[The following conversation began as an email exchange on May 20, 2009, after Craig Hayden wrote Public Diplomacy and the Phantom Menace of Theory, a response to Pat Kushlis’s Detroit on the Potomac. The first email of the exchange, by John Brown below, like the comments that follow, do not have accurate time stamps due as the comment were copied from the email-based discussion. All comments do appear in correct order and are posted here with the permission of the respective authors. This is posted here to continue the discourse. Add your voice. –MCA]
Craig Hayden,
Thanks for your recent excellent piece on the academic study of PD. It think it contributes much to the debate of theory vs. practice in PD. I hope it will be widely read. Have you considered submitting it to “American Diplomacy,” which is published by ex-FSOs? My main quarrel with much of the “scholarship” re PD, which Pat Kushlis critiques so well, is that it often misses a key element in PD — what PD officers (or whatever you want to call them) concretely do “in the field” and the day-to-day issues that they face. That is why, in the case of PD, I find memoirs, history and media reporting often more enlightening that abstract treatises. We are not, after all, dealing with rocket science here, but with a down-to-earth, all-too-human activity. As you point out, there’s no PD “theory.” Also, I am concerned that people who want to “do PD” as a career might think that “a degree in PD” is sufficient to be an effective PD practitioner (I realize that is not what academic courses on PD “promise”). Of course, nothing wrong with being a PD “scholar,” but based on my FSO experience what is most helpful in preparing to be an effective “public diplomat,” at least for the US government, is learning foreign languages in depth, familiarity with cultures overseas, and people-to-people skills that are not necessarily acquired in the classroom or by research in libraries/on the Internet.
Yale Richmond says:
When I was director of the Office of Soviet and EE Exchanges at State during the détente years of the 1970s, I would often receive a visit from the representative of an NGO or university who wanted a grant of $1,000 for a trip to Moscow to negotiate a new exchange program with the Soviet Union. Often it was from a state university which was prohibited from using its state funds for foreign travel. If I liked the proposal and the exchanges that would result, I approved the grant, although our admin people complained that it took as much work to write a grant for $1,000 as for $100,000. However, for only $1,000 I would get a new exchange program with the Soviet Union at minimal cost to the USG.
Jim Callahan says:
Thanks to Donna, a neighbor here on Cape Cod, I have been able to follow your discussions. A few comments: I agree that everyone in a Mission is not necessarily the best individual to put in front of audiences. However, many in different career tracks are and should always be utilized. Think about those junior officers who need the training and exposure to the importance of PD work? In Nigeria, for example, I would take JO’s on trips, put them in front of student audiences, introduce them to local officials and then have them write something up for the Political Section when they came back. I realize that the average age of JOs is older now but the world is a very young place and we must get as many of our young people out there in all capacities to mix it up with their counterparts around the world.
I remember once years ago at a PAO Meeting in Paris and a junior officer complained that his colleagues in the Embassy just didn’t understand what USIS was all about and he claimed to be a communications practitioner! He obviously missed an important audience. Maybe less so now, but certainly most of us know that in the past we had to deal with an internal audience as well as an external one (I won’t even mention sometimes a Washington one?) and how important it was to get everyone on board in a Mission for all our activities.
I always believed that our presence in a country, whether military, ngo, private sector, educational or whatever, was a visible demonstration of our interest in that country and in building relationships at all sorts of levels. If there were ways that these activities/relationships could be enhanced by PD, all the better. Ambassadorial speeches (written probably by all of you) always emphasize this larger relationship. How many USAID funded NGO activities do we promote on our websites or Ambassador speeches to Chambers of Commerce or the Ambassador opening a new US business, or visits of privately funded academic groups to a local university? All these activities promote mutual understanding, enlarge our audiences, and open doors to further discussions on other topics. The issue of private sector or public sector just doesn’t come up. They can also result in things more tangible. Years ago I had Kodak pick up the travel funds for a Fulbrighter and not too long ago an American business supplied computers to a township school where a Fulbright Secondary School teacher was assigned.
How many briefings have we all done for private exchanges coming through our countries? How many briefings on what an Embassy does have we done for secondary school teachers, academic groups, etc? Did we utilize these contacts to build up a constituency in the US? Did we ask these groups to write to their Congressmen about their experience with us? Did we write to Congressmen about a great IV visit to their District? Don’t think so! We can talk about academe, practice, case studies, etc. but we have failed to enlist our skills in building up the one constituency that we need the most to fund our activities.
I have been out of HR for a few years, but when I was involved in outreach recruitment and the DIR program, it seemed that those most successful in getting through the written and oral entry process were those having attended law school. It would be interesting to see statistics if this is actually the case. I would also like to see some statistics on retention rates. Much has been said about the younger generation’s penchant to move around, career-wise. When I left HR in 2004, we were not seeing this among recent classes.
Finally: A plug for our intern program. The ten week experience gives wonderful exposure to someone who might be interested in making the Foreign Service a career both in Washington and in the field.
I have been out of touch but intend to get Joe Nye’s and Emile’s books immediately and get reading! Thanks. Jim
PS: No, Bob and I are not, rpt not, related!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gregory Garland says:
Wow! This goes into the archives as a fine, sustained conversation of what used to be by a distinguished group of retired FSOs, and a few others.
As an active duty PD professional, I still think the finest preparation for what we do (or try to do) is teaching — at any level. Not an MA or PhD, let alone one in PD. Give me someone, anyone who has managed a classroom and learned what real communication at the human level is all about. Knowing how to reach the heart as much as the mind is the essential skill, perhap even talent. All else is secondary, even “new media” as the very word “medium” indicates — means to an end.
Rachel says:
As a recent college graduate looking to work as a FSO on the PD track, I found this whole conversation incredibly enlightening and encouraging. I graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2008 with a BA in Classical Studies (aka ancient history) and a minor in Italian, but have found the whole process of preparing myself for a career in PD incredibly frustrating. I studied the classics partly because I liked ancient Rome, but more importantly, it seemed to me one of the few majors in history or cultural studies that looked at the whole picture of a society. When taking other classes that seemed to more logically fit into my FSO career path, I found them gravely lacking discussion of contemporary cultural trends. There were times, like today as I looked into graduate programs, that I’ve doubted whether this is the right field for me. After reading this thread, I am again encouraged that PD is where I hope to work.
In the past I have worked service-industry jobs and with programs like the YMCA and United Way I have been encouraged that ‘relationship-building’ is always listed as my strongest skill. I speak Italian, Spanish, and am hoping to be proficient in Russian next year. I want to work in PD, but am finding that entering the field is very difficult. It may be years before I’m hired as an FSO, and I want to make myself more attractive as a candidate as I apply each year. I am encouraged that so many PD officers have trumpeted the merits of the person over the education. International Relations did not interest me in college, and it is heartening to know that this is not a requirement for success in the field.
As someone who is intensely interested culture and not necessarily policy, I have found the idea of graduate school incredibly daunting. In today’s climate, it is extremely difficult for a recent graduate to enter their chosen career path, and more and more jobs require at least a master’s degree if not many years of work experience. What sort of educational programs would be beneficial for those wishing to enter the field? I agree that academia is not the only component in PD, but for those of us looking to get our foot in the door, the degree can weigh more than our skills. When it is difficult to find work that fits into future career goals, school can be a tool towards gaining the experience necessary for the field.
Stacy Hope says:
Rachel,
I’ll preface my comments by saying every person’s path into PD is different, and I don’t know that there is necessarily a “best” way to go about it, academic or otherwise. But perhaps my personal experience will be useful.
I passed the Foreign Service Exam in early 2001, and entered the pipeline right around 9/11, but was disheartened by the “process” and length of time the FSO application / selection process took. I very urgently wanted to become a part of the global conversation, so instead of waiting to see if I would be selected for a class, I accepted a job working on the Fulbright Program at the Institute of International Education.
I then spent nearly four years on the other side at the British Council’s US operation, where I led programs that targeted not only American audiences, but also those across the globe. (The British Council is particularly good at offering local staff key roles in strategic planning, as well as the opportunity to spend time all over the world, engaging with both colleagues and the publics of other nations.) For the past couple of years, I’ve been a senior member of the public diplomacy team at the European Commission Delegation in Washington.
Long story short, there are many ways to enter and gain experience in the field of public diplomacy, so don’t despair. In terms of preparation, I’ve found my academic and practical experience equally valuable. I studied international relations and journalism as an undergrad, and hold a master’s in international relations, which provided a valuable theoretical grounding. Having a solid understanding of the culture and language in which you are working is also extraordinarily valuable, and there is certainly an academic component to that. However, it’s hard for academic experience to substitute for time actually doing public diplomacy work.
Stacy
Mitchell Polman says:
Rachel,
I agree with Stacy that there is no one way to do PD. I do feel, however, that you really ought to gain some hard practical PD experience before going to graduate school. I think the point Pat made at the outset is that there is a big gap between the theory of public diplomacy as taught in school and how it is in the real world.
I came to PD late and only in recent years. I was a Russia/Soviet and East European specialist in school. In recent years I have worked as a contractor on the International Visitors Leadership Program (IVLP) as a contractor. That is low paying and unsalaried work. However, you do deal with visiting distinguished foreigners on a regular basis while visiting parts of America that you never would see otherwise. This is critical experience for PD. There is nothing like seeing America through the eyes of foreigners to learn how people really see us (both good and bad).
My work on the IVLP led me to work with foreign journalists on State Department programs to create documentaries on topics involving U.S. life. Unfortunately, that work is hard to come by as those programs are being cut.
I’ve done all this without an MA. The most valuable experiences I’ve had for my PD work — when I was 14 I traveled all over the U.S. on a study program plus I worked after college for a number of years on domestic political campaigns. My classes related to U.S. history, politics, and society were also invaluable. This brings me to a larger point — PD is first and foremost about explaining American society to the world. I’ve met a lot of young people who work in international relations who spend a lot of time traveling overseas and learning other cultures and languages (all very important), but they have very little knowledge or experience with the U.S. I’ve seen people working with visiting foreigners who know the visitor’s country, have been there, speak their language, and know its politics. When the visitor asks them something about the U.S. they are stumped and can’t answer.
All cities in the U.S. have Councils for International Visitors (CIV’s as they are called) that work with the IVLP and other international exchange programs to create local programs for international visitors. There is bound to be one where you are or where you grew-up. They always need extra hands although they rarely have money to pay. I would strongly recommend you check the National Councils’ website at nciv.org and find the one nearest you. See if you can volunteer or intern for them for a while. Then you will have some hard practical experience to build on. You may even be able to build a career without an MA, but I’d keep my options open on that. I’ve met former interns for CIVs who have gone on to all kinds of international relations work as a result.
speech writing says:
Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! “This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!”
Jack Harrod says:
I apologize for not having checked this site for a long time, but I did now, and was struck especially by the comments at the end by “Rachel” and “Stacy Hope” (great surname).
I used to question the rationale of the Foreign Service personnel folks (I still recoil at the “human resources” designation, which sounds to me like meat through a grinder) who take people with obvious qualifications and don’t take advantage of them. I recall a USIA junior officer for whom I was supposed to be a mentor, who came into the agency with fluent Spanish and was sent to Bangladesh. I know there are valid reasons why this might make sense, but…
And I admire Ms. Hope for her British Council service. When I retired from USIA (not too long before USIA went the way of the Titanic), I got a heartfelt hand-written note of appreciation from the head of the British Council (in London, not the US), whom I had met several times. It was touching, because such gestures from non-American sources are particularly noticeable when your own side seems not to notice all that much.