JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Paradox of Public Diplomacy on the Web: An Empirical Analysis on Interactivity and Narratives of Nation-States` Ministry of Foreign Affairs Web Sites
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : International Journal of Contents
  • Volume 11, Issue 3,  2015, pp.24-33
  • Publisher : The Korea Contents Association
  • DOI : 10.5392/IJoC.2015.11.3.024
 Title & Authors
The Paradox of Public Diplomacy on the Web: An Empirical Analysis on Interactivity and Narratives of Nation-States` Ministry of Foreign Affairs Web Sites
Lee, Hyung Min; Wang, Kevin Y.; Hong, Yejin;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Against the backdrop of Habermas` theory of communicative action, we empirically analyzed the level of interactivity and narratives offered in nation-states` ministry of foreign affairs Web sites. A multiple regression analysis was performed in an attempt to identify factors affecting the level of interactivity in such Web sites. Findings revealed that the level of economic development is the sole significant factor in regards to the level of interactivity. Further, self-interested, goal-directed, and strategic purposes behind the allegedly transparent, engaging, and interactive public diplomacy were evidenced through a critical analysis of the objectives, key issues, and target publics addressed and highlighted in the public diplomacy narratives on the Web. The results suggested a possible digital divide in the interactive adoption of Web public diplomacy as well as strategic motives and interests embedded in the public diplomacy communication on the Web. This study helps increase our understanding of the paradox of public diplomacy in the digital age.
 Keywords
Public Diplomacy;World Wide Web;Strategic Communication;Interactivity;Digital Divide;Critical Analysis;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
N. J. Cull, “Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 31-54. crossref(new window)

2.
M. Castells, “The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, Mar 2008, pp. 78-93. crossref(new window)

3.
K. R. Fitzpatrick, “Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 2, no. 3, Sep. 2007, pp. 187-211. crossref(new window)

4.
J. Wang, “Localising public diplomacy: The role of subnational actors in nation branding,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 32-42. crossref(new window)

5.
E. Comor and H. Bean, “America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus,” International Communication Gazette, vol. 74, no. 3, Apr. 2012, pp. 203-220. crossref(new window)

6.
J. Habermas, “Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research,” Communication Theory, vol. 16, no. 4, Nov. 2006, pp. 411-426. crossref(new window)

7.
R. G. Howard, “The vernacular web of participatory media,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 25, no. 5, Oct. 2008, pp. 490-513. crossref(new window)

8.
R. Vickers, “The new public diplomacy: Britain and Canada compared,” British Journal of Politics and International Affairs, vol. 6, no. 2, May. 2004, pp. 182-194.

9.
C. H. Palczewski, "Cyber-movements, new social movements, and counterpublics," In R. Asen and D. C. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the State, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001, pp. 161-186.

10.
P. Dahlgren, “The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation,” Political Communication, vol. 22, no. 2, Jun. 2005, pp. 147-162. crossref(new window)

11.
J. Zhang, “Pubic diplomacy as symbolic interactions: A case study of Asian tsunami relief campaigns,” Public Relations Review, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2006, pp. 26-32. crossref(new window)

12.
C. L. Mason, “Foreign aid as gift: The Canadian broadcasting corporation’s response to the Haitian earthquake,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 28, no. 2, Mar. 2011, pp. 94-112. crossref(new window)

13.
R. L. Schwartz-DuPre, “Portraying the political: National Geographic’s 1985 Afghan girl and a US alibi for aid,” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 27, no. 4, Sep. 2010, pp. 336-356. crossref(new window)

14.
J. E. Cohen, “Citizen satisfaction with contacting government on the Internet,” Information Polity, vol. 19, no. 3-4, Jan. 2006, pp. 51-65.

15.
E. Gilboa, “Searching for a theory of public diplomacy,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 55-77. crossref(new window)

16.
C. Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

17.
G. Scott-Smith, “Mapping the undefinable: Some thoughts on the relevance of exchange programs within international relations theory,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 173-195. crossref(new window)

18.
J. L’Etang, “Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 53, no. 4, Dec. 2009, pp. 607-626. crossref(new window)

19.
R. Cullen and L. Sommer, “Participatory democracy and the value of online community networks: An exploration of online and offline communities engaged in civil society and political activity,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, Apr. 2011, pp. 148-154. crossref(new window)

20.
L. Ha and L. James, “Interactivity re-examined: A baseline analysis of early business Websites,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol. 42, no. 4, Sep. 1998, pp. 457-474. crossref(new window)

21.
S. Kiousis, “Interactivity: A concept explication,” New Media & Society, vol. 4, no. 3, Sep. 2002, pp. 355-383. crossref(new window)

22.
S. S. Sundar, S. Kalyanaraman, and J. Brown, “Explicating Web site interactivity,” Communication Research, vol. 30, no. 1, Feb. 2003, pp. 30-59. crossref(new window)

23.
Y. Liu and L. J. Shrum, “What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising, vol. 31, no. 4, Dec. 2002, pp. 53-64. crossref(new window)

24.
J. Das, C. DiRienzo, and J. Burbridge, “Global egovernment and the role of trust: A cross country analysis,” International Journal of Electronic Government, vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 2009, pp. 1-18. crossref(new window)

25.
J. R. Gil-Garcia and T. A. Pardo, “E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 2 Apr. 2005, pp. 187-216. crossref(new window)

26.
O. E. M. Khalil, “E-government readiness: Does national culture matter?,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3, Jul. 2011, pp. 388-399. crossref(new window)

27.
P. R. Viotti and M. V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Security, Economy, Identity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2001.

28.
A. S. de Beer and J. C. Merrill, Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media Systems, Pearson Education, Boston, 2004.

29.
R. Rose, “A global diffusion model of e-governance,” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 5-27. crossref(new window)

30.
J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.

31.
J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System, Beacon Press, Boston, 1987.

32.
D. L. Cloud, "Doing away with Suharto-and the twin myths of globalization and new social movements," In R. Asen and D. C. Brouwer (Eds.), Counterpublics and the State. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001, pp. 235-263.

33.
E. H. Bradley, L. A. Curry, and K. J. Devers, “Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomies, themes, and theory,” Health Services Research, vol. 42, no. 4, Aug. 2007, pp. 1758-1772. crossref(new window)

34.
S. Elo and H. Kyngas, “The qualitative content analysis process,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 62, no. 1, May. 2008, pp. 107-115. crossref(new window)

35.
http://www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.

36.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD.

37.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW2014%20Booklet.pdf.

38.
M. Taylor, M. L. Kent, and W. J. White, “How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships,” Public Relations Review, vol. 27, no. 3, Sep. 2001, pp. 263-284. crossref(new window)