Design: Qualitative non-experimental retrospective case study.

Population, Sample, Setting, Years: A non-probability snow-ball sampling technique was used to identify staff members of the Senate and House of Representatives, members of the Tri-Council of Nursing, lobbyists, nurse researchers and a journalist. Documents, reports and correspondence also were used as evidence. The years of the legislative process were from 1983-1986.

Concept or Variables Studied Together or Intervention and Outcome Variable(s: Agenda setting models of Cobb, Ross and Ross; Windows of opportunity.

Methods: Tape recorded semi-structured, open-ended interviews and review of documents. Construct validity, internal and external validity, and reliability were established through triangulation and comparison of the researcher’s interpretations by peer evaluation.

Findings: The process discovered in this case study cannot be generalized to existing agenda setting models after its initial stage, rather, both an accidental or suppression model would be warranted. It reinforces the fact that issues follow different routes to achieve agenda status.

Conclusions: In the case of the NCNR, the agenda setting model appears to be “accidental”. It was specifically related to the unpredictability of the policy windows. An alternative model suggested by this research might be referred to as a ‘suppression model”. The immediate issue focus, the NCNR, becomes but one piece of a more complex political mosaic.

Implications: This piece of legislative history modified the national health policy to include “care” as well as “cure” research at the National Institutes of Health.

Back to Setting a Research Agenda
Back to 15th International Nursing Research Congress
Sigma Theta Tau International
July 22-24, 2004