Testing the theory of dominant institutionalized policy narratives using Florida’s “stand your ground” discourse

Narratives are a very important part of public policy negotiations and
deliberations. Public policy research has shown that policy narratives are manipulated to
fit the motives of the creators and enforcers of that narrative (Stone, 2002). The creators
and enforcers of these narratives use symbols, language, and other techniques to ensure
that the narrative survives and dominates the political and social environment by
becoming the favored policy prescription (Stone, 2002; Miller, 2012; Jones & McBeth,
2010; Schneider & Ingram, 1993). This study employs a qualitative content analysis to trace the genealogy of the following narratives that make up the “Stand Your Ground” discourse from 2005-2013: (1) Prosecutorial Discretion Narrative, (2) Vigilante Justice Narrative, (3) Race Narrative, and (4) Law-abiding Citizen Narrative. The “Stand Your Ground” discourse is used to test what this dissertation terms the “institutionalized policy narrative” thesis which
states, Policymakers and policy advocates use policy narratives which consist of powerful
symbols, politically motivated language, and ideographs to both shape and respond to
public opinions by appealing to both the heart and intellect of the public. Once a
winning narrative becomes institutionalized it is nearly impossible to replace that
winning narrative even in the wake of a powerful new emerging narrative.