
doi: 10.1558/jalpp.20003
As an occupational stressor, working with disturbing material can lead to burnout and vicarious trauma. A profession where exposure to potentially disturbing data tends to be common is that of the forensic linguist, both as an academic researcher and an expert witness in investigative and court settings. Yet, very little is known about the nature of occupational stress in forensic linguistic practice or the coping strategies forensic linguists employ. We address this knowledge gap by drawing on the intersubjective perspective of twelve practitioners, who were interviewed about aspects of their work. We apply thematic analysis to the data to find out what kinds of situations potentially detrimental to psychological wellbeing they encounter in their everyday practice, and how they respond to those situations. We find that, while the practitioners acknowledge the disturbing nature of case data, they are rarely affected by it, at least ostensibly so. This could be due to a number of coping strategies they mention, such as desensitisation; talking to others; putting a distance between themselves and the work; mentally preparing themselves for what they will be seeing, hearing or reading; and seeing their work as contributing positively to society.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
