Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

To Be or Not To Be: Twitter Presence among Turkish Diplomats

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-3-84-175-201

Abstract

The article studies Turkey’s twiplomacy how Turkish diplomats use Twitter in performing their diplomatic outreach and public diplomacy. The literature review shows that there is a lack of a comprehensive large N study of Turkey’s twiplomacy. The article fills in this gap by collecting and analyzing data set of Twitter posts by 76 diplomats from 2010 to 2020. It helps understand how and to what extent Turkish diplomats maintain their presence on Twitter. We achieve this goal using two groups of methods. Firstly, we derive descriptive statistics for several user metrics including raw numbers of tweets per user and per date as well as retweet, reply, and like counts per user. Secondly, we analyze content of tweets through calculation of their sentiment scores.
The main findings indicate that the Twitter presence of Turkish diplomats is relatively limited and reliant on a few prominent figures. Though Turkish diplomats are selected from well-educated individuals who can make the greatest use of available opportunities provided by social media, relatively few of them are active on Twitter. Another significant conclusion is that Turkey’s twiplomacy is inconsistent and driven by individuals rather than a part of a wider strategy or framework. Online activities of different state institutions are not synchronized for efficient use of social media and so-called twiplomacy. Finally, according to the results of the content analysis, Turkish diplomats usually employ positive language in their tweets, as seen by the most frequently used terms, related emotions, and sentiment scores. It confirms the idea that Turkish diplomats tend to promote messages demonstrating Turkey's endorsement of international cooperation.

About the Authors

H. Mehmetcik
Marmara University
Turkey

Hakan Mehmetcik - Associate professor, Marmara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, International Relations, Department of International Political Finance

34722 Kadıköy Istanbul, Turkey



E. Salihi
Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University
Turkey

Emin Salihi – Assistant professor, Nigde Ömer Halisdemir University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Political Science and International Relations

51240, Nigde, Turkey



References

1. Abdelhaq H., Sengstock C., Gertz M. 2013. Eventweet: Online Localized Event Detection from Twitter. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. 6(12). P. 1326-1329.

2. Adesina O. S. 2017. Foreign Policy in an Era of Digital Diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences. 3(1). P. 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175.

3. Atefeh F., Khreich W. 2015. A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter. Computational Intelligence. 31(1). P. 132–164.

4. Ben Gibson C., Sutton J., Vos S. K., Butts C. T. 2020. Practical Methods for Imputing Follower Count Dynamics. Sociological Methods & Research. DOI: 10.1177/0049124120926210.

5. Bjola C. 2015. Making Sense of Digital Diplomacy. Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Bjola C., Holmes M. (eds.) New York: Routledge. P. 1-9.

6. Collins S.D., DeWitt J.R., LeFebvre R.K. 2019. Hashtag Diplomacy: Twitter as a Tool for Engaging in Public Diplomacy and Promoting US Foreign Policy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 15(2). P. 78–96. DOI: 10.1057/s41254-019-00119-5.

7. Dumčiuvienė A. 2016. Twiplomacy: The Meaning of Social Media to Public Diplomacy and Foreign Policy of Lithuania. Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review. No35. P. 92–118. DOI: 10.1515/lfpr-2016-0025.

8. Ford B. Q., Feinberg M. 2020. Coping with Politics: The Benefits and Costs of Emotion Regulation. Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences. No34. P. 123-128.

9. Gilboa E. 2016. Digital Diplomacy. The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy. Constantionou C., Kerr P, Sharp P. (eds.) London: SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781473957930.n45.

10. Goonetilleke O., Sellis T., Zhang X., Sathe S. 2014. Twitter Analytics: A Big Data Management Perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter. 16(1). P. 11–20. DOI: 10.1145/2674026.2674029.

11. Gupta R., Brooks H. 2013. Using Social Media for Global Security. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons. 417 p.

12. Hu M., Liu B. 2004. Mining and Summarizing Customer Reviews. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. P. 168–177.

13. Johnson K.,Goldwasser D. 2016. Identifying Stance by Analyzing Political Discourse on Twitter. Proceedings of the First Workshop on NLP and Computational Social Science. P. 66–75.

14. Kasmani M. F. 2019. A Political Discourse Analysis of the Twitter Posts of@ najibrazak Prior to 2018 General Elections. SEARCH (Malaysia). 11(2). P. 129–143.

15. Kaur A. Gupta V. 2013. A Survey on Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining Techniques. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence. 5(4). P. 367–371.

16. Khan M. L., Ittefaq M., Pantoja Y. I. M., Raziq M. M., Malik A. 2021. Public Engagement Model to Analyze Digital Diplomacy on Twitter: A Social Media Analytics Framework. International Journal of Communication. No15. P. 1741-1769.

17. Kurbalija J., Slavik H. (eds.) 2001. Language and Diplomacy. Msida: Diplo Foundation. 335 p.

18. Liu B. 2012. Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. 5(1). P. 1–167.

19. Malone G. D. 1985. Managing Public Diplomacy. The Washington Quarterly. 8(3). P. 199– 213. DOI: 10.1080/01636608509450301.

20. Mehmetcik H. 2019. Humanitarian NGOs: Motivations, Challenges and Contributions to Turkish Foreign Policy. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs. 24(2). P. 249–278.

21. Pak A., Paroubek, P. 2010. Twitter as a Corpus for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. LREc. 10(2010). P. 1320–1326.

22. Salihi E. 2021. Dijital Diplomasi Faaliyeti Olarak Türk Büyükelçilerin Twitter Kullanımı: Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Görev Yapan Türk Büyükelçiler Örneği [The Use of Twitter by Turkish Ambassadors as a Digital Diplomacy Activity: the Example of Turkish Ambassadors Serving in European Union Countries]. Oneri. 16(56). P. 545-569. DOI: 10.14783/maruoneri.909573.

23. Sandre A. 2015. Digital Diplomacy: Conversations on Innovation in Foreign Policy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 332 p.

24. Tanyeri Mazıcı E. 2020. Covid-19 Pandemi Sürecinde Dijital Diplomasi: T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Üzerine Bir Araştırma [Digital Diplomacy in Covid-19 Pandemic Period: A Research on T.R. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Turkish Studies. 15(4). P. 1087–1104. DOI: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.44438.

25. Uysal N., Schroeder J. 2019. Turkey’s Twitter Public Diplomacy: Towards a “new” Cult of Personality. Public Relations Review. 45(5). P. 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101837.

26. Weller K., Bruns A., Burgess J., Mahrt M., Puschmann C. (eds.) 2013. Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang. 450 p.

27. Weng J., Lee B.-S. 2011. Event Detection in Twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 5(1). P. 401-408.

28. Yağmurlu A.2019. Dijital Diplomasi: Kamu Diplomasisi Çerçevesinden Avrupa Birliği Üye Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Dışişleri Bakanlıkları İnternet Uygulamaları [Digital Diplomacy: European Union Member States and Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Internet Usage from Public Diplomacy]. Gumushane University e-journal of Faculty of Communication. 7(2). P. 1267–1295. DOI: 10.19145/e-gifder.554946.

29. Yaqub U., Chun S. A., Atluri V.,Vaidya J. 2017. Analysis of Political Discourse on Twitter in the Context of the 2016 US Presidential Elections. Government Information Quarterly. 34(4). P. 613–626.

30. Babacan M. 2021. Türk Dış Politikası’nın Dijital Kapasitesi: Pandemi Perspektifinden Dijital Diplomasi Uygulamaları [Digital Capacity of Turkish Foreign Policy: Digital Diplomacy Practices from a Pandemic Perspective]. UPA Strategic Affairs. 2(1). P. 119–142. (In Turkish)

31. Göksun Y. 2019. Barış Pınarı Harekâtı ve Twitter Diplomasisi [Operation Peace Spring and Twitter Diplomacy]. Journal of Current Research on Social Sciences. 9(4). P. 137-168. DOI: 10.26579/jocress. 329. (In Turkish)

32. İris M., Akdemir T. 2020. Kamu Diplomasisinde Dijital Dönüşüm: Büyükelçilerin Twitter Üzerinden Gerçekleştirdikleri Dijital Diplomasi Faaliyetlerinin İncelenmesi [Digital Transformation in Public Diplomacy: Examining the Digital Diplomacy Activities of Ambassadors via Twitter]. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology. 11(42). P. 12–54. DOI: 10.5824/ ajite.2020.03.001.x. (In Turkish)

33. Ovalı A. Ş. 2020. Türkiye-ABD İlişkilerinde Twitter Diplomasisi [Twitter Diplomacy in Turkey-US Relations]. The journal of International Relations (Uluslararasi Iliskiler). 17(65). P. 23–45. (In Turkish)

34. Özdemir M. 2020. Dijital Diplomasi ve Sosyal Medya: Barış Pınarı Harekatı Kapsamında Türkiye Washington Büyükelçiliğinin Twitter Kullanımı [Digital Diplomacy and Social Media: Twitter Use of Turkish Embassy in Washington in the Scope of Operation Peace Spring]. International Journal of Public Relations AND Advertising Studies. 3(2). P. 56–86. (In Turkish)


Review

For citations:


Mehmetcik H., Salihi E. To Be or Not To Be: Twitter Presence among Turkish Diplomats. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2022;15(3):175-201. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-3-84-175-201

Views: 1345


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)