cc public diplomacy 2020 · 2021. 1. 18. · diplomacy and global governance from a western and...

Dr Caterina Carta – POL416 – Public Diplomacy – Syllabus 1

MA Programme in Diplomacy and Global Governance

Course Syllabus

POL416 – Public Diplomacy

Number of ECTS credits: 6

Time and Place: Canvas, Tuesdays 11-13

Contact Details for Professor

Name of Professor: Caterina Carta

E-mail: [email protected]

Office hours: Tuesdays 2-4 pm or under appointment

CONTENT OVERVIEW

Syllabus Section Course Prerequisites and Course Description Course Learning Objectives Overview Table: Link between MLO, CLO, Teaching Methods, Assignments and Feedback Structure of the course Main Course Material Workload Calculation for this Course Course Schedule – Overview Table Detailed Session-by-Session Description of Course Course Assessment: Assignments Overview and Grading Scale Description of Assignments, Activities and Deadlines Rubrics: Transparent Criteria for Assessment Policies for Attendance, Later Work, Academic Honesty, Turnitin Further academic resources

Course Prerequisites None


Course description

This course offers a broad overview of the field of political communication and public diplomacy. It will connect public diplomacy to the study of power, influence and strategy in international and global politics. During the course we will discuss and apply theories regarding 1) the making of international communication strategies (priming, framing, agenda setting; impression management); 2) the changing relationship between media and politics (journalistic role perceptions); and 3) diplomacy and soft power; 4) the role and major dimensions of Public diplomacy (e.g. cultural diplomacy, advocacy; exchange diplomacy; international broadcasting).

Course Learning Objectives (CLO)

The course familiarizes students with the core concepts involved in the study of public diplomacy.

Specific Objectives

1. Familiarize students with the core conceptual and theoretical tenets that underpin the study of public diplomacy; 2. To learn the motivations, strategies and methods of key international groups and individuals, as well as the responses developed by state agencies. 3. Acquire a general understanding of the interdisciplinary of the field and the ability to define core concepts used in political communication and public diplomacy; 4. Acquire the ability to apply theories of public diplomacy to specific real-life examples. 5. Learn how to formulate, present and defend a public diplomacy strategy and be exposed to unfamiliar perspectives. 6. Acquire/refine the ability to conduct and frame a paper drawing on theoretical and empirical data. 7. Acquire/refine the ability to present research findings in oral and written form. 8. Ability to recognize, accept and respect a variety of different perspectives

LINK BETWEEN PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES, COURSE OBJECTIVES, TEACHING METHODS, ASSIGNMENTS AND FEEDBACK

Summary: Number of assignments used in this course: 3 Number of Feedback occasions in this course (either written or oral): 3+ Number and Types of Teaching Methods: Lectures, seminars, discussions, exercises, final simulation


Programme Learning Objectives

Course Learning objectives addressing the Programme Objectives (testable learning objectives)

Methods used to Teach Course Objectives and numbers/types of assignments) used to test these learning objectives

A1. Knowledge of major theories and core concepts of international relations (IR) and diplomacy and global governance from a Western and global perspective

Familiarize students with the core conceptual and theoretical tenets that underpin the study of public diplomacy;

Final paper, written speech, simulation Feedback to the presentation Written feedback to the essay and speech; Informal feedback throughout the course during the seminar

A2. Knowledge of the historical evolution of the concepts and practice of Diplomacy and Global Governance and their relationship to major processes, developments and dynamics related to the emergence of core global policy challenges

Learn the historical and contextual evolutions of the study and practice of public diplomacy

Final paper, seminar sessions, simulation Feedback to the presentation Written feedback to the essay and speech;

Informal feedback throughout the course during the seminar

A3. Knowledge of core actors, organizations and players at the national, regional and global level – both in the state- and non-state actor realm

To learn the motivations, strategies and methods of key international groups and individuals, as well as the responses developed by state agencies.

Final paper, seminar sessions, simulation Feedback to the presentation Written feedback to the essay and speech; Informal feedback throughout the course during the seminar

B1. Ability to apply interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding to concrete ‘real-life’ issues and challenges in the areas of diplomacy and global governance

Acquire a general understanding of the interdisciplinary of the field and the ability to define core concepts used in political communication and public diplomacy

Final paper, seminar sessions, simulation Feedback to the presentation Written feedback to the paper and speech;

Informal feedback throughout the course during the seminar

B2. Ability to confidently develop and apply ideas and arguments emanating from theory, concepts and paradigms in the formulation of academic and/or policy-relevant analyses

Acquire the ability to apply theories of public diplomacy to specific real-life examples.

Final paper on the national public diplomacy strategy; speech, simulation Written feedback to the paper and speech; Informal feedback throughout the course during the seminar


Programme Learning Objectives

Course Learning objectives addressing the Programme Objectives (testable learning objectives)

Methods used to Teach Course Objectives and numbers/types of assignments) used to test these learning objectives

B3. Ability to demonstrate and apply professional skills through simulations professional workshops, internships or the Capstone Practicum Course

Learn how to formulate, present and defend a public diplomacy strategy and To be exposed to unfamiliar perspectives.

Final paper on the national public diplomacy strategy; speech, simulation Written feedback to the paper and speech

D1. Ability to communicate arguments, recommendations and research results in a convincing, precise, effective manner in written form

Develop the ability to conduct and frame a paper drawing on theoretical and empirical data.

Develop the ability to present research findings in written form.

Final paper on the national public diplomacy strategy

Speech writing Written feedback to the paper and speech

D2. Ability to communicate arguments, recommendations and research results in convincing, precise, effective manner through the spoken word

Develop the ability to present research findings in oral form.

Speech writing; performance in the simulation Written feedback to the speech and performance in the simulation

F2. Intercultural awareness and sensitivity to different cultures, backgrounds and perspectives

Ability to recognize, accept and respect a variety of different perspectives

Final Simulation Written feedback to the speech and performance in the simulation


Structure of the course

The course is structured into two main parts:

1. Links to power and insights from International Communication and IR theories; and

2. Components of Public Diplomacy;

The class is based on both lectures and seminars. The lectures introduce the topic of the day. The seminars offer the possibility of familiarizing in a dynamic way with the main concepts, theories and issues learnt throughout the course. Reading in advance and getting prepared for both lectures and seminars is, therefore, a fundamental requirement of the course. Please, note unannounced that reading texts will regularly take place.

The seminars will mainly pursue a double-edged role:

1. They will allow students to lead a seminar based on the seminar readings; 2. They will give students the possibility of working on and discussing the state of

the art of their national case studies (see below for further instructions).

Main Course Materials (please note that you can find the readings for each week and session in the Course Schedule section below):

The course material consists of powerpoint presentations, lecture notes, readings from the textbook and academic articles. Powerpoint presentations will be made available after the respective classes have taken place. A week-by-week overview of the course readings can be found in the section below.

The syllabus, powerpoint presentations and important messages will be uploaded to the Vesalius portal ‘Canvas’. Students are expected to visit this site regularly to keep abreast of course evolutions. The professor is expected to upload relevant material in a timely manner.

Course material marked as ‘suggested readings’ and ‘additional sources’ is helpful for research and to gain an increased understanding but is not mandatory. This material can be found online or will be made available upon individual request.

Textbooks

Nicholas Cull (2019) Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity).

Recommended References books:


Welsh, J and Fearn, D (2008, eds) Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World (London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office), https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u26739/Engagement_FCO.pdf

Smith, RF (2011) The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats (Washington DC: Potomac Books).

Rana, Kishan S (2011) 21st Century Diplomacy (London: Continuum).

Bjola, C and Holmes, M. (2015, eds) Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge).

Active Learning and Intensive ‘Reading around the Subject’: Additional Sources, Recommended Journals and Websites:

Learning should be an active and self-motivated experience. Students who passively listen to lectures, copy someone else’s notes, and limit their readings to required chapters are unlikely to develop their critical thinking and expand their personal knowledge system. At the exam, these students often fail to demonstrate a critical approach. Students are strongly recommended to have an updated understanding of developments related to this course and related to their wider Major. Active and engaged learning will turn out to be enriching to the overall course and class discussions. Students are invited to deepen their understanding of both theoretical and current issues from a variety of sources. Please find a list of suggestions compassing the entire course below. You are encouraged to read and browse in the leading journals of your discipline.

Leading Journals in IR and Public Diplomacy Studies Foreign Policy Analysis; Foreign Policy; International Affairs; Annual Review of Political Science; International Interaction; International Security; European Journal of International Relations; International Organization; Review of International Studies; Cooperation and Conflict; Security Dialogue; International Relations of the Asia Pacific; International Studies Quarterly; International Studies Review; Global Governance; Security Studies; Journal of Common Market Studies; World Politics; Contemporary Security Policies; Asian Security; European Security; World Politics; Millennium: Journal of International Studies; Journal of Peace Research; Review of International Political Economy; Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Survival, Foreign Affairs, Journal of Communication, Gazzette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, Journal of Public Relations Research, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy


Useful Resources and Website

The United Nations Foundation suggests a list of five online resources to get acquainted with Public Diplomacy (https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/5-resources-for-public-diplomacy-professionals/):

1. USC Center on Public Diplomacy – a partnership between the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism and the USC School of International Relations - https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org

2. Public Diplomacy Council – http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org – a nonprofit organization based in Washington DC

3. Shorenstein Center at Harvard Kennedy School – https://shorensteincenter.org – among other resources, produces a weekly “Media and Politics must read” list.

4. John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press & Blog Review – http://publicdiplomacypressandblogreview.blogspot.com

5. Diplomatic Courier – https://www.diplomaticourier.com

In addition to this, you may want to check out: GW’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, Robin Brown’s Network and Influence Blog, Winnowing Fan website, Marc Lynch’s Foreign Policy blog, Craig Hayden’s Intermap blog, Steve Corman’s Consortium for Strategic Communication, The US Department of State’s Discover Diplomacy website, publicdiplomacy.wikia.com, the Public Diplomacy reading list at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations’ Clingendael, Nick Cull and Ali Fisher’s The Playbook: Case Studies of Engagement, and the Public Diplomacy Council’s Academic Study website, Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Reading List.

Work Load Calculation for this Course:

This course counts for 6 ECTS, which translates into 150 – 180 hours for the entire semester for this course. This means that you are expected to spend roughly 10 hours per week on this course. This includes 2 hours of lectures or seminars per week and 7 hours ‘out of class’ time spent on preparatory readings, studying time for exams as well as time spent on preparing your assignments. Please see below the estimated breakdown of your work-load for this course.


Activity Hours Class & meetings (2 hours per week for 13 weeks 26 Course reading (460 pages, 10 pages / hr) 46 Assignment 1: National Public Diplomatic Strategy 60 Assignment 2: Written Speech and preparation for the delivery 20 Studying and preparing for the seminars 10 Total 162


Course Schedule

W1 9/02 Intro to the course – Diplomacy, Old and New – Definitions, perspectives, actors and challenges: Still a world of states?

Part 1 – Theoretical toolkit – Links to power; insights from Political Communication and IRTs

W2 16/02 Soft Power, grand strategy and public diplomacy – the power of words and the word of power

W3 23/02 The new communication ecology: the rise of digital diplomacy

W4 2/03 Strategising Public Diplomacy

W5 9/03 Political Rhetoric for effective speech writing and delivery

Part 2 – Components of Public Diplomacy

W6 16/03 Public Diplomacy (or Propaganda?)

W7 23/03 Listening (or intelligence gathering?)

W 8 30/03 Advocacy and Public Diplomacy

W 9 20/04 Nation Branding

W10 27/04 Cultural Diplomacy

W11 4/05 Broadcasting and social media: different channels same effectiveness? (paper due!)

W12 11/05 Trade diplomacy (Guest lecture Dr Sven Van Kerckhoven)

W13 18/05 Reading week (speech due!)

W 14 25/05 Ambassadors for one day

W15 5/06 Ambassadors for one day (if needed)


Detailed Course Schedule

W1 – Intro to the course – Diplomacy, Old and New – Definitions, perspectives, actors and challenges: Still a world of states?

Readings:

Cull, N (2019) “Diplomacy through foreign engagement: Core Terminology and History”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 1-20.

Manulak, MW (2019) “Why and How to Succeed at Network Diplomacy” The Washington Quarterly 42(1): 171-181.

Slaughter, AM (2009) “America’s Edge: Power in the Networked Century” Foreign Affairs January/February.

Gilboa, E (2008) “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy” The Annals, 55– 77.

Recommended readings:

Cull, NJ (2019) “Conclusion: Public Diplomacy and the Crisis of Our Time”. In NJ Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp.162-171.

Melissen, J. (2005) “The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice”. In J Melissen (ed), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 3-27.

Hayden, C (2013) “Envisioning a Multidisciplinary Research Agenda for Public Diplomacy” E-International relations, January 11, 2013.

Payne, J G (2009) “Reflections on Public Diplomacy: People-to-People Communication” American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4): 579-606.

Lord, K (2005) “What Academics (Should Have to) Say about Public Diplomacy.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Political Communication Pre-Conference, Washington, D.C.

Kelley, JR (2010) “The new diplomacy: Evolution of a revolution” Diplomacy and Statecraft 21: 286-305.

Choi, KJ (2019) “Peoplomacy vs. Diplomacy: the Diplomatic Evolution”, 19 March, CPD Blog, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/peoplomacy-vs-diplomacy-diplomatic-evolution

Wheeler, NJ (2013) “Investigating diplomatic transformations” International Affairs 89(2): 477–496.

Pigman, G (2017) “Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy”. In Pauline Kerr and Geoff Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalising World (Oxford: Oxford University Press).


La Porte, T (2012) “The impact of ‘intermestic’ non-state actors on the conceptual framework of public diplomacy” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7(4): 441-458.

Cull NJ (2008) “Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories”The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616: 31.

In-class activities: Discussing activities and assigning tasks and presentations.

W2 – Soft Power, grand strategy and public diplomacy – the power of words and the word of power

Readings:

Nye, JS (2019) “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy Revised” The Hague Journal 14(1-2): 7-20.

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: 50–59.

Bially Mattern, J (2005) “Why “Soft Power” Isn’t So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics” Millennium 33 (3): 583–612.

Winkler S (2019) “Soft power is such a benign animal’: narrative power and the reification of concepts in Japan” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(4): 483-501.


Layne, C (2010) “The unbearable lightness of soft power”. In I Parmar and M Cox (eds.) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives (London: Routledge), pp. 51-82.

Scott-Smith, G (2010) “Soft Power in an Era of US Decline”. In: I Parmar and M Cox (eds) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives (London: Routledge), pp. 165-181.

Suzuki, S (2010) “The myth and reality of China’s ‘soft power’”. In: I Parmar and M Cox (eds) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives (London: Routledge), pp 199-214.

Foong Khong, Y (2019) “Power and Prestige in World Politics” International Affairs 95(1): 119-142.

deLisle J (2010), “Soft Power in a Hard Place: China, Taiwan, Cross-Strait Relations and U.S. Policy” Orbis 493-524.

Hall I (2012) “India’s New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power and the Limits of Government Action” Asian Survey 52(6): 1089–1110.


Servaes J (2012) Soft power and public diplomacy: The new frontier for public relations and international communication between the US and China” Public Relations Review 38: 643-651.

Cooper, AF (2015) “Soft Power and the Recalibration of Middle Powers: South Korea as an East Asian Leadr and Canada as the Exemplar of the Traditional Model”. In J Melissen and Sohn, Y (eds) Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia: Middle Powers in a Troubled Region (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 12-31.

Wook Lee, Y (2011) “Soft Power as Productive Power” In: S Jong Lee and J Melissen (eds) Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp 33-50.

In-class activities: Seminar session

W3 – The new communication ecology: the rise of digital diplomacy

Readings:

Xifra, J and McKie, D (2012) “From realpolitik to noopolitik: The public relations of (stateless) nations in an information age” Public Relations Review 38(5): 819-824.

Archetti, C (2012) “The Impact of New Media on Diplomatic Practice: An Evolutionary Model of Change” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 181-206.

Bjola, CC, Cassidy, J and Manor, I (2019) “Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 12(1-2): 83-101.


Pamment, J and Bjola, C (2019) “Conclusions: rethinking strategic communication in the Digital Age”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 172-181.

Drezner, DW (2019) “Technological change and international relations” International Relations 33(2): 286-303.

Holmes M (2015) “Digital Diplomacy and International Change”. In: C Bjola and M Holmes (eds) Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge), pp. 13-32.

Archetti, C (2019) “The unbearable thinness of strategic communication”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 81-96.

Lonsdale, DJ (2004) “Information Power: Strategy, Geopolitics and the Fifth Dimension”. In: DJ Lonsdale The Nature oof War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Futture (New York: Frank Cass), 111-146.


Bjola, C (2019) “Propaganda as Reflexive Control: The Digital Dimension”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 11-27.


W4 – Strategising Public Diplomacy

Readings:

Mor, B D (2006) “Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy” Foreign Policy Analysis 2: 157-176.

Australian Government (2014) Public Diplomacy Strategy 2014-2016, available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/public-diplomacy/Pages/public-diplomacy-strategy 1

Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia (2019) Strategic Plan of the Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, 2019-2022, available at: https://diplocat.cat/media/upload/arxius/publicacions/pla-estrategic-Diplocat_2019-2022-en.pdf

Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada (2019) “Cultural Diplomacy at the front stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy”, June 2019, Ottawa: Senate, available at: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/AEFA/Reports/Report_CulturalDiplomacy_e.pdf

Policy Coordinating Committee (2007) “US National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication”, available at: https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/87427.pdf

European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2016) Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations’, JOIN2016(29) final, Brussels, 8/08/ 2016, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2016%3A29%3AFIN

Further readings:

Carta C. (2019) “Introduction: Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between Domestic and International Arenas.” In C. Carta and R. Higgott (eds.) Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between the Domestic and the International (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Pacher, A (2018) “Strategic publics in public diplomacy: A typology and a heuristic device for multiple publics” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13(3): 272–296.

1 Glance at the structure and contents of these sample strategies: you do not need to read them all, as long as you understand how to structure the public diplomacy strategy of your selected state.


Otmazgin, N (2012). “Geopolitics and Soft Power: Japan’s Cultural Policy and Cultural Diplomacy in Asia”, Asia-Pacific Review 19(1) :37-71.

Choi, K-j (2019) “The Republic of Korea’s Public Diplomacy Strateegy: History and Current Status”, USC Center of Public Diplomacy, Paper 1, 2019, Los Angeles: Figeroa Press, available at: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/The%20Republic%20of%20Korea%27s%20Public%20Diplomacy%20Strategy%20Web%20Ready_1.27.19.pdf

Krause, Peter and Stephen Van Evera. "Public Diplomacy: Ideas for the War of Ideas." Middle East Policy Archives (Fall 2009) 16.3, available at: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/71646/VanEvera_Public%20Diplomacy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Carta C and Badillo A. (2019) “National ways to Cultural Diplomacy in Europe.” In C. Carta and R. Higgott (eds.) Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between the Domestic and the International (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Carta C. (2019) ‘The EU international cultural strategy.’ In: M Bevir and R Phillips (eds.) Decentering European Governance (London: Routledge), pp. 44-59.

W5 – Political Rhetoric for effective speech writing and delivery

Readings:

Einhorn, LJ (1988) “The ghosts talk: Personal interviews with three former speechwriters” Communication Quarterly 36(2): 94-108.

“The Making of the Speech” DT Max, New York Times Magazine, Oct 7, 2001.

David Kusnet (former chief speechwriter to President Bill Clinton), Ten Speechwriting tips, February, 11 2012, http://www.podesta.com/pulse/ten-speechwriting-tips

Adam Frankel, “6 Tips for Writing a Persuasive Speech (On Any Topic)”, January, 12, 2015. http://time.com/3664739/6-tips-for-writing-a-persuasive-speech-on-any-topic/

Olatunji AO (2004) “The nature of argument and informal fallacies” In (ed.) Philosophy and Logic: A Critical Introduction, pp. 64-76.

McNally, JR(1970) “Toward a Definition of Rhetoric” Philosophy & Rhetoric 3(2): 71-81.

Stephen A Lucas (2012) The art of public speaking (New York: MacGrow-Hill), 11 ed.

Arina Nikitina (2011) Successful Public Speaking (Academic Transfer).

Recommended Readings:


Aristotle’s Rhetoric Book I, Chapters 1 (rhetoric and dialectic, 2 (the functions of rhetoric and effects of persuasion), 3 (the three classes of speech, 4 (rhetoric and political counsels), and Book II, Chapters 1 (rhetorical appeals), 2, 3, 4, 5 (emotions), 22 (enthymeme), 23, 24 (Lines of proof and argument) widely available online, for instance here: http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/Aristotle-rhetoric.pdf

Kwai Hang Ng and JL KIdder (2010) “Toward a Theory of Emotive Performance: With Lessons from How Politicians do Anger” Sociological Theory, 28(2): 193-214, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01373.x?casa_token=ffM2yWRsxrgAAAAA:3DBStv_AgFWNtsn0X4j_O28YOzTTdt5QAmkYlELKm3s9KrvKsOkIsInYkF7-J3727jNIL57eUR-lHzY

Further readings:

Banks R (2011) A resource guide to public diplomacy evaluation (Los Angeles: Figueroa Press) available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/119171/15/119171.pdf

Hone, K (2017) “Diplomats as Writers – Marrying the Arts and Diplomacy”, Diplo, available at: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/diplomats-writers-–-marrying-arts-and-diplomacy

Mudric, M (2016) “Key skills for the next generation of diplomats”, Diplo, available at: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/key-skills-next-generation-diplomats

Evans, A and Steven, D (2008) “Towards a Theory of Influence for Tweny-first Century Foreign Policy: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World”. In: J Welsh and D Fearn (eds) Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World (eds), pp.44-61.

Scott, B (2011) “Skills of the Public Diplomat: Language, Narrative and Alegiance”. In: A Fischer and L Scott (eds) Trials of Engagement (Brill/Nijhoff), pp. 231-250.

Copeerland, D (2008) “No Dangling Conversation: Portrait oof the Public Diplomat”. In: J Welsh and D Fearn (eds) Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World (eds), pp.134-145.

Rough, WA (2014) “The Public Affairs Officer”, “Contacts and Personal Networking Techniques” and “Defence Department Communications Changing Role”. In: WA Rough, Front Line Public Diplomacy: How US Embassies Communicate with Foreign Public (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp 43-65, chapters 3, 4 and 11.

Rana KS (2011) “Writing Skills”. In Rana, Kishan S (2011) 21st Century Diplomacy (London: Continuum), 288-298.

Tam, L (2019) “Interpersonal approaches to relationship building: diplomat as a human agent of public diplomacy” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15(2): 134-142.

In-class activities: During this class we will apprehend and draw practical lessons on how to use effectively political rhetoric in framing arguments, writing and delivery political speeches. Use the suggested list of readings to write your speech and prepare for its delivery in the framework of our simulation.


In-class activities: Based on the toolkit studied so far: Identify the main sources of soft power of your assigned states; Review the strategies that they have elaborated so far; Find the actors that best networks to push your public diplomacy agenda.

Research speed-dating section: How do your colleagues perceive your assigned state? How do you want to frame its international image?

W6 – Public Diplomacy (or Propaganda?)

Readings:

Mikkinen S (2010) “Radio Liberty – The enemy within? The Dissemination of Western Values through US Cold War Broadcasts in Europe”. Evropa (18): 243-257.

Black, J (2001) “Semantics and ethics of propaganda” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16: 121-137.

Pollard, JA (1945) “Words are cheaper than blood” The Public Opinion Quarterly 9(3): 283-304.

Ekjier Nissen, T (2012) “Black and White and the 256 Shades of Grey in Between: Reflections on the Question of Attribution for Psychological Operations”, Royal Danish Defence College, Copenhagen


Alexandre, L (1987) “In the Service of the State: Public Diplomacy, Government Media and Ronald Reagan” Media, Culture and Society 9 (1): 29–46.

Hamelink CJ (2015) “Propaganda, Diplomacy and Espionage”. In C. J. Hamelink, Global Communication, pp. 154-166.

Rawnsley GD (2000) “Diplomats, Propaganda and the Overseas Chinese”. In GD Rawnsley Taiwan’s Informal Diplomacy and Propaganda (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp. 49-106.

Rawnsley, GD (2000) “Taiwan’s International Media Diplomacy”. In GD Rawnsley Taiwan’s Informal Diplomacy and Propaganda (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp. 106-135.

Lonsdale, DJ (2004) The Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Futture (New York: Frank Cass).

Doob, LW and Robinson ES (1935) “Psychology and Propaganda” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 179 (May): 88–95.

In-class activities: Watching documentaries:

Documentary. 1946. “A defeated People”. British documentary published by The Best Film Archives on July 24 2014, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8XG-nbM3BE


Documentary. 1945. “WW2 Training Film for US Troops Occupying Germany; Your Job in Germany, US Army documentary published by The Best Film Archives on September 2 2017, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCHeFjADTTs

W 7 – Listening (or intelligence gathering?)

Readings

Cull, N (2019) “Listening: The foundational Skill”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 21-39.

Cowan, G and Arsenault, A (2008) “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy” The Annals 616: 10 – 30.

Comor, E (2012) “American Engagement Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus” Communication Gazette 74(3): 203-220.

Hayden, C (2011) “Beyond the “Obama effect”: Refining the instruments of engagement through US public diplomacy” American Behavioral Scientist 55(6): 784-802.

Obama B (2009) Remarks by the President on a New Beginning. The White House, 4 June. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning

Recommended readings

Cortés, JJ and Jamieson, T (2020) “Incorporating research design in public diplomacy: the role of listening to foreign public” Journal of International Communication 14: 1214-1231.

Brown, K and Hensman, C (2014, eds.) Data-driven public diplomacy: Progress towards measuring the impact of public diplomacy and international broadcasting activities (Washington, DC: United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy).

Levy, JS (1994) “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield” International Organization 48(2): 279-312.

Glassman JK (2009) It’s not about us. Foreign Policy, 1 September. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/01/its-not-about-us/

Norquay G (2008) “Organizing without an organization: The Obama networking revolution” Policy Options 29(9): 58–61.


W 8 – Advocacy and Public Diplomacy

Readings

Copeland, D (2009) “Transformational public diplomacy: Rethinking advocacy for the globalisation age” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5 (February): 97–102.


Cull N (2019) “Advocacy: The Cutting Edge”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 39-59.

Marchetti, R (2018) “Italian Hybrid Diplomacy” Contemporary Italian Politics 10(2)193-207.

Bisht, M (2008) “Advocacy Groups and Multi-Stakeholder Negotiations: Redefining Frameworks of Diplomatic Practice” International Studies, 45(2): 133-153.


Davis, M (2008) “At home at the United Nations: Indigenous People and International Advocacy”. In: AF Cooper, B Hocking, and W Maley’ W (eds.) “Diplomacy and Global Governance: Worlds Apart? (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp. 211-223.

Mor, BD (2012) “Credibility Talk in Public Diplomacy” Review oof International Studies 38(2): 393-422.

Zaharna, RS, Arsenault, A and Fisher, A (2013, eds) Relational, Networked Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift (London: Routledge).

Pamment, J (2016) “Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: Aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns” New Media & Society 18(9): 2046–2062.

Rana KS (2011) “The Spoken Art of Advocacy”. In: Rana, Kishan S (2011) 21st Century Diplomacy (London: Continuum), pp. 266-284.

Malone, GD (1988) Political advocacy and cultural communication: Organizing the nation’s public diplomacy (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).

O’Brian, E (1996) “The diplomatic implications of emerging diseases”. In: KM Cahill (ed) Preventive Diplomacy (New York: Basic Books), pp. 244-268.


W9 – Nation Branding

Readings:

Cull, N (2019) “Nation Brands and Branding: The Metaphor Run Amok”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 120-141.

Anholt S (2003) “Nation branding: A continuing theme” Journal of Brand Management, 10: 59-60.

Szondi G (2008) “Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences”. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ http://kamudiplomasisi.org/pdf/nationbranding.pdf


Van Ham, P (2008) “Place Branding: The State of the Art” Annals AAPSS, 616: 126-149.


Pamment, J (2016) “Image & Identity”. In J Pamment British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp. 25-52.

Wang, J (2013) “Nation Branding as Strategic Narrative”. In: J Wang (ed) Shaping China’s Global Imagination: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 143-160.

Rana, KS (2011) “Public Diplomacy and the Country Brand”. In: Rana, Kishan S (2011) 21st Century Diplomacy (London: Continuum), 75-93.

Semedov, SA and Kurbatova, AG (2020) “Russian Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding”. In Velikaya, AE and Simons, G (2020, eds) Russia’s Public Diplomacy: Evolution and Practice (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp. 45-60.

De Kloet, J, Pak Lei Chong, G and Landsberger, S (2013) “National Image Begins at Home: Imagining the New Olympic Citizen”. In: W Wong (ed) Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 117-134.

Thussu, DK (2013) “Branding India: A Public-Private Partnership”. In: DK Thussu Communicating India’s Soft Power: From Buddha to Bollywood (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 155-182.

In-class activities: Based on the toolkit studied so far: Work on your own branding: what are the most fundamental symbols that constitute your brand? Make your reality-check: Match your symbols against perceived soft power capital – is it widely recognized? Identify the core components of your strategy: are you going to bet on culture, political issues, networks? Which tools are important?

Research speed-dating section: how do your colleagues perceive your assigned state? How do you want to frame its international image?

W10 – Cultural Diplomacy

Cull, N (2019) “Culture: The friendly persuader”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 60-80.

Ang, I, Isar, YR and Mar, P. (2015) “Cultural diplomacy: beyond the national interest?” International Journal of Cultural Policy 21(4): 365–381.

Schneider, CP (2004) “Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy that works” Cingendael WP, 94, September 2004.

Zaharna, RS (2012) “The cultural awakening in Public Diplomacy”, Paper 4, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy



Carta C and Badillo A. (2019) “National ways to Cultural Diplomacy in Europe.” In C. Carta and R. Higgott (eds.) Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: Between the Domestic and the International (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Rough, WA (2014) “American Cultural Programmes” and “Centres, Libraries and Other Activities” In: WA Rough, Front Line Public Diplomacy: How US Embassies Communicate with Foreign Public (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp 129-145, chapters 8 and 9.

Fisher, A (2013) “A Network Perspective on Public Diplomacy in Europe: EUNIC”. In: MK David Cross and J Melissen (2013, eds) European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 137-157.

Choate, MI (2007) “Sending states? Transnational interventions in politics, culture, and economics: the historical example of Italy” International Migration Review 41(3): 728–768.

Lonsdale, DJ (2004) DJ “How strategic is Information Warfare?”. In: Lonsdale The Nature oof War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future (New York: Frank Cass), pp. 147-164.

Thussu, DK (2013) “Culture as Soft Power – Bollywood and Beyond”. In: DK Thussu Communicating India’s Soft Power: From Buddha to Bollywood (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan). 127-154.

Rosendorf, NM (2009) “A Cultural Diplomatic Strategy”. In P Seib (ed) Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting US Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 173-194.


W11 – Broadcasting and social media: different channels same effectiveness?

Readings

Zaharna, RS (2007) “The Soft Power Differential: Network Communication and Mass Communication in Public Diplomacy, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (2007) 213-228.

Walker, C and Orttung, RW (2014) “Breaking the News: The Role of State-Run Media” Journal of Democracy 25(1):71-85.

Powers, S and El Gody, A (2009) “The Lessons of Al Hurra Television”. In P Seib (ed) Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting US Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 49 -66.


Cull, N (2019) “International Broadcasting: The Struggle for News”. In Nicholas Cull Public Diplomacy: Foundation for Global Engagement in the Digital Age (London: Polity), pp. 101-120.

Nelson, A (2013) “CCTV’s International Expansion: China’s Grand Strategy for Media? A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance, Center for International Media Assistance, October 22, 2013.


Zhang, X (2013) “China’s International Broadcasting: A case study of CCTV International”. In: W Wong (ed) Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 57-72.

Dodd, MD and Collins SJ (2017) “Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: An empirical analysis using Central-Eastern European and Western Embassy Twitter accounts” Public Relations Review 43 (2): 417–425.

Cull, NJ (2013) The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy, International Studies Review (2013) 15, 123–139.

El-Mawawy, M (2013) “Muslims’ Online Faith Diplomacy”. In P Seib (ed) Religion and Public Diplomacy: Global Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 113-132.

Waters, RD and Jia YJ (2011) “Short communication “Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates” Public Relations Review, 37:321–324.

Xin Zhong and Jiai Lu (2013) “Public diplomacy meets social media: A study of the U.S. Embassy’s blogs and micro-blogs” Public Relations Review 39: 542–548.

Park, J and Lim, YS (2014) “Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: a comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan” Asian Journal of Communication 24(1): 79-9.


W12 – Trade diplomacy

Readings:

Hamilton, DS (2014) “America’s Mega-Regional Trade Diplomacy: Comparing TPP and TTIP, International Spectator 49(1):

Saner, R and Yiu, L (2003) “International Economic Diplomacy: Mutations in Post-Modern Times” Clingendael, Discussion Paper 84, January 2003, The Hague, available at: http://www.diplomacydialogue.org/images/files/20030109-DP-DSP.pdf

Heijmans, MO (2011) “Conceptualizing Economic Diplomacy: The Crossroads of International Relations, Economics, IPE and Diplomatic Studies The Hague Journal


of Diplomacy 6: 7-36, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maaike-Okano-Heijmans/publication/233659639_Conceptualizing_Economic_DiplomacyThe_Crossroads_of_International_Relations_Economics_IPE_and_Diplomatic_Studies/links/5b57332d45851507a7c521de/Conceptualizing-Economic-DiplomacyThe-Crossroads-of-International-Relations-Economics-IPE-and-Diplomatic-Studies.pdf

Further readings:

Kostecki, M., & Naray, O. (2007) Commercial Diplomacy and International Business. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy No. 107. Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

Bayne, N and Woolcock, S (2016) The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations (London: Routledge), 4th edition.

Lee, D and Hocking, B (2010) “Economic Diplomacy”. In Robert A. Denemark (ed.) The International Studies Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Wiley Blackwell, pp 1216-1227.

Baldwin, D.A. (1985) Economic Statecraft. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kunz, D. (1997) Butter and Guns: America’s Cold War Economic Diplomacy. New York: Free Press.

Lee, D. (1999) Middle Powers and Commercial Diplomacy: British Influence at the Kennedy Trade Round. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.

Lee, D. (2004) The Growing Influence of Business in U.K. Diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives 5 (1), 50-54.

Jawara, F., & Kwa, A (2003) Behind the Scenes at the WTO; The Real World of International Trade Negotiations. London: Zed Books.

Davis, P.A. (1999) The Art of Economic Persuasion: Positive Incentives and German Economic Diplomacy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Heron, T. (2007) European Trade Diplomacy and the Politics of Global Development: Reflections on the EU-China ‘Bra Wars’ Dispute. Government and Opposition 42 (2), 190-214.

Hocking, B. (2004) Changing the terms of trade policy making: from the ‘club’ to the ‘multistakeholder’ model. World Trade Review 3 (1), 3-26.


Grading Scale of Vesalius College Vesalius College grading policy follows the American system of letter grades, which correspond to a point scale from 0 – 100. All assignments (including exams) must be graded on the scale of 0-100. To comply with the Flemish Educational norms, professors should on request also provide the conversion of the grade on the Flemish scale of 0-20. The conversion table below outlines the grade equivalents.

Letter grade Scale of 100

(VeCo Grading Scale)

Scale of 20

(Flemish System)

A 85-100 17.0-20.0

A- 81-84 16.1-16.9

B+ 77-80 15.3-16.0

B 73-76 14.5-15.2

B- 69-72 13.7-14.4

C+ 66-68 13.1-13.6

C 62-65 12.3-13.0

C- 58-61 11.5-12.2

D+ 54-57 10.7-11.4

D 50-53 10.0-10.6

F 0-49 0-9.9

Course Assessment: Assignments Overview

Strategy Paper 50 %

Speech writing 30 %

Delivery of the speech 20 %

Key deadlines

Strategy Paper W11

Speech writing W13

Delivery of the speech W14


Description of Activities, Grading Criteria and Deadlines

A. Policy paper – A country-specific public diplomacy strategy

You must submit your paper on Canvas by W11 (May 4). Use an informative file name (for example, “Kim POL4XXM paper”) when you upload it on Canvas and make sure that your name is on the first page as well.

Select one of these countries: 1) Australia 2) Brazil 3) Canada 4) China 5) France 6) Germany 7) India 8) Iran; 9) Israel; 10) Italy 11) Japan 12) Russian Federation 13) Spain 14) South Africa 15) South Korea 16) Taiwan; 17) United Kingdom and 18) United States.

You are required to write a 2500-3000-word paper that a) analyses the main strategies adopted by a given country and b) proposes up to five policy suggestions to advance the country’s profile by means of public diplomatic activities.

The paper will be composed by four main parts and structured as follows:

Introduction The introduction anticipates some background information of the research. It gives some information on the strategy (if any) that the selected country has adopted in order to perform effective public diplomacy activities. It identifies both merits and limits of the current attempts to set up a coherent and effective public diplomacy strategy. It relates back to the main components of public diplomacy (e.g. cultural diplomacy, broadcasting, social media, etc.) and pushes forwards an original proposal to strengthen a given country’s public diplomacy strategy. The final part of the introduction sums up the structure of the research.

Checklist: Introduce key factual information to understand your case study; Identify the puzzle of the research; Highlight the most problematic/worth-exploring aspects of your selected topic; Contextualize the topic within the academic debate; Outline briefly the structure of the paper and your main argument.

Part two – Conceptual and methodological section

Part two introduces the main conceptual and methodological foundations of the suggested analysis. It provides for relevant definitions; reviews the literature and explains the research design and main hypothesis. This section adequately justifies the relevance of the selection of this theories/concepts for the proposed analysis.

Checklist: Identify a relevant concept/theory that you will adopt in the analysis; Sum up the definition of your concept/core assumptions of the theory under enquiry and review critically the core arguments of most representative scholars; Explain how and


to what extent this concept/theory is relevant for your case study; Make sure that your selected concept/theory fits well your analysis!

Part three – Analysis of relevant trends

This part describes the main strategies that underpin the selected country’s public diplomacy strategy (or a given component of it, e.g. cultural diplomacy, broadcasting). It identifies the main steps of its evolution, the general institutional and networking structure. Based on the country’s strategy, it describes the areas that have been prioritized so far (e.g. bilateral relations; social media, cultural diplomacy, broadcasting, to quote but a few examples) and assesses the extent to which this choice has been effective and to what purposes. This part also describes the kind of image that a given country is trying to convey by means of public or cultural diplomacy. Data and sources should complement the analysis. Your core argument should be validated by evidence and supported by data and empirical findings.

Checklist: Draw on facts, empirical examples and data to analyze your topic; use and synthesize sources and references to support your key arguments; refer to your conceptual definitions/ core assumptions of your selected theory in your analysis.

Part 4 – Policy suggestions and concluding remarks

Based on the strengths and weaknesses of the country’s diplomatic strategy, this section advances up to five policy recommendations in order to strengthen a given country’s international profile. Suggestions may extend to an area in which the selected country’s investments are sub-optimal (for the sake of an example, cultural diplomacy) or absent (for the sake of an example, social media strategy). Finally, this section recaps the main foundations and findings of the analysis. It further highlights the main merits and limits of the suggested analysis and identifies avenues for further research.

Checklist: Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the selected country’s strategy. Based on the analysis of the country’s strength and weaknesses, suggests up to five policy recommendations. Critically assess the most original and relevant aspects of your analysis and identify their limits. Locate your analysis in the wider academic debate and identify avenues for further research.

B. Ambassadors for one day: speech writing and the art of persuasion

During this section you will present the main findings of your paper. The presentation will be delivered as a formal speech (5-7 minutes) and will be followed by a Q&A session (5 minutes). The speech needs to be written in advance. Submit on Canvas a 1000-1500-word speech (5-7 minutes) by W13 (May 18).


You will formally act as an ambassador/member of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of your selected country, debriefing the President/Prime Minister on the state of the public diplomacy strategy pursued by your country.

The speech will introduce some contextual information on your assigned country’s international image, it will advocate for the need of a new public diplomacy strategy and will advance your policy recommendations.

The speech consists of an act of persuasion, so make sure you will exercise your rhetorical skills at best! It is reported that Demosthenes, the great Athenian orator, would run every morning while reciting aloud the Homeric epics after having previously filled his mouth with pebbles. Obviously, you would not be expected to be as zealous as Demosthenes. Fortunately, below are a few recommendations that should help you:

• David Kusnet (former chief speechwriter to President Bill Clinton), Ten Speechwriting tips, February, 11 2012, http://www.podesta.com/pulse/ten-speechwriting-tips

• Adam Frankel, 6 Tips for Writing a Persuasive Speech (On Any Topic), January, 12, 2015. http://time.com/3664739/6-tips-for-writing-a-persuasive-speech-on-any-topic/


Grading Rubrics for Assignments

A. Grading rubric for the research paper (50% of the final grade)

Grading rubric

Fail 0-49

Low pass 57-50

Pass 68-58

Good 80-69

Excellent 81-100

Introduction The core components of the analysis are irrelevant or not well identified; the topic is not contextualized; the outline is absent or flawed.

The core components of the analysis are defined in an unclear way; the topic is not adequately contextualized; the outline is flawed

The introduction gives sufficient information on the core components of the analysis, the topic and the outline. A combination of flaws hinders the author’s argument.

Good ability to identify the core components of the analysis. Some redundancies. The outline is overall good and background information is relevant.

Excellent ability to identify the core components of the analysis; clear and concise research statement; Succinct outline of structure of the paper and main argument.

Reviewing, understanding and application of theories

No mention of concepts or theories. The literature review shows no engagement with the course material. Severe conceptual or theoretical oversimplification.

Concepts or theories are simply mentioned. The literature review shows weak engagement with the course material. Significant conceptual or theoretical oversimplification.

Sufficient engagement with conceptual or theoretical arguments; not all information provided is relevant to the analysis or the research question. The literature review shows basic critical engagement.

Overall, the literature review is well conceived. Some minor imprecision in the selection of the literature and the conceptual choice; Some flaws in the selection of the conceptual/theoretical toolkit; fairly good critical abilities.

Excellent identification of academic arguments and debates; Good ability to compare and contrast key arguments; good justification and critical assessment of theoretical frameworks

Analysis/ discussion

The analysis shows severe pitfalls; Inability to relate conceptual/theoretical frameworks to the selected case study. Information provided is insufficient; the

The analysis shows severe pitfalls; An insufficient ability to related conceptual/theoretical frameworks to the selected case. Information provided is insufficient; the

Sufficient ability to review relevant facts for the analysis. Core statements are not always supported by reference or evidence; not

Good critical analysis, supported by good information and data; some flaws in the use of data and reference in support of one’s argument; Minor flaws in the argumentative

Extensive analysis supported by updated examples and data; Use of evidence and references; The analytical part reflects a thorough engagement


analysis is severely flawed

analysis is superficial

all information is relevant. Basic critical engagement.

line and the conceptual/theoretical framework discussed in the previous section.

with the concepts/theories reviewed; Critical evaluation of core assumptions of other authors.

Policy recommendation and conclusions

The policy recommendations are inconsistent or inconsequential. The conclusions mainly repeat previous sections; no critical evaluation or reflection on main findings

The policy recommendations are barely consistent and consequential. The conclusions mostly repeat previous sections; scanty critical evaluation or reflection on main findings

The policy recommendations are not always realistic or are credible, but not sufficiently grounded in knowledge of the case. The conclusions show some attempts to critically review the main findings; basic engagement with future research avenues.

Good policy recommendations, based on a discrete understanding of the country and are sustained by an overall considerable work of research. The conclusions show a good ability to engage critically with the topic and assess the main findings. Good identification of avenues for further research.

Excellent policy recommendations, based on a deep understanding of the country’s potential and a sound means-ends calculation. Succinct summary of key findings; Critical and open-minded evaluation of core arguments and results; identification of further avenues of research.

Structure and formal aspects

Loose structure; failure to provide most relevant information. Serious mismatch between theory and analysis. Incorrect expression/referencing system; Insufficient readings (less than 5)

The structure is flawed; most relevant information is barely provided; mismatch between theoretical and analytical frameworks; the paper is hard to read; references are not listed correctly; Insufficient readings (less than 7)

Some flaws in the structure of the paper; not all information is relevant; some issues of coherence jeopardise the link between theory and analysis Some flaws in the expression and the

Overall, the paper is well-structured. Some minor flaws in the organization hinder the strength of the argument; Overall correct use of language and referencing system; adequate number of sources (less than 10

Coherent and logical structure; clear argument, linking theories and empirical examples back to answering the main research question. Correct use of language and referencing system;


referencing systems; Sufficient number of sources (at least 7).

academic articles).

Appropriate Number of Sources (more than 10)

TOTAL /40

B. Rubric for the written speech (30% of the final grade)

49-0 0-14.9

50-57 15-17.3

58-68 17.4-20,6

69-80 20,7-24

81-100 24.1-30

Projection and language

Poor, dry and incorrect language standards. The author does not manage to use the technical vocabulary of the discipline. Main flaws in the accuracy and presentation of the argument.

Barely satisfactory language standard. Barely sufficient ability to use technical vocabulary of the discipline. Relevant flaws in the development of rhetorical strategies to support his/her argument.

Satisfactory language standard. Sufficient ability to use technical vocabulary of the discipline. Some flaws in the development of rhetorical strategies to support his/her argument.

Good (or fairly good) language standards. Good ability to use the technical vocabulary of the discipline. Some minor flaws in the development of rhetorical strategies to support his/her argument.

Correct, solid and relevant use of the language. Excellent command of the technical vocabulary of the discipline; excellent use of rhetorical strategies to support his /her argument.

Organisation and structure

The argument is structured in an unsatisfactory way. Basic analytical elements remain unidentified or under-explored. Main flaws in the organization of the argument.

The argument is structured in a barely satisfactory Basic analytical elements are barely identified. Important flaws in the organization of the argument.

The argument is sufficiently structured. Basic analytical elements are sufficiently identified. Some flaws in the organization of the argument.

Overall, the argument unfolds logically and in a well-structured manner. A few minor flaws in the organization of the main arguments and / or conclusions weaken the strength of the argument.

The argument is based on a clear, logical and original approach to the theoretical and empirical components of the subject in question. The argument is structured in a solid and convincing way

Use of sources and data in support of one’s arguments

The speech provides no data in support of the argument

The speech barely provides any data to support the argument.

The speech sufficiently provides data in support of the argument

Data and sources are generally used satisfactorily. Further reflection on how to relate the evidence to the basic analytical components would have strengthened

The data and sources are convincingly and competently deployed in support of her/his statements.


the strength of the argument.

Critical ability to relate to and analyze the topic

No critical engagement and a poor understanding of the subject matter. Policy proposals are poorly designed and show insufficient engagement with key ideas, concepts and theories.

Limited critical engagement and a barely satisfactory understanding of the subject matter. Policy proposals are designed in a barely sufficient way and show a barely sufficient engagement with key ideas, concepts and theories.

Satisfactory engagement and understanding of the subject matter. Acceptable policy proposal and engagement with key ideas, concepts and theories.

Good understanding of the subject at hand and good general ability to engage in a critical dialogue with the subject. The subject could have been better developed.

Creative, original, competent. Sophisticated understanding of the subject. Excellent ability to formulate policy proposals and use ideas, concepts and theories.

Total /30 points

C. Delivery of the speech and performance in the simulation (20%)

0-49 0-9.9

50-57 10-11.4

58-68 11.5-13.6

69-80 13.7-16

81-100 16.1-20

Projection and ethical characterization

The speech is poorly executed. It is merely read. The pace, tone of the voice and/or the deliverance makes the speech extremely hard to follow. The speaker does not manage to establish his/her ethical position. The characterization of the speaker is incoherent or poorly conceived.

The speech is not well executed. It is mainly read. The pace is too slow/too fast. The tone of the voice and/or the deliverance makes the speech hard to follow. The speaker barely manages to establish his/her ethical position. The characterization of the speaker is conceived in a barely sufficient way and is often incoherent.

The speech is executed in a satisfactory manner. The tone of voice sufficiently clear and the pace is adequate. The speaker somehow establishes to establish her/his ethical position. Satisfactory characterization of the speaker.

The speech is overall well executed. The speaker mostly speaks off notes The pace is overall good and establishes a good rhythm. The tone of voice/deliverance are good and help the speaker make her/his points. The speaker manages to establish her/his ethical position to a certain extent. The attempt is made to establish a relation of trust with the audience and to connect with the audience.

The speech is executed in a professional manner. It is well delivered, in terms of tone, pace and deliverance. The discourse successfully defines the character of the speaker and conveys a trustworthy and professional image. The speech successfully challenges the audience in order to arouse their trust and "benevolence".


Deployment of rhetorical figures

The speaker does not sufficiently structure his/her intervention. Basic analytical elements remain under identified or under explored. Presence of major logical pitfalls in the organization of the argument. The speaker does not provide data in support of his/her arguments. The speaker doesn’t attempt to establish an emotional relationship with the audience or the interlocutor.

The speaker structure his/her intervention in a barely sufficient way. Basic analytical elements are ill-identified. Presence of important logical pitfalls in the organization of the argument. The speaker barely provides data in support of his/her arguments. The speaker attempts to establish an emotional relationship with the audience or the interlocutor.

The speaker does sufficiently structure his/her intervention. Basic analytical elements are adequately identified and explored. Some logical pitfalls jeopardize the organization of the argument. The speaker sufficiently provides data in support of his/her arguments. The speaker establishes an emotional relationship with the audience or the interlocutor.

Overall the speaker structures his/her interventions in a logically developed and coherent way. Some minor pitfalls weaken the strength of his/her arguments. Data and sources are overall used in a satisfactory way. A better link between proofs and analytical components would have strengthened his/her arguments. The speaker mobilizes appeals to pathos in a good way and overall respect the audience and interlocutors.

The speaker develops his/her arguments in a clear, logical and original way. Theoretical and empirical components of the argument are logically connected. The argument is solidly and convincing way. Data and sources are used in a competent way and support well the declaration. rhetorical figures and acts effectively on affectivity. The speech successfully arouses the emotions of the audience.

Ability to address questions from the ground

Dry, unfocused or insufficient answers to the questions.

Barely sufficient answers to the questions.

Adequate ability to address questions from the ground

Overall good ability to address questions. Some repetitions with the presentation.

Clear, succinct and meaningful answers to questions. The speaker takes the chance of questions to offer new insights on his/her topic.

Participation to the simulation

The speaker does not in the conference beyond his/her assigned speech.

The speaker does barely make an effort to participate in the conference beyond his/her assigned speech.

The speaker sufficiently participates to the debates. His/her interventions are occasionally imprecise and/or too long/too short, but overall satisfactory.

The speaker participates actively to the conference. His/her interventions are overall to the point. Some imprecision in time-management or some falls of style hindered the strength of his/her performance

Excellent contributions to the conference. Interventions are succinct and effective. The speaker makes the most of allocated time, respect the interlocutor

Total /20 points


Additional Course Policies

Vesalius College Attendance Policy

As the College is committed to providing students with high-quality classes and ample opportunity for teacher-student interaction, it is imperative that students regularly attend class. As such, Vesalius College has a strict attendance policy. Participation in class meetings is mandatory, except in case of a medical emergency (e.g. sickness). Students will need to provide evidence for missing class (doctor’s note). If evidence is provided, the missed class is considered as an excused class. If no evidence is provided immediately before or after the class, the missed class is counted as an absence. Participation implies that students are on time: as a general rule, the College advises that students should be punctual in this regard, but it is up to the professor to decide whether to count late arrivals as absences, or not. If a student misses two classes in a row, his/her advisor will be notified.

Late paper policy

Because all deadlines are communicated to students beforehand, and because this is a master level course, it is students’ responsibility to make sure they are able to finish the assignments on time. Therefore, assignments that are not handed in on time are subject to the following penalties. The only exception to this can be a medical issue, proven by a doctor’s note. These penalties are deducted after calculating the overall grade of the assignment.

- 1 day late (0-24 hours): 10% reduction of original grade;

- 2 days late (24-48 hours): 20% reduction of original grade;



- 5 days late (96-120 hours): 50% reduction of original grade.

- After five days, the assignment is no longer accepted, resulting in an automatic grade of F.

Academic Honesty Statement

Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course. Academic honesty is not only an ethical issue but also the foundation of scholarship. Cheating and plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) are therefore serious breaches of academic integrity.

Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in writing to the Associate Dean and submitted to the Student Conduct Committee for disciplinary action.


If you refer to someone else’s work, appropriate references and citations must be provided. Grammar, spelling and punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to correct before handing in assignments.

Please consult the Section “Avoiding Plagiarism” in the College Catalogue for further guidance.

Turnitin

All written assignments that graded and count for more than 10% towards the final course grade need to be submitted via the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin. You will receive from your professor a unique password and access code for your Class.

Further academic Resources

Alexander, CR (2014) China and Taiwan in Central America: Engaging Foreign Publics iN Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Amiri, S and Sevin E (2020, eds) City Diplomacy: Current Trend, and Future Prospects (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Arndt, RD (2005) The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books).

Awan, AN, Miskimmon, A and O’Loughlin, B (2019) “The battles for the battles of the narratives: sidestepping the double fetish of digital and CVE”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 156-171.

Awan, AN, Miskimmon, A and O’Loughlin, B (2019) “The battles for the battles of the narratives: sidestepping the double fetish of digital and CVE”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 156-171.

Balmas, M and Sheafer, T (2013) “Leaders first, countries after: Mediated political personalization in the international arena” Journal of Communication 63: 454-475.

Batora, J and Hynek, N (2014) Fringe Players and the Diplomatic Order: The ‘New’ Heteronomy (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Beasley, E (2005) Empire as the Triumph of Theory: Imperialism, Information and the Colonial Society: British Foreign and Colonial Policy (London: Routledge).

Berridge, GR, Keens-Soper, M and Otte, TG (2001) Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Bjola, C and Holmes, M. (2015, eds) Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge).


Bjola, C and Murray A (2016, eds) Secret Diplomacy: Concepts, Contexts and Cases (London Routledge).

Bjola, C and Pamment, J (eds, 2019) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge).

Black, J (2010) A history of diplomacy (London: Reaktion Books).

Castells, M (2008) “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance” The Annals, 616: 78 – 93.

Castells, Ma (2000) The Rise of the Network Society (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers).

Constantinou, CM (2013) “Between statecraft and humanism: diplomacy and its forms of knowledge” International Studies Review 15(2): 141-162.

Constantinou, CM (2013) “Between statecraft and humanism: diplomacy and its forms of knowledge” International Studies Review 15(2): 141-162.

Constantinou, CM and Der Derian, J (2010) Sustainable Diplomacies (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Cooper, AF, Hocking, B and Maley’ W (2008, eds.) “Diplomacy and Global Governance: Worlds Apart? (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Cornut, J (2015) “To be a diplomat abroad: Diplomatic practice at embassies” Cooperation and Conflict 50(3): 385–401.

Cull NJ (2012) The Decline and Fall of The United State Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989-2001 (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan).

Cull, NJ (2013) “The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy” International Studies Review 15: 123–139.

Cull, NJ (2013) “The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy” International Studies Review 15: 123–139.

D’Hooghe, I (2013) “The Expansion of China’s Public Diplomacy System”. In: W Wong (ed) Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 19-36.

David Cross, MK and Melissen, J (2013, eds) European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan).

Deibel, TL and Roberts, WR (1976) Culture and Information: Two Foreign Policy Functions (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications).

Edelman, Murray (1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Eicher, PD (ed) Emperor Dead: And Other Historic American Diplomatic Dispatches (Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.).


El Issawi, F and Baumann, Gerd (2010) “The BBC Arabic Service: Changing Political Mediascapes” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 3(2):137 – 151.

Elsworth, AT (2010, ed) Electronic Warfare (Nova Science Publisher).

Farwall, JP (2012) Persuasion and Power: The Art of Strategic Communication (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).

Finley-Brook, M (2014) "Climate Justice Advocacy" Public Diplomacy Magazine 12: 11-15.

Fisher, A (2013) Collaborative Public Diplomacy: How Transnational Networks Influenced American Studies in Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Fitzpatrick KP (2007) Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (2007) 187-211.

Fitzpatrick, K (2006) “The ethic of soft power: examining the moral dimension oof US public diplomacy”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, March 22.

Fitzpatrick, K and Gauthier (2001) “Towards a professional responsibility theory” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16(2-3): 193-212.

Gans, JA Jr (2019) “Who Killed Diplomacy?” Survival 61(1): 195-204.

Goff, PM (2015) “Public Diplomacy at the Global Level: The Alliance of Civilizations as a Community of Practice Cooperation and Conflict 50(3): 402-417

Golan, GJ and Yang, S-U (2013) “Diplomat in Chief? Assessing the Influence of Presidential Evaluations on Public Diplomacy Outcomes Among Foreign Public” American Behavioral Scientist 57(9) 1277-1292.

Gregory B (2005) “Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication: Cultures, Firewalls, and Imported Norms” American Political Science Association Conference on International Communication and Conflict

Gregory, B (2008) “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1): 274 – 290.

Hanegraaff, M, Vergauwen, J and Beyers, J (2019) “Should I stay or should I go? Explaining variation in nonstate actor advocacy over time in global governance” Governance 33: 287-304.

Hill, A and Alshaer, A (2010) “BBC Arabic TV:Participation and the Question of Public Diplomacy” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 3 (2010) 152–170.

Huijh, E (2011) “Changing tunes for public diplomacy: Exploring the domestic dimension” Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, 62-73.

Immerman, RH (2008) “Intelligence and Strategy: Historicizing Psychology, Policy and Politics” Diplomatic History 32(1): 1-23.

Jong Lee, S and Melissen J (2011, eds) Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).


Jönsson, C and Hall, M (2005) Essence of Diplomacy (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Kearns, A (2019) “The democratization of hybrid warfare and practical approaches to defeat violent extremism in the Digital Age”. In: Bjola and J Pamment (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Extremisms: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (London: Routledge), pp. 121-139.

Khakimova, LF (2013) “Public diplomacy at Arab embassies: Fighting an uphill battle” International Journal of Strategic Communication 7(1): 21–42.

Lord KN and Lynch M (2010) America’s Extended Hand: Assessing the Obama Administration’s Global Engagement Policy (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security).

Mahnken TG (2011) “Secrecy & Stratagem: Understanding Chinese Strategic Culture”, Lowi Institute for International Policy.

Manor, I (2019) “The Specter of Echo Chambers – Public Diplomacy in the Age of Disinformation”. In: I Manor, The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan)., pp.135-176.

Manor, I (2019) The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan).

Melissen, J and Sohn (2015, eds) Understanding Public Diplomacy in East Asia: Middle Powers in a Troubled Region (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Nelson, A (2013) “CCTV’s International Expansion: China’s Grand Strategy for Media? A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance, Center for International Media Assistance, October 22, 2013.

Nisbet, EC, Nisbet, MC, Scheufele, DA and Shanahan, JE (2004) “Public diplomacy, television news, and Muslim opinion” Press/Politics 9(2): 11-37.

Nye, JS Jr (2010) “The future of soft power in US foreign policy”. Parmar, I and Cox, M (eds, 2010) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives (London: Routledge), pp. 4-11.

Oglesby, D (2009) “Statecraft at the Crossroads: A New Diplomacy” SAIS Review 29(2): 93 –106.

Pamment, J (2012) “What Became of the New Public Diplomacy? Recent Developments in British, US and Swedish Public Diplomacy Policy and Evaluation Methods”, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (2012) 313-336.

Pamment, J (2016) “Engagement”. In J Pamment British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption (Basingstoke: MacMillan), pp95-123.

Pamment, J (2016) British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Prahalad C and Ramaswamy V (2004) “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation” Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3): 5–14.


Prahalad C and Ramaswamy V (2004) “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation” Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(3): 5–14.

Rana, Kishan S (2011) 21st Century Diplomacy (London: Continuum).

Rasmussen RK and Merkelsen H () The new PR of states: How nation branding practices affect the security function of public diplomacy Public Relations Review 38(5): 810-818.

Rawnsley, GD (1996) Radio Diplomacy and Propaganda: The BBC and VOA in International Politics, 1956-64 (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Rawnsley, GD (2000) Taiwan’s Informal Diplomacy and Propaganda (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Rawnsley, GD (2008) “China Talks Back: Public Diplomacy and Soft Power for the Chinese Century” Routledge Handbook, 282-291

Rodriguez Jiménez, FJ, Delgado Goméz-Escalonilla and Cull, NJ (2015, eds) US Diplomacy and Democratization in Spain: Selling Democracy? (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Rosendorf, NM (2013) “Spain’s First “Rebranding Effor” in the Postwar Franco Era”. In: FJ Rodriguez Jiménez, Delgado Goméz-Escalonilla and NJ Cull (2015, eds) US Diplomacy and Democratization in Spain: Selling Democracy? (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 155-190.

Rough, WA (2014) Front Line Public Diplomacy: How US Embassies Communicate with Foreign Public (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Schindler, CE (2018) The Origins of Public Diplomacy in US Statecraft: Uncovering a Forgotten Tradition (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Scott-Smith, J (2019) “Transatlantic Cultural Relations and the Role of US Cultural Diplomacy in Europe” European Foreign Affairs Review 24(2): 21-41.

Seib, P (2009, ed) Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting US Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Seib, P (2019) “The China Model of Public Diplomacy and its Future” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 12(1-2): 169-181.

Sevin, E (2017) Public Diplomacy and the Implementation of Foreign Policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Sevin, E, Kimball, S and Khalil M (2011) “Listening to President Obama: A short examination of Obama’s communication practices” American Behavioral Scientist 55(6): 803-812.

Shahira F, Wanta, W and Nisbet EC (2012) “Mediated public diplomacy: Satellite TV news in the Arab world and perception effects” The International Communication Gazette 74(8) 728–749.


Shahira F, Wanta, W and Nisbet EC (2012) “Mediated public diplomacy: Satellite TV news in the Arab world and perception effects” The International Communication Gazette 74(8) 728–749.

Sharp, P (2019) Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Brief Introduction (London: Routledge).

Shik Kim, H and Ting Lee, S (2020) “The Branding of Singapore as City of International City Dialogue” In: S Amiri and E Sevin (eds) City Diplomacy: Current Trend, and Future Prospects (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 255-278.

Simons G (2014) Russian public diplomacy in the 21st century: Structure, means and message, Public Relations Review 1-12.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2017), The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World (New Haven: Yale University Press).

Smith, Raymond F (2011) The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats (Washington DC: Potomac Books).

Snow, N (2009) Persuader-in-chief: Global opinion and public diplomacy in the age of Obama (Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble Books).

Snyder, JT (2013) “What We are Talking about when We Talk about Engagement”. In: JT Snyder The United States and the Challenge of Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 27-61.

Snyder, JT (2013) The United States and the Challenge of Public Diplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Taylor M (2008) “Toward a relational theory of public diplomacy”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th annual convention, San Diego, CA, November 20.

Teverner, A (2010) “The Military Use of Soft Power – Information Campaigns: the Challenge of Application, their Audiences and Effects”. In: I Parmar and M Cox (eds) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives (London: Routledge).

Thussu, DK (2013) Communicating India’s Soft Power: From Buddha to Bollywood (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).

Tudor, O (2014) “Between dominance and decline: status anxiety and great power rivalry” Review of International Studies, 125-152.

Van Aelst, P, Sheafer T and Stanyer, J (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: Operationalizing key concepts for the analysis of news content. Journalism 13: 203-220.

Van Belle, DA, Rioux, JS and Potter, DM (2004) Media Bureaucracies and Foreign Aid: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Japan (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).


Velikaya, AE and Simons, G (2020, eds) Russia’s Public Diplomacy: Evolution and Practice (Basingstoke: MacMillan).

Volz, YZ (2013) “China’s Image Management Abroad, 1920s-1940s: Origin, Justification and Institutionalization”. In: W Wong (ed) Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan), pp. 121-140.

Walgrave, S, and Van Aelst, P (2006) “The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power. Towards A Preliminary Theory” Journal of Communication 56(1): 88–109.

Wang, J (2013, ed) Shaping China’s Global Imagination (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan).

Wang, Y (2008) “Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power”, ANNALS AAPSS, 616: 257-273.

Weaver DH (2007) “Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming” Journal of Communication 57:142–147.

Wilson, C (2010) “Information Operations, Electronic Warfare and Cyberwar: Capabilities and Related Political Issues” In AT Elsworth (ed) Electronic Warfare (Nova Science Publisher), pp. 161-180.

Wong, J (2011, ed) Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan).

Yang, SU Hochang, S, Lee JH and Wrigley B (2008) “Country Reputation in Multidimensions: Predictors, Effects, and Communication Channels” Journal of Public Relations Research 20(4):421-440.

Yee-Kuang, H (2010) “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the softest of them all? Evaluating Japanese and Chinese strategies in the ‘soft’ power competition era” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 1 275–304.

Zaharna, RS (2010) Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Aft Huijh, E (2011) “Changing tunes for public diplomacy: Exploring the domestic dimension” Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, 62-73.

Zhang, J and Swartz, BC (2009) “Public Diplomacy to promote Global Public Good (GPG): Conceptual expansion, ethical grounds, and rhetoric” Public Relations Review 35(4): 382-387.

cc public diplomacy 2020 · 2021. 1. 18. · diplomacy and global governance from a western and...

Documents