2018
DOI: 10.1057/s41254-018-0104-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Who are publics in public diplomacy? Proposing a taxonomy of foreign publics as an intersection between symbolic environment and behavioral experiences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the purposes of this study, we surveyed the GKS students, who are foreigners that had spent at least 10 months in Korea, after which they evaluated the country in a survey. Their evaluations of Korea were more informed due to their direct first-hand and behavioral experiences rather than having obtained mere impressions through symbolic communication (Choi et al 2019;Tam and Kim 2019;Vibber and Kim 2019). In other words, the GKS recipients experienced "close, direct, experiential, and sociological" communication with Koreans during their long stays in the country, compared to other foreigners' "essentially distant, mediated and superficial" communications with Korea and Koreans through the culture media and international news (Yun and Kim 2008, p. 568).…”
Section: Country Imagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the purposes of this study, we surveyed the GKS students, who are foreigners that had spent at least 10 months in Korea, after which they evaluated the country in a survey. Their evaluations of Korea were more informed due to their direct first-hand and behavioral experiences rather than having obtained mere impressions through symbolic communication (Choi et al 2019;Tam and Kim 2019;Vibber and Kim 2019). In other words, the GKS recipients experienced "close, direct, experiential, and sociological" communication with Koreans during their long stays in the country, compared to other foreigners' "essentially distant, mediated and superficial" communications with Korea and Koreans through the culture media and international news (Yun and Kim 2008, p. 568).…”
Section: Country Imagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…When developing mega-events, organizers should keep in mind that having citizens who place a high-importance on interacting with foreigners and having positive interactions during mega-events are key to the diplomacy goals of hosting these events in the first place (e.g., building positive reputation, tourism and travel intention, etc.). Tam and Kim’s ( 2019 ) recent taxonomy of important foreign publics for achieving public diplomacy goals highlights that a positive behavioral experience with a country is key to having the foreign public communicate positively on behalf of that country (i.e., advocational or ambassadorial foreign publics). An empirical study by Vibber and Kim ( 2019 ) provides further support for this connection, finding that within-border foreign publics (e.g., international exchange students) who perceived their relationship with the host country positively reported higher scores on positive megaphoning and lower scores on negative megaphoning.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As argued by Gilboa (2008), scholars in public diplomacy ought to provide a more robust theoretical foundation to the field in order to clear the confusion and push the field forward. Over the past two decades, several public diplomacy taxonomies, models, and theoretical perspectives have been introduced by scholars (Cull, 2008; Entman, 2008; Fullerton & Kendrick, 2017; Gilboa, 2008; Golan, 2015), while others drew on public relations and mass communication theories to predict and explain some of the key relationship and reputation management functions of public diplomacy (Grunig, 1993; Tam & Kim, 2019; Yun, 2006) or its public opinion outcomes (Nisbet, Nisbet, Scheufele, & Shanahan, 2004; Sheafer & Gabay, 2009; Stoycheff & Nisbet, 2016). While both approaches provide important contributions to the field’s continued development, public diplomacy is fundamentally undermined by the continuous lack of a clear organizing theoretical foundation that can guide its scholarship forward.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%