Science diplomacy (SD) is a widely discussed concept, but its empirical underpinnings are limited. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on a specific instrument of SD: Science and Innovation Centers (SICs). SICs are units established by governments abroad, bridging higher education, research, innovation, and diplomacy. Existing definitions of SD are diverse, encompassing science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy, often emphasizing soft power. However, SD faces challenges: its loose boundaries and lack of empirical support lead to a lack of common understanding and overstretching of its capabilities. This study argues that focusing on policy instruments like SICs offers a way to mitigate these challenges and understand SD's political underpinnings.

The literature on science diplomacy highlights its diverse interpretations and the need for empirical evidence. While many studies offer normative arguments about SD's potential for international collaboration and soft power, the lack of empirical studies is a major shortcoming. Some research identifies goals of SD strategies such as access to resources, promotion of national achievements, and influencing public opinion. This study challenges the predominantly soft-power focused view by examining the broader political rationales behind SICs.

This study employs a qualitative, comparative case study approach, analyzing SICs in Germany and Switzerland. The two countries are chosen due to their federal structure, strong science systems, and high innovation rankings. Data collection involves analysis of 20 publicly available policy documents (government strategies, annual reports, speeches) and 13 semi-structured expert interviews (state officials, stakeholders from research and science organizations). The interviews were conducted face-to-face or via phone (40-95 minutes each). A thematic analysis was conducted to identify political rationales, drawing on actor-centered institutionalism and the bureaucratic politics approach. The limitations of document analysis (availability, completeness, quality) and interview methodology are acknowledged.

The study defines SICs as distinct units or satellite institutes established by governments abroad, operating at the nexus of higher education, research, innovation, and diplomacy, often within a network structure. The comparison of German (DWIH) and Swiss (swissnex) SICs reveals both similarities and differences. Similarities include geographical coverage, closure of locations (Singapore for swissnex, Cairo for DWIH), audit and evaluation exercises, the role of policy entrepreneurs, and ministerial struggles. Differences include the point of departure (top-down for DWIH, bottom-up for swissnex), the incremental vs. simultaneous opening of SICs, and the number of actors involved. Both SICs initially aimed to promote national research and innovation systems, facilitating networking and international cooperation. However, the political instrumentation differed. DWIH were embedded in a new foreign policy initiative, while swissnex emerged from a bottom-up initiative later explicitly linked to SD. Political objectives varied over time. swissnex initially focused on addressing brain drain and internationalization, later emphasizing bilateral cooperation and influence. DWIH primarily focused on showcasing German innovation, fostering networks, and exerting influence. The study identifies three instrumentation effects: aggregation (diverse actors, leading to inertia), representation and problematisation (creating a particular framing of the issue), and appropriation (actors adapting the instrument to serve their interests). Both SIC show inertia towards external pressures and exhibit longevity.

The findings challenge the notion of SD as transcending national interests. The objectives linked to SICs clearly reflect national needs and interests. The study highlights the importance of considering the domestic context when analyzing SD initiatives. While the SD discourse might promote a win-win narrative, this study reveals the strong national focus and motivations behind SICs. The rebranding of swissnex as explicitly linked to SD in 2018, despite pre-existing practices, suggests that SD can serve as a relabeling of existing practices, or inspire truly new policy approaches. The study's findings contribute to understanding the complexities of SD by shifting attention from overarching goals to the instruments used to achieve them.

This instrument-centered analysis enhances understanding of SD by focusing on SICs. The comparison of German and Swiss SICs reveals diverse political objectives beyond soft power, highlighting the significant role of national interests. Future research could investigate the impact of SICs on specific policy outcomes and explore the long-term consequences of the institutionalization of these instruments. This approach helps clarify the often-ambiguous concept of SD, providing a more nuanced and realistic perspective.

The study acknowledges limitations related to data availability, particularly regarding interview data due to confidentiality concerns. The focus on two specific cases limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand to encompass a broader range of countries and SICs to further enhance the robustness of the findings. Further research is needed to address factors like path-dependency and concerns regarding international visibility, which are relevant but not fully explained by the chosen theoretical framework.