dd

Exploring Digital Diplomacy

www.digdipblog.com

The Digitalization of
Diplomacy: Toward
Clarification of a
Fractured Terminology

Working Paper # 1

Ilan Manor

Department of International
Development,
The University of Oxford

To cite this work: Manor, I. (2017, August). The Digitalization of

Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology.
Working Paper. Exploring Digital Diplomacy.
1
1. Introduction Uganda have all crafted policies for
digital diaspora outreach. Studies
2017 marks a decade since the advent even suggest that African MFAs are
of “digital diplomacy”. What began as as active online as their Western
an experiment by a select number of peersv.
foreign ministries and diplomatic
pioneers, has now become standard The past decade has also witnessed
practice for diplomatic institutions increased academic interest in
the world over. Early examples of “digital diplomacy” with scholars
“digital diplomacy” include Sweden’s evaluating the digital practices of
virtual embassy to Second Life, embassies, diplomats, MFAs and
launched in 2007, and the formation world leaders.
of a US digital outreach team in
2006i. To date, scholars and practitioners
have offered different terms to
Over the past decade, the utilization conceptualize the growing influence
of digital technologies in diplomacy of digital technologies on diplomacy.
has become increasingly diverse. These have included net diplomacy,
Within the realm of public diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, diplomacy 2.0,
Norwegian Ambassadors are using networked diplomacy, real-time
Skype to converse with university diplomacy and 21st century statecraft
students while Palestine is embracing (See Hocking & Meissen’s 2015 report
Facebook as a medium for engaging for their taxonomy)vi. Similarly, while
with Israeli citizensii. The Indian MFA the Israeli MFA uses the term digital
(ministry of foreign affairs) is diplomacy, the Finnish ministry
developing computer games for proposes the term “diplomacy in the
children of Indian Diasporas while digital age”. The difference between
the Georgian Diaspora Ministry offers the two in not merely semantic. The
online courses in the Georgian latter implies that the conduct of
language. UN Ambassadors are diplomacy has remained similar but
employing WhatsApp to coordinate it is now practiced in new digital
their votes on various resolutions environments. Digital diplomacy, by
while the Kenyan foreign ministry is contrast, is a term that could allude to
increasingly using Twitter to deliver an entirely new form of diplomacy.
emergency consular aidiii. More
recently, MFAs have begun to employ The plurality of terms relating to
software programmers so as to technology's impact on diplomacy
analyse big data sets or manipulate stems from the fact that new
social media algorithms using Botsiv. platforms, tools and practices
continue to immerge. In 2016, MFAs
The utilization of digital technologies were increasingly concerned with the
in diplomacy is now also a global use of Twitter to manage their
phenomenon. The foreign ministries national image. Nowadays MFAs are
of Egypt, Jordan and Qatar all developing algorithms to fracture
operate social media profiles while echo chambers of hate and
the MFAs of Kenya, Rwanda and radicalization. Similarly, MFAs are
2
migrating to new digital arenas such institutions of diplomacy.
as Wikipedia and Google Earth. Additionally, I demonstrate the
manner in which this term can help
Numerus scholars and diplomats scholars map the existing research
have adopted the term “digital corpus and identify new avenues of
diplomacy” when referring to the research.
intersection between digital
technologies and diplomacy. This paper therefore aims to clarify a
However, scholars have yet to offer a fractured terminology through the
clear definition of this term. The introduction of a new and more
search for such a definition is an inclusive term “the digitalization of
important one. For practitioners, diplomacy”viii.
definitions help conceptualize how
diplomacy should be practiced, what 2. The Digitalization of
working routines need to be altered Diplomacy- the Need for a New
and which skills must be acquired. If Term
diplomats conceptualize the world as
networked they may increasingly Recent years have seen an abundance
strive to become nodes in trans- of terms referencing the influence of
national networks of advocacy. But if digital technologies on diplomacy.
diplomats conceptualize the world as Some terms focus more on the
hierarchical they may place an conceptualization of diplomacy in a
emphasis on engaging with elites. digital world. Such is the case with
‘networked diplomacy’ and ‘21st
Definitions are also important to century statecraft’. Other terms
scholars who rely on them to centre on the characteristics of digital
formulate hypotheses, select case technologies. Examples include
studies and identify research ‘public diplomacy 2.0’, which draws
avenues. Indeed the terms ‘public its name from the concept of web 2.0;
diplomacy 2.0’ and ‘networked ‘net diplomacy’, which relates more
diplomacy’ have both stimulated broadly to the internet and
considerable academic researchvii. ‘Twiplomacy’ which references
Twitterix. Some terms even focus on
In this working paper I argue that the attributes of the digital society.
none of the terms employed thus far These include ‘selfie diplomacy’ and
in the context of digital technologies ‘real time diplomacy’x. Finally, terms
and diplomacy are sufficient. In such as “cyber diplomacy” relate to
addition, I propose that practitioners new diplomatic arenasxi.
and scholars adopt the term “the
digitalization of diplomacy” in Other scholars employ the term
reference to the impact of digital “digital diplomacy”. Yet this term has
technologies on diplomacy. It is my traditionally been defined within the
contention that this term more fully context of specific studies. For
encapsulates the influence of digital instance, in 2015 Elad Segev and I
technologies on the defined digital diplomacy as the use
conceptualization, practice and of social media by a state to achieve
3
its foreign policy goals and manage process that, over time, redistributes
its national imagexii. The same year power within diplomatic institutions.
Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes
defined digital diplomacy as a tool for Second, the aforementioned terms
change management while in 2012 fail to clearly identify the domains of
Potter stated that digital diplomacy is diplomacy that are influenced by
the conduct of diplomacy through digital technologies. While some
networked technologiesxiii. Finally, in terms focus on digital platforms,
2016 I re-defined digital diplomacy as others relate to the audiences of
the overall impact ICTs (Information diplomacy while still others deal
and Communication Technologies) mostly with the conduct of
have had on the conduct of diplomacy diplomacy. As such, none of these
ranging from the email to terms offer a systematic classification
smartphone applicationsxiv. through which the influence of
digitalization can be investigated. In
What emerges from the addition, none of these terms
aforementioned review is a state of encapsulate the overarching influence
fractured terminology in which some digital technologies have had on
terms are to broad, such as “digital diplomacy.
diplomacy, while others are to
narrow, such as “Public Diplomacy Lastly, digital technologies do not
2.0”. merely offer new functionalities.
Rather, they promote new norms and
Additionally, it is the contention of facilitate new behaviours. These, in
this working paper that none of the turn, influence the practice of
aforementioned terms, including diplomacy. For instance, digital
digital diplomacy, are sufficient as technologies enable individuals to
they fail to capture three distinct create and disseminate content on a
features of the intersection between global scale. This has given rise to a
diplomacy and digital technologies. new form of journalism known as
citizen journalism. From a normative
The first feature is that digitalization perspective, citizen journalists are
is a process rather than a binary state. seen as adding to the diversity of
In other words, one cannot separate voices heard in the digital town
diplomats into those that are digital square. From a behavioural
and those that are not. Rather, perspective, internet users
diplomats, MFAs and embassies are increasingly seek the analysis of
all undergoing a process of citizen journalists. The rise of citizen
digitalization. This process is journalists, and their ability to
influencing the manner in which influence how publics perceive issues
diplomats envision their world, the and events, prompted MFAs to
habits of their intended audiences, migrate online in the first placexv.
the actors with whom they seek to
engage and the technologies they In summary, the terms employed
employ to achieve their goals. Even thus far in the context of digital
more importantly, digitalization is a technologies and diplomacy are
4
lacking as they fail to offer a robust practitioners of diplomacy, the
conceptual prism or a system of audiences of diplomacy and the
classification. It is the contention of conduct of diplomacy.
this working paper that term “the
digitalization of diplomacy” more Moreover, the term is used in
fully captures the temporal and reference to four fields. The first field
normative influences of digital is a normative one which centres on
technologies. The following section norms, values and beliefs. The second
elaborates on this term. field is behavioural as the adoption of
norms and beliefs gives way to
3. The Digitalization of behaviour change. The third field is
Diplomacy- A Definition procedural and relates to patterns of
use and standard operating
The digitalization of diplomacy is a procedures. The fourth field is
term that centres on the normative conceptual and relates to the
and temporal influences of digital metaphors and mental schemata
technologies. Imbued within this individuals employ to imagine their
term is the view of digitalization as a world.
long term process whose influence far
transcends the utilization of What emerges from “the
innovative technologies. digitalization of diplomacy” is the 4*4
matrix shown below.
I employ the term “the digitalization
of diplomacy” in reference to the
impact digital technologies have had
on four dimensions of diplomacy: the
institutions of diplomacy, the

Table 1: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Dimensions and Fields

Normative
Dimensions (norms,
Behavioural Procedural Conceptual
of Diplomacy values,
beliefs)
Audiences of
Diplomacy
Institutions
of Diplomacy
Practitioners
of Diplomacy
Practice of
Diplomacy

5
In table 2 (see page 7) I provide an other words, personal self-exposure
example of how “the digitalization of may soon give way to increased
diplomacy” offers insight into to the professional transparency.
audiences of diplomacy. As others
have argued, the digital society is a When examining the institutions of
sharing society which celebrates diplomacy (see table 2, line 2) digital
transparency and the continuous technologies have also facilitated the
revealing of personal informationxvi. adoption of new norms and beliefs.
Only last year a university Professor One example is valuing dialogue
became an online idol for publishing given online publics’ willingness to
a CV of his failures listing all the interact with diplomats. This norm
grants and positions he was unable to has led to the adoption of a new
securexvii. This example suggests that behaviour - “listening” to the
digitalization has impacted societal feedback of online publicsxx. In
norms and values and, by extension, addition, new working procedures
facilitated the behaviour of self- have been put in place such as
exposure. incorporating followers’ feedback into
policy formulation. Finally, the
However, individuals not only share growing importance of online publics
their failures online. They also share has led to a conceptual shift as the
their opinions, feelings, political network metaphor is used to envision
affiliations and understanding of the environment in which diplomacy
local and global events. Digitalization is practiced. Importantly, before
has thus given rise to an opinionated diplomacy can be practiced it must be
online public that is “clamouring to imagined by diplomats.
be heard”xviii. From a conceptual
perspective, online audiences Next, one may examine the
increasingly envision the networked practitioners of diplomacy (see table
society as a sharing society in which 2, line 3). Here digital technologies
“sharing is caring”. have also led to a normative change
as digitalization forces diplomats to
Markedly, it is interesting to begin adopt a new kind of openness given
the analysis of digitalization from the the increased agency of non-state
audiences of diplomacy given that actors (i.e., online publics, civil
diplomacy is a social institution and society organizations, NGOs). This
that diplomats are social beingsxix. has led to a subsequent change in
Thus, societal norms, beliefs and diplomats’ behaviour as they now aim
metaphors impact diplomats and, in to form temporary alliances, or
turn, the practice diplomacy. Once an networks, to advance specific goals
Ambassador has used WhatsApp to (e.g., network of NGOs, UN missions
communicate with his family he may and online publics to advance a
soon use it to communicate with his human rights resolution). From a
peers. Similarly, once a diplomat has procedural perspective, digital
embraced a sharing mentality on technologies have led diplomats to
Facebook, he may also become more engage with a plethora of new actors,
transparent in relation to his work. In both online and offline. Finally, as
6
Heine has argued, diplomats have
begun to abandon the metaphor of
the exclusive club for that of the
inclusive network.

After taking into account the

audiences, institutions and
practitioners of diplomacy, one can
also investigate digital technologies’
impact on the practice of diplomacy
(see tabl2 line 4) which is now
collaborative in nature as it requires
the formation of goal-originated
networks in which multiple
stakeholders come together to
achieve foreign policy goals.

Table 2: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Examples

Normative
Dimensions (norms,
Behavioural Procedural Conceptual
of Diplomacy values,
beliefs)
Sharing one’s Networked
Audiences of Increased opinions/feelings/ society is a
Self-exposure
Diplomacy transparency achievements sharing
online society
Listening to
global Incorporating
Networks as
Institutions Valuing audiences followers’
a metaphor
of Diplomacy dialogue who offer feedback into
of diplomacy
online policy formulation
feedback
Opening up of
diplomacy-
Temporary From club
diplomats
Practitioners alliances with mentality to
Openness engaging with
of Diplomacy various network
individuals,
stakeholders mentality
groups,
organizations
Goal oriented
Multi- networks with
Practice of
Collaboration stakeholder connected Networking
Diplomacy
diplomacy publics, civil
society orgs

7
The term “the digitalization of utilized for information gathering and
diplomacy”, as employed in the LinkedIn for seeking employment
examples above, suggests that opportunities. The rise of social
scholars and practitioners can focus media sites has caused individuals to
on four dimensions of diplomacy embrace the norm of connectivity as
(e.g., audiences, institutions) and he who is not connected is left outside
four fields of influence (e.g., the sphere of social and professional
conceptual or behavioural). While life. The behaviour that follows is
some scholars may investigate new maintaining several social media
working procedures in MFAs, others accounts and, procedurally, using
can focus on the various metaphors social media sites to seek
Ambassadors employ when practicing information, news and analysis.
diplomacy. Conceptually, people now view the
online environment as an extension
As such, this matrix can bring order of the offline one. This was not the
to the somewhat chaotic study of case in the late 1990’s when
contemporary diplomacy. Moreover, individuals marvelled at the
this matrix can be used by anonymity afforded by the internet
practitioners to evaluate their and one’s ability to distinguish
institutional capacity to adopt new between his offline and online
technologies or reflect on the persona (see page 10, table 3).
changing nature of diplomacy in the
digital age. Both of these exercises The norm of connectivity, and the
can lead to normative, procedural procedure of seeking news online, has
and behavioural changes among impacted the institutions of
diplomatic institutions thus paving diplomacy who use online platforms
the way to more effective diplomacy. to deliver services and information to
their citizens (see page 10, table 3).
Notably, one can also use this this This is made apparent during
matrix to chart how the four consular crises in which embassies
dimensions of diplomacy influence and diplomats employ social media
one another. This is demonstrated in and messaging apps to communicate
the following section. with citizens affected by natural
disasters or terror attacksxxi. The
4. The Digitalization of growing use of digital platforms to
Diplomacy- Mutual Influence deliver consular aid has led
diplomatic institutions to adopt new
The global proliferation of social beliefs as they now regard themselves
media sites has seen the mass as “service providers”xxii. This, in
migration of individuals of all ages turn, has led to new working
online (note: there still exists a digital procedures such as issuing guidelines
divide when examining world for embassies’ use of social media
regions). Notably, individuals now during consular crises and
use different social media sites for conducting digital simulations of
different purposes. While Facebook is emergency situationsxxiii. From a
used to maintain social ties, Twitter is conceptual perspective, MFAs
8
increasingly envision diplomacy as a
domestic task giving rise to the
concept of domestic diplomacyxxiv.

The practice of domestic diplomacy

has also influenced the practitioners
of diplomacy who are more willing to
relinquish control over the
communication process so as to
engage with their citizens onlinexxv.
From a behavioural perspective,
embassies and diplomats now curate
information for their followers thus
ensuring the accuracy of information
delivered online. This has also
brought about a conceptual shift in
which power is seen to be migrating
from the MFA to the embassy on the
ground who is actually tasked with
aiding citizens or conversing with
online publics.

Lastly, the practice of diplomacy has

also changed given that diplomacy
must react to events as they unfold
giving rise to what Philip Seib has
dubbed ‘real-time diplomacy. Indeed
during the 2017 London terror
attacks, embassies found themselves
curating online information and
providing citizens’ with advice as
events unfolded on their television
screensxxvi.

9
 Table 3: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Tracing Influence

Normative
Dimensions
(norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual
of Diplomacy
beliefs)
Online
Maintaining
Seeking environment
Audiences of several social
Connectivity information/ as extension
Diplomacy media
news/analysis of offline
accounts
environment
Guidelines
Using social for embassies
MFAs as
Institutions of media to using social Domestic
service
Diplomacy deliver media during Diplomacy
providers
consular aid consular
crises
Curating
Relinquishing information Migration of
control over for followers; Crowd-
Practitioners power from
the real time sourcing
of Diplomacy MFA to the
communication engagement consular aid
embassy
process

Information
Favouring Identifying
sharing as Real Time
Practice of speed and reliable
opposed to Diplomacy
Diplomacy timing over sources of
information (Seib)
accuracy information
keeping

10
As the next section argues, “the traditional powerxxx. Thus, MFAs
digitalization of diplomacy” can also must become integral nodes in a
help scholars map the existing myriad of intersecting global
research corpus. networks. From a behavioural
perspective, Bjola and Pamment
5. The Digital Research Corpus explore how diplomatic institutions
can pursue tactics of digital
Using the matrix of dimensions and containment to combat dis-
fields proposed in this working paper, informationxxxi. When examining the
one can begin to map the existing procedures of diplomatic institutions,
research corpus. A partial mapping is Elad Segev and I analyse the use of
shown in table 8 (see pages 13-14). social media to narrate a national
Selfie while Hallams focuses on
As can be seen, some scholars have battles of online narrativesxxxii.
focused on the audiences of
diplomacy. Haynal’s assertion that More recently, Bean and Comor
connected publics are volatile and investigated how the
unpredictable refers to the norms of conceptualization of public diplomacy
online users who view digital as “data driven” has led the State
interactions as a two-way Department to favour influence and
communicative processxxvii. audience manipulation over dialogue
Moreover, online publics can be and mutual understandingxxxiii. This
extremely sceptical holding the belief “data-driven” conceptualization is a
that much of Twiplomacy is actually result of entrenched norms and
Twipoganda. Therefore, such publics values adopted during the Cold War,
may be eager to counter or reject pre-existing behaviours of US
diplomatic messaging. An interesting diplomats and mandated procedures
case study is the global rejection of such as employing quantitative
Michel Obama’s famous Selfie with assessment tools in the search for
the hashtag “Bring Back Our “cost effective” public diplomacy.
Girls”xxviii. Notably, Bean and Comor’s paper
seems to follow the matrix of
Conversely, Hayden argues that influence introduced in this working
online publics are not assembled in paper.
one place, or on one site, and thus
constitute networks of selective Other studies have investigated the
exposurexxix. This has led MFAs to practitioners of diplomacy including
strategically tailor their messaging by Archetti’s view of diplomacy as an
identifying which audiences can be evolutionary model of change that
found on each digital platform. diplomats must adapt to and
Pamment’s analysis of British online
Much of the research corpus focuses diplomacy as transmedia
on the institutions of diplomacy. engagementxxxiv.
Anne Marie Slaughter argues that in a
networked world a nation’s Studies have also examined the
networked-ness is as important as its practice of diplomacy in digital
11
environments. Seib’s conceptual
contribution focuses on the metaphor
of real-time diplomacy while Rana
explores a new procedure- engaging
online with national Diasporas and
leveraging digital relationships with
Diasporasxxxv. From a behavioural
perspective, Jenifer Cassidy and I
examine digital crisis
managementxxxvi.

12
 Table 4: Mapping the Existing Research Corpus

Dimensionsof Normative
Normative
Dimensions
of (norms, values,
(norms, values, Behavioural
Behavioural Procedural
Procedural Conceptual
Conceptual
Diplomacy
beliefs)
Diplomacy beliefs)
Digital publics
Diplomats must constitute
Digital publics as
conceptualize Diplomacy as
networks of Peer-to-peer
Audiences of volatile
and and
imagine engaging with
selective diplomacy
Diplomacy unpredictable Public connected publics
digital2011) exposure (Attias, 2012)
(Haynal, Diplomacy 2.0 (Melissen, 2005)
diplomacy (Hayden,
(Khatib,
2012) Digital From club mentality to
before it can be diplomacy
Dutton & network mentality
Netpolitik
practiced Selfie
Practitioners Thelwall, as (Firestone
(Heine,&2013)
Dong,
(Manor, 2016) diplomacy
of 2017) transmedia 2015)
(Manor &
Diplomacy Networked engagement
Segev, 2015; Where is the
Digital diplomacy 21st century
diplomacy Manor,
(Pamment, 2017) headquarters (Golberg
as a clash between statecraft (Hayden,
(Anne Marie & Kaduck,
traditional
Digital and 2015) 2012) 2011)
Slaughter,
Twiplomacy Digital agenda
transparent
diplomacy as an 2009)
study 2017 setting (Bjola
diplomacy MFAs as service
evolutionary & Jiang, 2017)
(Hocking & providers (Manor,
model of change Digital
Melissen, 2017)
(Archetti, 2012) diplomacy and E- diplomacy
2015;Wichowski,
Institutions of digital (Hocking &
Lack 2015)
of online The connective
Real-Time Diplomacy
Diplomacy containment Melissen,
engagement with mindshift
(2012)
(Bjola & 2015)
social media (Zaharna,
Pamment,
Digital Aresnault &
users (Kampf, 2016) Digital
Digital Digital diplomacy as
Digital diplomacy diplomacy as Fisher, 2013)
Manor & Segev, Diplomacy
diaspora as change management
Practice of as managing crisis
2015) Public adiplomacy
battle over (Bjola & Holmes,
organizational communication Digital
Diplomacy Diplomacy 2.0 narratives
culture of MFAs (Rana, engagement
2015)
(Metzgar,&
(Cassidy (Hallams,
(Bjola,
New public2017) 2013) (Comor, 2013)
2012)
Manor, 2016) 2010)
diplomacy in the Diplomacy in the
21st century Data-Driven
digital Public &
age (Hocking
Diplomacy 2.0
Diplomacy (Bean
(Pamment, 2013) (Harris, 2012) Melissen)
& Comor, 2017)

13
 Normative
Dimensions
(norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual
of Diplomacy
beliefs)
Diplomats must
From club
conceptualize and
Public mentality to
imagine digital
Diplomacy 2.0 network
diplomacy before Digital
(Khatib, Dutton mentality
it can be practiced diplomacy
& Thelwall, (Heine,
(Manor, 2016) as
Practitioners 2017) 2013)
transmedia
of Diplomacy
engagement
Where is the
(Pamment,
headquarters
Digital diplomacy 2015)
Twiplomacy (Golberg &
as an evolutionary
study 2017 Kaduck,
model of change
2011)
(Archetti, 2012)
Real-Time
Diplomacy
(2012)
Lack of online
Digital
engagement with
diplomacy as
social media users Digital
Digital change
(Kampf, Manor & diplomacy as
diaspora management
Practice of Segev, 2015) crisis
diplomacy (Bjola &
Diplomacy communication
(Rana, Holmes,
New public (Cassidy &
2013) 2015)
diplomacy in the Manor, 2016)
21st century
Diplomacy
(Pamment, 2013)
in the digital
age (Hocking
& Melissen,
2015)

14
5. Conclusions dichotomous view of diplomats as
being either digital or not digital.
The emergence of digital technologies Second, it clearly identifies four
has had a profound impact on the domains of diplomacy that have been
conduct and study of diplomacy. influenced by digital technologies.
MFAs, embassies and diplomats are Lastly, it incorporates a normative
continuously embracing new tools element that places greater emphasis
and platforms while reimagining the on norms, values and beliefs and the
environment in which diplomacy is behaviours that follow.
practiced.
It is the inclusion of a normative
Recent years have also seen increased element in “the digitalization of
academic interest in the intersection diplomacy” that recognizes the
between diplomacy and digital manner in which culture can
technologies. Scholars have evaluated influence the practice of diplomacy.
diplomats’ use of digital tools to Moreover, the term proposed in this
engage with new audiences, paper recognizes that diplomats are
overcome the limitation of traditional social beings and that before
diplomacy, collaborate with new diplomacy can be practiced it must be
actors and promote cross-cultural imagined.
dialogue.
In summary, this paper sought to
However, both scholars and clarify a fractured terminology and
diplomats continue to search for a offer a more systematic approach to
term that best describes the impact of the study of digital technologies’
digital technologies on diplomacy. impact on diplomacy.
This search is an important one for it
is through terms and definitions that Importantly, this paper argues that
academics and practitioners make the term "the digitalization of
sense of the world around them. diplomacy", and its matrix of
influence, can aid scholars in
To date, the search for such as term mapping the existing research corpus
has led to a fractured terminology and identifying new avenues of
which is either too narrow in its investigation. Thus, this term brings
scope, such as Twiplomacy, or to order to a somewhat chaotic field. It
inclusive, such as the catch all phrase is therefore appropriate to end this
digital diplomacy. working paper by identifying the
research agendas currently being
This working paper aimed to address explored by diplomacy, international
this substantial gap by proposing a relations and communication
new term- “the digitalization of scholars.
diplomacy”. I have argued that this
term offers three advantages. First, it Corneliu Bjola and James Pamment
includes a temporal dimension and are investigating the use of digital
views digitalization as a long term platforms in CVE activities
process. Thus, it negates the (countering violent extremism).
15
Recent years have seen a growing diplomats. Similarly, Taylor Owen’s
number of MFAs and diplomats research will continue to investigate
practicing CVE both on social media the impact of digital disruption of
and elsewhere. Bjola and Pamment’s diplomatic institutionsxl.
work may shed light on the new
behaviours and procedures of Jan Melissen’s work will offer insight
diplomatic institutions as well as the into how South-East Asian MFAs are
new belief among diplomats adapting to the norms and values
regarding the dangers of celebrated by the digital society. By so
digitalization. doing, Melissen’s work will delve
deeper into the normative field of
Trail-blazers such as Jenifer Cassidy diplomacy and the contradiction
and Rhys Crilley will continue to between the values of the digital
focus on the practice of diplomacy. society and those of diplomats. His
Cassidy’s work on digital signalling colleague, Sean Riordan will ask a
will reveal the procedures that govern more basic question- who is a
digital crisis diplomacy. Crilley’s diplomat in the digital age? Located
original work on the use of images by within the domain of practitioners of
MFAs will examine both the diplomacy, Riordan’s work will focus
normative and behavioural aspects of on the digital empowerment of non-
practicing diplomacy in a visual state actors xli.
agexxxvii.
Marcus Holmes’ project on the
The works of Ben O’Loughlin, Alister digitalization of Palestinian public
Miskimmon and Laura Roselle on diplomacy will analyse MFAs’ use of
digital narratives focus on both the digital tools to overcome the
audiences of diplomacy, who are limitation of traditional diplomacy.
exposed to contradicting narratives, Similarly, Comor and Bean are likely
and the practitioners of diplomacy, to expand their work on the norms
who formulate and disseminate and beliefs that govern US digitalized
narratives online. Their work, which public diplomacy, both from an
is situated at the intersection between individual and institutional
diplomacy, societal norms, and perspective.
digital culture, will further investigate
the normative and procedural fields Sean Powers, who now heads the US
of the practice of diplomacyxxxviii. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy, will ask- can public
Phillip Howard and Robert Gorwa of diplomacy survive the internet? The
the Oxford Internet Institute will Commission’s recent report, which I
examine the role of Bots and hope is the first of many, already
computational propaganda in explores the internet’s influence on
modern diplomacyxxxix. Their series of the normative and behavioural fields
working papers, which focus on the of diplomats and diplomatic
procedures of diplomatic institutions, institutionsxlii.
already suggest that digital spaces are
increasingly militarized by MFAs and
16
Lastly, Elad Segev and I will research
the influence of the network structure https://digdipblog.com/2015/01/04/kenya
/
on interactions between MFAs while
Ronit Kampf and I will investigate
how the beliefs of diplomats should Bradshaw, S. & Howard, P. (2017). Troops,
iv

impact digital training within MFAs. Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global

Inventory of Organized Social Media
Manipulation. Working Paper no 2017.12,
Future avenues of research will arise Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational
from new technologies including Propaganda Research Project.
virtual reality as a tool for cultural http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-
diplomacy; drone use for consular content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/Troops-
aid; 3D printing for foreign aid Trolls-and-Troublemakers.pdf
projects (e.g., printing and building vKampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015).
cheap homes for refugees) and cyber Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national
agreements regrading free movement comparison of public engagement in
of autonomous cars across borders. Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal
of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331-362.
So as the digital age continues to
evolve so will this research corpus viHocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015).
continue to expand and diversify. Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael,
Netherlands Institute of International
Relations.
iManor, I (2015, June). On Virtual
https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/fi
Embassies in the Age of Digital Diplomacy.
Exploring Digital Diplomacy. les/Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_Digital%20
https://digdipblog.com/2014/06/25/on- Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf.
virtual-embassies-in-the-age-of-digital-
diplomacy/ ;Khatib, L., Dutton, W., & Manor, I. (2016). Are We There Yet: Have
vii

Thelwall, M. (2012). Public diplomacy 2.0: MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital
A case study of the US digital outreach Diplomacy?. Brill Research Perspectives in
team. The Middle East Journal, 66(3), 453- Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1-110.
472.
This title borrows from Robert Entman's
viii

Manor, I. (2015, March). Norway’s New

ii
seminal article "Framing: Toward
Engagement Model A Much Warranted Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm",
Change. Exploring Digital Diplomacy. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward
https://digdipblog.com/2015/03/08/norwa clarification of a fractured
ys-new-engagement-model-a-much- paradigm. Journal of
warranted-change/; Manor, I., & Holmes, communication, 43(4), 51-58.
M. (2017, July 31). Online Palestine is
Cull, N. J. (2013). The long road to public
ix
Advicating Peace. The Jeruslaem Post .
diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US public
Retrieved from
diplomacy. International Studies Review,
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Online-
15(1), 123-139.
Palestine-is-advocating-peace-501268

xManor, I. America’s selfie–Three years

Manor, I. (2015, January). How Kenya’s
iii

MFA Leads by Example. Exploring Digital later. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy. Diplomacy, 1-17.; Seib, P. (2012). Real-time

17
diplomacy: politics and power in the social practice-and-conceptual-limits-for-us-
media era. Springer. public-diplomacy.pdf

xiRiordan, S. (2016, May). Cyber Diplomacy xix

I thank Jan Melissen for this insight
vs. Digital Diplomacy: A Terminological
Distinction. USC Center on Public xx
Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or
Diplomacy Blog. Retrieved from the message? Social media, American public
https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/cyber diplomacy & Iran. Global Media
-diplomacy-vs-digital-diplomacy- Journal, 12, 1-16.
terminological-distinction
Manor, I (2016, March). How Russia
xxi

Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). America’s

xii Practices Digital Diplomacy- Interview with
selfie: How the US portrays itself on its Press Attaché to London. Exploring Digital
social media accounts. Digital diplomacy: Diplomacy.
Theory and practice, 89-108. https://digdipblog.com/2016/03/13/how-
russia-practices-digital-diplomacy-
interview-with-press-attache-at-russian-
Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital
xiii
embassy-to-london/
Diplomacy: Theory and Practice.
Routledge; Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign Manor, I. (2017). Summary Report-
xxii

policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Israel’s First Digital Diplomacy Conference.
Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10
xxiii See Manor, I. 2016. Are We There Yet?
80/23311886.2017.1297175
Manor, I. (2016, April). Is Digital
xxv

xiv See Manor, I. 2016, Are We There Yet? Diplomacy Really Domestic Diplomacy.
Exploring Digital
See Manor, I. 2016. Are We There Yet?;
xv Diplomacy.https://digdipblog.com/2016/0
Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: 4/07/is-digital-diplomacy-really-domestic-
politics and power in the social media era; diplomacy/

Wichowski, A. (2015). Secrecy is for

xvi

losers’: Why diplomats should embrace Manor, I. (2017, March). How Embassies
xxvi

Managed the London Terror Attack.

openness to protect national security.
Exploring DigitalDiplomacy.
Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice,
https://digdipblog.com/2017/03/23/how-
52-70. embassies-managed-the-london-terror-
attack/
See
xvii

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 Haynal, G. (2011). Corporate Diplomacy

xxvii

016/apr/30/cv-of-failures-princeton- in the Infromation Age.: Catching Up to the

professor-publishes-resume-of-his-career- Dispersal of Power. In J. G. Stein (Ed.),
lows Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Essays in
Honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb (pp.
Hayden, C. (2012). Social media at state:
xviii 209-224). Ontario: Signal.
Power, practice, and conceptual limits for
Manor, I. (2014, May 20). Why Michelle
xxviii
US public diplomacy. Global Media
Obama’s tweet matters. The Times of Israel.
Journal, 12, 1-21. Retrieved from
http://www.globalmediajournal.com/open- http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-
access/social-media-at-state-power- michele-obamas-tweet-matters/

18
 See Hayde, C. (2012). Social media at
xxix Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy.
state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits Relational, Networked and Collaborative
for US public diplomacy Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The
Connective Mindshift, 70-85.
Slaughter, A. M. (2009). America's edge:
xxx

Power in the networked century. Foreign

Affairs, 94-113. Cassidy, J., & Manor, I. (2016). Crafting
xxxvi

strategic MFA communication policies

Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (2016). Digital
xxxi during times of political crisis: a note to
containment: Revisiting containment MFA policy makers. Global Affairs, 2(3),
strategy in the digital age. Global Affairs, 331-343.
2(2), 131-142.
da Silva, R., & Crilley, R. (2017). “Talk
xxxvii

See Manor, I. & Segev, E. (2015).

xxxii about terror in our back gardens”: an
America’s selfie: How the US portrays itself analysis of online comments about British
on its social media accounts. Digital foreign fighters in Syria. Critical Studies on
diplomacy: Theory and practice, 89-108; Terrorism, 10(1), 162-186.
Hallams, E. (2010). Digital diplomacy: the http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10
internet, the battle for ideas & US foreign 80/17539153.2016.1237011
policy. CEU Political Science Journal, 4,
538-574. Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B., &
xxxviii

http://politicalscience.ceu.edu/sites/politic Roselle, L. (2014). Strategic narratives:

alscience.ceu.hu/files/basic_page/field_att Communication power and the new world
achment/vol54.pdf#page=58 order (Vol. 3). Routledge.

Bean, H., & Comor, E. (2017). Data-

xxxiii
xxxix
Visit http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/
Driven Public Diplomacy: A Critical and
Reflexive xlOwen, T. (2015). Disruptive power: The
Assessment.http://www.foreignpolicyandpe crisis of the state in the digital age. Oxford
ace.org/wp- Studies in Digital Politics.
content/uploads/2017/05/BeanComor-
1506online.pdf
See list of essays at the USC CPD Blog-
xli

https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/users/shau
Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new
xxxiv n-riordan
media on diplomatic practice: an
evolutionary model of change. The Hague Powers, S., & Kounalakis, M. (2017,
xlii

Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 181-206.; May). Can public diplomacy survive the
internet? Bots, echo chambers,
Pamment, J. (2016). Digital diplomacy as
and disinformation. U.S. Advisory
transmedia engagement: Aligning theories
Commission on Public Diplomacy.
of participatory culture with international Retrieved from
advocacy campaigns. new media & society, https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza
18(9), 2046-2062; tion/271028.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11
77/1461444815577792

See Seib, P. (2012). Real-time

xxxv

diplomacy; Rana, K. S. (2013). Diaspora

19