This R Markdown Notebook is part of the chapter ‘Discourse Network Anylsis’ in The Routledge Handbook of Foreign Policy Methods (edited by Patrick A. Mello & Falk Ostermann). It gives readers a more detailed discussion of DNA as a the method, the coding-scheme, allows them access to the dataset and the script used for analysis, and shows further graphs that are not used in the chapter, due to page-limitation.

As discussed in the chapter, DNA proceeds in two stages and uses a combination of qualitative content analysis and social network analysis for grasping the statements of actors and relating them to each other (Leifeld 2013, 169). A series of 13 debates in the British House of Commons from 16 April 2002 trough 18 March 2003 provide the data for analysing the reasons for the United Kingdom’s participation in the Iraq War 2003. The dataset is available as an annotated DNA-file here.

In the first stage, a category-based coding-scheme is needed, to annotate this dataset. We can either deductively or inductively (Bauer 2000; Schreier 2014) develop such a scheme or combine both approaches. Deductively generated codes are developed top-down, inspired by theoretical assumptions researchers seek to verify. In contrast to that, inductively generated codes are developed during the process of coding itself. Combining both approaches is a common and promising procedure because it allows scholars to do both test their theoretical assumptions and ensure at the same time, that no categories are overlooked.

For this case study I combined both approaches. Following the secondary literature (deductive approach) and a close reading of the debates (inductive approach), I defined 22 claims and grouped these claims into three different storylines that dominated the overall discourse. These storyliens are (1) the nature of the Iraqi threat, (2) the policies to address these threats, and (3) the overall goals of the UK’s policy towards Iraq and the Middle East. In the first threat storyline, decision-makers feverishly argued whether Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein posed and imminent threat to the UK (Bluth 2004, 871), an overall threat to the world (Hoggett 2005, 423), or only a threat to the Middle East.

Furthermore, the actors disagreed whether this threat emanated from the possible possession and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Iraq’s supposed link to international terrorism, or its ballistic missile programme (Bluth 2004, 884; Kennedy-Pipe and Vickers 2007, 211). Another claim that MPs raised in their contribution was the humanitarian issue (Hoggett 2005, 418; Kennedy-Pipe and Vickers 2007, 211) and the threat of Saddam Hussein to his own people (Bluth 2004, 884). Finally, speakers warned of the threat to the international order if Iraq did not obey to the United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions (Bluth 2004, 871), and feared the consequence of unilateralism, should the United States decide to go alone (Bluth 2004, 875).

Based on this threat storyline, MPs introduced a second policy-means storyline, presenting their policy preference to tackle these threats. In this storyline they either proposed regime change, the use of force, containment and deterrence, arms inspections, disarmament, sanctions, the threat of force, diplomacy or the involvement of the United Nations (Security Council), or a combination of these claims, to address the challenges.

Finally, decision-makers presented in the policy-goals storyline the overall aims the UK sought to achieve. That is to uphold a close alliance with the United States [Doig and Phythian (2005), 369; Kennedy-Pipe2007, 209], to reintegrate Iraq into the international community, to democratize the country, and to stabilize the whole region.

The final coding scheme looks as follows:

• 01 - imminent (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses an imminent threat to the UK)
• 02 - overall (i.e., Iraq/Hussen poses a threat to the world)
• 03 - region (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a threat to the Middle East)
• 04 - WMD (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a threat because of weapons of mass destruction)
• 05 - terrorism (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a threat because of links to (transnational) terrorism)
• 06 - missiles (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a threat because of ballistic missiles)
• 07 - humanitarian (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a humanitarian threat to its people)
• 08 - international order (i.e., Iraq/Hussein poses a threat to the international order)
• 09 - unilateralism (i.e., Iraq/Hussein could further unilateral tendencies in the U.S.)

• 21 - regime change (i.e., the problem can only be solved by toppling S. Hussein)
• 22 - war (i.e., the problem can only be solved by going to war with Iraq)
• 23 - containment/deterrence (i.e., containment and/or deterrence are useful to solve the problem)
• 24 - inspections (i.e., inspections are useful to solve the problem)
• 25 - disarmament (i.e., disarmament is useful to solve the problem)
• 26 - sanctions (i.e., sanctions are useful to solve the problem)
• 27 - all options (i.e., UK must consider all possible options (also war))
• 28 - negotiations (i.e., negotiations can solve the problem)
• 29 - United Nations (i.e., the United Nations can help to solve the problem)

• 31 - alliance (i.e., UK seeks to strengthen the international alliance)
• 32 - reintegration (i.e., UK seeks to reintegrate Iraq into the international community)
• 33 - democracy (i.e., UK seeks to foster democracy in Iraq)
• 34 - stabilization (i.e., UK seeks to stabilize the Middle East)

I then applied this coding scheme to code statements (i.e., claims) in the debates. Statements are comprised of four variables (Leifeld 2018, 304–5): actors, organizations, concepts, agreement, and time stamps. An actor is any person or entity that speaks in a debate and that belongs to a certain organization. Concepts are political claims (henceforth claims) that either support or oppose policies, policy instruments, or certain actions in a policy process (see also Lapesa et al. (2020), 144). Agreement refers to the extent of agreement or opposition of an actor towards a claim This variable can either be dichotomous (i.e., agree – 1 or disagree – 0) or lie within a certain range (e.g., from -5 to +5). Time stamp is a temporal variable that specifies the date and time of a statement and allows the construction of dynamic networks.

I will demonstrate the application of the coding-scheme with the following two claims made by Prime Minister Tony Blair in a debate on 18^th March 2003.

“Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.” (Tony Blair, 18^th March 2003, c760)

In this passage, Blair argues that Iraq is definitely in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He refers to the threat story-line and agrees to the claim “04 - WMD.” Hence, I coded this statement as follows: “T Blair” (actor), “Cabinet” (organization), “04 - WMD” (concept), “yes” (agreement), “18.05.2003” (time stamp).

“All we are asking for in the second resolution is the clear ultimatum that if Saddam continues to fail to co-operate, force should be used.” (Tony Blair, 18^th March 2003, c767)

In this second example from the same debate, Prime Minister Blair calls for war as means to tackle the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Hence, I coded this statement as follows: “T Blair” (actor), “Cabinet” (organization), “22 - war” (concept), “yes” (agreement), “18.05.2003” (time stamp).

In total, I used the 22 claims to code 1,166 statements of 161 persons (i.e., Members of Parliament), from nine organizations (i.e., parties in the House of Commons and the Cabinet).

After coding the dataset, we then transform the generated data (i.e., the sum of coded statements) into a two-mode network (a bipartite graph), also known as an affiliation network of actors (or organizations) and claims (for the mathematical details of this transformation, see Leifeld, Gruber, and Bossner (2019)) that allows us to display the content, dynamic and drivers of political debates.