An Analysis of Struggle for Peace: Examining the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the

Figure 1.Visual Presentation of the Participants

It is one of the critical stages in any given research process. So as to create a good

relationship with the prospective participants, the researcher was required to inform them in good

time that research was to be carried out and all that it involved. The researcher did create an

environment of honesty, openness and suitability by informing the participants of the reason they

were chosen as the principal players. The researcher also offered reasons for why the research

was of great significance to them as well as the country. When it came to the gains and benefits

he informed them that he was offering them a platform, them being major stakeholders in the

environment where gun violence is prevalent, to make use of their knowledge and experiences in

airing the views and opinions which would be published and thus bring change to the society.

The participants were informed about their privacy, confidentiality and anonymity when it would

come to the presentation of the findings. When it came to the risks involved in the research, the

participants were informed that the research may bring back the old memories at which they

would be allowed to withdraw at their will if they felt they couldn’t move on with the research.

The participants were also informed that they were at deliberate to withdraw from the study at

anytime, or at will without facing any consequences, and their participation was of their accord.

Through these strategies, the researcher was in a position to obtain a direct entry and contact to

the participants to carry out the research.

During data collection, the researcher considered the following methods for gathering

information. They do include; observation directly, analyzing documents and interviewing in-

depth. These can be regarded as “the staples of the diet”. There are other secondary and

specialized methods utilized during data collection that does supplement the above three

methods.

Qualitative researchers depend relatively broadly on in-depth interviewing. Kahn et al.,

(1957) offered a description of interviewing as “a conversation with a purpose”. In qualitative

research, an interview can be compared to having a conversation with a prearranged response

groups. The researcher searches a small number of wide-ranging topics to assist in uncovering the

participant’s views but otherwise respects how the participant frames and structures the

responses. This method, in fact, is based on an assumption essential to qualitative research

The participant’s point of view on the matters of interest ought to disclose as the

contributor observes it; this is known as the emic perspective as compared to the researcher’s

opinion of it, referred to as the etic perspective. An extent of systematization in asking the

questions may be of significance, in this study. It is to assist the researcher in interviewing, or

during the analysis and the interpretation phase when the researcher is testing the findings that he

acquired in a more focused and planned questioning. The primary significance characteristic of

the interviewer’s approach is turning over the mindset that the participant’s outlooks are relevant

and of use. The interviewer’s accomplishment will be based on how well he was prepared and

practiced his responsibility in handling ethical issues.

In a case where we do have many participants are involved in the procedure will be in a

position to obtain a higher magnitude of information than when fewer members are required. It is

the typical relationship between breadth and depth. The follow-ups and clarifications were done

immediately. The researcher combined the interview and the observation which enabled him to

obtain a deeper understanding of the activities that the participants would carry on the day to day

basis. It is of great significance to note that interview as well did have its limitations and

weaknesses. However, the interaction between the researcher and the interviewees was a personal

one which could be described as a personal contact and was necessary. It is common for one to

come across a case where the participant is not willing to offer more details because they are

uncomfortable in providing the details the researcher is exploring. The interviewer may have a

language barrier problem or lack of skills thus the participants will fail to offer an extended

narrative. He may also fail to understand the answers to the questions or a variety of

fundamentals of the conversation. And at times, the participants may decide not to be truthful for

their reasons Douglas, 1976). Interviewers ought to have excellent listening proficiency and be

skillful when it comes to personal relations, structuring of the questions and the moderate

inquiring for an explanation.

Quantities of information are capable of being acquired in the course of interviewing but

will require a lot of time to analyze. When the researcher is making use of the in-depth interviews

as the only method of data collection, he ought to have to establish throughout the conceptual

framework that, the principle of the research is to unearth and portray the participants’ viewpoints

on proceedings, which means, that the personal outlook is what substantial. Research which

makes more objectivist hypothesis would triangulate interview information with the one collected

by the other methods.

Finally, when interviews have been observed for the first instance they do look like an

ordinary conversation, researchers from time to time use them inconsiderately, in an under

hypothesized approach, it is as if the participant is offering what Wengraf (2001) highlights as,

“…an unproblematic window on psychological or social realities…”

In totaling to general in-depth interviewing, there are quite a few additional particular forms,

counting phenomenological interviewing, elite interviewing, ethnographic interviewing,

interviewing children and focus-group interviewing.

There isn’t a given way of authenticating qualitative results. It is important to note that

this does not mean that the findings cannot be validated. Creating quality principles in a

qualitative research fluctuate from standard processes in quantitative making inquiries in the form

of descriptions and procedures (Creswell 1998). The speech of quantitative analysis based on the

positivist custom is not compatible with qualitative research (Creswell 1998). McReynolds et al.

(2001) uphold that “reliability” and “validity” in the circumstances of the qualitative custom does

not uphold a similar significance as it is in quantitative research. They did highlight that the terms

“credibility”, “trustworthiness” and “authenticity” are practiced instead of reliability and validity.

Creswell (1998) used verification for validity so as to position qualitative research as a separate

procedural approach for evaluation. Qualitative conclusions ought to be authenticated all the way

through the course of credibility, transferability, dependability. (Trochim, 2001)

The prerequisite of reliability maintains that a qualitative researcher ought to institute that

the conclusions arrived at are in line with participants’ viewpoints and way of life. Since the

fundamental nature of a qualitative evaluation is to illustrate the occurrences of research from the

perspective of those who went through it, transferability necessitates researcher to present

comprehensive distinctiveness of what was considered. It will permit for outside evaluations to

be conducted as to whether the results may be reassigned elsewhere. The researcher will not

formulate that resolution but has to offer information to enable such estimations to be achievable.

Dependability elevates the obligation on the section of the researcher to point out and

account for the varying circumstances of the evaluation and how the amendments have an effect

on the outcome. The procedure of conformability necessitates the researcher to test methods

approved to join forces and substantiate the conclusions. Acceptable actions suggested by

responsible persons for satisfying those as mentioned earlier comprise of the use of field

observations and notes. Besides, other adequate measures are the use of several researchers, the

use of different sources of information, lengthened commitment and continual surveillance in the

area, operating with discrepant information, expounding investigator’s bias, constituent

examination, offering wealthy substantial explanation, and external audit (Trochim, 2001;

(Creswell 1998; McReynolds et al. 2001).

The researcher used numerous resources of data, member examination, and peer

evaluation to authenticate the conclusions (Creswell, 1998). By the use of numerous springs of

information, the researcher obtained verifications of outcomes by pooling resources, declarations,

and interpretations that materialized from diverse groups of participants. Opening results were

shared with preferred participants for their comments and responses to guarantee that they are

conventional to participants’ understanding. The researcher supplied a comprehensive

explanation of the facts under evaluation so that it could be appraised for possible simplification

in another place. The outcomes were as well subjected to a closer look by an expert in the sphere

for remarks and responses. A scholar who is a professor evaluated the information, and his

observations and answers were incorporated. These measures were expected to provide quality

standards for the procedure (Creswell, 1998; McReynolds et al., 2001).

The researcher conducted the complete research from the data gathering stage, analysis of

the report writing. He traveled to the various places where he had made arrangement for the

interviews to be conducted and also gathered the appropriate documents. The researcher recruited

the participants and also sought the needed permission and authorization to carry out the

interviews and collect materials. The researcher used emails and telephone to contact members.

In some scenarios the researcher had to make to get in touch with the participant so as to initiate

the topic. The researcher in person carried out, audio recording, and transliterates interviews

procedures. In the process of the interview, the researcher noted down on the memos which were

used later in the analysis as well as the preparation of the narrative report. The researcher was the

key player in the data gathering process. A qualitative researcher ought to be skillful with a huge

deal of performance in interviewing so as to acquire applicable data necessary for a study

(Goulding, 2002; Creswell, 1998; Polkinghorne, 2005).

Handling Researcher’s Bias

The responsibility of the researcher as the major appliance for data compilation and his

background placed him in close-up contact with the information. The possibility of a qualitative

researcher being ruined with prejudice in that situation was acknowledged. In this study, quite a

few procedures were practiced by the researcher in other to solve the likelihood of bias. Mainly

the researcher upheld an elevated amount of awareness about the possibility of partiality and

implemented neutrality all the way through the process. The researcher did not account for any

discrepant occasion in the path of the study. As illustrated earlier, research conclusions were

subjected to associates examination and immediate evaluation to boost the integrity of the

research findings (Goulding, 2002).

The outcomes were as well subjected to a closer look by an expert in the sphere for

remarks and responses. A scholar who is a professor evaluated the information, and his

observations and answers were incorporated to boost the integrity of research outcomes. The

researcher acknowledged the method of group improvement and made the procedure of data

analysis open to increase the dependability of findings. This process confidently diminishes or

eradicated the frequency of researcher’s partisanship (Constas, 1995).

Participants’ protection was significant to the triumph of the investigation and to ensure

their well-being the following measures were recommended. To guarantee participants’ safeguard

and well-being, they were hired based on an express approval. The rationale of the investigation

and the use of the interview to explained to them. Participants were made to understand that they

may well drop out of the research and interview process at any moment at their will. The

researcher was well aware of the impact that gun violence has had on the community, and some

of the participants may have been directly affected, this may invoke the memories (Creswell,

1998). It was made known to the participants by the researcher before consent of participation

was made to them. Before the interview began, the participants were made aware that they could

stop the interview if they found it to be necessary without facing any consequences (Nachmias,

1987).

understanding in questioning so as to create a condition of the interview becoming

psychologically stimulating. Additionally, participants were guaranteed anonymity and privacy

all the way through and past the study. The character of members was concealed and

disconnected from information using codes. The information that they presented was kept back

classified under a lock and key. Participants’ privacy was highly appreciated, and they were

offered the opportunity to decide where and when they were comfortable having the research

being conducted (Goulding, 2002).

This Chapter was focusing on the design of the study. The study was looking at the

examining of the two gun violence Acts which are the GCA 1968 and BVA 1993. There was a

case study methodology that was adopted for the reason that it offered an in-depth contextual

perspective on the topic under consideration. The numbers considered for the research as the

participants were 14. They were selected in a positive way by the use of maximum variation,

theory based as well as the confirmatory sampling strategies. The data was coded analyzed

through categorical aggregation, detailed description, the establishment of patterns, direct

interpretation, (Creswell, 1998). The findings were authenticated in the course of the use of

various springs of data, member examination, and close examination. The narrative report

followed the realist methodology. Participants were guaranteed of anonymity and privacy

concerning information they presented in the interview and their confidentiality appreciated. This

method provided information that added to the understanding of the effectiveness of the

effectiveness of GCA 1968 and BVA 1993.

References

Alters, S. M., & Information Plus (Firm: Wylie, Tex.). (2009). Gun control: Restricting rights or

protecting people. Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning.

Blumstein, A. (2006). The crime drop in America. New York [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Bogard, M. (1996). Gun control: Implementation of the Brady handgun violence prevention act.

Place of publication not identified: Diane Pub Co.

Carter, G. L. (2006). Gun control in the United States: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara,

Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Carter, G. L. (2012). Guns in American Society: An encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and

the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Constas, M.A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The Documentation of

Category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal,

(29)2, 253-266.

Cook, Philip J., and Michael J. Moore. 2001. “Environment and Persistence in Youthful

Drinking Patterns.” In Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis, edited by

Jonathan Gruber, 375–438. University of Chicago Press.

Cox, V. (1997). Guns, violence, and teens. Springfield, NJ, USA: Enslow Publishers.

Creswell, W.C. (1998).Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks London: Sage Publications.

DeConde, A. (2003). Gun violence in America: The struggle for control. Boston, Mass:

Northeastern Univ. Press.

Goulding, C. (2002).Grounded Theory: A practical guide for management, business and market

researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Ketchen, D. J., & Bergh, D. D. (2004). Research methodology in strategy and management.

Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.

Kleck, Gary. 1997. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Aldine de Gruyter.

Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz. 1995. “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature

Of Self-Defense with a Gun.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86: 150–87.

Levitt, Steven D. 2001. “Deterrence.” In Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, edited by

Lott, J. R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malley-Morrison, K., Mercurio, A., & Twose, G. (2013). International handbook of peace and

reconciliation. New York, NY: Springer.

McReynolds, C. J., Koch, L.C. & Rumrill, Jr P.D.(2001). Qualitative research

Strategies in rehabilitation. Work, 16(1), 57-65.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Miller, M. (1997). Working together against gun violence. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.

Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., & DeJong, C. R. (2011). Applied social research: A tool for the

human services. Australia: Brookscole.

Monroe, J. D. (2008). Homicide and Gun Control: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

and homicide rates. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub.

Munhall, P. L., & Chenail, R. J. (2008). Qualitative research proposals and reports: A guide.

Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Nachmias, D. &Nachmias, C. (1987). Research methods in the social sciences (3rd

Ed.). New York: St Martin’s Press.

Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First

Century.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 23, edited by Michael

Tonry, 1–42. University of Chicago Press.

Noble, T. (2002). Social theory and social change. Basingstoke [u.a.: Palgrave.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative

Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case studies research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Sztompka, P. (1994). The sociology of social change. Oxford u.a: Blackwell.

Tolstoy, L. (1982). War and peace. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Trochim, W.M.K. (2001).The research methods knowledge base (2nd Ed.).United

States of America: Atomic Dog Publishing.

The United States. (1987). Legislation to modify the 1968 Gun Control Act: Hearings before the

Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, first and

second sessions. October 28, 30, November 9, 1985; February 19 and 27, 1986.

Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

The United States. (1994). Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act: Hearing before the

Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House

of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session on H.R. 1025 Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act, September 30, 1993. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

The United States. (1995). Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994: Public health and child safety:

hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session on S. 1882 ... March

23, 1994. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

Utter, G. H. (2000). Encyclopedia of gun control and gun rights. Phoenix, Ariz: Oryx Press.

Webster, D. W., & Vernick, J. S. (2013). Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy

with evidence and analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Weinstein, J. A., & Weinstein, J. A. (2010). Social change. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers.

Wertz, F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology.

Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 167-177.

Wilson, James Q and Petersilia, Joan 435–50. Oakland: Institute for Contemporary

Studies.

Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia. The University of

Pennsylvania.

Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi. 1994. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of

Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). Aldine de Gruyter.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd Ed.) [Kindle version].

Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com

APPENDIX A:

Name of Individual

Address

Dear (Name)

With your authorization, the interviews will be recorded on audio tape. All information that will be obtained from the interview procedure will be treated as classified, and your personality will be sheltered at every moment. The contribution is sternly on a voluntary basis, and you will be in a position to pull out your involvement at any time.

 For this research, I will be looking for a participant who:

 Was/Is a resident of the United States for a minimum of 10years

 Who has experienced an incidence related to firearm violence?

 Who has been involved with a person/Individual who has committed a crime with a firearm?