Space for stories: legislative narratives and the establishment of the US Space Force

Abstract

In June 2018, President Trump directed the development of a sixth branch of the US Armed Forces—the Space Force—whose primary mission is to enhance the space operations of the USA and its allies. In this paper, we utilize the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine legislative meso-level narratives surrounding the advocacy for and in opposition to the establishment of a US Space Force. After reviewing the literature on the NPF and US space-defense policy, we conduct a content analysis to discern the policy narratives within congressional testimonies encompassing the development of the Space Force. Included in this content analysis is a unique contribution to the NPF literature’s conceptualization of plot. Leveraging these data, we describe and analyze the policy narratives produced by Republicans and Democrats. Our main findings highlight significant partisan differences in the construction of narratives on the US Space Force, including contrasting viewpoints on the role of the Space Force, the setting of space as a domain of war, and military cooperation with commercial and international groups. We conclude with a discussion of the substantive implications of our findings, including the potential impacts of partisan narratives on the future role of the Space Force. Finally, we propose a new route to improve reliability in the study of NPF plots using a two-dimensional orientation to plot: policy outcome and time.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Congressional testimonies captured in this study.

• China in space: A Strategic competition?: Hearing before the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission. 116th Cong. 1 (2019). [ChinaComp]

• Military Space Operations, Policy, and Programs: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, Senate, 116th Cong. 1 (2019). [SpaceOps]

• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and oversight of Previously Authorized Programs: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 115th Cong. 2 (2018). [NDAA2019]

• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and oversight of previously authorized programs: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 116th Cong. 1 (2019). [NDAA2020]

• Space warfighting readiness: Policies, authorities, and capabilities: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives. 115th Cong. 2 (2018). [Warfighting]

• The Proposal to Establish a United State Space Force: Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, Senate, 116th Cong. 1 (2019). [SFProposal]

Appendix 2

Space force narratives codebook

This codebook uses quotes from Shanahan et al., (2018b), work “How to conduct a narrative policy framework study” to establish definitions of the major narrative elements. The remaining subcodes were developed through an iterative coding process and bimonthly meetings.

Case Classifications

Case Classifications assist in separating the features of individual speakers for each testimony.

• 1. Highlight text from one speaker.

• 2. Right-click and select “Code”—Scroll down to Cases

• 3. If the speaker is already listed, select the speaker and click “Ok”

  • a. If the speaker is not listed, select “New Case” and add the “Last Name” (add First name initials if a common name used)

  • b. Under “description” include state initials if applicable (ex. OR, TX)

• 4. If the section highlighted is Written testimony, select “speaker name” case, then add “new case” and create a folder “Written”

• 5. Add the attributes of the speaker, Including: Republican/Democrat (If congressional) otherwise “Not Applicable,” and their position/sector as appropriate.

Attributes

• Party: Select the Party of the participant (at the time of the hearing)

  • Republican

  • Democrat

  • Not Applicable: In cases of non-partisan participants.

• Sector

  • Congress Members of the House of Representatives

  • Senate Members of the Senate

  • Military Members of the military (Current AND Retired)

  • Exec. Agency Non-military members of any public agency (ex. NASA, FAA, DoT)

  • Civilian Any non-government employees (Think tanks, non-profits, other)

Coding scheme and definitions

• 1. Congressional questions

• Questions stemming from Congresspersons or Senators which should (in most cases) be used in concert with another code.

  • a. Ex. “Who do you think is our biggest adversary in space defense today?” Would be coded as “Congressional Questions” AND “Villians—Adversary (General).”

• 2. Heroes

• Discussion concerning “Those who take action with purpose to achieve or oppose a policy solution.”

• Subcodes:

  • Air Force The US Air Force

  • American Military General or specific military entities

    • Commands—Specific commands or leaders

    • Service members—General or specific service members

  • Commercial Private, Industrial, and Commercial depiction as heros.

  • Congress Congressional/Senatorial depiction as heros.

  • Executive Agencies Specific depiction of an executive agency as a hero.

    • DoD—Department of Defense

    • NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration

  • President The President/President’s Administration

  • United States General nation, USA is depicted as the hero.

  • US Allies Other nations (specifically allies)

  • Orbital space (itself) Space providing for the US, commercial, military etc.

  • Space Force Space Force is the hero we need

• 3. Villains

• Discussion concerning “Those who create a harm or inflict damage or pain upon a victim. Those who oppose the aims of the hero”—including personified and non-personified actors and issues.

• Subcodes:

  • External Villains external to the USA, including foreign states and actors.

    • Adversary (General)—Discussion of a general adversary to US goals

    • China—The People’s Republic of China

    • Russia—The Russian Federation

    • Z-Other—Other states or non-state actors

  • Internal Villains within to the USA (usually discussed as “inadvertent”)

    • Budget—The budget provided to space systems

    • Bureaucracy—Specific entities or general organizational issues

      • DoD—The Department of Defense

      • Air Force—The US Air Force

    • Commercial Groups—Private, industrial, or commercial groups

    • Organizational Culture—Cultural organizational issues

    • Resources—Resource inadequacy (non-specific to budget)

• Victims

• Discussion concerning “Those who are harmed by a particular action or inaction.” When things happen to something/someone. Those who are dependent on others for action or change.

• Subcodes:

  • United States General nation, USA depicted as dependent on actors or systems.

  • Space Force The US Space Force

  • Air Force The US Air Force

  • Commercial Private, Industrial, or commercial groups.

  • American Military General or specific military depicted as dependent

    • Commands—Specific commands or leaders

    • Service members—General or specific service members

  • Executive Agencies Specific agency depiction as dependent

    • DoD—Department of Defense

    • NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• 4. Moral

• The Moral is the desired outcome of the policy action or inaction. A recommendation for action, sometimes connected to a Villain, Victim, Plot, or Setting.

• Subcodes:

  • Deterrence Desire or recommendation to deter space conflicts

    • Clarity of Thresholds: Clarifying what level of aggression qualifies as acts of war.

  • Improved Capability Desire or recommendation to improve the capability of assets.

    • Increased funding (specifically focused on better equipment/resources)

    • Personnel expertise: Improving the knowledge/skills of personnel.

      • Includes: Measure Readiness, Testing, Training.

    • Resilient architectures: Improving physical resource deployment.

      • Includes: Better orbits, Launch sites, and Reusable Rocketry.

    • Situational Awareness: Improving the awareness of foreign space operations.

      • Includes: Enemy capability, Detection of Threats, Protection of Interests

  • Improved Organization Desire or recommendation for improved organization of assets.

    • Decision-making processes: Improved processes of decision making.

      • Includes: Faster Acquisitions, Consulting of combat commanders, reducing over classification of files, and creating a working capital fund.

    • Infrastructural organization: Change to the physical infrastructure of assets

    • Organizational culture: Changes to the culture within an organization (usually connected to “Villain (Internal—Culture)”

    • Personnel Organization: Improve the direction and organization of personnel.

      • Includes: Career Pathways, Leadership structure.

  • Increased Cooperation Desire or recommendation for cooperation with others

    • Commercial Partnerships: Partnering with US based commercial groups

      • Includes: Communication, Contract Awards, Indemnification

    • Executive Agencies: Partnering with the NRO and other exec agencies

      • Includes Communication, Unity, Decision-making processes

    • Foreign Collaboration:

      • Includes: Communication

  • Space Separation—Responsibility Separation of space-assets from other assets—Increased responsibility awarded to space command structures.

    • Against Separation: Insinuating or prescribing against a new space branch.

    • For Separation: Parent Node

      • Create a Space Force: Specific direction to create a unique branch of the military.

      • Create a Corps within Air Force: Direction to create military branch with AF Purview

      • Prioritization of Space: A prioritization of Space leadership, assets, funding, organization (through separation)

    • Questioning: Indicates that the speaker is unsure or questions the merit of new forces

    • General Structural Change: Recommendation for general organizational changes, but does not specify the separation or development of new forces.

  • Strategy Specific recommendations for strategy.

    • Actionable Plans: Specific strategic plans for congress or another group to pursue.

    • Words of Caution: Cautioning an approach (rather than advocating one)

• 5. Plot

• The Plot includes the telling of a story outlining the direction or status of heroes, villains, victims, and/or morals. It includes two dimensions, Time (past or future) and policy outcome (+ or -). Consult Fig. 1.

• Subcodes:

  • Stymied Progress: If the plot describes how things were terrible, got better due to a hero, but are getting worse or standing still because someone/thing is interfering with the hero’s work.

  • Risings: Parent Node for Current Progress and Future Progress

    • Story of Rising: If the plot describes how the hero is making headway on improvements.

    • Future Progress: If the plot describes how the hero will make headway on improvements.

  • Declines: Parent node for Story of Decline and Future Decline

    • Story of Decline: If the plot describes how in the beginning things were good, but got worse, and are now so bad that something must be done.

    • Future Decline: If the plot describes how things COULD BE terrible if the hero does not act—or if the path is not cleared for the hero to act.

  • Change is an Illusion: If the plot describes how everyone always thought things were getting worse (or better) but they were wrong the whole time, and how things are actually going in the opposite direction.

  • Story of Helplessness: If the plot describes a situation as bad, and that it has always been believe the situation must be acceptable because it was unchangeable, but describes how change can now occur.

• 6. Setting The setting outlines general context of an issue, policy decision, or situation in historical, physical, or other environmental circumstances.

• Subcodes:

  • Chaotic: Discussion describing space as chaotic or unknowable field.

  • Contested: Discussion describing space as contested or a contested domain.

  • Crowded: Discussion describing space as crowded or busy.

  • Entangled: Discussion describing space as entangled (commercially or militarily).

  • Rapid Innovation: Discussion describing space as a domain of rapid innovation.

  • War Domain: Discussion describing space as a new domain of war.

In the next section, we provide an example paragraph from this research identifying how we code for NPF elements in a congressional text (setting, characters, morals, and plots).

First, we categorize these paragraphs as PARA #1 and PARA #2.

Then, we categorize the writing by speaker and affiliation: William Thornberry (R-TX).

Finally, we highlight codes and subcodes with an underline and describe the appropriate parent node (ALL CAPS) and sub-nodes (-subcode) in parentheses.

William Thornberry (R-TX): (REPUBLICAN)

Last month when Secretary Mattis testified on the new National Defense Strategy, he said "our competitive edge (PLOT—Story of Decline) has eroded in every domain of warfare air, land, sea, space, and cyber." That statement has two relevant points to today's hearing. First, space is a domain of warfare (SETTING—war domain), not just an enabler. Second, we are falling behind where we should be (PLOT—Story of Decline) when it comes to space. Today's hearing will discuss how we can catch up.

As we refocus our defense efforts on strategic rivals (VILLAIN—General adversary), it is clear that they are putting significant effort into space. I believe that the American people still do not fully realize how dependent (VICTIM—American people) our country is on space, not just for military and intelligence purposes, but in our every day lives as well. That dependence creates a vulnerability, which, like in the other domains, we must count on the American military to protect (HERO—American Military). This Committee has focused a lot on readiness and rebuilding our military (MORAL—nonspecific). When it comes to space, there are a number of questions that need answers. Where should we be making our investments (Congressional Questions—MORAL)? Are we attracting and then developing the right kind of space warfighters (MORAL—Improved Organization—Personnel)? Perhaps most crucially, are we putting the appropriate intellectual effort into space as a warfighting domain (SETTING—War Domain)? We look forward to insights that our witnesses today can give us. Finally, I would point out that this committee has been very active in trying to prepare (PLOT—Story of Rising) the military and the nation for the challenges of space. We have streamlined Air Force acquisition (MORAL—Improved Acquisition) authorities, eliminated red tape (VILLAIN—Internal—Bureaucracy), empowered a single accountable organization for space forces (MORAL—Improved organization) within the Air Force, and empowered the Deputy Secretary of Defense to oversee Air Force space reform efforts, among other things. But we will not relax our effort (PLOT [paragraph level]—Story of Rising). This topic is just too important.

After completing the coding, we look back to PARA #1 and PARA #2 and assess the presence (1) or absence (0) of each Parent, Child, and Grandchild nodes. This provides information on what content each author discusses, but does not provide information on how frequently or adamantly they discussed each topic (Though we do have that information, it has not been presented in this research and will be the subject of a future study). Finally, a quantitative comparison on the presence and absence of codes is conducted to highlight the difference between Republican and Democrat uses of narrative elements in each paragraph across the corpora.

Appendix 3

Visualizations of the use of narrative elements by political party (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10).

Fig. 2

Prevalence of NPF codes

Fig. 3

Settings used by Congress

Fig. 4

Heroes used by Congress

Fig. 5

Villains used by Congress

Fig. 6

Villain sub-codes by Congress

Fig. 7

Victims used by Congress

Fig. 8

Plots used by Congress

Fig. 9

Morals used by Congress

Fig. 10

Moral sub-codes by Congress

Percentages represent the proportion of codes that pertain to each category by party affiliation. The total percentages may exceed 100% due to the allowance of multiple coding.

Appendix 4

Further descriptions on the NPF Plot figure

This appendix is a supplement for those more interested in this conceptualization of NPF plot. In this appendix, we: (1) provide a brief legend for the components of Fig. 1, (2) provide a simplified version of the NPF plot model, and (3) describe an example of how the plot model can be useful in comparative or longitudinal narrative studies.

Figure legend

• Morals—A driver of positive policy outcomes

  • Morals are used in stories to indicate positive (or optimal) policy outcomes.

• Victims—An indicator of negative policy outcomes

  • Description of victims (past or future) indicates negative policy outcomes.

• Past—Story elements occurring before the policy decision.

• Future—Story elements occurring after the policy decision.

• Hero–Villain interaction—the battle for positive policy outcomes occurring in the present.

  • A competition between the Hero and Villain; outcomes depend on the success of the hero or villain’s supporting group in the policy arena.

• Heroic influence—Driver of positive policy impacts as a result of hero’s actions.

• Villainous influence—Driver of negative policy impacts as a result of villain’s actions.

Future Stories of Change:

• Story of Future Progress: Outcomes are not good (or as good as we’d like them) right now, but in the future, they will be better (e.g., if policy X is/isn’t passed).

  • For example, promote a policy being passed to create a future with positive outcomes.

• Story of Future Decline: Outcomes are not bad (or as bad as they could be) right now, but in the future, they will become much worse (e.g. if policy X is/isn’t passed).

  • For example, promote a policy being passed to prevent a future with negative outcomes.

Future Stories of Power:

• Story of Independence: If we gain independence on this issue, we will see better policy outcomes in the future.

  • For example, the Victim who becomes their own hero.

• Story of Lost control: If we lose control of this issue now, we will see more negative policy outcomes in the future.

  • For example, the Hero who becomes a victim of a Villain.

Simplified example of plot

We encourage researchers to explore the concept of plot in a variety of ways. Some approaches may incorporate all the components from Fig. 1; however, many researchers may find that approach unnecessary. For these situations, we provide the following alternative in Fig. 

Fig. 11

Simplified NPF Plot

11.

Comparing narrative plots between groups

As presented in Fig. 1, the plot element can be approached in a complex two-dimensional way, incorporating other elements of the NPF. However, we encourage researchers to explore the concept of plot in a variety of ways, some of which may use the full complexity of Fig. 1, others, may only use parts. One approach highlighted in the Summary & Implications section describes how this model of plot can be used to visualize differences between groups in a static period or in a time series. Figure 

Fig. 12

Example of Narrative Time Series across partisan lines

12 is a representation of how an NPF study can utilize the two-dimensional plot element to explore and visualize differences in the narratives of opposing groups.

In this example, we have two Time series (1 and 2), and two groups: Proponents of a new policy option and Opponents to that policy option.

In Time Series #1, we see that the Proponent group utilized the narratives, Story of Decline and Story of Future Progress—perhaps weaving a story telling us: “Things are getting worse on this policy issue, but if we make a change now, the future will be better!” In contrast, the opposing group favors stories of Future Decline—“If we pass this policy, other issues will arise worse than the problems we face now.” Taken individually as Time Series #1, this approach can help researchers visualize narrative differences between two or more groups on one policy issue at one point in time. However, if researchers are interested in studying a recurrent policy issue, longitudinal plot imaging can help reveal how stories change across time.

In Time Series #2, another opportunity for policy change on this topic has arrived. In response, the groups use information about the policy occurring after Time Series #1, and change their preferred stories based on the outcomes associated with the policy decision from Time Series #1. In this example, let’s say the Proponents were successful and a policy was installed. In Time Series #2, the Proponents create a different plot, one of stymied progress from the first attempt to solve this problem, and future decline if the problem is not solved fully now—“We tried a solution, but it was blocked by the Villain at every turn, now we must update the policy or face bad outcomes in the future.” Once again in contrast, the group opposing this policy weaves a different narrative, contradicting that there is a policy problem at all. “We successfully solved this policy problem with our last solution (Time Series #1), there’s not need to use budget money on this problem anymore.”