Research Topic and Research Objective

The term “science diplomacy” (SD) has been increasingly in the limelight both within academic and policy-making spheres. However, its definition is still ambiguous and requires further conceptualisation (Copeland, 2016; Flink and Schreiterer, 2010; Rungius et al., 2018).

According to Schlegel et al. (2012), the main advantages of SD consist in the promotion of the national scientific achievements abroad simultaneously representing a supplementary foreign policy tool (Fedoroff, 2009; Hoy, 2019). Nevertheless, some authors suggest differentiating SD from international scientific collaboration, mainly promoted by individuals and groups, whereas SD often implies participation of national or supranational public political actors, political interests and political goals (Copeland, 2011, 2016; Turekian et al., 2015; Gluckman et al., 2017; Rungius et al., 2018).

SD is also defined from the standpoint of “the new global challenges” including climate change and sustainable development (Berg, 2010). SD is also described as “the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address the common problems facing 21st century humanity and to build constructive international partnerships” (Fedoroff, 2009). SD is also considered a mean to reach sustainable development (Saner, 2015). The “global challenges” discourse is accompanied by the opinion of the “blurring of boundaries between science and diplomacy” and the growing role of science in world politics (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010; Turekian et al., 2015). Increased trans-national interdependence, driven by globalisation demands closer collaboration between the diplomatic and scientific fields (Copeland, 2016; Rungius et al., 2018).

The usual approach in conceptualising SD is connecting science to diplomacy through integration of previously separate universes (Copeland, 2016; Turekian et al., 2015). The most well-known conceptualisation of SD differentiates between its three types: science in diplomacy including support for foreign policy goals with scientific knowledge; diplomacy for science meaning facilitation of international science collaboration; science for diplomacy assuming use of science collaboration to ameliorate international relations between states (Royal Society, 2010). But it has been criticised due to the impossibility of clear demarcation of these SD types (Copeland, 2016) and its neglect of competing nature of international scientific relations (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010; Rungius et al., 2018).

Flink and Schreiterer (2010) have suggested another way to conceptualise SD distinguishing between its three “goals”: access, influence, and promotion. Access means the objective of increasing national competitiveness by apprehending international science and technology markets and attracting foreign best specialists and investments. Promotion assumes marketing national achievements abroad and enhancing its reputation in the world. Influence deals with the soft power side of SD through influencing public opinion and policy-makers of other countries. Gluckman et al. (2017) recently differentiated three strategic categories of SD: actions intended to advance national needs, using SD as a soft power instrument to serve economic and national security interests; actions intended to deal with cross-border interests: the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission can be an example of sharing regional scientific services between countries; actions intended to tackle global needs, including global sustainable development which is similar to the “global challenges” discourse of SD.

Taking into account a big number of SD theories and practices, it is impossible to propose one model to describe SD (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010). However, in spite of multitude of actors involved in SD (Van Langenhove, 2017), not many studies tried to conceptualise SD from standpoint of non-state actors. At the same time, the activities of universities and their networks seem to be crucial to the success of SD. Therefore, the study of the role of universities in the SD at European and global levels can contribute both in empirical and theoretical terms to the scholarly debates related to the SD concept.

In this project I aim to analyse which role universities play in SD. As a case study I have chosen Switzerland due to following reasons. Switzerland occupies leading positions according to its scientific achievements and the internationalisation of education and scientific research, such as the number of scientific papers per one thousand inhabitants; citation index, and percentage of universities and scholars taking part in international networks (Saner, 2015). Switzerland has also a long history of SD starting in 1958 with sending of a science attaché to the US, and establishment of such posts in Washington, Tokyo and Moscow to keep ties with Swiss researchers working in foreign countries. Swiss SD is now institutionalised as a valuable component of the Swiss Foreign Policy. One of its main tools is Swissnex, a network of science and technology offices and counselors at the Swiss representations abroad which support relations of Switzerland with the foreign innovative centres (Van Langenhove, 2017). The SD legal framework is developed by the Universities’ rectors’ conference and the Swiss National Science Foundation, whereas universities manage and implement particular projects (Flink and Schreiterer, 2009). To find out why and how Swiss universities engage in SD at national, European and global levels I use following methods: analysis of official documents from Swiss organisations engaged in SD; conducting semi-structured expert interviews with representatives of Swiss universities, leading in research according to different rankings (scholars, management, international relation services), senior officials from Swiss government organisations, engaged in SD; participant observation of online events related to SD; social network analysis on the basis of Gephi software (Cherven, 2015) in order to map the involvement of Swiss universities in transnational university networks at European and global levels.

According to one of the SD conceptualisations of national SD approaches, Switzerland concentrates on promotion of scientific interests, international scientific cooperation and bilateral relations. Exerting influence in the world politics or to deal with global challenges is not considered their main priority which is understandable taking into account a small size of a country and its neutral status in international affairs (Flink and Schreiterer, 2009). However, this paper will show that Swiss universities play an important role in SD not only with regard to national needs, but also European and global ones. At the European level, Swiss SD is often seen as a model (Van Langenhove, 2017), but Swiss universities can be also seen as objects of the EU SD. Although the EU is Switzerland’s most important partner, the negotiations over the Swiss status in the EU Framework Research Programme provides an interesting case of SD. The conflict around Horizon 2020 and the Croatia Protocol shows the great importance of scientific cooperation, and how it was used by the European Union in its foreign policy to oblige the observance of its bilateral agreements with Switzerland (Leese, 2018). As far as the global level, Switzerland (particularly Geneva) is headquarters for many international organisations, including UN agencies, dealing with “global challenges” and serves as arena for discussion and generation of a global discourse related to SD including in collaboration with Swiss higher education institutions (Matlin, et al., 2014). Moreover, many Swiss universities are active members of transnational university networks, which can be seen as a significant tool of the non‐state‐centric science diplomacy. Although this study focuses on Swiss universities, it could serve as a basis for further research with regard to SD in Europe in general and worldwide.

Berg, L-P. 2010. Science Diplomacy Networks. Politorbis, 2(49): 9–11. Cherven, K., 2015. Network Graph Analysis and Visualization with Gephi. Packt Publishing Ltd. Copeland, D., 2011. Science Diplomacy: What’s It All About? CIPS Policy Briefs, (13): 1–4. Copeland, D., 2016. Science Diplomacy. In C. M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, and P. Sharp (eds.). Sage Handbook of Diplomacy. London: SAGE Publications, 628–41. Fedoroff, N. V. 2009. Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Cell Journal, 136(1): 9–11. Flink, T., and Schreiterer, U., 2010. Science Diplomacy at the Intersection of S&T Policies and Foreign Affairs: Toward a Typology of National Approaches. Science and Public Policy, 37(9): 665–677. Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V. C., Grimes, R. W, and Kishi, T., 2017. Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4). Hoy, A., Q., 2019. Science diplomacy leverages alliances to build global bridges. Science, 365 (6456): 875-876. Leese, 2018. Between a Carrot and a Stick: Science Diplomacy and Access to EU Research Funding. Global Policy, 9 (3): 48-52. Matlin, S.A., Kickbusch, I., Told, M., 2014. Health Diplomacy Meets Science Diplomacy. Report of the 6th High-Level Symposium on Global Health Diplomacy, Geneva, 12 November 2013. Global Health Programme, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. Published 20 March 2014. Rungius, C., Flink, T., and Degelsegger-Márquez, A., 2018. State of the Art Report: Summarizing literature on science diplomacy cases and concepts, S4D4C Deliverable 2.2 [online]. Available from: https://www.s4d4c.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/S4D4C_State-of-the-Art_Report_DZHW.pdf, accessed 15 October 2019. Saner. R., 2015. Science Diplomacy to support global implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Brief for GSDR 2015, Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development (CSEND), Geneva. Schlegel, F., Jacot, O., and Fetscherin, M., 2012. Science Diplomacy with Swissnex China: A Swiss Nation Brand Initiative. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7 (4): 289. Royal Society/AAAS (2010): New Frontiers in ScienceDiplomacy. Navigating the Changing Balance of Power, London: The Royal Society. Turekian, V. C. et al. 2015. The Emergence of Science Diplomacy. In L. S. Davis and R. G. Patman (eds.) Science Diplomacy. New Day or False Dawn? 3–24. Van Langenhove, L., 2017. Tools for an EU Science Diplomacy. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation [online]. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e668f8cf-e395-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1. Accessed: 15 October 2019.