Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014 Antoaneta M. Vanc a , Kathy R. Fitzpatrick b,∗ a b

Quinnipiac University, 275 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden, CT 06518, United States American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20016-8017, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 6 July 2015 Accepted 15 July 2015 Available online xxx Keywords: Public diplomacy International public relations National image Nation branding

a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study was to assess the scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars between 1990 and 2014. The work examined authorship, research topics, methodological approaches and contributions to theory building in public diplomacy. The research revealed tremendous potential for public relations researchers to contribute to the intellectual and practical development of public diplomacy. The investigation also identified a need for empirical studies that would deepen our understanding of how diplomatic actors build and sustain relationships with foreign publics and the potential role and value of public relations concepts and practices in such processes. Recommendations for future research are offered. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction Historically, public relations scholars have shown little interest in public diplomacy, or the process by which diplomatic actors communicate and build relationships with foreign publics. In 1992, for example, Signitzer and Coombs observed that although governments are recognized as actors in international public relations, “the theoretical and practical public relations literature has been conspicuously silent about this issue” (p. 138). These scholars found: How nation-states, countries or societies manage their communicative relationships with their foreign publics remains largely the domain of political science and international relations. Public relations theory development covering this theme has yet to progress beyond the recognition that nations can engage in international public relations (p. 138). This “intellectual divide” (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 189) began to close shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, which sparked broad global interest in public diplomacy’s expanded role and value in an increasingly interdependent and highlyconnected global society. Since 9/11, dozens of books, articles, papers and reports have been written about public diplomacy by scholars and practitioners in a range of fields, including political science, international relations, diplomacy, journalism, marketing/branding, cultural studies, international communication—and public relations. The global conversations generated by this growing body of public diplomacy knowledge – combined with significant attention to public diplomacy in foreign ministries throughout the world – has created a new field of scholarship and practice (Gregory, 2008) to which public relations scholars and practitioners are uniquely qualified to contribute.

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 202 885 2017. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Vanc), kfi[email protected] (K.R. Fitzpatrick). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012 0363-8111/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

2

In examining the state of public diplomacy scholarship, Gilboa (2008) concluded that “despite the growing significance of public diplomacy in contemporary international relations, scholars have not yet pursued or even sufficiently promoted systematic theoretical research in this field” nor have they “proposed a comprehensive and integrated framework” (p. 73). With respect to public relations, he noted that practitioners in public diplomacy have neglected relevant knowledge in communication and public relations, while communication and public relations scholars have neglected relevant literature in international relations, diplomatic studies, and strategic studies. According to Gilboa (2008), “[a] new research agenda is clearly needed to close the wide gaps” (p. 73). This study assessed the scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars from 1990 to 2014 and identified opportunities for future research. The study documented a significant increase during the time period of the study in the involvement of public relations scholars in scholarly research that enhances understanding of public diplomacy concepts and practices. The research also revealed ways in which public relations concepts can not only be transferred to public diplomacy scholarship, but applied, tested and recommended as workable theoretical frameworks in the academic and practical domains of public diplomacy. The work first examines authorship, research topics and methodological approaches used by public relations scholars in studying public diplomacy. It next considers public relations scholars’ contributions to theory building in public diplomacy. Finally, it proposes a future research agenda for public relations scholars interested in contributing to the intellectual and practical development of public diplomacy. The specific research questions addressed were: RQ1: How many works pertaining to public diplomacy were published by public relations scholars in the publications included in this study during 1990–2014? RQ2: Who were the leading public relations authors in public diplomacy in the publications included in this study during 1990–2014? RQ3: What research topics and methodological approaches appeared in public diplomacy research conducted by public relations scholars in the publications included in this study during 1990–2014? RQ 4: To what extent have public relations scholars contributed to theory building in public diplomacy?

2. Method The contributions of public relations scholars to the public diplomacy literature were determined by a comprehensive review of published works by public relations scholars from 1990 to 2014. We selected 1990 as the start date for the study because prior works revealed little scholarly activity in public diplomacy prior to that time period. The unit of analysis for this study was a published work, including peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, and monographs. Although a sizable number of unpublished works (e.g., conference papers, dissertations, theses) were identified, they were not included in the analysis. Also excluded from the analysis were book reviews, editorials, magazine articles, and online and blog publications. The peer-reviewed works were retrieved via scholarly databases in the social sciences and targeted reviews of public relations and communications scholarly journals, including Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, Public Relations Journal, Journal of Communication Management, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Journal of International Communication, and International Communication Gazette. The sample included four additional journals widely viewed as publication outlets for public diplomacy research, including The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, American Behavioral Scientist, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, and International Journal of Communication. Criteria for inclusion in the study were that the author was a public relations scholar and the study pertained to public diplomacy. The key search terms for scholarly journals and books were “public diplomacy” and “national image” in quotation marks. Book chapters were retrieved through a review of public diplomacy and selected public relations books. Scholarly monographs were retrieved via a review of publications by the leading resource center in the field, the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. Content analysis was employed to examine the manifest content of public relations scholars’ work in public diplomacy. Content analysis was used because it enabled the authors to examine a relatively large number of works in a straightforward systematic manner (Holsti, 1969; Krippendorff, 1980). In this study the authors employed both emergent and a priori coding.

2.1. Coding categories To understand the breadth and depth of public relations scholarship, all publications that fit the criteria were analyzed on the basis of categories adapted from Ye and Ki (2013), who explored the status of online public relations research, proposed four broad categories of analysis including general information about the article, content of the article, research tools, and suggestions for future research. In order to fit the purpose of this work, the coding sheet included the following five specific categories: (1) the name of the journal in which the article was published and publication year, and for books and book chapters, the title of the book and publication year; (2) authorship; (3) topics of interest; (4) research method; and (5) theory building.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3

2.1.1. Journal name and publication year Each article was coded by the name of the journal in which it was published and year of publication. As noted by Ye and Ki (2013), this information helps in establishing trends of publication for each journal. In addition, this information could be useful for public relations scholars attempting to identify appropriate venues for submitting public diplomacy research manuscripts. The other documents included in the analysis such as books, book chapters and monographs were coded for their title and year of publication, plus the title of the book in the case of book chapters. 2.1.2. Authorship Each article, book, book chapter, and monograph was coded for the name of its author(s). Since one of the criteria for inclusion was that the author was a public relations scholar, public diplomacy research published by other scholars was not included in this analysis. This information allows for identifying public relations scholars involved in public diplomacy research. 2.1.3. Topics of interest All works included in the analysis were coded for their main topic. Since the purpose of this study was to explore the scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, this was treated as a latent category, which allowed for the topics to emerge from the analysis (e.g., strategy, conceptual convergence, media). 2.1.4. Research methods All works included in the analysis were examined for their methodologies to better understand how public relations scholars have approached studies of public diplomacy. 2.1.5. Theory building In analyzing contributions to theory building, instead of allowing the categories to emerge from the analysis, the authors defined two main manifest categories for study: (1) theory building viewed as generalizations supported by empirical evidence and (2) theory building viewed as helping to describe, explain and understand various phenomena. 2.1.6. Intercoder reliability Two independent coders coded all the documents included in the analysis. To test for intercoder reliability, a pretest was conducted on 10% of randomly selected documents. The Holsti’s intercoder reliability was 1.0 for the name of the journal and publication year, 1.0 for authorship and institution affiliation; .752 for topics of interest; .745 for theoretical building; .764 for research method; and .732 for suggestions for future research. Overall intercoder agreement was .831, which showed a substantial agreement between the two coders (Landis & Koch, 1977, p. 165). 3. Results Overall, the research identified 120 published works (RQ1), including journal articles (n = 102, 85%), books (n = 4, 3%), book chapters (n = 12, 10%) and monographs (n = 2, 2%). The analysis revealed a marked increase in interest in public diplomacy research among public relations scholars after 2003 (n = 116, 97%), with four works published during 1990–1997 (n = 4, 3%), and no works during 1998–2002. The year with the greatest number of articles published was 2012 (n = 20, 17%). The journal with the most published works by public relations scholars studying public diplomacy during 1990-2014 was Public Relations Review (n = 54, 45%). This was followed by Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (n = 14, 12%), American Behavioral Scientist (n = 8, 7%), Journal of Communication Management (n = 6, 5%), Journal of Public Relations Research (n = 5, 4%), International Journal of Strategic Communication (n = 5, 4%), International Journal of Communication (n = 3, 2%), The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (n = 2, 2%), Journal of International Communication (n = 2, 2%), International Communication Gazette (n = 2, 2%), and Public Relations Journal (n = 1, 1%). 3.1. Authorship To investigate the productivity of public relations scholars in public diplomacy (RQ2) this study adopted the cumulative article credit (Pasadeos, Renfro, & Hanily, 1999). Each article was assigned a credit of 1.0 which was then divided by the number of authors. For instance, .5 was assigned to each author for a two-authored article, and .33 for a three-authored article. The most published author in the selected scholarly works included in this study was Zhang (12 publications, 8.83 credits). He was followed by Fitzpatrick (10 publications, 8.16 credits), Wang (9 publications, 8 credits) and Yun (7 publications, 6 credits). 3.2. Research topics The review of publications included in this study revealed 19 topical categories (RQ2) with strategy-related topics garnering the most interest (n = 43, 36%), followed by media (n = 18, 15%), conceptual convergences (n = 13, 11%), and national Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

4

image (n = 10, 8%). Other topics were models and frameworks (n = 8, 7%), corporate diplomacy (n = 5, 4%), history (n = 5, 4%), crisis/conflict (n = 4, 3%), culture (n = 3, 2%), ethics (n = 2, 2%), publics (n = 2, 2%) and sports diplomacy (n = 2, 2%). The following research topics were noted in single publications: economic development, health diplomacy, NGO diplomacy, privatization, social technology, and tourism. Finally, one work was considered an outlier as it took a comprehensive approach to public diplomacy research and could fit in multiple categories. Works in the topical category strategy (n = 42, 35%) were further ascribed into six topical sub-categories to better illustrate the array of works related to the strategic dimensions of public diplomacy. For instance, the largest topical sub-category was international public relations by states (n = 13, 11%) with most articles focusing on the use of public relations as a strategic management function in the international realm. The topical sub-category political and socio-economic strategy (n = 10, 8%) included articles that discussed the application of public relations in public diplomacy. The topical sub-category message strategy (n = 7, 6%) included works that examined the impact of government messages on country reputation. Works in the topical sub-category branding (n = 6, 5%) challenged the idea of nation branding, contending that a country’s reputation must be earned. Works in the topical sub-category country reputation (n = 3, 2%) explored the role and challenges of country reputation management. The last topical sub-category nation building (n = 3, 2%) focused on the use of strategic communication applied to nation building. Publications included in this study discussed a broad array of topics. For instance, works in the topical category media (n = 18, 15%) discussed media coverage of countries and its pivotal role in formulating and disseminating images of nations. Interestingly, social media (n = 2, 2%) garnered little attention by public relations scholars. In the category of conceptual convergences (n = 13, 11%), the dominant discussion pertained to the transferability of public relations theories, concepts, and principles to the field of public diplomacy (n = 10, 8%). Within this category, a limited number of works (n = 3, 2%) also noted the potential for public diplomacy to advance public relations from both conceptual and practical perspectives. Works in the topical category image (n = 10, 8%) focused on the importance of national image in international relations and argued for continuous management of national reputation in international relations. Public relations scholars interested in public diplomacy models and frameworks (n = 8, 7%) rejected traditional one-way approaches to public diplomacy and called for new models guided by public relations principles such as two-way symmetrical communication, community-building, transparency, and dialogic concepts. In addition, public relations functions such as crisis communication, public opinion, and issues management provided foundations for exploration in public diplomacy. 3.3. Methodological approaches Public relations scholars employed an array of methodologies in studying public diplomacy (RQ3) with the majority of works (n = 101, 83%) employing a single method approach and a limited number (n = 20, 17%) employing multiple methodological approaches. To provide an accurate use of methodologies in the works included in this study, the following analysis portrays an all-encompassing use of research methods, and hence the cumulative number exceeds the total number of works that comprise this study’s population. The most popular methodological approach was the essay (n = 46, 40%). Other popular research methods were content analysis (n = 26, 21%), case study (n = 24, 20%), survey (n = 14, 12%), interview (n = 11, 9%), and secondary research/analysis (n = 8, 7%). Less popular research methods were rhetorical analysis (n = 3, 2%), historical analysis (n = 3, 2%), thematic analysis (n = 2, 2%), comparative analysis (n = 2, 2%), experiment (n = 2, 2%), and grounded theory (n = 2, 2%). The following methodological approaches were employed in singular studies: Burke’s cluster criticism and the invention canon of Neo-Aristotelian criticism, interpretative analysis, metaphoric criticism, participant observation, semantic network analysis, and Q methodology. 3.4. Contributions to public diplomacy theory The study sought to determine to what extent public relations scholars have contributed to theory building in public diplomacy (RQ4). The analysis showed that the majority of studies in the population (n = 73, 60%) were based on a theoretical framework. However, the answer to this research question is dependent on how theory building is defined. On one hand, if theory building is based on generalizations supported by empirical evidence, then a limited number of works included in this study (n = 19, 16%) have contributed to theory building. On the other hand, if theory building is defined more broadly as theoretical perspectives used to describe, explain and understand various phenomena (Sallot, Ling, Acosta-Alzuru & Jones, 2003), then a significantly larger number of works included in this study (n = 54, 45%) have contributed to theory development in public diplomacy. 3.4.1. Empirical studies A limited number (n = 19, 16%) of publications have contributed to public diplomacy theory building through empirical research. The Excellence theory (n = 3) and agenda setting theory (n = 3) were the most tested theories, followed by contingency theory (n = 2), organizational-public relationship theory (n = 2), cultivation theory (n = 2) and framing theory (n = 2). Other empirical works furthered the applicability of additional theories to public diplomacy research, such as the co-orientation theory, country of origin effect, country reputation, Fitzpatrick’s typologies of functions of public diplomacy, framing theory, institutionalization, mediation model, nation brand, normative theory, and the structural theory of internaPlease cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5

tional news flow. These theories were employed to investigate strategic actions by countries, test message strategies effects on country image and reputation, or measure public diplomacy behavior. 3.4.2. Theoretical perspectives Notwithstanding the small number of empirical studies, a considerable range of theoretical perspectives were evident in public diplomacy research conducted by public relations scholars, including agenda setting theory, co-creational theory, communicative action theory, contingency theory, co-orientation theory, critical theory, dialogic agenda setting theory, dialog theory, excellence theory, framing theory, Hankinson’s brand model, historical-rhetoric-critical tradition, image building theory, image cultivation theory, image repair theory, image restoration theory, legitimacy, media effects theory, metaphor theory, mixed-motive model, nation branding theory, noopolitik theory, organization-public relationship theory, political theory, propaganda theory, relationship management theory, reputation theory, situational theory, stakeholder theory, strategic communication, symbolic interactionism, systems theory, the normative model, the situational theory of publics and transitional public relations theory. In discussing the transferability of dialogic concepts to public diplomacy, Fitzpatrick (2011) proposed the dialogic model of public diplomacy built on the principles of mutuality, presence, commitment, authenticity, trust, respect, collaboration and risk. Golan and Yang (2013) proposed a model to predict positive sentiment toward America while examining how evaluation of a nation’s leader may influence evaluations of a nation. Delving into the use of social media in public diplomacy, Zhang (2013) discussed issues management and engagement strategic functions of public relations in public diplomacy practice. The author argued “that social media use in public diplomacy should be a strategic issue management process” (p. 1313) and proposed a new model called “the strategic issue management process of social media use in public diplomacy” (p. 1326). Additionally, a number of public relations scholars suggested new theoretical directions for public diplomacy. For example, Fitzpatrick (2007) proposed a conceptual shift in public diplomacy away from communication toward relationship building, suggesting that “the application of relational concepts in public relations [could] stimulate discussion and debate regarding public diplomacy purposes and practices” (p. 210). Kruckeberg and Vujnovic (2005) proposed a model of public diplomacy based on two-way symmetrical communication and community-building, and later called for the adoption of an Arab model of public relations in public diplomacy, emphasizing the importance of transparency in today’s global society (Vujnovic and Kruckeberg, 2005). In conceptualizing public relations as dialog, Zhang and Swartz (2009a,b,c) proposed a new model of NGO media diplomacy in the internet age. Notably, only one work published within the timeframe of the study (Van Dyke and Verˇciˇc, 2009) challenged the idea or contemplated any negative implications of a convergence in public relations and public diplomacy. Van Dyke and Verˇciˇc (2009) observed, “Unfortunately, public relations scholars have been slow to study this convergence among communication concepts or apply theory in a way that might produce answers to practical problems associated with this trend” (p. 283). 4. Discussion The review of public diplomacy works by public relations scholars from 1990 to 2014 indicated growing interest among public relations scholars in public diplomacy and tremendous potential for public relations to contribute to the intellectual and practical development of public diplomacy. It also showed that the two disciplines share similar philosophical and practical dimensions. Although no common public diplomacy worldview was discernible in the literature, public relations scholars writing about conceptual convergences, as well as models and frameworks, emphasized the importance of relational principles in public diplomacy practices. These works offer fresh ideas for how public diplomacy should be thought about and practiced. Studies examining the strategic aspects of public diplomacy, including works on media and messaging, revealed both commonalities in the two fields and a need to better understand distinctions in international public relations and public diplomacy, as well as in nation branding and propaganda—terms that were sometimes used interchangeably in reference to national image building. Perhaps most important to the study and practice of public diplomacy is the finding that public relations scholars have much to say about how nations engage and build relations with foreign publics. The collective works indicated that public relations scholars recognize increased opportunities for them to “weigh in on major issues of foreign policy” in a world transformed by globalization, new technology and the rise of non-state actors (Lord, 2005, p. 2) and to contribute to the advancement of international relations among nations and peoples. In identifying conceptual and practical links between the two fields, the study also suggested that practitioners steeped in public relations concepts have much to contribute to the advancement of public diplomacy practices. Congruencies between the two fields were evident especially around the topic of strategy with the government as a pivotal actor in conducting international public relations or engaging in political and socio-economic strategy, or designing messages aimed at improving a country’s image or engaging in brand or reputation strategies. At the same time, the diversity of theoretical perspectives and variety of methodologies represented, combined with the large number of works on discreet topics and gaps in important areas (such as measurement), demonstrated that a more coherent and integrated research agenda is needed to help build knowledge and understanding of how and why public diplomacy works the way it works—and how it might be improved. As Ledingham (2006) observed, “theory building begins with an examination of the presuppositions of a domain, and collectively those presuppositions constitute a ‘worldview’ that drives scholarship and practices” (p. 469). Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

6

The limited number of empirical works especially indicated that public relations scholarship on public diplomacy is in an early stage of development. Future empirical research is needed to help to increase understanding of both conceptual and practical connections between public relations and public diplomacy and the advantages (and possible disadvantages) of theoretical and practical cross-fertilization. As Signitzer and Coombs (1992) said, “Only a series of theory-based empirical studies will facilitate this convergence of research traditions which, in the past, have evolved in quite different intellectual and academic settings and in near isolation from each other” (p. 146). 5. Future research Public relations research aimed at advancing public diplomacy’s theoretical and practical development should help to describe, explain and increase understanding of how and why public diplomacy is viewed and practiced as it is in different parts of the world (Sallot et al., 2003). Studies are also needed to increase understanding of how and why public diplomacy works – or does not work – in various contexts and the factors that contribute to its effectiveness. In this respect, comparative studies would be most welcome. In contemplating future directions for public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, the relational approach offers a promising conceptual framework. The relational paradigm reflects intellectual trends in the field and offers a sound philosophic foundation for examining public diplomacy policies and practices. As Fitzpatrick (2007) said, “[t]he relational paradigm challenges practitioners to seriously contemplate ‘why they do’ public diplomacy and ‘why it is worth doing”’ (p. 247). Studies based on relational concepts provide opportunities for public relations scholars to test the applicability, as well as the geographic and practical boundaries, of relational concepts in diplomatic contexts. Future studies examining the strategic dimensions of public diplomacy – including research on both foreign and domestic publics – also would increase understanding of the effectiveness of various public diplomacy activities and contribute to the development of best public diplomacy practices. For example, audience analysis and engagement studies could be particularly useful in informing public diplomacy initiatives. There is also a critical need for measurement research focused on both traditional public diplomacy approaches and new media strategies and techniques. As more foreign ministries become involved in nation branding initiatives, it is important to better understand the applicability and usefulness of corporate communications and marketing techniques in public diplomacy contexts. For example, as this study shows, concepts related to reputation management and issues and crisis management are applicable and could be tested in the domain of public diplomacy. Additionally, the interplay and influence of global corporate communications and public diplomacy is not well understood. Studies examining how corporate advertising, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives and corporate responses to global crises, for example, affect public diplomacy outcomes would be valuable in understanding the many influences on a nation’s relationships with foreign publics. Finally, in efforts to develop a more comprehensive and coherent research framework, it will be important for public relations and other scholars studying public diplomacy to incorporate relevant knowledge and literature from disciplines outside their own. As Gilboa (2008) observed, “only a systematic multidisciplinary effort and close collaboration between researchers and practitioners can lead to a coherent theory of public diplomacy” (p. 55). 6. Limitations This study provided a benchmark of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars during a specific time frame (1990–2014). The works included were limited to selected journals, books, book chapters and monographs. The key word search limited journal articles and books to those that included “public diplomacy” or “national image” as descriptors in title or text. Thus works that explored matters related to public diplomacy but were not described as public diplomacy were not included. References Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: a public relations perspective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2(3), 187–211. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2011). U.S. Public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: From messaging to mutuality. In CDP perspectives on public diplomacy. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55–77. Golan, G. J., & Yang, S.-U. (2013). Diplomat in chief? Assessing the influence of presidential evaluations on public diplomacy outcomes among foreign publics. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1277–1292. Gregory, B. (2008). Public diplomacy: sunrise of an academic field. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 274–290. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2005). Public relations, not propaganda, for U.S. public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Communication Management, 9(4), 296–304. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. Ledingham, J. (2006). Relationship management: a general theory of public relations. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), public relations theory II (pp. 435–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lord, K. M. (2005). What academics (should have to) say about public diplomacy. In Paper presented at the American Political Science Association political communication conference on international communication and conflict.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

7

Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, B., & Hanily, M. L. (1999). Influential authors and works of the public relations scholarly literature: a network of recent research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1), 29–52. Sallot, L. M., Ling, J. L., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Jones, K. O. (2003). From aardvark to zebra: A new millennium analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 27–90. Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 137–147. Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2005). Imperative for an Arab model of public relations as a framework for diplomatic, corporate and nongovernmental organization relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 338–343. Ye, L., & Ki, E.-J. (2013). The status of online public relations research: an analysis of published articles in 1992–2009. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 409–434. Zhang, J. (2013). A strategic issue management (SIM) approach to social media use in public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1312–1331. Zhang, J., & Swartz, B. C. (2009). Toward a model of NGO media diplomacy in the Internet age: case study of Washington Profile. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 47–55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Relations Review. Brown, R. E. (2008). Sea change: Santa Barbara and the eruption of corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 1–8. Chang, T.-K., & Lin, F. (2014). From Propaganda to public diplomacy: assessing China’s international practice and its image, 1950–2009. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 450–458. Chen, N. (2009). Institutionalizing public relations: a case study of Chinese government crisis communication on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 187–198. Chen, N. (2012). Branding national images: the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, 2010 Shanghai World Expo and 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 731–745. Chen, H. (2012). Medals, media and myth of national images: how Chinese audiences thought of foreign countries during the Beijing Olympics. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 755–764. Choi, J. (2010). The representation of North Korean national image in national newspapers in the United States. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 392–394. Chua, A. A., & Pang, A. (2012). US government efforts to repair its image after the 2008 financial crisis. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 150–152. Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2004). International agenda-building in cyberspace: a study of Middle East government English-language websites. Public Relations Review, 1(4), 25–36. Dolea, A. (2012). Institutionalizing government public relations in Romania after 1989. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 354–366. Garcia, C. (2013). Strategic communication applied to nation building in Spain: the experience of the Catalan Region. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 558–562. Golan, G. J., & arroll, T. R. (2012). The op-ed as a strategic tool of public diplomacy: framing of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 630–632. Golan, G. J., & Viatchaninova, E. (2013). Government social responsibility in public diplomacy: Russia’s strategic use of advertorials. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 403–405. He, Z., Xianhong, C., & Xing, W. (2012). The image of the United States in the Chinese media: an examination of the evaluative component of framing. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 676–683. Hiebert, R. E. (2005). Commentary: challenges for Arab and American public relations and public diplomacy in a global age. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 317–322. Hiebert, R. E. (2003). Public relations and propaganda in framing the Iraq war: a preliminary review. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 243–255. Hussein, Z. (2005). Arab/Muslim image world-wide: a case for introspection, and intervention. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 333–337. Hwang, S., & Cameron, G. (2008). The elephant in the room is awake and takes things personally: the North Korean nuclear threat and the general public’s estimation of American diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 41–48. Lawniczak, R. (2007). Public relations role in a global competition to sell alternative political and socio-economic models of market economy. Public Relations Review, 33(4), 377–386. Lee, S. (2006). An analysis of other countries’ international public relations in the U.S. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 97–103. Lee, S. (2007). International public relations as a predictor of prominence of US news coverage. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 158–165. Lee, S., & Hong, H. (2012). International public relations’ influence on media coverage and public perceptions of foreign countries. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 491–493. Lee, S., & Yoon, Y. (2010). Return on investment (ROI) of international public relations: a country-level analysis. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 15–20. L’Etang, J., Falkheimer, J., & Lugo, J. (2007). Public relations and tourism: critical reflections and a research agenda. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 68–76. Milam, L., & Avery, E. J. (2012). Apps4Africa: a new State Department public diplomacy initiative. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 328–335. Peijuan, C., Ting, L. P., & Pang, A. (2009). Managing a nation’s image during crisis: a study of the Chinese government’s image repair efforts in the made in China controversy. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 213–218. Rasmussen, R. K., & Merkelsen, H. (2012). The new PR of states: how nation branding practices affect the security function of public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 810–818. Searson, E. M., & Johnson, M. A. (2010). Transparency laws and interactive public relations: an analysis of Latin American government Web sites. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 120–126. Seo, H., & Finsey, D. F. (2013). Three Korean perspectives on U.S. internet public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 594–596. Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review., 18(2), 137–147. Simons, G. (2014). Russian public diplomacy in the 21st century: structure, means and message. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 440–449. Storie, L. K., Madden, S. L., & Fisher Liu, B. (2014). The death of bin Laden: how Russian and U.S. media frame counterterrorism. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 429–439. Sweetser, K. D., & Brown, C. W. (2010). An exploration of Iranian communication to multiple target audiences. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 238–248. Verˇciˇc, D., Verˇciˇc, A. T., & Laco, K. (2006). Coorientation theory in international relations: the case of Slovenia and Croatia. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 1–9. Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2005). Imperative for an Arab model of public relations as a framework for diplomatic, corporate and nongovernmental organization relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 338–343. Wang, J. (2006). Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: public diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 91–96. Wang, J. (2007). Telling the American story to the world: the purpose of U.S. public diplomacy in historical perspective. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 21–30. Wang, J., & Chang, T.-K. (2004). Strategic public diplomacy and local press: how a high-profile head-of-state visit was covered in America’s heartland. Public Relations Review, 30(1), 11–24. White, C., & Radic, D. (2014). Comparative public diplomacy: message strategies of countries in transition. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 459–465. Wise, K. (2009). Public relations and health diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 127–129.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

8

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Xifra, J., & McKie, D. (2012). From realpolitik to noopolitik: the public relations of (stateless) nations in an information age. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 819–824. Xue, K., Chen, X., & Yu, M. (2012). Can the World Expo change a city’s image through foreign media reports? Public Relations Review, 38(5), 746–754. Yang, A., Klyueva, A., & Taylor, M. (2012). Beyond a dyadic approach to public diplomacy: understanding relationships in multipolar world. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 652–664. Yun, S.-H. (2007). Exploring the embassy sampling strategy for large-scale cross-national study in replicating the normative theory of global public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 224–226. Zatepilina-Monacell, O. (2012). High stakes: U.S. nonprofit organizations and the U.S standing abroad. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 471–476. Zhang, D. (2012). A relational perspective on media relations strategies: the Chinese government’s news conferences from 2001 to 2009. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 684–696. Zhang, J., & Cameron, G. (2003). China’s agenda building and image polishing in the US: assessing an international public relations campaign. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 13–28. Zhang, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Message strategies of Saudi Arabia’s image restoration campaign after 9/11. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 161–167. Zhang, J., Qiu, Q., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A contingency approach to the Sino-U.S. conflict resolution. Public Relations Review, 30(4), 391–399. Zhang, J. (2005). World system and its agents: analysis of the registrants of Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Public Relations Review, 31(1), 47–54. Zhang, J. (2006). Public diplomacy as symbolic interactions: a case study of Asian tsunami relief campaigns. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 26–32. Zhang, J. (2007). Beyond anti-terrorism: Metaphors as message strategy of post-September-11 U.S. public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 31–39. Zhang, J., & Swartz, B. C. (2009b). Toward a model of NGO media diplomacy in the internet age: case study of Washington Profile. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 47–55. Zhang, J., & Swartz, B. C. (2009c). Public diplomacy to promote global public goods (GPG): conceptual expansion, ethical grounds, and rhetoric. Journal of Public Relations Review, 35(4), 382–387. Zhong, X., & Lu, J. (2013). Public diplomacy meets social media: a study of the U. S. Embassy’s blogs and micro-blogs. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 542–548. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. Jain, R., & Winner, L. H. (2013). Country reputation and performance: the role of public relations and news media. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(2), 109–123. Jun, J. W., & Lee, M. H. (2007). Enhancing global-scale visibility and familiarity: the impact of World Baseball Classic on participating countries. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(1), 43–52. Lee, S., Toth, E. L., & Shin, H. (2008). Cognitive categorisation and routes of national reputation formation: US opinion leaders’ views on South Korea. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(4), 272–286. Nobili, V. (2005). The role of European Capital of Culture events within Genoa’s and Liverpool’s branding and positioning efforts. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 1(3), 316–328. Pigman, G. A., & Deos, A. (2008). Consul for hire: private actors, public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 85–96. Rasmussen, R. K., & Merkelsen, H. (2014). The risk of nation branding as crisis response: a case study of how the Danish government turned the Cartoon Crisis into a struggle with Globalization. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 10(3), 230–248. Szondi, G. (2010). From image management to relationship building: a public relations approach to nation branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 333–343. Szondi, G. (2007). The role and challenges of country branding in transition countries: the Central and Eastern European experience. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(1), 8–20. Wang, J., & Hallquist, M. (2011). The comic imagination of China: the Beijing Olympics in American TV comedy and implications for public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7(4), 232–243. Wang, J. (2006). Localising public diplomacy: the role of sub-national actors in nation branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 2(1), 32–42. White, C. (2012). Brands and national image: an exploration of inverse country-of-origin effect. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 8(2), 110–118. Zatepilina, O. (2009). Non-state ambassadors: NGO’s contribution to American’s public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(2), 156–168. Zhang, J. (2010). Exploring rhetoric of public diplomacy in the mixed-motive situation: using the case of President Obama’s ‘nuclear-free world’ speech in Prague. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 287–299. Zhang, J. (2008). Making sense of the changes in China’s public diplomacy: direction of information flow and messages. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(4), 303–316. American Behavioral Scientist. Golan, G. J., & Yang, S.-U. (2013). Diplomat in chief? Assessing the influence of presidential evaluations on public diplomacy outcomes among foreign publics. American Behavioral Scientist., 57(9), 1277–1292. Huang, Y.-H., & Bedford, O. (2009). The role of cross-cultural factors in integrative conflict resolution and crisis communication: the Hainan incident. Am. Behav. Sci., 57(9), 565–578. L’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: an issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 607–626. Ordeix-Rigo, E., & Duarte, J. (2009). From public diplomacy to corporate diplomacy: increasing corporation’s legitimacy and influence. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 549–564. Ordeix, E., & Ginesta, X. (2011). Beyond the votes: a European perspective on the use of public relations to legitimize authority in Obama’s campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 683–695. Yun, S.-H., & Toth, E. (2009). Future sociological public diplomacy and the role of public relations: evolution of public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 493–503. Xifra, J. (2009). Building sport countries’ overseas identity and reputation: a case study of public paradiplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 504–515. Zhang, J. (2013). A strategic issue management (SIM) approach to social media use in public diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1312–1331. Journal of Communication Management. Bardhan, N., & Patwardhan, P. (2004). Multinational corporations and public relations in a historically resistant host culture. Journal of Communication Management, 8(3), 246–263. Galloway, C. (2005). Hot bullets, cool media: the Middle East’s high stakes media war. Journal of Communication Management, 9(3), 233–245. Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2005). Public relations, not propaganda, for U.S. public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Communication Management, 9(4), 296–304. Macnamara, J. (2012). Corporate and organisational diplomacy: an alternative paradigm to PR. Journal of Communication Management, 16(3), 312–325. Petersone, P. (2013). The role of public relations in foreign policy planning and execution. Journal of Communication Management, 17(4), 308–323. Zhang, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). The structural transformation of China’s propaganda: an Ellulian perspective. Journal of Communication Management., 8(3), 307–321. Journal of Public Relations Research. Hwang, S. (2012). The estimation of the South Korean government’s diplomacy for its opposing public North Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 338–352. Lee, H. M., & Jun, J. W. (2013). Explicating public diplomacy as organization—public relationship (OPR): an empirical investigation of OPRs between the US Embassy in Seoul and South Korean college students. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(5), 411–425.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012

G Model PUBREL-1450; No. of Pages 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.M. Vanc, K.R. Fitzpatrick / Public Relations Review xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

9

Yang, S.-U., Shin, H., Lee, J.-H., & Wrigley, B. (2008). Country reputation in multidimensions: predictors, effects, and communication channels. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 421–440. Yun, S.-H. (2008). Cultural consequences on excellence in public diplomacy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(2), 207–230. Yun, S.-H. (2006). Toward public relations theory-based study of public diplomacy: testing the applicability of the Excellence study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 287–312. International Journal of Strategic Communication. Fitzpatrick, K. R., Kendrick, A., & Fullerton, J. (2011). Factors contributing to anti-Americanism among people abroad: a retrospective view from the frontlines of U.S. public diplomacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(3), 154–170. García, C. (2012). Using strategic communication for nation-building in contemporary Spain: the Basque Case. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(3), 212–231. Khakimova, L. F. (2013). Public diplomacy at Arab embassies: fighting an uphill battle. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(1), 21–42. White, C., Vanc, A., & Coman, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in transitional countries: public relations as a component of public diplomacy in Romania. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 281–292. Yun, S.-H., & Vibber, K. (2012). The strategic values and communicative actions of Chinese students for sociological Korean public diplomacy. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(1), 77–92. International Journal of Communication. Golan, G. J., & Viatchaninova, E. (2014). The advertorial as a tool of mediated public diplomacy. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1268–1288. Yun, S.-H. (2012). Relational public diplomacy: the perspective of sociological globalism. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2199–2219. Yun, S.-H. (2014). Do international students’ direct experiences with the host country lead to strong attitude-behavior relations? Advancing public diplomacy research and beyond. International Journal of Communication, 8, 787–809. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. Fitzpatrick, K. (2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: a public relations perspective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2(3), 187–211. Fitzpatrick, K. (2012). Defining strategic publics in a networked world: public diplomacy’s challenge at home and abroad. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(4), 187–211. Journal of International Communication. Kunczik, M., & Weber, U. (1994). Public diplomacy and public relations. Journal of International Communication, 1(2), 18–40. Wang, J. (2008). The power and limits of branding in national image communication in global society. Journal of International Communication, 14(2), 9–24. International Communication Gazette. Aimei, Y., & Taylor, M. (2014). Public diplomacy in a networked society: the Chinese government-NGO coalition network on acquired immune deficiency syndrome prevention. International Communication Gazette, 76(7), 575–593. Golan, G. J. (2013). The gates of op-ed diplomacy: newspaper farming the 2011 Egyptian revolution. International Communication Gazette, 75(4), 359–373. Public Relations Journal. Fitzpatrick, K. R., Fullerton, J., & Kendrick, A. (2013). Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual and practical connections. Public Relations Journal, 7(4), 1–21. Books. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The future of U.S. public diplomacy: an uncertain fate. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill. Kunczik, M. (1997). Images of nations and international public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wang, J. (Ed.). (2011). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Wang, J. (2013). Shaping China’s global imagination: branding nations at the World Expo. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Book Chapters. Chen, N. (2011). The evolving Chinese government spokesperson system. In J. Wang (Ed.), Soft power in China: public diplomacy through communication (pp. 73–94). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Fitzpatrick, K., & Kosic, T. (2005). The missing public in U.S. public diplomacy. In P. Seib (Ed.), Media and conflict in the twenty-first century (pp. 105–126). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2009). Privatized public diplomacy. In P. Seib (Ed.), Toward a new public diplomacy: redirecting U.S. foreign policy (pp. 155–172). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2013). Public diplomacy and ethics: from soft power to social conscience. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Fisher, & A. Arsenault (Eds.), The connective mindshift: relational, networking & collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 29–43). New York: Routledge. L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as public diplomacy. In J. L’Etang, & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 14–34). London, UK: International Thomson Business Press. Molleda, J. C. (2011). Global political public relations, public diplomacy and corporate foreign policy. In J. Strömbäck, & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations: principles and applications (pp. 314–323). New York: Routledge. Nelson, R., & Izadi, F. (2009). Ethics and social issues in public diplomacy. In N. Snow, & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 334–351). New York, NY: Routledge. Signitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: a specific governmental public relations function. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 435–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Szondi, G. (2009). Central and Eastern European public diplomacy: a transitional perspective on national reputation management. In N. Snow, & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 334–351). New York, NY: Routledge. Tang, L., & Li, H. (2011). Chinese corporate diplomacy: Huawei’s CSR discourse in Africa. In J. Wang (Ed.), Soft power in China: public diplomacy through communication (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Van Dyke, M. A., & Verˇciˇc, D. (2009). Public relations, public diplomacy, and strategic communication: an international model of conceptual convergence. In K. Sriramesh, & D. Verˇciˇc (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: theory, research, and practice (pp. 822–842). New York, NY: Routledge. Wang, J. (2011). Introduction: China’s search of soft power. In J. Wang (Ed.), Soft power in China Public diplomacy through communication (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Monographs. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2011). U.S. Public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: from messaging to mutuality, CDP perspectives on public diplomacy. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). U.S. public diplomacy’s neglected domestic mandate. CDP Perspectives on public diplomacy. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press.

Please cite this article in press as: Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990–2014. Public Relations Review (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012