Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-national Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

Social media holds the potential to foster dialogue between nations and foreign populations. Yet only a few studies to date have investigated the manner in which digital diplomacy is practised by foreign ministries. Using Kent and Taylor’s framework for dialogic communication, this article explores the extent to which dialogic communication is adopted by foreign ministries in terms of content, media channels and public engagement. The results of a six-week analysis of content published on Twitter and Facebook by eleven foreign ministries show that engagement and dialogic communication are rare. When engagement does occur, it is quarantined to specific issues. Social media content published by foreign ministries represents a continuous supply of press releases targeting foreign, rather than domestic, populations. A cross-national comparison revealed no discernible differences in the adoption of dialogic principles. Results therefore indicate that foreign ministries still fail to realize the potential of digital diplomacy to foster dialogue.

Sections
References
  • 3

    Hayden‘Social Media at State’ p. 3; and James Pamment New Public Diplomacy in the Twenty-first Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice (New York ny: Routledge 2013) p. 3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Michael L. Kent and Maureen Taylor‘Building Dialogic Relationships through the World Wide Web’Public Relations Reviewvol. 3 no. 24 (1998) pp. 321-334; and James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Denise S. Bortree and Trent Seltzer‘Dialogic Strategies and Outcomes: An Analysis of Environmental Advocacy Groups’ Facebook Profiles’Public Relations Reviewvol. 35 no. 3 (2009) pp. 317-319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ebru Uzunoğlu and Sema M. Kip‘Building Relationships through Websites: A Content Analysis of Turkish Environmental Non-profit Organizations’ Websites’Public Relations Reviewvol. 40 no. 1 (2014) pp. 113-115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Svetlana Rybalko and Trent Seltzer‘Dialogic Communication in 140 Characters or Less: How Fortune 500 Companies Engage Stakeholders using Twitter’Public Relations Reviewvol. 36 no. 4 (2010) pp. 336-341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    See Brian E. Dixon‘Towards E-government 2.0: An Assessment of Where E-government 2.0 Is and Where it Is Headed’Public Administration & Managementvol. 15 no. 2 (2010) pp. 418-454; Kathleen McNutt ‘Public Engagement in the Web 2.0 Era: Social Collaborative Technologies in a Public Sector Context’ Canadian Public Administration vol. 57 no. 1 (2014) pp. 49-70; and Diego D. Navarra and Tony Cornford ‘The State and Democracy after New Public Management: Exploring Alternative Models of E-governance’ The Information Society vol. 28 no. 1 (2012) pp. 37-45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Dixon‘Towards E-government 2.0’ p. 440.

  • 18

    McNutt‘Public Engagement in the Web 2.0 Era’ p. 50; and Paul Henman ‘Governmentalities of Gov 2.0’ Information Communication & Society vol. 16 no. 9 (2013) pp. 1397-1418.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    William R. Roberts‘What Is Public Diplomacy? Past Practices, Present Conduct, Possible Future’Mediterranean Quarterly vol. 18 no. 4 (2007) pp. 36-53.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Nicholas J. Cull‘Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories’The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciencevol. 616 no. 1 (2008) pp. 31-54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Hayden‘Social Media at State’ p. 3.

  • 22

    PammentNew Public Diplomacy in the Twenty-first Century p. 3.

  • 24

    Hayden‘Social Media at State’ p. 3.

  • 25

    Emily T. Metzgar‘Is it the Medium or the Message: Social Media, American Public Diplomacy and Iran’Global Media Journal—American Editionvol. 11 no. 21 (2012) pp. 3-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Heewoon Cha Sunha Yeo and Bittnari Kim‘Social Media’s Dialogic Communication of Foreign Embassies in Korea and Public Diplomacy: Based on Dialogic Communication Theory’Advanced Science and Technology Lettersvol. 63 (2014) pp. 175-178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Rybalko and Seltzer‘Dialogic Communication in 140 Characters or Less’ p. 338.

  • 30

    Martin Hilbert‘The End Justifies the Definition: The Manifold Outlooks on the Digital Divide and Their Practical Usefulness for Policy-making’Telecommunications Policyvol. 35 no. 8 (2011) pp. 715-736.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    David M. Herszenhorn‘In Crimea, Russia Moved to Throw Off the Cloak of Defeat’The New York Times (24 March 2014).

  • 33

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’Qualitative Research in Psychologyvol. 3 no. 2 (2006) pp. 77-101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    See for example Hayden‘Social Media at State’ p. 3; and Geoffrey Cowan and Amelia Arsenault ‘Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 616 no. 1 (March 2008) pp. 10-30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    PammentNew Public Diplomacy in the Twenty-first Century p. 3.

  • 37

    Cha Yeo and Kim‘Social Media’s Dialogic Communication of Foreign Embassies in Korea and Public Diplomacy: Based on Dialogic Communication Theory’ p. 177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    McNutt‘Public Engagement in the Web 2.0 Era’ p. 64; Lee and Kwak ‘An Open Government Maturity Model for Social Media-based Public Engagement’ p. 499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Hilbert‘The End Justifies the Definition’ p. 2.

  • 41

    Shay Attias‘Israel’s New Peer-to-peer Diplomacy’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 7 no. 4 (2012) pp. 473-482.

  • 42

    Thomas A. Bryer‘Designing Social Media Strategies for Effective Citizen Engagement: A Case Example and Model’National Civic Reviewvol. 102 no. 1 (2012) pp. 43-50.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Hayden‘Social Media at State’ p. 3.

  • 46

    For example see Park and Reber‘Relationship-building and the Use of Web Sites’ pp. 410-411; and Dixon ‘Towards E-government 2.0’ pp. 439-445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Macnamara Sakinofsky and Beattie‘E-electoral Engagement’ pp. 625-627.

Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 806 771 81
Full Text Views 421 420 16
PDF Downloads 117 117 9
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0