Introduction to this special issue Cultural diplomacy : what role for cities and civil society actors?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cultural diplomacy as discourse and practice looms large today in both cultural policy studies and international relations. In effect, the term cultural diplomacy is widely used, so much so that it has become a floating signifier, commonly deployed by foreign policy establishments and the arts and culture sector alike (Isar 2010). Cultural diplomacy has become an ambivalent concept with blurred boundaries. A more traditional definition of cultural diplomacy sees it as a soft power tool through which states and/or international organizations pursue foreign policy objectives. Cultural diplomacy in this perspective would be limited to the processes that occur when formal diplomats, operating at the service and in the name of their governments, use cultural resources to help advance national interests. But in recent years, an expanded and more self-reflexive definition has prevailed which conceives it as a policy area in its own right, which promotes quality of life, the arts, joint capacity building, economic growth and social cohesion by engaging citizens and civil society actors, across borders, both as producers and consumers of cultural activities. This expanded definition of cultural diplomacy uses exchanges of cultural goods and services, cooperation and networking among museums, cultural foundations and ministries, artists and curators from different countries and continents, to promote better and closer relations and extend their overall societal and political influence. Even in this extended form though, cultural diplomacy activities may also be used to advance specific geopolitical interests or to buttress trade policy (Ang et al. 2015). Earlier, the two definitions and the processes related to them were seen as distinct by analysts. The former was defined as cultural diplomacy and the latter as international cultural relations, which remain based on flows of cultural exchange but take place naturally and organically, without government intervention. As the distinction has become blurred both in policy and scholarship, the attention of researchers has remained directed mainly at exchanges between countries and at cultural programmes and overall cultural activities taking place between and among nation states. This form of ‘methodological nationalism’ has led to two major lacunae, both of which merit further debate and research. The first of these is that there is very little direct analysis of the motivations, values and efforts of civil society actors. The second is the relative absence of research on how cities are now practicing international cultural relations and diplomacy among themselves―and they are often doing this via the agency of civil society actors. With a view to addressing these interconnected gaps, a workshop was organized by the guest editors at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy, on 21 May 2019. This was a point of departure. This special issue now brings together the contributions made to that discussion and that have been further developed by eight authors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,106 | 0,032 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».