Summary
A decade ago, Matt Armstrong noted that the War on Terror set the scene for US public diplomacy (PD) to be heavily focused on security. Other countries have focused their PD on image promotion, relationship-building or cultural relations. As digital media practices have slowly been adopted by the majority of foreign ministries, the logics governing social and digital media have also been increasingly internalised into diplomatic practice. Lacking in current PD research is a theory of the ‘logics’ that drive and motivate public diplomacy. This article explores the application of ‘PD logics’ as a theoretical framework for interpreting the ways in which foreign policy priorities, such as securitisation, trade promotion and strategic partnerships, shape PD practices. With a particular focus on the most recent wave of social and digital media adoption practices, this article establishes a theory of ‘PD logics’ that could provide new avenues for developing theories of public diplomacy.
1 Introduction1
Matt Armstrong once wrote that American public diplomacy (PD) ‘wears combat boots’.2 By this, he meant that 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror had set the scene for PD driven by international security concerns such as counter-extremism and moving the public opinion needle on unpopular, drawn-out wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. War provided the dominant logic driving US PD engagement.3
In subsequent years, countries such as the United Kingdom twisted their PD apparatus in support of trade promotion, while Germany continued to invest in its traditional approach to relationship-building and cultural relations through so-called Mittlerorganisationen. Russia and China developed cagey, assertive PD that contests the information space using troll factories and paid influencers. Countless other countries have prioritised digital innovation and engagement through a long-standing process of digitalisation of public diplomacy. While all of this is undoubtedly public diplomacy, what unites such different activities under the same concept?
It may be said of Armstrong’s claim about combat boots that, depending on where and when one looks, PD equally wears a pin-striped business suit, a shaggy hipster beard and beads, dons a virtual reality headset, and carries a megaphone in one hand and a big stick in the other. The image is confused and contradictory, creating the impression that PD is a fuzzy concept poorly defined and inconsistently used.
So why is it that so many scholars seem to be clear that they are all studying the same, single concept of PD? This article builds on existing scholarship in the field of diplomatic studies and draws inspiration from institutionalism to develop a theory of the logics that drive and motivate public diplomacy practices. Beginning with an assessment of whether public diplomacy is a fuzzy concept, the article argues that a focus on functions and components has dominated the research field at the expense of better understanding the pressures that drive disruption in PD policy and practice. We call these pressures logics on the understanding that they provide simple heuristics for expressing complex changes in political priorities, resources, tasks, working processes and technologies.
The article proceeds by conducting a meta-review of the past six years of research articles from two of the leading journals in the field to show the ways in which researchers implicitly engage with public diplomacy according to clusters of logics. In this analysis we identity seven such groupings, though this is not intended to be exhaustive. We do not, for example, include a digital grouping on the grounds that, for the period of the sample, the distinction between digital and public diplomacy has blurred to a point that it makes more sense to speak of a digitalisation of public diplomacy than digital diplomacy per se.4 Rather, we note that multiple logics overlap and combine in different cases.
The aim of this approach is not to define the logics of public diplomacy once and for all, but more importantly to identify clear principles and trends that set boundaries around the concept. We believe this approach can help to map where different researchers and studies position themselves in relation to the wider field and provide a vocabulary that can accurately represent foundational principles of the research field. In other words, we consider the value of our approach to be in consolidating a research field. This allows for studies of change and disruption in public diplomacy to shift focus away from questions of function and components and to relocate them within their broader subsets of existing research. In doing so, this article establishes a theoretical stance that can support consilience in a multidisciplinary field to more consistently research a subject that is often fuzzy and elusive.
2 The Fuzzy Concept of Public Diplomacy
A fuzzy concept is a concept which is widely used but possesses at least two alternative meanings. The concept is unreliable — fuzzy — since it is often unclear which of the possible meanings authors and readers anticipate. Conceptual fuzziness contributes to a sense in which those who use the concept are talking about slightly different things, whether as researchers, practitioners or policy-makers. In a classic (and scathing) article about declining standards of scholarship within a subfield of political geography, Markusen outlines some key characteristics of a research field dependent on fuzzy concepts.5 Such research fields:
use concepts that mean different things to different people;
rely on selective evidence such as case studies and anecdotes;
situate causality within processes rather than actors;
discuss methodology insufficiently; and
are associated with lower standards of evidence and theory-building.
Surprisingly, only a handful of publications have alluded to the possibility that public diplomacy may be a fuzzy concept.6 Many more studies have, however, observed or attempted to remedy characteristics, as defined previously, of a research field pervaded by conceptual fuzziness.
A common characteristic of the field is to contrast the idea of public diplomacy with traditional diplomacy conducted behind closed doors — a dichotomy which has been challenged.7 Emphasis is also placed on foreign publics to indirectly influence foreign governments and their policies, as PD targets public opinion abroad8 — while PD studies also cover practices targeting domestic actors, as in campaigns aiming to build national identity or domestic legitimacy for foreign policies and organisations. Another common signifier among definitions is the ethical emphasis in which PD is a ‘good’ practice which moves from one-way propaganda towards a dialogical approach.9 However, others have questioned the realisation of such dialogue in practice,10 and the ethical PD tool of listening has become the subject of critical discussions about surveillance.11
There are also questions about exactly what public diplomacy is and is not. In their meta-review of publications in the field, Sevin et al. found that the topics covered by peer-reviewed articles about PD are skewed by the geographical contexts on which they focus.12 The authors find that PD research involves slightly different content matter depending on which countries are analysed and the academic traditions to which the authors belong. Ayhan found limited consensus over whether PD is conducted by state actors only or also by non-state actors,13 something that may be considered a defining principle of the term. Pike and Kinsey surveyed US PD practitioners on the attributes that make for a good diplomatic communicator and found that the results landed in two distinct groups with quite different expectations.14
Problems of conceptualisation also draw from how PD relates to near-lying terms. Hayden attempts to unravel the ‘practical reasoning’ that links PD to the ‘vague concept’ of soft power.15 In his PhD dissertation, Arceneaux interviewed academic experts to establish consensus around the conceptual boundaries between public diplomacy, public affairs, propaganda and psychological operations.16 While a 2014 overview identified at least eight credible taxonomies designed to explain how PD’s moving parts fit together,17 Arceneaux’s contribution sits alongside several further efforts since then which cumulatively demonstrate that the problem still stands today.18 Cull probably remains the most widely adopted taxonomy, though it mixes best practice (listening to improve decision-making) and goal-oriented behaviour (advocacy of a policy position) with different forms of engagement (culture, exchanges and broadcasting) and is biased towards most closely interpreting the US Information Agency’s (USIA) Cold War best practice.19
The problem of data availability is certainly endemic to the field. Public diplomats in many cases get to define their own stories. Fitzpatrick features survey answers from some 200 USIA alumni,20 while Pike and Kinsey engaged 37 active foreign service officers.21 Ethnographic methods and interviews are reasonably prevalent, the latter certainly in greater number than some suggest.22 Indeed, a recurring problem with many case studies and historical overviews is their dependence on interviews with (often, former) practitioners supported by sometimes sketchy documentation. Hayden identifies a disjuncture between claims of how PD is supposed to influence others and its everyday practice.23 Studies that tell the story of a country’s PD over time tend to rely on simplified cases that exemplify a particular period and preserve practitioners’ legacies.24 Attempts to compare countries are equally selective,25 and less coherently so when each chapter has a different author.26
PD research does not seem to have an issue with causality and the roles of different actors. While Ayhan demonstrates a lack of conceptual consensus over who does PD,27 reflections over ‘actorness’ are frequent, particularly from a diplomatic studies perspective.28 Studies of framing and agenda-setting in PD are also clear on actors, roles and capabilities.29 The power dimension is well covered, arguably because questions of (soft) power are at the very core of the PD endeavour.
That methodology is treated insufficiently in the field is the point of departure for Sevin and Ayhan’s special issue of the journal Place Branding & Public Diplomacy (PB&PD).30 Although not the first publication in the field to consider methodological concerns,31 it is certainly the most ambitious and comprehensive. The comparative studies mentioned previously have considered methodological issues but use relatively conservative approaches such as case studies. The need for a dedicated special issue in 2022 supports the view that methodology has not been a priority for the PD research field.
Likewise, it has long been a cliché that PD lacks theoretical grounding. In their seminal articles, Gregory and Gilboa argue that PD draws its theories from many academic disciplines,32 which means there is a rich variety of theoretical standpoints but no single theory of PD as such. Much PD theory is deferred to similarly fuzzy concepts such as soft power or digital diplomacy. Where theory-building has been most prominent, such as in the idea of a ‘new’ PD using relational communication models, theory has been normative and derived from other fields.33 Alexander,34 Surowiec and Manor,35 and Kaneva and Cassinger36 are recent collections that expand the relatively limited literature that engages with theory more rigorously.37 However, overall, few would maintain that PD has traditionally been a concept supported by strong theoretical insights and sophisticated theoretical development.
This brief overview suggests that PD as a field demonstrates many qualities of a fuzzy concept, although there have been significant recent efforts to further develop the quality and rigour of research. It therefore seems appropriate to conduct a meta-review with a special focus on some of the more recent, progressive research by emerging scholars. It is in this context of concept fuzziness — and in recent efforts to develop fundamental principles of the field — that this article identifies the need for a new approach to conceptualising PD, one which marks a break from the traditional ‘toolbox’ and ‘new public diplomacy’ approaches, and which encourages a clearer and more comprehensive interpretation of the logics underlying PD research and practice.
3 From the PD Toolbox to Nascent Theories of PD Logics
Discussions about the PD toolbox have been important in the research field’s development. They allowed for the rational conceptualisation of PD’s functions and components derived from historically and culturally specific examples. They encouraged consideration of best practice and ideological positioning, for example in distinguishing between engagement approaches and propagandist communication.38 In our opinion, the toolbox approach to theorising PD remains necessary, but it has been insufficient to reduce conceptual fuzziness. Something is missing.
Perhaps the most iconic example of the taxonomy approach is that of Fisher and Bröckerhoff, which outlines a range of seven ‘options for influence’. Listening implies relationships based on equality and involving shared interests, whereas ‘broadcasting’ and ‘telling’ are asymmetrical and support hierarchical authority.39 While similar efforts have added the dimension of time frames to distinguish between media handling and long-term cultural engagement, the idea of the toolbox being sharper (or more transmissional and propagandist) at one end, and softer (or more inclusive and relational) at the other, has become a truism in the research field.40
However, the problem with these types of approaches is that they construct the public diplomat ‘as an entirely rational being, divorced from organizational cultures and institutional realities’.41 Rather than making the concept clearer and better defined, such an approach risks obfuscating and idealising the hard choices that shape PD work. Furthermore, the strongly normative relational approach means that ‘new’ PD is defined against a strawman; nobody identifies themselves with propagandist approaches to communication, yet listening and engagement can be carried out to support propagandist goals if one assumes even a slightly critical lens on the empirical evidence.42
The clearest counterpoint to conceptualisations of a PD toolbox is Brown. In an unpublished conference paper, Brown proposed four ideal types of PD derived from historical examples: as an ‘extension of diplomacy’, as an ‘instrument of cultural relations’, as an ‘instrument of conflict’ and as a ‘tool of national image construction’.43 This differs from many other approaches to the field because it seeks to interrogate why PD is used in different circumstances, without any judgement imposed on each type. Viewed as an instrument or extension of an established practice such as diplomacy, war or cultural relations, the pragmatic — rather than normative or idealist — aspects of the concept are made integral to its theorisation. More recently, Cull revised his five components of PD to include nation branding and partnerships.44 In doing so, the approach more closely tracks the ‘spirit’ of different styles of PD, rather than simply categorising them.45 Inspired by Brown’s approach, Pamment identifies seven unique articulations of PD as it was conceptualised in the UK context between 1995 and 2015,46 showing that, for example, cultural relations activities may not be about mutuality if they are articulated within and subordinate to an overall branding strategy, or if they are used as a means of gaining strategic access to international university campuses.47
A nascent theory of PD logics exists most prominently in work on the digitalisation of PD, as exemplified by Manor, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, when digitalisation truly was disruptive.48 Drawing on a body of theory established within media sociology and adapted to diplomatic studies, mediatisation theory refers to the processes by which the logics of media have forced change upon the institution of diplomacy.49 It may be argued that much work on the digitalisation of PD draws implicitly upon mediatisation theory.50 Similarly, studies of PD that focus on agenda-setting explore (albeit often implicitly) how media logics permeate diplomatic activity.51 In mediatisation theory, media logic is a mode of thinking that sees diplomats and ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) internalise considerations such as the formats, time frames and conventions of different media when planning their diplomatic activities.52 Thus, the institution of diplomacy has adapted in fundamental terms to a proliferation of communication channels, languages and norms characterised by the ‘logic’ of (digital) media.53 In addition to media logic, other studies have touched upon the ways in which logics of things such as two-level diplomatic games,54 affect and emotion,55 strategy and leadership,56 and conflict impact on PD practice.57 However, they have not focused on logics as an approach to interpreting institutions, instead simply implying the existence of a guiding logic at the anecdotal level.
Unifying these approaches is a sense in which taxonomies only tell part of the story. Creating categories of PD activity is all well and good, but it doesn’t capture how these activities are articulated in specific circumstances, which may be further broken down into the logics that drive their use. Indeed, the obsessively normative aspects of some category-based characterisations may obfuscate practice and take us farther from an accurate representation of the empirical materials. Building on the studies just discussed, we contend that the concept of PD can be further developed by establishing a theory of PD logics that unpacks the underlying dynamics of the PD concept in different scenarios. Logics can help to identify what unifies PD research and reduce concept fuzziness, by showing how researchers approaching PD from different perspectives imply similar underlying principles.
4 Identifying PD Logics
In building a framework that seeks to reduce conceptual fuzziness, this article uses a sample of recent research in the field. The literature review consists of 131 journal articles from the period 2016-2021. Each article abstract was coded inductively, then the codes were clustered into themes.58 This approach relates closely to similar efforts to inductively establish logics within other research fields.59 While some of the logics are suggestive of representing academic disciplines, it is important to note that relatively few examples exclusively belong to a single academic discipline as such. Rather, logics help to encapsulate how and why themes from different disciplines are expressed in studies of PD, out of needs identified in PD studies rather than imported as standard preoccupations from other disciplines.
The following sections introduce each logic separately. Each section starts by outlining the main principles of the logic. Second, we offer a brief overview of how the research literature has historically centred, explicitly or implicitly, on this logic. Third, we discuss the ways that the most recent literature uses and develops upon the logic. While based on a systematic review, our review is qualitative in style and attempts to capture wider trends or types derived from patterns of logics.
4.1 Diplomacy Logic
PD can be seen as appearing in the intersection between political science and communication studies. When reviewing the articles published in the PB&PD and the HJD, a pattern emerges where a set of articles in the HJD lean more distinctively towards the side of diplomatic studies and another set of articles towards branding in PB&PD. The first emphasis draws attention to a clear logic identified in the sample, dealing with the understanding of PD becoming a more significant instrument of diplomacy and statecraft over time. As we will see in each logic, the digitalisation of PD is addressed in multiple papers. In the diplomacy logic, it is expressed in the discussion about how ‘modern media and (digital) public diplomacy seem to have transformed’ the practice of gift exchange,60 or it is raised implicitly through the study of audience engagement on social media to seek insight into the public’s perception of diplomatic relations.61
The existence of this logic is well documented in research. Multiple studies have observed a proliferation of governmental, non-governmental, civil society, paradiplomatic, public and private representatives vying for recognition as legitimate players in complex diplomatic issues.62 Others have focused on the crucial role of public communication in establishing legitimacy as diplomatic players.63 While this leans to questions of how media logic weighs upon diplomatic decision-making, there nonetheless remains a clear logic of public diplomacy as a continuation of traditional diplomacy, tied to questions of representation and recognition.64
From the literature review of research articles 2016-2021, we find articles discussing public diplomacy as an extension of diplomatic practice in the form of studies on first lady diplomacy,65 gift exchange,66 and the mediatisation of diplomatic incidents.67 A subset of articles focus on diplomatic events such as summits — either on the PD strategy and following media depiction,68 or through expressions of gastro-diplomacy at such events69 — and visits.70 Other articles emphasise rhetorical aspects of building bilateral relations,71 the promotion of foreign policies such as Sweden’s gender equality,72 and the link to, for example, trade diplomacy.73 As with all logics, there are many papers that can be classified in multiple logics — that is, summits draw attention to the media logic as focused on mediatisation, or to the security logic in peace summits.
4.2 Media Logic
In studies on media logic, the focus is on PD as a set of activities that involve advocacy, strategic communication, media production, public affairs, news management, international broadcasting and campaigns — including use of social media — as part of objective-driven PD. Recognisable characteristics are a focus on the mediated texts of public diplomacy, their contents, the ways in which they are organised and produced, and their impact on the information environment. We include digital diplomacy predominately under this logic and under the organisational logic for the period 2016-2021, when digital diplomacy was a widely adopted practice. However, we note that while some studies have dropped the label of ‘digital’ public diplomacy as now rather a matter of course, many studies continue to treat digital diplomacy as though it is a distinct logic rather than a ubiquitous reality that informs all logics — such as, for example, studies focusing on the sub-practice of ‘Twiplomacy’ and the use of hashtags as part of a promotional strategy by PD authorities to create engagement on social media.74
The existence of a media logic is one of the more well-documented in PD literature since it has been assessed from at least two disciplinary backgrounds. Public relations scholars since Signitzer and Coombs have identified the role of media planning in diplomatic activity,75 via work on media diplomacy,76 framing and agenda-setting, which together are sometimes referred to as mediated public diplomacy.77 Mediatisation theory has been applied from a media sociology perspective,78 while production of digital content has been widely discussed from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds.79
Contextualised as a theme in the reviewed sample of PD research, there are two primary interpretations of this logic — one focused on studies of media’s framing of PD activities, and the other on the strategic management of media. Many articles also deal with the ‘new’ public diplomacy emerging in conjunction with digital and social media — here emphasising the new arenas for communication80 or focusing on specific countries, MFAs or campaigns. In these studies of mediatisation,81 scholars focus on social media82 alongside other forms of communication such as news releases, speeches, factsheets and so forth.83 This logic also covers studies about PD strategies for traditional media management beyond the digital context,84 as well as studies focused on content strategies specifically and the use of storytelling or narratives.85 As examinations of the execution of PD, this often connects with the value logic — primarily in discussions about new media enabling listening86 and dialogical PD.87
4.3 Relational Logic
Research that explores the relational logic tends to focus on the relations shaped through formal and informal networks of people and ideas, as an extension of cultural relations and other long-term engagement functions. A preoccupation of the logic is with which actors in the public, private and non-governmental sectors legitimately participate in PD. The view of PD is generally normative, as an expansive and inclusive set of multi-stakeholder activities conducted through intermediaries including diasporas. Arguably, this logic constitutes the epicentre of the digitalisation of PD, as an enabler of a new form of direct access to one’s audience without having to bypass the gatekeepers traditionally holding the keys to available mass media. As previously mentioned, we see it both in the digitalised media strategies developed by PD actors, and in scholars’ turn towards social media analysis to describe a campaign and assess its impact or even determine its success. This new landscape seems to have widened PD actors’ view of relevant stakeholders as either the intended recipients or the mediators of one’s message, unpacked as the key to a relational logic in PD.
The existence of a relational logic is well documented from both a theoretical and an empirical perspective. Inspired for some by public relations approaches to communication symmetry,88 and for others by cultural relations traditions embodied by cultural, exchange and education diplomacy,89 a core theme is the role of people-to-people experiences in the conduct of international relations. Relational approaches provide a strongly normative perspective on the ways in which public diplomacy can provide an alternative model of diplomatic relations outside of hierarchical governmental control.90
In the PB&PD and HJD sample, the articles expand the concept of PD actors beyond traditional state actors to also discuss the collaboration with and importance of, for example, corporate diplomacy,91 think tanks,92 domestic publics93 or citizen diplomacy,94 diasporas,95 organisations such as the US Peace Corps,96 Spanish casas,97 or more broadly defined non-state actors98 and non-governmental organisations.99 Such papers highlight PD from the strategic angle of managing a ‘network’ and engaging in ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ approaches.100 Within such overarching logic, we can furthermore identify sub-forms of relational ties to actors as, for example, related to higher education — emphasising the role of universities101 and exchange programmes102 — or through PD practices of cultural diplomacy,103 sport diplomacy,104 science diplomacy,105 and religious diplomacy,106 as a few examples of related practices through which PD is expressed through human contact.
4.4 Promotional Logic
Just as the diplomacy logic is more prevalent in the HJD, publications from the PB&PD tend to lean towards a promotional logic. This logic encapsulates the belief that ‘nation-branding professionals have the same goal as diplomats and politicians’,107 which indicates a shift in professional practice. Other papers start with the open question of whether nation branding can be a successful tool in achieving public diplomacy goals.108 This promotional logic thus covers a range of PD practices tied to brand promotion, trade and investment, tourism, national image and perceptions of national image. Again, we see the impact of the digitalisation of this practice; for example, one paper suggests a shift from the mass approach of broadcasting in an advocacy model to emphasise the value of a narrowcasting model supported by micro-marketing — an effective approach ‘enhanced in recent years due to a number of technological and social developments’ such as the previously mentioned advantage as ‘the Internet bypasses traditional channels of communication and broadcasting’.109
The integration of promotional approaches to PD took off in the 1990s and owes a particular debt to the work of Leonard and Anholt in both theorising and enacting these practices in a variety of countries.110 Work such as Szondi wrestled with the appropriate conceptual framework to tie the two terms together, with dozens of publications eventually settling on allowing the empirical evidence to define the relationship on a case-by-case basis.111
In the reviewed sample from the HJD and PB&PD, the promotional logic covers articles about how PD strategically engages in nation, state or country branding,112 as well as the resulting national image abroad,113 where non-traditional PD actors are described as ‘image communicators’.114 Papers within the promotional logic sometimes overlap with those in the relational logic — for example, by emphasising cultural resources that can be aligned with PD initiatives or in ties to business by discussions in the promotional logic papers about positive country-of-origin effects. We also see papers in both the promotional logic and diplomacy logic, in one paper explicitly describing how ‘hosting of the historic summit is an extension of the city-state’s larger place branding strategy’.115 The promotional logic also covers case studies of PD campaigns, such as the European Union’s efforts to deal with crises116 and various PD actors’ strategic communication during the COVID-19 pandemic117 — whereby managing the crisis also means by extension to manage one’s reputation. The promotional logic also covers papers emphasising the damaging impact of a negative national image, tied either to historic heritage118 or to contemporary events.119 Through this move from the promotion of one’s own brand to the strategic management of contesting images of one’s nation and foreign politics abroad, the promotional logic also oftentimes cover papers linked to the security logic.
4.5 Security Logic
Studies that emphasise the security logic place PD within a context of defence and security policy, covering a variety of topics related to peace, conflict and stabilisation. This can include questions such as warfare, geopolitical rivalries, counter-extremism, studies of propaganda, as well as work on traditional and non-traditional threats in the information environment. It covers both offensive and defensive communications. Again, there is a recurring emphasis on PD actors’ ability to ‘shape the narrative and thus the nature of a regional order that will be favourable for their national interests’, where one directs these efforts towards the public to ‘inform, engage, and influence public audiences’ in a ‘hyper-connected world’, with an emphasis of such practices now occurring ‘online and in real time’.120
The security logic permeates much of the post-9/11 literature, as public diplomacy found a new role in conjunction with the War on Terror.121 Briant, and Bjola and Pamment, explore in detail some of the ways in which PD came to be shaped by counter-terrorism, counter-extremism and the use of psychological operations, with a more recent emphasis on counter-disinformation and hybrid threats.122 We may also anticipate an increasing interest in security issues raised by war, populism, climate change, health, cyber and migration, among others.
In the public diplomacy journal articles from 2016-2021, a few clusters of topics emerge within the security logic — related to the different arenas in which these activities are observed. On the one hand, we have the link to peace summits and peace projects,123 as treatments of aid diplomacy,124 or tied to actors such as the US Peace Corps.125 On the other hand, in contrast to this sub-logic related to peace, we also find a set of studies about PD’s role in international conflict,126 or other forms of geopolitical rivalry — emphasising the strategic advantage of universities and exchange programmes127 — or sometimes conceptualised as ‘disputes’,128 or PD ‘between hostile nations’.129 Here, studies cover PD activities by military organisations130 and PD campaigns in the context of war,131 arguments for why PD is to be considered a tool in counter-terrorism strategies,132 and descriptions of PD ‘in the context of non-traditional security threats and conflicts’.133
The new geopolitical landscape has given rise to a set of studies discussing crises such as global migration and its impact on PD practice,134 others describe geopolitical tensions manifesting in a context of ‘the contested world order’135 or in relation to a new situation ‘driven by a toxic mix of populist politics and disruptive social media’.136 Within this security logic, papers also cover discussions about ‘state-sponsored disinformation campaigns’,137 linking the security logic to the value logic as part of an ongoing process of placing boundaries around legitimate PD practices.138 With the COVID-19 pandemic, this cluster has also come to include articles on the strategic communication of policy tied to ‘reputational security’ and a defensive form of PD communication not only boosting one’s own credibility but also discrediting others.139 In this cluster, we thus see how crisis policy links to the promotional logic by building national image,140 including evolving forms of influencer and celebrity diplomacy.141
4.6 Organisational Logic
Research on organisational logic focuses on the internal and coordination issues behind PD. This can involve organisational principles, management functions, and questions of objectives and evaluation across domestic spheres, government, foreign ministries and overseas posts. It also includes an interest in the profession, including desirable skills and capabilities. The assumption is that PD is best explained by understanding how and why it is organised, since this can reveal intent, capabilities and limitations. It also covers a discussion on how new organisational structures may accommodate the digitalisation of PD, where ‘digital technologies change the way in which knowledge circulates, whether inside, outside, or between organisations’, which in turn has a fundamental impact on the organisation and ‘sets a tremendous strain on the professionals’.142
The organisational logic is often identifiable because of a preoccupation with the production of public diplomacy, and especially best practice. For example, Cull and Pamment chart the organisational histories of US and UK PD respectively,143 exploring the personalities, policies, examples and problems that enabled and constrained certain PD practices at any given time. The organisational logic is reflected in comparative work on different countries and multilateral organisations,144 studies of evaluation practices,145 and of efforts to systematise public diplomacy techniques or optimise their usage. More recently, the sub-state diplomacy of cities and provinces and the diplomacy of non-state actors raises questions of national PD organisation and strategy.
In relation to the digital landscape, articles from the literature review clustered as this organisational logic has also engaged in organisational questions related to various forms of digital diplomacy — sometimes more specifically expressed as, for example, Facebook diplomacy146 and Hashtag or Twitter diplomacy147 — as well as covering discussions of e-residency,148 e-diplomacy and virtual diplomacy.149 Beyond the digital context, papers tied to the organisational logic also include studies on organisational re-structuring initiatives,150 studies on the institutional boundaries between PD and nation branding in practice,151 and the formation and development of national PD institutions152 — in some papers also dealing with the evaluation practices of PD activities.153 This also ties to articles about ethnic diversity management within MFAs,154 women’s agency within diplomatic institutions,155 and the character of public diplomats and its impact on their practices.156
4.7 Legitimisation Logic
A great deal of public diplomacy research is dedicated to examining the existence of the research field itself. Research into definitions, norms, values and boundaries of public diplomacy is perhaps the most difficult to define since these approaches are spread across many academic disciplines and may have little in common with one another. However, a great deal of research into PD (as well as discourse around PD’s practice) may be characterised by efforts to legitimise PD as inherently ‘good’. This is often supported by theorising PD’s unique role in peaceful international relations,157 by drawing distinctions between PD and propaganda,158 and by highlighting the overall benevolence of value-based concepts such as listening,159 engagement or transparency, otherwise described as ‘public diplomacy’s new global mandate for collaborative problem solving for the global good’.160 Among those commenting on the digital landscape’s effect on PD, there are those arguing for both its positive and its negative effects:
PD is losing its connection with wider diplomacy which is based on reciprocity and consensus-building. The digital revolution has enabled PD self-promotion [… that] has immersed itself in the confusing and decisive nature of online engagement. While the Internet has brought massive benefits and opportunities to both diplomacy and PD, the consensus-building part of true diplomatic engagement is receding.161
As previously mentioned, the legitimisation logic ties back to previously presented logics as, for example, linked to the security logic when discussing how PD should respond to toxic and disruptive communication in the new political and media landscape,162 as well as in relation to how one should engage in PD interactions with hostile nations.163 In connection to other previously presented logics, we also see pieces linking the media and relational logic to a value-driven discourse within the literature on how new media could enable PD to become more dialogical and inclusive — this while, as already emphasised, finding that studies contest the use of these mediums in a mostly normative way.164
The legitimisation logic also concerns other expressions of a normative view on where to draw the boundaries of PD practices in view of the ‘radical changes in diplomacy’s global environment’ as well as the blurry divide between foreign and domestic.165 It describes tools and practices of PD and how one can review such activities ethically, as, for example, in the case of listening as a tool for empathy or surveillance166 and media management illustrated through Russia’s use of global media platforms and other examples of how PD approaches or perhaps engages in ‘sharp’ PD practices.167 In this way, we see a pattern of explicitly or implicitly expressed normative statements or papers clustered into this legitimisation logic that not only covers the ethical values of right and wrong but also ties back to the organisational logic where researchers engage in the negotiation of what should be included within the boundaries of PD in terms of activities and actors,168 some suggesting how to systematically understand PD in a framework of two axes manifested as ethics and efficiency,169 and scholarly reflections on ‘the evolution of the “public” in public diplomacy’, starting with value-driven questions such as ‘should diplomacy be public?’.170
5 Conclusions
The public diplomacy research field has struggled with conceptual fuzziness, caused in part by its reliance on multiple disciplinary backgrounds, and in part by an overemphasis on identifying its functions and components. While many researchers have studied PD with an eye on improving the practice, there remains only implicit agreement over the field’s principles and conceptual boundaries. A focus on functions, components and best practice has been important to establishing the research field as we know it today, but it should be clear from the evidence presented here that a new wave of PD scholarship is pushing the bounds of theory and method and asking increasingly difficult questions of the fuzzy PD concept.
Rather than assessing numerous practices as functions performed to a lesser or greater degree well, the field is increasingly seeking to understand the dynamics and rationales behind those practices and to build theory at a step removed from practice. Yet it is crucial that this work builds on existing PD scholarship, regardless of which academic discipline it is from. As a point of departure for exploring these underlying principles, this study attempts to establish PD logics as a baseline for further research. By acknowledging and understanding the dynamics behind the various practices or clusters of practices, the PD concept is opened up to transdisciplinary consilience; that it to say, regardless of the disciplinary background of the scholar, it is possible to identify contributions to knowledge grounded in the same purposes and principles. We contend that logics can provide a means for clustering PD research into common issues and developing knowledge of them in a systematic way.
Future studies can test the validity of our logics on a larger sample, perhaps adding logics, dividing logics into sub-units, or identifying geographical and historical patterns that shed more light on the field. Others could dive into one particular logic and nuance the depictions of its emergence and scope.
The benefits are of course many. For one, the field can continue to build based on the demands of rigorous scientific knowledge rather than on the demands of the practice, which ultimately benefits practitioners far more in the long term. Secondly, clustering the research field into logics and identifying research as drawing on one or more of them will better support consilience and, over time, help to better identify the evolution of the practice and the field as logics wax and wane. It is for each individual researcher, and each individual study, to determine which PD logics they draw upon, how and why.
Thirdly, it better prepares the field for the more fundamental (long-running and long-promised) shift away from state-centric PD towards what could be variously described as human-centric, non-state, private sector, activist, multilateral or disruptive public diplomacy. By investing in PD as a field of scholarship with a history, clear boundaries and an established body of knowledge, we may finally be able to state, with a high degree of confidence, that there are indeed theories of public diplomacy.171
Bibliography
Abdi, K., M. Talebpour, J. Fullerton, M. J. Ranjkesh and H. J. Nooghabi. ‘Identifying Sports Diplomacy Resources as Soft Power Tools’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (3) (2019), 147-155. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00115-00119.
Aggestam, L. and E. Hedling . ‘Leaderisation in Foreign Policy: Performing the Role of EU High Representative’. European Security 29 (3) (2020), 301-319.
Aguirre, D. ‘Conceptual Implications of Peru’s Recent Charm Offensive in Chile: Societal-Level Engagement Driving a Shift in Bilateral Relations?’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (2) (2020), 121-130. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00131-00139.
Aharoni, I. and A. Grinstein . ‘How to (re) Position a Country? A Case Study of the Power of Micro-marketing’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (4) (2017), 293-307. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0055-0059.
Akerlund, A. ‘Transition Aid and Creating Economic Growth: Academic Exchange between Sweden and Eastern Europe through the Swedish Institute 1990-2010’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (2-3) (2016), 124-138. DOI:10.1057/s41254-41016-0009-0007.
Al-Rawi, A. ‘US Public Diplomacy in the Middle East and the Digital Outreach Team’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (1) (2020), 18-24. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019 -00122-w.
Alexander, C., ed. The Frontiers of Public Diplomacy: Hegemony, Morality and Power in the International Sphere (Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2021).
Alexander, C. and A. R. I. Marine. ‘Prohibited Sub-state Public Diplomacy: The Attempt to Dissolve Catalonia’s DIPLOCAT’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (3) (2020), 238-250. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00151-00155.
Anholt, S. ‘Nation-Brands of the Twenty-First Century’. Journal of Brand Management 5 (6) (1998), 395-406.
Arceneaux, P. ‘Information Intervention: A Taxonomy & Typology for Government Communication’. Journal of Public Diplomacy 1 (1) (2021), 5-35.
Arceneaux, P. and L. M. Bier. ‘Cultural Considerations and Rigorous Qualitative Methods in Public Diplomacy Research’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00232-00234.
Armstrong, M. C. ‘Operationalizing Public Diplomacy’. In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. N. Snow and P. M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2008), 63-71.
Ayhan, K. J. ‘The Boundaries of Public Diplomacy and Nonstate Actors: A Taxonomy of Perspectives’. International Studies Perspectives 20 (2019), 63-83. DOI 10.1093/isp/eky010.
Ayhan, K. J. ‘An Exploration of Korean Discourses on Public Diplomacy’. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 19 (1) (2020), 31-42.
Ayhan, K. J. ‘Journal of Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of a New Interdisciplinary Journal for an Emerging Academic Field’. Journal of Public Diplomacy 1 (1) (2021), 1-4.
Aziz, N., B. A. Friedman and H. Ilhan. ‘The Impact of Nonprofit Organizations on the Intent to Visit Turkey: An Empirical Test Using the Theory of Planned Behavior’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 11 (3) (2015), 175-189. DOI 10.1057/pb.2015.2.
Balmas, M. and T. Sheafer. ‘Charismatic Leaders and Mediated Personalization in the International Arena’. Communication Research 41 (7) (2014), 991-1015.
Ban, Z. and X. H. Pan. ‘An Analysis of National Image Communication Strategies of Chinese Corporations in the Context of One-Belt-One-Road’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (1) (2020), 97-106. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00129-00123.
Bartonek, E. ‘Journeying into the Diplomatic Unknown: The Vergesellschaftung of the German Auswartiges Amt’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (1-2) (2020), 196-205. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-BJA10006.
Bettie, M. ‘Exchange Diplomacy: Theory, Policy and Practice in the Fulbright Program’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (3) (2020), 212-223. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00147-00141.
Bier, L. M. and C. L. White. ‘Cultural Diplomacy as Corporate Strategy: An Analysis of Pasona Group’s “New Tohoku” program in Japan’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (2) (2021), 180-192. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00165-00164.
Bjola, C. ‘Digital Diplomacy as World Disclosure: The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic’ Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 22-25. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00242-00242.
Bjola, C. and J. Pamment, eds. Countering Online Propaganda and Violent Extremism: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge, 2018).
Bjola, C. and R. Zaiotti, eds. Digital Diplomacy and International Organisations: Autonomy, Legitimacy and Contestation (London: Routledge, 2020).
Blue, A. ‘Evaluating Estonian E-Residency as a Tool of Soft Power’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (4) (2021), 359-367. DOI 1057/s41254-41020-00182-00183.
Bourgeois, T. ‘London 2012 Olympics: Exercises in Cultural Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (3) (2019), 198-205. DOI 1057/s41254-41017-0084-0084.
Bravo, V. and M. De Moya. ‘Communicating the Homeland’s Relationship with Its Diaspora Community: The Cases of El Salvador and Colombia’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (1) (2015), 70-104. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341281.
Brett, K. and T. Schaefer. ‘Formalizing the American Brand: The Case for the US Culture, Language, and Soft-Power Institutes’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (2) (2019), 124-133. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00120-y.
Briant, Emma Louise, ed. Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015).
Brinkerhoff, J. M. ‘Diasporas and Public Diplomacy: Distinctions and Future Prospects’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 51-64. DOI :10.1163/1871191X-14101015.
Brown, J. (2002). The Purposes and Cross-Purposes of American Public Diplomacy: AFRICOM and Public Diplomacy (CPD Perspectives) (Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press), 20.
Brown, R., ed. The Four Paradigms of Public Diplomacy: Building a Framework for Comparative Government External Communications Research (San Diego, CA: International Studies Association Convention, 2012).
Buhmann, A. and E. J. Sommerfeldt. ‘Drivers and Barriers in Public Diplomacy Evaluation: Understanding Attitudes, Norms, and Control’. The International Communication Gazette 83 (2) (2021), 105-125.
Byrne, C. ‘Political Leaders and Public Diplomacy in the Contested Indo-Pacific’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 182-197. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14011013.
Byrne, C. and J. Johnston. ‘Wikipedia: Medium and Model of Collaborative Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (4) (2015), 396-419. DOI 10.1163/1871191X -12341312.
Cassinger, C., H. Merkelsen, J. Eksell and R. K. Rasmussen. ‘Translating Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding in Scandinavia: An Institutional Approach to the Cartoon Crises’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (2-3) (2016), 172-186. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41016-0013-y.
Ceulemans, E. ‘Ceremonial or Convivial Gifts: Two Forms of Gift-Giving in Contemporary Chinese Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (1) (2021), 133-144. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-BJA10063.
Chaban, N. and O. Elgstrom. ‘A Perceptual Approach to EU Public Diplomacy: Investigating Collaborative Diplomacy in EU-Ukraine Relations’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (4) (2020), 488-516. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-BJA10029.
Charmaz, K, ed. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (London: SAGE, 2006).
Collins, N. and K. Bekenova. ‘Digital Diplomacy: Success at Your Fingertips’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (1) (2019), 1-11. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0087-0081.
Collins, S. D., J. R DeWitt and R. K. LeFebvre. ‘Hashtag Diplomacy: Twitter as a Tool for Engaging in Public Diplomacy and Promoting US Foreign Policy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (2) (2019), 78-96. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00119-00115.
Comor, E. and H. Bean. ‘America’s “Engagement” Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus’. International Communication Gazette 74 (3) (2012), 203-220. DOI 10.1177/1748048511432603.
Constantinou, C. M. and M. Tselepou. ‘Branding Orthodoxy: Religious diplomacy and the Makarios Legacy in Sub-Saharan Africa’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (3) (2017), 179-193. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41016-0034-0036.
Cooper, A. F. ‘Adapting Public Diplomacy to the Populist Challenge’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019a), 36-50. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14101011.
Cooper, A. F. ‘U.S. Public Diplomacy and Sports Stars: Mobilizing African-American Athletes as Goodwill Ambassadors from the Cold War to an Uncertain Future’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (3) (2019b), 165-172. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41018-00114-00112.
Cornago, Noé, ed. Plural Diplomacies: Normative Predicaments and Functional Imperatives (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013).
Cornago, N. ‘Beyond the Media Event: Modes of Existence of the Diplomatic Incident’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (1) (2018), 64-73. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017 -0088-0080.
Cowan, Geoffrey and Amalia 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 616 (1) (2008), 10-30.
Cross, M. K. D. and J. Melissen, eds. European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
Cross, M. K. D. and T. La Porte. ‘The European Union and Image Resilience during Times of Crisis: The Role of Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 12 (4) (2016), 257-282. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341365.
Cull, Nicholas, ed. The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Cull, Nicholas, ed. The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989-2001 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
Cull, N. J. ‘The Tightrope to Tomorrow: Reputational Security, Collective Vision and the Future of Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 21-35. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14011014.
Cull, N. J. ‘From Soft Power to Reputational Security: Rethinking Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy for a Dangerous Age’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00236-00230.
de Beer, I. and A. van Buitenen. ‘Leveraging Stakeholder Interests in Public Diplomacy: The Case of the Hague Peace and Justice Project’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (4) (2016), 329-338. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41016-0003-0000.
Dijksterhuis, M. S., F. A Van den Bosch and H. W. Volberda. ‘Where Do New Organizational Forms Come From? Management Logics as a Source of Coevolution’. Organization Science 10 (5) (1999), 569-582.
Di Martino, L. ‘Conceptualising Public Diplomacy Listening on Social Media’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (2) (2020), 131-142. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00135-00135.
Dolea, A., ed. ‘The Need for Critical Thinking in Country Promotion: Public Diplomacy, Nation Branding, and Public Relations’. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Public Relations, eds. Jacquie L’Etang, David McKie, Nancy Snow and Jordi Yifra (London: Routledge, 2015).
Dolea, A. ‘Transnational Diaspora Diplomacy, Emotions and COVID-19: The Romanian Diaspora in the UK’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 12-14. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00243-00241.
Dubinsky, Y. ‘From Soft Power to Sports Diplomacy: A Theoretical and Conceptual Discussion’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (3) (2019), 156-164. DOI 10.1057 /s41254-41019-00116-00118.
Dubinsky, Y. ‘Sport-Tech Diplomacy: Exploring the Intersections between the Sport-Tech Ecosystem, Innovation, and Diplomacy in Israel’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 169-180. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00191-00192.
Dubinsky, Y. and L. Dzikus. ‘Israel’s Country Image in the 2016 Olympic Games’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (3) (2018), 173-184. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41018-0105-y.
Duncombe, C. ‘Digital Diplomacy: Emotion and Identity in the Public Realm’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 102-116. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14101016.
Eichert, D. ‘Hashtagging Justice: Digital Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court on Twitter’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (4) (2021), 391-420. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-BJA10074.
Elmatzoglou, I. ‘EU Branding: Efforts to Improve the EU Image’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (4) (2020), 326-335. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00180-00185.
Entman, R. M. ‘Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The U.S. Case’. Press/Politics 13 (2) (2004), 87-102.
Enverga III, M. ‘Helpful Partner or Infringing Interloper? Examining Discursive Contestation in the Engagements of the EU Delegation in the Philippines’ Facebook Page’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00216-00214.
Erzikova, E., R. Waters and K. Bocharsky. ‘Media Catching: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Strategic Mediatization in Public Relations?’ International Journal of Strategic Communication 12 (2) (2018), 145-159.
Esser, F. ‘Metacoverage of Mediated Wars: How the Press Framed the Role of the News Media and of Military News Management in the Iraq Wars of 1991 and 2003’. American Behavioral Scientist 52 (5) (2009), 709-734.
Evans, A. and D. Stevens. ‘Towards a Theory of Influence for Twenty-first Century Foreign Policy: The New Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6 (1) (2010), 18-26.
Falkheimer, J. and K. Raknes. ‘Nordic Neighbors in Pandemic Crisis: The Communication Battle Between Sweden and Norway’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 26-29. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00234-00232.
Fan, H. and A. Poshinova. ‘Beijing Capitalness and Related Challenges — Russian Media Perspective’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (1) (2016), 32-45. DOI 10.1057 /pb.2015.17.
Fisher, Ali and Aurélie Bröckerhoff, eds. Options for Influence: Global Campaigns of Persuasion in the New Worlds of Public Diplomacy (London: The British Council, 2008).
Fitzpatrick, K. ‘Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (3) (2007), 187-211.
Fitzpatrick, K. The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010).
Fitzpatrick, K. R., C. L. White and L. M. Bier. ‘C-Suite Perspectives on Corporate Diplomacy as a Component of Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (1) (2020), 25-35. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00123-00129.
Fitzpatrick, K., J. Fullerton and A. Kendrick. ‘Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual and Practical Connections’. Public Relations Journal 7 (4) (2013), 1-21.
Fominykh, A. ‘Russia’s Public Diplomacy in Central Asia and the Caucasus: The Role of the Universities’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 12 (1) (2017), 56-85. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341350.
Friedman, E. and Z. Kampf. ‘Politically Speaking at Home and Abroad: A Typology of Message Gap Strategies’. Discourse & Society 25 (6) (2014), 706-724.
Gilboa, Eytan. ‘Media Diplomacy: Conceptual Divergence and Applications’. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 3 (3) (1998), 56-75.
Gilboa, Eytan. ‘Media Coverage of International Negotiation: A Taxonomy of Levels and Effects’. International Negotiation 5 (2000), 543-568.
Gilboa, Eytan. ‘Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects’. Diplomacy & Statecraft 12 (2) (2001), 1-28.
Gilboa, Eytan. ‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008), 55-77.
Goirizelaia, M. ‘Public Diplomacy by Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (3) (2020), 279-287. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019 -00154-00152.
Golan, G. J., I. Manor and P. Arceneaux. ‘Mediated Public Diplomacy Redefined: Foreign Stakeholder Engagement via Paid, Earned, Shared, and Owned Media’. American Behavioral Scientist 63 (12) (2019), 1665-1683.
Graham, S. E. ‘Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and Persuasion’. International Studies Review 16 (4) (2014), 522-539.
Gregory, Bruce. ‘Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008), 274-190.
Gregory, B. ‘Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 11 (1) (2016), 1-25. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341317.
Grincheva, N. ‘BRICS Diplomacy within and beyond Russia: The Fifth BRICS Summit through the Screens of Three Russian Television Channels’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (1) (2015), 35-69. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341289.
Grincheva, N. ‘Beyond State versus Non-state Dichotomy: The State Hermitage Museum as a Russian Diplomacy “Hybrid”’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (3) (2019), 225-249. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14401025.
Hall, I. and F. Smith. ‘The Struggle for Soft Power in Asia: Public Diplomacy and Regional Competition’. Asian Security 9 (1) (2013), 1-18.
Hare, P. W. ‘Corroding Consensus-Building: How Self-Centered Public Diplomacy Is Damaging Diplomacy and What Can Be Done About It’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (2) (2020), 153-164. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00137-00133.
Hartig, F, ed. Chinese Public Diplomacy: The Rise of the Confucius Institute (London: Routledge, 2015).
Hauptli, A. and D. Vogler. ‘Assessing the Leeway of State-Led Strategic Communication Abroad: A Comparison of News Coverage on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland in Arabic’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00210-w.
Hayden, C. ‘Social Media at State: Power, Practice, and Conceptual Limits for US Diplomacy’. Global Media Journal 11 (20) (2012), 1-21.
Hayden, C. ‘Logics of Narrative and Networks in US Public Diplomacy: Communication Power and US Strategic Engagement’. Journal of International Communication 19 (2) (2013), 196-218.
Hayden, C. ‘Scope, Mechanism, and Outcome: Arguing Soft Power in the Context of Public Diplomacy’. Journal of International Relations and Development 20 (2017), 331-357.
Hedling, E. ‘Storytelling in EU Public Diplomacy: Reputation Management and Recognition of Success’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (2) (2020), 143-152. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00138-00132.
Huang, Z. A. ‘The Confucius Institute and Relationship Management: Uncertainty Management of Chinese Public Diplomacy in Africa’. In Public Diplomacy and the Politics of Uncertainty, eds. Pawel Surowiec and Ilan Manor, Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), 197-223.
Huang, Z. A. ‘A Historical-Discursive Analytical Method for Studying the Formulation of Public Diplomacy Institutions’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 204-215. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00246-y.
Ittefaq, M. ‘Digital Diplomacy via Social Networks: A Cross-National Analysis of Governmental Usage of Facebook and Twitter for Digital Engagement’. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 18 (1) (2019), 49-69.
Jeong, H. W. ‘Turkey’s Islamic Public Diplomacy in the Post-Davutoglu Era: Neo-Ottomanism, Humanitarianism and the Legitimation of Hamas after the Arab Spring’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (1) (2021), 1-26. DOI 10.1163/1871191X -BJA10059.
Just, T. ‘Public Diplomacy and Domestic Engagement: The Jewish Revival in Poland’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 11 (4) (2015), 263-275. DOI 10.1057/pb.2015.11.
Jönsson, C. and M. Hall. ‘Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy’. International Studies Perspectives 4 (2) (2003), 195-210.
Kalu, K. ‘“Respect” and “Agency” as Driving Forces for China-Africa Relations’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (4) (2021), 336-347. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00178-z.
Kampf, R., I. Manor and E. 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. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341318.
Kaneva, N. and C. Cassinger. ‘Centering Gender in Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: An Invitation to Reimagine the Future of the Field’. Place Branding & Public Diplomacy 18 (4) (2022), 305-313. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41022-00265-00263.
Karlsson, I. ‘We Try to Be Nuanced Everywhere all the Time: Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy and Discursive Closure in Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (4) (2022), 325-334. DOI 10.1057/s1254-1021-00245-z.
Kelley, J. R. (2010) ‘The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution’. Diplomacy & Statecraft 21 (2) (2010), 286-305.
Kim, H. S. and S. T. Lee. ‘Peace Talks: Public Diplomacy and Place Branding in the 2018 Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (2) (2021), 155-167. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00163-00166.
Krasnyak, O. ‘The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: Construction of an Ideal Type of Science Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13 (4) (2018), 410-431. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-12341028.
Krasnyak, O. ‘The Cold War Statecraft and Public Diplomacy: Assessing US-Soviet Scientific-Technical Exchanges’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00220-00228.
la Cour, C. ‘The Evolution of the “Public” in Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (1) (2018), 22-35. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0093-0093.
Lee, S. T. ‘Vaccine Diplomacy: Nation Branding and China’s COVID-19 Soft Power Play’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00224-00224.
Lee, S. T. and H. S. Kim. ‘Nation Branding in the COVID-19 Era: South Korea’s Pandemic Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (4) (2021), 382-396. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00189-w.
Leonard, Mark, with Catherine Stead and Conrad Smewing. Public Diplomacy (London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002).
Lequesne, C., G. Castillo, M. Holm, W. J. Abdullah, H. Leira, K. Tiwary and R. Wong. ‘Ethnic Diversity in the Recruitment of Diplomats: Why MFAS Take the Issue Seriously’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (1-2) (2020), 43-65. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-15101062.
Li, L., X. F. Chen and E. C. Hanson. ‘Private Think Tanks and Public-Private Partnerships in Chinese Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (3) (2019), 293-318. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14301024.
Manor, I. ‘America’s Selfie — Three Years Later’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (4) (2017), 308-324. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0060-z.
Manor, Ilan, ed. The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
Manor, I. and R. Crilley. ‘The Mediatisation of MFAS: Diplomacy in the New Media Ecology’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (1-2) (2020), 66-92. DOI 10.1163/1871191X -15101051.
Markusen, A. ‘Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies’. Regional Studies 37 (6-7) (2003), 701-717.
Markwica, R., ed. Emotional Choices: How the Logic of Affect Shapes Coercive Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
Matwick, Keri and Kelsi Matwick. ‘Trump-Kim 2018 Singapore Summit and Culinary Diplomacy: The Role of Food and Symbols in International Relations’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2020). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00188-x.
Mazumdar, B. T. ‘Digital Diplomacy: Internet-Based Public Diplomacy Activities or Novel Forms of Public Engagement?’ Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021), 1-20. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00208-00204.
Melissen, Jan, ed. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
Melissen, Jan and Y. Sohn, eds. Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia: Middle Powers in a Troubled Region (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
Moscato, D. ‘Cultural Congruency in Mediated Gastrodiplomacy: A Qualitative Framing Analysis of the U.S.-Japan Sushi Summit’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (3) (2018), 187-196. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0066-0066.
Moscato, D. ‘Ichiro the Public Diplomat: Professional Sport as Cultural Intermediary in Configuring US Japan Relations’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16 (1) (2021), 82-104. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-BJA10007.
Neumann, I. B. ‘Diplomatic Representation in the Public Sphere: Performing Accreditation’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (4) (2019), 447-466.
Ninkovich, F., ed. U.S. Information Policy and Cultural Diplomacy (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1996).
Nisbet, E. C. and O. Kamenchuk. ‘The Psychology of State-Sponsored Disinformation Campaigns and Implications for Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 65-82. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-11411019.
Nye, Joseph S. Jr., ed. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
Ocasio, W., J. Loewenstein and A. Nigam. ‘How Streams of Communication Reproduce and Change Institutional Logics: The Role of Categories’. Academy of Management Review 40 (1) (2015), 28-48.
Ocasio, W., P. H. Thornton and M. Lounsbury. ‘Advances to the Institutional Logics Perspective’. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, eds. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence and R. F. Meyer (London: SAGE Publications, 2017), 509-531.
Osipova-Stocker, Y., E. Shiu, T. Layou and S. Powers. ‘Assessing Impact in Global Media: Methods, Innovations, and Challenges’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00240-00244.
Pahlavi, P. ‘Evaluating Public Diplomacy Programmes’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (3) (2007), 255-281.
Palmer, M. T., E. B. Nyantakyi and J. A. Fullerton. ‘The US Peace Corps as a Public Diplomacy Strategy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057 /s41254-41021-00205-00207.
Pamment, J., ed. New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice (London: Routledge, 2013).
Pamment, J. ‘Articulating Influence: Toward a Research Agenda for Interpreting the Evaluation of Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and Nation Brands’. Public Relations Review 40 (1) (2014a), 50-59.
Pamment, J. ‘The Mediatization of Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9 (3) (2014b), 253-280.
Pamment, J. ‘Gripengate: When the Worlds of Secret and Public Diplomacy Collide’. In Secret Diplomacy: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, eds. Corneliu Bjola and Stuart Murray (London: Routledge, 2016a), 169-182.
Pamment, J. ‘Sweden, Inc and the Campaign to Sell JAS-Gripen to the Swiss Electorate’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (2-3) (2016b), 218-231. DOI 10.1057/s41254 -016-0039-1.
Pamment, J., ed. British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016c).
Pamment, J. ‘Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns’. New Media & Society 18 (9) (2016d), 2046-2062.
Pamment, J. ‘Public Diplomacy’. In Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, ed. Gordon Martel (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2018a).
Pamment, J. ‘Foresight Revisited: Visions of Twenty-First Century Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (1) (2018b), 47-54. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0092-0094.
Pantoja, Y. I. M. ‘Conceptualizing a New Public Diplomacy Model: “Intermestic” Strategies and Instruments to Promote Change in Mexico’s GM Food Policy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13 (3) (2018), 245-271. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12132026.
Pigman, G. A. ‘The Populist Wave and Global Trade Diplomacy Besieged: A European Approach to WTO Reform’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (1) (2018), 11-21. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0094-0092.
Pike, S. L. ‘Using Q Methodology to Augment Evaluation of Public Diplomacy Programs’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00229-z.
Pike, S. L. and D. F. Kinsey. ‘Diplomatic Identity and Communication: Using Q Methodology to Assess Subjective Perceptions of Diplomatic Practitioners’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00226-00222.
Pilegaard, J. ‘Virtually Virtual? The New Frontiers of Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 12 (4) (2016), 316-336. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341356.
Pisarska, K. ‘The Role of Domestic Public Engagement in the Formulation and Implementation of US Government-Sponsored Educational Exchanges: An Insider’s Account’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 11 (1) (2015), 5-17. DOI 10.1057/pb.2014.11.
Popkova, A. ‘Non-State Diplomacy Challenges to Authoritarian States: The Open Russia Movement’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (3) (2019), 250-271. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-14401028.
Popkova, A. ‘Transnational Non-State Actors as ‘Alt Agents’ of Public Diplomacy: Putin’s Russia versus Open Russia’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (1) (2020), 70-79. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00126-00126.
Potter, E. H. ‘Russia’s Strategy for Perception Management through Public Diplomacy and Influence Operations: The Canadian Case’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (4) (2019), 402-425. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14401070.
Putnam, R. D. ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’. International Organization 42 (3) (1988), 427-460.
Rosamond, A. B. and E. Hedling. ‘Celebrity Diplomacy during the Covid-19 Pandemic? The Chief State Epidemiologist as “the Face of the Swedish Experiment”’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00239-x.
Rossetti, S. ‘Changes for Diplomacy under the Lens of Feminist Neo-Institutional Theory: The Case of Australia’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (3) (2015), 285-305. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341314.
Ruiz, M. C. ‘Explaining Spain’s Casas: An Instrument of Networked Public Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (2) (2015), 215-224. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-12341311.
Samei, M. F. A. ‘The European Union’s Public Diplomacy towards the Arab Spring: The Case of Egypt’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (2) (2015), 111-138. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-12341307.
Samuel-Azran, T. and M. Yarchi. ‘Military Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Arabic Facebook Page of the Israeli Defense Forces’ Spokesperson’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13 (3) (2018), 323-344. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-11303005.
Samuel-Azran, T., B. Ilovici, I. Zari and O. Geduild. ‘Practicing Citizen Diplomacy 2.0: “The Hot Dudes and Hummus-Israel’s Yummiest” Campaign for Israel’s Branding’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (1) (2019), 38-49. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41018-00111-00115.
Sasikumar, K. ‘Branding India: Constructing a Reputation for Responsibility in the Nuclear Order’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (3) (2017), 242-254. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41016-0038-0032.
Seib, P. America’s New Approach to Africa: AFRICOM and Public Diplomacy (Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press, 2009).
Seib, P. ‘US Public Diplomacy and the Terrorism Challenge’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 154-168. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14011012.
Sevin, E. ‘A Multilayered Approach to Public Diplomacy Evaluation: Pathways of Connection’. Politics & Policy 45 (5) (2017a), 879-901.
Sevin, E., ed. Public Diplomacy and the Implementation of Foreign Policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017b).
Sevin, E. and K. J. Ayhan. ‘Moving Public Diplomacy Research Forward: Methodological Approaches’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 201-203. DOI 10.1057 /s41254-41022-00263-00265.
Sevin, E., E. T. Metzgar and C. Hayden. ‘The Scholarship of Public Diplomacy: Analysis of a Growing Field’. International Journal of Communication 13 (24) (2019), 4814-4837.
Sharp, P. ‘For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations’. International Studies Review 1 (1) (1999), 33-57.
Sharp, Paul, ed. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Sheafer, T. and I. Gabay. ‘Mediated Public Diplomacy: A Strategic Contest over International Agenda Building and Frame Building’. Political Communication 26 (4) (2009), 447-467.
Signitzer, B. H. and T. Coombs. ‘Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences’. Public Relations Review 18 (2) (1992), 137-147.
Snow, N. and N. Cull, eds. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (London: Routledge, 2020).
Sommerfeldt, E. J. and A. Buhmann. ‘The Status Quo of Evaluation in Public Diplomacy: Insights from the US State Department’. Journal of Communication Management 12 (3) (2019), 198-212.
Spörer-Wagner, D. and F. Marcinkowski. ‘Is Talk Always Silver and Silence Golden?’. The Mediatisation of Political Bargaining 17 (2) (2010), 5-26.
Spry, D. ‘Facebook Diplomacy: A Data-Driven, User-Focused Approach to Facebook Use by Diplomatic Missions’. Media International Australia 168 (1) (2018), 62-80.
Spry, D. ‘From Delhi to Dili: Facebook Diplomacy by Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the Asia-Pacific’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (1-2) (2020), 93-125. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-15101067.
Sun, W. N. ‘Configuring the foreign correspondent: New questions about China’s public diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 11 (2) (2015), 125-138. DOI 10.1057 /pb.2014.20.
Surowiec, Paweł and Ilan Manor, eds. Public Diplomacy and the Politics of Uncertainty (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).
Szondi, G., ed. Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2008).
Szostek, J. ‘What Happens to Public Diplomacy during Information War? Critical Reflections on the Conceptual Framing of International Communication’. International Journal of Communication 14 (21) (2020), 2728-2748.
Tam, L. ‘Interpersonal Approaches to Relationship Building: Diplomat as a Human Agent of Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (2) (2019), 134-142. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41018-0101-0102.
Torras-Vila, J. and J. Fernandez-Cavia. ‘DIPLOCAT’s Public Diplomacy Role and the Perceptions towards Catalonia among International Correspondents’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (3) (2018), 213-222. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41017-0073-0077.
Uysal, N. ‘The Rise of Diasporas as Adversarial Non-State Actors in Public Diplomacy: The Turkish Case’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (3) (2019), 272-292. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-14401030.
Valaskivi, K., ed. Cool Nations: Media and the Social Imaginary of the Branded Country (London: Routledge, 2016a).
Valaskivi, K. ‘Circulating a Fashion: Performance of Nation Branding in Finland and Sweden’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (2-3) (2016b), 139-151. DOI 10.1057 /s41254-41016-0010-0011.
Valencia, R. J. and D. Moscato. ‘Navigating #ObamainCuba: How Twitter Mediates Frames and History in Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 17 (2) (2021), 168-179. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41020-00162-00167.
van Ham, P., ed. Social Power in International Politics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010).
Vanc, A. M. and K. R. Fitzpatrick. ‘Scope and Status of Public Diplomacy Research by Public Relations Scholars, 1990-2014’. Public Relations Review 42 (3) (2016), 432-440.
Vera, J. M. and J. M. H. de la Casa. ‘How Influential Are International NGOs in the Public Arena?’ The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (4) (2020), 624-635. DOI 10.1163 /1871191X-BJA10040.
Wang, J. ed. Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
Wang, N. ‘“First Lady Diplomacy” and the Construction of National Image’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 14 (2) (2018), 125-136. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41018-0097-0097.
Wiseman, G. ‘Public Diplomacy and Hostile Nations’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 134-153. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14011017.
Wu, Y., R. Thomas and Y. Yu. ‘From External Propaganda to Mediate Public Diplomacy: The Construction of the Chinese Dream in President Xi Jinping’s New Year Speeches’. In Public Diplomacy and the Politics of Uncertainty, eds. Paweł Surowiec and Ilan Manor, Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).
Xuereb, K. ‘Can Nation Branding Be Successful Tool for the Practice of Public Diplomacy? A Maltese Case Study’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (3) (2017), 255-263. DOI 10.1057/pb.2016.7.
Yang, Y. L. ‘The Role of the Non-state Film Industry in Promoting China’s Soft Power’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (4) (2019), 426-446. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14481063.
Yarchi, M., T. Samuel-Azran and L. Bar-David. ‘Facebook Users’ Engagement with Israel’s Public Diplomacy Messages during the 2012 and 2014 Military Operations in Gaza’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 13 (4) (2017), 360-375. DOI 10.1057 /s41254-41017-0058-0056.
Zaharna, R. S. ‘Mapping Out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives: Information and Relational Communication Frameworks’. In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (London: Routledge, 2009).
Zaharna, R. S., ed. Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
Zaharna, R. S. ‘Culture, Cultural Diversity and Humanity-Centred Diplomacies’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 117-133. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14101018.
Zaharna, R. S. ‘The Pandemic’s Wake-up Call for Humanity-Centered Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00244-00240.
Zaharna, R. S., A. Arsenault and A. Fisher, eds. Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy (New York: Routledge, 2013).
Zalas-Kaminska, K. ‘Polish Smart Power in Terms of NGOs Activity and Intersections between Development Aid and Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2021). DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00198-00193.
Zhang, J. Y. ‘Compassion versus Manipulation; Narratives versus Rational Arguments: A PD Radar to Chart the Terrain of Public Diplomacy’. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16 (3) (2020), 195-211. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41019-00146-00142.
Zhao, K. J. ‘The China Model of Public Diplomacy and Its Future’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1-2) (2019), 169-181. DOI 10.1163/1871191X-14101033.
Zhao, A. H. ‘A Historical-Discursive Analytical Method for Studying the Formulation of Public Diplomacy Institutions’ Place branding and Public Diplomacy 18 (2022), 204-215. DOI 10.1057/s41254-41021-00246-y.
James Pamment
is an Associate Professor at the Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University. He is the editor of Place Branding & Public Diplomacy and the author of British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption and New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century.
Alicia Fjällhed
is a Doctoral candidate at the Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University.
Martina Smedberg
is a Doctoral candidate at the Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University.
Our thanks to funding from the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.
Armstrong 2008.
Despite many pleas to the contrary; see, e.g., Zaharna 2010.
Manor 2019.
Markusen 2003.
E.g., Seib 2009; Ayhan 2019, 32; Brown 2002; Ninkovich 1996.
Pamment 2016a, 2016b.
See, e.g., Cull 2008; or ’ordinary people’ as referred to in Fitzpatrick 2007.
Melissen 2005; Cull 2008, in his emphasis on the practice of listening.
E.g., Comor and Bean 2012.
Di Martino 2020; Pamment 2016d.
Sevin, Metzgar and Hayden 2019.
Ayhan 2019.
Pike and Kinsey 2021.
Hayden 2017.
Arceneaux 2021.
Pamment 2014a.
Zhang 2020.
Cull 2008; Pamment 2018a.
Fitzpatrick 2010.
Pike and Kinsey 2021.
Arceneaux and Bier 2021.
Hayden 2013.
Cull 2008; Pamment 2016c.
Sevin 2017a; Pamment 2013.
E.g., Wang 2011; Cross and Melissen 2013.
Ayhan 2019.
E.g., Cornago 2013; Kelley 2010; Pamment 2014b.
E.g., Fitzpatrick, Fullerton and Kendrick 2013; Sheafer and Gabay 2009.
Sevin and Ayhan 2022.
E.g., Vanc and Fitzpatrick 2016; Pahlavi 2007; Sevin 2017; Sommerfeldt and Buhmann 2019; Pamment 2014a.
Gregory 2008; Gilboa 2008.
E.g., Zaharna et al. 2013.
Alexander 2021.
Surowiec and Manor 2021.
Kaneva and Cassinger 2022.
E.g., Hayden 2012; Comor and Bean 2012; Dolea 2015; Szostek 2020.
Pamment 2014a.
Fisher and Bröckerhoff 2008.
Leonard 2002; Cull 2008; Zaharna 2009; Gilboa 2008; Evans and Steven 2010.
Pamment 2014a.
Comor and Bean 2012; Pamment 2016d; Di Martino 2020.
Brown 2012.
Listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, international broadcasting.
Cull 2019.
Pamment 2016c.
Hartig 2015; Zhao 2022.
Manor 2019.
Pamment 2014b.
E.g., Manor and Crilley 2020; Sevin 2017a; Spry 2018.
Entman 2004; Sheafer and Gabay 2009.
Spörer-Wagner and Marcinkowski 2010; Hayden 2013; Cornago 2018.
Pamment 2014b.
Putnam 1988; Friedman and Kampf 2014.
Markwica 2018; Graham 2014.
Hall and Smith 2013; Balmas and Sheafer 2014; Aggestam and Hedling 2020.
Szostek 2020; Esser 2009.
The sample is from The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (HJD) and Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (PB&PD), two leading venues for PD scholarship. Both samples included articles retreated through the portal Web of Science (WoS), including articles classified as containing ‘public diplomacy’ in the title, abstract, or among key words. The first sample (N=33) covered articles published in 2020. The second sample covered all years recorded in WoS (N=131), a period of six years from 2016 to 2021). The first tier resulted in a codebook of seven ideal types, reviewed in relation to the wider sample. This second review confirmed the presence of the same ideal types in the wider sample and revealed a more nuanced understanding of each ideal type with distinct sub-themes.
Dijksterhuis, Van den Bosch and Volberda 1999.
Ceulemans 2021, 135.
Enverga 2021; Valencia and Moscato 2021; Kim and Ting Lee 2021.
E.g., Kelley 2010; van Ham 2010; Cornago 2018.
E.g., Sharp 1999; Jönsson and Hall 2003.
Sharp 2009.
Wang 2018.
Ceulemans 2021.
Cornago 2018.
Grincheva 2015; Kim and Lee 2021.
Matwick and Matwick 2020; Moscato 2018.
Kalu 2021; Valencia and Moscato 2021.
Kalu 2021.
Karlsson 2022.
Pigman 2018.
Valencia and Moscato 2021. Among others also mentioning twiplomacy, hashtag dipomacy, or eDiplomacy in the paper are Kampf, Manor and Segev 2015; Collins, DeWitt and LeFebvre 2019; Pilegaard 2016; Yarchi, Samuel-Azran and Bar-David 2017.
Signitzer and Coombs 1992.
Gilboa 1998, 2000, 2001.
E.g., Entman 2004; Golan, Manor and Arceneaux 2019.
Pamment 2014b; Manor and Crilley 2020.
Ittefaq 2019; Mazumdar 2021.
Duncombe 2019; Pilegaard 2016.
Manor and Crilley 2020.
Al-Rawi 2020; Byrne and Johnston 2015; Eichert 2021; Kampf, Manor and Segev 2015; Samei 2015; Samuel-Azran and Yarchi 2018; Spry 2020.
Bravo and De Moya 2015.
Sun 2015; Torras-Vila and Fernandez-Cavia 2018; Potter 2019; Osipova-Stocker et al. 2021.
Hedling 2020.
Di Martino 2020.
Cull 2019; Kampf, Manor and Segev 2015;Collins, DeWitt and LeFebvre 2019; Manor 2017.
Signitzer and Coombs 1992; Fitzpatrick 2010.
E.g., Fisher and Bröckerhoff 2008.
Cowan and Arsenault 2008; Zaharna 2010; Zaharna, Arsenault and Fisher 2013; Zaharna 2021.
Bier and White 2021; Fitzpatrick, White and Bier 2020.
Li, Chen and Hanson 2019.
Pisarska 2015.
Samuel-Azran et al. 2019.
Bravo and De Moya 2015; Brinkerhoff 2019; Dolea 2022; Uysal 2019.
Palmer, Nyantakyi and Fullerton 2021.
Ruiz 2015.
Pantoja 2018; Popkova 2019; Popkova 2020; Yang 2019.
Vera and de la Casa 2020.
Chaban and Elgstrom 2020; de Beer and van Buitenen 2016.
Fominykh 2017.
Bettie 2020; Goirizelaia 2020; Krasnyak 2021; Pisarska 2015.
Bourgeois 2019; Brett and Schaefer 2019; Grincheva 2019; Zaharna 2019; Zhao 2019.
Abdi et al. 2019; Cooper 2019b; Dubinsky and Dzikus 2018; Dubinsky 2019, 2022; Moscato 2021.
Krasnyak 2018.
Constantinou and Tselepou 2017.
Sasikumar 2017.
Xuereb 2017.
Aharoni and Grinstein 2017, quote from 294.
Leonard 2002; Anholt 1998; Valaskivi 2016a.
Szondi 2008.
Aharoni and Grinstein 2017; Aziz, Friedman and Ilhan 2015; Valaskivi 2016b.
Fan and Poshinova 2016; Hauptli and Vogler 2021.
Ban and Pan 2020.
Kim and Lee 2021, 155.
Elmatzoglou 2020.
Falkheimer and Raknes 2022.
Just 2015.
Cross and La Porte 2016.
Byrne 2019, 182-185.
Zaharna 2010.
Briant 2015; Bjola and Pamment 2018.
de Beer and van Buitenen 2016; Kim and Lee 2021.
Akerlund 2016; Zalas-Kaminska 2021.
Palmer, Nyantakyi and Fullerton 2021.
Jeong 2021; Yarchi, Samuel-Azran and Bar-David 2017.
Fominykh 2017; Krasnyak 2021.
Aguirre 2020.
Wiseman 2019.
Samuel-Azran and Yarchi 2018.
Manor and Crilley 2020.
Seib 2019.
Chaban and Elgstrom 2020.
Uysal 2019.
Byrne 2019.
Cull 2019.
Nisbet and Kamenchuk 2019.
Cooper 2019a.
Bjola 2022; Cull 2021; Falkheimer and Raknes 2022.
Lee 2021; Lee and Kim 2021.
Rosamond and Hedling 2021.
Pamment 2018b, 53.
Cull 2008; 2012; Pamment 2016c.
Snow and Cull 2020; Melissen and Sohn 2015; Cross and Melissen 2013; Bjola and Zaiotti 2020.
Buhmann and Sommerfeldt 2021.
Spry 2020.
Collins and Bekenova 2019.
Blue 2021.
Pilegaard 2016.
Alexander and Marine 2020; Bartonek 2020; Pamment 2018b.
Cassinger et al. 2016.
Huang 2022.
Pike 2021.
Lequesne et al. 2020.
Rossetti 2015.
Pike and Kinsey 2021.
Van Ham 2010; Nye 2004.
Wu, Thomas and Yu 2021.
Di Martino 2020; Cull 2019.
Zaharna 2021.
Hare 2020, 153.
Cooper 2019a; Cull 2019.
Wiseman 2019.
Tam 2019.
Gregory 2016.
Di Martino 2020.
Potter 2019.
Hare 2020.
Zhang 2020.
la Cour 2018.
Gilboa 2008.