Cultural diplomacy: A space for exploring multiple collaborations

Abstract

This article presents a case of cultural diplomacy that highlights collaboration among multiple actors from three countries: Canada, Denmark, and Norway. Canadian (Québec) museums seek to draw inspiration from the organizational practices of Danish and Norwegian museums, which emphasize networking. This example of cultural diplomacy therefore illustrates a collaboration rooted in the exchange of best practices aimed at revisiting and improving local practices. The article presents the perspectives of individuals who participated in this project, which was not initially conceived as cultural diplomacy. Discussions and reflections following a Canadian team's mission to Denmark led to the realization that this was indeed cultural diplomacy—not one driven solely by heads of state, but rather by museum professionals and university professors. This article offers several avenues for reflection on the foundations of cultural diplomacy, particularly regarding whether it must always be planned and deliberate, or whether it can instead take shape organically within the context of certain projects.

Introduction

Cultural diplomacy, centered on collaboration, is a concept gaining increasing importance. In this article, we present a project focused on collaborations and the exchange of best practices within the museum sector between Canada (specifically Québec) and Scandinavia (specifically Denmark and Norway). Our article therefore takes the form of a report in which we describe this professional experience. Although it does not constitute a research project involving data collection, we position this project in relation to the literature on cultural diplomacy and open the door to reflections on different forms of diplomacy, thereby contributing to the scholarship on this topic. Canada, Norway, and Denmark maintain active ties, framed by shared northern geography, Arctic interests, and Nordic collaboration. These partnerships are expressed through formal frameworks, dedicated programs, and concrete projects in fields such as arts, film, digital media, and indigenous culture, including Sámi and Inuit.

Although there appears to be no historical precedent for cultural diplomacy between Canada (Québec) and Scandinavia (Denmark and Norway), these countries share affinities on several levels, particularly in terms of values. They therefore offer fertile ground for deploying cultural diplomacy initiatives that could strengthen their ties and create new relationships and collaborations. The next section of this article provides a brief literature review on the concept of cultural diplomacy, particularly the various definitions associated with it. We then present a cultural diplomacy project between Canada (Québec) and Scandinavia (Denmark and Norway). It should be noted that this project was not initially conceived as a cultural diplomacy initiative; rather, it became evident during its implementation that it indeed constituted cultural diplomacy between the three countries—this is presented in a brief analysis of the case.

Literature review

Cultural diplomacy has undergone profound reconfiguration over the past few decades under the combined effects of globalization, the rise of nonstate actors, and the increasing complexity of international dynamics. Historically conceived as a state instrument of influence, positioned “between propaganda and diplomacy” (Faucher, 2016: 376), it now unfolds through multiple modalities that go beyond the governmental framework. In addition to structured national policies, there are initiatives led by museum institutions, multilateral cultural cooperation mechanisms, and transnational networks that redefine the traditional boundaries of diplomatic action.

In this renewed context, culture—once reduced to a symbolic marker or a prestige vector—is now considered an “essential instrument of peace and stability” (UNESCO, 2022), a central element of soft power (Nye, 2008), and a strategic lever for reconfiguring historical and cultural narratives on a global scale (Paquette et al., 2024).

Definitions and foundations of cultural diplomacy

The literature highlights the inherently evolutive and polysemic nature of cultural diplomacy. As Ang et al. (2015) point out, the concept is marked by epistemological ambiguities that make it difficult to establish a unified theoretical framework. This lack of consensus is not merely terminological; it reflects the heterogeneity of practices, actors, and institutional logics that structure this constantly evolving field.

The definition proposed by Cummings (2009), widely cited in subsequent works (Cai, 2013; Ociepka, 2021), remains a central reference point. He defines cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding” (Cummings, 2009: 1). This approach, focused on cultural circulation and the creation of intercultural ties, was extended by Mark (2009), who specifies that:

Cultural diplomacy is a diplomatic practice of a government, but is not undertaken exclusively by diplomats working for a government's foreign ministry. The practice of cultural diplomacy is managed by or involves foreign ministries and stand-alone entities with varying degrees of governance links to foreign ministries (Mark, 2009: 20).

By broadening the scope of actors, Mark highlights an essential dimension: cultural diplomacy is no longer limited to state action in the strict sense but involves a constellation of para-state, cultural, and educational organizations (Kessler, 2018).

In this perspective, Cull (2019) adds an important clarification by defining cultural diplomacy as “An actor's attempt to manage the international environment through making its cultural resources and achievements known overseas and/or facilitating cultural transmission abroad” (Cull, 2019: 24). This view opens the door to recognizing museums, universities, professional networks, and local communities as legitimate diplomatic actors (Paquette et al., 2024).

As Faucher (2016) reminds us, the meanings of cultural diplomacy “have been shaped by the evolution of the practices it describes, as well as by national traditions and contexts” (Faucher, 2016: 374). Consequently, there is no monolithic cultural diplomacy but rather a plurality of cultural diplomacies reflecting the historical trajectories and institutional configurations specific to each state.

Contemporary forms of cultural diplomacy

Mitchell (1986) proposes a now-classic distinction between two categories of cultural diplomacy, which helps capture the diversity of contemporary practices. He identifies, on the one hand, first-order cultural diplomacy, directly managed by authorities responsible for foreign policy and integrated into a nation's geopolitical objectives. On the other hand, he distinguishes second-order cultural diplomacy, implemented by delegated organizations (cultural institutions, universities, agencies, etc.), whose primary mission concerns cultural development, as Bélanger (1994) notes. This typology reveals not only differences in purpose and governance but also sheds light on the pluralization of actors engaged on the diplomatic stage.

First-order diplomacy

State cultural diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy, in its state dimension, retains an instrumental role in serving foreign policy objectives. Smith and Couture Gagnon (2024) describe it as a mechanism aimed at demonstrating values and beliefs through cultural exports. The issue is not merely the dissemination of heritage or cultural products but the ability of these initiatives to transform perceptions and reconfigure geopolitical imaginaries (Smith and Couture Gagnon, 2024).

For many authors, cultural diplomacy remains, at its core, a foreign policy tool orchestrated by central state institutions (Clerc, 2023; Kessler, 2018). Its objective is the export of “representative elements of national culture” (Kessler, 2018: 263). It relies on government programs supporting creation, the mobility of artists and researchers, exhibitions, and the promotion of a positive national image. It fosters interdependence among states (Ociepka, 2021). The mechanisms implemented aim to strengthen mutual understanding, support cultural industries, enhance international visibility, and advance geopolitical objectives (Massicotte and Andreychuk, 2019).

Second-order diplomacy

Institutional cultural diplomacy

Alongside state action unfolds institutional cultural diplomacy, driven notably by organizations in the Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums sector. According to Paquette et al. (2024), these institutions are central to producing “narratives of culture and histories” (p. 26) through practices of exhibition, collection, preservation, and commemoration. Historically, these institutions have contributed to shaping “discourses on truth and universal knowledge” (Paquette et al., 2024: 6), thereby creating a shared—or contested—epistemological foundation at the global level.

Their participation in cultural diplomacy takes the form of traveling exhibitions, collection exchanges, co-curation projects, international educational programs, and transnational professional networks (Dubosclar in Tobelem, 2007). These activities generate interpretive spaces where cultural narratives can be “presented, preserved, challenged, and, at times, redefined” (Paquette et al., 2024: 6).

Museum diplomacy and international collaboration

Museum diplomacy has become one of the most dynamic and innovative forms of cultural diplomacy today. As Cai (2013) notes, museum collaborations—whether bilateral, multilateral, or embedded in more informal networks—offer the ability in “navigating the sophisticated nuances in international political relations” (p. 133). Consortia such as Foundation for the Development of International and Educational Activity or iconic projects like the Louvre Abu Dhabi illustrate museums’ capacity to act as platforms for structural cooperation (Cai, 2013).

Beyond major institutions, this dynamic also involves smaller museums. Programs such as Museums Connect demonstrate that these organizations also possess significant diplomatic agency. Grincheva (2015) highlights their potential to generate lasting social transformations in partner communities, notably through participatory, intercultural projects or initiatives aimed at strengthening skills. Museum diplomacy thus goes beyond exchanging collections or circulating prestigious exhibitions: it engages relational processes rooted in local contexts and fosters the building of social as well as diplomatic bridges.

This form of cultural diplomacy operates through multiple mediations: showcasing collections, organizing international exhibitions, co-producing knowledge, and increasingly, training qualified professionals. As Rémer explains (in Tobelem, 2007), many countries seeking to evolve their cultural policies face challenges related to developing specialized skills. To address these, they turn to other regions of the world in search of professional solidarity, expertise transfers, and shared of epistemic resources. Thus, museum diplomacy appears not only as a vector of cultural exchange but also as a mechanism for institutional strengthening and the international circulation of museological know-how.

Toward a third-order diplomacy?

Cultural diplomacy not only generates multidimensional effects—political, symbolic, economic, social—but also entails significant structural, conceptual, and operational challenges. As Gillabert (2017) notes, cultural diplomacy exists within a “nebula” where public diplomacy, soft power, national branding, and cultural exchanges intersect. This porosity, while reflecting a diversification of practices, also risks conceptual dilution, making it difficult to delineate what truly constitutes cultural diplomacy.

New cultural diplomacy and transnational diplomacy

UNESCO (2022) observes the emergence of a renewed paradigm marked by more collaborative, inclusive, and horizontal dynamics. In this model, cultural diplomacy is based on the sustainable sharing of values, reciprocity, and cooperation rather than identity differentiation or symbolic competition. This evolution is accompanied by a pluralization of actors: cities, local cultural organizations, professional networks, and diasporic communities. Their growing role contributes to redefining modes of cultural circulation and transforming cultural diplomacy into transnational diplomacy, less state-centered and more focused on sociocultural connectivity.

This rise of nonstate actors does not, however, imply a withdrawal of governments. As Sirois (n.d.) reminds us, even when international cultural relations unfold relatively autonomously among institutions, professionals, or collectives, states continue to implement mechanisms, programs, or regulatory frameworks facilitating these interactions.

These transformations invite consideration of the emergence of a third-order cultural diplomacy, which moves beyond both state-led diplomacy and institutionally mediated cultural exchanges. In this configuration, diplomacy emerges not primarily from formal mandates but from concrete collaborative practices carried out by individuals and professional communities. Museum directors, board members, researchers, students, and cultural practitioners interact directly, learning from one another, building relationships, and sustaining networks that extend beyond the initial project framework.

This form of diplomacy favors the construction of horizontal intercultural relationships based on cooperation, mutual learning, and co-production of knowledge (Lorentz, 2012). And, this dynamic resonates with the literature on citizen diplomacy and people-to-people diplomacy, which emphasizes the role of direct interactions between individuals and communities in fostering international cooperation and mutual understanding (McFadden, 2022). Unlike traditional diplomacy conducted by state officials, these forms of diplomacy rely on grassroots exchanges and interpersonal relationships that create long-term channels of cooperation. Similarly, the literature on subnational diplomacy (Paquin, 2018; Puybareau and Takam Talom, 2018) and multitrack diplomacy (Diamond and McDonald, 1996) highlights how nonstate actors can play a decisive role in shaping international relationships through dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge exchange.

Third-order diplomacy therefore differs from second-order diplomacy not only by the diversity of actors involved but also by the nature of the diplomatic process itself. Rather than simply exchanging cultural products or institutional expertise, actors engage in joint problem-solving, shared learning, and the co-production of knowledge and practices. These interactions often generate durable transnational networks that persist beyond the original initiative and contribute to shaping broader norms, practices, and collaborative infrastructures within the cultural sector.

In this sense, the state remains present but occupies a different role: rather than directing diplomatic action, it provides enabling frameworks such as funding programs or cooperation agreements, that allow these relational and network-based dynamics to emerge. Cultural diplomacy becomes a distributed and participatory process, rooted in the everyday practices of cultural professionals and communities.

This shift paves the way for unprecedented diplomatic configurations, where initiatives led by regional cultural institutions acquire international scope.

Case presentation

As previously mentioned, the concept of cultural diplomacy is difficult to define and has expanded significantly in recent years. In fact, in the case at hand (a museum and university mission to Denmark), it was only after the fact that we reflected on this project as an example of cultural diplomacy.

By examining new forms of cultural diplomacy, we can see that our project falls mainly under third-order diplomacy, rooted in a polycentric ecosystem composed of museum boards and directors as well as academics, and carried out with a focus on collaboration and learning.

Project genesis

This case study concerns a pilot project led by museum institutions in Bas-Saint-Laurent and Côte-du-Sud, a region of Québec (Canada) in a particularly challenging financial context for regional museums. Following the provincial budget, several museums in Eastern Québec (Canada) publicly denounced the lack of additional funding and documented inequities affecting remote institutions. For many, the situation is alarming, as illustrated by the temporary closure of the Rimouski Museum. These demands are part of a broader movement championed for years by the Québec Museums Association and mentioned in the 2013 report on the future of the museum network.

Meanwhile, to ensure their survival, institutions in Bas-Saint-Laurent began developing a sustainable organizational model for small- and medium-sized museums, inspired by the Danish experience—this was the origin of the mission featured in our case study.

First contact with the Danish model

The first encounter with the Danish model of grouped museums happened quite by chance during a summer vacation. A visit to the Nymindegab Museum (in Varde municipality, Denmark) and a meeting with members of the Varde museum network revealed the Danish model as a potential solution for ensuring the viability of regional museums in Québec. This sparked the idea of an official mission to explore the operational model of regional museums in Denmark.

The Scandinavian museum model

In Danish municipalities, museums have grouped together to better meet ministerial requirements. Since a large municipal reform in 2007, the Danish museum landscape has changed markedly from many smaller institutions to fewer larger, in some cases regional museums. About 300 museums consolidated to 100 museums, including 5 national museums and palaces. ¹ Ninety-five are state-recognized and receive funding from the Cultural Ministry. Of these, 40 belong to new formal groupings, having merged into mostly regional institutions across the country. By sharing human, financial, and material resources, these grouped museums can offer more coherent cultural programming and guarantee better service quality for the public (Kulturarvstyrelsen, 2010).

Québec, Denmark, and Norway are comparable in many respects: similar population size (9 million in Québec; 6 million in Denmark, and 5.8 million in Norway), similar museum-to-population ratios (1 museum per 16,129 inhabitants in Denmark; 1 per 18,867 in Québec), and a shared museum approach focused on visitors and experience. All three also face challenges related to remote communities and geographic distances but the landscape is very different in size and geography: collaboration is easy in the smaller, flat Denmark than in the much larger and mountainous Norway. In this way, the two complement the geography of the large region of Québec.

Mission framework

This mission was made possible through the Québec–Nordic Council of Ministers cooperation program, overseen by the Ministry of International Relations and Francophonie. The mission aligned with several objectives of the cooperation program, including “encouraging exchanges by mutually strengthening cultural presence,” “fostering mutual understanding through network consolidation and expertise sharing,” and “promoting collaboration between researchers in targeted areas of interest” (Free translation, Gouvernement du Québec, 2025). These projects are tripartite, involving Québec and at least two Nordic countries and the Danish side partnered with Norway that has experienced a similar process of consolidation in the museum sector as Denmark (Brenna, 2018). Here a top-down process consolidated 700 museums into about 100 that today receive state funding. These new large regional institutions often consist of many smaller entities distributed over a large geographical area making collaboration a challenge.

Academic dimension

The mission was also enabled by academic involvement from Québec and Denmark. Professors drafted the grant application and built the mission program. This academic network provided essential connections and facilitated access for small and medium regional museums to the cooperation framework. The mission thus became both museum-based and academic, further reinforced by participation from other professors. This academic dimension situates the project within a collaborative research perspective.

Mission program

The 1-week mission program was carefully designed by professors in Denmark based on questions from the Québec side. The program included strategic meetings with directors of merged museums. A general presentation on museum consolidation processes in Denmark and Norway was organized, along with a session featuring a representative from the Ministry of Culture to explain national governance and collaboration policies. Québec participants also presented their organizations and regional context, laying the groundwork for genuine knowledge exchange.

After a week of meetings, discussions, and visits, new questions emerged due to the richness of the exchanges—such as how consolidation was experienced within institutions, its real benefits, relationships with municipalities, and the most effective governance models.

Mission objectives

Généreux-Soares (2018) identifies four main objectives for cultural organizations engaging internationally: economic (work/optimize), reputational (shine), artistic (inspire), and political (represent). In our case, the primary driver was economic—understood not as market expansion or revenue growth, but as operational imperatives (resource optimization, viability, business model). While not strictly artistic, the mission aimed to inspire and broaden perspectives, aligning with artistic objectives. Politically, the initiative clearly stems from the cultural sector and fits within new public diplomacy and professional cultural relations.

By returning with a viable model for museums, the group hopes to influence Québec's Ministry of Culture to implement such a model, a process requiring ministry support. The project has attracted government interest, with meetings already held to report on the mission and plan next steps.

Outcomes and next steps

Cultural diplomacy does not end upon returning home. Expected outcomes include scientific contributions (advancing knowledge on collaborative museology, governance, and management) and practical impacts (concluding the first phase of the pilot project: Exploration). Next steps involve analyzing data from Danish and Norwegian stakeholders and drafting a tailored model (Elaboration), followed by implementation. Finally, in a spirit of exchange and cooperation, a reciprocal mission by Danish and Norwegian colleagues to Bas-Saint-Laurent (Québec, Canada) is planned to observe how the Danish and Norwegian model inspired an adapted regional approach in Québec.

Examining the case in the context of cultural diplomacy

This case demonstrates that cultural diplomacy goes well beyond its initial conception, first-order or state-driven cultural diplomacy. Indeed, we are dealing here with second-order or institutional diplomacy and even moving toward a new emerging model that places greater emphasis on cooperation, as explained earlier. The project is based on collaboration and exchanges between the three countries without specific expectations or anticipated gains, other than the transfer of best practices and the valorization of partnerships. Beyond collaboration between the countries on a project concerning museum structure and management, this initiative establishes a dynamic among several actors belonging to different groups, the main ones being museum institutions and universities, with other stakeholders also involved, such as the municipal sector.

The case presented builds on existing collaborations between universities and the museum sector in each country. These relationships fall within the framework of collaborative research approaches (Tremblay and Demers, 2018). Such approaches emphasize the co-creation of knowledge between researchers and practitioners—in our case, the museum sector (Young and Freytag, 2021). The objective of this type of research is notably to generate benefits for communities through the creation of spaces for collaboration and discussion (Home, 2008). Thus, in both Canada and Denmark, academic and museum sectors were already collaborating and creating these spaces focused on co-creating knowledge aimed at tangible outcomes. Collaborations between academic and museum sectors in the two countries therefore opened the door to positive cooperation among the various actors of the project. This was made possible thanks to governmental support to foster relations among Nordic countries and, on the other hand, research grants from public funding agencies that prioritize international visibility and collaboration.

Our case therefore falls within the scope of cultural diplomacy—more specifically, museum diplomacy—but with an innovative dynamic involving the academic sector. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships highlighted in this case. Solid arrows represent existing relationships, while dotted arrows represent relationships being developed through this project.

Figure 1.

Illustration of the case's collaborative relationships.

The relationships within each country—between Canadian universities and the Canadian museum sector, and between Danish university and the Scandinavian museum sector—were already established. However, this project, conceived as an exchange of best practices, enables the development of cross-country relationships. These take different forms, starting with collaborations between universities. Although this may seem to go beyond cultural diplomacy, it actually falls within its broader scope. Indeed, collaborations between professors from Canadian and Danish universities revolve around research projects on the cultural sector and, more specifically, the museum field. These collaborations will, in the long term, help to better understand similarities and differences in cultural sector management in both countries. These research initiatives are rooted in the cultural sector, as they follow a collaborative research approach. Concrete outcomes are therefore expected for the cultural sector of both countries, fostering long-term cooperation.

Furthermore, the project facilitated exchanges between museum institutions in both countries, focusing on governance structures and the challenges museums face. Visits to museums in Denmark also took place, allowing Canadian counterparts to experience these institutions firsthand. Finally, cross-sector collaborations emerged between the Canadian museum sector and Danish university, as well as between Scandinavian museums and Canadian universities. These crossovers are more unprecedented and suggest long-term partnerships between these sectors. Indeed, the intersection of research and the museum field across countries is highly meaningful and will enable a deeper understanding of how nations can collaborate on projects rooted in culture, specifically in museology.

Discussion and conclusion

This article focused on presenting a case of cultural diplomacy between Canada (Québec) and Scandinavia (Denmark, and Norway) specifically within the realm of museum diplomacy. It is possible to draw several reflections in light of the existing literature on cultural diplomacy. First, although there was no joint creation project or exchange of art collections between the two countries, we believe this case illustrates cultural diplomacy according to the definitions reviewed. One of the most widely used definitions is that of Cummings (2009), which centers on the idea of exchanging ideas, information, and so forth to foster mutual understanding. This is precisely the approach taken in this project, where both Scandinavian and Canadian participants shared their realities, the policies guiding the management of their cultural and museum organizations, and their organizational structures. These exchanges enabled a better understanding of the context in which museum institutions in each country operate. Thus, the project not only facilitated a deeper understanding of the other but also opened the door to revisiting, rethinking, and ultimately improving local practices.

Next, while traditional cultural diplomacy primarily revolves around diplomats and official government representatives, the concept has evolved, and as Mark (2009) notes, a wide range of actors can now participate in such endeavors. In our case, the participants were mainly academics and museum professionals, although representatives from municipal authorities (Canada) and Danish civil servants also took part in the exchanges. This aligns with the distinction proposed by Mitchell (1986), who differentiates between cultural diplomacy led by foreign policy authorities and that implemented by organizations working toward cultural development. Our case naturally falls within this second conception of cultural diplomacy, which is much more relevant today. From the perspective of museum diplomacy, the project fits perfectly within the potential described by Grincheva (2015), who highlights the lasting social transformations in communities.

A noteworthy element is that the case presented was not initially conceived as cultural diplomacy, suggesting that cultural diplomacy does not always emerge from explicit diplomatic intent. Rather, it can arise retrospectively, through the reinterpretation of cultural initiatives within broader international narratives. In this sense, cultural diplomacy may function less as a predefined strategy than as an interpretive framework applied to cultural action after the fact. This observation is interesting because it allows us to hypothesize that there may be other cases like ours, that is, projects that are not conceived explicitly in terms of cultural diplomacy but that nevertheless resemble this concept. This could imply that the impacts of cultural diplomacy may be greater than what is currently documented. Of course, this remains a supposition, and further research would be needed to examine it more thoroughly.

In this same vein, this case leads us to a broader reflection on the very concept of cultural diplomacy. Questions emerge regarding the foundations of cultural diplomacy, such as: Should cultural diplomacy be planned? Should it be deployed intentionally, or can it emerge organically during the course of a project? Are institutions always aware that they are engaging in cultural diplomacy? Further research is needed in order to answer these questions and deepen these reflections.

Naturally, our article has limitations. First, we do not present it as a formal research project but rather as a report in which we present a project and propose connections with the literature on cultural diplomacy. We rely on our personal experience to propose connections with cultural diplomacy and open the door to future reflections. Even if some might consider it an autoethnography, we prefer to be cautious and specify that no data collection was formally carried out. It would thus be necessary to conduct interviews with all Canadian, Danish, and Norwegian individuals who participated in the exchanges in Denmark. It would also be important to document the follow-up actions stemming from this project and assess the outcomes of the collaborations established between the three countries. This article aimed to provide an initial sharing of knowledge about this collaboration project between Canada, Denmark, and Norway.

Although this is not a research article, we believe it offers a contribution to ongoing reflections on cultural diplomacy. First, we document a case where cultural diplomacy fosters collaborations among different actors in three countries. We show how this project paves the way for collaborations between academic and museum sectors by promoting interactions among all parties. Second, we reinforce the idea that cultural diplomacy contributes to social transformations and the sharing of best practices, enabling the cultural sector to become collectively stronger. We also suggest that the impacts of cultural diplomacy projects are likely much greater than what is currently documented. Indeed, many projects are not explicitly reported as cultural diplomacy—like the one presented in this article—and a better understanding of all such projects would allow for a more accurate appreciation of the benefits of cultural diplomacy.