Romancing science for global solutions: on narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy

The paper addresses why and how the concept of science diplomacy has risen to prominence in public policy discourse over the last 15 years despite longstanding institutions at the science–foreign policy interface. The authors frame science diplomacy as a discursive phenomenon and seek to reconstruct the narratives and interpretative schemas underpinning it. They ask what has made the emergence and structuration of this concept necessary, what meanings it carries, and how it conditions communication across science, science policy, and foreign policy. Drawing on constructivist approaches that emphasize the structuring effects of language, they aim to show how science diplomacy functions rhetorically to cultivate social order, meaning, legitimacy, and identity in a world perceived as facing global challenges. The purpose is to clarify how the perceived means and ends of science diplomacy are made to fit together in discourse and to critically examine the assumptions and promises attached to it.

The authors ground their analysis in constructivist and linguistic turns in the social sciences, emphasizing how language concepts not only represent but shape meaning and action (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson; Luhmann). They review work on concepts as tools for institutional legitimacy, boundary work, and identity formation in policy and organizational contexts. In foreign policy, diplomacy is seen as highly codified symbolic communication, while the science–politics relationship is mediated by language concepts that both differentiate and connect spheres (Flink & Kaldewey). They discuss how certain policy concepts gain traction, travel, and become mythified and conventionalized. The paper then traces the emergence of the explicit term “science diplomacy” post-2000, highlighting its early promotion by policy entrepreneurs around AAAS in the US, Obama-era initiatives, and parallel national efforts (UK SIN/GSIF, Germany’s Außenwissenschaftspolitik, Swissnex) as well as the EU’s uptake through EEAS and DG Research (from 2012 onward). Prior definitional efforts (e.g., Royal Society/AAAS taxonomy) and EU documents are reviewed, along with recurrent discursive strategies such as retroactive labeling of historical cases (CERN, 1959 Antarctic Treaty) as science diplomacy and appeals to Enlightenment ideals. The literature also includes critical reflections that are fewer in number but note the concept’s vagueness and catch-all nature.

The study is a qualitative discourse analysis informed by constructivist theory, focusing on narratives and interpretative schemas that structure communication about science diplomacy. The authors reconstruct meanings by interpreting how key actors have introduced and positioned the concept, identifying recurring themes, rhetorical strategies, and taken-for-granted assumptions. The data set (detailed in the article and notes) covers formative speech acts and publications largely within the Western discourse: US-centric origins and EU-level adoption, including grey literature (e.g., Royal Society report), speeches by officials (e.g., Obama; Neureiter), editorials and semi-academic outlets (e.g., Science & Diplomacy), policy briefs, and EU project outputs (EL-CSID, S4D4C, InsSciDE). Historical searches (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Ngram, Nature and Science archives) contextualize the term’s emergence (few references pre-2000). The selection intentionally emphasizes affirmative texts to map the dominant narratives; all sources are listed in references. The analysis synthesizes patterns into thematic strands (global challenges framing; collective action logic; collaboration claims; rationalization myth; invisible hand; soft power paradox; conceptual vagueness).

- Science diplomacy is embedded in a narrative of urgent, global ‘grand challenges’ that require collective action, positioning science diplomacy as a hopeful, even panacean solution. - Global challenges are framed as collective action problems characterized by transnational negative externalities and incomplete information and trust; science diplomacy promises to supply information (expertise) and build trust. - The discourse idealizes science as inherently collaborative, rational, and capable of transcending political and cultural divides, often citing historical cases (e.g., CERN; Cold War exchanges; Antarctic Treaty) as emblematic evidence. - A ‘myth of rationalizing politics’ portrays science as an a-political force that can streamline or pacify messy politics, with scientists cast as ‘honest brokers’ or even superior diplomats; however, STS research shows scientific input often increases complexity and cannot settle political disputes. - An ‘invisible hand of science’ narrative suggests self-interested national goals and altruistic global goods harmonize when pursued via science, conflating motivations (e.g., innovation competitiveness and global problem-solving) as mutually reinforcing. - The ‘soft power paradox’: while science is celebrated as non-political, science diplomacy is operationalized as a soft power tool to advance national or regional influence and security agendas (e.g., EU ‘principled pragmatism’), instrumentalizing science for political purposes. - Conceptual vagueness: prevailing definitions (e.g., Royal Society’s threefold taxonomy) are expansive, circular, and non-excluding, enabling almost any science–international policy interaction to be labeled ‘science diplomacy’. The discourse frequently reinterprets history and uses incantatory appeals, inflating the term into a catch-all. - Overall, the interpretative schemas idealize and mythify science, mistaking norms for realities, which risks disappointing expectations and facilitating political instrumentalization of science.

The findings show that the popularity and persistence of ‘science diplomacy’ stem less from clear institutional necessity and more from powerful narratives that promise solutions to global challenges by attributing to science rationality, collaboration, and pacifying effects. This discursive construction addresses perceived deficiencies in traditional diplomacy and offers a sense of immediacy and empowerment. However, by conflating ideals with empirical realities of both science and politics, the discourse misguides expectations about what science can deliver in international relations. The soft power orientation reveals the instrumental use of the concept for influence-building, undercutting claims of neutrality and universality. These insights clarify how and why the concept ‘sticks’: its rhetorical flexibility allows diverse actors to align with elevated aims, yet this very flexibility threatens analytical clarity and practical effectiveness. Recognizing the myths and paradoxes can help policymakers and practitioners adopt more prudent, transparent, and context-sensitive uses of science at the science–foreign policy interface.

The paper reconstructs the core narratives and interpretative schemas underpinning science diplomacy: global challenges framing, collaborative science claims, rationalization and ‘invisible hand’ myths, soft power instrumentalization, and conceptual vagueness. It concludes that the discourse idealizes science’s social properties and misconstrues norms as realities, risking disappointment and political instrumentalization. Looking ahead, proponents are likely to continue showcasing positive cases, further broadening application and risking inflation and eventual decline of the term. There is also a risk of co-optation by non-democratic regimes for image laundering. The authors urge more prudential and analytically careful use of the term, with clearer mechanisms, boundaries, and acknowledgment of the political contexts and trade-offs involved. Future research could specify operational mechanisms linking science engagements to diplomatic outcomes, develop typologies distinguishing motivations and instruments, examine non-Western discourses and practices, and assess conditions under which science contributions facilitate trust or coordination without overstating their scope.

The analysis focuses on a predominantly Western discourse (US and EU) and intentionally emphasizes affirmative, formative texts to map dominant narratives, omitting emerging discourses in countries such as India and Brazil. Sources are largely grey literature, speeches, and semi-academic outlets, which may privilege advocacy framings. The study reconstructs narratives rather than testing causal mechanisms linking science diplomacy to outcomes; thus, generalizability to diverse geopolitical contexts is limited. Historical examples are discussed as they appear in the discourse, not re-evaluated empirically for their direct causal impact on diplomatic results.