Interorganizational and International Networks For Digital Diplomacy Outreach: A Comparative Study of South Korea and China
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study introduced an analytical framework for assessing the inter-organizational network system and the web impacts of public diplomacy organizations’ sites through the cases of South Korea and China. This study compared interorganizational collaboration networks, the impact of the government agencies’ websites, and the sectoral and geographic distribution of information resources offered by the agencies on the web. Social network analysis was employed, and it indicated that the Chinese public diplomacy organizations constructed denser and more strongly connected networks than the Korean public diplomacy agencies. Furthermore, the results suggested that .com was the most popular generic top-level domain, followed by .org, .net, and .edu, for both Korean and Chinese organizations. The source sites that sent links to Korean organizations originated mostly from East Asian (Korea, Indonesia, and Japan) and European countries (Germany and Russia). Information about Chinese culture was spread more widely across diverse countries, including East Asian (China and Japan), North American (Canada), European (United Kingdom, France), and Oceanian (Australia) countries. For both Korea and China, domestic audiences played key roles as information hubs in each network, which illuminates a networked and cooperative form of digital diplomacy outreach in these countries.
Abstract
This study introduced an analytical framework for assessing the inter-organizational network system and the web impacts of public diplomacy organizations’ sites through the cases of South Korea and China. This study compared interorganizational collaboration networks, the impact of the government agencies’ websites, and the sectoral and geographic distribution of information resources offered by the agencies on the web. Social network analysis was employed, and it indicated that the Chinese public diplomacy organizations constructed denser and more strongly connected networks than the Korean public diplomacy agencies. Furthermore, the results suggested that .com was the most popular generic top-level domain, followed by .org, .net, and .edu, for both Korean and Chinese organizations. The source sites that sent links to Korean organizations originated mostly from East Asian (Korea, Indonesia, and Japan) and European countries (Germany and Russia). Information about Chinese culture was spread more widely across diverse countries, including East Asian (China and Japan), North American (Canada), European (United Kingdom, France), and Oceanian (Australia) countries. For both Korea and China, domestic audiences played key roles as information hubs in each network, which illuminates a networked and cooperative form of digital diplomacy outreach in these countries.
참고문헌 (20)
- J. Melissen, "The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice" (2005), Palgrave Macmillan
- R. S. Zaharna, "Relational networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: The connective mind shift", pp.15~28 (2013), Routledge
- J. Melissen, "Critical digital diplomacy as a global challenge: The South Korean experience", Global Policy, 8(3), pp.294~302 (2017)[DOI]
- J. Kuzma, "Asian government usage of web 2.0 social media", European Journal of ePractice, 9, pp.1~13 (2010)
- K. S. Lee, "The making of a nation's citizen diplomats: Culture-learning in international volunteer training program", Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 17(1), pp.94~111 (2018)[DOI]
- K. Fitzpatrick, "Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: The connective mind shift", pp.29~43 (2013), Routledge
- N. Strauß, "Digital diplomacy in GCC countries: Strategic communication of Western embassies on Twitter", Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), pp.369~379 (2015)[DOI]
- T. Graham, "Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters", Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), pp.692~716 (2013)[DOI]
- M. Ittefaq, "Digital diplomacy via social networks: A cross-national analysis of governmental usage of Facebook and Twitter for digital engagement", Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 18(1), pp.49~69 (2019)[DOI]
- I. Manor, "Towards prestige mobility? Diplomatic prestige and digital diplomacy", Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(2), pp.93~131 (2019)[DOI]
- S. Park, "Analytical framework for evaluating digital diplomacy using network analysis and topic modeling: Comparing South Korea and Japan", Information Processing & Management, 56(4), pp.1468~1483 (2019)[DOI]
- S. Park, "Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan", Asian Journal of Communication, 24(1), pp.79~98 (2014)[DOI]
- N. Inkster, "Cyber Espionage", Adelphi Series, 55(456), pp.51~82 (2015)[DOI]
- M. Thelwall, "Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), pp.805~816 (2012)[DOI]
- S. Park, "Diffusion of cryptocurrencies: web traffic and social network attributes as indicators of cryptocurrency performance", Quality & Quantity, 54(1), pp.297~314 (2020)[DOI]
- J. M. Kleinberg, "Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment", Journal of the ACM, 46(5), pp.604~632 (1999)[DOI]
- S. M. Powers, "The real cyber war: The political economy of internet freedom" (2015), University of Illinois Press
- L. Willnat, "Media use and national image: how Americans and Chinese perceive the US–China trade war", International Communication Gazette (2022)[DOI]
- "Top 10 Most Powerful Countries in Cyberspace" (2022)[URL]
- A. Mavragani, "Tracking COVID-19 in Europe : Infodemiology approach", JMIR Public Health Surveillance, 6, pp.e18941~ (2020)[DOI]