These are exciting days for those of us who teach and practice public diplomacy. Aimed at establishing mutually beneficial relationships between governments (as well as non-governmental organizations) and citizens of foreign nations, our field is viewed as transformative by some, while somewhat idealistic by others. With the stated goal of "winning the hearts and minds" of foreign publics, the U.S. government has invested large sums of money into a variety of international engagement programs.
Based on the idea that engagement is key to highlighting a nation's soft power, we have seen the emergence of a multitude of "fill in the blank diplomacy" programs, including but not limited to gastrodiplomacy, cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, water diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and even bicycle diplomacy.
A key assumption behind many soft power initiatives is that personal interaction with foreign cultures is likely to create good will amongst people and help overcome negative stereotypes or misinformation. This assumption is central to such U.S. government sponsored programs as the Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists; Fulbright educational exchanges; and the Art in Embassies programs. While all of these programs sound good on paper, critics have questioned their ability to demonstrate a measurable return on investment in terms of substantive shifts in foreign public opinion. This criticism is widely known as public diplomacy's "measurement trap".
In my previous article, "The Case for Mediated Public Diplomacy", I argued for a strategic approach to public diplomacy that is based on the political campaign model. I argued that public diplomacy campaigns should focus on specific target publics; include specific, measurable objectives; and develop strategic messaging strategies.
Political campaigns teach us about the need to identify target publics, build voter coalitions, and tailor campaign messages based on extensive research. Furthermore, evaluative research provides campaign managers with substantive measures of campaign effectiveness.
This approach should guide the public diplomacy field. All public diplomacy programs must have clear target publics and measurable objectives.
Could one imagine a U.S. presidential election campaign strategy that focused on winning the support of all Christians in the U.S. regardless of segmentation? Not likely.
Yet modern American public diplomacy engagement efforts invested hundreds of millions of dollars into an unrealistic pursuit of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. This approach failed to identify the multi-sectorial, multi-national, and multi-ethnic composition of the billion-plus Muslims around the world whose differences are likely as great as their commonalities. This misconception is one of the key shortcomings of America's international engagement efforts, and one of the key reasons for the inability to measure campaign effectiveness.
Whether they aim to raise awareness of an issue, promote acceptance of foreign policy, or drive specific action, the key to measuring public diplomacy is based on governments' ability to identify SMART campaign objectives. The SMART acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound objectives.
Public diplomats must move away from such grandiose goals as "winning the hearts and minds of people around the world", and towards quantifiable SMART objectives that clearly identify the campaign's primary target audiences, its time frame, and its desired outcomes. For example, the United States may wish to increase awareness of its educational scholarship program amongst women in Sierra Lione by 15 percent within a twelve month period. China may set the SMART public diplomacy objective of increasing the number of French university students who participate in the Confucius Institute activities in Paris by 12 percent within a two year period.
Public diplomacy scholars and professionals alike recognize the potential value of soft power programs. Many of us disagree regarding the extent of their impact and the role they should play in any nation's overall global engagement strategy.
The ability to measure the real-life impact of any public diplomacy program should be a key requirement set forth by program administrators. The common argument that soft power program results cannot be directly measured decreases the likelihood of gaining public support or future governmental funding during times of budgetary restraint.
Ultimately, most public diplomacy campaigns aim to influence foreign public opinion and/or foreign media coverage; or to produce tangible outcomes in the form of tourism, imports or investments.
While some objectives can be simply quantified in terms of dollars and cents, others may require more sophisticated methodologies, such as social media analytics including sentiment analysis, influencer analysis, or conversation trends; or may require longitudinal public opinion survey research. Ultimately, campaign outcomes should be measured based on the campaign's objectives.
As a key component of international relations, public diplomacy programs should strategically align with any nation's foreign policy objectives. Therefore, standards of measurement and quantification should be required by legislators and program administrators alike. As the old saying goes, "If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”
Guy J. Golan, PhD, is an associate professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University where he teaches public diplomacy. He can be found on Twitter @guygolan or contacted at gjgolan@syr.edu.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's March/April 2014 print edition.
a global affairs media network
Towards a Smarter Public Diplomacy
March 20, 2014
These are exciting days for those of us who teach and practice public diplomacy. Aimed at establishing mutually beneficial relationships between governments (as well as non-governmental organizations) and citizens of foreign nations, our field is viewed as transformative by some, while somewhat idealistic by others. With the stated goal of "winning the hearts and minds" of foreign publics, the U.S. government has invested large sums of money into a variety of international engagement programs.
Based on the idea that engagement is key to highlighting a nation's soft power, we have seen the emergence of a multitude of "fill in the blank diplomacy" programs, including but not limited to gastrodiplomacy, cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, water diplomacy, sports diplomacy, and even bicycle diplomacy.
A key assumption behind many soft power initiatives is that personal interaction with foreign cultures is likely to create good will amongst people and help overcome negative stereotypes or misinformation. This assumption is central to such U.S. government sponsored programs as the Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists; Fulbright educational exchanges; and the Art in Embassies programs. While all of these programs sound good on paper, critics have questioned their ability to demonstrate a measurable return on investment in terms of substantive shifts in foreign public opinion. This criticism is widely known as public diplomacy's "measurement trap".
In my previous article, "The Case for Mediated Public Diplomacy", I argued for a strategic approach to public diplomacy that is based on the political campaign model. I argued that public diplomacy campaigns should focus on specific target publics; include specific, measurable objectives; and develop strategic messaging strategies.
Political campaigns teach us about the need to identify target publics, build voter coalitions, and tailor campaign messages based on extensive research. Furthermore, evaluative research provides campaign managers with substantive measures of campaign effectiveness.
This approach should guide the public diplomacy field. All public diplomacy programs must have clear target publics and measurable objectives.
Could one imagine a U.S. presidential election campaign strategy that focused on winning the support of all Christians in the U.S. regardless of segmentation? Not likely.
Yet modern American public diplomacy engagement efforts invested hundreds of millions of dollars into an unrealistic pursuit of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. This approach failed to identify the multi-sectorial, multi-national, and multi-ethnic composition of the billion-plus Muslims around the world whose differences are likely as great as their commonalities. This misconception is one of the key shortcomings of America's international engagement efforts, and one of the key reasons for the inability to measure campaign effectiveness.
Whether they aim to raise awareness of an issue, promote acceptance of foreign policy, or drive specific action, the key to measuring public diplomacy is based on governments' ability to identify SMART campaign objectives. The SMART acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound objectives.
Public diplomats must move away from such grandiose goals as "winning the hearts and minds of people around the world", and towards quantifiable SMART objectives that clearly identify the campaign's primary target audiences, its time frame, and its desired outcomes. For example, the United States may wish to increase awareness of its educational scholarship program amongst women in Sierra Lione by 15 percent within a twelve month period. China may set the SMART public diplomacy objective of increasing the number of French university students who participate in the Confucius Institute activities in Paris by 12 percent within a two year period.
Public diplomacy scholars and professionals alike recognize the potential value of soft power programs. Many of us disagree regarding the extent of their impact and the role they should play in any nation's overall global engagement strategy.
The ability to measure the real-life impact of any public diplomacy program should be a key requirement set forth by program administrators. The common argument that soft power program results cannot be directly measured decreases the likelihood of gaining public support or future governmental funding during times of budgetary restraint.
Ultimately, most public diplomacy campaigns aim to influence foreign public opinion and/or foreign media coverage; or to produce tangible outcomes in the form of tourism, imports or investments.
While some objectives can be simply quantified in terms of dollars and cents, others may require more sophisticated methodologies, such as social media analytics including sentiment analysis, influencer analysis, or conversation trends; or may require longitudinal public opinion survey research. Ultimately, campaign outcomes should be measured based on the campaign's objectives.
As a key component of international relations, public diplomacy programs should strategically align with any nation's foreign policy objectives. Therefore, standards of measurement and quantification should be required by legislators and program administrators alike. As the old saying goes, "If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”
Guy J. Golan, PhD, is an associate professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University where he teaches public diplomacy. He can be found on Twitter @guygolan or contacted at gjgolan@syr.edu.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's March/April 2014 print edition.
