International Quarterly of Foreign Relations

International Quarterly of Foreign Relations

Presenting cultural diplomacy pattern of Islamic republic of Iran based on–grounded theory

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mohammad Tabesh 1
Ali Rashidpoor 2
Seyyed Reza Salehi Amiri 3
Reza Ebrahimzadeh Dastjerdi 4
1 PhD Student in Cultural Management and Planning, Department of Management, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Management, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Management and Planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
10.22034/fr.2023.387746.1357
Abstract
Cultural diplomacy is an intercommunication of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and people to amplify mutual comprehension between them. The object of this study was to present a cultural diplomacy model for the Islamic Republic of IRAN. This qualitative study was implemented using grounded theory and the Strauss and Corbin paradigm model. The data were collected through in-depth interview through a purposive sampling between professors, pundits, cultural attaches, and actors involved in the various fields of cultural diplomacy in Iran. After reaching theoretical saturation with 24 interviews and analyzing the data through three stages of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, the desired model was developed based on grounded theory. Cultural development, political development, and communication development were considered as causal conditions. Adherence to principles, values, and policies, cultural geography, Islam and Shiism, educational infrastructure, media and cyberspace, religious and spiritual, civilization and cultural heritage, cultural-scientific, institutional, Iranian lifestyle, cultural and social possibility, literary and artistic, humanistic, political; cultural agents; ideological nature were considered as contextual conditions and threats, opportunities, environmental variables, internal weaknesses, and deficiencies as intervention conditions. Strategies included diversification of strategies and tools, actions update, development of actors, strengthening infrastructure, and upgrading the structure and management pattern. The consequences included national security interests, religious and revolutionary ideological development, cultural reproduction, economic growth in the context of culture, Understanding and sustainable peace, strengthening legitimacy and international prestige.
Keywords
Culture
Diplomacy
Cultural Diplomacy
International Cultural Relationship
  • ­ Cull, Nicholas (2006). "'Public Diplomacy' Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase". USCPublicDiplomacy. University of Southern California. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
  • ­ Cummings M, (2003), Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey, Center for Arts and Culture, p. 1
  • ­ Encyclopaedia Britannica, link:https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy, last accessed: 29.08.2023
  • ­ Heller, Ken S. & Liza‌M. ‌Persson. ‌(2009). ‌The‌Distinction‌between‌Public‌Affairs‌&‌ Public Diplomacy: Handbook of Public Diplomacy, by Philip M. Taylor and Nancy Snow. London, New York: Routledge. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Britannica-Online
  • ­ Joseph S (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. Volume 616, Issue 1.https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
  • ­ Kurylev, K. P., Nikulin, M. A., & Goncharova, A. A. (2017). "SOFT POWER" OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. Series: History and political sciences, (2), 46-55.
  • ­ Samil OCAL. (2018). Culture and Language as a Soft Power Tool in Iranian Foreign Policy.
  • ­ La Porte, Teresa. (2012). The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Non State Actors and the Public Diplomacy Concept. In Public Diplomacy Theory and Conceptual Issues, ed.
  • ­ Goff M Patricia, (2013) Cultural Diplomacy, in: Cooper A., Heine J., Thakur R., (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Oxford, p. 420
  • ­ Spiro, Peter. (2013). Constraining Global Corporate Power: A Short Introduction. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 46: 1101-1118.
  • ­ Stelowska, D. (2015). Culture in International Relations Defining Cultural Diplomacy: Polish Journal of Political Scienc, 1(3), 50-69.
  • ­ Strauss, A, & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • ­ Topic, M & Cassandra, S. (2012), Cultural‌ Diplomacy ‌and ‌Cultural ‌Hegemony: A‌ Framework for the Analysis, in Cultural Diplomacy & Cultural Imperialism: European Perspective, by Martina Topic and Sinisa Rodin. Frankfort: Peter Lang.
  • ­ Unalmis, A, Basaran, D. (2019). THE USE OF SOFT POWER AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN IRAN FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF THE MIDDLE EAST. International Journal of Crisis and Political Studies, 3 (1), 50-79. Retrieved from https://dergipark. organ.
  • ­ Villarroel, Y. U. (2017). Gastronomy: a tool of cultural diplomacy in International Relations. Political Studies, 3(1), 50-79. Retrieved from https://dergipark. organ.. Austral Conjuncture, 8(43), 39-52.
  • ­ Wastndidge E (2014). PRAGMATIC POLITICS: IRAN, CENTRAL ASIA AND CULTURAL FOREIGN POLICY. CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS, Volume 15 Issue 4, 119-130.
  • ­ Wastnidge, E. (2015). The Modalities of Iranian Soft Power: From Cultural Diplomacy to Soft War. Politics, 35(3–4), 364–377. https://doi. org/10. 1111/1467-9256. 12084.