Science diplomacy as a foreign policy tool for Turkey and the ramifications of collaboration with the EU

The paper situates Turkey, the world’s 19th largest economy and the EU’s 5th largest trading partner, within the context of European integration, emphasizing its strategic geography, energy transit role, and heightened importance during regional crises. Despite long-standing political and cultural complexities in EU–Turkey relations, both sides have sustained cooperation, with science and technology (S&T) serving as a functional arena less affected by politics. Science Diplomacy (SD) has entered EU STI policy over the last two decades as a means to strengthen international relations, address global problems, and enhance development. As an EU candidate country, Turkey has engaged in EU-supported S&T projects and organizations, especially since its candidacy recognition in 1999, using framework programs to connect with European research systems. Although SD has been primarily advanced by developed countries, it is emerging for Turkey as well; however, Turkey’s varied scientific collaborations have not traditionally been conceptualized as SD. The research question explores how SD helps explain changes in Turkish STI policy since 2000, focusing on EU engagements. Using Europeanization as the theoretical lens and qualitative content analysis as the method, the study fills a gap by analyzing Turkey’s S&T engagements with Europe from an SD and foreign relations perspective. The paper outlines: theoretical framework, methodology, mapping SD actors and roles in Turkey, cases of EU-engagement, challenges and limitations, and final recommendations.

The theoretical framework centers on Europeanization literature, which examines EU enlargement and the EU’s impact on domestic politics, policies, and institutions in member and candidate states. Definitions by Börzel and Risse (Europeanization as domestic change adapting to EU-level norms, rules, and procedures) and by Bulmer (transfer from Europe to other jurisdictions plus building European capacity) frame how the EU has strengthened science and technology capacity in members and candidates. The framework highlights the EU’s dual image as a norm and market power through international science cooperation and research programs. For Turkey, the trajectory of EU relations spans from the 1963 Ankara Agreement and the 1996 Customs Union to candidacy recognition in 1999 and accession negotiations starting in 2005 (with Chapter 25, Science and Research, provisionally closed in 2006). Political developments have since slowed accession, yet cooperation in science and research remains among the few active areas. In Turkish scholarship, pre-1999 literature focused on EU integration theories and bilateral relations; post-2000, Europeanization studies expanded to foreign policy, conditionality, and human rights, with fewer analyses in sectors like S&T. Limited works address Europeanization of Turkish STI (e.g., Ulutaş-Aydoğan’s study on the Turkish Research Area and STI policies). Policy documents from the early 2000s (STIPC decisions, Vision 2023, and national strategies) reflect alignment with EU goals for a knowledge-based economy, adoption of the Turkish Research Area aligned with ERA, and emphasis on participation in Framework Programs to avoid widening gaps with EU and candidate countries.

The study employs qualitative content analysis in two phases. Phase 1 compiles primary and secondary sources: policy papers, official EU/Turkey communications, directives, press releases, speeches, and reports, complemented by intergovernmental data (World Bank, OECD) for up-to-date R&D indicators, and academic literature. Sources were filtered to the most recent and relevant for the research question. Phase 2 systematically categorizes information into two groups: (1) actors, policies, institutions; and (2) EU–Turkey relations, Europeanization, and Science Diplomacy (SD). Europeanization is used to analyze Turkey’s policy harmonization and the benefits of EU science and research partnerships. The analysis interprets Turkey’s SD using the three SD dimensions from the Royal Society: Science in Diplomacy (SinD), Diplomacy for Science (D4S), and Science for Diplomacy (S4D). For Turkey, D4S and S4D are most developed, while SinD is not yet fully established. To structure the assessment of Turkey–EU SD efforts, three tool categories (Van Langenhove) are used: strategic (policy documents guiding goals), operational (instruments and resources such as Framework Programs, COST, EUREKA, ERA-NETs), and support (awareness, training, and facilitation activities like EURAXESS and Turkey in Horizon 2020).

- Europeanization drove significant alignment of Turkey’s STI policies with EU norms in the 2000s, enabling participation as an associated country in EU Framework Programs (FP6, FP7, Horizon 2020) and opening new funding mechanisms (e.g., IPA). - Strategic policy shifts (STIPC decisions; Vision 2023) set goals aligned with the EU’s knowledge-based economy, including establishing the Turkish Research Area (aligned with ERA) and prioritizing participation in Framework Programs and ERA instruments (ERA-NETs, JPIs). - Operational engagement expanded through participation in major European S&T initiatives and organizations: CERN (observer 1961; associate member 2015), COST (259 actions as of 2019), EUREKA (36 projects as of 2018), ERA-NETs (participation in 74 as of April 2019), ESA (cooperation agreement 2004), EMBC, ESF, and Erasmus+/Erasmus Mundus. - Horizon 2020 provided access to high-profile instruments: MSCA funded 456 researchers (2014–2019) with €22.75 million to Turkish organizations; ERC competitions opened frontier research funding opportunities to Turkey-based researchers. - S&T cooperation functioned as soft power, strengthening Turkey’s public diplomacy with EU countries and sustaining relations despite political tensions; research remains one of few active cooperation areas. - Turkey’s SD is strongest in D4S (facilitating international cooperation and strengthening national R&D capacity) and S4D (using scientific cooperation to improve relations), while SinD (science advice in foreign policy) remains underdeveloped. - R&D capacity has improved but lags EU averages: GERD rose from 0.47% (2003) to 0.96% (2017) versus EU 1.67% to 2.06%; GCI overall rank at 55th (2019). Publication output rose, but citation impact (~0.7 vs OECD 1.08) and innovation environment indicators remain weaker; brain drain persists. - Barriers include absence of appointed science attachés/diplomats, complex/bureaucratic EU procedures deterring applicants (especially SMEs/NGOs), focus of R&D on security/defense limiting international collaboration, insufficient training in proposal development and partner finding, and generally lower research quality and university–industry collaboration. - Support tools (workshops, training, EURAXESS, Turkey in Horizon 2020) improved awareness and participation but require stronger institutionalization and political commitment to fully leverage SD.

The findings address the central question by showing that the concept and practice of Science Diplomacy clarify how and why Turkey’s STI policies shifted toward EU alignment in the 2000s. Europeanization provided incentives and norms that Turkey translated into strategic and operational actions: adopting EU-aligned policy frameworks (Vision 2023, TRA/ERA convergence), joining Framework Programs, and engaging in European research organizations. These actions strengthened D4S by granting Turkish researchers access to funding, infrastructures, and networks, thereby building national R&D capacity. Simultaneously, Turkey’s participation in EU programs and large-scale collaborations supported S4D by maintaining and improving EU–Turkey relations even during periods of political strain, demonstrating science as a channel for continued engagement and soft power. However, the limited development of SinD (institutionalized science advice in foreign policy) and the lack of science attachés constrain the translation of scientific engagement into systematic foreign policy influence. Overall, SD has contributed to Turkey’s competitiveness and international visibility and sustained a cooperative bridge with the EU, but fuller integration of SD into foreign policy and better domestic research conditions are needed to maximize impact.

The paper contributes by reframing Turkey’s post-2000 STI transformations through the lens of Science Diplomacy within a Europeanization context. It shows that aligning STI policies with EU frameworks enabled access to funding, infrastructures, and networks (e.g., Horizon 2020, CERN, COST), strengthened D4S and S4D dimensions, and sustained EU–Turkey ties despite political tensions. To advance SD, Turkey should institutionalize science-based advisory systems in foreign policy (develop SinD), appoint science attachés and advisors, prepare a dedicated SD strategic plan and policy documents, broaden and coordinate the community of SD actors (ministries, agencies, academies, cultural institutes), and continue investments in internationally collaborative R&D fields. Future research can examine the detailed effects of bilateral S&T agreements, sectoral case studies of SD outcomes, and the evolution of Turkey’s role in Horizon Europe and newer European partnerships.

- Lack of political will and absence of appointed science attachés/diplomats hinder institutionalization of SD and the Science for Diplomacy (S4D) impact. - Domestic political volatility and a security-focused R&D agenda limit investment in internationally collaborative fields (e.g., ICT, basic sciences, environment). - Complexity and bureaucracy of EU funding mechanisms discourage participation, particularly for newcomers, SMEs, and NGOs. - Structural R&D constraints: GERD below EU average; weaker citation impact and innovation environment; limited university–industry collaboration; brain drain of qualified researchers. - Science in Diplomacy (SinD) dimension remains underdeveloped, with insufficient mechanisms for integrating scientific advice into foreign policy decision-making.