Concept of Public Diplomacy in Russian and Western Scientific Discourse

The term public diplomacy remains ambiguous in academic discourse. Its heterogeneous interpretations have to be systematized to enhance the analysis of its practices. This article offers such a classification of definitions based on different methodological approaches (systemic vs. practice-oriented) and schools (conservative, liberal, intermediate) in Russian and foreign research traditions. The review involved 43 publications (2003–2023). Their qualitative and quantitative content analysis focused on five definitional components (essence, subject, object, purpose, tasks) and three secondary characteristics (geography, approach, school). Quantitatively, 71.8% of the authors used non-systemic terms (instrument, process, etc.), while only 28.2% appealed to systemic ones (policy, set of measures, etc.). The research revealed some significant discrepancies: Russian researchers mostly adopted the systemic approach (42.0%) and the conservative school (65.0%), whereas foreign scholars favored the practice-oriented approach (92.0%) and the intermediate school (39.1%). The conceptual landscape of public diplomacy needs a universal theoretical framework for all contextual differences to expand the empirical base and confirm the trends identified in this research. The findings provide a foundation for critical literature analysis and constructive dialogue on various methodologies applied to Russia’s public diplomacy.