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

The concept of science diplomacy, advocating closer cooperation between science and foreign policy actors, has gained significant traction in recent years. Its phenomenal success in public policy discourse is noteworthy, especially considering the pre-existing institutions and activities at the intersection of science and foreign policy. The article explores the reasons behind this widespread reception, focusing on science diplomacy as a discursive phenomenon that cultivates social order, meaning, and identity in a world perceived as increasingly challenging. Utilizing constructivist approaches that emphasize the role of language in shaping social meaning, the authors investigate the narratives and assumptions underpinning the science diplomacy discourse, analyzing its functional roles in co-producing the interrelation of science, science policy, and foreign policy.

The authors acknowledge a limited body of scholarly work reflecting on the emergence and practice of science diplomacy. They draw upon constructivist and linguistic turns in the social sciences, highlighting the structuring function of language concepts in society. They reference relevant work in political science and organization studies on the role of concepts in institutional legitimacy and narrative construction, particularly within foreign policy contexts. The methodology emphasizes studying concepts in their context to understand how actors strategically use them for boundary-setting, identity-building, and consensus-building.

The article employs a constructivist and discourse analytical approach. It analyzes the language used in key texts and speeches related to science diplomacy to identify underlying narratives, assumptions, and rhetorical strategies. The authors examine the emergence of the concept in public discourse, tracing its adoption by various actors, including policymakers, scientists, and organizations. The analysis focuses on how these actors use language to frame science diplomacy and the roles they ascribe to it. The data sources include grey literature (e.g., reports from the Royal Society), speeches by prominent figures, and publications in semi-academic formats. The analysis focuses on the Western hemisphere discourse (primarily US-centric initially and expanding to the EU), acknowledging a limitation in omitting perspectives from countries such as India and Brazil.

The analysis reveals that science diplomacy is deeply embedded in a narrative of looming global challenges and threats. It is presented as a panacea, an indispensable solution to these problems. This narrative relies on several key assumptions: 1. **Global challenges as collective action failures:** Global problems are framed as exceeding the capacity of national governments, necessitating international collaboration. Science diplomacy is positioned as the solution to this collective action problem, offering both scientific expertise and a means to foster trust and collaboration. 2. **Collaborative science:** The narrative emphasizes the inherent collaborative nature of science, portraying it as a force that transcends national identities and fosters understanding. This assumption ignores the realities of competition, hierarchy, and national interests within the scientific community. 3. **The myth of rationalizing politics:** Science diplomacy is presented as a way to rationalize political decision-making, injecting scientific objectivity and reason into inherently political processes. This presupposes a simplistic view of political conflict and ignores the potential for scientific knowledge to exacerbate rather than resolve disagreements. 4. **The invisible hand of science:** The discourse promotes the belief that the pursuit of national interests and altruistic goals can be harmonized through science, leading to a convergence of interests and the resolution of global conflicts. This ignores the potential for science to be instrumentalised for political purposes. 5. **The soft power paradox:** The adoption of science diplomacy as a soft power tool reveals a tension between its purported altruistic goals and its potential use to advance national interests and power. The promotion of specific values, often liberal ones, risks appearing neo-imperialistic. The authors find that the concept of science diplomacy itself is often vaguely defined, functioning as a “catch-all phrase” that allows various actors to claim alignment with its positive image. Historical examples of scientific collaboration are frequently cited to support the concept’s validity, which falls into a naturalistic fallacy. The discourse relies heavily on idealized notions of science and its role in society, neglecting the complexities and power dynamics inherent in both science and politics.

The romanticized portrayal of science in the science diplomacy discourse risks misrepresenting the nature of both science and politics. The assumption that science inherently fosters collaboration ignores the significant power dynamics and competitive aspects within the scientific community. Similarly, the belief that science can simply rationalize politics overlooks the complex nature of political conflict and decision-making. The study highlights the danger of instrumentalizing science for political purposes, potentially undermining trust in both science and diplomacy. The authors' findings suggest the need for a more critical and nuanced understanding of science diplomacy, one that acknowledges the complexities of both science and politics.

The paper concludes that the discourse surrounding science diplomacy relies on a simplified and romanticized view of science and its role in international affairs. This idealization, while rhetorically effective in promoting the concept, risks leading to unrealistic expectations and the potential for misuse. Future research should focus on developing more nuanced and empirically grounded models of science diplomacy that account for the complexities of both science and politics. The authors also note the potential for science diplomacy to be adopted by non-democratic governments for purposes of legitimizing actions, highlighting a further challenge for the concept’s future.

The study is limited by its focus on the Western hemisphere discourse around science diplomacy, primarily in the US and EU contexts. It acknowledges the need for future research to incorporate perspectives from other regions of the world. Furthermore, the analysis focuses predominantly on affirmative accounts of science diplomacy, potentially overlooking critical voices and alternative interpretations of the concept.