Posts
Knowledge diplomacy: can academics help heal the world’s rifts? ‘Science diplomacy’ is seen as a crucial way to build international trust, but the idea is undergoing a radical rethink, David Matthews. Read more in THE, June 15, 2019.
"The concept of science diplomacy is currently being radically rethought.
Ten years ago, science diplomacy was often conceived as a form of “soft power”: a way of getting your way as a country through positive influence and attraction – perhaps by offering scholarships to junior researchers from other countries so they build up a relationship with your own universities – rather than the traditional “hard power” of, say, military might. Science diplomacy “is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations”, Ms Clinton said in 2009.
Crudely put, academics and universities could be deployed in lieu of tanks, fighter jets or economic sanctions. A preferable form of power for sure – and often mingled with more altruistic motives – but a form of power nonetheless.
Yet last month at its annual Going Global conference in Berlin, the British Council released a report written by Jane Knight, an expert in international higher education at the University of Toronto, which argued for a very different approach.
Knowledge diplomacy should emphatically not be about “self serving” or “me first” soft power, she told delegates. Instead, universities should try to build collaborative, genuinely “win-win” relationships, she argued. Knowledge diplomacy is becoming “less and less to do with soft power”, concurred Jo Beall, the British Council’s director for education and society, during a plenary discussion at Going Global.
Professor Knight’s report, Knowledge Diplomacy in Action, praises initiatives such as the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, which since 2006 has poured more than A$100 million (£55 million) into research projects in areas of importance to both countries, including agriculture, food and water security, and marine sciences.
The point is that it is supposed to be a partnership of equals: both governments fund the research, and priorities are decided by four different agencies, two in each country. National interest is still at play in knowledge diplomacy – “it would be naive to deny this”, the report says – but collaborations should be driven by “cooperation, collaboration, negotiation and compromise” instead of “self-interest, increased influence and relative dominance”.
But, in reality, how free are scholars and universities to rise above the power politics of the nation states that still host and – on the whole – fund them?
It’s a question made particularly acute by the US’ recent crackdown on perceived Chinese exploitation of publicly funded research and intellectual property theft. Last month, Emory University fired two Chinese-American biomedics for not fully disclosing their funding sources and links with Chinese research institutions, part of a broader series of investigations initiated by the National Institutes of Health.
Nina Fedoroff, a molecular plant biologist who served as science and technology adviser to both Ms Clinton and her predecessor as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is credited with coining the term “science diplomacy”.
But even she was scathing about the impact that collaborating with China has had on US research and technology prowess. “The whole generation of Chinese educated at US universities is the first line of technology theft,” she said, echoing a growing consensus forming in Washington. Graduating from US universities into US companies, Chinese students have then taken technology back to China, she alleged.
In her field of research, she said, Chinese researchers are now doing groundbreaking work. This is “good for science, but a problem for our country”, Professor Fedoroff argued, because it meant that US scientific pre-eminence “may not continue”, just as it waned for countries such as Germany.
Initiating science diplomacy is still a “no-brainer” – “should we never be kind, because we might be exploited?” she asked rhetorically – but it has its risks. “When you reach out to help someone, that person can bite your hand...that’s basically what China has done,” she claimed."
Knowledge Diplomacy in Action (British Council):
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research-knowledge-diplomacy-in-action.pdf
I'm not sure what was wrong with older terms like academic exchange, reciprocity and cultural relations based on principles of mutual respect and cooperation...
Ten years ago, science diplomacy was often conceived as a form of “soft power”: a way of getting your way as a country through positive influence and attraction – perhaps by offering scholarships to junior researchers from other countries so they build up a relationship with your own universities – rather than the traditional “hard power” of, say, military might. Science diplomacy “is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations”, Ms Clinton said in 2009.
Crudely put, academics and universities could be deployed in lieu of tanks, fighter jets or economic sanctions. A preferable form of power for sure – and often mingled with more altruistic motives – but a form of power nonetheless.
Yet last month at its annual Going Global conference in Berlin, the British Council released a report written by Jane Knight, an expert in international higher education at the University of Toronto, which argued for a very different approach.
Knowledge diplomacy should emphatically not be about “self serving” or “me first” soft power, she told delegates. Instead, universities should try to build collaborative, genuinely “win-win” relationships, she argued. Knowledge diplomacy is becoming “less and less to do with soft power”, concurred Jo Beall, the British Council’s director for education and society, during a plenary discussion at Going Global.
Professor Knight’s report, Knowledge Diplomacy in Action, praises initiatives such as the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, which since 2006 has poured more than A$100 million (£55 million) into research projects in areas of importance to both countries, including agriculture, food and water security, and marine sciences.
The point is that it is supposed to be a partnership of equals: both governments fund the research, and priorities are decided by four different agencies, two in each country. National interest is still at play in knowledge diplomacy – “it would be naive to deny this”, the report says – but collaborations should be driven by “cooperation, collaboration, negotiation and compromise” instead of “self-interest, increased influence and relative dominance”.
But, in reality, how free are scholars and universities to rise above the power politics of the nation states that still host and – on the whole – fund them?
It’s a question made particularly acute by the US’ recent crackdown on perceived Chinese exploitation of publicly funded research and intellectual property theft. Last month, Emory University fired two Chinese-American biomedics for not fully disclosing their funding sources and links with Chinese research institutions, part of a broader series of investigations initiated by the National Institutes of Health.
Nina Fedoroff, a molecular plant biologist who served as science and technology adviser to both Ms Clinton and her predecessor as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is credited with coining the term “science diplomacy”.
But even she was scathing about the impact that collaborating with China has had on US research and technology prowess. “The whole generation of Chinese educated at US universities is the first line of technology theft,” she said, echoing a growing consensus forming in Washington. Graduating from US universities into US companies, Chinese students have then taken technology back to China, she alleged.
In her field of research, she said, Chinese researchers are now doing groundbreaking work. This is “good for science, but a problem for our country”, Professor Fedoroff argued, because it meant that US scientific pre-eminence “may not continue”, just as it waned for countries such as Germany.
Initiating science diplomacy is still a “no-brainer” – “should we never be kind, because we might be exploited?” she asked rhetorically – but it has its risks. “When you reach out to help someone, that person can bite your hand...that’s basically what China has done,” she claimed."
Knowledge Diplomacy in Action (British Council):
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research-knowledge-diplomacy-in-action.pdf
I'm not sure what was wrong with older terms like academic exchange, reciprocity and cultural relations based on principles of mutual respect and cooperation...
No comments:
Post a Comment