Toward Conceptual Consistency in Studies of Agenda-Building Processes: A Scholarly Review

Abstract

In the years since Cobb and Elder (1971) advanced agenda building as an alternative structural perspective to the normatively appealing, yet realistically untenable, democratic theory, the agenda-building framework has been applied somewhat sporadically and inconsistently in at least three types of studies: (a) those that analyze reciprocity and interchange among policymakers, mass media and mass publics; (b) those that position media content as an independent measure, as in the case of investigative reporting; and (c) those that examine influences on media content, as in analyses of information subsidies and presidential communications. Tracing the conceptual origins of agenda building and reviewing relevant scholarship in mass communication, political science, and sociology, the present article seeks to clarify conceptual terminology. As indicators of direction-specific research, the terms policy agenda building, media agenda building, and public agenda building, adapted from Rogers and Dearing (1988), stand to add both clarity and consistency to the scholarly literature. Additionally, with the continued influence of Internet communication, the author suggests that scholarship might be enhanced with consistent use of the term intermedia agenda building, as explained in the article.

Keywords:

• Agenda Building
• Agenda Setting
• Journalism
• Mass Communication
• Political Communication

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bryan E. Denham

Bryan E. Denham (Ph.D., 1996, University of Tennessee, Knoxville) is Campbell Professor of Sports Communication at Clemson University