Ley de propiedad intelectual

As stated in the previous paragraph, this study analyses securitizing acts in various types of texts to grasp the role of collective trauma in the discourse. Consequently, a logical method to study these texts and the discourse is to apply a qualitative discourse analysis. Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde (1998) of the Copenhagen School already said it:

“The way to study securitization is to study discourse and political constellations.” (p. 25)

Thierry Balzacq (2011b) describes a methodology for discourse analysis with limited formalism, but includes the basic steps and focuses on the qualitative aspects (p. 41). To him discourse analysis should be aimed at establishing “the meaning of texts shaped by distinct contexts” (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 40). This is applicable to this study, because getting grip on this shaping ability of the context is the main driver of this research, in specific collective trauma as part of this context. Furthermore, this research does not only aim to answer a how-question, that is, if present, the use, but also aim to find an answer to the why-question, that is the function or meaning of that use. The analysis of this study follows the basic steps for discourse analysis which are formulated by Balzacq (2011b).

The first step is to look at the intratextuality of texts (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). The analysis of intratextual appearance of securitization consists of an analysis of the kind of action the text tries to achieve, heuristic artefacts, and interactions (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). This step matches with the second set of indicators for the concept of securitization that cover this intratextuality. Because the analysis in this study focuses on collective trauma within the securitizing acts, only those parts within the texts that use collective trauma are analysed. It is therefore necessary to use the first set of indicators for the concept of collective trauma to check whether this particular discursive usage is or refers to a collective trauma. Furthermore, as stated in the previous section, the intratextual indicators of securitization that contain direct

37 | mentioning, various heuristic artefacts and interaction are analysed in combination with and in light of collective trauma.

A final addition to this intratextual analysis also stems from the focus on collective trauma within securitization. Balzacq’s methodology looks at the kind of action the securitizing text as a whole tries to achieve, but for this study an analysis of the kind of action a particular use of collective trauma tries to achieve would be interesting. In other words, the last piece of this intratextual step is the analysis of the function of collective trauma usage in the securitizing act and this is reflected in the final set of indicators of the concept of collective trauma.

The second step focuses on intertextual discourse and the construction of securitization between texts (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). This step corresponds to the last set of indicators of the concept of securitization and analyses reactions, interaction and references to earlier securitizing texts of the securitizing actor himself or other securitizing actors (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). Only securitizing texts that are part of this analysis and those acts or actors that are clearly mentioned, but are not part of this research, are included in the analysis of this intertextual step. It is important for this intertextual element that the securitizing texts are analysed in chronological order to prevent confusion with regard to the time line. Together these two basic steps form the discourse analysis as formulated by Balzacq (2011b). In practice, this means that it is for each text necessary to go through the total list of indicators, that are part of this methodology. Some indicators are connected to the text as a whole, others to individual uses of collective trauma. A complete overview of the results per text is included in the Appendix.

It is important to note, and it cannot be stressed enough, that the application of this methodology on the data does not lead to a quantitative, statistical analysis. An analysis of numbers and figures is not the aim of this type of discourse analysis. Instead, this methodology leads to a qualitative, historiographic, and specific analysis which enables this study to say something about the course of the gun debate and the role of collective trauma in the securitizing discourse and, moreover, to make some careful, tentative statements, linking back to the body of knowledge, about the theorization of the role of collective trauma in the context of securitization. So, exact numbers are not used in the analysis to describe the use and function of collective trauma in the securitizing texts. Rather, next to descriptions of how it is used and what the exact function is, indications are given of the magnitude and variety of the use of collective trauma and its function, that matches with the results (see Appendix for a full list of results per text). This ranges from wordings like ‘singular’, ‘limited’, and ‘a couple’ when the quantity of use, functions, or variety is not that high, to wordings like ‘multiple’, ‘widely’,

38 | ‘varied’, and ‘extensive’ when there are relatively more or many results. Another reason why exact numbers and figures are of limited added value to the analysis is because the analysed texts are all differing in length and type. This last point is also addressed in the next paragraph when triangulation of texts and comparability in relation to data collection.