I am a Professor of Gambling Research with a long-standing commitment to understanding how gambling behaviours develop, how related harms emerge, and what evidence-based strategies can meaningfully reduce risk for individuals and communities. My work sits at the intersection of public health, behavioural science, and regulatory policy, where the primary objective is not simply to observe gambling participation, but to interpret it responsibly within broader social systems.
Throughout my academic career, I have focused on generating research that is methodologically robust, transparent, and capable of informing real-world decision-making. Gambling is a legal leisure activity for many adults, yet it carries varying levels of risk depending on intensity, product characteristics, socioeconomic context, and personal vulnerability. Recognising this complexity has shaped my approach: evidence must be nuanced, and recommendations must balance consumer freedom with protective safeguards.
I have worked extensively with large-scale population datasets, longitudinal studies, and cross-sectional surveys to identify patterns that are often invisible at surface level. Participation alone rarely explains harm. Instead, it is the interaction between frequency, expenditure, accessibility, marketing exposure, and life circumstances that provides a clearer analytical lens.
My research philosophy is grounded in three principles:
Evidence should guide policy.
Prevention should be prioritised alongside treatment.
Player protection must evolve in parallel with industry innovation.
These principles have informed collaborations with academic institutions, research agencies, and public bodies seeking to better understand how gambling environments can be structured more safely.
From a public health perspective, it is essential to recognise that gambling harms exist on a spectrum. Severe cases demand clinical support, but a much larger group experiences lower-level negative consequences — financial strain, reduced wellbeing, impaired relationships — that often go unmeasured. Addressing these outcomes requires early identification mechanisms and a broader framing of harm beyond diagnostic thresholds.
I have consistently advocated for research that moves the conversation away from individual blame and toward systemic awareness. Product design, frictionless payment systems, continuous play mechanics, and digital accessibility all influence behavioural patterns. Understanding these structural drivers allows stakeholders to implement proportionate safeguards without unnecessarily restricting recreational play.
For operators committed to sustainable gambling environments, independent research provides a critical feedback loop. Data-led insights can support the development of protective tools such as deposit limits, behavioural nudges, affordability assessments, and improved transparency around risk.
My role as a researcher is not to position gambling as inherently problematic, nor to minimise its potential consequences. Rather, it is to ensure that debates are informed by credible evidence, interpreted responsibly, and translated into practical measures that enhance consumer safety.
This includes strengthening the measurement frameworks used to assess harm. Traditional prevalence metrics remain valuable, but they should be complemented by indicators that capture broader social and economic effects. A more comprehensive measurement model allows policymakers, healthcare professionals, and industry leaders to respond proportionately.
I have also placed significant emphasis on reducing stigma associated with gambling harm. Stigma delays help-seeking behaviour and can distort public understanding. When research is communicated clearly and without sensationalism, it becomes easier to support individuals without marginalising them.
Transparency is equally important. High-quality research should withstand scrutiny, disclose its limitations, and encourage ongoing debate. Gambling is a rapidly evolving field, particularly within digital ecosystems, and static assumptions quickly become outdated.
My academic work has contributed to discussions surrounding:
risk distribution across populations
the relationship between product intensity and harm
gender and age-related participation patterns
links between gambling and mental wellbeing
the role of environmental exposure
inequality and vulnerability
These discussions are most valuable when they extend beyond academia and inform practical change.
I view responsible gambling not as a fixed destination but as a continuous process of refinement. As technologies evolve and player journeys become increasingly personalised, research must adapt accordingly. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration — combining behavioural science, data analytics, psychology, and regulatory insight.
Maintaining independence is central to credible research. Constructive dialogue between researchers, regulators, healthcare providers, and operators is both possible and necessary, provided that methodological integrity remains uncompromised.
Ultimately, my work is driven by a simple objective: to support safer gambling ecosystems through rigorous evidence, thoughtful interpretation, and responsible knowledge exchange.
Research Leadership in Gambling Studies
My leadership within gambling research has developed through a sustained focus on population-level evidence, interdisciplinary collaboration, and policy-relevant inquiry. Over time, my work has increasingly centred on reframing gambling harm as a public health issue — one that requires coordinated responses rather than isolated interventions.
Rather than examining gambling solely through a clinical lens, I have prioritised research that captures the full distribution of risk across society. This includes individuals who may never meet diagnostic criteria for problem gambling yet still experience measurable negative consequences. Understanding this gradient has been essential in shifting academic and regulatory conversations toward prevention.
Large-scale datasets have played a defining role in this effort. By analysing behavioural patterns across diverse demographic groups, I have sought to identify where risk concentrates, how it evolves, and what environmental conditions amplify vulnerability. These insights support a move away from reactive frameworks toward earlier, proportionate safeguards.
Leadership in this field also requires methodological clarity. Gambling is influenced by economic cycles, technological change, cultural attitudes, and regulatory structures. As such, no single discipline can adequately explain it. My work has therefore drawn from sociology, behavioural science, epidemiology, and health policy to construct a more complete analytical model.
Importantly, research leadership is not defined by volume alone, but by whether findings can withstand scrutiny and inform decision-makers responsibly. Evidence must remain interpretable beyond academia — particularly for regulators, healthcare professionals, and operators seeking to implement safer systems.
The following timeline outlines key stages that have shaped my research direction and academic positioning.
Career Timeline and Research Milestones
| Period | Role | Institution / Sector | Research Focus | UK Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early Academic Phase | Researcher | UK Higher Education | Behavioural patterns & social determinants | Foundational Evidence |
| Public Health Reframing | Senior Research Leadership | National Research Networks | Gambling harm as population issue | Policy Influence |
| National Survey Work | Lead / Advisory Roles | UK Research Programmes | Participation intensity & harm gradient | Regulatory Insight |
| Interdisciplinary Expansion | Professor of Gambling Research | Academic & Institutional Partnerships | Inequality, vulnerability & exposure | Strategic Impact |
| Current Leadership | Research & Policy Contributor | UK Gambling Research Ecosystem | Prevention models & measurement reform | Future Standards |
Areas of Expertise
My research has consistently focused on developing a structured understanding of how gambling operates within modern societies, particularly where behavioural risk intersects with accessibility, technology, and socioeconomic context. Rather than isolating individual behaviour, I examine the broader ecosystems that shape decision-making — including product environments, policy frameworks, and public health infrastructure.
Expertise in gambling studies requires methodological range as well as conceptual precision. Over time, my work has concentrated on identifying measurable indicators of harm, improving interpretative models, and supporting the development of proportionate consumer protection strategies.
The areas below represent the primary domains that have shaped my academic direction and continue to inform collaborative research across the UK.
Core Research Domains
| Area of Expertise | Typical Research Question | Evidence Approach | Why It Matters for Safer Gambling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gambling Harms as a Public Health Issue | How should harm be measured beyond clinical addiction? | Population datasets, health frameworks | Encourages prevention rather than purely reactive treatment models |
| Participation Behaviour | What patterns distinguish recreational play from elevated risk? | Longitudinal surveys, behavioural analysis | Helps identify early indicators before harm escalates |
| Product Environment & Structural Risk | Which product characteristics influence intensity of play? | Comparative product studies | Supports safer design principles without restricting responsible players |
| Inequality and Vulnerability | Why are some demographic groups disproportionately affected? | Socioeconomic data modelling | Enables targeted protective interventions |
| Digital Accessibility | How does always-on availability alter behavioural norms? | Market analysis, participation tracking | Informs regulatory thinking around friction and player safeguards |
| Stigma and Help-Seeking Behaviour | What prevents individuals from accessing support? | Qualitative research, lived-experience studies | Reduces barriers to treatment and improves public understanding |
| Measurement Frameworks | Are current metrics sufficient to capture real-world harm? | Methodological evaluation | Strengthens evidence used by policymakers and regulators |
| Prevention Strategy | Which early interventions demonstrate measurable impact? | Policy evaluation | Moves the sector toward proactive protection |
A central theme across these domains is proportionality. Effective research must recognise that gambling exists on a behavioural spectrum. Most adults who participate do so without experiencing significant negative outcomes, yet a smaller proportion encounter harms that may extend into financial stability, mental wellbeing, and interpersonal relationships. Understanding this distribution is essential when designing responses that are protective without being unnecessarily restrictive.
My work has also emphasised the importance of language within research discourse. Terminology shapes perception — both in policy environments and in public conversations. Moving toward more precise, less stigmatising language allows stakeholders to address harm constructively while maintaining respect for individual agency.
Another defining element of my approach is the integration of multidisciplinary insight. Gambling cannot be fully interpreted through a single lens; it is simultaneously behavioural, economic, technological, and social. Drawing from these perspectives improves analytical resilience and ensures that conclusions remain grounded in real-world complexity.
Where possible, I advocate for frameworks that support early identification. Waiting until harm becomes acute limits the effectiveness of intervention. By contrast, systems that recognise behavioural shifts — such as rapid increases in expenditure or intensity — create opportunities for timely support.
Equally important is transparency in how findings are communicated. Research carries the greatest value when it is accessible not only to academics, but also to regulators, healthcare practitioners, operators, and the wider public. Clear interpretation reduces the risk of misapplication and encourages informed decision-making.
This expertise has contributed to ongoing discussions about how gambling environments can evolve responsibly alongside technological innovation. As digital platforms continue to reshape participation, research must remain adaptive, questioning assumptions and refining measurement tools accordingly.
Ultimately, these domains are interconnected. Progress in safer gambling does not emerge from isolated insights, but from cumulative evidence that supports balanced, sustainable systems.
Approach to Gambling Harm and Player Protection
My approach to gambling harm is grounded in the belief that effective protection must be both evidence-led and proportionate. Gambling is a legitimate form of entertainment for many adults, yet its safety depends significantly on the environments in which it is offered. When structural safeguards are thoughtfully implemented, the likelihood of harm can be meaningfully reduced without diminishing autonomy for the majority who engage recreationally.
A public health perspective encourages a broader interpretation of responsibility. Rather than locating risk solely within the individual, it recognises the interaction between behavioural tendencies, product design, accessibility, and social context. This framing shifts the conversation from reaction to prevention — a transition that has increasingly shaped modern regulatory thinking across Great Britain.
One priority within my research has been strengthening early identification models. Harm rarely appears without preceding indicators. Escalating expenditure, increased session duration, and shifts in behavioural intensity often signal emerging vulnerability. Systems capable of recognising these patterns allow for timely, supportive interventions that are measured rather than intrusive.
Transparency plays a central role in building safer gambling ecosystems. Players benefit from clear information about odds, spend tracking, and available control tools. When protective features are intuitive and friction is applied thoughtfully, consumers are better positioned to make informed decisions about their participation.
I have also emphasised the importance of evaluating protection tools not only by their availability but by their real-world effectiveness. Deposit limits, cooling-off periods, and self-exclusion mechanisms represent meaningful safeguards, yet their design and visibility directly influence engagement. Evidence suggests that tools integrated seamlessly into the player journey are more likely to be adopted than those requiring significant effort to activate.
Collaboration between researchers, operators, and policymakers is essential in this regard. Constructive dialogue supports innovation while ensuring that consumer wellbeing remains central to platform development. Independent research contributes a critical layer of accountability, helping stakeholders refine approaches as behavioural data evolves.
Equally important is the continued reduction of stigma surrounding gambling harm. Individuals should feel able to seek support without fear of judgement. A research-informed narrative — one that prioritises understanding over sensationalism — encourages earlier engagement with support services and promotes healthier public discourse.
As digital infrastructures continue to advance, player protection must evolve alongside them. Adaptive safeguards, informed by credible evidence, will remain fundamental to sustaining environments that are both responsible and resilient over time.
