Kamu Diplomasisi ve Dijital İletişim

Development in communication technologies and digitalization have deeply affected the norms, goals and working procedures of public diplomacy actors and institutions. This article discusses digitalization of public diplomacy and communication with two different dimensions. The first part is a functional dimension that focuses on the use of digital communication tools in public diplomacy activities. Effects of digital communication platforms on the working procedures and activities of public diplomacy institutions and the use of digital technologies in the evaluation of public diplomacy activities will be discussed. In the second part, how the values and norms of the digital society affect the practice of public diplomacy and the value perceptions of its practitioners will be analyzed with a normative approach. Digitalization of public diplomacy processes cannot be understood without characterizing the digital society that emerged with developments in communication technologies. Digitalization in public diplomacy is an ongoing process where every country is at different levels. Although digitalization has caused radical changes from the language of public diplomacy to the use of social media in policy making, it has not been able to prevent the ongoing discussions in terms of values. As a requirement of digital society, structures of public diplomacy institutions should be flexible and may use digital technologies in innovative ways. Their response to innovation may not be immediate, but over time they are expected to learn to balance the possibilities of digital technologies, the demands of the digital society and their own goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

İletişim, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Kamu Diplomasisi, Dijitalleşme, Değerler

Public Diplomacy and Digital Communication

Development in communication technologies have deeply affected the norms, goals and procedures of public diplomacy actors and institutions. This article discusses digitalization of public diplomacy and communication with two different dimensions. Firstly, effects of digital communication platforms on the working procedures and activities of public diplomacy institutions and the use of digital technologies in the evaluation of public diplomacy activities will be discussed. In the second part, how the values and norms of the digital society affect practice of public diplomacy and the value perceptions of its practitioners will be analyzed with a normative approach. Digitalization of public diplomacy processes cannot be understood without characterizing the digital society that emerged with developments in communication technologies. Although digitalization has caused radical changes from the language of public diplomacy to use of social media, it has not been able to prevent the ongoing discussions in terms of values. As a requirement of digital society, structures of public diplomacy institutions should be flexible and may use digital technologies in innovative ways. Their response to innovation may not be immediate, but over time they are expected to learn to balance the possibilities of digital technologies, their goals, and needs of digital society.

Keywords:

Communication, International Relations, Public Diplomacy, Digitalization, Values,

PDF

___

Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: an evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 181-206.
Azócar, D. A., Manor, I., & Cardoso, A. R. (2018). The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy: Towards a New Conceptual Framework. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, 1-6.
Bjola, C. (2015). Making sense of digital diplomacy. C. Bjola, & M. Holmes içinde, Digital Dİplomacu Theory and Practice (s. 1-9). London: Routledge.
Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (2018). Countering Online Propaganda And Extremism: The Dark Side Of Digital Diplomacy. New York: Routledge.
Bjola, C., Cassidy, J., & Manor, I. (2019). Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 83-101.
Budak, M. M. (2021). Kamu Diplomasisi Aracı Olarak Burs Programları ve Türkiye Uygulamaları. Ankara: Nobel.
Clarke, A. (2015). Business As Usual? An Evaluation Of British And Canadian Digital Diplomacy As Policy Change. C. Bjola, & M. Holmes içinde, Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice (s. 111-126). London: Routledge.
Collins, S. D., DeWitt, J. R., & LeFebvre, R. K. (2019). Hashtag diplomacy: twitter as a tool for engaging in public diplomacy and promoting US foreign policy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 78-96.
ColumbiaUniversity. (2015, 2 5). The Congress of Vienna 1814-1815: Making Peace after Global War. 12 5, 2021 tarihinde YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJu8IwhU77I adresinden alındı
Cull, N. J. (2009). Public Diplomacy, Lessons from the Past. Los Angeles: Figueroa.
Ekşi, M. (2014). Kamu Diplomaisi ve Ak Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası. Ankara: Siyasal.
Ekşi, M., & Taş, F. D. (2020). Dijital Diplomasi Yeni Bir Tür Diplomasi Midir? Uluslararası Kriz ve Siyaset Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 213-239.
Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2011). U.S. Public Diplomacy in a Post-9/11 World: From Messaging to Mutuality. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press.
Freedmen, L. (2014). Ukraine and the art of crisis management. Survival. Survival, 7-42.
Hocking, B. (2005). Rethinking the New Public Diplomacy. J. Melissen içinde, The New Public Diplomacy, Soft Power in İnternational Relations (s. 28-41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalın, İ. (2011). Türk Dış Politikası ve Kamu Diplomasisi. Perceptions, 5-23.
Khatib, L., Dutton, W., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Public diplomacy 2.0: A case study of the US digital outreach team. The Middle East Journal, 66(3), 453-472.
Manor, I. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFAs realized the potential of digital. Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1-110.
Manor, I. (2019). The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2020). The Mediatisation of MFAs: Diplomacy in the New Media Ecology. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 66-92.
Manor, I., & Pamment, J. (2019). Towards prestige mobility? Diplomatic prestige. Cambridge Review of International Affairs.
Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). America’s Selfie: How the US Portrays Itself on its Social Media Accounts. C. Bjola, & M. Holmes içinde, Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice (s. 89-108). New York: Routledge.
Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. J. Melissen içinde, The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (s. 3-27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nye, J. S. (2005). Yumuşak Güç: Dünya Siyasetinde Başarının Yolu. Ankara: Elips.
Ovalı, A. Ş. (2020). Türkiye-ABD İlişkilerinde Twitter Diplomasisi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 17(65), 23-45.
Özdemir, M. (2020). Dijital Diplomasi Ve Sosyal Medya: Barış Pınarı Harekâtı Kapsamında Türkiye Washington Büyükelçiliğinin Twitter Kullanımı. Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler ve Reklam Çalışmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 87-105.
Özlü, Ö., & Alan, G. A. (2020). Kamu Diplomasisi Oluşturulmasında Dijital Diplomasinin Etkisi. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 7(2), 1345-1366.
Pamment, J. (2013). New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century : A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice. New Diplomacy Studies. London: Routledge.
Polat, V. (2016). Kitle İletişim Kuramları. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi.
Seib, P. (2016). The Future of #Diplomacy. New Jersey: Wiley.
Storr, W. (2018). Book six: The digital self. W. Storr içinde, Selfie: How the West became self-obsessed (s. 243-303). London: Picador.
Twiplomacy 2020. (tarih yok). 02 28, 2021 tarihinde https://twiplomacy.com/: https://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2020/ adresinden alındı
Wichowski, A. (2015). Secrecy is for Losers; Why diplomats should embrace openness. C. Bjola, & M. Holmes içinde, Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice (s. 52-70). New York: Routledge.
Yücel, G. (2016). Dijital Diplomasi. TRT Akademi, 1(2), 748-760.
Zaharna, R. S. (2005). The Soft Power Differential: Network Communication and Mass Communication In Public Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Public Diplomacy, 3(2), 213-228.