Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of domestic public engagement in the formulation and implementation of US government-sponsored educational exchanges: An insider’s account

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article focuses on a subject under-studied from a public diplomacy perspective, namely, the role of domestic public in the implementation of international exchange programs administered by the United States Government. By asking over 20 American diplomats and NGO representatives about their opinions on what works in formulating and executing such programs, this study makes two specific contributions to the research of educational and cultural exchanges as public diplomacy tools. First, it shows evidence that the implementation efficiency of such programs, relies heavily on the level of engagement of the domestic civil society in the policy process. Second, it reveals that with time the NGO/civil society engagement can move from playing an implementing role, into influencing the program design and policy formulation. By presenting the dynamics of government-domestic civil society cooperation in the field of international exchanges, the study can serve as an example and inspiration for other dimensions of public diplomacy in the state’s effort to adjust to the ongoing internal democratization of foreign policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. International public broadcasting remains the largest public diplomacy expense in the US budget.

  2. The interviews were conducted from July to September 2011 in Washington DC and Warsaw. Nine were conducted with Department of State officials based in Washington DC, and 13 were conducted with representatives of nine nongovernmental institutions serving as operators for the U.S. Government-funded programs, or experts in international exchange programs. The interviews focused on Government and NGO activities during a specified period of time: from 9/11 to the first three years of the Obama Administration.

  3. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 amended the Smith–Mundt Act and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within US borders and striking down the ban on the dissemination of such material in the United States.

  4. Among the most involved institutions were the Carnegie Corporation and Rockefeller Foundation, which in 1947, for example, agreed to defray the costs of the cooperating agencies for the first six months so that the first Fulbright program could get underway. To learn more see http://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history/early-years#sthash.e10hCXSu.dpuf.

  5. Such services would include appointing faculty members as ‘Fulbright Program Advisers’.

  6. The Fulbright–Hays Act of 1961 is officially known as the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.

  7. Only in the last decade the funds available to the Department of State for programs such as Fulbright, the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) or youth exchanges have increased almost six-fold, growing from 100 million dollars in 2000 to 583 million dollars in 2012 (Department of State, 2013, p.13).

  8. Among such initatives were: governmental summits on education convened jointly by the US Secretary of State and US Secretary of Education with their counterparts from other countries, and the ‘1 00 000 Strong Initiative’ announced in 2010 by President Obama to send at least 1 00 000 Americans to China and the same number to South America in the following years (Obama, 2011).

  9. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, State Alumni. Your Global Community, United States Department of State, Washington DC, 2010.

References

  • Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy. (2005) Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy. Washington DC: US Department of State.

  • Atkinson, C. (2010) Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980–2006. Foreign Policy Analysis 6 (6): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, R. (2011) A resource guide to public diplomacy evaluation. CDP Perspectives on Public Diplomacy. Paper 9. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School Editor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, C. and Weinberg, A. (2008) Educational and cultural exchanges to restore America’s image. The Washington Quarterly 31 (3): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boris, E.T. (2006) Nonprofit organizations in a democracy: Varied roles and responsibilities. In: E. Boris and E. Steuerle (eds.) Nonprofits & Government: Collaboration & Conflict. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, G. (1998) Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world. Political Studies 46: 36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, G. and Arsenault, A. (2008) Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 10–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, N. (2009) Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past. CDP Perspectives on Public Diplomacy. Paper 1. Los Angeles: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2003a) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2003b) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of State (2013) Global Partnership Initiative. http://www.state.gov/s/partnerships, accessed 20 March 2013.

  • Duggan, S.J. (1998) The politics of US-German educational exchange: Perspectives of German decision-makers. PhD thesis, Stanford University, CA.

  • Edwards, M. (1999) International development NGOs: Agents of foreign aid or vehicles for international cooperation? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28 (Suppl 1): 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, M. (2009) Between slogans and solutions: a frame-based assessment methodology for public diplomacy. Dissertation, The Pardee, RAND Graduate School.

  • Espinosa, J.M. (1976) Inter-American Beginnings of US Cultural Diplomacy 1936–1948. Washington DC: Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, K.R. (2011) US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: From messaging to mutuality. CDP Perspectives on Public Diplomacy. Paper 6. Los Angeles: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, K.R. (2012) Defining strategic publics in a networked world: Public diplomacy’s challenge at home and abroad. Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 (4): 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flack, M. (1976) Results and effects of study abroad. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 424 (1): 107–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Ties US (2011) NCIV Statistics & Evaluations: FY 2011 Community Impact Summary Washington DC, http://www.nciv.org/NCIV-Statistics/nciv-stats.html, accessed 12 November 2013.

  • Hochschild, J.L. (2009) Conducting Intensive Interviews and Elite Interviews. Cambridge, MA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huijgh, E. (2013) Changing tunes for public diplomacy: Exploring the domestic dimension. The Journal of Public Diplomacy 2 (1): 62–73, Article 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interview by the author (2011a) 8 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011b) 8 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011c) 8 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011d) 9 September, New York.

  • Interview by the author (2011e) 7 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011f) 7 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011g) 7 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011h) 7 September, Washington DC.

  • Interview by the author (2011i) 7 September, Washington DC.

  • Kellermann, H. (1978) Cultural Relations as an Instrument of US Foreign Policy: The Educational Exchange Program between the United States and Germany, 1945–1954. Washington DC: Department of State.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H.C. and Lotte, B. (1962) Effects of cross-cultural experience on national images: A study of scandinavian students in America. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 (4): 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melissen, J. (ed.) (2005) The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In: The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metzgar, E.T. (2012) Public diplomacy, smith-mundt and the American Public. Communication Law and Policy 17 (1): 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nye Jr, J.S. and Keohane, R. (1971) Transnational relations and world politics: An introduction. International Organization 25 (3): 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. (2011) 100,000 Strong in the Americas. Speech at La Moneda, Santiago, Chile, 21 March.

  • Olberding, J.C. and Olberding, D. (2010) Ripple effects’ in youth peacebuilding and exchange programs: Measuring impacts beyond direct participants. International Studies Perspectives 11 (2010): 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, I. (2010) Challenging elite Anti-Americanism in the cold war: American foundations, Kissinger’s Harvard seminar and the salzburg seminar in American studies. In: I. Parmar and M. Cox (eds.) Soft Power and US Foreign Policy. Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 108–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, K. (2006) A view from the top: International politics, norms, and the worldwide growth of NGOs. International Studies Quarterly 50 paper 4: 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Y. (2003) Cultural Exchanges and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, S. (2005) Dialogue-based public diplomacy: A new foreign policy paradigm? In: J. Melissen (ed.) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 180–195.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sablosky, J.A. (2003) Recent Trends in Department of State Support for Cultural Diplomacy: 1993–2002. Washington DC: Center for Arts and Culture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, O. (1999) Small Atlantic world: US philanthropy and expanding international exchange of scholars after 1945. PhD thesis, Harvard University, MA.

  • Scott-Smith, G. (2003) Her rather ambitious Washington program: Margaret Thatcher’s international visitor program visit to the United States in 1967. Contemporary British Politics 17 (4): 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Smith, G. (2008) Mapping the undefinable: Some thoughts on the relevance of exchange programs within international relations theory. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science 616 (1): 180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Smith, G. (2009) Exchange Programmes and Public Diplomacy. In: N. Snow and P. Taylor (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. London: Routledge, pp. 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selltiz, C. and Cook, S.W. (1962) Factors influencing attitudes of foreign students toward the host country. Journal of Social Issues 18 (1): 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S.R. (2006) Government financing of nonprofit activity. In: E. Boris and E. Steuerle (eds.) Nonprofits & Government: Collaboration & Conflict. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stangor, C., Jonas, C., Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (1996) Influence of student exchanges on national stereotypes, attitudes & perceived group variability. European Journal of Social Psychology 26 (1): 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, D.W. and Sunal, C.C. (1991) Professional and personal effects of the American fulbright experience in Africa. African Studies Review 34 (2): 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2007) Telling the American story to the world: The purpose of US public diplomacy in historical perspective. Public Relations Review 33 (1): 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaharna, R.S. (2010) Battles to Bridges: US Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socio-Economic College, Warsaw School of Economics, Wisniowa 41, mazowieckie, 02520, Warsaw, Poland

    Katarzyna Pisarska

Authors
  1. Katarzyna Pisarska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katarzyna Pisarska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pisarska, K. The role of domestic public engagement in the formulation and implementation of US government-sponsored educational exchanges: An insider’s account. Place Brand Public Dipl 11, 5–17 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2014.11

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2014.11

Keywords

Search

Navigation