Definitions…
Our discussion on Gilboa's article "Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy" made me think about the problems in making a definition for a fluid process. The continuing dialogue to define PD is a reflection of the complexities of PD as a concept. Maybe its definition lies within an ongoing discussion of how to define it. One note that I think is interesting is how PD as an academic discipline has the potential to build bridges between fields of study, which reflects the goals (hopefully) of practitioners of PD to build bridges between people/nations.
The Robin Brown blog post that Prof. Hayden sent to us speaks to the challenges in defining PD and also to the necessity of finding a definition in order to deepen our analysis constructs. The comments from Dan Sreeby (Foreign Service officer at IIP) are interesting, where he proposes general pd (lower case) versus government official PD (uppercase). He also makes the point that when speaking about PD, each person should first clarify what it means to him/her. Jared Cohen, who was at policy planning at State and just moved over to run Google Ideas, makes a distinction between PD and 21st Century Statecraft, where he sees the latter as a tool to empower people by putting apps into their hands for development/security and PD as very specifically about a government getting its message out.
Syracuse has answered one of the calls of Gilboa’s article by creating a Journal of PD last fall, which I found through the Robin Brown comments section. The student editor for The Exchange, at Syracuse, offered a simple diagram on PD. I think it is a nice breakdown in terms of communication flows, but it does not provide answers in terms of models and measures.
Effectiveness and how to measure it…
Gilboa's article specifies how it is useful to have some concrete, agreed upon definitions in order to facilitate analysis about effectiveness of PD efforts. However, even with an agreed upon definition, there are so many variables, that measures for how PD is working seems difficult at best.
Prof. Hayden looks at measuring effectiveness in his posting in October 2010, which addresses the importance of looking at the context for practicing PD in the first place. Hayden’s posting brings up interesting points in terms of measuring effectiveness of PD and what it means in terms of ethics and ideology, where the fact of PD programs and trying to influence other people is in and of itself an important concept to examine.
First, thank you for the mention of both the Journal and my post!
ReplyDeleteSecond, I do agree that the diagram which I created does not offer much in the way of techniques or strategies. But as was mentioned before, specific governments and institutions will do PD in different ways. By specifying measures of success, I feel the concept may limit PD too narrowly. As you see on the diagram, three of the five arrows I consider PD. While the two diagonal arrows are essentially the same, the bottom arrow differs from the previous; it bypasses the government completely. As such, I think the tactics and measures applicable there must necessarily be different.
I do hope to flesh out the idea of the diagram more fully into a scholarly work, but oh, the classes! Speaking of classes, don’t hesitate to ask if you need any help for your PD class from me or SUPD. Also, we’ll be hosting Dan Sreeby up here in March: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=126614520742296