Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication

Strengthening IIP: Providing Content that Matters

February 4th, 2011  |  by  |  published in Featured Post, Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication

Strengthening IIP: Providing Content that Matters

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.

Assessing the Public Diplomacy Assessment Model Report

October 15th, 2010  |  by  |  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.

Labels and Credibility

April 15th, 2010  |  by  |  published in Public Diplomacy & Strategic Communication

So I was at the Confucius Institute at the University of Maryland this week doing some research for my book on comparative public diplomacy. I had a great discussion with the directors of the program. They offered a number of insights and were very welcoming. I’d like to share something that came out of the meeting that adds some perspective to recent US attempts to rehabilitate US public diplomacy strategy. The individuals I spoke with seemed pretty sure what they did was not public diplomacy – and were somewhat ambivalent about the term cultural diplomacy. For the Confucius Institute – their “mission” was primarily defined as education and educational partnership.


  • Amb. Casamitjana: I sign off on prearranged tweets & post myself. I don't share personal info. Convey fopo of Mex. Govt.
  • How can groups like Sister Cities benefit from social media? Get the message out!
  • : must think broadly about interlocutors for diplomacy. Social media can help connect/identify.
  • Mex amb. Casamitjana : states suffering from legitimacy crisis for public policy. Sounds like Castells on network power.
  • : social media punishes moderation. Rewards extremist politics. Don't know where this is going.