"As yet, there are few culturally-informed analytical frameworks that can help us speak constructively about observable differences in public diplomacy and appreciate the significance of those differences for communicating in a multi-cultural global arena. Developing a multi-cultural perspective of public diplomacy differs from comparative public diplomacy. In comparative public diplomacy, the public diplomacy may 'look different' compared to others. It is an externally-positioned [JB comment -- OMG] analysis often using a single analytical lens. Several recent comparative studies, for example, use soft power as a lens to discuss public diplomacy. 14 This is an internally-positioned analysis [JB comment -- OMG] that helps create new analytical lenses.15
A Princeton PhD, was a U.S. diplomat for over 20 years, mostly in Central/Eastern Europe, and was promoted to the Senior Foreign Service in 1997. He has taught courses for many years at Georgetown University pertaining to propaganda and public diplomacy. He currently shares ideas on the theme "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United" to Eurasian/European delegates participating in the "Open World" program.
Brown’s articles have appeared in numerous publications. A recent piece is “Janus-Faced Public Diplomacy: Creel and Lippmann During the Great War” (published in Nontraditional U.S. Public Diplomacy: Past, Present, and Future).
He is the author (with S. Grant) of The Russian Empire and the USSR: A Guide to Manuscripts and Archival Materials in the United States. He also served as an editor/translator of a joint U.S.-Soviet publication, The Establishment of Russian-American Relations, 1765-1815.