(Tourism Diplomacy, Soft Power and Nation Branding: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on Web of Science Data, 1995–2026)

Abstract

This study aims to chart the intellectual map of international scholarly production at the intersection of tourism diplomacy, soft power and nation branding, identifying dominant theoretical concentrations, methodological tendencies and conceptual blind spots in quantitative terms. To this end, a dataset of 482 articles covering the 1995–2026 period was systematically compiled from the Web of Science Core Collection following the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion stages of the PRISMA 2020 model. Performance analysis (publications, citations, journals, countries and authors) was combined with keyword co-occurrence and co-citation analyses using VOSviewer 1.6.20. The findings reveal three distinct phases of development: foundation (1995–2010, 40 articles), growth (2011–2017, 143 articles) and maturation (2018–2026, 299 articles; the 2026 figure covers only January–April). Total citations reach 4,815, with a mean of 10.0 per article and an h-index of 31. Keyword co-occurrence analysis yields 44 terms organised into 8 clusters; tourism (81), nation branding (78) and soft power (62) emerge as the densest concepts. The frequencies of discourse (4) and hegemony (2) remain critically low. Co-citation analysis identifies a singular intellectual core polarised around soft power and competitive identity, while critical discourse analysis and hegemony-based perspectives are almost entirely absent. This analytical blind spot particularly constrains critical examinations of cases—such as Turkey—where discursive tensions are high. The study therefore proposes a critical-discursive research agenda for the field. Keywords: Tourism diplomacy, soft power, nation branding, public diplomacy, bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer, Web of Science, Turkey.

Keywords

• Tourism Diplomacy
• Soft Power
• National Branding
• Public Diplomacy
• Bibliometric Analysis
• VOSwiever
• Web of Science
• Turkey

Supporting Institution

This study was not supported by any institution or organization.

Ethical Statement

Ethics Committee Approval: This study is based solely on the analysis of publicly available secondary bibliographic data (Web of Science Core Collection) and does not involve human participants; therefore, it does not require ethics committee approval.

Thanks

Funding and Acknowledgment Statement: This study was not supported by any institution or organization. The authors would like to express their gratitude to [ANONYMIZED] for their contributions to the conceptual framework and content of the study.

Turizm Diplomasisi, Yumuşak Güç ve Ulus Markalama: Web of Science Verilerine Dayalı Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz (1995–2026)

Abstract

Bu çalışma, turizm diplomasisi, yumuşak güç ve ulus markalama kesişimindeki uluslararası akademik üretimin entelektüel haritasını çıkararak alanın teorik yoğunlaşmalarını, metodolojik eğilimlerini ve kavramsal kör noktalarını nicel düzeyde ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda Web of Science Core Collection veri tabanından 1995–2026 dönemini kapsayan 482 makale, PRISMA 2020 akış modeline uygun biçimde tanımlama, tarama, uygunluk ve dahil etme aşamaları izlenerek sistematik olarak derlenmiştir. Performans analizi (yayın, atıf, dergi, ülke ve yazar göstergeleri) ile anahtar kelime eş-oluşum ve ortak atıf (co-citation) analizleri VOSviewer 1.6.20 yazılımı aracılığıyla birlikte uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, alanın üç belirgin evreye ayrıldığını göstermektedir: kuruluş (1995–2010, 40 makale), büyüme (2011–2017, 143 makale) ve olgunlaşma (2018–2026, 299 makale; 2026 yılı yalnızca Ocak–Nisan dönemini kapsamaktadır). Toplam atıf sayısı 4.815, makale-başı ortalama atıf 10,0 ve h-değeri 31 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Anahtar kelime eş-oluşum analizi 44 terim ve 8 kümeyi ortaya koymuş; tourism (81), nation branding (78) ve soft power (62) en yoğun kavramlar olarak öne çıkmıştır. Söylem (4) ve hegemonya (2) kavramlarının eş-oluşum yoğunluğu kritik biçimde düşüktür. Ortak atıf analizi, yumuşak güç ve rekabet kimliği eksenli tekçil bir entelektüel çekirdek tespit etmekte; eleştirel söylem analizi ve hegemonya kuramı kaynaklı yaklaşımların alanda neredeyse hiç temsil edilmediği görülmektedir. Bu analitik kör nokta, söylemsel gerilim potansiyeli yüksek ülke örneklerinin (Türkiye gibi) eleştirel biçimde incelenmesini güçleştirmektedir. Çalışma, alan için eleştirel söylem odaklı bir gelecek araştırma gündemi önermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Turizm diplomasisi, yumuşak güç, ulus markalama, kamu diplomasisi, bibliyometrik analiz, VOSviewer, Web of Science, Türkiye.

Keywords

• Turizm Diplomasisi
• Yumuşak Güç
• Ulus Markalama
• Kamu Diplomasisi
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• VOSwiever
• Web of Science
• Türkiye

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluş tarafından desteklenmemiştir

Ethical Statement

Etik Kurul Onayı: Bu çalışma yalnızca kamuya açık ikincil bibliyografik veriler (WoS Core Collection) üzerinde yapılan analiz niteliğinde olup insan katılımcı içermediğinden etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir.

Thanks

Destek ve Teşekkür Beyanı: Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluş tarafından desteklenmemiştir. Yazarlar, çalışmanın kavramsal çerçevesine ve içeriğine katkı sağlayan [ANONİMLEŞTİRİLMİŞTİR] teşekkür eder.

References

1. Anaz, N. (2016). Geography of Turkish soap operas: Tourism, soft power, and alternative narratives. In C. Tisdell (Ed.), Handbook of tourism economics (pp. 243–257). World Scientific.
2. Anaz, N. (2022). An assessment of Turkey’s soft power resources in Asia: Potential and limitations. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 24(5), 755–771.
3. Anholt, S. (2005). Nation Brands Index: How the world sees the world. Place Branding, 1(3), 333–337.
4. Anholt, S. (2006). Why brand? Some practical considerations for nation branding. Place Branding, 2(2), 97–107.
5. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Anholt, S. (2008). Place branding: Is it marketing, or isn't it? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 1–6.
7. Anholt, S. (2010). Places: Identity, image and reputation. Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Aria, M. ve Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

9. Aronczyk, M. (2013). Branding the nation: The global business of national identity. Oxford University Press.
10. Avraham, E. (2020). Nation branding and marketing strategies for combatting tourism crises and stereotypes toward destinations. Journal of Business Research, 116, 711–720.
11. Baloglu, S. ve McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897.
12. Bilgin, M. H., Demir, E., ve Lau, C. K. M. (2016). The impact of Turkish TV series on Turkey's image: Evidence from Eastern Europe. Procedia Economics and Finance, 38, 258–265.
13. Bjola, C. ve Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge.
14. Carbone, F. (2017). International tourism and cultural diplomacy: A new conceptual approach towards global mutual understanding. Tourism, 65(2), 234–244.
15. Ceylan, D. (2020). Cross-nationality importance performance analysis of Middle East all-inclusive meeting: Turkey perception. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100744.
16. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54.
17. Cull, N. J. (2019). Public diplomacy: Foundations for global engagement in the digital age. Polity Press.
18. D'Amore, L. J. (1988). Tourism: The world's peace industry. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 35–40.
19. De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., ve Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149–173.
20. Demir, M., ve Alper, P. (2021). G20 summit menus as a means of gastrodiplomacy: Messages to the world via menus. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 25, 100368.
21. Dinnie, K. (2008). Nation branding: Concepts, issues, practice. Butterworth-Heinemann.
22. Dinnie, K. (2010). Nation branding and integrated marketing communications: An ASEAN perspective. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 388–403.
23. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., ve Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
24. Echtner, C. M. ve Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2–12.
25. Echtner, C. M. ve Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The context of Third World tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 660–682.
26. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
27. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
28. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
29. Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(2), 97–103.
30. Fetscherin, M. (2010). The determinants and measurement of a country brand: The country brand strength index. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 466–479.
31. Gertner, D. (2011). A (tentative) meta-analysis of the 'place marketing' and 'place branding' literature. Journal of Brand Management, 19(3), 236–255.
32. Graan, A. (2013). Counterfeiting the nation? Skopje 2014 and the politics of nation branding in Macedonia. Cultural Anthropology, 28(1), 161–179.
33. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare ve G. N. Smith, Çev. ve Ed.). International Publishers.
34. Grix, J. ve Houlihan, B. (2014). Sports mega-events as part of a nation's soft power strategy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(4), 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12017
35. Gudjonsson, H. (2005). Nation branding. Place Branding, 1(3), 283–298.
36. Gündüz, M. (2024). Gastrodiplomatic practices of Türkiye: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 12(1), 345–365.
37. Hall, C. M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Pearson.
38. Hao, A. W. (2021). The evolution of nation branding research: A bibliometric analysis. International Marketing Review, 38(1), 46–69.
39. Hunter, W. C. (2016). The social construction of tourism online destination image. Tourism Management, 54, 221–229.
40. Jovicic, D. (2016). Cultural tourism in the context of relations between mass and alternative tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(6), 605–612.
41. Kaneva, N. (2011). Nation branding: Toward an agenda for critical research. International Journal of Communication, 5, 117–141.
42. Kavaratzis, M. (2004). From city marketing to city branding: Towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding, 1(1), 58–73.
43. Kelkitli, F. A. (2024). Battling for hearts and minds: Sources of Turkish, Iranian, and Saudi soft power. Digest of Middle East Studies, 33(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/dome.12328
44. Kerrigan, F., Shivanandan, J., ve Hede, A. M. (2012). Nation branding: A critical appraisal of Incredible India. Journal of Macromarketing, 32(3), 319–327.
45. Kim, S. S., Timothy, D. J., ve Han, H. C. (2007). Tourism and political ideologies: A case of tourism in North Korea. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1031–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.005
46. Kıran, Y. S., ve Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2021). New tools of soft power: Turkey’s education and science diplomacy. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(4), 977–985. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2021072717
47. Knott, B., Fyall, A., ve Jones, I. (2015). The nation branding opportunities provided by a sport mega-event: South Africa and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(1), 46–56.
48. Köseoğlu, M. A., Rahimi, R., Okumus, F., ve Liu, J. (2016). Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 180–198.
49. Laclau, E. ve Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
50. Manfredi-Sánchez, J. L. (2019). Nation branding and public diplomacy challenges in Spain. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 15(2), 110–120.
51. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
52. Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Mongeon, P. ve Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.
55. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., ve Pride, R. (Eds.). (2011). Destination brands: Managing place reputation (3rd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
56. Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books.
57. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
58. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109.
59. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.
60. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D. vd. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
61. Pamment, J. (2013). New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice. Routledge.
62. Pamment, J. (2014). Articulating influence: Toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 50–59.
63. Pike, S. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity for Australia as a long-haul tourism destination. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 434–449.
64. Pratt, S. (2016). Does tourism really lead to peace? A global view. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1), 69–77.
65. Pretes, M. (2003). Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 125–142.
66. Pritchard, A. ve Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales? Tourism Management, 22(2), 167–179.
67. Quelch, J. ve Jocz, K. (2005). Positioning the nation-state. Place Branding, 1(3), 229–237.
68. Reyaz, M. (2023). Turkey's soft power in South Asia: Case study of television drama series. Contemporary South Asia, 31(2), 210–228.
69. Ruel, H. (2022). Public diplomacy at the nation-brand level: A research agenda. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 18(1), 74–86.
70. Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., ve Tavano Blessi, G. (2018). From culture 1.0 to culture 3.0: Three socio-technical regimes of social and economic value creation. Sustainability, 10(11), 3923.
71. Sevin, E. (2022). Place branding beyond cities: Public diplomacy at the national level. Journal of Place Management and Development, 15(2), 194–207.
72. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
73. Suntikul, W. (2019). Gastrodiplomacy in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(9), 1076–1094.
74. Szondi, G. (2007). The role and challenges of country branding in transition countries: The Central and Eastern European experience. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(1), 8–20.
75. Tse, T. S. M. (2013). Chinese outbound tourism as a form of diplomacy. Tourism Planning & Development, 10(2), 149–158.
76. UNWTO. (2020). World tourism barometer: Impact assessment of the COVID-19 outbreak on international tourism. World Tourism Organization.
77. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. Sage.
78. Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze (2nd ed.). Sage.
79. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
80. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
81. van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
82. van Eck, N. J. ve Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
83. Visser, M., van Eck, N. J., ve Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41.
84. Volcic, Z. ve Andrejevic, M. (2011). Nation branding in the era of commercial nationalism. International Journal of Communication, 5, 598–618.
85. Walker, C. ve Ludwig, J. (2017). The meaning of sharp power: How authoritarian states project influence. Foreign Affairs, 16, 1–8.
86. Wang, J. (2006). Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 91–96.
87. Wodak, R. ve Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage.
88. Yang, I. C. M. (2020). The symbolism of international tourism in national identity. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 103034.
89. Zaharna, R. S. (2019). Communication logics of global public diplomacy. In P. Surowiec ve I. Manor (Eds.), Public diplomacy and the politics of uncertainty (pp. 97–118). Palgrave Macmillan.
90. Zhu, J. S. (2022). Chinese tourism diplomacy: A Chinese-style modernity. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 33(3), 352–362.
91. Zupic, I. ve Çater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629