Cited by 21International Relations and Foreign PolicyHistorical Influence and DiplomacyInternational Science and Diplomacy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Getting digital diplomacy right: what quantum theory can teach us about measuring impact

Bjola, Corneliu·2016·Global Affairs

Abstract

The issue of maximizing the impact and effectiveness of digital diplomacy has become high on the agenda of many ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs). What impact means in the digital context, how to capture it and how best to make use of it are questions that nevertheless remain poorly understood. Drawing heuristically on quantum theory, the article argues that the nature of the impact and the method of measuring it are two facets of the same ontological construct. The very act of measuring shapes the type of impact we may seek to capture. Getting digital diplomacy right on paper cannot therefore be reduced to an exercise of fine-tuning quantitative metrics. It involves a more complex approach that takes into account active listening to online conversations, careful prioritization of short and long-term objectives, hybridization of online/offline diplomatic agendas, mixed modes of engagement and creative mechanisms of adaptation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23340460.2016.1239388

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 14 · Cited by 21

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1007/s10701-015-9913-6 · DOI
  2. Bjola C., 2016, Digital diplomacy and the bubble effect: The NATO scenario
  3. Bjola C., 2015, Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, 71, 10.4324/9781315730844 · DOI
  4. Carrington P. J., 2011, The SAGE handbook of social network analysis
  5. 10.1163/187119111X598152 · DOI
  6. Emoji diplomacy – A new diplomatic sign language, 2016, Twiplomacy
  7. Femenía C., 2016, Twiplomacy
  8. 10.1332/policypress/9781861349071.001.0001 · DOI
  9. Kumar S., 2013, Twitter data analytics
  10. Lazarsfeld P. F., 1954, Freedom and control in modern society, 18
  11. Linzell S., 2015, Digital evaluation: crunching the numbers with Ripjar
  12. Theman P., 2016, Twiplomacy
  13. 10.1017/CBO9781316005163 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Bjola, C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Bjola, Corneliu
Venue
Global Affairs
Published
2016-05-26
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
345-353
ISSN
  • 2334-0460 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0479
OpenAlex
W2544230863
Cited by
21
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
13.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Global Affairs (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Historical Influence and Diplomacy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Science and Diplomacy
Keywords
digital diplomacy, impact measurement, quantum mechanics, ontology, measurement problem, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, online engagement, diplomatic communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Getting digital diplomacy right: what quantum theory can teach us about measuring impact. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/23340460.2016.1239388
The paper
Bjola, C. (2016). Getting digital diplomacy right: what quantum theory can teach us about measuring impact. Global Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2016.1239388