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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“QTs, which encompass a wide range of scientific advancements with no classical analog, have emerged as prime examples of emerging technologies that hold a significant potential to revolutionize various fields, including science and diplomacy (Bjola, 2016; Degelsegger-Márquez, 2020).”
From Quantum technology for development framework as a tool for science diplomacy (2023) · cites this paper as Bjola, 2016
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 10.1007/s10701-015-9913-6 · DOI
- Bjola C., 2016, Digital diplomacy and the bubble effect: The NATO scenario
- Bjola C., 2015, Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, 71, 10.4324/9781315730844 · DOI
- Carrington P. J., 2011, The SAGE handbook of social network analysis
- 10.1163/187119111X598152 · DOI
- Emoji diplomacy – A new diplomatic sign language, 2016, Twiplomacy
- Femenía C., 2016, Twiplomacy
- 10.1332/policypress/9781861349071.001.0001 · DOI
- Kumar S., 2013, Twitter data analytics
- Lazarsfeld P. F., 1954, Freedom and control in modern society, 18
- Linzell S., 2015, Digital evaluation: crunching the numbers with Ripjar
- Theman P., 2016, Twiplomacy
- 10.1017/CBO9781316005163 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Bjola, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bjola, Corneliu
- ORCID
- Bjola, Corneliu
- Venue
- Global Affairs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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