School Shootings Case Analysis There

School Shootings Case Analysis

There was a common theme that the media was related to an increase in violence within younger teen populations of students. Either the intense level of reporting school shootings was influencing more, or the idea that media seems to highlight violence on TV and movies like never before. There is research that corroborates such ideas (Huesman, 2007). Both of these led most of the participants to agree with the notion that there was a connection between the media and the increase in violence and school shootings recently. This has been a major political issue for years, especially as video games and computer graphics on TV get more sophisticated, allowing for graver portrayals of violence to be seen. Some of the parents believed that overexposure to this increase in violence are more of the parents fault than the media. In this case, parents do not supervise their children well enough to filter out the violence. As such, violence should not be restricted on TV; parents just need to be more responsible in checking on what their children are watching.

Another common theme was the availability of guns. It was clear that some parents were quite alarmed by the easy availability of guns and how that is having a subsequent impact on how easily teens can get their hands on guns. Yet, other parents were clearly advocates of their Second Amendment Rights. One even claimed that the right to own guns is a purely American freedom, and that it should not be jeopardized by a few, random school shootings. This is a very political topic. Currently, the United States is in the midst of a major conflict about gun regulation (Cooper & Sussman, 2013). The topic of guns immediately turned the conversation away from the main topic -- school shootings -- and into a highly political debate.

Overall, reviewing the content illustrates how frustrated many Americans are with school violence. Using inductive and deductive reasoning, it is clear that the participants were aggravated with the increasing rate of school violence, but were unable to really pin down a single and absolute cause. In fact, discussing the issue often leads participants to get off track, bringing in their own personal biases and politics into a situation that is already extremely complicated. Reviewing this case illustrates the frustration of a nation. We want to protect our children, but no one is really sure how to do it best.

Critique the Facilitator

Based on the 3 missing parents and the need to cut the focus group short to only an hour, it was clear that the facilitator might have chosen a poor time for parents to participate. 9 pm is hard for parents with school-aged children at home. Choosing a more appropriate time would have helped increase the ability of other parents to participate. Or if no other time was available, the facilitator could have chosen a phone survey which would have been easier for parents to participate in without having to find accommodations for their children. Again, later the facilitator reminded the parents not to attack each other but to stay on focus. This helped the group get through such a controversial topic without major eruptions.

The facilitator did intervene at appropriate times on several occasions. For example, at the very beginning of the session, when tensions were rising, he stepped in to stop a potential argument. One parent asked what the children of another were doing while he was participating. This was a very appropriate time to step in, address the fact that the conversation was going off topic and intervene.

Additionally, the facilitator also made good use of leading questions, which helped steer the conversation towards the primary goal. The facilitator also interjected to make sure that all points of the participants were being addressed. This increased the overall participation rate and ensured that the findings were based on all the participants, not just the ones that over-dominated the conversation. The facilitator spoke directly to individuals, as well as the group therefore extrapolating the true meaning behind some of the participant's comments. For the most part, the facilitator kept the personal bias out and asked tailored and appropriate questions.

Surveys and Focus Groups

Focus groups are interesting, yet hard to deal with. On the one hand, they allow the public the chance to speak, thus portraying the abstract symbolism and concentrations that drive the actions of individuals on a daily basis. Yet, on the other hand, findings can often be hard too read or inconclusive based on this high level of abstract concepts that derive from such sessions. The strengths of focus groups rest in the ability to test out certain theories, illustrate the major connections between concepts, and to test how the public reacts to certain concepts (Brophy, 2005). It is a crucial step in understanding very complex and abstract topics. However, it is not very definitive. Focus groups can help to augment earlier findings or point researchers in a general direction, but the weakness of them is that they often do not answer hypothesis with a sort of strict assertion that is needed in quantitative research.

Symbols and Metaphors

The transcripts were rich with symbolism. There was the symbol of a gun connecting to death. Also, there was strong symbolism of invoking some of the incidents that had just recently occurred. Thanks to media coverage, the parents involved had a lot of extensive prior knowledge of how the most recent shootings went down. As such, they often used these events as symbols for the senseless nature of the violence involved in school shootings and how it seems to cut short the lives of those who deserved to continue living.

Moreover, talk about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment became very metaphoric at time. The Constitution took on a life of its own, becoming a living thing that seemed to govern over the lives of modern day citizens. The Second Amendment became the major source of the controversy, and for some was a symbol of hope and freedom, while for others was a symbol of foolishness and outdated governance.