State Sponsored Political Socialization and Public Diplomacy Exchange Program Outcomes: The Case of the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) Program

Abstract

This dissertation presents research on the micro-level outcomes of public diplomacy exchange programs, which contributes to our understanding of the effectiveness of public diplomacy exchanges as tools of state-sponsored political socialization. Many evaluations conclude that public diplomacy exchange programs are successful in achieving their stated objectives of changing individuals’ attitudes and behaviors; however, many outstanding questions remain regarding these programs’ social impacts in the near term.

This research largely draws on data from one cohort of individuals who participated in the U.S. Department of State-funded Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) Program, as well as indepth interviews conducted with 36 FLEX alumni from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan who participated in the same program between 2003 and 2011.

First, I found that, while some socialization outcomes may fall in line with funders’ expectations, particularly immediately after completion of the program, the picture was more nuanced and complex in the near term. For example, some attitudinal indicators were not uniformly positive in the near term, which runs counter to what funders often purport to be the case. This lends favor to my argument that the rigorous selection of program participants may play a more important role than program participation in explaining alumni attitudes in the near term.

Second, this research also found that a misalignment exists between alumni and funders in terms of the perspectives of each regarding program outcomes, suggesting that a divergence exists between the official and organizational intentions of public diplomacy programs and the way participants feel they have experienced them. In general, FLEX alumni saw program outcomes largely in terms of individual-level changes, such as the development of specific skills or capacities. They rarely saw outcomes along the lines of objectives and outcomes favored by program funders – that is, in terms of socialization or the development of transnational relationships. While individuals may see their status as a public diplomacy exchange program alumnus or alumna as an important part of their identity later in life, I posit that this post hoc understanding is centered on personal and professional outcomes as opposed to the objectives of program funders.