Turkey's significant economic and geopolitical position, particularly as a major trading partner and energy transit route for the EU, makes its relationship with the European Union crucial. While historical political and cultural issues have complicated EU-Turkey relations, science and technology (S&T) cooperation has remained a functional area. The paper investigates the role of science diplomacy (SD) in shaping Turkish STI policies since 2000. SD, defined as utilizing science in foreign policy to foster international collaboration and address global challenges, is becoming increasingly important for both developed and developing nations. While Turkey has engaged in various forms of S&T cooperation, these haven't been systematically conceptualized within the framework of SD. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by analyzing Turkey's engagement in S&T activities, particularly those relating to the EU, and evaluating the potential of SD as a new supportive mechanism for Turkey's foreign policy.

The literature on Europeanization, primarily concerning the EU's enlargement and its impact on domestic policies in member and candidate states, provides the theoretical framework. Two key definitions of Europeanization are used: Börzel and Risse's description of domestic adaptation to EU practices, and Bulmer's two dimensions of policy transfer and capacity building. The study also draws upon the existing body of work examining EU-Turkey relations, which began formally with the 1963 Ankara Agreement, and intensified with the 1996 Customs Union agreement and Turkey's 1999 candidacy status. While the political relationship has faced significant hurdles, S&T cooperation has persisted, representing a valuable area of ongoing partnership. Previous research on the EU's impact on Turkey primarily focused on foreign policy, conditionality, and human rights, with limited studies examining S&T from a Europeanization perspective. This research addresses that gap.

This study employs qualitative content analysis, a technique for systematically and objectively identifying characteristics of messages to make inferences. The methodology involved two phases: 1) Compilation of relevant information from primary sources (policy papers, EU communications, etc.) and secondary sources (books, articles); and 2) Systematic analysis by categorizing information into two groups: actors, policies, and institutions; and EU-Turkey relations, Europeanization, and SD. The analysis used three dimensions of SD: Science in Diplomacy (SinD), Diplomacy for Science (D4S), and Science for Diplomacy (S4D). Additionally, three classifying tools for SD were used: strategic (policy documents), operational (policy instruments and mechanisms), and support (awareness activities).

Turkey's STI policies since 2000, particularly those relating to EU integration, are examined through the lens of Europeanization and SD. Key actors involved in Turkey's SD are identified including: the Ministry of Industry and Technology (MoIT), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Science, Technology and Innovation Policies Council (STIPC), the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), and the Yunus Emre Institute (YEI). The study analyzes various strategic tools including STIPC meeting decisions, the Vision 2023 Strategy Paper, and National Development Plans which showcase Turkey's efforts to harmonize its STI policies with the EU's. Operational tools examined include Turkey's participation in EU framework programs (FP6, FP7, Horizon 2020), ERA-NETs, EUREKA, COST, and other organizations (CERN, ESA, ESF, EMBC). The study shows that Turkey's participation in Horizon 2020, for instance, resulted in significant EU funding for Turkish researchers and organizations. Support tools, such as workshops, training, and consultancy initiatives, are also discussed. Despite benefits of S&T cooperation, Turkey has not fully institutionalized SD as a foreign policy tool. The study notes that while D4S and S4D are prominent in Turkey's SD engagement, SinD is underdeveloped. The analysis highlights a lack of science diplomats and insufficient integration of scientific advice into policy-making. While Turkey's R&D expenditure has increased, it still lags behind EU averages and its Vision 2023 targets. Other challenges include the complexity of EU funding mechanisms and a lack of experience among some Turkish researchers in securing EU funding, leading to a preference for national programs. The study concludes that while Turkey has benefited significantly from its collaboration with EU S&T programs, a more resolute political will is necessary to fully leverage SD's potential in its foreign policy.

The findings demonstrate the significant impact of EU-driven Europeanization on Turkey's STI policies, influencing its approach to SD. The harmonization of policies facilitated new funding avenues and participation in leading international S&T programs. The successful integration into EU programs has undeniably improved Turkey's research capacity and international standing, showcasing the effectiveness of Diplomacy for Science (D4S). However, the underdevelopment of Science in Diplomacy (SinD) and limitations in Science for Diplomacy (S4D) suggest a missed opportunity to strengthen Turkey’s foreign policy. The continued scientific cooperation despite political tensions highlights the potential of S&T to transcend political divides, but Turkey's limited use of SD in other areas of its international relations points to a need for stronger political commitment and institutionalization of SD.

Turkey's engagement with EU S&T programs has significantly improved its research capacity and international standing. However, the study finds that the full potential of SD as a foreign policy tool remains untapped. To effectively leverage SD, Turkey needs to develop a science-based advice system, create a strategic SD plan, increase the involvement of diverse actors, and address limitations in its R&D infrastructure. Future research could focus on comparative analyses of SD strategies in other emerging economies, and detailed case studies on specific S&T collaborations between Turkey and the EU.

The study's reliance on qualitative content analysis may limit the generalizability of findings. Furthermore, the focus on EU-Turkey relations may not fully capture the breadth of Turkey's SD efforts with other countries. Finally, the study acknowledges the dynamic nature of political relationships and R&D investment priorities, making it challenging to provide long-term projections.