On the academic facets of politics, scholars do not have slim pickings when it comes to the selection of theories and political models available to them to explain political processes. Public Diplomacy [P.D], although explainable by a wide range of these theories, has somewhat of an ununified nature in its ability to clearly explain why multiple public diplomacy efforts may be used to achieve a particular goal.
This paper seeks to build on existing literature to unify theoretical approaches that may have otherwise not been utilized together. The foundation of this work comes from McClellan’s pyramid of public diplomacy (in Ryniejska, 2009, p.5), and it’s attempts to explain P.D as a process of actions at different levels of power. From this model, Cowan & Arsenault (2008)’s the role of logues [see p.1], along with Cull’s (2008)taxonomies are combined to establish the Public Diplomacy Logue-Method Perforation Framework [LMP framework].
As a propositional theoretical framework, it seeks to explain how multiple P.D methods are used and required to achieve P.D goals. Through this framework, one of New Zealand’s foreign policy goals will be explored, and the framework used as a base to explain how multiple disconnected P.D efforts contribute to single objectives.
Theory
Communication Pyramid of Public Diplomacy
McClellan (in Ryniejska, 2009)’s pyramid of public diplomacy, akin to that of marketings’ AIDA model (Oxford Reference, n.d.; Strong, 1925), proposes that P.D is a vertical process of influence. First a recipient country is made aware of P.D efforts by another, followed by the gaining of interest and knowledge from news organisations. Advocacy efforts are then made by opinion makers, leading to action by governments and international organizations.
In McClellan’s theory, action and advocacy can only be made by these actors, rather than the regular citizens of a recipient country (Ryniejska, 2009, p.4). However, in the information era, as P.D’s goal is to influence people in some form (İztayeva & Abzhaparova, 2017, p.50), it could be argued that the exact type or purpose of influence may not come from a government level (Nye, 2008, p.99-101). Therefore, leaning on marketing’s AIDA model, the proposed LMP framework understands McClellan’s pyramid to be the journey of the recipient, while the size of the layers represents the proportion of the target audience who will progress along each stage of the recipient journey.
Public Diplomacy Logues
Cowan & Arsenault (2008) argue that P.D is made of three layers: monologue, dialogue, and collaboration, and that these discourse layers are “essential at certain times and under certain situations” (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008, p.11). For the means of simplicity between theories, this paper will refer to these layers as logues [; the combining form -logue in a noun format]. Monologue serves to illustrate visions and ideas clearly (p.11), while dialogue, facilitated recently by technological advancements, often takes the form of literal two-way conversation. Done so often under the assumption that people are more receptive when they feel their voice is being heard or represented (p.18).
The crux of Cowan & Arsenault’s (2008) paper is their assertion on the need for more collaborative speech in P.D, as doing so requires participants to collaborate with stakeholders (p.21). This may take forms such as sports diplomacy or exchange to enable individuals from different backgrounds to gain unified social norms through institutions or groups (p.23). As collaboration itself is effectively an action, therefore it is seen by the LMP framework as the most effective logue of P.D, as it promotes all parties, receivers, senders, and stakeholders to participate towards a common goal.
Taxonomizing of Public Diplomacy Methods
Finally, Cull (2008) seeks to establish a basic taxonomy of mediums or methods in which P.D can be undertaken. He points to five key categories of P.D methods which have now gained a rather established presence throughout academic political literature: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting (p.32-34).
In a somewhat contentious point, Cull (2008) notes that psychological warfare should not be considered to be a method in the realm of P.D due to the potential damage it may do to nations credibility and use of other P.D methods (p.35). Instead, it is seen as more as a means of sharp power use. Cull (2008) also illustrates the directional flow of information that these methods follow (p.35). While the direction he writes is correct, it is also stated certain methods are not helped by perceived government connections to them (p.35). Therefore, in the LMP framework, methods are categorised by their logue, rather than information flow, as this is a better method of demonstrating their general effectiveness.
Theoretical Intersection
Where these theories intersect is primarily in their nature to explain the process of public diplomacy. McClellan’s (in Ryniejska, 2009) communication pyramid of public diplomacy seeks to explain the process of P.D from the receivers perspective; the assertion of P.D logues from Cowan & Arsenault (2008) explain the effectivity of rhetoric register and whom/what groups should undertake P.D; and Cull (2008), discusses and defines the very methods of P.D itself. While separate in theory, the combination of these elements provides a pathway that may better describe the chaotic and overlapping nature of PD, along with the potential for a framework that could be used by sending parties to draft potential P.D efforts, campaigns, or policy.
The Logue-Method Perforation Theory Framework
The proposed LMP framework takes elements from all three of these theories to establish what P.D methods a sender may use to influence a foreign public in a collaborative means, in line with new P.D (Melissen, 2000, p.11-16) without using overly negative influence or sharp power. The framework shows the journey of receivers and the proportion who will engage with P.D [i.e., gain awareness, espouse advocacy]. It categorises which logues would be most ideal to use at each stage in the receiver journey. It further categorises the taxonomized methods of P.D with both their logue, and ideal use at each stage of the receiver journey. It should be noted that this framework categorises methods by their general potential reach to the receiver, rather than what their actual reach may be. It assumes that all methods seek to influence the receiver to take action, however, shows how effective they may be at sending them through the receiver journey. The framework also assumes that all five methods must be used to achieve overall effectiveness. If a nation does not attempt to push people up all stages of the journey, influence is less likely to be effective. However, it too should be noted that these methods do not need to be undertaken at the directive of one entity.
Case Study
The New Zealand Governments Forgien Affiar Goals
The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade [MFAT] currently has 9 public diplomacy goals it seeks to achieve in a 10 year timeframe (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2021a, p.14-33). Investigating goal: “Indo-Pacific: Embed Aotearoa New Zealand as an active and integral partner in shaping an Indo-Pacific order that delivers regional stability and economic integration.” (p.20-21), Using the LMP framework we can identify methods that are currently being used to push receivers up the journey pyramid, to achieve this goal [see table.2].
Beginning with gaining awareness and growing interest: listening and international broadcasting are currently used by New Zealand to forward this goal of being integral to the Indo-Pacific. Internal state research and reporting on what other countries think of New Zealand and comparing their strategic positioning to New Zealand (Education New Zealand, 2023; New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, 2023) are used to inform the P.D choices such as international broadcasting as we move up the journey pyramid. Attempts to gain interest and awareness of New Zealand can be seen in state sponsored international broadcasting efforts, such as those in Taiwan in recent years (Tourism New Zealand, 2020, p.7). Liaison relationships between Education New Zealand and Malaysian journalists have also been fostered to help do raise better awareness of NZ education as a key location for international students (Ai, 2021; Chin, 2022; Education New Zealand, 2016; Martin, 2023).
Regarding developing knowledge, both cultural and exchange diplomacy has been used to improve business operations with Southeast Asian tourism operators (Tourism New Zealand, 2023). Advocacy seen by the joining boycott of Myanmar internationally with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] and continuing to espouse advocacy to encourage other nations of joining. (Sachdeva, 2023; Sachdeva & Stoakes, 2022; The Economist, 2023).
Finally, in encouraging receivers to take action, exchange diplomacy efforts have been made, such as hosting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] meetings in 2021 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2021b; Vitalis, 2021), in order to position New Zealand as a key and influential nation within the Indo-Pacific. Such exercises are a use of the country’s soft power to secure national interests from all angles of P.D (Butcher, 2012, p.262).
This framework clearly shows the use of methods and logues to drive receivers toward taking action on public diplomacy goals. However, further research and development of this theory is required for definitive conclusions to be drawn.
Conclusion
This paper has explored the feasibility of unifying existing P.D theories into a unified framework by reviewing key literature from McClellan, Cowan & Arsenault, and Cull (in Ryniejska, 2009; 2008; 2008;), establishing a theoretical framework titled the Logue-Method Perforation Theory, and shown the potential use of it through a case study of New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ goals.
Such a framework is still in its infancy, and much is outside of the scope of this paper for it to be fully developed or evaluated, but it still provides a general idea of how nations use different methods of P.D to impact various levels and target groups within politics.
In essence, the LMP framework serves as a roadmap for nations to consider multifaceted wider and approaches when attempting to pursue P.D goals, in a manner that is nonaggressive, and promotes international cooperation.
Appendix
Table 1. Logue-Method Perforation Framework
| Size of Public | Level of Receiver Journey | Effective Dialogue mode | Effective type of PD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smallest | 1. Taking Action | Collaboration | Cultural Diplomacy, Exchange Diplomacy, Advocacy |
| Small | 2. Espousing Advocacy | Collaboration/ Dialogue | Cultural Diplomacy, Exchange Diplomacy, Advocacy |
| Medium | 3. Developing Knowledge | Dialogue | Cultural Diplomacy, Advocacy, International Broadcasting |
| Large | 4. Growing Interest | Dialogue/ Monologue | Cultural Diplomacy, International Broadcasting, Listening |
| Largest | 5. Gaining Awareness | Monologue | Cultural Diplomacy, International Broadcasting, Listening, Psychological Warfare |
Table 2. Analysis of NZ MFAT Public Diplomacy Goal #3 Using the LMP Framework
| Journey Stage | Method Employed | Specific Method | Mode Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Receivers Gain Awareness | Listening | Internal state research and reporting on what other countries think of NZ and comparing their strategic positioning to NZ. | Monologue |
| 2. Receivers Grow Interest | International Broadcasting | State sponsored broadcasts in Taiwan to raise awareness of NZ. Multiple liaisons with Education New Zealand and Malaysian journalists to help raise awareness of NZ. | Dialogue |
| 3. Receivers Develop Knowledge | Cultural and Exchange Diplomacy | Improving business operations with Southeast Asian tourism operators. | Collaboration/ Dialogue |
| 4. Receivers Espouse Advocacy | Advocacy | Joining boycott of Myanmar internationally and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] and continuing to espouse advocacy. | Collaboration/ Dialogue |
| 5. Receivers Take Action | Exchange Diplomacy | Hosting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] meetings in 2021. | Collaboration |
References
View All Refences Here
Ai, C. Y. (2021, October 19). Malaysian mother feels young again on New Zealand trip with three “kids.” The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/travel/2021/10/19/malaysian-mother-feels-young-again-on-new-zealand-trip-with-three-039kids039
Butcher, A. (2012). Students, Soldiers, Sports, Sheep and the Silver-Screen: New Zealand’s Soft Power in ASEAN and Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34(2), 249–273.
Chin, C. (2022, August 27). Many Malaysians returned as experts after New Zealand education, says High Commissioner. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/08/27/many-malaysians-returned-as-experts-after-new-zealand-education-says-high-commissioner
Cowan, G., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 10–30.
Cull, N. J. (2008). Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 31–54.
Education New Zealand. (2023). Competitors initiatives and policies to attract international students (Education New Zealand Briefing 2324–007; p. 21). New Zealand Government. https://www.enz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2324-007-Competitors-initiatives-and-policies-to-attract-international-students.pdf
Education New Zealand. (2016, August 3). NZ education features in Malaysia newspaper » Education NZ [Government]. Education New Zealand. https://www.enz.govt.nz/news-and-research/ed-news/nz-education-features-in-malaysia-newspaper
İztayeva, V., & Abzhaparova, L. (2017). The Purpose and Methods of Public Diplomacy (In the Example of Kazakh-Turkish Relations). Alınteri Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.30913/alinterisosbil.309219
Martin, B. (2023, September 9). More flight options for Malaysians planning a holiday in New Zealand. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/travel/2023/09/09/the-are-now-more-flight-options-for-malaysians-planning-a-holiday-in-new-zealand
Melissen, J. (2000). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In M. Hughes, Diplomacy before the Russian Revolution: Britain, Russia, and the old diplomacy, 1894-1917 (pp. 3–27). Macmillan ; St. Martin’s Press.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2021a). Strategic Intentions 2021-2025 (A.1 SOI (2021); p. 43). New Zealand Government. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/About-us-Corporate/MFAT-strategies-and-frameworks/MFAT-Strategic-Intentions-2021-2025.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2021b). APEC 2021 – New Zealand. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/our-work-with-apec/
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. (2023). New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment 2023: An assessment by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (p. 53) [Security Intelligence Report]. New Zealand Government. https://www.nzsis.govt.nz/assets/NZSIS-Documents/New-Zealands-Security-Threat-Environment-2023.pdf
Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94–109.
Oxford Reference. (n.d.). AIDA. In Oxford Reference. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095432783
Ryniejska, M. (2009). Cultural Diplomacy as a Form of International Communication [Unpublished Manuscript]. https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Ryniejska_Kieldanowicz.pdf
Sachdeva, S. (2023, May 25). NZ blocks Myanmar from Asean study tour. Newsroom. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/nz-blocks-myanmar-from-asean-study-tour
Sachdeva, S., & Stoakes, E. (2022, July 4). NZ to boycott counter-terrorism meeting over Russia, Myanmar roles. Newsroom. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/nz-to-boycott-counter-terrorism-meeting-over-russia-myanmar-roles
Strong, E. K. (1925). Chater XXII: Theories of Selling. In The Psychology of Selling and Advertising (pp. 348–359). McGraw-Hill book Company, Incorporated. https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/The_Psychology_of_Selling_and_Advertisin/7ksEAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
The Economist. (2023, May 20). Myanmar’s conflict is dividing South-East Asia. The Economist, How Should America Lead? https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/05/18/myanmars-conflict-is-dividing-south-east-asia
Tourism New Zealand. (2020). Annual Report 2019/2020 (p. 42). New Zealand Government. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/assets/about/publications/annuals/17996-tnz-annual-report-2020-v7-web_compressed.pdf
Tourism New Zealand. (2023, September 19). Over 650 travel Southeast Asia sellers trained to attract high-quality visitors. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-activity/over-650-travel-southeast-asia-sellers-trained-to-attract-high-quality-visitors/
Vitalis, V. (2021, December 13). Apec 2021: How the New Zealand event boosted Asia-Pacific’s pandemic response. The Spinoff. https://thespinoff.co.nz/partner/13-12-2021/apec-2021-how-the-new-zealand-event-boosted-asia-pacifics-pandemic-response
Leave a Reply