Abstract
AbstractIn view of the major methodological challenges which confront researchers in public diplomacy (PD), the paper recognizes the method of comparative-historical analysis (CHA) as an eminently suitable approach for robust empirical studies. The paper starts by exploring different conceptualizations and operationalizations of public diplomacy. Subsequently, four defining characteristics of CHA are identified: (1) CHA starts from a positivist epistemological perspective; (2) CHA-based research usually is concerned with “big questions;” (3) comparative methods are applied in CHA, either across different cases or within cases across time, allowing for in-depth analyses; (4) by considering respective starting points, specific historical developments, and cultural particulars, CHA is committed to methods drawn from historical research, including process tracing and causal narrative. The paper demonstrates that CHA, in view of these characteristics and with its highly interdisciplinary pedigree and methodological eclecticism, is eminently suited for studies exploring PD practices and outcomes. To provide a tailor-made approach for such endeavors, CHA is innovatively combined with the method of structured, focused comparison. Finally, drawing on both the different operationalizations of PD and the requirements of CHA, a comprehensive matrix for CHA-based PD research is presented, offering a tangible framework for future empirical analyses.
Funder
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Marketing,Strategy and Management
Reference60 articles.
1. Amenta, Edwin. 2003. Comparative and historical research in comparative and historical perspective. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 91–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Auer, Claudia. 2017. Theorie der Public Diplomacy: Sozialtheoretische Grundlegung einer Form strategischer Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
3. Auer, Claudia, Alice Srugies, and Martin Löffelholz. 2015. Schlüsselbegriffe der internationalen Diskussion: public diplomacy und soft power. In Kultur und Außenpolitik: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis, ed. Kurt-Jürgen. Maaß, 39–54. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
4. Bennett, Andrew, and Alexander L. George. 2001. Case studies and process tracing in history and political science: similar strokes for different foci. In Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, 137–166. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5. Clerc, Louis. 2016. Variables for a History of Small States’ Imaging Practices: The Case of Finland’s ‘International Communication’ in the 1970s–1980s. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 12 (2–3): 110–123.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献