Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualising public diplomacy listening on social media

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public diplomacy consists of the public and interactive dimensions of diplomacy. Although listening is one of its core activities, public diplomacy scholarship has not yet engaged with listening theory. This paper connects public diplomacy scholarship with a new wave of literature that has argued that listening is a critical and previously neglected component of dialogic engagement. By reviewing this literature, this paper develops a framework for the ‘spectrum of listening’ and categorises five types of public diplomacy listening on social media. The review is followed by a descriptive profile of each type of listening. Using this spectrum, this paper endorses active listening and the embedded concept of dialogic engagement as a concrete yardstick by which to assess successful public diplomacy listening on social media. Listening could be narrowly interpreted as a way to implement and readjust a national strategy, or more broadly and ambitiously as an activity that aims to advance international understanding. The paper considers listening to be a representational force: a public and active response to publics who are increasingly demanding not only to participate, but also to be listened to.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Drawing on Heidegger, she points out that Western thought has separated the noun logos (reason, opinion or word) from its verb legein (to deliberate or consider).

  2. Note that this is part of a broader debate in democracy studies that counterposes Habermasian ideal forms of communication in the “public sphere” and the important role of antagonism in democracy highlighted by post-Marxists such as Laclau and Mouffe (1985).

  3. The widespread use of social media by organisations as a unidirectional communication channel is an example of how this form of power is quite common.

  4. There is also an extensive corpus of literature in management and leadership research that highlights the importance of listening to enhance trust (e.g. Helms and Haynes 1992; Flynn et al. 2008; Brunner 2008).

  5. The data analysed in this study are also available at http://www.diplomatics.com.au.

  6. This was confirmed in an informal interview conducted in 2015, during which it was stated that MAECI’s monitoring activities were limited to follower and retweet counts.

  7. The existence of this practice has also been confirmed by informal conversations with diplomats. For example, lurking expatriates’ Facebook groups can offer insights into their experiences, needs and feedback that might be used to readjust consular services.

  8. For example, in the Australian DFAT’s Digital Media Strategy (2016) mentioned earlier in this paper.

References

  • Bassel, Leah. 2017. The Politics of Listening: Possibilities and Challenges for Democratic Life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, Hamilton, and Edward Comor. 2018. Data-Driven Public Diplomacy: A Critical and Reflexive Assessment. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 7 (1): 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benski, Tova, and Eran Fisher. 2014. Introduction: Investigating Emotions and the Internet. In Internet and Emotions, ed. Tova Benski and Eran Fisher, 1–14. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickford, Susan. 1996. The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjola, Corneliu. 2015. Introduction: Making sense of digital diplomacy. In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Bjola, Corneliu. 2016. Getting Digital Diplomacy Right: What Quantum Theory can Teach Us About Measuring Impact. Global Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2016.1239388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjola, Corneliu, and Markus Kornprobst. 2013. Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjola, Corneliu, and James Pamment. 2018. Countering Online Propaganda and Extremism: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy. In Diplomacy Studies, ed. Corneliu Bjola, Markus Kornprobst, and Routledge New. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • boyd, Danah. 2011. Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. Zizi Papacharissi, 39–58. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, John. 2008. Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Their Differences. American Diplomacy. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/comm/brown_pudiplprop.html.

  • Brown, William J. 2015. Examining Four Processes of Audience Involvement with Media Personae: Transportation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Worship. Communication Theory 25 (3): 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, Brigitta R. 2008. Listening, Communication NS Trust: Practitioners’ Perspectives of Business/Organizational Relationships. The International Journal of Listening 22 (1): 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Jean. 2006. Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling. Continuum 20 (2): 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310600641737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, James W. 2009. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society, Rev ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, Manuel. 2015. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center on Public Diplomacy. n.d. Defining Public Diplomacy. Center on Public Diplomacy. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/page/what-pd.

  • Coddington, Andrew. 2017. Mass Government Surveillance: Spying on Citizens. New York: Cavendish Square.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Stephen. 2013. The Challenge of Digital Hearing. Journal of Digital and Media Literacy 2013 (3).

  • Comor, Edward, and Hamilton Bean. 2012. America’s ‘Engagement’ Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus. International Communication Gazette 74 (3): 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048511432603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi Fiumara, Gemma. 1990. The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, Nick. 2009. Rethinking the Politics of Voice: Commentary. Continuum 23 (4): 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903026594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couldry, Nick. 2010. Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Meoliberalism. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Kate. 2009. Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media. Journal of Media & Culture Studies 23 (4): 525–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Neta C. 2014. Institutionalizing Passion in World Politics: Fear and Empathy. International Theory 6 (3): 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, Nicholas J. 2008. Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, Nicholas J. 2019. Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFAT. 2014. Public Diplomacy Strategy 2014–16. Edited by Public Diplomacy Branch. Canberra: DFAT

  • DFAT. 2016. Digital Media Strategy 2016–18. Canberra: DFAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano, Mark. 2015. Julie Bishop Describes Serious Diplomatic Relationships With Emoji. BuzzFeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/emoji-plomacy?utm_term=.dxQz14KVdw#.uypW29OXkG. Accessed 21 June 2017

  • Dobson, Andrew. 2014. Listening for Democracy: Recognition, Representation, Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, Tanja. 2009. Listening Across Difference: Media and Multiculturalism Beyond the Politics of Voice. Continuum 23 (4): 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903015712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Ali, and Aurélie Bröckerhoff. 2008. Options for Influence: Global Campaigns of Persuasion in the New Worlds of Public Diplomacy. London: Counterpoint–the Cultural Relations Think-Tank of the British Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, K.R. 2013. Public Diplomacy and Ethics. In Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy, ed. R.S. Zaharna, Amelia Arsenault, and Ali Fisher, 29–43. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, Jan, Tuula-Riitta Valikoski, and Jennie Grau. 2008. Listening in the Business Context: Reviewing the State of Research. The International Journal of Listening 22 (2): 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass, Robert H., and John S. Seiter. 2009. Credibility and Public Diplomacy. In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, 154–165. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Sarah Ellen. 2014. Emotion and Public Diplomacy: Dispositions in International Communications, Dialogue, and Persuasion. International Studies Review 16 (4): 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Bruce. 2011. American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6 (3): 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1163/187119111X583941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackley, Chris, and Rungpaka Amy Hackley. 2016. The Iconicity of Celebrity and the Spiritual Impulse. Consumption Markets & Culture 19 (3): 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2015.1094264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms, Marilyn M., and Paula J. Haynes. 1992. Are You Really Listening? The Benefit of Effective Intra-organizational Listening. Journal of Managerial Psychology 7 (6): 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, Michael. 1998. Diplomacy and Intelligence. Diplomacy & Statecraft 9 (2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592299808406081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Barbara Rosen, Katharina E. Höne, and Jovan Kurbalija. 2018. Data Diplomacy: Updating Diplomacy to the Big Data Era. Geneva: DiploFoundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, Christer. 2016. Diplomacy, Communication and Signaling. In The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, and Paul Sharp, 79–91. London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, Christer, and Martin Hall. 2003. Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives 4 (2): 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.402009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, Christer, and Martin Hall. 2005. Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Kate. 2013. Listening Publics: The Politics and Experience of Listening in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd ed, 2001. London: Verso. Reprint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, Harold D. 1927. The Theory of Political Propaganda. American Political Science Review 21 (03): 627–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazzarini, Isabella. 2015. Communication and Conflict: Italian Diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350-1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, Jim. 2015. Creating an ‘Architecture of Listening’ in Organizations: The Basis of Engagement, Trust, Healthy Democracy, Social Equity, and Business Sustainability. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, Jim. 2016. Organizational Listening: The Missing Essential in Public Communication. New York: Peter Lang.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, Jim. 2018. Toward a Theory and Practice of Organizational Listening. International Journal of Listening 32 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2017.1375076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAECI. 2017. Annuario Statistico 2017 [Statistical Yearbook 2017]. Rome: MAECI.

  • Manor, Ilan. 2016. Are We There Yet: Have MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital Diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 1 (2): 1–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, Garrett. 1988. Renaissance Diplomacy. New York: Dover Pubblications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph. 2008. Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Penny, Justine Lloyd, and Tanja Dreher. 2009. Listening, Pathbuilding and Continuations: A Research Agenda for the Analysis of Listening. Continuum 23 (4): 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903056252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, James. 2015. A Contextualized Interpretation of PD Evaluation. In International Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Communication and Engagement, ed. Guy J. Golan, Sung-un Yang, and Dennis F. Kinsey. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, James. 2016. Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns. New Media & Society 18 (9): 2046–2062. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Zizi. 2015. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, Mark. 2014. Rhetorical Traditions of Public Diplomacy and the Internet. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9 (1): 76–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano-Puche, Javier. 2015. Emotions and Digital Technologies: Mapping the Field of Research in Media Studies. MEDIA@LSE Working Paper Series (33).

  • Singh, J.P. 2015. The Power of Diplomacy. In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, ed. Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes, 181–198. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, Nancy. 2012. Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Rethinking Diplomacy in the Age of Persuasion. E-International Relations. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/04/public-diplomacy-and-propaganda-rethinking-diplomacy-in-the-age-of-persuasion/.

  • Sorensen, Lone, Heather Ford, Walid Al-Saqaf, and Tanja Bosch. 2019. ‘Dialogue of the Deaf’: the Performance of Listening on Twitter During the 2015 South African State of the Nation Address. In Media, Communication and the Struggle for Democratic Change: Contested Transitions in the New Media, ed. Katrine Voltmer. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spry, Damien. 2018. Facebook Diplomacy: A Data-Driven, User-Focused Approach to Facebook Use by Diplomatic Missions. Media International Australia 168 (1): 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X18783029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Maureen, and Michael L. Kent. 2014. Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research 26 (5): 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thill, Cate. 2009. Courageous Listening, Responsibility for the Other and the Northern Territory Intervention. Continuum 23 (4): 537–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valeriano, Brandon, and Ryan C. Maness. 2015. Cyber war Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waks, Leonard J. 2010. Two Types of Interpersonal Listening. Teachers College Record 112 (11): 2743–2762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yepsen, Erika A. 2012. Practicing Successful Twitter Public Diplomacy: A Model and Case Study of US Efforts in Venezuela. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaharna, Rhonda S. 2009. Mapping Out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives: Information and Relational Communication Frameworks. In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, ed. Nancy E. Snow and Philip M. Taylor, 86–100. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaharna, Rhonda S. 2015. From Pinstripes to Tweets. Cairo Review of Global Affairs (Winter 2015).

  • Zaharna, Rhonda S. 2018. Why “Voice” is Not Enough: Spanning the Communication Logics of Global Public Diplomacy. In 68th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Building EM, Parramatta Campus, Penrith, Locked Bag 1797, Sydney, NSW, 2751, Australia

    Luigi Di Martino

Authors
  1. Luigi Di Martino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Di Martino.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Martino, L. Conceptualising public diplomacy listening on social media. Place Brand Public Dipl 16, 131–142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-019-00135-5

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-019-00135-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation