Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: A Critical and Reflexive Assessment

Year 2018, , 5 - 20, 15.06.2017

Hamilton Bean Edward Comor

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.321794

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This essay presents a critical and reflexive assessment of contemporary efforts to innovate the measurement and evaluation of public diplomacy. Analyzing a recent and pivotal report called “Data-Driven Public Diplomacy,” it explains how the institutional and ideological residue of the Cold War underwrites these initiatives in the context of American activities in its contemporary “War on Terror.” Inspired by Marx’s concept of the fetish—an under-represented conceptual approach to public diplomacy research—the authors critique the thinking of public diplomacy scholars and officials, arguing that both an omnipresent past and a powerful form of technological fetishism are discernible in the “Data-Driven Public Diplomacy” report. An outcome of the type of thinking represented in the report, they conclude, has been the pervasiveness of contradictions and, in this area of foreign policy, disempowering implications.

Keywords

Public diplomacy, Cold War, technological fetishism, measurement and evaluation

References

• Arif, Rauf, Guy J. Golan, and Brian Moritz. “Mediated Public Diplomacy: US and Taliban Relations with Pakistani Media.” Media, War & Conflict 7, no. 2 (2014): 201-17. doi:10.1177/1750635214538619.
• Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE, 2002.
• Center, Seth. “The Evolution of American Public Diplomacy: Four Historical Insights.” US Department of State, December 2, 2013. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219025.pdf.
• Cooper, Jeffrey R. Curing Analytic Pathologies: Pathways to Improved Intelligence Analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: Government Printing Office, 2005. Accessed March 15, 2016. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA500058.
• Corman, Stephen R., Angela Trethewey, and Bud Goodall. “A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas.” Report no: 0701, Consortium for Strategic Communication, Arizona State University, April 3, 2007. http://csc.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf/114.pdf.
• Cox, Michael. Rethinking the Soviet Collapse: Sovietology, the Death of Communism and the New Russia. New York, NY: Continuum Intl. Pub Group, 1998.
• Daoud, Kamel. “Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It.” New York Times, November 20, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has- made-it.html?_r=0.
• Edwards, Paul N. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
• Gonzalez, Carissa. “The Evaluation Revolution in Public Diplomacy.” The Ambassadors Review (2015): 36-43. https://www.americanambassadors.org/publications/ambassadors-review/fall-2015/the-evaluation-revolution-in-public-diplomacy.
• Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971.
• Heyn, Lisa. “Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy is Reinstated After 19-Months Hiatus.” Alliance for International Exchange, July, 31, 2013. http://www.alliance-exchange.org/policy-monitor/07/31/2013/advisory-commission-public- diplomacy-reinstated-after-19-months-hiatus.
• Kampf, Ronit, Ilan Manor, and Elad Segev. “Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-National Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10, no. 4 (2015): 331-62. doi:10.1163/1871191X-12341318.
• Kotz, David M., and Fred Weir. Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System. London: Routledge, 1997. Kushlis, Patricia. "Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: An Evaluation of an Evaluation of an Evaluation." WhirledView, October 3, 2014. http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2014/10/data-driven-public-diplomacy-an-evaluation-of-an-evaluation-of-an-evaluation.html. Layton, Lindsey. “Study Says Standardized Testing is Overwhelming Nation’s Public Schools.” Washington Post, October 24, 2015.
• Martin, Lauren, and Stephanie Simon. “A Formula for Disaster: The Department of Homeland Security's Virtual Ontology.” Space and Polity 12, no. 3 (2008): 281-96. doi:10.1080/13562570802515127.
• Marx, Karl. A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1 of Capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977.
• Miliband, Ralph, and Leo Panitch. “Preface.” Socialist Register 27 (1991).
• Milosevic, Tijana. “Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy Examines Evaluation Tools.” Alliance for International Exchange, July 21, 2010. http://www.alliance-exchange.org/policy-monitor/07/21/2010/advisory-commission-public-diplomacy-examines-evaluation-tools.
• Nisbet, Erik C., Matthew C. Nisbet, Dietram A. Scheufele, and James E. Shanahan. “Public Diplomacy, Television News, and Muslim Opinion.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9, no. 2 (2004): 11-37. doi:10.1177/1081180x04263459.
• Noon, David Hoogland. "Operation Enduring Analogy: World War II, the War on Terror, and the Uses of Historical Memory." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7, no. 3 (2004): 339-64. doi:10.1353/rap.2005.0015.
• Okey, Robin. The Demise of Communist East Europe: 1989 in Context. London: Arnold, 2004.
• Pamment, James. “Articulating Influence: Toward a Research Agenda for Interpreting the Evaluation of Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and Nation Brands.” Public Relations Review 40, no. 1 (2014): 50-9. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019.
• ———. “Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns.” New Media & Society 18, no. 9 (2016): 2046-62. doi:10.1177/1461444815577792.
• Paul, Christopher, Jessica M. Yeats, Colin P. Clarke, Miriam Matthews, and Lauren Skrabala. Assessing and Evaluating Department of Defense Efforts to Inform, Influence, and Persuade: Handbook for Practitioners. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2015.
• Public Diplomacy Council. “Advisory Commission Calls for Data-Driven Public Diplomacy.” September 30, 2014. http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/commentaries/09-30-14/advisory-commission-calls-data-driven-public-diplomacy.
• Rider, James. “Proving Public Diplomacy Programs Work.” The Foreign Service Journal 92, no. 10 (2015): 19-22. Accessed March 30, 2016. http://www.afsa.org/proving-public-diplomacy-programs-work.
• Sayers, Sean. Reality and Reason: Dialectic and the Theory of Knowledge. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1985. Sevin, Efe. "Pathways of Connection: An Analytical Approach to the Impacts of Public Diplomacy." Public Relations Review 41, no. 4 (2015): 562-68. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.003.
• US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. “2014 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy.” December 11, 2014. http://www.state.gov/pdcommission/reports/235008.htm.
• ———. “Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: Progress towards Measuring the Impact of Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting Activities.” September 16, 2014. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/231945.pdf.
• US Department of State. Eighteenth Report of the United States Advisory Commission on Information. 88th Cong. 1st sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1963. http://www.state.gov/pdcommission/reports/175429.htm.
• USC Center on Public Diplomacy. “Effective Public Diplomacy: Evaluation and Impact.” Accessed March 11, 2016. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/story/cpd-mini-course-effective-public-diplomacy.
• ———. “New Report on Data-Driven Public Diplomacy.” September 17, 2014. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/story/new-report-data-driven-public-diplomacy.
• Wyatt, Sally. "Technological Determinism Is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism." In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett et al., 165-80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
• Žižek, Slavoj. The Universal Exception. New York: Continuum, 2006.