. For example, a study found that forensic science professionals with fewer years of experience often report higher levels of psychological distress, including anxiety, worry, and feelings of worthlessness [4].

1.3. Coping mechanisms

Forensic science professionals utilize a wide array of coping mechanisms to manage the intense psychological demands of their work, whether positive or negative. The positive strategies involve active, problem-focused, or emotion-focused behaviors that help professionals process trauma and maintain a healthy work-life balance [23]. For example, using gallows humor (which is neither dark or light [11]), identity separation (e.g., engaging in sports/hobbies [24], and social clubs [12]), physical exercise [11,25], social/peer support (discussing feelings and debrief with colleagues [11,23]) and some rely on prayers or religious beliefs, especially for crime scene examiners to cope with cases related to deaths and suffering [26]. For example, crime scene investigators [11,23], digital forensic investigators [27], medicolegal death investigators [28], and forensic mental health professionals [29] share their experiences with colleagues/peers who understand their jobs. Moreover, mindfulness-based approaches and adaptive coping have been linked to lower stress and burnout among forensic health care professionals [30].

Sometimes, to cope, professionals may engage in emotional detachment or numbing, viewing victims as objects or evidence rather than people [16,19]. While some emotional distancing is adaptive, it can become maladaptive when it leads to cynicism, callousness, or a complete loss of empathy for victims [27]. Whereas some forensic professionals resort to negative coping strategies, such as excessive alcohol consumption [12,18], smoking [12,31], escapism [11,26], and substance use (e.g., drugs; [4]). However, the use of alcohol to cope varies across studies. Some studies indicate that while alcohol consumption is common, it is not always reported at abuse levels (e.g., sometimes having a drink [18,32]. On the other hand, some studies indicate high rates of alcohol misuse, with one U.S. study estimating that 44% show signs of dependency to unwind [12]. Authors in a study found that forensic professionals most frequently reported positive coping (e.g., talking with a spouse or friend, exercise, hobbies), although a smaller subset endorsed potentially maladaptive strategies such as using alcohol or other substances, with women and early-career practitioners reporting a greater number and variety of coping behaviors overall [4].

1.4. Barriers to help-seeking

Mental health help-seeking among forensic science professionals is strongly shaped by organizational context, perceived support, and stigma. Forensic professionals worry that admitting to burnout, STS, or mental health struggles could damage their professional credibility, negatively impact their ability to testify in court, or jeopardize future promotions [4,13]. Some studies indicate that forensic professionals describe limited access to appropriate wellness resources and a sense that mental health remains a marginal or taboo topic in workplaces [14,33]. There is a persistent stigma in the forensic profession regarding mental health, where admitting distress is often viewed as a weakness [4,12,18]. Moreover, crime scene investigators have reported receiving dismissive or mocking responses from colleagues when seeking assistance [34].

Furthermore, organizational barriers are also a factor, where forensic professionals have reported that mental health issues were not adequately addressed during their education or workplace training, leaving them ill-equipped to recognize symptoms or access resources [33]. In terms of demographics, female forensic professionals and those with fewer years of experience are significantly more likely to report barriers such as difficulty getting time off work and a lack of available resources, whereas male professionals are more likely to report distrust of mental health professionals as a primary barrier [4].

There is a significant discrepancy between the support forensic professionals require and what organizations currently provide. A study highlighted that when professionals believe their organization addresses vicarious trauma, they report less burnout and secondary traumatic stress and greater compassion satisfaction [13]. However, many professionals reported that their organizations prioritize case output and public image over them [16]. Furthermore, even when organizations provide resources, stigma related to mental health treatment prevents their utilization. For example, first responders underutilize employee assistance program fearing a lack of confidentiality [34], crime scene professionals may fear being the subject of office gossip or being judged by their team if they open up [35], and digital forensic examiners, especially when dealing with child sexual abuse material, may fear not being understood [8].

1.5. Current study

The goal of the current study was to conduct a qualitative analysis of an open-ended survey response from forensic science professionals in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) to understand their experiences of occupational stressors and mental well-being in response to work-related stress. This study extended the prior AAFS vicarious trauma assessment survey, which quantified forensic science professionals’ psychological well-being, coping mechanisms, and barriers to seeking mental health services using standardized measures [4]. Grounded in first-hand accounts of work-related stress and trauma, this qualitative analysis provides context for existing quantitative findings and practice-oriented insights for organizational and policy implementations.

2. Method

Our research team analyzed responses to an open-ended survey question, as part of a larger survey on forensic sciences professionals' experiences of vicarious trauma and mental health [4]. This study was approved by the second author's institutional review board (IRB# 2025-138).

2.1. Participants

A total of 618 participants completed the anonymous online survey. Analysis of the open-ended question revealed 40% (n = 246) of participants left a written response. However, 23 responses were deleted as they did not provide any substantive content for thematic analysis (e.g., Thanks, I have none). Therefore, the final number of written-in responses for thematic analysis was 223.

The mean age of the sample was 49.07 years (SD = 14.41; Range 23-86). Most participants identified as White (87.4%, n = 195) and were permanent residents of the United States (n = 213, 95.5%). There were also more women (cis- or transgender) than men (n = 160, 71.7%; n = 55, 24.7%, respectively). 69.5% (n = 155) were married whereas 20.6% (n = 46) were single, never married. 41.7% (n = 93) of the sample have worked in the forensic sciences for 21 years or more, and 57.4% (n = 128) work for the government (city, county, state, or federal). See Table 1 for sample demographics.

Table 1.

Sample demographics.

Variables		Total (N = 223)
Gender	Male	55 (24.7)
	Female	160 (71.7)
	Non-Binary	5 (2.2)
	Missing	3 (1.3)
Age	18-25	6 (2.7)
	26-35	33 (14.8)
	36-45	60 (26.9)
	46-55	60 (26.9)
	56 or older	64 (28.7)
Ethnicity	Caucasian/White	195 (87.4)
	Others	24 (10.8)
	Missing	4 (1.8)
Marital Status	Single, Never Married	46 (20.6)
	Married, CL, CU	155 (69.5)
	D, S, W	19 (8.5)
	Missing	3 (1.3)
Agency	City	18 (8.1)
	County	45 (20.2)
	State	56 (25.1)
	Federal	9 (4.0)
	NGO/Private	26 (11.7)
	Academic/Education	41 (18.4)
	None	28 (12.6)
Work Experience	<1	4 (1.8)
	1-5 years	21 (9.4)
	6-10 years	26 (11.7)
	11-15 years	36 (16.1)
	16-20 years	43 (19.3)
	≥21	93 (41.7)
Have Children	No	90 (40.4)
	Yes	131 (58.7)
	Missing	2 (0.9)

Note. D = Divorced, S = Separated, W = Widowed, CL = Common Law, CU = Civil Union. “None” for Agency includes individuals who reported as not working with a specific agency (e.g., retired, students, self-employed, etc.). Note any discrepancies in percentage due to rounding. Values represent frequencies with percentages in parentheses.

2.2. Procedure

An anonymous, internet-based study was hosted on Qualtrics, and forensic science professionals from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) were recruited via convenience sampling. There are 12 disciplines represented within the AAFS: anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, general section, jurisprudence, forensic nursing science, odontology, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, questioned documents, and toxicology. Current members of AAFS were recruited via the AAFS email listserve and through social media posts between March-April 2025. Due to the sensitivity of the survey items, we did not collect any identifying information, nor did we ask members to identify their forensic science section. We were concerned with the ability to link responses to members based on demographic variables or facilitating stigma between sections; thus, we hoped this decision would decrease social desirability bias and increase members’ trust in the anonymous survey.

Eligibility criteria included being over the age of 18 and being a current member of AAFS. Participating in and completing the survey was entirely voluntary, and participants could skip questions or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. After completing the survey, participants were directed to a separate Qualtrics survey, where they could enter their email for a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card, funded by AAFS. This meant that two Qualtrics surveys were used: one to collect survey responses and another to collect email addresses for compensation. Therefore, emails were not identifiable in participants’ survey responses to ensure participant privacy. A total of 20 participants were randomly selected by AAFS for compensation for completing the survey.

2.3. Measures

At the end of the survey, every forensic science professional had the opportunity to respond to an open-ended question, providing them with a platform to elaborate on or discuss any topics raised earlier in the survey. Open-ended questions are often included at the end of surveys to allow participants to share additional insights or perspectives that might not have been captured through closed-ended questions, providing deeper insight into their experiences [36]. The open-ended question at the end of the survey read as follows:

Please use this space to elaborate on any experiences you have had or ideas you have regarding vicarious trauma and work-related stress in the forensic science community.

2.4. Data analysis

Data collection was conducted by experienced researchers with expertise in vicarious trauma, forensic science, and criminal justice. The coding and analysis phases were conducted by the first and third authors, who have extensive experience with qualitative research methodologies.

An inductive qualitative approach was selected to observe themes emerging from the data, rather than to fit the data within a predetermined theoretical framework. It was also selected to conduct exploratory, participant-focused research, providing methodological flexibility and enabling themes to emerge that may not have emerged if a predetermined theoretical framework dictated themes and coding [37]. This approach is often understood as a “bottom-up” versus “top-down” approach to data analysis, whereby existing data guides coding, which ultimately leads to a theoretical framework, rather than using existing theories to dictate coding, which is then applied to the data [37]. In addition, we engaged in reflexivity by critically examining our own biases and assumptions throughout the data coding process [38].

We used Excel and HyperResearch V4.5.7 for all analyses and note-taking throughout the data analysis process. Following the iterative process outlined in Ref. [37], the first and third authors first read and took notes on the participant responses. Next, the authors discussed the codes and subcodes emerging from the data. The data was then read through again to refine the categories and codes first created by the authors. The first part of the process was done using Excel. Codes were ultimately agreed upon by the first and third authors through debate and conversation until consensus was reached. The first author coded all responses, and the third author also reviewed the data and the first author's codes to agree or disagree with them.

3. Results

Once the iterative coding process was completed, there were 4 major coding themes, each with subthemes, for a total of 78 unique codes (See Table 2). These major themes included: Sources of Stress; Impact and Coping; Barriers to Help-Seeking and Stigma; and Workplace Support Mechanisms and Policy Implementations. Gender and age-based demographic information were included along with the participant's unique identifying number for the sake of data transparency.

Table 2.

Qualitative theme frequencies.

Theme	Subthemes	Example	Frequency	%
Sources of Stress	Attribution of Stress, Case Stress, Life-Event Stress, Occupational Stress	“The largest stress currently is the large backlogs, the lack of funding, and terrible management.” (Participant 174)	231	36.78%
Impact & Coping	Personal Negative Psychological Symptoms, Others' Negative Psychological Symptoms, No Symptoms, Coping Mechanisms	“I work in a toxic workplace and it has caused me to disassociate with the work I do because having emotions is deemed bad. There is no one here I can turn to for help or talk about work.” (Participant 170)	140	22.30%
Barriers & Stigma	Barriers to Help-Seeking Behaviors and Stigma	“I do wish it [therapy] was more accessible financially since it is a rough field to work in for a long time. I think if institutions had staff psychologists or psychiatrists it would also be a very helpful thing and make it more accessible for everyone and less taboo.” (Participant 52)	152	24.20%
Positive Experiences and Paths Forward	Positive Workplace Attributes, Positive Policy Implementations	“My place of employment should but does not provide mental health assistance. We all have begged for years but they only provide dogs that visit every 3 months or peer support, NO, WE WANT PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH” (Participant 56)	102	16.24%
Other		Participant mentions physical symptoms they have that are unrelated to their work-related stress	3	0.48%
Total			628	100%

Note: Percentages rounded to the nearest hundredth.

3.1. Sources of stress

Participant discussion of sources of stress centered around four areas of stress: occupational stress, case detail stress, the temporal nature of the stress (acute versus cumulative), and life-event stress. Though most often stress was cited as work-related, participants also added details that exemplify that their occupational stress does not necessarily exist in isolation from stress in other areas of their lives.

Among conversations about occupational stressors, participants cited several aspects of their jobs, including poor management or supervision, interpersonal conflict, burnout, high workloads and case backlogs, insufficient time off, courtroom testimony, feelings of self-doubt or fear of making mistakes, and guilt about quitting. For example,

Work related stress is often caused by management in the lab and not by VT. Toxic work environments are pervasive in this industry. In some labs managers are emotionally abusive. There's also pressure to meet TATs [turn around times] and more work is always given to the hard workers and the lazy people slide. There's also pressure not to make an error. (Participant 33, Woman, Age 46)

and

There's never any downtime. Casework is constantly coming in, and increasing in volume. It feels like I'm on a hamster wheel. Breaks are looked down on by a certain few coworkers and they keep tabs on other people. Coworkers also look at how much work individuals are doing and keep tabs on that and mention it to supervisors. Supervisors/managers don't know how to deal with burnout and put it back on the analysts to manage. (Participant 70, Woman, Age 44)

Two manifestations of these occupational stressors were detailed by participants who shared experiences of working on sensationalized cases that drew media attention. One stated:

“… I worked a horrific and violent case that made national news. The case dragged on for many months under extreme media scrutiny. The stress was unbearable.” (Participant 38, Woman, Age 40)

Similarly, another participant commented:

[I was] sued [for] taking "too long" to identify a body; despite posting a description of the body on a State database, doing multiple fingerprint searches (State and Federal), sequencing DNA and posting the sequence State and Federal databases, posting a postmortem dental examination on State database, and responding to potential missing person inquiries from around the country (none matching), the family brought a legal claim for taking too long to make the identification. Despite all of that effort and working so hard at that and all of the other work I was doing, I had to be involved with legal mediation to help with a settlement. The experience made me feel vulnerable to unjust attack just for doing my work, and I am now very sensitive to any possible complaint. (Participant 69, Man, Age 59)

In addition to discussing stress related to working cases with high media visibility or heavy workloads, participants also largely discussed loving their job itself, but stress specifically from those in management. For example:

My boss used to abuse me by taking credit for my work and ideas. Also by gaslighting me by implying that I am either lying or I have false memories. It was clear that he wanted me out of the company although I was the highest performer in the workplace. I eventually took some time off, thought about the events in detail, cried about it and went back to work with determination that I just have to stop interacting with this boss and keep doing my job. I am still performing well at work, only thing is I do not enjoy interacting with my work colleagues. (Participant 44, Woman, Age 37)

Supervisors, being a central part of how this participant described occupational stress, was not uncommon. For example, another participant stated:

My current manager is the reason for my work-related stress. I love my job & the work I do, but I hate my boss. He's unqualified & deeply unprofessional. It makes lab life hard for everyone but there's nothing we can do about fixing the problem. (Participant 57, Woman, Age 40)

Although participants discussed occupational stressors characterized by long cases, high workloads, and poor management, several case characteristics were cited as sources of stress, beyond being long or public visibility. Such case stress was cited in multiple forms, including stress from specific case details, and cases involving children, homicide, suicide, and police. For example, two participants shared about the difficulties that come with cases involving children:

“I worked a fire fatality scene where a child died. The child died from smoke inhalation. He was wearing the same pjs [pajamas] my son normally wears.” (Participant 150, Man, Age 54)

“The hardest time for me is after I work cases that involved minor victims, especially if I have to handle or process victim clothing. I tend to avoid being around kids or in clothing aisles that have children’s clothing.” (Participant 151, Woman, Age 29)

Another participant affirmed the difficulty of cases that feel especially difficult to understand, saying:

I feel like I have constructed a fairly robust set of ramparts for work at this point. There are some cases that sneak over the walls--it might be that the decedent is a friend of a friend, or someone who reminds me of someone else, or maybe there is some detail that magnifies the horror of the case. E.g., I sometimes think about a father who put earplugs in before shooting his family. Like, it is all bad, but the earplugs put it into "help, where is the humanity?" territory. (Participant 188, Woman, Age 52)

To this end, it becomes evident that stressors for forensic science professionals are in part defined not only by their duration but also by their impact, which may differ from person to person. While some respondents expressed severe stress from acute, specific experiences, others suggested that stress accumulates over time, saying, “It seems to come on slowly like a frog boiling in water. Not usually an acute event just builds over time.” (Participant 55, Woman, Age 43)

Stressors, though characteristically work-related, appeared to appear in tandem or exacerbate otherwise unrelated life-event stress. In these circumstances, sources of stress discussed residual symptoms from adverse childhood events (ACEs), aging, family illnesses or deaths, and having children. However, these stressors were not necessarily isolated to an individual's job, but rather co-occurred with or added to workplace stress. For example, Participant 42 (Woman, Age 31) discussed what it was like to work as a forensic science professional while pregnant, saying:

Working 16h days while in third trimester of pregnancy as courts are not understanding. Last minute travel while managing other responsibilities. Receiving case histories that hit close to home and cause a strong emotional response requiring needing to step away from work for a short period of time.

In this example, occupational stress from case details, workload, and life stressors (pregnancy) intersect. From such examples, it is apparent that the stress experienced by forensic science professionals is multidimensional and dynamic. Occupational stressors reflect not only the work they do broadly but also constraints imposed on them by other areas of the criminal justice system, difficult cases, and life-event stress. As these competing yet interrelated characteristics of their jobs and lives collide, they culminate in complex stress experiences that reflect the unique lived experiences of forensic science professionals.

3.2. Impact and coping

Psychological symptoms and coping mechanisms also appear to reflect the complex nature of forensic science careers. When discussing work-related stressors, some participants' responses exemplify how these stressors have impacted their own psychological symptoms overall, psychological symptoms other forensic science professionals experience, and ways they have attempted to cope with both stress and psychological symptoms.

While nine respondents noted that they felt they do not have any psychological symptoms related to their work or stress, other participants discussed a variety of psychological symptoms themselves of others experience, including: anxiety, cynicism, depression, formal diagnoses like PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) or GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), nightmares/night terrors, paranoia, recurring thoughts/rumination, suicidality, vicarious trauma (VT). When discussing the experiences of other forensic science professionals, participants focused exclusively on mentions of depression and VT. Participant 153 (Man, Age 49) recalled the psychological impact of their first exhumation (i.e., digging up and removing human remains), saying:

My first exhumation case was incredibly stressful and challenging. We had to work in a forest instead of a proper graveyard, which added an eerie and unsettling atmosphere to the already difficult task. After completing the exhumation, I returned to my car and couldn’t shake the feeling that someone was sitting inside with me, making the experience even more disturbing. Seeing the body after so long was emotionally taxing, and I had to force myself to stay calm and focused on my work despite the fear and unease. While my team provided support, the entire situation left me feeling deeply unsettled and emotional for a long time. This experience taught me the importance of strength, composure, and caution when dealing with such intense and sensitive situations.

The recollection of Participant 153's experiences in tandem with the lived experience other participants shared suggests that feelings of paranoia and residual memories of their work do not appear to be isolated, uncommon experiences among forensic science professionals. For example, Participant 158 (Woman, Age 38) shared:

How do you explain the inexplicable? There are times where I can close my eyes and I am back at the scene, I can feel the person in my arms, the sights and sounds. There are a few cases where I can imagine what happened as they died. There have been more than a handful of times where I have arrived to a scene and there has been something from my life at the scene: the same car, the same baby crib, etc.

In addition to the impact of specific cases “sticking” with forensic science professionals, and thereby contributing to negative psychological symptoms, other participants discussed the negative psychological symptoms of their job as ones at times leading to the use of psychiatric treatments such as therapy and medication, and characterized by trauma responses, anxiety, nightmares, rumination, and in some cases, suicidality.

Regarding psychiatric treatments, Participants 159 and 37 spoke to how treatment enabled them to continue performing their jobs, saying:

“I had job-related panic attacks for a while, was treated for PTSD with EMDR therapy, was able to go back into the field.” (Participant 37, Woman, Age 49)

and

… my first scene was the homicide of a young girl my age. I would constantly have recurring, unwanted thoughts/flashbacks to this scene … [but expert testimony,] this is possibly the biggest stressor related to my career. I used to have trouble sleeping, panic attack type of symptoms, and lots of irrational fears related to it. This is one of the factors that caused me to get a prescription for anti-anxiety medicine. (Participant 159, Woman, Age 31)

Pertaining to psychological symptoms, participants 1 and 5 focused on how cumulative, chronic trauma has impacted them across their careers, saying:

“I believe, although I am retired, I have a slight case of PTSD based on a long career of being on call, & processing violent crime scenes. I have bad dreams about this.” (Participant 1, Woman, Age 70)

and

“Many of us experience PTSD and it affected the latter part of our careers. I survived serious suicidal ideation and got help. Some do not.” (Participant 15, Woman, Age 68)

Taken as a whole, these statements regarding the psychological impact of forensic science careers reaffirm the complex nature of stress and trauma that forensic science professionals experience. The statements also exemplify how such experiences may arise from particular cases or accumulate over a lifelong career in the field of forensic sciences, perhaps only being realized once the career concludes.

In addition to discussions of the psychological impact of careers in forensic sciences, participants, both those who did or did not claim to have negative psychological symptoms from their work, also discussed mechanisms they employ to cope with the stress they endure, and/or the symptoms they experience. The coping mechanisms that respondents shared represented a diverse collection of strategies or activities, including: substance abuse, avoidance of specific places or things, denial or compartmentalization of their work and/or feelings, making jokes about their work, changing eating habits, framing their work in particular ways, attending therapy, participating in hobbies, participating in a religion, spending time with pets, talking to colleagues, friends, and family, or utilizing wellness apps. In some cases, individuals directly discussed coping mechanisms as strategies for changing the nature of their work or for how central it is in their lives. Such coping mechanisms included reducing their work hours, quitting or changing jobs, or being mindful of prioritizing work-life balance.

In addition to a vast array of coping mechanisms, participants shared how they felt about the efficacy of their hopefulness approaches. Some participants found their coping mechanisms to be rather positive and constructive, stating that, “Decompressing with others who do similar work has been very valuable to me.” (Participant 116, Woman, Age 58). Despite some views of coping mechanisms as healthy and effective, others noted that they were aware their behaviors were not ideal but cited a barrier to more formal help or ways of addressing their struggles.

Having only recently started a new position, I went through a very stressful period a couple months ago (not work related, but I was thinking about it at work) so I sought help. My employer offers a discount to Better Help, but even after the discount I found it too expensive. So I did what I usually do and dealt with my issues myself (self-therapizing, which I know isn’t good but I didn’t have another choice). (Participant 143, Woman, Age 25)

Importantly, it was not always clear how participants felt about their coping mechanisms. Some participants simply discussed how their coping mechanisms shape the ways they live their lives in concrete ways, such as:

I avoid movies and books with violence including books being read by my book club. If I happen upon a movie scene with violence, I close my eyes and plug my ears until my spouse nudges me when it is over. I then usually leave the theater. I've had nightmares about violence for most of my career. (Participant 5, Man, Age 68)

"I seem to be able to compartmentalize my stressful work situations, such as mass disasters and infant deaths.” (Participant 46, Woman, Age 68)

Even if participants only viewed coping mechanisms as a part of life, this attitude itself is important because it demonstrates the potential for individuals to not receive the formalized assistance they may need. Individuals also may not explicitly realize that the coping mechanisms they use may do more harm than good.

3.3. Barriers & stigma to help-seeking

As alluded to in the thematic sections on Sources of Stress and Impact and Coping, as well as in the included excerpt from Participant 143's response, stress, mental health, and coping mechanisms among professionals in the field of forensic sciences are by no means cut-and-dry. The complex interplay across the nature of stress, individuals' different experiences, and what is available to them to cope, reveals the role barriers to help-seeking and stigma play for forensic science professionals. We argue that coping mechanisms do not exist in a vacuum, separate from structural conditions, such as barriers impeding more formal routes to addressing mental health concerns.

In addition to mentions of stress, psychological symptoms, and how individuals cope with the reality of their stress and its impact on them, barriers to help-seeking behaviors were notable within participants’ writings. Barriers were characterized as existing in two distinct, and at times, interrelated ways: a) material barriers and b) sociocultural barriers.

Regarding material barriers to help-seeking behaviors, respondents cited a lack of available help and financial constraints. As described by Participant 50 (Man, Age 35):

[It’s] less about work related trauma and stress, more about ease of access to mental health professionals. The options that are more readily available do not accept medical insurance and require you to pay out of pocket. [T]he options that are covered under insurance are harder to access and usually require a referral that takes much longer.

Simultaneously, sociocultural barriers to help-seeking behaviors for forensic science professionals include: not knowing what to do, concern of employer finding out, concern of employees finding out, concern over help-seeking behaviors impacting promotion, concern over re-traumatizing others, finding their therapist unqualified, a lack of time off, or trainings they receive not relevant to the stressors they face in their job. For example, workload was discussed as a barrier in and of itself by a participant who commented:

While I don't feel like I need access to services, one of the biggest obstacles I can foresee to pursuing a service would be time. I don't even have time to go to the doctor for checkups given busy work and family schedules. (Participant 147, Man, Age 43)

Participant 147's commentary unveils how sociocultural barriers to help reflect subcultural constraints placed on forensic science professionals, sometimes by the literal workload demands of their job and sometimes by stigma associated with taking time to take care of themselves. This notion is detailed in a particular statement from another participant who said:

I really don't know where to go, or who to talk to. I go straight from work to home, with little time in between. I would feel bad taking time from work to go to therapy, as [o]pposed to a regular doctor's appointment. (Participant 162, Woman, Age 42)

The subcultural barriers to help-seeking behaviors ultimately reflect stigmas within forensic science communities, whether related to general workloads, how people ought to be able to deal with their stress or psychological symptoms, or generally how mental health ought to be viewed. For example, participants mentioned feeling selfish, embarrassed, or weak when considering seeking help for their workplace-related stress, such as attending therapy. Another salient stigma respondents felt impacted by, or at times themselves affirmed, was a notion of “you knew this was part of the job”. Participant 8 (Woman, Age 46) characterized the stigmas regarding help-seeking by saying, “There is very much an attitude of suck it up, this is just the way it is so deal with it.” Though some participants discussed stigmas surrounding stress and mental health as a broader subcultural characteristic of the field of forensic sciences, other participants simply affirmed such stigmas. For example, when discussing how schooling should properly prepare forensic science professionals, Participant 80 (Man, Age 50) said:

“… if you are experiencing "vicarious trauma", you shouldn't be in the field. I don't mind sounding like a jerk because it[‘]s the truth …. I worked a case where a stranger walked up to a 3 year old in a store and shot him in the head and then shot the caretaker too and then shot themselves. I said, "what a terrible shame", and moved on. I slept like a baby that night and rarely ever think about it.”

Such participant insights suggest that barriers to help, while at times are due to a lack of tangible, material resources, are also largely related to subcultural beliefs about mental health within the community of forensic science professionals. These stigmas are present in the worries that prevent individuals from seeking help, such as fear of “being found out” and being penalized in informal or formal mechanisms at work. As Participant 202 (Woman, Age 28) put it:

We have an onsite counseling option, but if you go to that your supervisors will know because you'll go during work, so everyone who does counseling uses a virtual app offered through our insurance (Doctor on Demand). It seems a common response in this field to being disturbed/affected by cases is that you should've known this job would entail that.

Ultimately, though some barriers cited are material constraints that prevent individuals from getting help, such as the lack of the financial ability to seek help, other barriers reflect the role mental health stigma plays in forensic science professionals not displaying help-seeking behaviors, suggesting a subcultural component to barriers faced.

3.4. Workplace Support Mechanisms and Policy Implementations

In addition to discussions of stress, its impacts, coping mechanisms employed, and barriers to help-seeking behaviors, participants also discussed what mechanisms their workplaces have to support their workers, what appears to be the success of such mechanisms, and suggestions for improving support for forensic science professionals. Discussion of existing support mechanisms and policy implementation suggestions reflects a) how barriers exist inadvertently in the services offered by employers, and b) the diversity of approaches participants employs when considering how to improve support mechanisms for forensic science professionals.

Regarding workplace support attributes, respondents discussed counseling/therapy/team debriefs, their physical office environment, and positive feedback and support from management and colleagues as beneficial. Regarding therapy, there was no consensus on the ideal therapy modality. Some options available in respondents’ workplaces included debrief counseling after specific cases, in-person counseling, free counseling, and remote counseling. One major concern participants expressed was the existence of support, but the support was ineffective or unqualified. Specifically, some participants discussed the issue of accessing help when therapists are present and accessible but lack training to properly help workers whose work is highly traumatic. For example, Participant 166 (Gender not disclosed, Age 66) discussed how attending therapy with a retired law enforcement officer turned trauma therapist was not useful due to the therapist's lack of compassion for the participant:

I attended treatment with a retired law enforcement officer that had become a trauma counselor. He was biased against women and not a very nice person. The treatment did not go well and I no longer see him. I live in a rural area and have few options. I am very discouraged about finding someone that can help me with work related trauma from crime scenes and casework.

A similar perspective was shared by other participants affirming that one issue with the accessible mental health help for forensic science professionals is therapists not understanding what forensic scientists experience, and how they are similar or different to law enforcement personnel (i.e., police officers).

I believe that services should be readily available to Forensic personnel. Most of the resources/support go to the sworn people (police, fire) and not necessarily to the civilian workers. In our jurisdiction, the counseling services offered by our agency are detached, meaning that the counselors really have no idea what the forensic personnel are going through. It's a certain level of naivety among the counselors that erodes my confidence in them. (Participant 206, Man, Age 56)

and

“I have seen the same mental health care provider for many issues at work. I wish she would try some actual exercises with me instead of just letting me talk.” (Participant 87, Woman, Age 40)

Regarding participants' perspectives on positive policy implementations, discussions largely centered on types of therapy that could help reduce workplace stress. Similarly, when discussing workplace support, which currently exists, there was no consensus on which therapy/counseling modalities might be most ideal. For example, participants discussed, but did not necessarily agree on, modalities ranging from in-person workplace therapy, team-based therapy, and remote therapy. The necessity or compulsory nature of therapy was another point of disagreement among participants. Some mentioned that therapy ought to be mandatory, while others focused on making therapy optional, and still others simply cited a need for therapy to be normalized in the forensic science professional community. Participant 196 (Woman, Age 42) said for example:

… I do not think that therapy should be mandated. It could be offered. It should 100% be a choice to attend and a choice of who to see of the employee. I have been in therapy for over 12 years, but I see someone from my insurance and my employer most likely has no idea. We do have options at my workplace, but none are required. They would require some hoops to jump through; however.

and

My personal opinion is that vicarious trauma and direct trauma is an inevitability within the field of forensic sciences, especially for those considered first responders. In a perfect world, I think first responders should be enrolled in mandatory counselling that is financially covered and scheduled during our working hours. I'm not sure how to heal the trauma I carry and I'm not sure how to unburden myself from it, even with the aid of professionals. I will continue to do my best to care for myself; however, I do feel that this career field attracts individuals who have overachieving personalities geared towards helping others to the detriment of their own health. It is an uphill battle for us all. (Participant 60, Woman, Age 30)

Mentions of therapy normalization, like the mention of stigma in the forensic science professional community, once again emphasize the need for a shift in subcultural norms to address workplace stress and associated experiences.

4. Discussion

The present study sought to analyze open-ended survey responses regarding vicarious trauma and work-related stress among forensic science professionals affiliated with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). Through an inductive qualitative analysis, four central themes emerged from the data: 1) Sources of Stress; 2) Impact and Coping; 3) Barriers to Help-Seeking and Stigma; and 4) Workplace Support Mechanisms and Policy Implementations. These themes reflect the diversity of experiences and the detailed interplay among stress, psychological impacts, coping mechanisms, and barriers to help-seeking behaviors. Simultaneously, results reveal how current support mechanisms for forensic science professionals meet or fail to meet their needs, and how policy suggestions to support forensic science professionals are homogeneous in some ways but heterogeneous in others.

Regarding stress, our findings align with those in the extant literature [[11], [12], [13], [14],22]. The stress described by participants, while work-related, was more specifically related to the kind of job they have, the case characteristics of the cases they work on, as well as interpersonal relationships at work, and aspects of their life outside of work. Distinct from existing literature, however, participants did not discuss the emotional strain they have specifically from interactions with family members of victims. This is not to say that their case stress is negligible; rather, they focused more on the stress they face from cases involving children, suicide, homicide, and police, to name a few. Our findings expand the existing literature, particularly regarding the stress that forensic science professionals face when called to provide testimony. This especially speaks to our argument that the stress forensic science professionals face is not limited to their job in general, or to any specific case or time. Rather, stress is dynamic, by nature of forensic science careers, despite generally stagnant work expectations, such as testimony. It is not that stress necessarily stays at one particular level all the time, but rather may spike in preparation for and participation in testimony, and is an aspect of their job they have little control over, insofar as it is necessary and crucial.

Impact, specifically negative psychological impact, is broadly reflected in the extant literature, as are coping mechanisms. Participants did describe their experiences of vicarious trauma, related to their job, as something that changes the way they view the world, or cognize. Changes in their trust in others, paranoia, and rumination were specific instances in which forensic science professionals discussed how their job has impacted who they are as people. Importantly, not all respondents felt they had specific changes in how they felt because of their jobs. Some stated that they felt either that they do not have negative psychological symptoms from their jobs, or alternatively, have compartmentalized their experiences and emotions.

To this end, consistent with existing literature [16,19], our findings suggest that emotional detachment is one of the many ways in which forensic science professionals cope with the nature of their jobs and the stress or negative psychological impacts associated with them. Additionally, our findings suggest that the employed coping mechanisms can be both positive and negative in nature. Though substance use or maladaptive coping, like purposeful emotional detachment to the point of cynicism, were mentioned by respondents, respondents also discussed their positive coping mechanisms, such as speaking with colleagues about the stress and/or cases they experience. Despite these similarities to the existing research, one specific coping mechanism, avoiding places and/or things, was one way in which coping mechanisms mentioned by responses to the open-ended survey question differed in kind from other coping mechanisms identified in prior research. This is especially important to note as avoidance and emotional detachment can escalate to numbness and disconnection, potentially resulting in a fractured sense of self [39].

Crucially, participants’ responses also reflected the extant literature insofar as they described coping mechanisms not existing in isolation from barriers to help-seeking behaviors, including stigma. Participants discussed both material (i.e., time and or financial) barriers to help, as well as sociocultural barriers (i.e., stigma), both of which were in agreement with existing literature [4,12,14,18,33,34], particularly in citing concerns of missing job promotions, being perceived as incompetent, or simply feeling guilty for taking time off in order to care for themselves.

Participants also stated that barriers to help-seeking were also present, even in cases where they believed there were fewer material and sociocultural barriers to help. For example, in line with existing literature [33], participants described barriers where education, training, or access to resources failed in one way or another. In this way, at face value, help was available but ultimately was not because of its insufficiency. A tangible example of this was participants' discussion of therapists being available to them but not equipped to help forensic science professionals with the realities they face because of the nature of their work. In such cases, coping mechanisms may be employed despite resources, not because resources do not exist, but because the nature of the resources is not applicable to meeting the needs of forensic science professionals. To this end, our argument that stress, impact, barriers, and coping do not exist independently from one another is reaffirmed. Just as these aspects of the experiences of forensic science professionals are dynamic in and of themselves, their relationship to one another is similar in kind, where the interplay provides opportunities for one type of experience to feed off or impact other experiences.

Another central takeaway from our work is that, to best assist forensic professionals, stress, impact, coping, and barriers (including stigma) must be considered collectively to drive occupational improvements, whether in individual workplaces or in cultural and policy-based initiatives. This argument reflects participants’ comments, in which they explain the positive aspects of their workplaces or how to improve the workplace and career for forensic science professionals more broadly. A specific example provided by respondents was that workplaces and the field of forensic science at large should provide ample access to qualified and trained mental health providers. While this is partially reflected in prior literature [33], our work uniquely revealed a lack of consensus on preferred approaches to accessible mental health for forensic science professionals. Though therapy, debriefing, and counseling were cited by participants, modality was up for debate, sometimes due specifically to concerns of employers or employees finding out about an individual seeking mental health support. Once again, this reaffirms that even policy implementations to benefit forensic science professionals cannot be disentangled from their lived-experiences, especially in the barriers they face due to the career field, specifically through salient stigmas.

Extant literature had suggested that female forensic professionals reported higher levels of occupational stress, burnout, and psychological stress than male counterparts [4,18,21,22]. While our analyses suggested the potential that there are unique stressors to female forensic professionals, such as that of pregnancy, gleaned from inductive analyses, there were no themes or codes which particularly grappled with sex and/or gender-based disparities in stress. This is not to say that such disparities do not exist, as extant literature would speak contrary to that claim [4,18,21,22]. However, the focus of this study was to broadly capture the experiences of forensic professionals, in their own words. Respondents were not citing sexism or gender-based discrimination as the source of their stress to the extent that it would warrant independent codes or themes.

4.1. Limitations

Although our findings were largely consistent with extant literature and provided granularity and specificity through qualitative responses from participants, our study also had notable limitations. First, qualitative analysis could only be conducted on a single open-ended survey response from a single study. While these responses provided supplemental insight to the rest of the survey responses, they are limited in their scope for at least three reasons.

First, less than half of the survey respondents left responses to the open-ended question. Ultimately, our findings may be affected by self-report and non-response bias, which are inherent risks in open-ended survey responses and in surveys more generally [40]. This is especially the case when asking about sensitive topics, such as trauma and mental health broadly [41]. Though we took precautions to enhance anonymity and, by extension, participant candor, this ultimately is not a perfect safeguard against self-report and non-response bias in survey-based research [42]. Secondly, since there was only one open-ended question and the survey modality did not allow probing questions, it was not possible to ask participants to clarify what they meant by their answers. This ultimately reduces our ability to provide qualitative analyses that more fully encapsulate the experiences of forensic science professionals. One tangible example of how this constricts our findings was the fact that we were unable to probe for more information about sex or gender-based stressors in the workplace. Third, the survey was administered to a sample of members of a single professional society of forensic science professionals. As a result, the generalizability of the findings is more limited.

4.2. Future research

The results, scope, and limitations of our study provide several suggestions for further research. First, further research should prioritize increased use of open-ended questions. Semi-structured interviews, for example, can add depth to our understanding of occupational stress and the mental health of forensic science professionals. As an extension of the first recommendation for future research, studies should interrogate the role of sex and gender in stress, vicarious trauma, and mental health in forensic professionals through use of semi-structured interviews to strengthen our scholarly understanding of such experiences which at current time are by in large done so through quantitative analyses.

Second, future research should focus on assessing the effectiveness of workplace and policy implementations. Such analyses can address proper mechanisms for decreasing stress and barriers to help-seeking, while increasing general mental well-being among forensic science professionals. Third, due to the role stigma plays in barriers to help-seeking, subcultural scholars should prioritize understanding how policy implementations can address and dismantle such stigmas.

5. Conclusion

The present study examined stress and mental health among forensic science professionals. Through qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended survey questions, our findings highlight the lived experiences of forensic science professionals. Such experiences demonstrate the complex interplay and tension between stress, mental health, coping mechanisms, and barriers to help-seeking behaviors. In understanding the complex relationship between these characteristics of forensic science professionals’ experiences, our study emphasizes that existing support mechanisms for professionals, even if well-intentioned, may fall short. This is also true given the presence of stigmas around mental health, which may prevent participation in help-seeking behaviors and demand the use of coping mechanisms. Ultimately, our findings provide insights and suggestions for future directions aimed at improving the quality of life for forensic science professionals.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Daniella J. Ferrante: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Sonali Tyagi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Data curation. Kathryn C. Seigfried-Spellar: Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Funding

We are grateful to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences for providing incentive funding for this project.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.