From Delhi to Dili: Facebook Diplomacy by Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the Asia-Pacific
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Damien Spry in
Current site
Google Scholar
Summary
This article uses digital research methods to explore the use of Facebook by ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) in several Asian locations. It contextualises this analysis by considering four factors that contribute to the growing complexity confronting public diplomacy: environmental factors (digitalised, networked media); institutional factors (diplomatic norms and traditions, and MFAs’ policies and practices); algorithmic factors (the programming that organises social media content); audience factors (social media users). The analysis shows most Facebook content posted by MFAs is driven by institutional factors. Yet this content is not the most appealing to digital publics, who are more likely to engage with content they find relevant and useful, or emotionally resonant. The article concludes that Facebook, and digital media generally, can provide multiple small opportunities for outreach, if due consideration is given to audiences’ needs and motivations. These audience factors may be the most important, but least considered, by MFAs.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Archetti, Cristina. ‘The Impact on New Media on Diplomatic Practice: An Evolutionary Model of Change’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2) (2012), 181–206.
-
Berridge, G.R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
-
Bjola, Corneliu. Digital Diplomacy: The State of the Art (London: Routledge, 2015).
-
Bjola, Corneliu and Marcus Holmes, eds. Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2015).
-
Bucher, Taina. ‘Want to Be on Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook’. New Media and Society 14 (7) (2012), 1164–1180.
-
Byrne, Caitlin. ‘Introduction to the Special Issue: Recasting Soft Power for the Indo-Pacific’. Politics and Policy 45 (5) (2017), 684–705.
-
Cull, Nicholas J. ‘The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy’. International Relations Review 15 (1) (2013), 123–139.
-
Cull, Nicholas J. ‘Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1) (2018), 31–54.
-
Dizard Jr., Wilson. Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001).
-
Dolea, Alina. ‘Public Diplomacy as Co-constructed Discourses of Engagement’. In The Handbook of Communication Engagement, eds. Kim A. Johnston and Maureen Taylor (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018), 331–345.
-
Duncombe, Constance. ‘Representation, Recognition and Foreign Policy in the Iran-US Relationship’. European Journal of International Relations 22 (3) (2016), 622–645.
-
Duncombe, Constance. ‘Twitter and the Challenges of Digital Diplomacy’. The SAIS Review of International Affairs 38 (2) (2018), 91–100.
-
Duncombe, Constance. ‘Emotion and Identity in the Public Realm’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1–2) (2019), 102–116.
-
Fairclough, Norman. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (Milton Park, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2010).
-
Flyvberg, Bent. ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research’. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2) (2006), 219–245.
-
Gilboa, Eytan. ‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1) (2008), 55–77.
-
Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).
-
Graham, Sarah Ellen. ‘US Public Diplomacy in the Asia Pacific: Opportunities and Challenges in a Time of Transition’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4 (4) (2008), 336–356.
-
Grunig, James E. ‘Public Relations and International Affairs: Effects, Ethics and Responsibility’. Journal of International Affairs 47 (1) (1993), 137–162.
-
Hanson, Fergus. Revolution @State: The Spread of Ediplomacy (Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2012).
-
Hocking, Brian. ‘Rethinking the “New” Public Diplomacy’. In New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 28–44.
-
Huijgh, Ellen. ‘Public Diplomacy’. In The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy, eds. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp (London: Sage, 2016), 437–450.
-
Innis, Harold. The Bias of Communication (Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1951).
-
Internet World Statistics. Asia Internet Use, Population Data and Facebook Statistics — June 30, 2018. 2018. https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm.
-
Iwabuchi, Koichi. ‘Pop-Culture Diplomacy in Japan: Soft Power, Nation Branding and the Question of “International Cultural Exchange”’. International Journal of Cultural Policy 21 (4) (2015), 419–432.
-
Kampf, Ronit, Ilan Manor and Elad Segev. ‘Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-National Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (4) (2015), 331–362.
-
Kim, Hwalbin, S. Mo Jang, Sei-Hill Kim and Anan Wan. ‘Evaluation of Sampling Methods for Content Analysis of Twitter Data’. Social Media + Society (April–June 2018), 1–10.
-
L’Etang, Jacquie. ‘Public Relations and Diplomacy in a Globalized World: An Issue of Public Communication’. American Behavioural Scientist 53 (4) (2009), 607–626.
-
Manor, Ilan. ‘Are We There Yet? Have MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital Diplomacy? Results from a Cross-National Comparison’. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 1 (2) (2016), 1–110.
-
Manor, Ilan. The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy (Pasadena: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
-
Manor, Ilan and James Pamment. ‘Towards Prestige Mobility: Diplomatic Prestige and Digital Diplomacy’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32 (2) (2019), 93–131.
-
Melissen, Jan, ed. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
-
Mosseri, Adam. ‘Bringing People Closer Together’. Facebook Newsroom, 11 January 2018. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-people-closer-together/.
-
Murti, Bhattiprolu and R.S. Zaharna. ‘India’s Digital Diaspora Diplomacy: Operationalizing Collaborative Public Diplomacy Strategies for Social Media’. Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy 5 (1) (2014), 4–27.
-
Natarajan, Kalathmika. ‘Digital Public Diplomacy and a Strategic Narrative for India’. Strategic Analysis 38 (1) (2014), 91–106.
-
Omar, B. and K. Subramanian. ‘Addicted to Facebook: Examining the Roles of Personality Characteristics, Gratifications Sought and Facebook Exposure among Youths’. GSTF International Journal on Media and Communications 1 (1) (2013), 54–65.
-
Pamment, James. New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice (London: Routledge, 2013).
-
Pamment, James. ‘Articulating Influence: Toward a Research Agenda for Interpreting the Evaluation of Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and Nation Brands’. Public Relations Review 40 (1) (2014), 50–59.
-
Park, SeJung and YonSoo Lim. ‘Information Networks and Social Media use in Public Diplomacy: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea and Japan’. Asian Journal of Communication 24 (1) (2014), 79–98.
-
Rieder, Berhard. ‘Studying Facebook via Data Extraction: The Netvizz Application’. WebSci ‘13 Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (Paris: Association for Computing Machinery, 2013), 346–355.
-
Seo, H. and D. Kinsey. ‘Three Korean Perspectives on U.S. Internet Public Diplomacy’. Public Relations Review 39 (5) (2013), 594–596.
-
Sharp, Paul. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
-
Snow, Nancy. ‘Rethinking Public Diplomacy’. In The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. Nancy Snow and Phillip M. Taylor (London: Routledge, 2009), 86–100.
-
Spry, Damien. ‘Soft Power in East and South-East Asia’. In The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power, eds. Naren Chitty, Li Ji, Gary D. Rawnsley and Craig Hayden (London: Routledge, 2016), 395–399.
-
Spry, Damien. ‘Facebook Diplomacy, Click Farms and Finding “Friends” in Strange Places’. The Strategist, 7 September 2017. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/facebook-diplomacy-click-farms-finding-friends-strange-places/.
-
Spry, Damien. ‘Facebook Diplomacy: A Data-Driven, User-Focused Approach to Facebook Use by Diplomatic Missions’. Media International Australia 168 (1) (2018), 62–80.
-
US Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors: Office of the Inspector General. Inspection of the Bureau of International Information Programs (Washington, DC: Office of Inspections, May 2013), 21–22.
-
Zahara, R.S. ‘Mapping Out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives’. In The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. Nancy Snow and Phillip M. Taylor (London: Routledge, 2009), 86–100.
-
Zhong, Xin, and Jiaya Lu. ‘Public Diplomacy Meets Social Media: A Study of the U.S. Embassy’s Blogs and Micro-Blogs’. Public Relations Review 39 (5) (2013), 542–548.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1816 | 266 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 489 | 28 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 522 | 53 | 0 |
From Delhi to Dili: Facebook Diplomacy by Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the Asia-Pacific
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by Damien Spry in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Summary
This article uses digital research methods to explore the use of Facebook by ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) in several Asian locations. It contextualises this analysis by considering four factors that contribute to the growing complexity confronting public diplomacy: environmental factors (digitalised, networked media); institutional factors (diplomatic norms and traditions, and MFAs’ policies and practices); algorithmic factors (the programming that organises social media content); audience factors (social media users). The analysis shows most Facebook content posted by MFAs is driven by institutional factors. Yet this content is not the most appealing to digital publics, who are more likely to engage with content they find relevant and useful, or emotionally resonant. The article concludes that Facebook, and digital media generally, can provide multiple small opportunities for outreach, if due consideration is given to audiences’ needs and motivations. These audience factors may be the most important, but least considered, by MFAs.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1816 | 266 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 489 | 28 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 522 | 53 | 0 |