@phdthesis{Kersaint2013, author = {Kersaint, Mait{\´e}}, title = {Exploring Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Comparison of German and U.S. Digital Public Diplomacy in Theory and Practice}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:521-opus-939}, school = {Europa-Universit{\"a}t Viadrina Frankfurt}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Designed as an exploratory study, this dissertation consists of a policy analysis of German and U.S. American approaches to public diplomacy 2.0, understood as public diplomacy by means of social media. The study's main argument is that in spite of claims to the contrary, social media did not substantially change the practice of public diplomacy. No digital turn took place: Both countries' governments act according to their respective foreign policy tradition and public diplomacy doctrines and, by doing so, confirm a historical institutionalist view on politics. After developing public diplomacy as an integrated concept that incorporates facets of several other related ones like propaganda, branding and cultural relations, it will be demonstrated that public diplomacy remains an instrument of power employed by a given state to reaffirm its might; it is not destined to empower other groups. It will also be shown how social media's premises like transparency and decentralization clash with those of public diplomacy and government administration, and how this impedes public diplomacy's operationalisation on the Internet. It will be explored how that contradiction affects the practice of public diplomacy 2.0 and how its stakeholders deal with given implications by laying out a methodological framework based on historical institutionalism that combines content analysis and expert interviews. On a doctrinal strategic level, the dissertation will then show how the U.S. public diplomacy endeavour is strategically embedded into a wider concept, driven by post-9/11 feelings of vulnerability and the desire to win back hearts and minds. The German approach, on the other hand, refuses such a take, which is partly due to the country's history and negative experiences with propaganda especially during World War II. To Germany, distancing itself from its eventful past through presenting the country as a peaceful, stable democracy is paramount. Combined with the process of coming to terms with the major shakeup the country's reunification brought about, this attitude leads to a struggle to find a new political identity. The body of rules restricting and guiding public diplomacy 2.0 reflects these elements of both countries' respective history and foreign policy tradition. This underscores the weight of history and reaffirms its centrality as a factor for understanding politics. The paper's centrepiece is constituted by a comparative content analysis of the Facebook pages and Twitter feeds belonging to the German embassy in Great Britain (UK) and its American counterpart. The comparison was made over three months in 2011 during discussions about the possible adoption of a financial transaction tax. This particular conflict situation - the UK opposed the measure, backed by the USA, while Germany advocated for it - could have provided a textbook case for the use of social media in public diplomacy. The analysis will, however, reaffirm the allegations made in the dissertation's theoretical parts: Contrary to public opinion, social media are neither interactive nor a mass phenomenon. Communication is employed to echo official government positions as stated in national foreign policy and public diplomacy doctrines as well as to legitimize general policy through subtle rhetorical strategies. The dissertation on hand will further come to the conclusion that the effects of public diplomacy 2.0 can hardly be assessed (if at all), mainly because of a lack of reliable measuring frameworks and monitoring tools. Rather, social media are a listening and opinion gathering device, providing governments with big data on their audience.}, language = {en} }