The majority of the respondents were of the view that the media is primarily to blame for the rising cases of school shootings. This responsibility by the media was attributed to the glorification of these school shootings by the media (Clemons, McBeth, p. 208). This is because any school shooting gets national publication. School shootings may be isolated and rare, but the media makes sure that these incidents receive national attention and thus, blow them completely out of proportion.
The majority of the respondents also felt that the content being aired by the media was to blame for the rising number in cases of school shootings. This is because the content in the media is primarily violent. Children are thus exposed to this violence at a very early age. Violent programs are consistent in the media, and this leads to the indoctrination of violence in the children. Because of this indoctrination, a child may take a gun to school and shoot fellow students or even their teachers in a similar fashion as they saw on a television show.
The view of the respondents on the causes of the increasing number of school shootings is related to policy. This is because the government can censor the media content. The government can play an active role in monitoring the content that is being aired by the media and in ensuring that this content is appropriate, given the different age groups that view the content in question. Gun control also came up as one of the policies that can be used to control the number of school shootings.
The respondents are not consistent in their views. Each of the respondents had varying opinions on what the exact cause of the problem was and the methods to be used to solve the problem. Some of the respondents even felt that these school shootings were an isolated issue and thus did not affect them at all and in essence was not worth their tax money.
Critique the facilitator
The intervention of the facilitator in the entire discussion was very appropriate. This is because the facilitator intervened at only the right moments. These moments included mainly when the participants were deviating from the topic question and discussing issues that were not relevant to the topic question (Clemons, McBeth, p. 213). There are no instances where the facilitator should have intervened, but failed to do so. Whenever the participants engaged in inappropriate behavior such as personally attacking each other, the facilitator was quick to jump in, resolve the situation, and in the process get the discussion back on track. There are no instances where the facilitator intervenes inappropriately. Rather the facilitator gives the participants’ ample time to exhaust their points on a given question before moving on to the next question.
There are examples of the facilitator using leading questions. These are instances where the facilitator asks particular questions to particular respondents. The facilitator does this to enable these particular respondents to expound more on their points and, therefore, contribute more to the discussion. The facilitator also does this to eliminate ambiguity in some of the points given by some of the participants (Clemons, McBeth, p. 213).
The entire discussion is completely free of the opinion of the facilitator. The facilitator simply asked the questions and let the participants give their responses based on their personal opinions. There is absolutely no instance where the facilitator tries to advocate for a given frame of thought or a given opinion at all.
The questions asked were appropriate. This is because they were based on the topic question of shooting in schools and what can be done to minimize them. There were no biased questions or questions that compelled the respondents to answer them in any given kind of way
Survey and focus groups
Based on the transcript one weakness of focus group survey is a lack of information. This is because the respondents included people being affected by the school shootings, but no experts on the matter and certainly no expert on policy (Clemons, McBeth, p. 212). As a result, most of the responses being given by the respondents were purely opinion based. Most of the claims being made by the respondents could not be verified. Another problem of focus group surveys is the tendency of the respondents to personalize the questions being asked instead of remaining objective to the topic question.
A survey based on the transcript would include questions such as what is the personal take of the respondents on the rising number of school shootings. Who bears the biggest responsibility or rather who is to blame for the rising number of school shootings? What is the role of society in the shootings? What is the role of the government in the shooting? What can be done to eliminate these cases of school shootings? The respondents would include the parents as well as the students. This is because the students are more likely to give accurate information concerning the motivations behind these school shootings as opposed to the parents. The parents are however likely to be more knowledgeable on matters policy affecting the topic question.
Symbols and metaphors
There are examples of participants using symbols and metaphors in their discussions a good example is the use of the word pot by certain participants to describe the drug that is known as marijuana (Clemons, McBeth, p.211). The understanding of stone’s discussion helps to understand the responses. This is because the discussion focuses on the exact wording of the responses and that the respondents mean by choosing certain words and no other words that have a relatively similar meaning.
What next?
This approach is more democratic than other types of policy analysis. This is because the participants are given an avenue to discuss policy issues in a free and fair environment. As a result, the participants have the opportunity to argue out their opinions freely and comprehensively. Participant participation is also useful. In setting a fact from opinion in such discussions. This is because in such an environment it is very hard for a participant to make an inaccurate statement and get away with it without the interjection of other participants.
Reference
Randall S. Clemons, Mark K. McBeth. (2009). Public policy praxis: a case study for understanding policy and analysis, second edition. Pearson/longman
