I just read Robin Brown’s thoughtful commentary on the UT-Austin PD-MAP assessment report and tool. In my previous take, I was focused primarily on the utility of the instrument: the methodological implications for how it can be used by policy-makers and as a roadmap to knowledge building about effectiveness.
But I think Brown’s blog reflects what I think is really interesting about the PD-MAP exercise and what animates my own academic project – how actors conceptualize, argue for, and implement strategies of influence that are indelibly marked by their own political, social, and cultural context. When people write about measures of effectiveness – what are they saying about the mechanics of persuasion, the ideal relationship between the subject (the audience) and the state, and the normative implications of intervening in other people’s world-views? As Janice Bially-Mattern has argued, we need to think carefully about how we so casually talk about tweaking people’s “ontological security” when we use “representational force.”
Archive for October, 2010
Critical Implications of Compliance and Understanding
October 19th, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Featured Post, Theory & Research
Theoretically Speaking
October 16th, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Theory & Research
My previous post on the US Adivsory Commission’s “PD-MAP” assessment too was admittedly long, drawing in a number of tangental thoughts and complaints regarding the study of public diplomacy. I guess I’ve got a lot of pent up ideas I wanted to get out. But amidst the competing arguments, there is one that I want to clarify. I do not suggest in my skepticism of the PD-MAP assessment tool that A) public diplomacy measurement of effectiveness is impossible and B) we can’t have public diplomacy-centric scholarship to support such analysis.
The latter clarification is largely academic – but important to make. Masters programs in public diplomacy
Will there by a theory of public diplomacy? Right now, we have a variety of theories and related perspectives that are appropriate and applicable to public diplomacy scholarship. From micro-level theories of communication, such as agenda setting, priming, framing, and a slew of persuasion theories…. to critical perspectives from social theory that force us to consider how public diplomacy practices reinforce or convey ideological messags
Assessing the Public Diplomacy Assessment Model Report
October 15th, 2010 | by Craig Hayden | published in Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication
At their September 28 meeting, the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy announced a report they had commissioned from a research team at UT Austin. Its subject of evaluation and measurement for public diplomacy is undoubtedly important and a significant priority for governments engaged in public diplomacy around the world. This report owes its existence to the efforts of the Advisory Commission’s former Executive Director, David Firestein – an intelligent and articulate advocate for public diplomacy concerns. Frankly it’s surprising that it took this long for the Commission to get to this subject, but it’s a significant step in the right direction. The report itself, however, is not perfect.
Matthew Armstrong wasted no time in offering a thorough and at times stinging assessment of the report. Having read both the report and Armstrong’s commentary, I’ve come to a few conclusions:
1. The report is a commendable and surprisingly systematic attempt to devise a flexible evaluation tool.
2. It’s not ground-breaking in its recommendations – but then again I don’t think it was intended to be. It’s designed to provide a tool for policy evaluators to consider programs based on previous experiences.
3. I think Armstrong’s negative comments about the project’s formative research expressed a frustration many public diplomacy watchers share about previous evaluation work.
4. I also think Armstrong’s critique: that the report offers nothing new in terms of criticism of US PD is fine, but that wasn’t the point of the report.
5. The report authors were not able to interview and survey enough people to do a thorough analysis of US strategic thinking and culture about public diplomacy. Then again, I’m not sure they needed to. See above.
6. The PD-MAP is a neat tool. But it’s strangely idiosyncratic and at times arbitrary in its recommendations for how to measure outcomes. It’s not well cited – which is important when you consider all the different dynamics they are trying to measure.
7. I’m starting to appreciate John Brown’s position more on public diplomacy research (!). See below.