Indra Adnan’s piece in the Huffington Post outlines the future of the Downing Street Project;
The Downing Street Project is going to shift its gaze from equal representation for women, to the much broader question of the gender dynamics of the public sphere and its effect on society… [It is hoped this will develop] a growing understanding of what the real opportunities of balanced leadership are in public life and what the benefits would be for everyone.
One comment in her article is particularly telling not just for contemporary politics, but equally contemporary Public Diplomacy:
Coming just after, in Philip Seib‘s words, the flimsy new framework for Strengthening U.S. Engagement with the World, the ideas Indra highlights should have a high degree of resonance. The Strategic Framework for US PD lacked any sense of a networked approach, focusing on a hierarchical framing narratives and correcting information to ‘markets’. That might work with some of the people some of the time, but at others genuine engagement will require a different mindset. A mindset focused as Indra put it – on listening and integrating rather than performing – of understanding the importance of developing and using connections rather than a strategy based on broadcast (and micro-broadcast) of information. Public Diplomacy cannot be carried out merely on the assumption that ‘the more you know us the more you will like us’ – so lets make sure you have all the ‘correct’ information and everything will be fine.
Working with people, working alongside them and working for them is going to have a greater impact with many communities than setting up the loud speaker and setting it to transmit, however well refined the message.
While the emphasis on evaluation was a positive – that evaluation must be meaningful – not another round of half-hearted self justification. It will need to get to grips with using network analysis and data mapping, to provide those on the ground with useful and easily interpreted information alongside providing insight into how to gain benefit from engaging with different communities or networks.
This presentation, part of the the International Seminar On Network Theory, discusses approaches to measuring benefit from a network alongside measuring cost of exclusion from a network. (Thanks Intermap for the link) The argument demonstrates that those excluded from a network (either physically or because their behaviour fails to engage network members) suffer costs while members reap rewards. With this, and numerous other insights into the advantages a networked approach can bring, it makes little sense to focus almost exclusively on information, message and framing – effectively opting to exclude oneself from many networks – and incurring the resultant costs.
This starts with being able to give individuals an overview of the shape of a network, and the key connections;
But it also includes being able to map data in other ways, for example the changing attitudes toward the US.
Pew Global Attitdes – Changing Favourability to the US 2002 – 2009
(Click link to go to time-series version)
The Pew Global Attitudes Project bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here.
Or, returning us to the theme of gender and balanced leadership, the data from the WEF Gender Gap report
(Click link to go to time-series version)
Ultimately Public Diplomacy is about influencing the behaviour of others, so the planning and conduct of PD should be open to those ideas most likely to influence that community – rather than focus on what the PD organisation, or their constituency, would like to be saying.