Intermap

By Craig Hayden

On Tuesday, February 1, 2011 I had the privilege of speaking to Dawn McCall, the Director for the Bureau of International Information Programs (or IIP) at the US Department of State. IIP along with Education and Cultural Affairs (or ECA) comprise the direct reports to Judith McHale, the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. For good discussion of how IIP fits into the rest of the State Department, see Matthew Armstrong’s recap of his discussion with McCall the previous week.

Director McCall answered questions about recent changes to IIP announced on January 28, 2011, which comes after a thorough “three month business review review that examined every aspect of IIP’s operations, programs, and products. The review included focus groups, site visits to American embassies and consulates abroad, and working groups within IIP.” IIP is primarily responsible for printed material, web and video content, and speaker programs that promote subject matter experts giving talks around the world. IIP also manages America.gov.

The changes we talked about are interesting, in that they reflect a reorientation away from directing content production from Washington. McCall announces in the press release: “In today’s crowded communications environment, we cannot expect audiences to come to us… Instead, we must go to where they prefer to be, and think of new ways to engage with them.” Sound advice, given the plurality of media options that comprise how audiences seek and rely on particular outlets to frame their view of the world and sustain their communities. The US can’t just put up a website and expect public diplomacy impacts, let alone even decent traffic. It needs to be present (in a legitimate way) within particular media ecologies.
continue reading…

by Craig Hayden

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.”
continue reading…

By Craig Hayden

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.
continue reading…