1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2452-0063
  • E-ISSN: 2452-0071
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the philosophical orientations within which agenda setting operates, and agenda setting’s place within the broader framework of the media effects tradition, specifically in comparison with framing and priming. It also responds to earlier criticisms of agenda setting for its supposed lack of theoretical richness and narrowly understood underlying mechanisms.

Both ontological and epistemological statuses of the agenda-setting theory are analyzed in order to place agenda setting into the communication discipline’s broader context. This paper demonstrates that the most important distinction between framing and agenda setting is that they are based on different ways of knowing. While the epistemological bases of priming are similar to the theory of agenda setting, the paper argues that further progress will depend not only on practical studies of different aspects of agenda setting, but also on theoretical and philosophical conceptualizations in the future.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/asj.18016.che
2019-01-02
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J. & Baym
    (2004) Philosophies and philosophic issues in communication, 1995–2004. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 589–615.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berger, C. R., Roloff, M. E., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R.
    (2010) What is communication science?InC. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp.3–20). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781412982818.n1
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818.n1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T.
    (1966) Social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouchard, Y.
    (2007) The foundationalism-coherentism opposition revisited: The case for complementarism. Foundations of Science, 12(4), 325–336. 10.1007/s10699‑007‑9110‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-007-9110-y [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryant, J. & Miron, D.
    (2004) Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 662–704. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2004.tb02650.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D. & Iyengar, S.
    (2016) The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects, Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. 10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811 [Google Scholar]
  7. Camaj, L., & Weaver, D. H.
    (2013) Need for orientation and attribute agenda-setting during a US election campaign. International Journal of Communication, 7, 22.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chernov, G.
    (2018) Priming as a process and as a function in agenda setting. Studies in Media and Communication, 6(1), 32–40. 10.11114/smc.v6i1.3205
    https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v6i1.3205 [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Angelo, P.
    (2002) News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response toEntman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02578.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02578.x [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Angelo, P. & Kuypers, J.
    (eds) (2010) Doing news framing analysis. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203864463
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864463 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eicher-Catt, D.
    (2016) Ontology. InThe international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (Vol.2, pp.1381–1388). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect057
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect057 [Google Scholar]
  12. Entman, R. M.
    (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Funk, M. & McCombs, M.
    (2017) Strangers on a theoretical train. Journalism Studies, 18, 7, 845–865. 10.1080/1461670X.2015.1099460
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1099460 [Google Scholar]
  14. Guo, L., & McCombs, M.
    (Eds.) (2015) The power of information networks: New directions for agenda setting (Vol.8). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315726540
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726540 [Google Scholar]
  15. Harré, R.
    (1986) Varieties of realism: A rationale for the natural sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansson, S.
    (2007) The false dichotomy between coherentism and foundationalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(6), 290–300. 10.5840/jphil2007104620
    https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2007104620 [Google Scholar]
  17. Higgins, E. T.
    (1996) Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. InE. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.133–168). New York, NY, US: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Higgins, E. T., & Eitam, B.
    (2014) Priming… Shmiming: it’s about knowing when and why stimulated memory representations become active. Social Cognition, 32(Supplement), 225–242. 10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.225
    https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.225 [Google Scholar]
  19. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.
    (1987) News that matters: Agenda-setting and priming in a television age. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kanazawa, Satoshi
    (1998) In defense of unrealistic assumptions. Sociological Theory, 16(2), 193–204. 10.1111/0735‑2751.00050
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00050 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kassirer, Ė.
    (1998) Izbrannoe; Opyt o cheloveke. Gardarika.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kirtiklis, K.
    (2011) Not by communication alone. Epistemology and methodology as typological criteria of communication theories. Informacijos Mokslai/Information Sciences, (58), 42–55
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kosicki, G. M.
    (1993) Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100–127. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01265.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01265.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Kukla, A.
    (2013) Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakatos, I.
    (1976) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. InCan theories be refuted? (pp.205–259). Springer, Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1863‑0_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lam, S.
    (2010) What kind of assumptions need to be realistic and how to test them: A response to Tsang (2006). Strat. Mgmt. J., 31: 679–687
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lippmann, W.
    (2004) Public opinion. Dover Publications, Minnesota, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCombs, M. E.
    (2014) Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McCombs, M. and Reynolds, A.
    (2009) How the news shapes our civic agenda. Media effects: advances in theory and research, Third Edition. New York: Routledge, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L.
    (1972) The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. 10.1086/267990
    https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 [Google Scholar]
  31. Miller, J. M.
    (2007) Examining the mediators of agenda-setting: A new experimental paradigm reveals the roles of emotions. Political Psychology, 28, 689–717. 10.1111/j.1467‑9221.2007.00600.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00600.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Nagel, E.
    (1963) Assumptions in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 53(2), 211–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ottati, V., Wilson, C., & Lambert, A.
    (2016) Accessibility, priming, and political judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 1–5. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pavitt, C.
    (1999) The third way: Scientific realism and communication theory. Communication Theory, 9, 162–188. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.1999.tb00356.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00356.x [Google Scholar]
  35. (2001) Philosophy of science and communication theory. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) Theory-data interaction from the standpoint of scientific realism: A reaction to Bostrom. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 333–342. 10.1080/0363452042000288300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000288300 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2010) Alternative approaches to theorizing in communication science. InC. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (2nd ed.; pp.37–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781412982818.n3
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818.n3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Roskos-Ewoldson, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Dillman Carpentier, F.
    (2009) Media priming: An updated synthesis. InJ. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp.74–93). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Scheufele, D. A.
    (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1999.tb02784.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Scheufele, W. & Iyengar, S.
    (2011) The state of framing research: A call for new directions, https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2011/scheufele-framing.pdfretrieved23.04.2018
  41. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D.
    (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schutz, A.
    (1967) The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Takeshita, T.
    (2006) Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(3), 275–296. 10.1093/ijpor/edh104
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh104 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tewksbury, D. & Scheufele, D.
    (2009) News framing theory and research. InJ. Bryant & M. B. Oliver, Media effects: Advances in theory and research, (eds) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), 3rd ed, pp17–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Valenzuela, S.
    (2011) Materialism, postmaterialism and agenda-setting effects: The values-issues consistency hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(4), 437–463. 10.1093/ijpor/edr018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr018 [Google Scholar]
  46. Valenzuela, S., & Chernov, G.
    (2016) Explicating the values-issue consistency hypothesis through need for orientation. Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(1).10.22230/cjc.2016v41n1a2915
    https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2016v41n1a2915 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., & Amazeen, M. A.
    (2017) The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014–2016. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. 10.1177/1461444817712086
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817712086 [Google Scholar]
  48. Vlăduţescu
    Vlăduţescu (2014) Four sources of uncertainty in communication ontology. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 7 (1) 2014, 19–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zucker, H.
    (1978) The variable nature of news media influence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2(1), 225–240. 10.1080/23808985.1978.11923728
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1978.11923728 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/asj.18016.che
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agenda setting , epistemology , framing , ontology , priming and theory of communication
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error