Strategic Communication and the Marketization of Educational Exchange

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 31 - 44, 19.06.2015

Hamilton Bean

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.167336

Cited By: 3

Öz

Strategic Communication and the Marketization of Educational Exchange

Öz

This article describes how the marketization discourse that typifies U.S. strategic communication also influences the meanings and practices of educational exchange. Through an analysis of five presentations and 34 program evaluations provided by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, this article explores the risks associated with marketization discourse for the development of mutual understanding and peace. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Educational exchange, public diplomacy, discourse, marketization, engagement

Kaynakça

• Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange. “The Impact of International Exchange Programs.” http://www.alliance-exchange.org/2014-position-papers.
• Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor, 1967.
• Botan, C., and M. Taylor. “Public relations: State of the field.” Journal of Communication 54, no. 4 (2004): 645-61.
• Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. “Assistant Secretary Evan Ryan’s Remarks at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.” http://eca.state.gov/speech/assistant-secretary-evan-ryans-remarks-fletcher-school-law-and- diplomacy#sthash.Kygm0L8T.dpuf.
• ——— . “An informal history of the Fulbright Program.” http://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history/ early-years.
• ——— . “Evaluation at ECA.” http://eca.state.gov/impact/evaluation-eca.
• ——— . “Resources and Tools.” http://eca.state.gov/impact/evaluation-eca/resources-and-tools.
• ——— . “Evaluation of the youth exchange and study program.” http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/youth-exchange- and-study-yes-full-report-aug-2009.pdf.
• Campbell, D. “International education and the impact of the ‘War on Terrorism’.” Irish Studies in International Affairs 16 (2005): 127-54.
• Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Report to the President. Washington, D.C., March 31, 2005. Accessed August 3, 2008. http://www.wmd.gov/report.
• Comor, E., and H. Bean. “America’s ‘Engagement’ Delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus.” International Communication Gazette 74 (2012): 203-20.
• Corman, S. R., A. Trethewey, and H. L. Goodall, eds. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Strategic communication to combat violent extremism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008.
• Defense Science Board. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 2004.
• Grant, D., C. Hardy, C. Oswick, and L. Putnam, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage, 2004.
• Grunig, J. E., and T. Hunt. Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1984.
• Gygax, J., and N. Snow. “9/11 and the Advent of Total Diplomacy: Strategic communication as a primary weapon of war.” Journal of 9/11 Studies 38 (2013): 1-29.
• Hardy, C. “Scaling Up and Bearing Down in Discourse Analysis: Questions regarding textual agencies and their context.” Organization 11 (2004): 415-25.
• Hardy, C., I. Palmer, and N. Phillips. “Discourse as a Strategic Resource.” Human Relations 53 (2000): 1227-248.
• Hayden, C. The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public diplomacy in global contexts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012.
• Jensen, J. Ethical Issues in the Communication Process. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
• John Browns Note’s and Essays. “Engaging” seems to have disappeared from one of the State Department’s definitions of public diplomacy.” December 21, 2013. http://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com.tr/2013/12/engaging- seems-to-have-disappeared-from.html.
• Kent, M. L., and M. Taylor. “Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 28 (2002): 21-37.
• Leitch, S., and S. Davenport. “The Politics of Discourse: Marketization of the New Zealand science and innovation system.” Human Relations 58 (2005): 891-912.
• Marcus, A. I. “‘Would you like fries with that, Sir?’ The evolution of management theories and the rise and fall of total quality management within the American federal government.” Management & Organizational History 3 (2008): 311-38.
• McKie, D., and D. Munshi. Reconfiguring Public Relations: Ecology, equity, and enterprise. London: Routledge, 2007.
• Moloney, K. Rethinking Public Relations. New York: Routledge, 2006.
• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. “Final Report.” Accessed August 4, 2008. http:// www.9-11commission.gov/.
• Newman, R. P. “Communication Pathologies of Intelligence Systems.” Speech Monographs 42 (1975): 271-90.
• Phillips, N., and C. Hardy. Discourse Analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
• Simpson, M., and G. Cheney. “Marketization, Participation and Communication within New Zealand Retirement Villages: A critical-rhetorical and discursive analysis.” Discourse and Communication 1 (2007): 191-222.
• Suddaby, R., and R. Greenwood. “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy.” Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (2005): 35-67. Temple-Raston, D. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s isolated U.S. college days.” NPR News, November 18, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120516152.
• The White House. National Framework for Strategic Communication. Washington D.C., 2009. www.fas.org/man/ eprint/pubdip.pdf.
• United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. “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.
• U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Alumni Outreach Plans: Defining Outcomes and Goals. December 2009. http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/defining_outcomes_goals_dec2009.pdf.
• ——— . Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Public Diplomacy Assessment: ECA Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement. April 2010. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/eca_evaluation_ assessing-public-diplomacy_apr2010.pdf.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key issues for congressional oversight. GAO-09- 679SP. Washington, DC, 2009. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09679sp.pdf.