First, the type of case study is described and the case, including the period that is studied, is explained. The second paragraph discusses sampling and legitimation in relation to the units of analysis. Finally, the last paragraph focuses on data collection, methods, limitations and the amount and different types of texts.
3.2.1 Type
The case study of this research is an embedded single case design and analyses a period in the securitization of the gun control vs. gun rights debate in the United States. A single case design can work well with the qualitative methodology and the historiographic approach. The period of the case that is studied is a three-year period from early 2013 till early 2016. This period starts with two key moments in last few years with regard to gun legislation development: the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of January 24, 2013, and the submission of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment on April 11, 2013, to introduce universal background checks in gun sales. Both were defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013. In early 2016, the analysed period ends with the start of the presidential primaries and caucuses and ideas and statements of presidential candidates in relation to gun politics for the future. These two points of reference mark the beginning and the end of the case period and function as two units of analysis. Other units of analysis within this period are described in the next paragraph on sampling. All of these units are selected because they are potential moments of change that have the ability to alter and redefine the American gun debate. A limitation of this research is that is a relatively small period and a relatively small case. But, despite this limitation, after analysis it is possible to say something about the use and function of trauma in this period, how it developed and influenced both sides of the debate.
39 | 3.2.2 Sampling and legitimation
The units of analysis that are within the defined period of the case are all mass shootings in the United States. A snapshot of the American gun debate is taken each time after these points of reference by analysing securitizing texts from, preferably, both sides of the debate, which is discussed in the next paragraph about data. In this way, it is not only possible to track the course of the debate in this period, but also analyse the immediate influence of a fresh collective trauma on the securitizing discourse of the gun debate. Three mass shootings are selected, within the case period, based on the highest amount of fatalities of all the mass shootings that took place. On the one hand, these largest shootings certainly meet all indicators about whether they are collective traumas and, on the other hand, these events generated enough national attention to stir up the national gun debate. Thus, these three events are potential moments of change in the gun debate.
The three shootings are the Washington Navy Yard Shooting of September 16, 2013, the Charleston Church Shooting of June 18, 2015, and the 2015 San Bernardino Attack of December 2, 2015. The first of these shootings happened on a military base and the last two on public ground. In view of having comparative data to the shooting on a military base, which is quite specific and rare in terms of location, a fourth mass shooting is added from within this time frame. This is the Chattanooga shootings of July 16, 2015, that also happened on two military installations. Together with the beginning and end point of reference, these four mass shooting form six moments in the time frame of the case that function as a unit of analysis.
3.2.3 Data collection
This study applies a qualitative discourse analysis on the data material. Balzacq (2011b) elaborates comprehensively on the selection of data and emphasizes that the nature of the data that is included is dependent upon the case and topic of the research (p. 41). In other words, the research question can already determine for a large part the types of text that need to be included (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). In the centre of this research are securitizing acts by politicians in relation to the gun debate. Because securitization is the main topic of research, the presence of a securitizing move is the main collection criteria. Thus, all texts in the data collection need to be a securitizing act and, therefore, contain all elements that constitute a securitizing act, as described in the first set of indicators for the concept of securitization. A good start in terms of data to collect for this research are spoken texts, i.e. speeches, by political gun rights and gun control proponents that correspond, with regard to the timing, with one of the six points of
40 | reference in the time frame. It is important to triangulate the texts to get a well-balanced data sample, because using only one type of texts can lead to a misrepresentation of the whole discourse (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). For instance, some texts are very formal and conservative, like memorial speeches, legislative texts and party programs, with language that is very controlled and restrained (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). Moreover, when a text is relatively formal, it can be expected that the use of collective trauma is less and more restrained. Therefore, this study triangulates the texts and does not only include speeches and statements by politicians, but also legislative bills, interviews, campaign programs and testimonies in senate committee hearings. A downside of the triangulation is the limited comparability between the texts, because of the various types of texts and their differences in formality, medium, and location. But, a comparison between the texts is not the goal of this research. The aim is to form a complete picture of the securitizing discourse on both sides of the debate and the role of collective trauma. Hence, the most important aspect is not the comparability between texts, but the fact that each text constitutes an act of securitization. Although, legislative bills and campaign programs are not speech acts, these can be important political instruments of securitization as long as they, in this case, reflect the issue of gun control or gun rights.
Another aspect of data collection that is crucial is the right moment to stop collecting data, because not every text can be collected and included. Sometimes data collection seems like a never-ending process and this could lead to data overload (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 42). So, when is the right time to stop? Experienced discourse analysts stated that data collection can be ended when the intellectual marginal gain of an extra text is dropping or almost nothing and the content of this extra text is mainly repetitive and adds nothing to the already gathered discourse (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 42). This study follows this advice and stops collecting data when extra texts are repeating the discourse of the already gathered collection of texts and add nothing new. A final element that needs to be taken into account in the collection of data, is that the data is a good reflection of both political securitizing actors that are pro-gun control and those that are pro-gun rights. Since in a debate there are always two sides and in the analysis of this securitizing discourse both sides need to be sufficiently represented in the data collection. Of course, the absence of any securitizing texts of one of the sides after a certain event can also mean something to the overall discourse. This last situation was the case in the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the addition of a comparable, similar military installation shooting immediately proved its value. Table 3.1 gives an overview of the six units of analysis and corresponding data of both sides of the debate. The next chapter analyses these texts and elaborates on the results of the analysis.
41 | Table 3.1 An overview of the units of analysis and data collection of both sides
Events as units of analysis:
Securitizing texts of gun control advocates
Securitizing texts of gun/Second Amendment rights advocates
Period around the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (April 11, 2013)
-Speech by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) at press conference about the introduction of the AWB of 2013 (Jan. 24, 2013);
-Bill S.150 AWB 2013 (Reported to Senate: Mar. 14, 2013) (by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D), Jan. 24, 2013);
-Manchin-Toomey Amendment (S.Amdt.715 to S.649, submitted and proposed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D), Apr. 11, 2013);
-Speech by President Obama from the Rose Garden of the White House (April 17, 2013).
-Testimony of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) in the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence (January 31, 2013);
-Speech by Sen. Mike Lee (R) on the Senate floor (April 10, 2013).
Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013)
-Speech by Sen. Dick Durbin (D) on the Senate floor (Sept. 17, 2013);
-Speech by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) during a press conference about gun violence (Sept. 18, 2013);
-Speech by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) during a press conference about gun violence (Sept. 18, 2013);
-Speech by President Obama at
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner (Sept. 22, 2013);
-Speech by President Obama at memorial service to honour victims of the Navy Yard shooting (Sept. 23, 2013).
This event, remarkably, did not bring forward any reactions on the gun debate by any of the gun rights advocates. A similar shooting in Chattanooga in 2015 (fourth unit of analysis), also at a military base, did generate some pro-gun rights, Republican reactions. Even more remarkable is that the gun control advocates in US politics were mainly silent about gun control right after this
Chattanooga attack.
Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015)
-Statement by President Obama from the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House (June 18, 2015);
-Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at the 2015 United States Conference of Mayors (June 20, 2015);
-Speech by Sen. Christopher Church (D) on the Senate floor (June 24, 2015).
-Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a town hall meeting in Red Oak, IA (June 19, 2015); -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a campaign event at CrossRoads Shooting Sports in Johnston, IA (June 20, 2015).
2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015)
-Bill S.1835 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D)).
This is not really a gun control advocate text, but serves to illustrate the differences between gun rights vs. gun control bills after the Chattanooga shooting. Other political gun control advocates, remarkably, did not contribute to the debate after this shooting.
-Interview of Donald Trump (R) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (July 17, 2015); -Bill S.1821 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Ron Johnson (R));
-Bill S.1823 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Jerry Moran (R));
- Bill S.1839 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Rand Paul (R));
-Interview of Sen. Jerry Moran (R) on Fox Business Network (July 22, 2015).
San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015)
-Speech by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) on the Senate floor (Dec. 3, 2015);
-Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at a campaign event in Fort Dodge, IA (Dec. 4, 2015); -Speech by President Obama during his Weekly Presidential Address (Dec. 5, 2015).
-Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) by Breitbart News (Dec. 3, 2015);
-Interview of Donald Trump (R) during a campaign rally in Spencer, IO (Dec. 5, 2015).
Policy for the future (Early 2016)
-Speech by President Obama on Executive Actions on Guns at the White House (January 5, 2016);
-Vision of Hillary Clinton (D) on the issue of gun violence prevention.
-Vision of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on the issue of second amendment rights;
- Vision of Donald Trump (R) on the issue of second amendment rights.
42 |
4
ANALYSIS
AND
RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings of this research and an analysis of these findings. The presentation of findings reflects in a historiographical way the qualitative discourse analysis that has been conducted and can be found in the Appendix to this thesis. This chapter holds on to the order of the six events or points of reference in the time frame that serve as units of analysis. These six units are snapshots of key moments in the debate that help to reconstruct the development over time. As the use and function of collective trauma in the analysed securitizing texts is the subject of the research question, this is the core focus of the analysis of the securitizing acts in the various units of analysis. Other aspects, such as the kind of actions a text is pursuing or references or reactions to other texts, are also addressed to provide context to the findings that reflect the role of collective trauma.