British Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 392–408 | Cite as

Science diplomacy and transnational governance impact

  • Timothy LegrandEmail author
  • Diane Stone
Original Article


Science diplomacy is coming to the fore as a formidable dimension of interstate power relations. As the challenges of the world increasingly transcend borders, so too have researchers and innovators forged international coalitions to resolve global pathologies. In doing so, new channels of influence and opportunity have opened up for states alongside the ‘traditional’ modes of foreign diplomacy. Understanding how these channels influence global socio-economic outcomes is thereby crucial for scholars interested in the still-ambiguous structure and processes of global governance. This article advances understanding of the domains of science diplomacy by drawing attention to the ‘political intercostalities’ of state actors, scientific communities and other transnational actors within the new architectures of global governance. Here we trace the growing array of informal international associations alongside transgovernmental policy networks and ‘global public-policy partnerships’ that deal with highly specialised and technical matters of international policy and how they are drawn into science diplomacy. This article thus presents a research agenda for a particular mode of ‘impact’ in politics and international studies.


Science diplomacy Global governance Evidence-based Policy network Research translation 


  1. Arkin, Fatima. 2015. South Korea pushes the envelope in science diplomacy’, SciDevNet.
  2. Banerjee, A., A. Deaton, N. Lustig, and K. Rogoff. 2006. An evaluation of World Bank research, 1998–2005.Google Scholar
  3. Bhaskar, R. 2013. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevir, M. 2010. Interpreting territory and power. Government and Opposition 45 (3): 436–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boswell, C. 2009. The political uses of expert knowledge: Immigration policy and social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M. 2003. Science et société: les trois traductions. Cahiers du Mouvement Universel de la Responsabilité Scientifique, 57–69.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, D. 2016. Theorising the role of cultural products in cultural diplomacy from a cultural studies perspective. International Journal of Cultural Policy 22 (2): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coen, D., and T. Pegram. 2015. Wanted: A third generation of global governance research. Governance 28 (4): 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constantinou, C., and J. Der Derian. 2010. Sustainable diplomacies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craft, J., and J. Halligan. 2016. Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences. Scholar
  11. Davis, Lloyd S., and Robert G. Patman (eds.). 2015. Science diplomacy: New day or false dawn. New York: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  12. EL-CSID, European Leadership in Cultural, Science and Innovation Policy.
  13. European Commission. 2014. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions: Report on the implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in research and innovation, COM(2014) 567 final, 11th September, Brussels, European Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Fähnrich, B. 2015. Science diplomacy: Investigating the perspective of scholars on politics–science collaboration in international affairs. Public Understanding of Science, 0963662515616552.Google Scholar
  15. Fedoroff, N.V. 2009. Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell 136 (1): 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flink, T., and U. Schreiterer. 2010. Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Towards a typology of national approaches. Science and Public Policy 37 (9): 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimes, R., and C. McNulty. 2016. The newton fund: Science and innovation for development and diplomacy, science and diplomacy, 30th December.
  18. Gluckman, Peter. 2016. Science advice to governments: An emerging dimension of science diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy 5(2).
  19. Haas, P.M. 2015. Epistemic communities, constructivism, and international environmental politics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Head, B.W. 2013. Evidence-based policymaking-speaking truth to power? Australian Journal of Public Administration 72 (4): 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hocking, Brian. 2004. Privatizing diplomacy? International Studies Perspectives 5 (2): 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hormats, Robert D. 2012. Science diplomacy and twenty-first century statecraft. Science & Diplomacy 1(1).
  23. Hotez, P.J. 2012. The four horsemen of the apocalypse: tropical medicine in the fight against plague, death, famine, and war. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene 87 (1): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Islam, S., and L. Susskind. 2012. Water diplomacy: A negotiated approach to managing complex water networks. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, S. (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Keukeleire, S., F. Keuleers, and K. Raube. 2016. The EU, structural diplomacy and the challenge of learning. In The diplomatic system of the European Union. Evolution, change and challenges, ed. M. Smith, S. Keukeleire, and S. Vanhoonacker. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. King, D., and M. Wickham-Jones. 1999. From Clinton to Blair: the Democratic (Party) origins of welfare to work. The Political Quarterly 70 (1): 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leathwood, C., and B. Read. 2013. Research policy and academic performativity: Compliance, contestation and complicity. Studies in Higher Education 38 (8): 1162–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legrand, T. 2015. Transgovernmental policy networks in the anglosphere. Public Administration 93 (4): 973–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Littoz-Monnet, A. (ed.). 2017. The politics of expertise in international organizations: How international bureaucracies produce and mobilize knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Lord, K.M., and V.C. Turekian. 2007. Time for a new era of science diplomacy. Science 315 (5813): 769–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, D., and J.C. Sharman. 2009. Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy studies 30 (3): 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moran, M., and Stone, D. 2016. The new philanthropy: Private power in international development policy?. In The Palgrave handbook of international development, 297–313. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Nedeva, M. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42 (1): 220–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nesadurai, H.E. 2013. Food security, the palm oil–land conflict nexus, and sustainability: a governance role for a private multi-stakeholder regime like the RSPO? The Pacific Review 26 (5): 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nye Jr., Joseph. 2005. Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  37. Painter, M., and J. Pierre. 2005. Unpacking state capacity: Issues and themes. In Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives, ed. M. Painter, and J. Pierre, 1–18. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pal, Leslie. 2016. Global policy advisory systems: Patterns, trajectories and impacts. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  39. Pamment, James. 2013. New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Paár-Jákli, G. 2014. Networked governance and transatlantic relations: Building bridges through science diplomacy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pettigrew, A.M. 2011. Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management 22 (3): 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Royal Society. 2010. New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  43. Smith III, Frank L. 2014. Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit. Social Studies of Science 44 (6): 825–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, S., V. Ward, and A. House. 2011. ‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s research excellence framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy 40 (10): 1369–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solesbury, W. 2002. The ascendancy of evidence. Planning Theory & Practice 3 (1): 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Standke, K.H. 2006. Science and technology in global cooperation: The case of the United Nations and UNESCO. Science and Public Policy 33 (9): 627–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stoker, Gerry, Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2014. In The relevance of political science, eds. Gerry Stoker, B. Guy Peters, and Jon Pierre. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  48. Stone, Diane. 2013. Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The public-private policy nexus in the global Agora. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stone, D., and S. Ladi. 2015. Global public policy and transnational administration. Public Administration 93 (4): 839–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Susskind, L.E., and S.H. Ali. 2014. Environmental diplomacy: negotiating more effective global agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trondal, J. 2016. Advances to the study of international public administration. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (7): 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. The Royal Society. 2010. New frontiers in science diplomacy navigating the changing balance of power. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  53. UNESCO. 2015. Science diplomacy and transboundary water management: the Orontes River case. Venice: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  54. Union of International Associations (Ed.). 2013. Yearbook of International Organizations 2013–2014. Brill Academic Pub.Google Scholar
  55. Vabulas, Felicity. 2018. The administration of informal intergovernmental organisations. In Global policy and transnational administration, ed. Diane Stone, and Kim Moloney. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Van Langenhove, Luk. 2016. Multilateral EU action through science diplomacy. In The EU global strategy: Going beyond effective multilateralism?, ed. Balazs Ujvari. Brussels: European Policy Center.Google Scholar
  57. Walker, R. 1999. The Americanization of British welfare: a case study of policy transfer. International Journal of Health Services 29 (4): 679–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watermeyer, R. 2014. Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: the responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Studies in Higher Education 39 (2): 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woolcock, S. 2013. European Union economic diplomacy: The role of the EU in external economic relations. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Security CollegeAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Governance and Policy AnalysisUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  4. 4.University of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations