Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: a critical review

The paper examines how the concept of science diplomacy (SD) has been constructed over roughly the past 15 years, noting that while SD practices are longstanding, their conceptualization is recent and dominated by practitioner discourse. It identifies a gap between SD practices and how they are portrayed, with mainstream narratives emphasizing cooperation and global problem-solving while underplaying competition and power dynamics. The research question centers on what practices should be labeled as SD and why mainstream definitions overlook competitive and interest-driven dimensions. The article proposes that a cultural bias, stemming from leading authors being scientists and SD actors, shapes this optimistic, universalist framing. It outlines its analysis across key sections: mainstream characteristics, increasing emphasis on national interests, gray areas (power, conflict, competition), and hypotheses explaining discourse-practice discrepancies.

The paper critically reviews practitioner-driven SD literature and complementary scholarly works. Foundational practitioner texts include the Royal Society–AAAS report (2010) with its tripartite taxonomy (science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy, diplomacy for science), and the alternative taxonomy by Gluckman et al. (2017) emphasizing actions advancing national needs, cross-border interests, and global challenges. Early practitioner voices (Neureiter, Turekian, Fedoroff) framed SD around bridge-building, trust, and cooperation, often citing exemplars like CERN, IIASA, Apollo–Soyuz, and SESAME. Subsequent writings (Turekian et al., 2015) increasingly acknowledge national interests and soft power. Scholarly critiques highlight overlaps in the 2010 taxonomy (Copeland, Penca), the lack of engagement with power balances (Kaltofen & Acuto), and the coexistence of collaboration and competition in SD (Flink & Schreiterer; Flink & Rüffin). Historical works (Skolnikoff; Weiss; Krige; Oreskes & Krige; Wolfe) document longstanding entanglements of science, technology, and foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War. Policy documents (European Commission, Gobierno de España; Sunami et al. for Japan) show explicit competitiveness goals within SD-like strategies.

The study employs a qualitative, critical reading of key practitioner writings and taxonomies to assess how SD is conceptualized versus practiced. It analyzes narratives from seminal reports (Royal Society–AAAS 2010) and later frameworks (Gluckman et al. 2017), along with practitioner statements and selected case discussions. To explore authorship influences, the paper compiles and tabulates professional positions of all authors who published in the AAAS Science & Diplomacy journal from 2012 to 2019 (N=284), categorizing them by role. Reported distribution: researchers/scholars 29.2% (83), research administrators 14.1% (40), other experts/consultants/NGOs/think tanks 10.9% (31), scientific advisors at ministries and public agencies 9.5% (27), S&D and AAAS fellows/staff 8.8% (25), members of academies and scientific societies 6.7% (19), ministry staff 6.3% (18), science attachés and other representatives abroad 5.3% (15), ambassadors and other career diplomats 3.5% (10), miscellaneous 5.6% (16). The analysis is interpretive and hypothesis-generating; it does not claim representativeness nor conduct systematic empirical tests.

- Mainstream practitioner narratives of science diplomacy emphasize universal scientific values, trust-building, cooperation, and addressing global challenges, portraying SD as transformative for international relations and the common good. - International scientific cooperation is treated as SD’s central mechanism, often equated with SD itself in the founding literature and the Royal Society–AAAS (2010) taxonomy. - A shift toward realism is evident over time: the Gluckman et al. (2017) alternative taxonomy explicitly foregrounds national interests, stating SD actions must directly or indirectly advance them. This reframing balances national-interest advancement with addressing common/global challenges through national and global approaches to SD. - Despite this shift, gray areas remain underexplored in mainstream discourse: (1) power relations and hegemony are largely sidelined; (2) SD can heighten conflict or reduce trust (e.g., espionage concerns around NAMRU-2; Russian flag-planting at the North Pole); (3) the role of competition and competitiveness (talent attraction, standards-setting, branding, influence) is underestimated, even though policy strategies (Japan, Spain, EU) explicitly pursue competitive goals. - Evidence suggests a practitioner authorship profile biased toward scientists and research administrators rather than career diplomats. In Science & Diplomacy (2012–2019), only 3.5% of authors were ambassadors/career diplomats, whereas researchers/scholars constituted 29.2% and research administrators 14.1% (total N=284). A related survey (S4D4C) indicates many self-identify as scientists or research administrators, not diplomats. - Hypothesis: a cultural bias from scientist-authors and SD actors, steeped in universalist, optimistic views of science, shapes a normative, advocacy-oriented conceptualization that prioritizes cooperation and common interests while underrepresenting competition and national power strategies. - The practitioner framing serves operational policy goals but constrains conceptual breadth, leaving out unilateral, interest-driven, and competitive practices that also constitute SD.

The findings address the core question of why mainstream SD discourse diverges from the diversity of SD practices. By tracing the evolution from the 2010 triptych to the 2017 alternative taxonomy, the study shows how national interests entered the narrative yet did not fully reorient it toward a realistic account of power and competition. The analysis suggests that the practitioner-driven literature’s normative orientation—promoting SD as a vehicle for cooperation, peace, and global problem-solving—reflects the authors’ scientific backgrounds and policy agendas. This yields an optimistic conceptualization that underplays adversarial or unilateral state strategies common in foreign policy. Recognizing the coexistence of cooperation and competition, and the tension between idealism (science) and realism (diplomacy), is essential for a fuller theoretical framework. The study argues that bridging practitioner and scholarly perspectives requires a more inclusive conceptualization that encompasses both collaborative and competitive SD practices, better aligning discourse with real-world state behavior and informing more nuanced policy design.

The paper contributes a critical review of practitioner-led conceptualizations of science diplomacy and identifies a persistent gap between discourse and practice. It documents a move toward acknowledging national interests but highlights continued neglect of power dynamics and competition. It advances the hypothesis that a cultural and normative bias—stemming from scientist-dominated authorship and advocacy roles—has shaped a cooperation-centric narrative. The author calls for a broader, more balanced conceptualization that integrates tensions between idealism and realism, and between common-good cooperation and national-interest competition. Future research should empirically examine the proposed cultural bias, systematically map SD practices including competitive and unilateral strategies, and develop theory that accommodates the diversity and contradictions inherent in SD. A more robust “science of science diplomacy” is needed to complement and inform practitioner agendas.

- The review is qualitative and interpretive, not a systematic or exhaustive analysis of all SD literature. - The authorship analysis of Science & Diplomacy (2012–2019) may not represent the full population of SD practitioners or global publishing patterns; it is descriptive and limited to one journal. - No primary datasets were generated; verification of hypotheses (e.g., cultural bias) requires further empirical research (e.g., interviews, content analysis across broader corpora). - Case examples illustrate possibilities but are not comprehensive or statistically generalizable.