My academic field loves agenda-setting. I've never understood why.
Why am I venting about a mediocre research paradigm I don't really like? In part because I've got to discuss it Monday in my reporting class, in part because I'm in a mood to vent. It's my blog. So cope.
There are more interesting ways to examine many of the same questions that agenda-setting tries poorly to do. Priming, for example, boasts a stronger theoretical foundation. Framing too. But if you do a Google Scholar search for "agenda setting" you get 75,300 hits. Framing and priming get more hits, but they can mean so many more things ("framing theory," for example, snags only 2,370 hits). So agenda-setting is fairly popular. And I've never really understood why.