Public diplomacy: a problem of interpretation and operationalisation of the concept

Amid the backdrop of geopolitical tensions between Russia and the United States, the role of public diplomacy in maintaining foreign policy contacts between the countries are increasing. This type of diplomatic practice allows a state to convey its position straight to foreign society, as well as to form a positive image and build a long-term communication, often bypassing the obstacles of the local government. The article analyses the main approaches of modern researchers to defining the concept of public diplomacy and classifying the systems of its specific dimensions. Even though in the second half of the twentieth century public diplomacy was considered by American experts to be a tool of information confrontation in the Cold War, the concept has undergone significant changes since the collapse of the bipolar system and continues to transform in response to new threats and challenges. Specific examples show the difference in approaches to the definitions of the actors of this process and the main directions of their activities. In search of an answer to the question «In what way is American public diplomacy more effective than Russian public diplomacy in post-Soviet countries?» the author makes an attempt to develop criteria for comparative analysis of this foreign policy instrument. Basing on existing theories, as well as information from the annual reports of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Rossotrudnichestvo and media group «Rossiya Segodnya» reports for 2014–2022, the author proposes a quantification of evaluation indicators and empirical operationalization of the phenomenon. The article is methodological in nature and represents a design for future comparative study of public diplomacy of Russia and the United States in the post-Soviet space.

1. Anholt S. Public diplomacy and place branding: where's the link? Place branding. 2006, N 2, P. 271–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000040

2. Artamonova U.Z. Fronts and forms of public diplomacy. Analysis and forecasting. IMEMO Journal. 2021, N 2, P. 49–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2021-2-49-56 (In Russ.)

3. Bakhriev B.Kh. Public diplomacy in contemporary research discourse. Bulletin of the Tajik State University of law, business and politics. Series of social science. 2017, N 1, P. 131–147. (In Russ.)

4. Cowan G., Arsenault A. Public diplomacy moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: the three layers of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 10–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311863

5. Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: taxonomies and histories. The annals of the American Academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 31–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952

6. Cull N.J. Public Diplomacy before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009 a, P. 3–23.

7. Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: lessons from the past. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2009 b, 62 p.

8. Cull N.J. From soft power to reputational security: rethinking public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy for a dangerous age. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022, N 18, P. 18–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00236-0

9. Dolinskii A.V. Evolution of public diplomacy theoretical grounds. MGIMO review of international relations. 2011, N 2, P. 275–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2011-2-17-275-280 (In Russ.)

10. Easton D. An approach to the analysis of political system. World politics. 1957, N 9, P. 383–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920

11. Gilboa E. Diplomacy in the media age: three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy and statecraft. 2001, Vol. 12, N 2, P. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406201

12. Gilboa E. Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 55–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142

13. Kelley J.R. Between «take-offs» and «crash landings»: situational aspects of public diplomacy. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 72–85.

14. Lebedeva M.M. (ed.). Public diplomacy: theory and practice: scientific publication. Moscow: AspektPress, 2017, 272 p. (In Russ.)

15. Lebedeva M.M. Conceptual transformations of public diplomacy. MGIMO review of international relations. 2020, N 13 (5), P. 293–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-5-74-293-306 (In Russ.)

16. Leonard M., Stead C., Smewing C. Public diplomacy. London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002, 183 p.

17. Mazumdar B.T. Digital diplomacy: Internet-based public diplomacy activities or novel forms of public engagement? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2021, P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00208-4

18. Melissen J. The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. In Melissen J. (ed.) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, P. 3–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1

19. Nye J. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004, 191 p.

20. Nye J. Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 94–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620731169

21. Ohnesorge H.W. The method of comparative-historical analysis: a tailor-made approach to public diplomacy research. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022, N 18, P. 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00227-1

22. Pamment J. Articulating influence: toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public relations review. 2014, Vol. 40, N 1, P. 50–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019

23. Radikov I.V., Leksyutina Ya.V. «Soft power» as contemporary attribute of great power. World economy and international relations. 2012, N 2, P. 19–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2012-2-19-26 (In Russ.)

24. Ruffini P.B. Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: a critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2020, Vol. 7, N 124, P. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00609-5

25. Signitzer B., Coombs T. Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual convergences. Public relations review. 1992, Vol. 18, N 2, P. 137–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(92)90005-J

26. Sutyrin V.V. Beyond «soft power»: humanitarian influence and cooperation in foreign policy. International affairs. 2020, N 9, P. 44–57. (In Russ.)

27. Tsvetkova N.A., Yarygin G.O. Public diplomacy of leading states: traditional and digital methods. Sankt-Petersburg: Severnaya Niva, 2014, 234 p. (In Russ.)

28. Tuch H.N. Communicating with the world. U.S. Public diplomacy overseas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990, 224 p.

29. Zaharna R. Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: information and relational communication frameworks. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 86–100.

30. Zaharna R. Network purpose, network design: dimensions of network and collaborative public diplomacy. In: Zaharna R., Arsenault A., Fisher A. (eds). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mindshift. New York: Routledge, 2013, P. 173–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082430