Here are the previous posts:

• 2014
• 2019
• 2022

And here is the table. As of October 31st, 2025, we have 11 appointed Under Secretaries (And 11 acting I believe). Average tenure, not counting Sarah B. Rogers, is 367 days, with appointed average at 502 days and acting 237. There have been, in the 9400 days since the office was created, 1981 vacant days, 2377 acting days, and 5042 days with an appointed under secretary.

I am working on a better visualization – meanwhile here is somewhat of an interactive version of the table below: https://esevin.github.io/rvacancy.html

While going through some old reports, I realized there were far too many names that I did not recognize. I did not know Trump administration had – wait for it – eight under secretaries (five of them acting) in four years. So, one one hand, it was time to update the data. On the other hand, technically, we only had acting under secretaries since I last updated the data in 2019.

Here we go with the table (EndDate / StartDate might be off by a day).

A couple of points:

• Richard Stengel still has the longest tenure.
• In the 8011 days I cover in the table, the under secretary position was vacant for 1851 days (or you know, five years). Acting officers were in office for 1553 days.
• There has been a total of 18 under secretaries.

Here is a summary table:

And timeline visual:

You can read the blog post here.

Special Issue of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

Issue Theme: Methodological Approaches in Public Diplomacy

Guest Editors:

Kadir Jun Ayhan (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

Efe Sevin (Towson University)

The term public diplomacy has been around since the 1960s. Throughout the decades, literature has grown richer in conceptual, descriptive and normative studies. However, robust study methods have been lacking. The scientific study of public diplomacy programs and their outcomes have been a struggle for both academics and practitioners (Banks, 2011; Sommerfeldt & Buhmann, 2019). Empirical studies are often built on anecdotal episodes from the field or limited to quantitative case studies on place branding or country image. Ontological choices in public diplomacy evaluation are  rarely addressed in the literature (Pamment, 2014).

Against this background, we aim to establish a platform for studies that focus on how public diplomacy practices can be studied and their outcomes can be evaluated more rigorously. Papers can engage in empirical work, but we are more interested in methodological discussions rather than empirical findings.

In line with the objectives of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy journal, we position this special issue to provide a venue for practitioners and scholars of public diplomacy to scrutinize instruments of methodology and evaluation for more rigorous studies in the field. We are open to papers that use quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. Papers that address validity issues in public diplomacy research and/or evaluation are also welcome.

Potential topics that might be addressed include but are not limited to the following broad methodological discussions in public diplomacy:

• Frameworks and associated robust methodologies for scientific study of public diplomacy;
• Data needed for rigorous public diplomacy evaluation and research and validity issues;
• Units of analysis and causal connection between them;
• The integration of computational methods with traditional data;
• Differentiating outcome and impact assessment from measurement of outputs;
• Establishing causation through qualitative and/or historical case studies;
• Application of policy evaluation and analysis tools for public diplomacy programs;
• Use of experiments in the study of public diplomacy;
• Systematization of practitioners’ knowledge base and best practices in public diplomacy;
• Innovative methods for public diplomacy evaluation;
• Policy learning and policy transfer based on impact studies in public diplomacy;
• The role of context and cultures in public diplomacy evaluation.

References

Banks, R. (2011). A Resource Guide to Public Diplomacy Evaluation. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press. https://www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u35361/2011%20Paper%209.pdf

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.

Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Buhmann, A. (2019). The status quo of evaluation in public diplomacy: Insights from the US State Department. Journal of Communication Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2018-0137

Submissions

Extended abstracts (500 words), accompanied by a short bio sketch should be submitted via e-mail to both guest editors (ayhan[at]hufs.ac.kr and esevin[at]towson.edu) with PBPD in the subject line.

Please note that all articles will go through a peer-review process. Acceptance of an abstract does not guarantee publication in the special issue.

Timeframe:

Abstract submission deadline: April 30, 2020

Notification on submitted abstracts:  May 15, 2020

Article submission deadline: January 25, 2021

Notification of article acceptance/ rejection: April 16, 2021

Deadline for the final submission of revised manuscripts: May 31, 2021

Expected publication date (online first): December 2021

Contact

Informal inquiries about the project can be directed to either guest editor (Kadir Jun Ayhan: ayhan[at]hufs.ac.kr, Efe Sevin: esevin[at]towson.edu)

PDF Version of the call can be found here.

This securitization phenomenon has indeed been disturbing because it has entirely changed our discourse through two major mechanisms. First and foremost, we all have to eventually articulate the “security” impacts of our fields. In my field, we have been pushed to frame public diplomacy as a way to, for instance, prevent further conflict between the U.S. and certain audiences in the Middle East. Public diplomacy does not need to exist in this binary understanding of conflict. These communication projects do not only take place to  avoid armed conflicts – we are not communicating to avoid misunderstandings only. We also communicate to find mutual objectives and to cooperate. This argument is the equivalent of Spinoza’s famous “Peace is not the absence of war” quote. Peace is “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice”.

While this security frame push, by itself, is not incompatible with cooperative approaches to public diplomacy, its accompanying assumptions are. We are always in a combative world in which there is a right side (us) and a wrong side (them). I find the Kitchen Debate to be illustrative in this case. In a short conversation, Nixon and Khrushchev ‘explain’ two different world views. (I have talked about the Kitchen Debate in more detail in this chapter.) Yet, accounts of the event were more competitive – we were more interested in who won the debate (and, of course, “we” won the debate).

As the recent demonstrations in Hong Kong once again reminded us, China is classified as “them” in our contemporary discourse. Strategic communication studies reflect this particular classification as well. For instance, when China decided to start its own public diplomacy projects, its attempts were quickly labelled as “sharp power” as the country seeks “to penetrate the institutions of democracies in ways that are often […] ‘covert, coercive, or corrupting.’”. Continuing the “we do public information, enemy does propaganda” frame, “we” are discrediting Chinese approaches and ideas.

A recent New York Times article accused China of “waging a disinformation war”, saying:

A flurry of articles and editorials in China’s state media followed, condemning the vandalism and violence — without explaining what the protesters were protesting about.

The newspaper, itself, presents both sides of the story. They clearly (!) explain what the Chinese government wants to do in an earlier article:

China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty.

Just to clarify, I am not trying to support the Chinese perspective or even challenge the criticisms posited towards its state media. I solely state that our combative understanding of communication changes the frame we use to understand other parties, making strategic communication basically impossible.

Combative communication is not strategic. If we expect to get the most out of our communication projects, we have to leave the competitive mindset and preset labels behind. We need to start communicating to understand and to cooperate.

Yet, it still was not good enough. Even when we account for two acting under secretaries, we marked 1,992 days as vacant – a 296-day increase since 2014. Given the fact that the position has been vacant since last October, the number is likely to go up. Below, there is a timeline visual showing who held the title since it was created in 1999.

I will update the visual and the data when a new under secretary is appointed.

From Toddlers and Youtube…

Albeit not necessarily its main point, an article published in the Atlantic was discussing the globalization of content on Youtube. ChuChu TV, the example in the article, has over 20 million subscribers, which makes it one of the top 50 channels on Youtube. The channel was based in Chennai, India.

We rarely talk about the country of origin when it comes to digital content. Content is shared on the same platform (Youtube), in the same language (well, mostly, English), with similar formatting (edited in a dilettantish manner). PewDiePie can easily be from any country. His nationality becomes irrelevant.

… to Donald Trump and Voice of America

While I was contemplating my final goodbye to country of origin concept as digital content pushed it towards obscurity, Donald Trump came to the rescue. In his tweet on November 26th, he reminded me that my farewell was premature.

If only there was an outlet that was the Voice of America…I wonder what we would have called that TV station.

Quickly putting aside the fact that Trump has disregarded almost a century-long tradition of international broadcasting in the US with a bad pun on Voice of America, I moved onto comparing some readily available numbers.

A control, or dominance, on cultural production is an invaluable competitive advantage for public diplomacy. The attractiveness of its pop-culture has been such an asset for the US for decades. American movies, for instance, still dominate the list of highest-grossing films. Of course, liking movies does not equate a public diplomacy victory (as I tried to explain in around 300 pages here). But it is an ‘ice-breaker’. There is constant exposure.

Yet, the social media scene is different – the list of most-subscribed Youtube channels tells us a more global story. Most Americans on the list are offline celebrities. I will refrain from making any normative suggestions or causality arguments. It is not the time to invest on training the next generation of patriotic Youtubers. This did not happen because we failed to appreciate the role of soft power or to see the digital wave coming – there is a plethora of work in either field. The question is if the cultural advantage is nullified, how will the practice change? 

One of the areas I wanted to expand on as part of my research on  cities and communication  has been how cities – our homes – have been spending time and resources to be active in the ‘outside’ world. Let that be through city diplomacy or city diplomacy, our hometowns now have new identities. We are looking for chapters that investigates these new identities, the new roles and functions undertaking by cities, and the ways to study them.

Below, you can find a more formal call (or download the call in PDF format here).

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Deadline for abstract submission is November 1st.

Call for Chapter Proposals

Tentative Title: From Branding to Diplomacy: Cities in the International Arena

Book Co-editors:

Efe Sevin (Reinhardt University, Waleska, GA)

Sohaela Amiri (Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, CA)

Timeline

• Proposal Submission Deadline: November 1^st, 2018
• Notification of Acceptance:November 16^th, 2018
• Submission Date:February 15^th, 2019
• Revisions Due:May 1^st, 2019

Background 

From climate change to security, cities have been playing an active role in brokering international agreements. Recently, scholarly attention has started to focus on the diplomatic functions of cities. This nascent field of study positions cities as legitimate actors in the world scene. With this volume, we aim to present a more inclusive explanation of the role of cities in this new arena by bringing together studies highlighting how cities interact not only with each but with other actors, including their own state governments, other states, and non-governmental organizations.

Building on the existing studies in the field, we position this book as a way to launch into a larger discussion on cities and their role in international relations. We invite contributions that focus on the role of cities as actors in the international arena. We are looking for three broad approaches to city diplomacy: (1) theoretical approaches to the study of city diplomacy, (2) new methods and methodologies in city diplomacy, and (3) case studies.  We are particularly interested in studies that highlight the negotiation processes between different levels of governance, such as city administrations and nation states, international organizations and non-state actors. The topics include, but are not limited to:

• Global governance and the role of cities
• International policies tackled by cities
• City-Nation states conflicts
• City diplomacy and soft power
• International city networks
• Organizational structures for city diplomacy
• City image and branding
• Tourism and city diplomacy

Submission

Proposals should be submitted to both editors via e-mail (citydiplomacy@gmail.com). Proposals should include a title and an abstract of no more than 500 words, along with author name(s) and bio sketches of no more than 200 words. Abstracts should include information about proposed topic and methodology, as well as expected findings and number of tables/figures.

All invited manuscripts will go through double-blind review process, and if needed, editors might ask the authors in the project to review one or two papers submitted for this volume.

Each chapter is expected to be around 6,000-8,000 words (including footnotes, endnotes, references, and tables).

Note about publisher

The editors have been working with a major publisher which has expressed initial interest in the project however publication is contingent upon approval of the book proposal with contributor names and abstracts.

Timeline

November 1^st– Deadline for Abstract Submission

November 15^th– Notification of Acceptance

February 15^th – Full manuscripts due for review

March 15^th– Revisions are due

Contact

Informal inquiries about the project can be directed to either editor (Efe Sevin: ehs@reinhardt.edu, Sohaela Amiri: samiri@prgs.edu)

One of the side streets in Helen, GA

My trip to Helen was also a part of my field research for my ‘Place Branding and Development in Exurban Environments’. Therefore, I was not planning to blog on my observations. But Helen is currently facing flash flood risks. I believe the city became a great case to discuss the difficulties of balancing place branding and development.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume place branding is what you do to attract outsiders, mainly tourists, to your city while place development is what you do to satisfy the needs of your residents. If you invest all your resources on the former, you will end up with a Disney World-ish city where one can buy all types of memorabilia but cannot find any household items. If you choose the development aspect, you might end up with a well-functioning city that nobody wants to visit, which creates budgetary concerns. In 2017, American domestic tourist spending was valued at $718.4 billion, creating nearly 9 million jobs. Common sense (as well as various scholars including Andrea Insch and Magdalena Florek) dictates that we should balance place branding and development.

Helen is an incredible exception to this wisdom though. The decision to brand the city as an Alpine town was a necessity. Helen became a settlement during the Trail of Tears during which Native Americans were forced out of their lands and replaced by white settlers. Until 1960s, the city did ‘okay’ through its timber industry and gold miners. After depleting these natural resources, people started to abandon the region. Here is how the Chamber of Commerce tells the rest of the story (emphasis added):

Helen’s evolution into an alpine village began in 1968 when a group of local business men met to discuss ways to revitalize their town. They approached a nearby artist friend, who had been stationed in Germany. He sketched the buildings, added gingerbread trim, details and colors to the buildings, giving an alpine look to the entire town. In January of 1969, business owners and local carpenters began turning ideas into reality and all downtown stores were renovated. Faces of buildings were painted with scenes of Bavaria and North Georgia, mirroring the migration of early settlers.

And this is the city we ended up with:

After a rainy weekend, Chattahoochee River started giving visitors less of a “let’s go tubing” vibe and a little bit more “maybe they should have invested more on infrastructure”.

Is it possible to balance between place branding and development in emergency cases such as Helen? The short answer is yes, it is. Even if a city decides to completely revamp itself and use tourism as its main industry, it is possible to do so while acknowledging the needs and expectations of locals.

The longer answer requires a dive into the role of environment and sustainable tourism – Helen is in driving distance to metro Atlanta, as well as bordering cities in three states. It has access to a great market. Yet, Helen is also a city that had to reinvent itself once after its economy almost collapsed because it was not diversified. Currently, it is banking on beer-loving tourists and hikers (as Helen is close to a few state parks). This particular strategy is equally unsustainable.

In short – branding is good, especially if you have access to a solid market. But if branding does not go hand-in-hand with development, local governments will find themselves in trouble.

At this time of year, please try not to make fun of students who never came to class, read the syllabus, did any of the work – or who failed to master even the most basic concepts in the field. They didn’t fail you. You failed them! So no punching down!

— Associate Deans (@ass_deans) May 8, 2018

As I was writing my course reflections, I realized it was very difficult to talk about higher education without, well,  some level of student shaming. At the end of the day, the students are part of the learning process and they need to invest heavily in their own learning both inside and outside the classroom. During the last four years, I found myself to give instructions that I thought were just common sense:

• Such as the interpersonal communication tips,

• Please take off your headphones in the classroom.
• Please take off your headphones when we are having a one-to-one meeting.

• Or ‘there is a reason why you are given those documents’ trope,

• Refer to the textbook and in-class discussions in your final paper.
• Your grading will be based on the rubric – that is why it is called the grading rubric.
• Read the syllabus.
• Keep the handouts I am distributing in class.

• Or ‘who on earth would consider this to be okay’ part,

• Do not fall asleep in the classroom
• Do not fall asleep in the classroom two weeks in a row.
• Do not fall asleep in the classroom three weeks in a row.

• Or my favorite one – I have no idea how many times I sent this e-mail:

• You realize that you sent me this e-mail while you were in my class…while I was lecturing…while you were supposed to be listening…

 My two cents on why this is happening and what we (or I) can do:

I would say there are three oxymorons in the current higher education climate which pushes faculty members to be more of a “teacher” and less of a “professor”. I wish I also get to only “profess” in my lectures but apart from a few exceptional institutions, I highly doubt we will get students ready for college-education.

Higher education is “higher” but is also a must-have 

Higher education, by its nature, should be selective. It is higher education. It should be the equivalent of running a marathon – as in everybody should know how to run to an extent but only a few committed people should specialize in running longer distances. Everybody should have some level of education but higher education should be for those who want to spend more time in acquiring specialized knowledge and skills.But a higher education degree is a must-have for nearly all white-collar professions.

Making higher education exclusive makes various financial and social opportunities inaccessible for the masses. So, we need to accept the fact that we are going to get students who probably should not have gone so far in their education. We will get students that do not have the reading / writing skills or even analytical thinking capabilities required for college-level education. Our classes have to remedy for the lack of these skills first.

Colleges need to retain students 

Who can say they have never done this?

We want the students to stay. Their continued enrollment ensures that we can keep the programs going therefore helps not only their learning but also learning of their classmates. There is indeed a need to keep the students satisfied with their education – however, student satisfaction seems to be more closely related with high grades through easy education than with quality of education. More often than not, we need to correct student behavior and sometimes we need to be harsh and strict.

Can you really retain students if faculty members sound like they are student shaming? Flipping the question, can you really retain faculty members if “read the syllabus” is seen as student shaming (and can you really retain students if there is a high faculty turnover)?

We want the students (and faculty) stay while managing to create an environment in which both are complaining about each other.

Students have “lives” 

Non-traditional student enrollment is rising. Even our traditional students are juggling a few jobs and sometimes families. Yet, our courses are still based on 1:2 ratio: for each hour spent in class, students will spend two hours studying. This understanding makes a regular course load into a 45-hour week.

Even if we assume the student only does the necessary readings which should take around an hour or two per course. We are still looking at a +25-hour week. Once you start adding up commute times, other commitments, and work schedules, it becomes very impressive that the students find the time to show up for class.

We expect our students to be fully present on campus and focusing on their studies but they have lives. They want to have to be active in other parts of their lives and still graduate in four years. They expect faculty members to respect their choices.

In conclusion, we need to update the faculty-student relationship. We need to create an environment that understands and respects the demands of both the students and the faculty.

• The faculty needs to realize that we have the students we have and it is our job to make sure their graduate faculty members or supervisors do not complain about the behaviors we are complaining about right now.
• The students need to realize that learning is their responsibility and they need to put in an advanced level of effort into their work to be successful in college.
• Both parties need to realize social media is not the best platform to air their grievances. There is a time and a place for that and it is called Festivus.
• Administration needs to act as the bridge between these two parties, sometimes explaining the expectations of one to the other.