Explore the vast range of titles available.

This large-scale intermedia agenda–setting analysis examines U.S. online media sources for 2015. The network agenda–setting model showed that media agendas were highly homogeneous and reciprocal. Online partisan media played a leading role in the entire media agenda. Two elite newspapers—The New York Times and The Washington Post—were found to no longer be in control of the news agenda and were more likely to follow online partisan media. This article provides evidence for a nuanced view of the network agenda–setting model; intermedia agenda–setting effects varied by media type, issue type, and time periods.

This study examines the Network Agenda Setting Model, the third level of agenda-setting theory. It seeks to expand the model’s scope by testing five years (2007-2011) of aggregated data from national news media and polls. The study finds evidence that the news media bundled issue objects and made them salient in the public’s mind. Findings of the study also demonstrate strong network correlations of issue salience among different types of news media.

This study developed the Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory to measure the key factors associated with the process of research agenda setting. Research agendas reflect the preferences, strategies, influences and goals that guide researchers’ decisions to investigate specific topics. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the instrument has eight distinct dimensions: Scientific Ambition, Convergence, Divergence, Discovery, Conservative, Tolerance for Low Funding, Mentor Influence and Collaboration. The model underlying the instrument exhibited a very good fit [X2/df = 1.710; CFI = 0.961; PCFI = 0.791; RMSEA = 0.035; P(rmsea ≤ 0.05) < 0.001], and the instrument itself was found to have excellent measuring properties (in terms of validity, reliability and sensitivity). Potential interpretations of the instrument and its implications for research and practice are also discussed in this article.

The populist phenomenon has acquired great relevance during the last decade. The emergence of new populist actors and the consolidation of the use of social media such as Twitter are transforming the field of political communication. The objective of this paper is to know the agenda set by the leaders of the main European populist political parties on Twitter, as well as the strategy they use and the user interaction achieved. The sample consists of the 2,310 tweets published by the leaders of Podemos, the 5 Stelle Movement, France’s National Front and UKIP during three random time periods. The results show a low degree of thematic fragmentation, the launch of proposals instead of attracting voters, and the existence of a strong negative correlation between the number of published tweets and user interest.

What has caused the marked, cross-national, and unprecedented trends in European electoral results in the 21st century? Scholarly explanations include social structure and challenger party entrepreneurship. We argue that these electoral changes more proximally result from public issue salience, which results from societal trends and mainly affects rather than is caused by party agenda setting. We use aggregate-level panel data across 28 European countries to show that the public issue salience of three issues—unemployment, immigration, and the environment—is associated with later variation in the results of the conservative, social democrat, liberal, radical right, radical left, and green party families in theoretically expected directions, while the party system issue agenda has weaker associations. Public issue salience, in turn, is rooted in societal trends (unemployment rates, immigration rates and temperature anomalies), and, in some cases, party agenda setting. We validate our mechanism at the individual-level across 28 European countries and using UK panel data. Our findings have implications for our understanding of the agency of parties, the permanency of recent electoral changes, and how voters reconcile their social and political worlds.

Interest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups seek to balance different internal and external considerations when prioritizing issues, and which factors might explain variation in the relative strength of these drivers. We integrate data of a survey of national interest groups in Australia with findings from interviews with a cross section of high-profile groups. While the literature often suggests a clash between external political considerations and internal membership demands, we find that groups view these drivers as largely compatible. Our explanatory analysis points to the policy orientation and insider status of the group, its democratic character, and the extent to which it faces competition for membership contributions, as important factors shaping the relative strength of distinct drivers of internal agenda setting.

Little is known about the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in communicating with the public on social media during a global health emergency. More specifically, there is no study about the relationship between the agendas of the WHO and Twitter users during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study utilizes the network agenda-setting model to investigate the mutual relationship between the agenda of the WHO's official Twitter account and the agenda of 7.5 million of its Twitter followers regarding COVID-19. Content analysis was applied to 7090 tweets posted by the WHO on Twitter from January 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020, to identify the topics of tweets. The quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) was used to investigate the relationship between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of the 6 Twitter user categories, including \"health care professionals,\" \"academics,\" \"politicians,\" \"print and electronic media,\" \"legal professionals,\" and the \"private sector.\" Additionally, 98 Granger causality statistical tests were performed to determine which topic in the WHO agenda had an effect on the corresponding topic in each Twitter user category and vice versa. Content analysis revealed 7 topics that reflect the WHO agenda related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including \"prevention,\" \"solidarity,\" \"charity,\" \"teamwork,\" \"ill-effect,\" \"surveillance,\" and \"credibility.\" Results of the QAP showed significant and strong correlations between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of each Twitter user category. These results provide evidence that WHO had an overall effect on different types of Twitter users on the identified topics. For instance, the Granger causality tests indicated that the WHO tweets influenced politicians and print and electronic media about \"surveillance.\" The WHO tweets also influenced academics and the private sector about \"credibility\" and print and electronic media about \"ill-effect.\" Additionally, Twitter users affected some topics in the WHO. For instance, WHO followers affected \"charity\" and \"prevention\" in the WHO. This paper extends theorizing on agenda setting by providing empirical evidence that agenda-setting effects vary by topic and types of Twitter users. Although prior studies showed that network agenda setting is a \"one-way\" model, the novel findings of this research confirm a \"2-way\" or \"multiway\" effect of agenda setting on social media due to the interactions between the content creators and audiences. The WHO can determine which topics should be promoted on social media during different phases of a pandemic and collaborate with other public health gatekeepers to collectively make them salient in the public.

Parties and politicians want their messages to generate media coverage and thereby reach voters. This article examines how attributes related to content and sender affect whether party messages are likely to get media attention. Based on content analyses of 1,613 party press releases and 6,512 media reports in a parliamentary, multiparty context, we suggest that party messages are more likely to make it into the news if they address concerns that are already important to the media or other parties. Discussing these issues may particularly help opposition parties and lower-profile politicians get media attention. These results confirm the importance of agenda setting and gatekeeping, shed light on the potential success of party strategies, and have implications for political fairness and representation.

The participation of practitioners in transdisciplinary sustainability research has been heralded as a promising tool for producing ‘robust’ knowledge and engendering societal transformations. Although transdisciplinary approaches have been advanced as an effective avenue for generating knowledge positioned to question and transform an unsustainable status quo, the political and power dimensions inherent to such research have hardly been discussed. In this article, we scrutinise the constitution of participation in transdisciplinary research through a power lens. Guided by social theories of power and a relational understanding of participation, we analyse how diverse actors equipped with a variety of material and ideational sources wield power over the subjects, objects, and procedures of participation. We applied a qualitative meta-analysis of five transdisciplinary projects from a major German research funding programme in the field of sustainability to unveil the ways in which the funding body, researchers, and practitioners exercise instrumental, structural, and discursive power over (i) actor selection and (re-)positioning, (ii) agenda setting, and (iii) rule setting. We found that researchers primarily exert instrumental power over these three elements of participation, whereas practitioners as well as the funding body wield primarily structural and discursive power. By elucidating tacit and hidden power dynamics shaping participation in transdisciplinary research, this article provides a basis for improving process design and implementation as well as developing targeted funding instruments. The conclusions also provide insights into barriers of participatory agenda setting in research practice and governance.

Scholars have long questioned whether the traditional media effects approach can still be applied in the current digital media era, especially in the non-Western, state-regulated Chinese media environment. This study examines the intermedia agenda setting of traditional media sources and we-media sources in the WeChat Official Accounts through a computational look at the Changsheng Bio-technology vaccine (CBV) crisis. Utilizing LDA topic modeling and Granger causality analysis, results show that both traditional media and we-media (i.e., online news sources operated by individuals or collectives) focus more consistently on two frames, the news facts and the countermeasure and suggestion frames. Interestingly, the traditional media agenda impacts the we-media agenda under the news fact and the countermeasure and suggestion frames, while the we-media agenda influences the traditional media agenda under the moral judgment and causality background frames. Overall, our study demonstrates the mutual effects between the traditional media agenda and the we-media agenda. This study sheds light on the theoretical meaning of network agenda setting and extends its application to social media platforms in Eastern countries and health-related fields.