Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy pp 323–352Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

A Discussion of the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy ((GPD))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: An evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,7(2), 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attias, S. (2012). Israel’s new peer-to-peer diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,7(4), 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2016). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, V. (2014). Nation as network: Diaspora, cyberspace, and citizenship. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjola, C. (2014). The ethics of secret diplomacy: A contextual approach. Journal of Global Ethics,10(1), 85–100.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–30.

    Article  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 

  • Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette,74(3), 203–220.

    Article  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 

  • Freedman, L. (2014). Ukraine and the art of crisis management. Survival,56(3), 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, E. (2005a). The CNN effect: The search for a communication theory of international relations. Political Communication,22(1), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, E. (2005b). Global television news and foreign policy: Debating the CNN effect. International Studies Perspectives,6(3), 325–341.

    Article  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.

  • Kampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement in Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFA s realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy,1(2), 1–110.

    Article  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.

  • Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 3–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Melissen, J., & de Keulenaar, E. V. (2017). Critical digital diplomacy as a global challenge: The South Korean experience. Global Policy,8(3), 294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mor, B. D. (2012). Credibility talk in public diplomacy. Review of International Studies,38(2), 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natarajan, K. (2014). Digital public diplomacy and a strategic narrative for India. Strategic Analysis,38(1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, J. (2014). The mediatization of diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy,9(3), 253–280.

    Article  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 

  • Robinson, P. (1999). The CNN effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy? Review of International Studies,25(2), 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Development, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Ilan Manor

Authors
  1. Ilan Manor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilan Manor .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Manor, I. (2019). A Discussion of the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. In: The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation