Advanced

"I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child” : En kvalitativ innehållsanalys av Family Firsts kampanj om the anti-smacking law

Conca, Giovanna LU and Petersson, Rebecca LU (2012) SOPA63 20121
School of Social Work
Abstract
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the organisation Family First's campaign against the anti-smacking law in New Zeeland. This has been done through a qualitative content analysis of how Family First use arguments and rhetoric in their campaign, and what consequences Family First mean the anti-smacking law has had for the society, the parents and the children and how this contributes to the construction of a social problem. We have used theories of social constructions and rhetoric as a theoretical basis for the analysis of our material. Our results show that Family First uses several rhetorical techniques such as: scare tactics, creating a trusting relationship with the reader and mocking the opponent in their... (More)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the organisation Family First's campaign against the anti-smacking law in New Zeeland. This has been done through a qualitative content analysis of how Family First use arguments and rhetoric in their campaign, and what consequences Family First mean the anti-smacking law has had for the society, the parents and the children and how this contributes to the construction of a social problem. We have used theories of social constructions and rhetoric as a theoretical basis for the analysis of our material. Our results show that Family First uses several rhetorical techniques such as: scare tactics, creating a trusting relationship with the reader and mocking the opponent in their argumentation. We also found that their main arguments concerned that the anti- smacking law is confusing, that good parents are being criminalised because of the law, and that the authorities lack competence in the topic. Our conclusion is that Family First through these rethorical techniques and arguments contribute to creating a social problem. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Conca, Giovanna LU and Petersson, Rebecca LU
supervisor
organization
course
SOPA63 20121
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Family First, smacking, arguments, rhetoric, social constructions and social problems
language
Swedish
id
2799472
date added to LUP
2012-06-20 09:40:37
date last changed
2012-06-20 09:40:37
@misc{2799472,
  abstract     = {Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the organisation Family First's campaign against the anti-smacking law in New Zeeland. This has been done through a qualitative content analysis of how Family First use arguments and rhetoric in their campaign, and what consequences Family First mean the anti-smacking law has had for the society, the parents and the children and how this contributes to the construction of a social problem. We have used theories of social constructions and rhetoric as a theoretical basis for the analysis of our material. Our results show that Family First uses several rhetorical techniques such as: scare tactics, creating a trusting relationship with the reader and mocking the opponent in their argumentation. We also found that their main arguments concerned that the anti- smacking law is confusing, that good parents are being criminalised because of the law, and that the authorities lack competence in the topic. Our conclusion is that Family First through these rethorical techniques and arguments contribute to creating a social problem.},
  author       = {Conca, Giovanna and Petersson, Rebecca},
  keyword      = {Family First,smacking,arguments,rhetoric,social constructions and social problems},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {"I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child” : En kvalitativ innehållsanalys av Family Firsts kampanj om the anti-smacking law},
  year         = {2012},
}