Collaborative Settings of Co-Creation: Knowledge Diplomacy and Pedagogical Thinking in Communication

Abstract

This paper explores the intersection of pedagogical research in communication and research on public diplomacy and engages with the notion of knowledge diplomacy. It revises the concept of the “collaborative” central to both public diplomacy and higher education pedagogy. With both fields emphasizing the importance of co-creation, the paper theorizes and operationalizes this concept, and argues that co-creation (as a process and a framework) is one solution to the challenge of dominance argued by the scholarship of knowledge diplomacy. Empirically, the article engages with two cases of grassroots knowledge diplomacy initiated by a tertiary communication program in collaboration with diplomats.

Keywords

pedagogical research in communication public diplomacy grassroot knowledge diplomacy collaboration co-creation

Introduction

This paper explores the intersection of two fields that rarely talk much to each other—pedagogical research in communication and research on public diplomacy. It argues for the value of the former in addressing issues in the latter by engaging with the notion of knowledge diplomacy: The “contribution that education and knowledge creation, sharing and use make to international relations and engagement” (Knight, 2015, p. 4). This paper advances the discussion on knowledge diplomacy by revisiting the concept of the “collaborative” central to both public diplomacy and higher education pedagogy.

Collaborative public diplomacy advocates for genuine dialogue based on listening, deeper understanding and nonimposition of values while advocating for engagement with nonstate civil society actors and the broader community (Riordan, 2005). Its main outcome is to gain credibility and convince, as this is “a more open, and perhaps humble, approach [to international dialogue], which recognizes that no-one has a monopoly of truth or virtue, that other ideas may be valid and that the outcome may be different from the initial message being promoted” (Riordan, 2005, p. 189). Collaborative learning in higher education stands for the “intellectual synergy of many minds coming to bear on a problem, and the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a common endeavour” (Leigh Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 12) – a process where learning together means that the knowledge is conceptualized as a shared possession and where skills in “dialogue, deliberation, and consensus-building out of differences are strong threads in the fabric of collaborative learning, and in civic life as well” (Leigh Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 14). Its main outcome is the heightened social dimension in the process of education—“mutual exploration, meaning-making, and feedback” that lead to “better understanding … and to the creation of new understanding” (Leigh Smith & MacGregor, 1992, p. 12).

Both fields increasingly emphasize the importance of co-creation as a result of genuine collaboration. This concept leads the paper and offers itself for theorization and operationalization. The paper argues that co-creation (as a process and a framework) is one solution to the challenge of dominance that the scholarship of knowledge diplomacy warns us about: There is a “risk that knowledge itself can be used as an instrument of power to enhance self-interest, competitiveness and dominance” (Knight, 2015, p. 5). This paper asks: How can genuine co-creation be achieved? It proposes one possible answer—in movement along a continuum from instrumental to collaborative, with collaborative learning theory being one way to address this. To understand this move with greater nuance, the study revises the conceptual continuum of monologue-dialogue-collaboration (Cowan and Arsenault, 2008) used in the theorization of public diplomacy and tests its extension into a five-part conceptual continuum of empathetic outreach—respectful consultation—cooperative participation—mutually beneficial collaboration—joint leadership (Farnsworth et al., 2014; for its application to the public diplomacy field see also Chaban & Kelly, 2021; Chaban et al., 2022) to operationalize the concept of co-creation. This paper argues that the instrumentalization of knowledge diplomacy can be countered by pushing toward the right-hand pole of the continuum.

This study places the concept of co-creation in the context of the internationalization of higher education (Knight, 2012). The objectives of internationalization are to prepare communication graduates to enter global markets and secure jobs internationally, apply the skills of global citizens to tackle wicked global problems, navigate multicultural, diverse environments, and strike meaningful, respectful relationships across national borders. This study explores the collaborative learning setting following the research-teaching-practice nexus in the context of internationalization at home. In this respect, the study follows one of the key tenets of knowledge diplomacy, namely a “more inclusive approach to the role of higher education and research in international relations” (Knight, 2015, p. 5).

Empirically, the article engages with two cases of grassroot knowledge diplomacy—two collaborations initiated by a tertiary communication program (the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Canterbury [UC], New Zealand) with European diplomats. The focus on the bottom-up micro-level of public diplomacy collaborations is intentional. In the era of global communication and web-based technologies, grassroots diplomacy (individual or group) “have redefined and expanded public diplomacy as an emerging tool for interaction, negotiation, conflict resolution, and branding” (Payne et al., 2011, para. 1). The two cases relate to two types of knowledge diplomacy collaboration—one as part of the core communication curriculum and the other an extracurricular student-led research activity. The case selection helps to demonstrate the added value of public diplomacy to diverse pedagogical activities in tertiary communication studies, targeting the objectives of internationalization and training-for-practice.

This paper details the diplomacy dimension first: It operationalizes the notion of co-creation in the context of knowledge diplomacy. Then, it dissects the concept of collaborative learning in higher education and argues for its potential in the development of global competence. After introducing rationales behind the chosen cases, the study details two collaborative learning experiences designed along the research-teaching-practice nexus in the context of internationalization at home. The analysis uses pedagogical examples in the field of tertiary communication studies to test the operationalizations of the concept of co-creation. In conclusion, the study considers opportunities and challenges behind the concept of “collaboration” as an intersection point between public diplomacy and higher education. It discusses their consequences for knowledge diplomacy and communication studies pedagogy.

Mapping the Concepts: “New” Public Diplomacy, Collaborative Diplomacy, Knowledge Diplomacy and Co-Creation

Public diplomacy in the first decades of the twenty-first century takes place in a historic period marked by the return of “muscle power” geo-politics and a proliferation of actors on the international stage. The rapidly changing international environment invites a “new” interpretation of public diplomacy. In this version, diplomatic efforts aim to “understand, engage, and influence publics on a wide range of other issues relating to governance, economic growth, democracy, the distribution of goods and services, and a host of cross-border threats and opportunities” (Gregory, 2008, p. 276). While this definition is widely accepted, understanding of the role of this “new” public diplomacy and its place in relation to the public remains a challenge. Some commentators conceptualize public diplomacy as emphasizing dialogue as the basis for expertise and knowledge to emerge, with the main focus on discourse and mutual understanding (the relational approach) (Gregory, 2008; Zaharna, 2009; Snow, 2009). In the literature, this approach is described as a “longer term strategy of engagement and dialogue” (Hayden, 2009, p. 537), that “attempts to further mutual understanding and positive public opinion by building international relationships” (Payne et al., 2011, para. 3, citing Hayden, 2009; Zaharna, 2009). From another perspective, public diplomacy also concerns the way a government or society projects itself to external audiences in ways that improve perceptions of that society in the minds of foreign publics (the information approach) (Cross & Melissen, 2013). In this latter approach, public diplomacy is a vehicle for the government-directed activity of “informing, engaging, and influencing foreign publics in support of a country's national interests” (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 201).

The two conceptualizations are not mutually exclusive. However, scholars who argued for the need for the “new” public diplomacy at the start of the millennium also argued for the importance of moving away from exclusive reliance on monologue (“talking at” international partners), to dialogue (“talking with” your partner) and to collaboration (“working with” the partners) (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008). Collaborative diplomacy attracted special attention in the changed global environment after 9/11 and the collapse of the USSR. Riordan (2005) outlines four characteristics of “long-term, effective and stable collaborations”: (1) refrain from imposing values or claiming their primacy; (2) undertake genuine dialogue with objectives to convince and gain credibility, not to win; (3) undertake listening to the partner as a prerequisite to the effort to convince; and (4) embrace in the persuasion efforts not only government and political elites but also credible agents in the nongovernmental sector and broader society. The need to move towards the collaborative relational mode of public diplomacy is further justified by later research. Some credit a rapid proliferation of producers of diplomatic outcomes at state and nonstate levels that take place within the new media ecology (Hoskin & O’Loughlin, 2010). Others direct attention to the “evolving models of public-private collaboration and communicative behaviors in the increasingly distributed system of states and global society” (Melissen & Wang, 2019, p. 2). Many consider the impact of the new media ecology of global communication powered by social network technologies. That ecology has made it “possible for every individual to share information with a global audience” and “revolutionized the possibilities of person-to-person communication” (Payne et al., 2011, p. 45). This means that diplomacy has become “more accessible to ‘ordinary’ citizens and advocacy groups and is taking new forms as individuals and groups initiate grassroots public diplomacy activities” (Payne et al., 2011, p. 45; see also Chaban & Elgström, 2020).

With educational exchanges being one of the levels of the “new” public diplomacy (Cull, 2008), knowledge diplomacy has not escaped the debate over informational vs. relational approach. Relevant research defines this type of diplomacy through its four elements: “education—formal, informal and lifelong learning; research for the generation and sharing of knowledge; innovation and application of new knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole; and culture in terms of basic values, ways of knowing, and the multiple expressions of culture” (Knight, 2015, p. 4). Conceived within the informational approach, knowledge diplomacy may be easily used to inform, engage, and influence foreign publics in support of a country's national interests. However, exclusive positioning of this type of diplomacy within an informational approach involving one-way projection is risky. Reiterating an earlier comment, “knowledge itself can be used as an instrument of power to enhance self-interest, competitiveness and dominance” (Knight, 2015, p. 5) and as such, it can be counterproductive to genuine dialogue and collaboration. Positioning knowledge diplomacy within the collaborative mode highlights a number of opportunities for participants. In this approach, knowledge diplomacy may facilitate the key feature of the “new” public diplomacy, namely “entering two-way communication and direct engagement not only with foreign governments, but also with other foreign audiences directly and/or via nongovernmental partners” (Jelisić 2012) and engage “individuals and groups of citizens who may not be directly motivated by national foreign policy objectives” (Payne et al., 2011, para. 3). But how can knowledge diplomacy be genuinely collaborative—an outcome when participants “view their interactions as the goal of the relationship” (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008, pp. 18–19)?

This study argues that the concept of co-creation provides one answer: “Public diplomacy is no longer projection alone—it needs to be “co-created with partner countries” (B&S/PPMI/PD-PCF UC, 2021):

Growing multipolarity and proliferation of international actors on the world stage (state and non-state) mean increased competition for influence and contestation. Actors around the world want to be heard. They also do not want to be passive receivers of messages and actions only—but meaningful co-creators of the mutually beneficial initiatives and relations (B&S/PPMI/PD-PCF UC Executive Summary, 2021, p. 30)

The theoretical inspiration for modeling co-creation in this study comes from the concept of the “community engagement continuum” proposed by Farnsworth et al. (2014, p. 69): A “stepwise scale of engagement starting with community outreach activities and culminating in shared leadership.” The steps involve objectives to reach out, consult, involve, collaborate, and share leadership. Engaging with this five-part model, Chaban and Kelly (2021) and Chaban et al. (2022) extended the public diplomacy tripartite paradigm of monologue-dialogue-collaboration of the early 2000s (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008) to understand the “new” public diplomacy at times of global crises, geopolitical transformation and a new media ecology. Their synergetic model starts with empathetic outreach (a modified monologue). Following Farnsworth et al. (2014), this step aims to establish communication channels and channels for outreach with a community. Adding to that, in public diplomacy, this step goes beyond “one-way communication to advocate foreign policy strategies” to “convey an idea, a vision, or perspective and to present it eloquently and clearly” (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008, p. 13). It embraces communication that channels empathy based on ongoing listening to the partner and deep understanding of its most pertinent and sensitive issues.

Modified dialogue morphs into respectful consultation in a new synergized model by Chaban and Kelly (2021) and Chaban et al. (2022). For Farnsworth et al. (2014), it is about developing connections with communities. Adding to this definition in the public diplomacy context, this step recognizes interlocutors as experts who may be in possession of unique expertise. As such, the dialogue, in this case, goes beyond either an “opportunity to listen or allow for feedback or critical responses” (Cowan & Arsenault, 2008, p. 16) or attempts at convincing, gaining credibility, and developing deeper understanding (Riordan, 2005) to being willing and ready to learn from the interlocutor and recognize its status as equal or as potentially superior.

Finally, modified collaboration unpacks into three steps: cooperative participation, mutually beneficial collaboration, and joint leadership. Farnsworth et al. (2014) describe cooperative participation as a step that brings visibility to the partnership being established through the inclusion of increased cooperation. For mutually beneficial collaboration, it is about partnership and trust building where partners enjoy win-win scenarios. The joint leadership step is the most demanding. According to Farnsworth et al. (2014), it is about: creating and sustaining strong bidirectional relationship and partnership structures; and building strong bidirectional trust while involving broader community.

Following this model, co-creation, arguably, is a cumulative process that progresses through the five stages and incorporates these stages consecutively or simultaneously (for the most effective genuine co-creation outcome) and/or in different combinations at specific periods of time. Applying this continuum to better understanding of the knowledge diplomacy, this study predicts that the risk of instrumentalization of knowledge diplomacy as a tool for dominance can be counter-balanced by pushing towards the right-hand pole of the continuum.

Higher Education Perspective: Collaborative Learning in the Internationalization at Home Context

Another answer to the question about genuine co-creation comes from the field of higher education studies, namely the concept of collaborative learning. A broad concept, it was introduced into the discussion of teaching and learning methods in the early 1990s (see e.g., Goodsell et al., 1992). It represents a particular approach to the learning process—working in small groups “mutually searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a product” (Leigh Smith & McGregor, 1992, p. 11). And while the literature on this concept is vast, this study selects three distinct features of collaborative learning in higher education as a resource for knowledge diplomacy: (a) its potential to frame student experience as a meaningful contribution to the practice of international relations; (b) its core principle of mutuality that allows the elements of the model discussed above—empathetic outreach, respectful consultation, interdependent involvement, mutual benefit and joint leadership—to be embraced in the learning process; and (c) the opportunity to make an immediate link to the changing international context. These features are elaborated on below.

Firstly, the original work on collaborative learning stressed the importance of the mutual intellectual endeavor between the students, or students and teachers. This analysis pushes the boundaries further and introduces professional experts/stakeholders into the process of collaborative learning. Linking to professionals/stakeholders in higher education is an increasingly popular pedagogical tool in the professional training of graduates. The skills targeted include (among others) independent research-informed critical learning throughout the graduate's lifetime, the application of acquired knowledge and skills to ever-changing professional environments, successful navigation of global and cross-cultural contexts domestically and internationally and effective and efficient functioning in an individual and team modus operandi. Perhaps more importantly, collaborative learning provides an opportunity for the students involved to become “immediate practitioners” (Leigh Smith & McGregor, 1992, p.12). Problems existing in practice, including those in the fields of communication and international relations, inspire and trigger collaborative learning, prompting students to search for relevant information processed from critical research-informed and applied perspectives, diverse tools/methods, explanations grounded in theories and alternative solutions. In a student–practitioner collaboration, students’ unique research expertise/skills may turn them into experts able to educate, enlighten and benefit practitioners. At the same time, students have an opportunity to acquire better understanding of a particular field of practice (international relations and international political communication in our case), its meanings and problems.

Secondly, collaborative learning is also about mutuality: mutual mapping and investigation of the problem, mutual engagement in the learning process, mutual feedback and mutual delivery of results. As such, this approach to education facilitates dialogue as a central element: its main feature is a “structure that allows for student talk: Students are supposed to talk with each other…. and it is in this talking that much of the learning occurs” (Golub, 1988, p. 1) [italics are original]. Arguably, collaborative learning provides a framework for multi-level dialogue. It provides an avenue to engage in empathetic outreach through polylogues to establish a functioning team and ensure its synergy. It facilitates respectful consultation to track and utilize the most useful expertise and involvement and interdependency to carry out problem-solving in the most efficient manner. It offers the opportunity for joint leadership through mutual responsibility in the delivery of the final outcomes. These steps are argued above to be operationalizations of the notion of co-creation. They are mastered together by the students involved, the academic facilitators, and the practitioners who approach the teams with a problem to be solved.

Thirdly, earlier research argued that learning is fundamentally influenced by the context and activity in which it is embedded (Brown et al., 1989). Communication graduates of the twenty-first century are entering a world where multilateralism is being challenged, geopolitical rivalry is mounting, and norms and values are being increasingly contested. A growing number of state and nonstate actors aim to project influence internationally and within the new media ecology. Students entering a highly competitive professional world will have to understand and deal with the consequences of ongoing globalization, technological change, the threat of environmental and climate catastrophe, and even global pandemics that can shut down the world and curtail people-to-people contacts. This rapidly changing world means that no profession is “safe” in a domestic bubble. As such, the skills of being a global citizen and worldly professional capable of navigating the changing international environments have become of paramount importance in higher education in new millennium. The challenges listed above also underline the importance of collective collaborative endeavor to tackle global problems. Global competence is arguably among the top priorities for higher education, including in the communication field.

One way to facilitate this global competence is through the strategy of internationalization (see e.g., Knight, 2012). Internationalization of higher education has been a staple of the university experience. Students from different nations and countries have been a part of the university body since the University of Bologna opened its doors in 1088. This is perhaps the most familiar illustration of the so-called “internationalization abroad,” with exchanges as the most typical example. Educational exchanges remain a staple of public diplomacy (see Cull, 2008). In addition, Knight (2015) cites Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2010), who argue for the role of higher education in international relations through cultural diplomacy, as well as Flink and Schreiterer (2010) who see this role through scientific collaboration.

Another approach to internationalization is “internationalization at home”, defined as “… the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (Beelen & Jones, 2015). It links to yet another key notion of “internationalization of curriculum,” which maintains the “importance of internationalising learning outcomes for all students, not simply those who study abroad” (Jones & Riffenrath, 2018, online). This paper considers two distinctive cases of the teaching-research-practice nexus in the context of “internationalization at home” – a core-curricular learning project and an extracurricular collaborative project, in both of which students of communication worked together with diplomats. The cases test the utility of the co-creation model operationalizations to understand the potential of grassroot knowledge diplomacy for pedagogical thinking in the communication field.

Method: Case Studies

This paper explores two cases of mutual exploration, meaning-making and feedback between students of media and communication/their academic facilitator in the Department of Media and Communication, UC, New Zealand, and the diplomats at the Delegation of the European Union (EU) to New Zealand and the Embassy of France to New Zealand. The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (NZ MFAT) provides justification behind the choice of these cases: “The EU is our most significant science and innovation relationship and more than half of New Zealand's researchers have an active collaboration with a European partner. There are particularly strong links with Germany and France” (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d.-a).

Also important for the EU's knowledge diplomacy is one of the latest directions in its public diplomacy, namely outreach to the wider circles of international educated youth, going beyond engagement with specialized EU Studies programs in third countries. A wider outreach aims to target programs in multiple disciplines where students specialize in the policy issues identified by the EU as priority areas: e.g., environment, sustainability, climate studies, ICTs, and AI, in addition to a broader pool of social sciences (political science and international relations, media and communication, history and economics) (B&S/PPMI/PD-PCF UC, 2021). For France, outreach to universities, science, technology, and culture constitute the four Cooperation Areas within its Diplomacy of Influence Track of the French diplomatic networks abroad (French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, n.d.).

The four key features in the definition of knowledge diplomacy inform the empirical logic of this study. In recognition that formal, informal and lifelong learning make up the first element of this definition (Knight, 2015, p. 4), this analysis involves two cases—an extracurricular research project (Case 1) and a research collaboration with diplomatic practitioners within a core communication course (Case 2). Case 1 focuses on Student Research Hubs, volunteer extracurricular cross-cohort student-led collaborative-learning groups organized by a research center, the Public Diplomacy and Political Communication Forum (PD-PCF) at the UC (University of Canterbury, n.d.). The hubs undertake focused research projects for/with diplomatic stakeholders from the EU and EU member states posted to New Zealand, in collaboration with the diplomats. Case 2 details students’ collaboration with EU diplomats in the core course of the Bachelor of Communication degree at the UC, within a dedicated section, “Global Context.”

The second element in the definition of knowledge diplomacy is “research for the generation and sharing of knowledge” (Knight, 2015, p. 4). Both cases detail distinct research projects undertaken by the students of media and communication working in small groups led by their academic facilitator. The results of these original research projects informed by communication studies’ theories and methods are reported to the diplomats (in person in Case 1 and virtually in Case 2).

The third element in the knowledge diplomacy definition calls for “innovation and application of new knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole” (Knight, 2015, p. 4). Both cases provide evidence of the added value of students’ expertise in the communication field and local New Zealand discourses to the field of public diplomacy of the EU and its member states in New Zealand. Both cases involve students making policy recommendations, which are considered for implementation by the European diplomats to improve outreach to New Zealand's key audiences. According to NZ MFAT (n.d.-a), the EU is an “important partner for New Zealand; we share values, perspectives and interests that make us much closer than the geography would suggest”. New Zealand trade statistics for 2022 ranks the EU as “4 for highest export value, 3 for highest import value, and 4 for highest total trade value” (Statistics New Zealand, n.d.). France, an EU member state, shares with New Zealand not only “deep and enduring cultural and historical links, shared values, consistent two-way trade” but also a “common interest in the stability and prosperity of the Pacific region” (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d.-b).

The fourth and final element in the definition of knowledge diplomacy is facilitation of “culture in terms of basic values, ways of knowing, and the multiple expressions of culture” (Knight, 2015, p. 4). The cases provide evidence that the student-diplomat projects lead to better understanding of the EU, New Zealand's key like-minded international partner, and New Zealand relations with Europe in political and socio-economic spheres. While states remain the most conventional units in international politics, the sui generis EU remains an odd political entity when it comes to external relations—all 27 member states have to agree on all major decisions on the EU's actions on the global stage, including its relations with New Zealand. Moreover, when it comes to its international relations, the EU has its own foreign policy—the EU Global Strategy (European Union External Action, 2016) and an official formulation on the course of EU public diplomacy (Pawlak, 2017) and EU cultural diplomacy (European Commission, 2016). Importantly, education (including education exchanges within public diplomacy; Cull, 2008) occupies a central place in the EU's public diplomacy. The Erasmus + program supported by the European Commission, for example, is perceived around the world as a critical success of the EU's public diplomacy (B&S/PPMI/PD-PCF UC, 2021; see also Chaban & Elgström, 2020, 2022). As for France, New Zealand signed an Education Cooperation Agreement with it in September 2013, which “strengthens education ties with France and the French Pacific by promoting student and teacher exchanges, and language learning” (NZ MFAT, n.d.-b).

In this study, the two cases of the New Zealand-EU public diplomacy collaborative learning experience test operationalizations of the co-creation concept. They use pedagogical examples in the field of tertiary communication studies designed to follow the research-teaching-practice nexus in the context of “internationalization at home”.

Introduction of the Cases

Case 1: Extracurricular Collaboration

Case 1 presents an innovative grassroot knowledge diplomacy activity—Student Research Hubs. These are extracurricular small groups of students (5–7 people) who volunteer to form a research team and collaborate with each other, an academic facilitator and EU/EU member states diplomats. Projects tackle particular problems/tasks relevant for the practice of public diplomacy and international political communication, as identified by the European diplomats in negotiation with the academic facilitator. The Student Research Hubs take place within the framework of a research center, the PD-PCF, warranting the research-practice link to the students’ collaborative learning experience.

Since its foundation in 2020, the PD-PCF has organized and successfully completed five Student Research Hubs—two with the EU Delegation to New Zealand, and three with the Embassy of France to New Zealand. Successful student-diplomat collaborations of the initial hubs and the high quality of recommendations designed by communication students led to new collaborations with both diplomatic missions. Importantly, the follow-up hubs assess how diplomats incorporate recommendations proposed by the previous student hubs to improve public diplomacy outreach to New Zealand. Comparative analysis over time is one of the key features of the students’ analyses and final reports to the diplomats. Each hub lasts around six months. The teams have regular meetings with each other and the academic facilitator to discuss the research and debrief on their experiences. European diplomats have interim meetings with the hubs (in person or virtually). Small grants provided by the embassies support the hubs’ travel to Wellington, the national capital, to present the final report to the diplomats at the embassies.

The academic facilitator presents students with an initial theoretical framework and the core methods to be undertaken, yet collaboration means that students add new methods and conceptual tools they learn in their communication degree. The hubs are intentionally cross-level. They involve postgraduate students (MAs, Masters of Strategic Communication, Honours, PhDs) as well as undergraduates. Most of the students read Media and Communication (majoring in Strategic Communication, Political Communication, Journalism and Māori Strategic communication). However, the hub also includes students of other majors who study Media and Communication courses in political communication and/or public diplomacy. The groups are all culturally diverse, with students originally from Aotearoa New Zealand as well as international students. Many students are multilingual.

One of the research foci is on developing recommendations on how to improve digital channels of communication by the embassies (the website as well as social media channels). Another focus is on the framing of a public diplomacy actor in the traditional media (prime time TV news, Radio NZ, leading regional newspapers, and the leading national e-news portal Stuff.co.nz) and on developing recommendations for relations with New Zealand media/raising the media profile further. The diplomats discuss the recommendations in the follow-up internal meetings. All hubs present their research findings and policy recommendations—as well as their critical reflections on working with/presenting to diplomats—at a research seminar series in the Department of Media and Communication. Students also present their findings and experiences in under- and postgraduate courses on political communication and public diplomacy, completing the teaching-research-practice nexus.

Case 2: Collaboration in a Core Course

The second case of grassroot public diplomacy comes from the core course “Communication in Context” within UC's Bachelor of Communication degree. In its section “Global Context,” the course features an assessment that involves a small group collaborative study leading to a report (delivered in an oral group presentation first and then followed by a co-authored written output). Students are tasked with monitoring the EU Delegation's social media channels and designing recommendations on how to maximize social media communication about the EU as a climate and environmental policy global actor and New Zealand's partner in this field. The EU diplomats identify 10 key stakeholder groups as target audiences for the EU's digital communication in New Zealand on these policy areas. The EU diplomats come to the course as guest speakers to introduce the EU in general and the EU's specific policies on climate and environment. These presentations help to contextualize the selection of the target groups. In addition, the academic facilitator invites other European experts in this policy area—from academia, the nongovernment sector and European Commission (all appearing virtually). The speakers introduce students to wider contexts and new knowledge and invite them to factor in multiple stakeholders’ perspectives.

After monitoring the latest digital communication by the EU Delegation to NZ and discussing the key findings across the small groups, students co-develop recommendations on how to improve the EU's digital communication in the area of climate and environment for the selected key audiences. Students present recommendations to the EU diplomats in group reports. A diplomatic jury chose a winner and runner-up teams and profiles them on the EU Delegation social media. The recommendations are subsequently discussed by the diplomats.

Cases as Examples of Collaborative Learning and Grassroots Diplomacy

Both cases are examples of cooperative learning characterized by “the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning” (Johnson et al., 1990, 1:5) and the practice of different teamwork skills. Both cases feature numerous pedagogical examples of collaborative learning. Built into the cooperative learning framework is a regular debrief—“group processing” where students reflect on how they are doing in order to learn how to become more effective in group learning settings (see e.g., Johnson et al., 1990). In Case 2, all students fill out individual Peer Review Forms reflecting on their role and performance in the group vis-à-vis other students in the group. Students also get direct experiential encounters with real-world problems. Students become immersed in complex problems that they must analyze and work through together. These approaches develop problem-solving abilities. There are also elements of simulation. In Case 2, the small groups take on a role of a “team of local communication consultants” in a scenario of competing for a tender commissioned by a diplomatic client. Simulation, in this case, provides training in perspective-taking, both during the simulation exercise and afterwards. There is also an element of a writing group. The Student Research Hubs in Case 1 produce joint recommendations as well as a joint PowerPoint presentation; small groups in Case 2 have to co-design a presentation for oral delivery and co-write a report as a part of their final assessment. Finally, there is an element of peer-teaching. Members of the Student Research Hubs in Case 1 make presentations to students in under- and postgraduate courses, as well as at departmental research seminars reporting to a wider community of postgraduate students and academics. A range of digital tools is used in both cases: emails and social media platforms to keep the teams connected, a learning platform updating students about the course's progress and assignments, Zoom meetings for preparation and presentations by students and EU diplomats. Learning of digital technologies is also present when students use different software tools to analyse media content. Finally, digital mediation is itself an object of study in these cases. Students analyze the embassies’ communication on their official websites and social media channels.

As grassroot knowledge diplomacy examples, the two cases demonstrate a new form of diplomat-key audience engagement where “ordinary” citizens (students) get direct access to diplomats while engaging in mutually beneficial collaboration. Ultimately, European knowledge diplomacy gains from these collaborations. They allow teaching/researching about the EU/EU member states to be focused on outside of the EU and outside of EU Studies programs, raising awareness of the EU outside of the bubble of the “converted,” targeting wider circles of key audiences (educated youth in our study) and in the policy areas that matter to the EU and its member states.

Testing the Operationalizations of the co-Creation Model

This section uses the two cases to test the operationalization of the co-creation notion using the “community engagement continuum” proposed by Farnsworth et al. (2014, p. 69) and adapted for public diplomacy by Chaban and Kelly (2021; see also Chaban et al., 2022): empathetic outreach—respectful consultation—cooperative participation—mutually beneficial collaboration—joint leadership.

Empathetic Outreach

The two projects were supported by European diplomats with respect to local needs and in negotiation with the local academic facilitator. In Case 1, this need was identified in terms of providing communication students with opportunities to apply their knowledge and research skills to a prestigious professional environment in the international context, while demonstrating impact on a communication practice. The EU Delegation to NZ publicized the collaboration with the students on LinkedIn to assist students in furthering their professional profiles and future careers. One hub alumnus is currently a public diplomacy officer in a New Zealand Embassy and another alumnus has secured an internship at New Zealand's foreign ministry. In the posthub debriefs, other alumni also reported how their hub experience was a point of differentiation in securing jobs.

In Case 2, a local need was to teach a course section “Global Contexts” with a double objective to introduce students to the most pertinent global issues important to New Zealand society and to prepare a new generation of communicators to navigate the rapidly changing world. The choice of the policy-area for collaboration with EU diplomats—climate and environment—was also in response to the mounting concerns among young people about their own future and the future of the planet. This local concern among the target audience resonated strongly with the priority the EU assigns to climate and environment policy—and decision-making in the Union and around the world.

Respectful Consultation

Cultural and generational gaps may challenge respectful consultation. The embassies are diplomatic missions of foreign actors to New Zealand. New Zealand has its own policy priorities, political establishment, cultural sensitivities, and contexts. Young people, as a key audience, belong to a different generation than the team of diplomats. One solution to overcome the gaps is to recognize and engage with students’ expertise in local and professional matters while demonstrating readiness to listen to students respectfully. The two cases involved communication students in possession of theories and advanced methods to analyze communications and media (including expertise with digital tools and analytical software). In both cases, the diplomats communicated upfront to the students that they wanted to listen to and learn from the students about New Zealand in general, about what matters to young people in present-day New Zealand, and about methods and tools in the field of media and communication studies.

In Case 1, students’ advanced research expertise in the political communication field made them the carriers of unique knowledge and know-how, and resulted in a collaborative analysis that led to the collaboratively-designed recommendations. Recommendations were reported orally and in written form to the diplomats. The follow-up hubs monitor what recommendations are taken on board and to what extent.

In Case 2, all small groups were instructed by the academic facilitator to incorporate a distinct bi-cultural element into recommendations (one of the core competencies of this course where students have a dedicated section to explore bi-cultural themes in collaboration with Ngāi Tahu, the major Māori tribe of the South Island). The European diplomats posted to New Zealand are acutely aware of the importance of the bi-cultural contexts for their work in Aotearoa New Zealand. Through collaboration with students in Case 2, the EU diplomats had an opportunity to advance their own awareness and understanding of this key location-specific cultural context. In the open letter to the students following their presentations, EU diplomats stated,

Our main take-aways were about the need to link climate policy to everyday life in Aotearoa New Zealand, to partner with local and grassroots initiatives, and perhaps to use a more informal tone to connect with Kiwis (and pick up on “she’ll be right” attitudes). What also stood out for us was how all presentations (not only the only focused on Māori) found ways of incorporating Māori perspectives and values into their communication strategies.

As such, the collaborative learning led to a better understanding of the EU and EU-NZ relations on the part of students and EU diplomats, and to the creation of new understandings for all involved.

Increased Participation

This operationalization states that successful collaborations are leading to more collaborations and to more intense collaborations. As mentioned above, the success of the initial hubs paved the way for new hubs collaborating with the EU Delegation and the Embassy of France. In Case 2, the collaboration with the EU Delegation has triggered involvement of more European experts from the EU institutions and EU member states. The list of experts informing students’ collaborative projects in addition to the diplomats included a young European think tank researcher who participated in COP 26, a leading German academic specializing in EU energy issues, an official from the Directorate General of Energy and Sustainability of the European Commission, and a New Zealand academic/business consultant in strategic communication field who collaborates with Europeans.

Students also demonstrated increased participation. After the projects’ completion, in the debriefs, students reported to the academic facilitator interest in following and participating in events/initiatives of the EU: e.g., internships in the EU Delegation and the Embassy of France, scholarships to study in Europe, or Europe Day events organized by the EU Delegation, to name a few. After monitoring and analyzing the embassies’ social media channels, some students reported they started following these virtual platforms regularly.

Mutually Beneficial Collaboration

In regular debriefs and group discussions with the academic facilitator, students recognized multiple benefits of collaborative learning involving peers, the facilitator, and international counterparts. These included opportunities to get valuable professional experience, to develop a project with an impact on practice and list it on their CVs, to learn and practice new research skills and methods, to practice working in teams in face-to-face and virtual modes, to advance interpersonal skills, to hone presentation skills including a professional skill to pitch the project in a competitive environment, to present as a team in a hybrid mode (a format employed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] circumstances) and to test themselves through cooperation with diplomats. Students also appreciated the chance to make new friends, encounter different cultures, and acquire new knowledge about the EU and France as important international partners to New Zealand.

Arguably, the EU/EU member states diplomats also benefit. Firstly, these grassroots public diplomacy collaborations present the embassies with a testing ground for the “new” public diplomacy in a co-creation mode. Secondly, through pedagogical activities in Cases 1 and 2, the EU's public diplomacy actors have an opportunity to engage with and facilitate an informed cohort among future local communication professionals. In addition, communication officers/teams in the embassies benefit from in-depth systematic analysis of the current state of communication/their reception, insights into new methods and techniques, and concrete leads on how to improve communication. Finally, recommendations generated by students present useful insights into how the target group (local educated youth) thinks, in addition to insights into local contexts, cultures, and sensitivities.

Joint Leadership

Cases 1 and 2 demonstrate examples of a stable trusting bi-directional relationship between students and the academic facilitator on one side and the European diplomats on the other. In Case 2, the students and the academic facilitator trusted EU diplomats with a choice of stakeholders for assessment, the key information about the EU and its policies, and their final decisions in the role of jurors. Students also trusted that their findings would be used to help the course of EU-New Zealand relations. The co-leadership was also expressed through regular (digital) communication between students and the academic facilitator, and the facilitator and the diplomats.

In Case 1, the students and the academic facilitator design the hubs’ activities, taking a lead yet working together with the diplomats from the very start. This is important as the projects have a very concrete task to accomplish/problem to solve. The format of collaboration, the foci of analysis, and the modes of delivery of results are discussed with the diplomats in advance. Once again, regular communication (mostly via digital means) is the key to success.

Finally, joint leadership in the two cases also meant joint readiness for flexible solutions. The COVID-19 circumstances meant postponement of in-person presentations for some hubs. This is where digital tools to link students with the diplomats were invaluable. Some members of the hubs got jobs before the end of the project and the teams had to accommodate for the change redistributing tasks, while diplomats had to adjust their expectations.

Concluding Discussion

This study aimed to answer the question of how education and knowledge diplomacy can be understood together. It argued for the added-value dimension of bringing together pedagogical thinking in tertiary communication studies and developments in public diplomacy, and specifically for the value of the former in addressing issues in the latter. This research proposed the operationalization of the concept of co-creation—a concept that increasingly informs “new” public diplomacy in the changing world. The study tested this operationalization on the two cases of the grassroots knowledge diplomacy collaboration between students of communication, their academic facilitator and diplomats engaged in public diplomacy/strategic communication. And while the scale of collaborations is relatively small and experimental, this conclusion argues that the collaborative learning approach—at the teaching-research-practice nexus and in the context of “internationalization at home”—presents a promising case of the potential for combining knowledge diplomacy and communication studies pedagogy.

To understand how knowledge diplomacy may contribute to genuine dialogue and trusting collaboration in public diplomacy, away from a one-way information transfer conceived with dominance in view, the study modified the public diplomacy's conceptual triad of monologue-dialogue-collaboration. It extended the three-part scheme to a more finely-tuned conceptual tool—the pentad of the “community engagement continuum.” The two cases in this study tested the extended scheme. They demonstrated that the five-part continuum offers a more nuanced model of how genuine dialogue and trusting collaboration—key features of the collaborative approach to public diplomacy—may take place through knowledge diplomacy. One solution observed in this research is in leaning stronger toward the right-hand pole of the continuum while all five elements of the continuum work simultaneously, amplifying each other.

This study also highlights how collaborative learning may serve as a logical link between diplomacy and higher education—a link that arguably remains under-explored in both fields. In this paper, the conceptual intersection is further justified by the fact that both fields are stressing the notion of “collaborative,” with strong parallels in their conceptualization of the term. Among those parallels is the priority given to dialogue and listening in it, the civic skill and civil society dimension, co-construction of new meanings, diversity and multiplicity of perspectives, social and intellectual involvement, tolerating and resolving differences and positive interdependence. For Leigh Smith and McGregor (1992, p. 24), “… all collaborative learning is about building learning communities”. Creation of communities of shared interests and stakes is also a goal of co-creation in public diplomacy as well as “the development of an intellectual community” to “question, learn and understand in concert with others” (Leigh Smith & McGregor, 1992, p. 29). Pedagogical examples in this research demonstrate that collaborative learning may benefit different intellectual communities: Smaller groups of research-advanced students of communication (Case 1) as well as larger communication courses (Case 2).

Yet, a collaborative learning undertaking—either on the side of higher education or public diplomacy—has a number of challenges. Among the most obvious is a lack of personal contacts and proper training among potential academic facilitators and diplomats to initiate and design collaborative learning projects. Such projects tend to be complex in architecture and implementation. On the student side, involvement in an interpersonal activity raises the potential for human factors to interfere with collaboration, and this may not be obvious to academic facilitators immediately. Trust and motivation between all members of the collaboration—diplomats, academic facilitators, and students—come as a critical factor for success. This argument brings us back to the notion of knowledge diplomacy. Its scholars also warn us that:

The values of collaboration and mutual benefit which underpin knowledge diplomacy can be easily eroded. There is the potential risk that education, research, innovation and culture will be used to widen the knowledge divide instead of being a bridge to address global challenges through collaboration, exchange and trust (Knight, 2015, p. 5).

The paper ends with an argument that, for successful “new” public diplomacy in the context of the changing world, it is time to go beyond the focused regional programs to wider student audiences in the education system. Engagement initiated by diplomats in the sphere of strategic and public diplomacy communication with local students of media and communication is of significance. These students are the future narrators of global affairs and future gatekeepers of the information flows in traditional and social media. It is also time to revise the “new” public diplomacy priorities and ensure that interaction with young people—the key audience—focuses on the wicked problems and involves young people as not only the “targets” for transmitting information but co-creators and co-leaders in tackling shared challenges.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author would like to express gratitude to the Delegation of the European Union to New Zealand and the Embassy of France to New Zealand for their ongoing support of the PD-PCF UC Student Research Hubs.

ORCID iD

Natalia Chaban

Author Biography

Natalia Chaban (Department of Media and Communication, University of Canterbury) focuses her research on cognitive and semiotic aspects of political and media discourses, image/perceptions studies within the EU and IR contexts, and public diplomacy and political communication. Professor Chaban is President of Ukrainian Studies Association of Australia and New Zealand, co-editor of the peer-reviewed “Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies”, Director of the research centre “Public Diplomacy and Political Communication Forum”, and a leader of multiple transnational research projects supported by the European Commission and NATO.

References

Beelen

Jones

(2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In Curaj

Matei

Pricopie

Salmi

,, & Scott

(Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer.

Brown

J. S.

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032

B&S/PPMI/PD-PCF. (2021). Update of the 2015 perception study. Commissioned by the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments of the European Commission, in collaboration with the European External Action Service. https://ec.europa.eu/fpi/key-documents_en?f%5B0%5D = document_title%3Aupdat.

Chaban

Elgström

(2020). A perceptual approach to EU public diplomacy: Investigating collaborative diplomacy in EU-Ukraine relations. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(4), 488–516. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10029

Chaban

Elgström

(2022, on line). Critical expectation gaps: Advancing theorization of the perceptual approach in EU foreign policy studies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(4), 1047–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13445

Chaban

Kelly

(2021). Digital cultural diplomacy: EU and EU Member States public diplomacy in New Zealand [Conference session]. ISA Annual Convention 2021 Globalization, regionalism, and nationalism: Contending forces in world politics, virtual, April 6–9.

Chaban

Kelly

Malkov

(2022). Cultural and digital: Digital diplomacy in communicating the EU and EU member states as cultural diplomacy actors. PD-PCF UC Reactik Symposium Cultural diplomacy in the 21^st century: Theorising global, supranational, national and regional intersections, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, April 28–29.

Cowan

Arsenault

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311863

Cross

M. K. D.

Melissen

(eds.). (2013). European public diplomacy: Soft power at work. Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Cull

N. J.

(2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952

11.

European Commission (2016). Joint communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri = CELEX:52016JC0029&from = EN.

12.

European Union External Action (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf.

13.

Farnsworth

S. K.

Böse

Fajobi

Souza

P. P.

Peniston

Davidson

L. L.

Griffiths

Hodgins

(2014). Community engagement to enhance child survival and early development in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence review. Journal of Health Communication, 19(Suppl. 1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.941519

14.

Fitzpatrick

(2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2(3), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1163/187119007X240497

15.

Flink

Schreiterer

(2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Toward a typology of national approaches. Science & Public Policy, 37(9), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12778118264530

16.

French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (n.d.). Graphic - Activity of the French diplomatic network abroad. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/the-ministry-and-its-network/missions-and-structure/graphic-activity-of-the-french-diplomatic-network-abroad/.

17.

Gienow-Hecht

Donfried

(eds.) (2010). Searching for a cultural diplomacy. Berghan Books.

18.

Golub

(ed.) (1988). Focus on collaborative learning: Classroom practices in teaching English. National Council of Teachers of English.

19.

Goodsell

Maher

Tinto

Leigh Smith

MacGregor

(eds.) (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.

20.

Gregory

(2008). Public diplomacy: Sunrise of an academic field. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311723

21.

Hayden

(2009). Applied public diplomacy: A marketing communications exchange program in Saudi Arabia. The American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209347629

22.

Hoskins

O’Loughlin

(2010). War and media: The emergence of diffused war. Polity Press.

23.

Jelisić

(2012). Developing public diplomacy for supporting EU accession: Lessons to be learned at the Western Balkans. Proceedings of the 13th CEI Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum: Strategic Public Diplomacy, 9(1), 33–54. http://europa2020.spiruharet.ro/fisiere/Diplomatie%20publica/Marketing%20international/Marketing%20pentru%20Diplomatie%20publica/PD_97.pdf .

24.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

Holubec

(1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (3rd ed.). Interaction Book Company.

25.

Jones

Reiffenrath

(2018). Internationalisation at home in practice. European Association for International Education, https://www.eaie.org/blog/internationalisation-at-home-practice.html .

26.

Knight

(2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretative frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff

De Wit

Heyl

Adams

(Eds.), Handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). Sage Publications.

27.

Knight

(2015). The potential for knowledge diplomacy? Higher education and international relations. In Weimer

(Ed.), A wealth of nations: Conference Conversation Starter (pp. 37–45). European Association for International Education.

28.

Leigh Smith

MacGregor

(1992). What is collaborative learning? In Goodsell

Maher

Tinto

Leigh Smith

MacGregor

(Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 10–30). National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.

29.

Melissen

Wang

(2019). Introduction: Debating public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1-2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-14101064

30.

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (n.d.-a). European Union. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/europe/european-union/.

31.

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (n.d.-b). France. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/europe/france/.

32.

Pawlak

(2017). Communicating Europe in third countries (Member’s Research Service PE 599.340). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599340/EPRS_BRI%282017%29599340_EN.pdf.

33.

Payne

Sevin

Bruya

(2011). Grassroots 2.0: Public diplomacy in the digital age. Comunicação Pública, 6(10), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.4000/cp.422

34.

Riordan

(2005). Dialogue-based public diplomacy: A new foreign policy paradigm? In Melissen

(Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 180–195). Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Snow

(2009). Rethinking public diplomacy. In Snow

Taylor

P. M.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (1st ed, pp. 3–11). Routledge.

36.

Statistics New Zealand (n.d.). New Zealand international trade. https://statisticsnz.shinyapps.io/trade_dashboard/.

37.

University of Canterbury (n.d.). Public Diplomacy and Political Communication Forum (PD-PCF). https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/arts/research/public-diplomacy-and-political-communication-forum/.

38.

Zaharna

R. S.

(2009). Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: Information and relational communication frameworks. In Snow

Taylor

P. M.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 86–100). Routledge.