arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Strategic narratives in public diplomacy scholarship: practices, processes and politics of persuasion

Elsa Hedling

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy2025https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-025-00423-3article
ABDC B
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

Abstract This paper discusses the conceptual relationship between strategic narratives and public diplomacy and its analytical possibilities. It argues that public diplomacy can be understood as a set of persuasive narrative practices; that strategic narratives are central to processes of identity formation necessary for persuasive and credible public diplomacy communication; and that the contestation of strategic narratives through competing acts of persuasion, actively shapes the politics of public diplomacy. Rather than treating these as competing conceptualizations, the paper positions them as complementary entry points into the strategic narratives framework, each foregrounding persuasion and meaning-making in distinct ways in public diplomacy scholarship. The contribution lies in affirming public diplomacy as a relational site of narrative negotiation and contestation, where meaning is not merely instrumental but embedded in broader political, institutional and cultural contexts. This perspective opens new avenues for analyzing how actors negotiate legitimacy, desirability and possibility on the global stage through public diplomacy.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-025-00423-3

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{elsa2025,
  title        = {{Strategic narratives in public diplomacy scholarship: practices, processes and politics of persuasion}},
  author       = {Elsa Hedling},
  journal      = {Place Branding and Public Diplomacy},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-025-00423-3},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Strategic narratives in public diplomacy scholarship: practices, processes and politics of persuasion

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.