Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy

Paradiplomacy as an educational strategy for countering information threats in foreign language training of political scientists specialising in international relations

Oksana Snigovska
Download article
Abstract

The relevance of the topic was conditioned by the strengthening of information warfare and the growing role of subnational actors in the international space, which required rethinking educational strategies in the field of international relations. The purpose of the study was to theoretically substantiate the educational approach focused on the use of paradiplomatic practices as a didactic resource for the development of professional resilience of higher education applicants to disinformation and propaganda. The study used a set of methods, in particular, structural and functional analysis, interdisciplinary modelling and content analysis of the information environment. The results of the study showed that paradiplomacy as a form of external activity of regional and municipal entities can effectively complement classical diplomacy in the face of hybrid threats due to its flexibility, efficiency, and ability to network influence. It was established that such activities have a significant potential in spreading truthful information, strengthening cultural ties, and forming a positive image of the state. The conceptualisation of paradiplomacy as a didactic tool integrated into foreign-language professional training of international specialists was carried out. Practical steps for integrating paradiplomatic content into the educational process based on the development of critical thinking, analytical skills, digital and media literacy were proposed. The expediency of including thematic blocks related to paradiplomatic activities in the curriculum of international relations and political science, in particular, in the context of learning foreign languages as a means of intercultural interaction and communication security, was substantiated. The practical significance of the study was to create the basis for the development of innovative educational strategies that can provide high-quality training for a new generation of international political scientists, adapted to the challenges of the global information space and able to implement public diplomacy strategies at the local level

Keywords

professional education; cultural approach; foreign language in diplomacy; intercultural communication; interdisciplinary approach; media literacy

Suggested citation
Snigovska, O. (2025). Paradiplomacy as an educational strategy for countering information threats in foreign language training of political scientists specialising in international relations. Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, 13(4), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/4.2025.32
References
  1. Aguirre, I. (1999). Making sense of paradiplomacy? An intertextual inquiry about a concept in search of a definition. Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 185-209. doi: 10.1080/13597569908421078.
  2. Amirov, A.O. (2021). Paradiplomacy in Ukraine’s foreign policy choice: “Fifth wheel” or accelerator of European integration? Politicus, 4, 14-19. doi: 10.24195/2414-9616.2021-4.2.
  3. Cornago, N. (1999). Diplomacy and paradiplomacy in the redefinition of international security: Dimensions of conflict and co-operation. Regional & Federal Studies, 9(1), 40-57. doi: 10.1080/13597569908421070.
  4. Cornago, N. (2010). On the normalization of sub-state diplomacy. Regional Sub-State Diplomacy Today, 5, 11-36. doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004183575.i-210.5.
  5. de Andrade Gama, I., & Możgin, W. (2021). Media literacy and its role in countering hybrid warfare (the case of Ukraine). Future Human Image, 15, 4-13. doi: 10.29202/fhi/15/1.
  6. Duchacek, I.D. (1984). The international dimension of subnational self-government. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 14(4), 5-31. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a037513.
  7. Duchacek, I.D. (1990). Perforated sovereignties: Towards a typology of new actors in international relations. In H.J. Michelmann & P.Y. Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units (pp. 1-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198274919.003.0001.
  8. Happaerts, S. (2012). Are you talking to us? How subnational governments respond to global sustainable development governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(2), 127-142. doi: 10.1002/eet.1577.
  9. Happaerts, S., van den Brande, K., & Bruyninckx, H. (2011). Subnational governments in transnational networks for sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 321-339. doi: 10.1007/s10784-010-9128-4.
  10. Holovko, I.K. (2017). Approaches to the interpretation of the definitions “regionalization” and “paradiplomacy” in modern academic discourse. Politicus, 6, 122-127.
  11. Hrachevska, T.O. (2014). Paradiplomacy as a component of regionalization processes at the present stage. Scientific and Theoretical Almanac Hrani, 17(12), 77-82.
  12. Huijgh, E. (2010). The public diplomacy of federated entities: Examining the Quebec model. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1-2), 125-150. doi: 10.1163/1871191X-05010106.
  13. Issundari, S. (2018). Paradiplomacy and Indonesian public diplomacy. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on community development (AMCA 2018) (pp. 156-159). Dordrecht: Atlantis Press. doi: 10.2991/amca-18.2018.44.
  14. Issundari, S., & Yani, Y.M. (2024). Mapping the development of paradiplomacy research through bibliometric analysis. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, 9(1), 157-177. doi: 10.24198/intermestic.v9n1.6.
  15. Keating, M. (2000). Paradiplomacy and regional networking. In Forum of federations: An international federalism (pp. 1-10). Ontario: Forum of Federations.
  16. Kukucha, C.J. (2004). The role of the provinces in Canadian foreign trade policy: Multi-level governance and sub-national interests in the twenty-first century. Policy and Society, 23(3), 113-134. doi: 10.1016/S1449-4035(04)70040-5.
  17. Kuznetsov, A. (2014). Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international affairs (1st ed.). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315817088.
  18. Matthews, M.R. (2023). Cultural studies in science education: A philosophical appraisal. Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(2), 199-213. doi: 10.1177/20966083231173721.
  19. Mietule, I., Hushko, S., Maksymova, I., Purii, H., & Kulishov, V. (2024). Study of the modern paradigm of educational diplomacy: The case of Ukraine. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 745-753. doi: 10.17770/sie2024vol1.7833.
  20. Padalka, H.M. (2022). Transprofessional training of specialists in the system of higher art education. NPU Scientific Journal. Series 14: Theory and Methods of Art Education, 28(1), 3-7. doi: 10.31392/NPUnc.series14.2022.28.01.
  21. Pajtinka, E. (2017). Between diplomacy and paradiplomacy: Taiwan’s foreign relations in current practice. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics, 11(1), 39-57. doi: 10.1515/jnmlp-2017-0003.
  22. Petrov, P., Vershyna, V., & Holovko, I. (2024). The role of public diplomacy and paradiplomacy as tools for strengthening political institutions in the digital dimension. Philosophy and Political Science in the Context of Modern Culture, 16(2), 215-221. doi: 10.15421/352462.
  23. Pryshlyak, O.Yu. (2019). Intercultural competence of future professionals in the context of leading theories of intercultural interaction. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology”, 5(2), 40-42. doi: 10.31339/2413-3329-2019-2(10)/2-40-42.
  24. Reinsberg, B., & Dellepiane, S. (2022). The domestic sources of sub-state foreign policymaking: Determinants of subnational development cooperation across European regions. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(5), 922-947. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2022.2055111.
  25. Setzer, J. (2015). Testing the boundaries of subnational diplomacy: The international climate action of local and regional governments. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), 319-337. doi: 10.1017/ S2047102515000126.
  26. Shevchenko, V.E. (2018). Fact-checking and verification in journalistic work. Obraz, 1(27), 140-153. doi: 10.21272/2415-8496-2018-1(27)-140-153.
  27. Sukhatska, D.Yu. (2022). Directions of organizational and functional support of public diplomacy in the public administration of Ukraine. Collection of Scientific Papers “Scientific Notes”, 27, 51-61. doi: 10.33111/vz_kneu.27.22.02.06.040.046.
  28. Tavares, R. (2016). Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., & Noyons, E.C.M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629-635. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
  30. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300027764.
  31. Zamorano, M.M., & Morató, A.R. (2015). The cultural paradiplomacy of Barcelona since the 1980s: Understanding transformations in local cultural paradiplomacy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(5), 554-576. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2014.943752.
  32. Zelenkauskaite, A. (2022). Bots, trolls, elves, and the information war in Lithuania: Theoretical considerations and practical problems. In J. Chakars & I. Ekmanis (Eds.), The Palgrave Macmillan series in international political communication (pp. 123-140). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-99987-2_7.