A Discussion of the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy
This chapter examines how the norms, values and the logic of the digital society have influenced the practice of public diplomacy. Through a review of case studies from Africa, Israel, Palestine, Poland, the USA and Eastern Europe, the chapter illustrates how digital technologies have impacted the working routines and structures of diplomatic institutions as well as the metaphors diplomats’ employ to conceptualize their craft. The chapter, then, reviews a series of factors that can impact the process of digitalization of diplomatic institutions, ranging from the affordance of digital technologies to the domestic agendas of governments and innovative foreign ministers. Lastly, the chapter discusses new avenues for public diplomacy research that further elucidate the relationship between digital technologies, the digital society and public diplomacy.
- Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2016). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 71–88). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Causey, C., & Howard, P. N. (2013). Delivering digital public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 144–156). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Clarke, A. (2015). Business as usual? An evolution of British and Canadian digital diplomacy as policy change. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 111–126). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Copeland, D. (2013). Taking diplomacy public: Science, technology and foreign ministries in a heteropolar world. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 56–69). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Harnden, T. (2010, November). WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton states WikiLeaks release is “an attack”. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8169040/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-states-WikiLeaks-release-is-an-attack.html.
- Hayden, C. (2012). Social media at state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits for US public diplomacy. Global Media Journal, 11(21), 1–21.Google Scholar
- Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
- Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). Digital diplomacy conference summary (pp. 6–19). Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/271028.pdf.
- Lichtenstein, J. (2010, July). Digital diplomacy. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18web2–0-t.html.
- Lutyens, A. (2018). Investigating New Zealand’s model of democratized public diplomacy [In person].Google Scholar
- Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018). The aesthetics of violent extremist and counter violent extremist communication. In C. Bjola & J. Pamment (Eds.), Countering online propaganda and extremism: The dark side of digital diplomacy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2019). The mediatization of MFAs: Diplomacy in the new media ecology. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.Google Scholar
- Manor, I. & Kampf, R. (2019). Digital nativity and digital engagement: Implications for the practice of dialogic digital diplomacy.Google Scholar
- Manor, I., & Soone, L. (2018, January). The digital industries: Transparency as mass deception. Global Policy. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/science-and-technology/digital-industries-transparency-mass-deception.
- Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Journal, 12(21), 1.Google Scholar
- Miller, D., & Horst, H. A. (2017). The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital anthropology. In H. A. Horst & D. Miller (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 3–38). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
- Pamment, J., Nothhaft, H., Agardh-Twetman, H., & Fjallhed, A. (2018). Countering information influence activities: The state of the art. Lund University.Google Scholar
- Paulauskas, R. (2018). Understanding Lithuania’s digital diplomacy model [In person].Google Scholar
- Quelch, J. A., & Jocz, K. E. (2009). Can brand Obama rescue brand America? The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(1), 163–178.Google Scholar
- Sheridan, M. B. (2010, November). Hillary Clinton: WikiLeaks release an ‘attack on international community’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112903231.html.
- Sontag, S. (1990). On photography. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Stein, J. G. (2011). Diplomacy in the digital age. In J. G. Stein (Ed.), Diplomacy in the digital age: Essays in honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb (pp. 1–9). Ontario: Signal.Google Scholar
- Storr, W. (2018). Book six: The digital self. In W. Storr (Ed.), Selfie: How the West became self-obsessed (pp. 243–303). London: Picador.Google Scholar
- Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., …, Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation.Google Scholar
- United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. (2017). Can public diplomacy survive the internet? Bots, echo chambers, and disinformation (pp. 2–91). Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/271028.pdf.
- Van Ham, P. (2013). Social power in public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 17–28). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Wichowski, A. (2015). ‘Secrecy is for losers’: Why diplomats should embrace openness to protect national security. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 52–70). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar