SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

A Document Analysis of Public Diplomacy Pathways: The Case of the Türkiye Communication Model

Kamu Diplomasisi Yollarına Yönelik Bir Doküman Analizi: Türkiye İletişim Modeli Örneği

Tuğba Bamyacıoğlu(ERCİYES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0366-6604
Emel Tanyeri Mazıcı(ERCİYES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2731-5996
Pages
875–902
Publication Date
2026-03-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that initiatives were predominantly concentrated in the direct effect category, indicating an emphasis on perceptions through direct engagement with international actors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the extent to which the activities carried out by the Directorate of Communications of the Republic of Türkiye correspond with public diplomacy methods identified in the literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataset consists of 112 initiatives targeting international audiences, drawn from the report titled “The Türkiye Communication Model: Five Years in Pursuit of Truth” covering the 2018–2023 period.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that initiatives were predominantly concentrated in the direct effect category, indicating an emphasis on perceptions through direct engagement with international actors.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018–2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kamu Diplomasisi · Yumuşak Güç · İletişim Başkanlığı

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which the activities carried out by the Directorate of Communications of the Republic of Türkiye correspond with public diplomacy methods identified in the literature. The dataset consists of 112 initiatives targeting international audiences, drawn from the report titled “The Türkiye Communication Model: Five Years in Pursuit of Truth” covering the 2018–2023 period. The data were analyzed using content analysis to assess the relationship between Türkiye’s public diplomacy practices and theoretically established methods, as well as their alignment with the strategic priorities of the period. Public diplomacy methods—attraction, benefith of douth, socialization, direct effect, agenda-setting, and framing—were used as the coding scheme. The findings reveal that initiatives were predominantly concentrated in the direct effect category, indicating an emphasis on perceptions through direct engagement with international actors. Attraction emerged as the second most frequent category. The presence of multiple coding across initiatives suggests the adoption of a multidimensional communication strategy. However, the relatively limited number and scope of socialization-based initiatives stands out as a notable finding.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İletişim Başkanlığı’nın yürüttüğü faaliyetlerin literatürde tanımlı kamu diplomasisi yöntemleriyle ne ölçüde örtüştüğünü ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, 2018–2023 dönemini kapsayan “Türkiye İletişim Modeli: Hakikatin Peşinde Beş Yıl” isimli yayında yer alan uluslararası kamuoyuna yönelik 112 girişim, araştırmanın veri setini oluşturmaktadır. Söz konusu doküman incelemesi içerik analiziyle yapılmıştır. Literatürde tanımlı kamu diplomasisi yöntemleri olan; çekicilik, iyi niyet varsayımı, sosyalleşme, doğrudan etki, gündem belirleme ve çerçeveleme kategorileri, kodlama cetveli olarak kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, girişimlerin yoğun olarak doğrudan etki kategorisinde toplandığını göstermektedir. Türkiye’nin bu dönemde uluslararası aktörlerle doğrudan temas kurarak imaj ve politikalarına yönelik algıyı şekillendirmeyi amaçladığı ve bu noktada kritik aktörlere önem verdiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu sıklığı takip eden kodlama kategorisi ise çekilik faktörü olmuştur. Bazı girişimlerin birden fazla kategori altında kodlanması, çok yönlü bir iletişim stratejisinin benimsendiğine işaret etmektedir. Bununla birlikte, sosyalleşme temelli girişimlerin hem sıklığının az olması hem de mevcut sosyalleşme girişimlerinin hedef kitlesinin sınırlı olduğu dikkat çekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bamyacıoğlu, T., Mazıcı, E. T. (2026). A Document Analysis of Public Diplomacy Pathways: The Case of the Türkiye Communication Model. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 875–902. https://doi.org/10.19145/e-gifder.1863159

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Albishri, O., Tarasevich, S., Proverbs, P., Kiousis, S. K., & Alahmari, A. (2019). Mediated public diplomacy in the digital age: Exploring the Saudi and the U.S. governments’ agenda-building during Trump’s visit to the Middle East. Public Relations Review, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101820
  2. Arceneaux, P., & Powers, S. (2020). International Broadcasting Public Diplomacy as a Game in Marketplace of Loyalties. Içinde S. Nancy & N. J. Cull (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2. bs). Routledge.
  3. Bamyacıoğlu, T., & Buhmann, A. (2023). Country of origin effects on service evaluation: The case of domestic and ethnic restaurants. Içinde Khalid I. Al-Sulaiti & Ibrahim K. Al-Sulaiti (Ed.), Country of origin effects on service evaluation (ss. 71-94). Qatar University Press. https://www.kisa.link/CYeBV
  4. Brayman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4. bs). Oxford University Press.
  5. British Council. (2024). British Council corporate plan 2024–25. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/british_council_corporate_plan_2024-25.pdf#page=6.45
  6. Brown, J. (2020). Arts diplomacy: The neglected aspect of cultural diplomacy. Içinde N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2. bs, ss. 79-81). Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy.
  7. Chernobrov, D. (2022). Strategic humour: Public diplomacy and comic framing of foreign policy issues. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 24(2), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211023958
  8. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952
  9. Çevik, S. B. (2014). Turkish soap opera diplomacy: A western projection by a Muslim source. The Journal of Public Diplomacy, 5(1), 78-103. https://surface.syr.edu/exchange/vol5/iss1/6
  10. Çevik, S. B. (2020). Turkey’s public diplomacy in flux from proactive to reactive communication. Içinde N. Snow & C. Nicholas J. (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2. bs, ss. 350-359). Rotledge.
  11. d’Hooghe, I. (2015). China’s public diplomacy. Brill Nijhoff.
  12. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  13. Entman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. case. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(2), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208314657
  14. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142
  15. Goff, P. (2020). Cultural diplomacy. Içinde N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2. bs, ss. 77-78). Routledge.
  16. Golan, G. J., & Yang, S.-U. (2020). An Integrated approach to public diplomacy. Içinde G. J. Golan, S.-U. Yang, & D. F. Kinsey (Ed.), International Public Relations and Public Diplomacy Communication and Engagement. Peter Lang Publishing.
  17. Göksu, O. (2023). 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye’nin kamu diplomasisi ve yumuşak gücü: yapısı, araçları ve mesajları. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 10(2), 845-870. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1273435
  18. Gülal, A. G. G., & Durakçay, F. A. (2023). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin yüzüncü yılında kamu diplomasisi ve iletişim stratejisi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, (Special Issue), 519-544. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.1357417
  19. Kim, S. S., & Morrison, A. M. (2005). Change of images of South Korea among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26(2), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.003
  20. Kim, Y., Kim, J., Cho, S., & Yim, K. (2019). The impact of mega sporting events on host country’s destination images: The cases of 2014 Sochi winter olympics and 2015 Beijing IAAF world championships. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 28(3), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.32731/smq.283.092019.03
  21. Knüpfer, C. B., & Entman, R. M. (2018). Framing conflicts in digital and transnational media environments. Media, War and Conflict, 11(4), 476-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635218796381
  22. Manheim, J. B., & Albritton, R. B. (1984). Changing national images: International public relations and media agenda setting. Source: The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 641-657.
  23. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
  24. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. Içinde J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy soft power in international relations (ss. 3-27). Palgrave Macmillen.
  25. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research- A guide to design and implementation (4. bs). John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Mogensen, K. (2014). International trust and public diplomacy. http://aejmc.org/events/montreal2014/about/
  27. Mogensen, K. (2024). Branding a small state as an innovation business partner. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-024-00335-8
  28. Negiz, M. (2014). Kültür diplomasisinde yeni araçlar, modeller ve insan kaynakları. 3. Dünya Türk Forumu, 28- 30 Mayıs Edirne.
  29. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
  30. Nye, J. S. (2023). China and globalization soft power and great-power competition shifting sands in the balance of power between the United States and China. Springer.
  31. Özgür, M. (2016). AIPAC’in Amerikan dış politikasını ve İran nükleer müzakerelerini etkileme siyaseti. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 111-146. https://izlik.org/JA47EK55AW
  32. Özkan, A. (2014). Role of public diplomacy in establishing nation branding and public diplomacy possibilities of Turkey 1. European Journal of Research on Education, 2013(c), 1-5.
  33. Pamment, J. (2014). Articulating influence: Toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands ion brands. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019
  34. Sak, R., Sak, İ. T. Ş., Öneren, Ç. Ş., & Nas, E. (2021). Bir araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman analizi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 227-256. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.843306
  35. Sevin, E. (2014). Understanding cities through city brands: City branding as a social and semantic network. Cities, 38, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.01.003
  36. Sevin, E. (2015). Pathways of connection: An analytical approach to the impacts of public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 562-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.003
  37. Sheafer, T., & Gabay, I. (2007). The media and public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building running head: The media and public diplomacy. 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
  38. Szondi, G. (2023). The evolution of public diplomacy definition and goals. Içinde S. János (Ed.), Business & Diplomacy Review (ss. 121-140). Budapest University of Economics.
  39. Tanyeri, E. (2015). Destinasyon tanıtımında halkla ilişkiler: Turistik tüketici perspektifinden diyalog eksenli bir bakış. Literatürk Academia.
  40. TC. İletişim Başkanlığı. (2021, Temmuz 6). “Ulusal Kamu Diplomasisi Strateji Belgesi ve Eylem Planı” hazırlandı.
  41. TC. İletişim Başkanlığı. (2023). Türkiye iletişim modeli. Hakikatin peşinde 5 yıl.
  42. TC. İletişim Başkanlığı. (2024). 2024 idare faaliyet raporu. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/images/uploads/dosyalar/2024-idare-faaliyet-raporu.pdf
  43. TC. İletişim Başkanlığı. (2025). Hakkımızda. https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/kurum-hakkinda#
  44. Vatanartıran, Ö. (2020). Celebrity social media accounts as public diplomacy tools. Uluslararası Halkla İlişkiler ve Reklam Çalışmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 142-156.
  45. Zhang, J. (2007). Beyond anti-terrorism: Metaphors as message strategy of post-September-11 U.S. public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 31-39.