Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-national Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter

Abstract

Social media holds the potential to foster dialogue between nations and foreign populations. Yet only a few studies to date have investigated the manner in which digital diplomacy is practised by foreign ministries. Using Kent and Taylor’s framework for dialogic communication, this article explores the extent to which dialogic communication is adopted by foreign ministries in terms of content, media channels and public engagement. The results of a six-week analysis of content published on Twitter and Facebook by eleven foreign ministries show that engagement and dialogic communication are rare. When engagement does occur, it is quarantined to specific issues. Social media content published by foreign ministries represents a continuous supply of press releases targeting foreign, rather than domestic, populations. A cross-national comparison revealed no discernible differences in the adoption of dialogic principles. Results therefore indicate that foreign ministries still fail to realize the potential of digital diplomacy to foster dialogue.

From Embassy Ties to Twitter Links: Comparing Offline and Online Diplomatic Networks

“…Since then, this empire has only grown while other MFAs such as Israel, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Kenya all followed suit (Manor, ). Managing such empires requires constant creation of content, interaction with stakeholders and dedicated human resources to monitor the accounts of one's peers (Kampf et al, ). Digital diplomacy may be cost demanding leading some MFAs to establish a limited online presence.…”

“…The financial comparison between social media and brick and mortar embassies is only limited to the initial startup costs—maintaining a global digital presence has proven to be a costly practice for several countries. See Kampf, Manor, and Segev () and Manor () for a longer discussion of the financial aspects of digital diplomacy.…”

Digital Communication Disrupting Hegemonic Power in Global Geopolitics

“…Social media hold the potential to foster dialogue and build relationships between governments and people. The dialogic communication is often limited to very specific issues, however, studies tend to demonstrate that foreign ministries fail to realize the full potential of digital diplomacy (choosing to focus a lot on bilateral/multilateral issues, economic news, current affairs, public relations, and e-government), using a monologic tone rather than fostering dialogue (Kampf et al, 2015). This means the communication logic supports a consumer and not prosumer approach, where the audience is treated as a passive receiver and not an active partner in co-production and collaboration.…”

Latvian Digital Diplomacy—Approaches and Policy

“…In the opinion of the respondents, the organisation's overall environment and culture are conservative and not focused towards changes, while individual attitudes are less interfering and possibly rather supportive. So-called risk factors were named as disruptive at both the organizational and individual levels (Kampf, Manor, & Segev, 2015), defined as leading to effects opposite of what is desired and therefore discouraging an individual from specific action. Namely, potential social network usage risks such as hacker interference in ICT systems, hacking of social network accounts, provocations, etc., discourage employees from using these tools for work purposes.…”