Advertisement

From Targeting to Tailoring—The Two Stages of Public Diplomacy’s Digitalization

  • Ilan ManorEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy book series (GPD)

Abstract

Marcus Holmes argues that the digitalization of public diplomacy can be influenced by two types of “change.” The first is gradual, bottom-up change in which the adoption of technologies by diplomats impacts a foreign ministry’s use of digital technologies. The second is abrupt, external bottom-down change that is caused by exogenous shocks. This chapter argues that the Crimean crisis of 2014 was an exogenous shock that had a dramatic impact on diplomats’ use of digital technologies. In its wake, diplomats’ implemented top-down changes to their digital communications including the development of new digital strategies for obtaining public diplomacy goals. This chapter offers a series of case studies from Canada, Russia, Israel, Iran and India that demonstrate the impact of the Crimean crisis on the digitalization of public diplomacy.

References

  1. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjola, C. (2017, May). Digital diplomacy 2.0 pushes the boundary. Global Times. Retrieved from http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1073667.shtml.
  4. Bjola, C. (2018). Digital diplomacy and impression management. Presentation, Canada House, London. Google Scholar
  5. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2016a). How to increase ROI on digital diplomacy? Presentation, UN Headquarters in Geneva.Google Scholar
  6. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2016b, December 3). 10 tips to increase ROI on #DigitalDiplomacy [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2016/12/03/10-tips-to-increase-roi-on-digitaldiplomacy/.
  7. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2018). Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: Domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Corcoran, J. P. (2018). UK FCO open source intelligence unit. Presentation, the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in London.Google Scholar
  10. Enwald, H. P. K., & Huotari, M. L. A. (2010). Preventing the obesity epidemic by second generation tailored health communication: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(2), e24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrad, M. (2017). The digital diplomacy activities of the UK Mission to the UN in Geneva [In person].Google Scholar
  12. Grossman, S. (2015, November). Finland is launching a special set of national emoji. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4100041/finland-national-emoji/.
  13. Hanson, F. (2012). Revolution at state: The spread of ediplomacy. Sydney, Australia: Lowy Institute for International Policy.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Head of Communications Services, NATO. (2014). NATO digital diplomacy efforts. Presentation, Clingendael Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Heine, J. (2016). From club to network diplomacy. In A. F. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes, M. (2015). Digital diplomacy and international change management. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). Digital diplomacy conference summary (pp. 6–19). Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/271028.pdf.
  19. Joseph, S. (2018, January). Organic reach on Facebook is dead: Advertisers expect price hikes after Facebook’s feed purge. Digiday UK. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/marketing/organic-reach-facebook-dead-advertisers-will-spend-reach-facebooks-feed-purge/.
  20. Kreuter, M. W., Strecher, V. J., & Glassman, B. (1999). One size does not fit all: The case for tailoring print materials. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21(4), 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manor, I. (2016a). Are we there yet: Have MFAs realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manor, I. (2016b, March 7). How the UK & US are fighting ISIS online-part 2 [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2016/03/07/how-the-uk-us-are-fighting-isis-online-part-2/.
  23. Manor, I., & Kampf, R. (2019). Digital nativity and digital engagement: Implications for the practice of dialogic digital diplomacy.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2014). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Mostrous, A., Bridge, M., & Gibbons, K. (2017, November). Russia used Twitter bots and trolls ‘to disrupt’ Brexit vote. The Times. Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/russia-used-web-posts-to-disrupt-brexit-vote-h9nv5zg6c.
  28. NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence. (2015). Analysis of Russia’s information campaign against Ukraine: Examining non-military aspects of the crisis in Ukraine from a strategic communications perspectives. Riga: NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.stratcomcoe.org/analysis-russias-information-campaign-against-ukraine-1.
  29. NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence. (2016). Internet trolling as a hybrid warfare tool: The case of Latvia. NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.stratcomcoe.org/internet-trolling-hybrid-warfare-tool-case-latvia.
  30. Natarajan, K. (2014). Digital public diplomacy and a strategic narrative for India. Strategic Analysis, 38(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nayak, M. (2006). Orientalism and ‘saving’ US state identity after 9/11. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8(1), 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pamment, J. (2012). New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pamment, J., Nothhaft, H., Agardh-Twetman, H., & Fjallhed, A. (2018). Countering information influence activities: The state of the art. Lund University.Google Scholar
  35. Paulauskas, R. (2018). Understanding Lithuania’s digital diplomacy model [In person].Google Scholar
  36. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rana, K. S. (2013). Diaspora diplomacy and public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 70–85). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Ratson, E. (2018). Understanding Israeli algorithmic diplomacy [In person].Google Scholar
  39. Rosenwald, M. S. (2014, April). Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/serious-reading-takes-a-hit-from-online-scanning-and-skimming-researchers-say/2014/04/06/088028d2-b5d2–11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html?utm_term=.71314e79b92a.
  40. Rudich, G. (2014). Exclusive interview with Gal Rudich, head of new media section at the Israeli foreign ministry’s digital diplomacy unit [In person].Google Scholar
  41. Slaughter, A. M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Soenen, L. (2018). Belgium’s digital diplomacy model [In person].Google Scholar
  43. Sotiriu, S. (2015). Digital diplomacy: Between promises and reality. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 33–51). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. The Economist. His biggest smile. (2013, September). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2013/09/21/his-biggest-smile.
  45. The Foriegn and Commonwealth Office. (2011). Foreign secretary Twitter Q&A on the London Conference on Cyberspace. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-twitter-q-a-on-the-london-conference-on-cyberspace.
  46. Wilton Park. (2017). Diplomacy in the information age: Wednesday 22–Friday 24 February WP1519. Wilson House. Retrieved from https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/event/wp1519/.
  47. Yap, T. L., & Davis, L. S. (2008). Physical activity: The science of health promotion through tailored messages. Rehabilitation Nursing, 33(2), 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations