If there are but a few core things I
have learned about about PD during my time in this course it’s
-
The study of public diplomacy is a
relatively new
-
There is an acknowledgement that
America’s core public diplomacy strategy is weak
Then, of the interested PD practitioners
we have the Sharks and the Jets – the academics that focus much of their work
to analyses of foreign relations and the field workers that get involved
actively in campaign work on the ground. Two groups, barely at the edge of
understanding one another, are of the opinion that each faction is neither
helpful nor necessary to the cause.
9/11 was the catalyst for public/foreign
diplomacy awareness in America – the problem was that people were too eager and
too unprepared. The result is this chasm
that currently exists between two integral aspects that are needed to make PD
work.
I believe that it goes without saying a solution for this is
greater collaboration. Academics should draw their ideas from real case
studies, as well as immerse themselves in real-life situations as field-based
interviews and discussions as a core part of their study. Likewise, practitioners
should actively seek out who study and write about public diplomacy in
publicizing and popularizing their work.
The combined strengths from both sides can help to solve
many of the problems prevailing within the system, lack of staffing, inadequate
training, dwindling budgets, poor communication between field posts and the
leadership in Washington, and so on.
This blog post is stating the obvious but most important
thing that I believe must be carried over from the classroom out into the
field. The structure supporting the system needs to be stronger and that will
only happen if there are more people there to make it so.
Hi, Amanda:
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that the system supporting public diplomacy efforts must be stronger. I also think that this transition can potentially happen not only by more people being engaged in the work of PD, but more of the right kind of people who are innovative and are willing to change based on technology advances and varying cultural dynamics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that stating the obvious is harmful. It serves as a reminder of what has been achieved and what still needs to be done in order to make gains in PD. You bring up sound points about the history and the trajectory for PD especially as we head into he 21st century. In regards to your point on practitioner and academics, I would definitely say that a balance is needed. The academics have I would dare say the luxury of being the observers, while the practitioners are the ones out there in the last three feet making it happen, but it is definitely important to compose a PD methodology that includes both frames of mind.
ReplyDelete