Journal of Science Policy & Governance
​Volume 20, Issue 03 | August 22, 2022

Op-Ed: A Call to Draw on Existing Social Science Scholarship to Understand Professional Communities at the Science-Diplomacy Nexus Better: Using the Case of Space Governance

George Salter
University College London, London, UK
​
​Corresponding author: george.salter.16@ucl.ac.uk ​​
Keywords: social science; science diplomacy nexus; space governance
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG200306​

Executive Summary

Global governance arrangements are produced and sustained by an array of professionals who sometimes compete and sometimes collaborate over policy construction. Where trained scientists fit into this picture and how they influence policy formation is a question of great importance for stakeholders vested in the science-diplomacy nexus, given the role of technical knowledge in complex and uncertain diplomatic challenges. However, this Op-Ed argues that understanding the social dynamics that constitute science diplomacy in practice requires the use of concepts and theory from Science and Technology Studies and practice-theoretical work in global governance scholarship that can accommodate the contingency of professional life in this field of action. Using the arena of outer space governance to illustrate this point, I contend that using this scholarship can open up conceptual space to consider inter-professional contestation and intra-professional reimagination at the science-diplomacy interface. In turn, this approach can enhance understanding for science diplomacy practitioners as to what it means to be a scientist engaging at this nexus and what cycles of professional stasis and change are taking place.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of  USAG Ansbach
George Salter is an EPSRC-funded Ph.D. Researcher and political sociologist at University College London studying science diplomacy. His primary research interest concerns how states use science and scientists in their foreign policy initiatives and the interplay between technical knowledge, political action, and governance in global politics. George is using the policy domain of space governance as the empirical focus of this project. He is currently working with the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) of the UK government to engage in data collection and understand more about science diplomacy in action.

References

  1. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. 2014. “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of International Relations 20 (4): 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702.
  2. Allan, Bentley B. 2017. “Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects.” International Organization 71 (1): 131–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000321.
  3. Bicchi, Federica. 2013. “Information Exchanges, Diplomatic Networks and the Construction of European Knowledge in European Union Foreign Policy:” Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0010836713482871 49 (2): 239–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713482871.
  4. Bogner, Alexander, and Wolfgang Menz. 2009. “The Theory-Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction.” Interviewing Experts, 43–80. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_3.
  5. Bueger, Christian. 2014. “From Expert Communities to Epistemic Arrangements: Situating Expertise in International Relations.” In , 1:39–54. Global Power Shift. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_2.
  6. ———. 2015. “Making Things Known: Epistemic Practices, the United Nations, and the Translation of Piracy.” International Political Sociology 9 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12073.
  7. Constantinou, Costas M., Noé Cornago, and Fiona McConnell. 2016. “Transprofessional Diplomacy.” Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 1 (4): 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/24056006-12340005.
  8. Dunlop, Claire A. 2009. “Policy Transfer as Learning: Capturing Variation in What Decision-Makers Learn from Epistemic Communities.” 30 (3): 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870902863869.
  9. Flink, Tim. 2020. “The Sensationalist Discourse of Science Diplomacy: A Critical Reflection.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10032.
  10. ———. 2021. “Taking the Pulse of Science Diplomacy and Developing Practices of Valuation.” Science and Public Policy 00 (November): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/SCIPOL/SCAB074.
  11. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.
  12. Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442.
  13. Hayes, Peter, Scott Bruce, Christina McCain, Norman Neureiter, and Eileen S. Vergino. 2007. “Science as Diplomacy.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 63 (4): 22–23. https://doi.org/10.2968/063004007.
  14. Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. “Science on Stage : Expert Advice as Public Drama,” 213.
  15. Jasanoff, Sheila S. 2016. “Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science:” Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/030631287017002001 17 (2): 195–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631287017002001.
  16. Kreienkamp, Julia, and Tom Pegram. 2021. “Governing Complexity: Design Principles for the Governance of Complex Global Catastrophic Risks.” International Studies Review 23 (3): 779–806. https://doi.org/10.1093/ISR/VIAA074.
  17. Kuus, Merje. 2014. Geopolitics and Expertise : Knowledge and Authority in European Diplomacy. Wiley-Blackwell.
  18. Kuus, Merje. 2018. “The Terroir of Bureaucratic Practice: Everyday Life and Scholarly Method in the Study of Policy:” Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0263774X18802954 37 (4): 617–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18802954.
  19. Legrand, Timothy, and Diane Stone. 2018. “Science Diplomacy and Transnational Governance Impact.” British Politics 13 (3): 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0082-z.
  20. Liddle, Aidan. 2020a. “Disarmament Blog: A New Initiative on Outer Space Security.” Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. 2020. https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/aidanliddle/2020/08/27/disarmament-blog-a-new-initiative-on-outer-space-security/.
  21. ———. 2020b. “Disarmament Blog: Space Resolution Adopted | Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office Blogs.” Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. 2020. https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/aidanliddle/2020/12/10/disarmament-blog-space-resolution-adopted/.
  22. ———. 2021. “Responsible Behaviours in Outer Space: Towards UNGA 76 | Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office Blogs.” Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. 2021. https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/aidanliddle/2021/06/08/reducing-space-threats-towards-unga-76/.
  23. Lord, Kristin M., and Vaughan C. Turekian. 2007. “Time for a New Era of Science Diplomacy.” Science 315 (5813).
  24. Mauduit, Jean-Christophe, and Marga Gual Soler. 2020. “Building a Science Diplomacy Curriculum.” Frontiers in Education 5 (August): 138. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00138.
  25. Melchor, Lorenzo. 2020. “What Is a Science Diplomat.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (3): 409–23. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-BJA10026.
  26. Moomaw, William R. 2018. “Scientist Diplomats or Diplomat Scientists: Who Makes Science Diplomacy Effective?” Global Policy 9 (November): 78–80. ​https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12520.
  27. Parrado, Salvador. 2014. “Analytical Capacity.” The Problem-Solving Capacity of the Modern State, December, 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198716365.003.0005.
  28. Rungius, Charlotte, and Tim Flink. 2020. “Romancing Science for Global Solutions: On Narratives and Interpretative Schemas of Science Diplomacy.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00585-w.
  29. Seabrooke, Leonard. 2015. “Diplomacy as Economic Consultancy.” Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, January, 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316162903.008.
  30. Sending, Ole Jacob, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann. 2011. “The Future of Diplomacy: Changing Practices, Evolving Relationships.” International Journal 66 (3): 527–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070201106600301.
  31. Thérien, Jean-Philippe, and Vincent Pouliot. 2019. “Global Governance as Patchwork: The Making of the Sustainable Development Goals.” Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1671209 27 (3): 612–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1671209.
  32. Wedel, Janine R. 2017. “From Power Elites to Influence Elites: Resetting Elite Studies for the 21st Century:” Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0263276417715311 34 (5–6): 153–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276417715311.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications and events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.