Fostering Inclusion in Science Diplomacy
By Molly Douglas and Patricia Gruver Barr
Science diplomacy is generally thought of as a two-actor space populated by scientists and diplomats. In this conceptualization, scientists have a terminal degree and a string of peer-reviewed publications behind their names, and diplomats are employed in the foreign services of their home governments to advance policy agendas overseas. Together, they enact science for diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science in diplomacy.
This is no surprise: the term “science diplomacy” itself begs the two-actor conceptualization. But it’s dated. Science diplomacy is evolving in theory and practice, and new and non-traditional actors constitute a significant component of that evolution. Re-conceptualization is due. It’s important for the scientists and diplomats traditionally at science diplomacy’s core to recognize these other actors and afford them equal opportunities for contribution and growth. With recognition and inclusion, the community can better map, analyze, and strategically leverage and learn from the entire network for improved science diplomacy theory and practice.
In Tom Wang’s recent recent post on this same blog, he insightfully noted (1) the rise of new actors in science diplomacy and (2) the increasing need for new skills in the practice of science diplomacy. With respect to the first point, he pointed to supra- and sub-national actors. These “new actors” should encompass actors outside of formal government and academic institutions and hierarchies. The point should also include actors long active in the space, but in roles or capacities perhaps not commonly recognized or afforded equal opportunities by the traditional community. Directly tied to the second point, it’s the new and non-traditional actors who often already have and are therefore well-positioned to support scientists and diplomats in identifying and acquiring new skills. But, they are not there simply for skill transfer and training; they can — and do — exercise those same skills themselves in effective science diplomacy practice.
Projects classed within Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) for sustainable development (see the annual United Nations STI Forum) are yielding most of the job descriptions readily associated with the new actor profile. Look across the many sectors tied to the movement: industry, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, and the very communities driving their own sustainable development trajectories through STI. Think of technology developers, project designers and managers, geospatial analysts, and Indigenous and local knowledge holders. With or without PhDs, these actors hold special expertise, and they are actively practicing science diplomacy through STI knowledge and resource exchange, collaboration, and capacity-building. Their work yields evidence-based sustainable development policy and drives implementation. Their activity and their impact is both within and outside formal governing structures; across all levels and types of borders; and manifests in ways economic, cultural, environmental, and social. They are science diplomats.
Non-traditional actors in science diplomacy also come from all areas of expertise, possess all manner of skills, and operate at all levels and in all sectors, including those outlined above. In addition, these actors work on explicitly labeled “science diplomacy” endeavors, but hold neither the title “scientist” nor the title “Foreign Service Officer”. Yet, deeply embedded in the science diplomacy machine, their perspective is intimate and therefore expert. They are valuable negotiators, designers, strategists, organizers, investors, writers, analysts, managers, researchers, developers, evaluators, trainers, advisors, communicators, entrepreneurs, and innovators. Think of policy analysts, research administrators, program officers, and science reporters. They are valuable knowledge holders. What they have to offer is both an insider’s understanding of science diplomacy; a strong grasp of the science; and unique expertise in diverse skills sets, issues, and sectors critical to current science diplomacy efforts.
However, non-traditional actors are still often thought of as augmenters — helpful, but not key players. Their expertise may not be recognized as expertise. Even as they provide unique insight and advice; even as they design training programs; even as they contribute to the formulation and articulation of theory; even as they translate theory, research, and training into productive practice, they may be thought of as accessories to the real business of science diplomacy. Yet, these actors are science diplomats.
As we experienced first-hand during the last AAAS Science Diplomacy & Leadership Workshop, participants included a head of corporate communications, a research administrator, and both masters and doctoral students from domestic and international universities. It’s clear that new and non-traditional actors are seeking opportunities for continued learning, growth, and contribution, and the organizers behind such opportunities are aware of and positively accommodating their interest. This is an important and valuable step. But how well are these actors integrated into workshops, and how well are their learning needs and interests met? How well do the perspectives and experiences of the two constituent groups inform workshop content to the benefit of all participants? Beyond workshops, how many practical opportunities are open to new and non-traditional actors?
As calls for diversity in science increase, it is regrettable that many opportunities for individuals to get hands-on experience in policy — such as AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellows Program — exclude actors on the basis of a particular diploma or certificate. Such a blanket barrier automatically eliminates many types of pertinent expertise. It further suggests that excluded actors are perhaps not as capable or well-prepared to design rigorous research, pursue scientific analyses, effectively engage in diplomatic interaction, or simply offer insight valuable to crucial science diplomacy issues. And even if unintended, it perpetuates the aura of elitism that has always dogged academia and the sciences and is ultimately counterproductive to the field.
Fostering inclusion is undeniably challenging, but concerted investment in this direction will drive long-term returns to research, collaboration, and practice. Our recommendations for addressing the situation are simple, and we hope they are helpful to ongoing discussions.
- Talk to new, non-traditional, and traditional actors. Gather data on their roles, contributions, resources, skills, objectives, and motivations. Using this data, map and analyze the entire network of science diplomacy actors. With inclusion and improved understanding, the network can be better leveraged for improved science diplomacy theory and practice.
- Adapt education, training, and fellowship opportunities to better meet the needs and better maximize the contributions of new and non-traditional actors for the benefit of all participants.
- Continue to develop and adapt engagement and outreach strategies and platforms, such as this blog, to target new and non-traditional actors and afford them equal voice and space for expression, exchange, and collaboration.
- Support iterative, respectful, and mutually productive relationship-building across sectors, disciplines, cultures, geographies, and more. Learn from one another.
- Rigorously address other persistent challenges and barriers to inclusion, including citizenship limitations and under-representation of women and people of color.
- Review, revise, repeat.
Molly Douglas is Assistant Director of the Science Diplomacy Center at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Patricia Gruver Barr is Science Attaché for the Québec Government Office in Boston. She also serves as Co-Chair of the Science & Technology Diplomatic Circle of Boston.
The opinions expressed in this post are not intended to reflect those of the authors’ employers or AAAS.
