There Is Still Much Room To Fill: A Bibliometric Analysis Of Defence Diplomacy
Masih Banyak Ruang Untuk Ditulis: Analisis Bibliometrik Diplomasi Pertahanan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22303/pir.10.1.2025.37-52Keywords:
Bibliometric analysis, Defence diplomacy, Publish or perish; VOS viewerAbstract
fence diplomacy research has been growing in the last two decades. Nevertheless, there are no articles that specifically analyse the literature. Therefore, this study uses a literature review combined with bibliometric analysis to determine the trends and developments in defence diplomacy studies. The data was gathered through the use of the Publish or Perish (PoP) application from Scopus indexing which was then sorted using Mendeley and visualised in VOSviewer. This study found that the number of defence diplomacy articles published continues to grow every year in an even distribution of journals. In addition, the articles with the highest number of citations come from issues located in the Indo-Pacific. Interestingly, of all the authors spread across five different continents, there is no author who routinely writes on defence diplomacy topics in large quantities. This research has also shown that defence diplomacy issues are increasingly complex. This leaves room for future researchers to write about more varied issues.
References
[1]Bing, N. C. (2015). Comprehensive strategic partners but prosaic military ties: The development of Malaysia–China defence relations 1991–2015. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 37(2), 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs37-2e
[2]Bing, N. C. (2022). Malaysia’s Relations with China under Mahathir 2.0: Reaffirming Bilateral Ties, Renegotiating Economic Collaboration, Reasserting Security Interests. Issues and Studies, 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013251122510018
[3]Capie, D. (2010). The Shangri-La dialogue and the institutionalization of defence diplomacy in Asia. In Pacific Review (Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 359–376). https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2010.481053
[4]Cheyre, J. E. (2013). Defence Diplomacy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588862.013.0021
[5]Codner, M. (1998a). Is it all about clout? RUSI Journal, 143(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071849808446226
Codner, M. (1998b). The strategic defence review: How much? How far? How joint is enough? RUSI Journal, 143(4), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071849808446280
[6]Colman, J. (2008). Communication: “What Now for Britain?”The State Department’s Intelligence Assessment of the “Special Relationship,” 7 February 1968. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 19(2), 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290802096414
[7]Cottey, A., & Forster, A. (2013). Reshaping defence diplomacy: New roles for military cooperation and assistance. In Reshaping Defence Diplomacy: New Roles for Military Cooperation and Assistance. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315000817
[8]Dodd, T., & Oakes, M. (1998). The Strategic Defense Review White Paper (RP98/91). House of Commons Library, October, 62.
[9]Drab, L. (2018). Defence diplomacy – an important tool for the implementation of foreign policy and security of the state. Security and Defence Quarterly, 20(3), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.5152
[10]Edmonds, M., & Mills, G. (1998). Beyond the Horizon: Defence, Diplomacy and South Africa’s Naval Opportunities. South African Institute of International Affairs and the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=3HaFQgAACAAJ
[11]Ganesan, N. (2005). Realism and interdependence in Singapore’s foreign policy. Realism and Interdependence in Singapore’s Foreign Policy, 1–179. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099766
[12]Grina, G. (2017). National Military Diplomacy and its Prospects. Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 15(1), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/lasr-2017-0007
[13]Heuser, B., & Simpson, H. (2017). The Missing Political Dimension of Military Exercises. The RUSI Journal, 162(3), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2017.1345118
[14]Issundari, S., & Yani, Y. M. (2024). Mapping the Development of Paradiplomacy Research through Bibliometric Analysis. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, 9(1), 157. https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v9n1.6
[15]Kurç, Ç. (2024). No Strings Attached: Understanding Turkey’s Arms Exports to Africa. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 26(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2023.2236515
[16]Laksmana, E. A. (2011). Indonesia’s rising regional and global profile: Does size really matter? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(2), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs33-2a
[17]Laksmana, E. A. (2012). Regional order by other means? examining the rise of defense diplomacy in southeast Asia. Asian Security, 8(3), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2012.723920
[18]Medcalf, R. (2014). In defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia’s new strategic map. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(4), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2014.911814
[19]Morabety, A. El. (2017). Evolution of Moroccan defence diplomacy. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 10(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/17550912.2017.1279387
[20]Nabat. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis on Digital Diplomacy Studies. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1356201
[21]Papaioakeim, M. (2018). The rise of the Republic of Cyprus’ defence diplomacy in its neighbourhood. Cyprus Review, 30(1), 95–112. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85062958660&origin=inward
[22]Plessis, A. (2008). Defence Diplomacy Conceptual and Practical Dimension with Specifi c Reference to South Africa. University of Pretoria.
[23]Rossiter, A. (2022). Turkey’s rise as a drone power: trial by fire. Defense and Security Analysis, 38(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.2068562
[24]Sachar, B. S. (2003). Cooperation in military training as a tool of peacetime military diplomacy. Strategic Analysis, 27(3), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700160308450097
[25]Sachar, B. S. (2004). Military diplomacy through arms transfers: A case study of China. Strategic Analysis, 28(2), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700160408450134
[26]Santoso, P. (2024). Evaluation of the Indonesian Languange Training Program at the Defence Languange Training Centre. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(3), 956–980. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i3.3398
[27]Shemchuk, V. (2024). The Use of Means of Military Diplomacy in Providing Information Security as a Peacebuilding Factor. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(16.2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.2.309.326
[28]Sugiyama, L. S. (2003). Social roles, prestige, and health risk: Social Niche Specialization as a Risk-Buffering Strategy. Human Nature, 14(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-003-1002-4
[29]Sukamto. (2016). Metode Penulisan Karya Ilmiah (2nd Editio). Badan Penerbitan Universitas Widyagama.
[30]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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
[31]Wenas Inkiriwang, F. (2021a). ‘Garuda shield’ vs ‘sharp knife’: operationalising Indonesia’s defence diplomacy. The Pacific Review, 34(6), 871–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2020.1772352
[32]Wenas Inkiriwang, F. (2021b). Multilateral Naval Exercise Komodo: Enhancing Indonesia’s Multilateral Defence Diplomacy? Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40(3), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034211008905
[33]Woodward, D. R. (2013). The American army and the first world war. In The American Army and the First World War. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511984563
[34]Yasutomo, D. T. (2014). Japan’s civil-military diplomacy: The banks of the rubicon. In Japan’s Civil-Military Diplomacy: The Banks of the Rubicon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315884615
