Defining Strategic Publics in a Networked World: Public Diplomacy’s Challenge at Home and Abroad

In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
View More View Less
  • 1 School of Communications, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT 06518-1908, United States

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

Summary

This article addresses the issue of how strategic publics should be defined in public diplomacy. The article first reviews widely accepted theories of stakeholders and publics in business and public relations that help to explain the role and value of publics to organizations and provide alternatives for the conceptualization of strategic publics. It applies these concepts to public diplomacy in an effort to demonstrate their potential usefulness in identifying and prioritizing strategic publics at home and abroad. The article then suggests that although stakeholder theory and situational theory are useful tools for conceptualizing strategic publics in public diplomacy, these theories must be expanded to capture fully the complex nature of the contemporary diplomatic environment. An expanded framework that is based on networks of influence is suggested as an alternative for defining public diplomacy publics in a networked world.

  • 4)

    Jeong-Nam Kim, Lan Ni and Bey-Ling Sha, ‘Breaking Down the Stakeholder Environment: Explicating Approaches to the Segmentation of Publics for Public Relations Research’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 85 no. 4, 2008, pp. 751-768.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5)

    Kim, Ni and Sha, ‘Breaking Down the Stakeholder Environment’, pp. 751-768.

  • 6)

    Brad L. Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations (New York: Institute for Public Rela-tions, 2006), p. 13.

  • 7)

    Eytan Gilboa, ‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, vol. 616, 2008, pp. 55-77.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9)

    R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 25.

  • 10)

    Ruairi Brugha and Zsuzsa Varvasovszky, ‘Stakeholder Analysis: A Review’, Health Policy and Plan-ning, vol. 15, no. 3, 2000, pp. 239-246, at p. 239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11)

    R. Edward Freeman and David L. Reed, ‘Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance’, California Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 1983, pp. 88-106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. 31.

  • 13)

    Kim, Ni and Sha, ‘Breaking Down the Stakeholder Environment’, p. 52.

  • 16)

    Grunig and Repper, ‘Strategic Management, Publics, and Issues’, p. 128.

  • 17)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, p. 3.

  • 18)

    Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of US Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2010), p. 120.

  • 19)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. vi.

  • 20)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. 146.

  • 22)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. 46.

  • 23)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. 46.

  • 25)

    See, for example, J. Edward Freeman, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2, 1999, pp. 191-205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32)

    James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984).

  • 33)

    James E. Grunig, ‘Situational Theory of Publics’, Encyclopedia of Public Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005), 778-780; see also James E. Grunig and Fred C. Repper, ‘Strategic Management, Publics and Issues’, in James E. Grunig (ed.) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 117-157, at p. 125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34)

    Jeong-Nam Kim and James E. Grunig, ‘Problem Solving and Communicative Action: A Situational Theory of Problem Solving’, Journal of Communication, vol. 61, no. 1, 2011, pp. 120-149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38)

    Grunig and Repper, ‘Strategic Management, Publics and Issues’, p. 138.

  • 39)

    Kirk Hallahan, ‘Inactive Publics: The Forgotten Publics in Public Relations’, Public Relations Review, vol. 26, no. 4, 2000, pp. 499-515.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40)

    Hallahan, ‘Inactive Publics’, p. 500.

  • 41)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, p. 7.

  • 42)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, p. 8.

  • 43)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, pp. 8-9.

  • 44)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, p. 9.

  • 46)

    Rawlins, Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations, p. 11.

  • 47)

    Timothy J. Rowley, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, 1997, pp. 887-910, at p. 890.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48)

    Rowley, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties’, p. 890.

  • 49)

    Rowley, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties’, p. 890.

  • 50)

    Rowley, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties’, p. 892.

  • 51)

    Rowley, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties’, p. 894.

  • 53)

    Springston, Keyton, Leichty and Metzger, ‘Field Dynamics and Public Relations Theory’, p. 83.

  • 55)

    Jan Melissen, New Public Diplomacy, p. 21.

  • 58)

    John A Ledingham, ‘Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 15, no. 2, 2003, p. 182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60)

    Brugha and Varvasovszky, ‘Stakeholder Analysis’, p. 239.

  • 62)

    For exceptions, see Ellen Huijgh, ‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy: Exploring the Domestic Dimension’, Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, vol. 2, 2011, pp. 62-73; Evan Potter, Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power through Public Diplomacy (Montreal, QC and Kingston, ON: McGill–Queens University Press, 2009), p. 55.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64)

    Fitzpatrick, US Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate, p. 15.

  • 65)

    Hallahan, ‘Inactive Publics’, p. 500.

  • 66)

    Hallahan, ‘Inactive Publics’, p. 511.

  • 67)

    Nigel de Bussy and Lorissa Kelly, ‘Stakeholders, Politics and Power: Towards an Understanding of Stakeholder Identification and Salience in Government’, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 14, no. 4, 2010, pp. 289-305, at p. 289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68)

    De Bussy and Kelly, ‘Stakeholders, Politics and Power’, p. 301.

  • 69)

    De Bussy and Kelly, ‘Stakeholders, Politics and Power’, p. 301.

  • 70)

    See Huijgh, ‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’, p. 64.

  • 71)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 55.

  • 72)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 55.

  • 73)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 55.

  • 74)

    Huijgh, ‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’, p. 64.

  • 75)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 56; see also Fitzpatrick, US Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate.

  • 76)

    Brian Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy: From Competition to Collaboration’, in Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World (London: Foreign Commonwealth Office, 2008), p. 71.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 77)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 71.

  • 78)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 71.

  • 79)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 71.

  • 80)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 56.

  • 81)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 56.

  • 82)

    Potter, Branding Canada, pp. 55-56.

  • 83)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 54.

  • 84)

    Potter, Branding Canada, p. 54.

  • 85)

    Anne Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).

  • 86)

    Anne Marie Slaughter, ‘A New Theory for the Foreign Policy Frontier: Collaborative Power’, The Atlantic online, 30 November 2011, accessed online at http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/a-new-theory-for-the-foreign-policy-frontier-collaborative-power/249260/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 89)

    Jan Melissen, Beyond the New Public Diplomacy, Clingendael Paper No. 3 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2011), p. 22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 90)

    Melissen, Beyond the New Public Diplomacy, p. 22.

  • 91)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 64.

  • 92)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 65.

  • 93)

    Hocking, ‘Reconfiguring Public Diplomacy’, p. 63.

  • 94)

    Fisher and Lucas (eds), Trials of Engagement, p. 300.

  • 95)

    Fisher and Lucas (eds), Trials of Engagement, p. 300.

  • 96)

    Fisher and Lucas (eds), Trials of Engagement, p. 1.

  • 97)

    Fisher and Lucas (eds), Trials of Engagement, p. 2.

  • 98)

    Fisher and Lucas (eds), Trials of Engagement, p. 284.

  • 99)

    Huijgh, ‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’, p. 4.

  • 100)

    Huijgh, ‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy’, p. 4.

  • 101)

    See, for example, John A. Ledingham, ‘Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 15, no. 2, 2003, pp. 181-198, at p. 182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109)

    Manuel Castells, ‘The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication, Networks, and Global Governance’, The ANNALS of the American Political Science Association, vol. 616, pp. 78-93, 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110)

    Charles C. Self, ‘Hegel, Habermas, and Community: The Public in the New Media Era’, International Journal of Strategic Communication, vol. 4, pp. 78-92, 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 111)

    Self, ‘Hegel, Habermas, and Community’, p. 89.

  • 112)

    Self, ‘Hegel, Habermas, and Community’, p. 89.

  • 113)

    Self, ‘Hegel, Habermas, and Community’, p. 89.

  • 114)

    Self, ‘Hegel, Habermas, and Community’, p. 89.

  • 115)

    Freeman, Strategic Management, p. 246.

  • 116)

    Jim Murphy, ‘Engagement’, in Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World (London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008), p. 11.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 117)

    Murphy, ‘Engagement’, p. 11.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 545 296 59
Full Text Views 194 32 8
PDF Views & Downloads 83 33 10