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

Science diplomacy (SD), while having long-standing practices, only recently gained a distinct vocabulary and discourse, primarily driven by practitioners. This article analyzes key writings in this practitioner-driven literature to understand how the concept of SD has been constructed. The mainstream narrative largely focuses on international scientific cooperation to promote a better world order, often neglecting the use of science in foreign policy for competitive purposes. This article aims to explain this gap by exploring the cultural bias potentially originating from the profile of leading authors who are both scientists and SD practitioners. The article examines the mainstream view of SD, the explicit acknowledgement of national interests in SD's conceptualization, gray areas in the mainstream approach (such as power relations and competition), and proposes hypotheses for the observed discrepancies.

The article reviews the key writings shaping the dominant understanding of science diplomacy, primarily focusing on two taxonomies: the Royal Society-AAAS typology (2010) and the Gluckman et al. (2017) taxonomy. The Royal Society-AAAS typology identifies three pillars: 'science in diplomacy,' 'science for diplomacy,' and 'diplomacy for science.' While criticized for overlaps, this typology remains influential. Gluckman et al. (2017) provide a more pragmatic taxonomy, explicitly acknowledging national interests as a key driver of SD, categorizing actions designed to advance national needs, address cross-border interests, and meet global needs. The literature review also traces the evolution of definitions and the increasing recognition of national interests as a guiding force in SD.

The methodology employed in this article is a critical review of the existing literature on science diplomacy. The author focuses primarily on practitioner-driven literature, specifically analyzing key writings, definitions, and taxonomies proposed by leading figures in the field. A significant part of the analysis involves comparing and contrasting the two major taxonomies of science diplomacy that have emerged. The author also analyzes the professional backgrounds of authors publishing in the journal *Science & Diplomacy* to understand the potential influence of authors' profiles on the shaping of the SD concept. This analysis helps to build the argument regarding a potential cultural bias stemming from the dominant presence of scientists among the authors.

The study reveals a significant gap between the dominant narrative of SD and its actual practice. The mainstream narrative, largely shaped by scientists and science advisors, emphasizes international cooperation for shared global goals, often neglecting the role of national interests and competition. The analysis of the *Science & Diplomacy* journal's authors reveals a significant overrepresentation of scientists and research administrators, compared to career diplomats. This leads to the hypothesis of a cultural bias, where the optimistic view of science's transformative power influences the conceptualization of SD, overlooking the role of power dynamics and competition. The article identifies three gray areas: power relations between countries are overshadowed; SD is not always a tool for progress and peace (potential for conflict exists); and the rationale of competition in SD is underestimated. The study highlights how states increasingly integrate SD into their national strategies, focusing on national needs and interests alongside global challenges. The shift towards a more realist view of SD, incorporating national interests, is acknowledged, but the mainstream discourse still struggles to fully account for competitive practices and unilateral actions driven by national advantage. The findings suggest that the dominant narrative of SD is driven by a normative vision, prioritizing progress and peace, which might not fully capture the complexity of SD's diverse practices. The authors' profiles, predominantly scientists, shape the discourse toward a more optimistic and cooperative ideal. This lack of a balanced perspective between the idealism of science and the realism of diplomacy creates a limited scope for understanding the true diversity of SD practices.

The findings of this study highlight the limitations of the current mainstream understanding of science diplomacy. By focusing on the predominantly scientist-driven literature, the concept often neglects the role of national interests and competition. The identified cultural bias within the author community reveals a potential explanation for this discrepancy. The optimistic outlook of scientists towards science's transformative power might lead to an idealized and incomplete depiction of SD practices. The study's contribution lies in emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive conceptualization of SD that acknowledges both the cooperative and competitive aspects, bridging the gap between the idealism of science and the realism of diplomacy. Future research should investigate further the dynamics between cooperation and competition in SD, paying more attention to the role of power relations and national strategies.

This article demonstrates a crucial gap in the understanding of science diplomacy, primarily due to the perspective of the author community. The dominant narrative, shaped by scientists, underrepresents the role of national interests and competition. A more nuanced and balanced approach is crucial, acknowledging both cooperative and competitive aspects to achieve a complete understanding of SD practices. Future research should focus on incorporating this overlooked perspective to generate a richer and more accurate understanding of science diplomacy's multifaceted nature.

The study is primarily based on a critical review of existing literature, and the analysis of authors' profiles from one journal may not be fully representative of the broader field of science diplomacy. Further research is needed to validate the findings through different methodological approaches, including qualitative empirical research on the discourse and its producers.