Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education 3031149769, 9783031149764

Citation preview

Jane Knight

Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education

Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education

Jane Knight

Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education

Jane Knight Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada

ISBN 978-3-031-14976-4    ISBN 978-3-031-14977-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to emerging scholars from the fields of international relations and international higher education who are keen to take an interdisciplinary approach to studying the intersections between these two fields of study. The role and contribution of international higher education, research, and innovation (IHERI) to international relations (IR) is of emerging importance yet a significantly understudied phenomenon. This book on knowledge diplomacy is one step towards exploring the conceptualization of this phenomenon more deeply and to identifying issues which require further examination. An important objective of this book is to encourage current and future researchers to use an interdisciplinary approach to examine and illuminate the questions, complexities, and issues related to the role and contribution of international higher education, research, and innovation in international relations both from a knowledge diplomacy approach and soft power approach.

Acknowledgements

June 2022 Colleagues, friends, and family who have generously provided encouragement, inspiration, and guidance during my journey of exploring the role of international higher education, research, and innovation in international relations are many and deeply appreciated. At times, I felt that it was folly to pursue a second PhD in a new discipline after having had 25 years of research and teaching in the field of international higher education. It was the support of my colleagues and family and what they called my insatiable curiosity which kept me going and supported me on this wonderful, but at times mystifying, journey of researching and writing the dissertation which has resulted in this book. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to my dissertation co-­ supervisors Professor Jan Melissen, University of Antwerp, and Professor Joachim Koops , University of Leiden, who guided me during the research and PhD process. Additional thanks go to my two committee members Professor Ka Ho Mok, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, and Professor Jorg Kustermans, University of Antwerp, and the two external jury members Professor Chika Sehoole, University of Pretoria, South Africa, and Professor David Criekemans, University of Antwerp. I was blessed by having an international team of respected scholars to provide guidance, ideas, and commentary on my research. My valued colleague and friend Professor Ruth Hayhoe, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, was a constant source of encouragement and an expert reviewer of multiple drafts of the dissertation and this subsequent expanded book. To her I owe a deep and enduring debt of gratitude. Professor Denny Roberts, formerly of the Qatar Foundation, helped me to see the practical application of this conceptual research and was a much appreciated reader and editor of the final draft. Professor Tanja Borzel, Free University of Berlin, was my first dissertation advisor who set me on the path of interdisciplinary research and to her I express my respect and appreciation for her guidance and scholarship. The dedication and passion of my own graduate students are always a source of inspiration and delight, especially during the process of preparing of this book. A special thank you to them. vii

viii

Acknowledgements

Professor S.B. Mujumdar, the Chancellor of International Symbiosis University, India, continues to inspire me. He founded International Symbiosis University 50 years ago based on the values and belief that the world is one family and that promoting international understanding and connectedness through quality higher education is of fundamental importance. A heartfelt thank you to Professor Mujumdar.

Contents

1

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   1 1.1 Why Study the Role of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation in International Relations ��������������������������   1 1.2 The Multiplicity and Misunderstanding of Terms������������������������������   2 1.3 Key Questions and Objectives������������������������������������������������������������   3 1.4 An Interpretivist and Interdisciplinary Approach ������������������������������   4 1.5 Parameters and Meaning of Key Terms����������������������������������������������   5 1.6 Outline of Book����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   7 1.6.1 Chapter 1: Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������   7 1.6.2 Chapter 2: Examining Contemporary Diplomacy – Changes and Challenges ��������������������������������������������������������   8 1.6.3 Chapter 3: Focus on Soft Power ��������������������������������������������   8 1.6.4 Chapter 4: The Changing Landscape of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation��������������������������   9 1.6.5 Chapter 5: How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and Education Forms of Diplomacy and Soft Power������������������������������������������������   9 1.6.6 Chapter 6: Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy������������������������������������  10 1.6.7 Chapter 7: Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International Relations��������������������  10 1.6.8 Chapter 8: Knowledge Diplomacy – A Definition and Conceptual Framework����������������������������������������������������  11 1.6.9 Chapter 9: Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Forms of Diplomacy ��������������������������������������������  11 1.6.10 Chapter 10: Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach����������������������������������������  12 1.6.11 Chapter 11: Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy��������������������������������������  12 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  13 ix

x

Contents

2

 Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges ������   15 2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 2.2 Diplomacy and International Higher Education, Research and Innovation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16 2.3 The Evolution of Scholarly Diplomacy Definitions ������������������������   16 2.4 Dictionary Definitions of Diplomacy������������������������������������������������   19 2.5 Challenges and Changes in Understanding Contemporary Diplomacy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.5.1 Diversification of Actors in Diplomacy��������������������������������   21 2.5.2 Changing Role of Diplomats������������������������������������������������   22 2.5.3 New Technologies����������������������������������������������������������������   22 2.6 Different Types and Elements of Diplomacy������������������������������������   22 2.7 Differentiating Diplomacy from Global Governance and Foreign Policy����������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 2.7.1 Diplomacy and Global Governance��������������������������������������   25 2.7.2 Diplomacy and Foreign Policy ��������������������������������������������   26 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   27

3

 Focus on Soft Power��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29 3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29 3.2 Hard Power ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   30 3.3 Soft Power����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   31 3.3.1 Critiques of Soft Power��������������������������������������������������������   32 3.4 Smart Power��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   33 3.5 Sharp Power��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   34 3.6 Differentiating Soft Power and Diplomacy��������������������������������������   35 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   36

4

 The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 4.2 International Joint Universities and Branch Campuses��������������������   40 4.3 International Research Networks������������������������������������������������������   41 4.4 International Education Hubs ����������������������������������������������������������   43 4.4.1 Diversity of International and Local Actors from Different Sectors����������������������������������������������������������   43 4.4.2 Rationales������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44 4.4.3 Three Models of Education Hubs: Student, Talent and Knowledge����������������������������������������������������������   45 4.5 Regional Universities������������������������������������������������������������������������   46 4.6 Debating the Role of IHERI in International Relations��������������������   47 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   49

Contents

xi

5

 How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and Education Forms of Diplomacy and Soft Power ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 5.1.1 Scope of Review of Scholars’ Perspectives��������������������������   52 5.2 Cultural Diplomacy��������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 5.2.1 Cultural Diplomacy or Cultural Relations?��������������������������   53 5.2.2 Mixed Motives and Outcomes����������������������������������������������   53 5.3 From Cultural Diplomacy to Education Diplomacy ������������������������   55 5.3.1 Education or Exchange or Academic Diplomacy? ��������������   55 5.3.2 Role of Non-state Actors: Education Diplomacy or Education Relations?��������������������������������������������������������   56 5.3.3 Education Diplomacy as Capacity Building ������������������������   57 5.4 Public Diplomacy������������������������������������������������������������������������������   58 5.5 Soft Power����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   59 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   61

6

 Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 6.2 American Association for the Advancement of Science Perspectives��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   64 6.2.1 AAAS Conceptual Framework for Science Diplomacy ������   64 6.2.2 Three Objectives of Science Diplomacy������������������������������   65 6.2.3 The Soft Power of Science for Diplomacy ��������������������������   65 6.2.4 Competitive or Cooperative Approaches of Science Diplomacy����������������������������������������������������������������������������   66 6.3 Science Diplomacy or Science Cooperation������������������������������������   66 6.4 The Science Diplomacy Cluster of the European Union Horizon 2020 Program����������������������������������������������������������������������   67 6.4.1 Using Science for Addressing Global Challenges: S4D4C Project����������������������������������������������������������������������   68 6.4.2 Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy��������������������������   69 6.5 National Approaches to Science Diplomacy: One Size Does Not Fit All ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   70 6.6 Moving from Science Diplomacy to Innovation Diplomacy������������   72 6.7 Revisiting the Definition and Use of Science Diplomacy����������������   74 6.7.1 Balancing Theoretical and Practice Approaches to Defining Science Diplomacy��������������������������������������������   74 6.7.2 The Idealism and Rhetoric of Science Diplomacy ��������������   75 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   76

xii

Contents

7

 Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International Relations������������������������������������������������������   79 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   79 7.2 Cultural Diplomacy��������������������������������������������������������������������������   80 7.2.1 Education Hubs and Cultural Diplomacy ����������������������������   80 7.2.2 Educational Exchanges ��������������������������������������������������������   81 7.2.3 Are Universities Politically Neutral?������������������������������������   82 7.3 Education Diplomacy������������������������������������������������������������������������   82 7.4 Public Diplomacy������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 7.4.1 Good Deeds Versus Self-Interests����������������������������������������   84 7.4.2 University Sovereignty and Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   84 7.5 Soft Power����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84 7.5.1 Confucius Institutes from China ������������������������������������������   85 7.5.2 The Soft Power of USA’s and Japan’s Higher Education������������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 7.5.3 The Soft Power of University Rankings and League Tables������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   90 7.5.4 Scholarships��������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 7.6 Knowledge Diplomacy ��������������������������������������������������������������������   92 7.7 Overview of Trends Identified in the Higher Education Literature Review������������������������������������������������������������������������������   94 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   96

8

 Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 8.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 8.2 How Diplomacy vs Higher Education Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI in IR��������������������������������������������������������������������  100 8.2.1 Role of State and Non-state Actors��������������������������������������  100 8.2.2 IHERI Strategies ������������������������������������������������������������������  101 8.2.3 Contradictory Views on Using IHERI as Soft Power ����������  101 8.2.4 Science Diplomacy and Knowledge Diplomacy������������������  102 8.3 Defining and Describing Knowledge Diplomacy ����������������������������  103 8.4 Towards a Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Diplomacy��������  104 8.4.1 Intentions, Purpose and Rationales ��������������������������������������  104 8.4.2 Actors and Partners ��������������������������������������������������������������  105 8.4.3 Principles and Values������������������������������������������������������������  106 8.4.4 Modes and Approaches ��������������������������������������������������������  107 8.4.5 Activities and Instruments����������������������������������������������������  107 8.5 Knowledge Diplomacy as a Two-Way Process��������������������������������  107 8.6 A Complementary Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Diplomacy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  108 8.7 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Neither Neutral Nor Normative��������������  109 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  110

Contents

9

xiii

 Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Forms of Diplomacy����  113 9.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 9.2 Knowledge Diplomacy and Soft Power��������������������������������������������  114 9.2.1 Comparison of the Role of IHERI in a Soft Power Framework and a Knowledge Diplomacy Framework ��������  114 9.3 Use of Soft Power Indicators������������������������������������������������������������  117 9.3.1 Soft Power 30 Report Indicators (Portland Communications)������������������������������������������������������������������  118 9.3.2 Global Soft Power Index (Brand Finance)����������������������������  119 9.4 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Broader Than Cultural Diplomacy����������  120 9.5 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Inclusive of Science Diplomacy but Is More Comprehensive��������������������������������������������������������������  122 9.6 Public Diplomacy vs Knowledge Diplomacy ����������������������������������  123 9.7 Education Diplomacy������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 9.8 Concluding Remarks������������������������������������������������������������������������  124 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  124

10 Examples  of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 10.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 10.2 Sustainable Development Solutions Network��������������������������������  128 10.3 Pan African University: A Regional University������������������������������  130 10.4 The German-Jordanian University: An International Joint University����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  134 10.5 RENKEI: The Japan-UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives ����������������������������������������������  137 10.6 Concluding Remarks����������������������������������������������������������������������  140 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 11 Key  Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 11.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 11.2 Insights and Findings����������������������������������������������������������������������  144 11.2.1 How Is IHERI Changing and Contributing to IR ��������������  144 11.2.2 Can IHERI’s Role in IR Be Framed as Cultural, Science, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power������������������������  145 11.2.3 Can the Term Knowledge Diplomacy Illuminate and Frame the Role of IHERI in IR������������������������������������  147 11.3 Significance of Insights and Research��������������������������������������������  148 11.4 Further Research Issues and Topics������������������������������������������������  149 11.4.1 Motivations Driving IHERI as a Source of Soft Power������  151 11.4.2 Policies to Support Knowledge Diplomacy������������������������  151 11.4.3 Rationales Driving Knowledge Diplomacy������������������������  152 11.4.4 Understanding Knowledge Diplomacy Strategies��������������  152

xiv

Contents

11.4.5 Knowledge Diplomacy in International Development Cooperation������������������������������������������������������������������������  152 11.4.6 IHERI as a Private or Public Good ������������������������������������  153 11.4.7 Knowledge Diplomacy and Regionalization����������������������  153 11.5 Looking to the Future����������������������������������������������������������������������  153 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  155 Bibliography ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Author Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171 Subject Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  175

About the Author

Jane Knight, affiliated with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and the Ali Mazrui Centre for Higher Education Studies at the University of Johannesburg, is a longstanding scholar of the international, intercultural, and global dimensions of international higher education and more recently of international relations. Her work in over 75 countries with universities, governments, and UN Agencies helps to bring a comparative, development, and international perspective to her research, teaching, and policy work. She is the author of numerous publications and sits on the advisory boards of different international organizations, universities, and journals. She holds a PhD in higher education and a PhD in political science and is the recipient of several international awards including two honorary doctorates.  

xv

Abbreviations

ACEI AAAS AU BRI EU GJU HE IHE IHERI IJUs IR JICA ODA PAU PLC RENKEI

Association for Childhood Education International American Association for the Advancement of Science African Union Belt and Road Initiative European Union German Jordanian University Higher Education International Higher Education International Higher Education, Research, and Innovation International Joint Universities International Relations Japanese International Cooperation Agency Official Development Assistance Pan African University Professional Learning Community The Japan-UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives RIHED Regional Centre for Higher Education Development SDSN Sustainable Development Solutions Network TNE Transnational Education UNESCO United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UAE United Arab Emirates USA United States of America UK United Kingdom

xvii

List of Figure

Fig. 8.1

Knowledge diplomacy as a two-way process��������������������������������  108

xix

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Classification framework of types and elements of diplomacy������   24 Table 3.1 A classification system for hard, soft and smart power������������������   34 Table 3.2 Differences between diplomacy and soft power approaches����������   35 Table 4.1 List of international joint universities���������������������������������������������   42 Table 4.2 List of regional universities������������������������������������������������������������   47 Table 8.1 Conceptual framework for IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 Table 8.2 Framework for the relationship between knowledge and diplomacy��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109 Table 9.1 Differences between the role of IHERI in knowledge diplomacy and soft power approaches��������������������������������������������  115 Table 9.2 Conceptual framework for IHERI in a soft power approach����������  116 Table 9.3 Conceptual framework for IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach������������������������������������������������������������������������  117 Table 10.1 SDSN: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework��������������������������������������������������������������������  131 Table 10.2 PAU: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework��������������������������������������������������������������������  134 Table 10.3 GJU: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework��������������������������������������������������������������������  137 Table 10.4 RENKEI: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework��������������������������������������������������  140

xxi

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Why Study the Role of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation in International Relations There is no question that the forces and opportunities of globalization have impacted both higher education and diplomacy (Kleistra, 2018). While the changing world of diplomacy has been studied in depth (Cooper et al., 2013), and the internationalization of higher education critically reviewed (Altbach, 2013; Knight, 2016), there is little work which analyses the convergence and consequences of these two important but changing phenomena. This requires a close examination of the intersection between the new actors, values, modes and issues of modern diplomacy and international higher education. More research and reflection on analysing the role/contribution that higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) can make in the changing world of international relations (IR) is needed. In today’s more globalized and turbulent world, there are pressing global challenges which cannot be solved by one nation alone. Global issues are now national, regional and local issues and vice versa. Challenges such as climate change, food security, migration, epidemics, refugees and migration, poverty reduction and water security know no borders. Addressing worldwide issues takes resources, expertise and political will from diverse actors, sectors and countries. Few nations can address these challenges alone. It takes negotiation, compromise, mutuality and a win-win approach to find solutions that have any chance of being effective and sustainable. It is true that in international relations, countries present their self-interests first – it is naïve to think otherwise. But because national self-interests are closely linked to global issues, finding a common ground and multilateral cooperation between state and non-state actors are growing in importance. History has shown that addressing both global and national issues requires collaboration and a commitment to finding solutions that respect the individual needs and perspectives of different countries

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction

while at the same time finding a common path to ensure different but relevant benefits for all. The reality of global challenges raises many questions. For instance, in the current highly interconnected and interdependent world, where higher education and research are a channel for the cross-border flow and exchange of people, knowledge, expertise, values, ideas, innovation, economy, technology and culture, one can ask why IHERI is it often framed in a “power paradigm” like soft power? Are the values of self-interests and competitiveness, packaged as cooption through attraction and persuasion in soft power, going to effectively address national, regional and worldwide issues of epidemics, terrorism, failed states, the bottom billion living in poverty, environmental degradation and climate change (Knight, 2018)? No one would question that in today’s more interconnected and turbulent world diplomacy is undergoing profound changes. Contemporary diplomacy now involves new actors – especially non-state actors; new social media and technological strategies; new issue-based diplomacies such as climate diplomacy, refugee diplomacy and health diplomacy; an emphasis on both foreign and domestic publics; and new approaches such as transformational and integration diplomacy. Just like diplomacy, international higher education is evolving by expanding from the more traditional activities such as scholarships, student/scholar mobility and recruitment of international students, to include joint international universities, education/knowledge cities and hubs, international joint and double degree programs and regional centres of excellence. Joint international research and innovation networks are increasing as are the number of national public/private partnerships between universities and industry at both regional and international levels. These new developments are leading to an increasingly diversified set of state and non-state actors playing a more significant role in the knowledge society and in the building or strengthening relations between and among countries.

1.2 The Multiplicity and Misunderstanding of Terms There are a multitude of terms used to understand, conceptualize and label the role of international higher education, education and research (IHERI) in international relations (IR). A recent review of the diplomacy literature and higher education literature indicated that there are more than 13. These include cultural diplomacy, cultural relations, public diplomacy, science diplomacy, science cooperation, education diplomacy, education relations, innovation diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, academic diplomacy, citizen diplomacy, knowledge diplomacy, science and technology diplomacy and soft power. And to complicate matters, the definitions of these terms vary significantly across the two fields of study as well as among scholars, experts, policy makers and practitioners within the same field. This is a vivid example of terminology travel.

1.3  Key Questions and Objectives

3

Having multiple terms and even contradictory terms causes confusion and so-­ called terminology chaos. Each term has it pros and cons and has been chosen by the scholar, diplomat or policy maker for specific reasons. It is evident that “one size does not fit all” and the local context of each actor, country and sector must be respected. However, the plethora of terms is not helping to advance a robust analysis of the contemporary role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. Many IR scholars and experts (Cooper et  al., 2013; Leijten, 2017; Bjola & Kornprobst, 2013) acknowledge that there are multiple terms related to diplomacy and that the definitions and use of these terms are often contested. But surprisingly, there is little discourse analysing why there are so many terms or why there is a lack of conceptual and theoretical research to identify the salient features that differentiate one term from another (Kaltofen & Acuto, 2018). It is true that different disciplines and sectors often use their own particular taxonomies to discuss concepts. Nevertheless, further clarity is needed especially with respect to the fundamental differences between a diplomatic approach and a soft power approach when examining the role of IHERI in IR.

1.3 Key Questions and Objectives The fact that the intersection between international higher education, research and innovation in international relations is an understudied phenomenon and one which has not yet benefited from substantial interdisciplinary research raises key issues and questions which deserve further exploration and inform the purpose of this book. The key questions relate to following: (1) In what ways is contemporary international higher education changing and becoming more important to strengthening relations between and among countries? (2) Can the contemporary role of international higher education to international relations be understood using cultural, science, public diplomacy and soft power frameworks? (3) Can the concept of knowledge diplomacy help to understand the role of international higher education in building relationships between and among countries? The major objectives of this book are fourfold. The first is to fill a gap in the current understanding of the phenomenon through a comparative analysis of how diplomacy and higher education scholars and experts understand and frame the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. The second is to propose “knowledge diplomacy” as a useful framework to understand the phenomenon and to provide a definition, conceptual framework and examples of how to use in IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach from all regions of the world. The third is to explore how the concept of knowledge diplomacy differs from related concepts such as cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, public diplomacy, education diplomacy and soft power. The fourth objective is to identify issues and questions which require further reflection and research.

4

1 Introduction

1.4 An Interpretivist and Interdisciplinary Approach The research which informs this book uses an interpretivist approach to explore the conceptualization of the phenomenon of the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. Accordingly, the interpretivist and exploratory approach shapes the kind of evidence that is used. For instance, the review of the literature of the two fields of study  – diplomacy and international higher education – is not the traditional “state-of-the-art” review of literature typical to empirical research. Instead, the review of the literatures provides observations, or in other words qualitative evidence, of how scholars and experts from the two different fields of study conceptualize, define, explain, describe and label the role of international higher education in international relations. The academic and grey literatures being reviewed are purposely selected to focus on how diplomacy and international higher education scholars and experts conceptualize the empirical phenomenon of the international higher education’s role in international relations so that similarities, differences and potential areas of confusion can be identified. Consistent with an interpretivist and conceptual research approach, the analysis uses tools such as definitions, descriptions and conceptual frameworks. The use of these tools helps to make conceptual distinctions and organize information, observations, perceptions and ideas (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). Conceptualization is a process of defining and elaborating the meaning of terms. In this book, the confusion stemming from the diversity of terms used to define or describe the role of international higher education in international relations is explored in depth, and a new conceptual framework and definition for knowledge diplomacy are proposed and analysed. The research is described as interdisciplinary for three reasons. Firstly, the research draws from two distinct fields of study – diplomatic studies and international higher education studies. Secondly, it addresses and analyses the confusion and “terminology travel” in the use of multiple terms and labels across the two fields of study. Thirdly, it uses a conceptual research method which perhaps is more common in the field of international higher education although Lamont (2015) discusses the use of an interpretivist approach in the study of international relations and diplomacy. In short, it integrates knowledge and research approaches from two different areas of study which distinguishes it from a cross-disciplinary research approach which focuses on viewing one discipline or field of study from the perspective of another and differs from a transdisciplinary research approach which creates intellectual frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspectives (Stember, 1991).

1.5  Parameters and Meaning of Key Terms

5

1.5 Parameters and Meaning of Key Terms It is important that the scholarly and grey literature and interviews which were used as the primary sources of information for this research represent perspectives from scholars, diplomats, academic leaders, policy makers and public intellectuals from all regions of the world. In other words, Western and developed countries perspectives, practices and research did not dominate. However, the limited availability of scholarly articles and grey literature written in English from Latin America and the Middle East reduces the number of references and perspectives from these two regions. Given the breadth and complexities of topics and issues in the study in international relations, it is important to delineate the parameters and meaning of terms which shaped the analysis of the role of IHERI in strengthening relations between and among countries. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy  For the purposes of this research, diplomacy refers to overall management of international relations between and among nations (Griffiths et al., 2014). Foreign policy refers to a statement of principles or plan of action guiding the relations among countries (Alden & Aron, 2012). This research focuses on examining the concept and meaning of diplomacy and not on the substance of foreign policy per se. It is recognized that these are not watertight categories, but it is important to note that role of IHERI in the development of foreign policy is not the focus of this book. Diplomacy and Global Governance  Global governance is generally understood as the way global affairs are managed (Sundararama, 2008) (Badie, 2013). In contrast, diplomacy is not about governance or management of global affairs per se but how countries conduct their relations between and among countries. This can be seen as a subtle differentiation, but it is useful to indicate that global governance is not the focus of this book. Contemporary Diplomacy  The research acknowledges the long and rich traditions of classical diplomacy but clearly takes a contemporary, not historical, perspective on the current world of diplomacy. Contemporary diplomacy involves a diversity of state and non-state actors, the importance of foreign publics, the breadth of policy issues which are linked to but beyond national security issues and the use of modern forms of media and other diverse strategies to engage the public (Cooper et al., 2013). International Higher Education, Research and Innovation  Traditionally, international higher education has been understood more from a teaching or education point of view. However, the increasing importance of research and innovation must be acknowledged. Therefore, the broader term of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) is deliberately used and forms the foundation for knowledge diplomacy.

6

1 Introduction

Conceptual Not Theoretical  It is important to note that conceptual analysis and frameworks constitute the analytical approach used in the research for this book. It is not testing or developing theories but exploring a current phenomenon (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). Given that the book is oriented to how the role of international higher education in international relations is conceptualized, the analysis did not focus on the theoretical underpinnings of diplomacy, foreign policy, the role and training of diplomats or knowledge management. Instead, it focuses on how scholars understand and conceptualize the role IHERI in strengthening relations between and among countries through different types of diplomacy such as cultural, public, science, education and others. Multi-actor Approach  Diplomacy has traditionally been the purview of governments and professional diplomats representing the interests of their country. In contrast, contemporary diplomacy has recognized the role and contribution of non-state actors such as civil society, non-governmental agencies and industry (Cooper et al., 2013) This research acknowledges that the role of non-state actors in diplomacy is contested but includes both state and non-state actors who are directly and indirectly promoting and supporting international engagement through academic and research linkages with diverse sectors and disciplines . Emphasis on Higher Education  Education is a broad and multifaceted sector and discipline. The focus is clearly on tertiary level and within this domain concentrates on higher education’s major functions  – the teaching/learning process, research/knowledge production and service to society. Furthermore, national level higher education actors such as universities, government departments, research centres, professional organizations, innovation hubs and centres of excellence plus other actors such as private sector research centres and international foundations are used in the analysis of the contribution that IHERI can make to diplomatic relations (Chou et al., 2016). The role and politicization of individual academics/researchers/ experts/diplomats are not the focus of this study. Knowledge Diplomacy  The concept of knowledge diplomacy is the primary concept of this book. Important to note is that it is conceptualized as a two-way process. The first is the contribution that international higher education, research and innovation can make to strengthening relations between and among countries. The second is the role of international relations in enhancing international higher education, research and innovation. The primary focus of the research is on the first part of the process, and suggestions are made about further research on the second part. Soft Power  The concept of power is multi-layered and debated. This book focuses on diplomacy but introduces the idea of soft power (Nye, 2017) as a term that is different from diplomacy but often used in tandem with diplomacy, especially public and cultural diplomacy. Thus, this book does not delve deeply into the study of soft power as a stand-alone concept but always in relation to diplomacy and the role of higher education in building and strengthening relations between and among countries.

1.6  Outline of Book

7

Definitions, Descriptions and Frameworks  Important to note is the distinction between a definition and a description (Nordquist, 2010). A definition is a concise statement of the meaning of the key concepts. A description provides more detail and often includes characteristics such as actors, purposes, issues, instruments and how it is used in a variety of ways and circumstances. Another important distinction is the difference between a definition and a conceptual framework or model. As indicated, a definition provides meaning of the core idea while a conceptual framework provides an organizational logic to different aspects or elements of the concept (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). As pointed out by multiple IR scholars and practitioners, there are many contested definitions of diplomacy given the multi-faced nature of the concept, and the reality that diplomacy is often defined or described in terms of a specific context such as the relationship between two countries or a specific issue such as climate, health or refugee diplomacy. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the book will delve deeply into the multiple interpretations and definitions of the different types of diplomacy terms relevant to the role of IHERI in IR.

1.6 Outline of Book This section provides an outline of the book by including brief summaries of each chapter.

1.6.1 Chapter 1: Introduction The purpose of the first chapter is to introduce why it is important to study the role and contribution of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) to developing stronger international relationships and enhanced capacity to jointly address issues of national, regional and global importance. The first section acknowledges the global issues that cannot be solved by one country alone and requires a multilateral and multi-sector approach. It also briefly describes the fundamental changes happening in the realm of contemporary diplomacy, soft power as well as international higher education research and innovation. This leads to a discussion of why it is critical to examine the understudied phenomenon of the role of IHERI in IR and how the multiplicity of terms used to understand the phenomenon can cause confusion, terminology chaos and less than a robust analysis. The three questions which frame this book are discussed. The parameters of the research and key terms are explained, and an outline of the book including summaries of each chapter is provided.

8

1 Introduction

1.6.2 Chapter 2: Examining Contemporary Diplomacy – Changes and Challenges This chapter analyses the evolution from traditional to contemporary diplomacy by examining the very different ways that international relations’ scholars and diplomats describe the fundamental dimensions of diplomacy. It vividly illustrates that the understanding and meaning of contemporary diplomacy is a contested concept. A brief overview of dictionary definitions of diplomacy also illustrates the surprisingly different ways there are to conceptualize and express diplomacy. An examination of the major changes and challenges in contemporary diplomacy follows. The involvement of non-state actors, the changing role of diplomats, new social media technologies and the increase in issue-specific diplomacies are highlighted. To provide some clarity about the contested phenomenon of contemporary diplomacy, a classification framework for the different types and elements of diplomacy is proposed. The differences between diplomacy and governance, and between diplomacy and foreign policy, are elaborated to clarify any confusion between these related terms. This chapter examines contemporary diplomacy in detail in order to provide background to the following chapter which discusses the concept of soft power. Both terms are used extensively in analysing the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations, and thus it important to look at both similarities and differences between the two approaches to international relations.

1.6.3 Chapter 3: Focus on Soft Power This chapter explores the concept of soft power and differentiates it from hard, smart and sharp power as well as diplomacy. The theories and writings of Joseph S. Nye and his critics inform the analysis of power in international relations. Hard power and the use of military force, sanctions, payments and agenda setting are discussed first. This is followed by an examination of the evolving definition of soft power and the importance of intangible resources such as institutions, ideas, values and culture when using the strategies of attraction and persuasion to achieve compliance or cooption. A review of the critiques of soft power follows and focuses on the elasticity and scope of the concept, the complex relationship between the sender and the target audience in the use of attraction and persuasion and the liberal-­ democratic bias of the concept. Smart power, which Nye believes is the calibrated use of both hard and soft power, is the topic of next section, followed by an analysis of the term sharp power. Nye maintains that sharp power is not a separate category but is in reality a form of hard power. The last section examines the differences in the interests, values, modes and outcomes between the use soft power in international relations and diplomacy.

1.6  Outline of Book

9

1.6.4 Chapter 4: The Changing Landscape of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation Just as it is important to analyse the different types and dimensions of diplomacy and power in international relations, it is equally important to examine the changing world of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI). The role of IHERI in international relations is traditionally understood to involve scholarships, student/scholar mobility, bilateral agreements and projects, international student recruitment and joint research projects. While these activities are still important, there are new developments which must be taken into consideration and examined in terms of their potential to expand and strengthen relations between and among countries. These include the development of education cities, knowledge hubs, regional centres of excellence, international joint universities, multilateral thematic and disciplinary research networks, international privatepublic partnerships, regional-based universities, international satellite campuses and others. These developments offer new opportunities to expand the flow and exchange of ideas, knowledge, people, technologies, policies, culture, science, innovation, etc. across borders. They need to be analysed and understood in terms of potential benefits and risks to strengthening relations between and among countries.

1.6.5 Chapter 5: How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and Education Forms of Diplomacy and Soft Power This chapter systematically reviews how a diplomacy scholars, experts and diplomats understand and label the expanding role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in strengthening relations between and among countries. While there are more than ten different labels used to describe the role IHERI in IR, the most common ones – cultural, education and public diplomacy as well as soft power – are examined using research and references originating in or related to all regions of the world in order to avoid a western bias. An analysis of the similarities and differences in how these terms are conceptualized and used shows overlap and confusion as well as interesting insights and dilemmas. Questions about the role of state and non-state actors, intended outcomes and the contradiction of framing IHERI as a form of diplomacy to exert soft power are explored.

10

1 Introduction

1.6.6 Chapter 6: Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy The concept of science diplomacy is gaining increased importance and use by scholars, diplomats and policy makers and thus deserves a chapter unto itself. The analysis of science diplomacy focuses on how it has evolved during the past two decades through an in-depth examination of how different scholars, associations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and contemporary research projects like those funded by the European Union are focusing on the goals, actors, strategies and challenges of science diplomacy. Issues such as the role of science diplomacy in addressing global challenges, what is the difference between science diplomacy and science cooperation, the politicization of researchers, the growing emphasis on science and technology and the emerging interest in innovation diplomacy are highlighted. Lastly, the question of the diversity of definitions of science diplomacy is raised by several scholars which leads to the importance of distinguishing between a definition, a description and a conceptual framework for the phenomenon of science diplomacy and how it relates to the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR).

1.6.7 Chapter 7: Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International Relations Given that this book takes an interdisciplinary approach to the study of IHERI in IR, the purpose of this chapter is to carefully review how higher education scholars and experts from around the world, discuss and frame the intersection between higher education and international relations over the past 20 years. This provides important insights into the diverse rationales driving IHERI’s role in IR as well as key actors, activities, modes and instruments. To facilitate a comparison between the two fields of study – diplomacy and higher education – this chapter is organized according to the same frames and concepts used to analyse IR perspectives. This entails a study of soft power and cultural, education, science and public forms of diplomacy. The debate as to whether different IHERI initiatives are more about collaboration and mutual interests or self-interests and competition is addressed by several international higher education experts. A number of traditional IHERI activities such as scholarships and educational exchanges are discussed in terms of benefits, risks and untended consequences. More contemporary strategies such as Confucius Institutes and education hubs are examples of what higher education scholars simultaneously discuss as examples of both cultural diplomacy and soft power.

1.6  Outline of Book

11

1.6.8 Chapter 8: Knowledge Diplomacy – A Definition and Conceptual Framework The purpose of Chap. 8 is to introduce, define and analyse the concept of knowledge diplomacy as a way to frame the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR). The chapter starts with a brief synopsis of the main insights, similarities and differences gained from the review of the scholarly literature from diplomacy and higher education fields of study. The different interpretations and use of soft power by the two fields of study are highlighted. Building on this overview of trends and terms, the distinction between a definition and a description is discussed, and both are provided to elucidate the meaning of knowledge diplomacy. A conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy is proposed and based on five foundational elements – intentions, actors, principles, modes of operation and activities. Each of the constituent dimensions of the conceptual framework is explored in detail and examples are provided. This leads to a discussion on understanding how knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process and why knowledge diplomacy is neither a neutral nor a normative concept. The chapter ends with a reiteration of why it is important to distinguish the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach from the role of IHERI in a soft power approach.

1.6.9 Chapter 9: Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Forms of Diplomacy The purpose of Chap. 9 is to examine the similarities and differences between the concept of knowledge diplomacy and related terms. Both diplomacy and higher education scholars commonly refer to the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in contemporary international relations (IR) as a form of diplomacy and a form of soft power. In addition, scholars and experts muddy the waters by suggesting that using IHERI as a form of diplomacy can also be used for soft power purposes and advantage. In this chapter the conflation of these terms is contested and examined by comparing the differences and similarities between the conceptual frameworks and use of IHERI in a soft power approach versus the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach. The question as to whether the two approaches are ends of the same continuum or completely separate processes are considered by examining the potential use of soft power indicators. Furthermore, in order to have a clear understanding of knowledge diplomacy, the differences and similarities between knowledge diplomacy and other types of diplomacy used to describe the role of IHERI in IR such as cultural, education, science diplomacy and public forms of diplomacy are also examined.

12

1 Introduction

1.6.10 Chapter 10: Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach This chapter provides concrete examples of how the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework can be applied to existing IHERI initiatives. Examples of IHERI initiatives from all regions of the world and representing different sectors, levels of cooperation and varied global issues have been selected. They include the global Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the Pan African Regional University, the German-Jordanian Joint International University and RENKEI – the Japan and the UK bilateral university network. This chapter provides a brief description of each initiative and then analyses them according to the five key elements of the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework: intentions/rationales, key actors, guiding values and principles, modes of operation and primary activities. This discussion highlights two key aspects of knowledge diplomacy: firstly, the involvement of diverse state and non-state partners/actors coming from multiple sectors and, secondly, the importance of reciprocity and mutuality of benefits, acknowledging that benefits will vary in order to address different national interests as well as common global challenges.

1.6.11 Chapter 11: Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the major findings and insights related to the three questions which shaped this book, to highlight the significance of these findings and their contribution to the two fields of study and to identify issues and questions that require further research and reflection. The importance of differentiating between the motivations, values and strategies of using a knowledge diplomacy approach versus a soft power approach is emphasized recognizing that they both exist but must be understood as having different intentions and outcomes. The chapter acknowledges that knowledge diplomacy would benefit from further investigation and identifies several key issues meriting further analysis. These include knowledge diplomacy as a two-way process; knowledge diplomacy in the knowledge society vs knowledge economy; the risk of knowledge diplomacy being used as a catch-all term; motivations driving the use of international higher education, research and innovation as soft power; national policies to support knowledge diplomacy; knowledge diplomacy in international development cooperation; rationales driving knowledge diplomacy; knowledge diplomacy; and regionalization. The chapter concludes with some brief comments about the future challenges of operationalizing knowledge diplomacy.

References

13

References Alden, C., & Aron, A. (2012). Foreign policy analysis: New approaches. Routledge. Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Sense Publishers. Badie, B. (2013). Transnationalizing diplomacy and global governance in Kerr and Wiseman. Oxford University Press. Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2013). Understanding international diplomacy: Theory, practice, and ethics. Routledge. Chou, M.-H., Kamola, I.  A., & Pietsch, T. (Eds.). (2016). The transnational politics of higher education: Contesting the global/transforming the local. Routledge. Cooper, A., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. (2014). International relations: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, 9(3), 8–14. Kleistra, Y. (2018). Globalization and diplomacy. In G. Martel (Ed.), The encyclopedia of diplomacy (pp. 1–13). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118885154.dipl0107 Knight, J. (2016). Meaning, rationales and tensions in internationalization of higher education. In S. McGrath & Q. Gu (Eds.), Routledge handbook on international education and development (pp. 325–339). Taylor Francis. Knight, J. (2018). Knowledge diplomacy. A bridge linking international higher education and international relations. . Lamont, R. (2015). Research methods in international relations. Sage. Leijten, J. (2017). Exploring the future of innovation diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(20). Nordquist, R. (Ed.). (2010). Crossing boundaries. Peter Lang D. https://doi. org/10.3726/978-­3-­653-­00289-­8 Nye, J.  S. (2017). Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 17008. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.8 Ravitch, S.  M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-­3319(91)90040-­B Sundararama, S. (2008). Research institutes as diplomatic actors. In A. Cooper, B. Hocking, & W. Maley (Eds.), Global governance and diplomacy—Worlds apart? Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter 2

Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

2.1 Introduction The practice of diplomacy has undergone major changes since the end of the Second World War. Actors have changed, principles are questioned, the major modes and instruments have expanded, and new issue-based diplomacies have emerged. This chapter focuses on the changing world of diplomacy in order to provide a foundation to examine the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR). The outline of the chapter is as follows. The next section analyses the evolution from traditional to contemporary diplomacy by examining the very different ways that international relations scholars and diplomats describe the fundamental elements of diplomacy. It vividly illustrates that the contemporary understanding and meaning of diplomacy is a contested concept. This is followed by a brief overview of dictionary definitions of diplomacy to illustrate the surprisingly different way to conceptualize and express diplomacy. An examination of the major changes, trends and challenges in contemporary diplomacy follows. The inclusion of non-state actors, the role of diplomats, new technologies and the increase in issue-specific diplomacies are highlighted. To provide some clarity to the contested concept of contemporary diplomacy, a classification framework for the different types and elements of diplomacy is proposed. The differences between diplomacy and governance and between diplomacy and foreign policy are discussed to clarify any confusion between diplomacy and these two related terms.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_2

15

16

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

2.2 Diplomacy and International Higher Education, Research and Innovation Diplomacy is generally described as a lens to understanding the relationship between countries engaged in the international system. For the purposes of this book, diplomacy is being studied in the context of what role does international higher education have in strengthening relations between and among countries and which analytical frameworks such as cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, public diplomacy, knowledge diplomacy and soft power are most appropriate to gaining a deeper understanding of this role. Diplomacy is a term that is used rather loosely both in the study and practice of it. One reason for the multiple interpretations is that diplomacy is often described in relation to a specific set of circumstances, issues or actors. As discussed in Chap. 1, when a definition focuses on a particular situation or relationship, it is framed by the context and can be characterized more as a description rather than a context-free definition. In short, a definition is a concise statement of the meaning of a concept while description provides more detail and often includes essential characteristics of the concept. This difference is acknowledged throughout this book, particularly with respect to knowledge diplomacy. A brief overview of how different scholars and practitioners understand and conceptualize diplomacy will illustrate the ongoing debate about its purpose, actors and function. Kerr and Wiseman (2013) identify two fundamental aspects regarding the ongoing discourse about contemporary diplomacy. The first relates to the epistemological underpinnings as they believe that what is meant by diplomacy has changed and is currently breaking down. The second is identifying the key differences between contemporary diplomacy and diplomacy in the past, characterized as traditional diplomacy. This book focuses on contemporary diplomacy, but to understand this phenomenon in today’s world, it is important to look at the evolution of the concept. This is done from two perspectives. The first is a chronological approach to scholars’ and former diplomats’ conceptualization of diplomacy revealing the evolution of academic thought and research. The second is illustrate how dictionaries, both political science and general dictionaries, capture the current and more macro meaning of diplomacy. While using dictionary definitions may appear to be too literal of an approach, it is revealing and informative to see the very different interpretations there are about diplomacy even in dictionaries.

2.3 The Evolution of Scholarly Diplomacy Definitions In the 1930s, Nicholson, a British diplomat, and a founder of the modern academic discipline of diplomatic studies, defined diplomacy as “the management of international relations by negotiation” (Nicholson, 1963, p. 4). Negotiation is the key concept, but it is worth noting that Nicholson describes diplomacy “not as an end but as

2.3  The Evolution of Scholarly Diplomacy Definitions

17

a means, and not as a purpose but a method” (Kerr & Wiseman, 2013, p. 164). This is an important observation which has relevance to a knowledge diplomacy approach discussed in Chap. 8. Negotiation was seen to be the core of traditional diplomacy while today negotiation is but one aspect, albeit a critical one. Fifty years later, in the 1980s, Watson wrote about diplomacy more generally as the “dialogues between states”. This definition emphasizes two points. The first is dialogue which stands alone and is not characterized by more specific terms such as negotiation or communication. The second is between states which does not indicate who the primary actors are although his writings infer that diplomacy involves representatives of the government (Watson, 1991). In short, this concise and neutral understanding does not identify the goals, actors, functions or impacts of diplomacy nor is it constrained by being context based. Four decades later, Lee and Hocking (2011) state that diplomacy in its broadest sense refers to the conduct of human affairs by peaceful means, employing techniques of persuasion and negotiation (Lee & Hocking, 2011). When viewed as an institution of the international system, Lee and Hocking believe that a distinction can be made between diplomacy as a set of processes and as a set of structures through which these processes are conducted. Worth noting is that this description uses the broader term of “conduct of human affairs” and qualifies it with identifying specific strategies and the notion of peaceful means. According to Lee and Hocking (2011), there are three major trends in contemporary diplomacy. They are fragmentation as the conduct of diplomacy at the governmental level now involves government departments traditionally associated with purely “domestic” issues; concentration as the fusion of domestic and international politics has been accompanied by the expanding involvement of heads of government in international policy; and diffusion as professional diplomats have found themselves required to engage with a wider range of non-governmental stakeholders in complex policy networks. The first of these trends, fragmentation, came to be associated from the 1970s onwards with the development of an expanded foreign policy community through the increased number of governmental agencies involved. This has supplemented, and one could say challenged, the role that has typically been claimed at the responsibility of foreign ministries. With an increase in governmental actors, the need for policy coordination became more acute. An uncoordinated stance in international negotiations reflecting various bureaucratic interests has potential costs in terms of attainment of policy goals. This partly explains the trend towards concentration which involves giving more responsibility to the prime-­ ministerial and presidential offices and to merging of departments in the quest for greater efficiency and impact of foreign policy objectives and activities. Diffusion refers to the involvement of non-state actors such as civil society or the private sectors, but worth noting is that key actor remains government representatives. Bjola and Kornprobst (2013) take a more functional approach to describing diplomacy by stating that “diplomacy is the institutionalized communication among internationally recognized representatives of internationally recognized entities through which these representatives produce, manage and distribute public goods” (Bjola & Kornprobst, 2013, p. 4). They explain that communication is the core of

18

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

diplomacy and thus is similar to the definition of Watson (1991) who maintained that diplomacy is essentially about dialogue. It is curious that Bjola and Kornprobst’s description rests on the assumption that the purpose of diplomacy is to “produce, manage and distribute public goods”. By public good the authors mean security, economic welfare, development, environmental protection, health and safety, among others. This description of diplomacy differs from others by being explicit about the actors and purpose of diplomacy and, secondly, that the purpose is described in terms of public good. Griffiths et  al. (2014) suggest that in the broadest sense diplomacy can be described as the process through which states conduct their foreign relations but in a narrow sense, diplomacy is the implementation of foreign policy (Griffiths et al., 2014). They make the firm distinction between implementing policy and formation of policy with the latter not being part of diplomacy (Cooper et al., 2013, p. 84). Interestingly they identify the three main functions of diplomacy as intelligence gathering, image management and policy/program management. This differs from the earlier belief that negotiation was the primary function of diplomacy and, secondly, this understanding of diplomacy only reflects the roles and responsibilities of state actors thus ignoring other key non-state actors involved in formal and informal diplomacy. The more recent definition of Cooper et al. (2013) builds on elements of previous ones by describing diplomacy as “the conduct of relationships, using peaceful means, by and among international actors, at least one of who is usually governmental” (Cooper et al., 2013). This description acknowledges that more than state actors are involved which is a critical point of differentiation between traditional diplomacy and contemporary diplomacy. Another interesting aspect is the notion of peaceful means. This is an especially important addition to the description as it eliminates the concepts of hard power such as military force or economic sanctions. The introduction and evolution of the concept of public diplomacy highlight the engagement of a broader range of actors using diverse methods to reach foreign publics (Melissen, 2013). Public diplomacy has challenged the traditionalists’ view that only diplomats can represent and communicate state interests to foreign governments thereby ignoring the importance of other actors a well as the citizens of foreign countries (Berridge & Lloyd, 2012). More recently public diplomacy has been described as a “country’s efforts to create and maintain relationships with publics in other societies to advance policies and actions “(Melissen & Wang, 2019, p. 2). They also raise the important question as to whether contemporary public diplomacy goes beyond engagement with foreign citizenry and includes domestic and diaspora publics. An important development during the last two decades has been the emergence of “issue” or “hyphenated” types of diplomacy. This has involved adding adjectives or modifiers in front of the basic concept of diplomacy. Examples include health diplomacy (Bliss, 2013), science diplomacy (Ruffini, 2020), refugee diplomacy (Maley, 2013), technology diplomacy (Leijten, 2017) and climate diplomacy (Light, 2017). A key aspect of these moderated types of diplomacy is whether the adjectives refer to actors, target groups, processes or issues. For instance, public diplomacy

2.4  Dictionary Definitions of Diplomacy

19

focuses primarily on reaching and influencing attitudes and values of foreign and domestic publics while celebrity diplomacy refers to the new array of actors, often referred to as influencers, who are agents of diplomacy. Climate or refugee diplomacy, for example, refers to global issues or challenges, whereas the examples of cultural, scientific or economic diplomacy address major sectors or topics that are on the diplomatic agenda. Cultural diplomacy, on the other hand, refers to using culture as a means to an end not an issue unto itself. It is important to acknowledge that these moderated types of diplomacy add to and colour the core definitions of diplomacy. They illustrate how remarkably different the newer themes are from more conventional, albeit still important issues related to national security, military and economic diplomacy.

2.4 Dictionary Definitions of Diplomacy Another lens to understanding the meaning of diplomacy is to examine the dictionary definitions. The review of dictionary definitions follows the previous analysis scholars’ definitions, and together they vividly illustrate that diplomacy is understood and described in multiple ways. This acknowledges the changes in geopolitics and how contemporary issues impact international relations. All of which leads to some level of confusion and terminology chaos about the meaning of diplomacy. It is appropriate to start with the definition from the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy (Berridge & Lloyd, 2012). It describes diplomacy as “The conduct of relations between sovereign states through the medium of officials based at home or abroad, the latter being members of their state’s diplomatic service or temporary diplomats……… Diplomacy is therefore, the principal means by which states communicate with each other, enabling them to have complex relations. It is the communication system of the international society……...” (p. 98). The entry continues to describe the history of diplomacy. This definition can be classified more as a description given the level of detail about the major actors and functions of diplomacy as well as the inclusion of a historical perspective. The dominant idea is that the key actors are government officials, primarily diplomats who communicate with each other. This definition ignores today’s reality of a diversity of non-­ state actors directly involved in diplomacy and, secondly, the importance of engagement with the publics of foreign countries. Thus, by focusing solely on government representatives, this definition represents a more traditional approach to understanding diplomacy which is surprising given that it is from a 2012 dictionary dedicated to diplomacy. Furthermore, it differs substantially from the brief definitions of diplomacy from non-specialized, more generic dictionaries which follow. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary succinctly defines diplomacy as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations”.1 In essence, this constitutes a

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy accessed

1

20

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

“functional” approach to defining diplomacy given the emphasis on the process of negotiation. Articulating the “art and practice” of diplomacy is an interesting and rather unique perspective and relates to the debate about defining diplomacy in terms of theory or practice. It also raises questions about the skills and preparation of those acting in a diplomatic role. The Oxford Dictionary defines diplomacy as “the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country’s representatives abroad”.2 It does not frame diplomacy in terms of functions  – such as communication or ­negotiation – but presents diplomacy as a profession, activity or skill which relates to the practice of diplomacy and raises the issue of diplomats’ competencies. Again, this definition of diplomacy is limited to country’s representative abroad thus ignoring the role of non-state actors. This definition is similar to that of Collins Dictionary which states that “diplomacy is the activity or profession of managing relations between the governments of different countries”.3 The Encyclopedia Britannica introduces different elements of diplomacy by describing it as “the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence”. This description also highlights the functions of dialogue and negotiation but goes a step further by stating the purpose of diplomacy as “influencing the decisions and behaviours or foreign governments and peoples”. It also highlights that diplomacy does not include war or violence which clearly differs diplomacy from the use of military force and coercion – two aspects usually attributed to power.4 The Britannica definition differs from the Cambridge Dictionary which succinctly defines it “as the management of relations between countries”.5 These two different approaches illustrate the difference between a description and a definition with the first being oriented to identifying the primary characteristics of diplomacy and the second being a concise definition devoid of purpose, functions, actors and impacts. This brief review of dictionary definitions and descriptions reveals that the role of government actors not only dominates the understanding of diplomacy but also ignores the role of non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations, private sector companies and civil society in general. Interestingly, the definitions focus on the major functions of diplomacy and highlight the profession of diplomacy.

 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095719998.  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/diplomacy 4  https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy 5  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diplomacy 2 3

2.5  Challenges and Changes in Understanding Contemporary Diplomacy

21

2.5 Challenges and Changes in Understanding Contemporary Diplomacy The review of both scholarly and dictionary definitions of the phenomenon clearly illustrates that the term “diplomacy” is used and defined in a multitude of ways which supports Lee and Hocking (2011) argument that the meaning is breaking down or perhaps broadening to the extent that it is causing confusion. This begs the question as to whether the concept now has too much elasticity and has lost its core meaning. Is it becoming a catch-all phrase or has it appropriately changed to reflect the realities and challenges of a more interconnected, interdependent and more turbulent world? For instance, a succinct definition by Pouliot and Cornut (2015) suggests that in a macro sense diplomacy can be described as the lens to understanding international relations. This is true, but it is important to note that it is only one lens. Another lens is the power relationships between and among countries which is discussed in Chap. 3.

2.5.1 Diversification of Actors in Diplomacy It is clear that definitions vary according to whether diplomacy is being articulated in terms of functions, forms, purpose or actors and whether the theory or practice of diplomacy is being examined. One of the major changes in understanding contemporary diplomacy, which is not reflected in the dictionary definitions but is identified in the scholarly definitions, is the growing number of new actors taking central roles in the practice of diplomacy. The shift from a state-based approach, typically centred on the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and professional diplomats to a multi-actor approach, is a hallmark of the new world of diplomacy (Hocking et al., 2012). Globalization has increased the cross-border flows of goods, services, capitals, labour, knowledge, ideas and culture. Technological advances have brought an accelerated pace to global communications. This has resulted in a wider range of actors, beside government representatives, involved in diplomacy through a diversity of processes. For example, religious organizations, non-governmental organization, multi-national corporations and individuals such as activists, philanthropists and even celebrities are now acknowledged as key actors (Pigman, 2010). An important focus of this book is the expanded role of non-governmental actors in diplomacy, specifically actors from higher education, research and innovation sectors which include national and regional associations, universities and colleges, research centres, disciplinary groups, expert networks, foundations as well as different governmental agencies.

22

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

2.5.2 Changing Role of Diplomats Given the diversity of new diplomatic actors, Hocking et al., 2012 make an interesting observation about the changing role of the professional diplomat in light of the multi-actor approach to diplomacy. Cumulatively, these developments have had a significant impact on the role of the professional diplomat. They suggest that the diplomat increasingly plays the role of a “coordinator-manager” and “facilitator” in complex processes spanning the boundaries between the international and national domains. They also suggest that the traditional emphasis on confidentiality and secrecy is challenged by the need to work with a range of “nondiplomatic” actors and stakeholders who do not always respect the norms related to the conduct of diplomacy and establishing mutual understanding and cooperation.

2.5.3 New Technologies New actors and technologies have introduced additional tools such as media, social media and special events to engage foreign publics (Riley, 2014). Cultural diplomacy, using different expressions and forms of culture, such as education, sport, language, arts and architecture, has evolved in the last decade and is garnering more attention and leverage by focusing on citizen participation (Ditchley Foundation XE "Foundations", 2012) and more recently social media. Science diplomacy is not a new concept, but its importance is increasing as the meaning changes. In general terms science diplomacy refers to using science as a tool to achieve foreign policy objectives (science for diplomacy) and fostering strong international relations to enhance science (diplomacy for science) (Royal Society, 2010). As a result, science, cultural and public diplomacy have more prominent positions in the discourse on diplomacy and will be discussed in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7.

2.6 Different Types and Elements of Diplomacy Traditionally the primary purpose of diplomacy was to meet national objectives as expressed in foreign policy. It was to promote, pursue and defend national interests. While this still remains true, there is increased awareness that national interests are inextricably linked to those of other nations as well. In the last decade, there has been a dramatic change where national issues are global challenges and global issues are national, regional and local challenges. As previously discussed in Chap. 1, issues such as climate change, pandemics, food security and terrorism know no borders. To address these types of challenges, diplomacy has to face the reality that increased collaboration and cooperation will also serve national interests and is the way of the future. Thus, an evolving dimension of contemporary diplomacy, which

2.6  Different Types and Elements of Diplomacy

23

was not as active in traditional diplomacy, has been the growing interdependence among states which in turn has increased the role of on bilateral, multilateral and poly-lateral levels diplomacy. That being said, the rising interest in nationalism must be noted and monitored when global issues are at stake (Knight, 2021) . A general and widely accepted view of the purpose of contemporary diplomacy is to strengthen the state it serves by promoting and achieving its interests through the use of strategies such as mediation, negotiation and collaboration with the aim to resolve conflicts, maintain a positive stable relationship and promote self-­interests without the risk and expense of using force and preferably without causing resentment. Many scholars and experts (Cooper et  al., 2013; Leijten, 2017; Bjola & Kornprobst, 2013) acknowledge that there are multiple terms related to diplomacy which are often contested. But surprisingly, there is little discourse analysing why there are so many terms or a lack of conceptual research to identify the salient features that differentiate one term from another (Kaltofen & Acuto, 2018). It is true that different disciplines and sectors often use their own particular taxonomies to discuss concepts, but the diversity of labels used to describe diplomacy by international relations scholars illustrates the different types and interpretations of diplomacy but at the same time can be overwhelming and confusing. Table 2.1 identifies different elements and types of diplomacy. It is meant to be illustrative not comprehensive, in order to show the evolution and complexities of diplomacy and highlight the multi-layered and diverse dimensions of the concept. Understanding the complexity of the concept of diplomacy particularly in terms of non-state actors is of particular importance to the study of the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. Finally, scholars and politicians are discussing different macro approaches to diplomacy which are emanating from the changes in world order and the realities of a more globalized and interdependent world. “Transformational diplomacy” a term introduced by Vaisse (2007) moves the thrust of diplomacy from working with traditional rival and powerful countries to nations which are threatened and embroiled in internal conflict. This approach aims to help failing states build and sustain democratic, well-governed systems which will ultimately become responsible players in the international arena (Vaisse, 2007). This is an example of how a change in foreign policy induces a change in diplomatic practice. A second example of a paradigm shift in diplomacy is the concept of “integrative diplomacy”(Hocking et al., 2012). The driver behind an integrative model of diplomacy is the need to address the fragmented and disjointed approaches brought on by the diversity of new actors, evolving agendas, new functions and processes and the growing emphasis on soft power and public diplomacy (Hocking et al., 2012). In conclusion, the changes and challenges which have emerged during the transition from traditional diplomacy to contemporary diplomacy highlight the ability to change in an evolutionary, not revolutionary way. This reinforces Nicholson’s conceptualization of diplomacy as “not being an end unto itself” but “as a process of change” reacting to and also being a catalyst for the ever-changing nature of the environment in which it is operating (Nicholson, 1963).

24

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

Table 2.1  Classification framework of types and elements of diplomacy Classification Examples Period-based diplomacy Ancient Medieval Renaissance Precolonial Old Diplomacy Interbellum Post-Cold war Modern New Contemporary Level-based diplomacy Bilateral Poly-lateral Multilateral para-diplomacy Issue-based diplomacy Environment Human Rights Health migration Refugee security Economic gun control Climate peace building Trade food security Water vaccine Actor-based diplomacy State-governments – different ministries/depts/agencies State-governments – different levels Intergovernmental agencies – all levels Non-governmental organizations Foundations Civil society/uncivil society Private sector entities Religious groups Advocacy organizations Universities, research centres, cultural groups Individuals Principles/values-based Collaboration cooperation diplomacy Mutual benefits reciprocity Common ground compromise Self-interests trust Functions-based Negotiation representation diplomacy Communication Mediation Conciliation Conflict resolution dialogue Trust building Means/mode-based Public science diplomacy Education innovation Sport technology Cultural, etc.

Explanation Time period is important to track evolution of diplomacy

Level of relationship and/or actors Specific topic of concern and negotiation

Agents of diplomacy

Orientation to specific actors, sectors or audiences

(continued)

2.7  Differentiating Diplomacy from Global Governance and Foreign Policy

25

Table 2.1 (continued) Classification Instrument-based diplomacy

Approaches to or types of diplomacy

Examples Conference commission Summits track two Networks Joint projects Task force Social media Public-private partnerships Transformational integrative Mega-diplomacy catalytic Preventative club Inclusive complex

Explanation Use of techniques to achieve outcomes

Use of a macro frame to examine diplomacy

Knight (2021)

2.7 Differentiating Diplomacy from Global Governance and Foreign Policy The previous discussion focused on the meaning of diplomacy through the eyes of leading scholars as well as through dictionary definitions. It is equally important to differentiate diplomacy from other concepts such as global governance and foreign policy as confusion exists as to how they differ from diplomacy and/or relate to one another. This analysis is important to understanding the concept of diplomacy in general, and knowledge diplomacy in particular, because the involvement of non-­ state actors such as think tanks, universities, regional centres of excellence, research networks and foundations among others is most often seen through the lens of the role of non-governmental organizations in global governance and their contribution to foreign policy making. But global governance is different from diplomacy.

2.7.1 Diplomacy and Global Governance Bjola and Kornprobst (2013) point out that in global governance there is no central authority such as the government or a monarch that can enforce the law like in national level governance. Instead, there are multiple actors who eventually have to converge on some common course of action. They provide a straightforward, but perhaps over simplified, differentiation of the two terms by saying the “diplomacy is about negotiating and building relationships to reach agreement” while “global governance is more about the operationalization and monitoring of laws and agreements”. Badie (2013) makes an interesting distinction between traditional “interstate diplomacy” associated with sovereign states and state actors and what he calls “inter-social diplomacy”. The latter includes both state and non-state actors. He goes further to suggest that when non-state actors are only involved, they adopt

26

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

strategies that often oppose state-level diplomatic instruments and can thus be labelled parallel or marginal actors. In his view, state actors have an advantage because they can sign legal instruments. Badie (2013) believes that successful global governance depends on the close interaction between both interstate diplomacy and inter-social diplomacy but that the processes are different. According to Cooper et al. (2013), global governance, unlike diplomacy, has not been conditioned by a culture of hierarchy and command and control. In their view, global governance emphasizes “what is right” not “what is possible”. They distinguish between diplomacy and global governance by emphasizing that diplomacy has a hierarchical approach of professionals, both state and non-state actors, with specific skills who engage in diplomacy while global governance is more inclusive in terms of actors. They go further and suggest that in diplomacy the actors are recognized where global governance does not have formally recognized actors  – a statement which can be debated.

2.7.2 Diplomacy and Foreign Policy A succinct and generally accepted explanation of the difference between diplomacy and foreign policy is that foreign policy at the state level is developed by government while diplomacy carries out the foreign policy. In short, government has the responsibility of developing priorities and frameworks of the policy for international engagement, and diplomacy can be understood as the implementation of that policy through specific actors and processes. Traditionally, diplomacy has been done by public servants, particularly diplomats. However, as previously noted, during the last two decades, a diversity of non-governmental actors such as multi-national firms, civil society organizations and experts have been increasingly involved and influential. The processes of diplomacy have not changed as they continue to be communication, negotiation and representation, but there are new areas of emphasis, new actors and new instruments being used in these processes. It is understood that politicians, government leaders and civil servants have the primary responsibility of developing policies related to international relations. It has traditionally been seen as the purview of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and their representatives in the form of ambassadors, consuls and diplomats. But in contemporary diplomacy, there is a cross-sectorial approach within government involving policy makers from other departments depending on the issue such as climate, health, security, etc. Essentially diplomacy does not have direct responsibility for the development of foreign policy, but it does have a role in the implementation or operationalization of foreign policy. Pigman (2010) sees the difference between diplomacy and foreign policy through another lens of analysis. He believes that diplomatic studies focus on the study of actors, practices and processes of the interaction among states, while the study of foreign policy examines and evaluates the process of policy making. This approach is consistent with the views of Bjola and Kornprobst (2013) who describe foreign

References

27

policy as the making of policy at home while diplomacy is how political entities pursue their policies on the international stage. The use of the word diplomacy as a synonym for foreign policy can obscure the important distinction between the development of policy and the operationalization of foreign policy, and thus it is important to be explicit about the differences between the two concepts. In summary, the changes in diplomacy relate more to actors, practices and processes not the policies as policy making is fundamentally not part of diplomacy. As discussed, diplomacy is about operationalizing the policies not developing them. The next chapter concentrates on understanding the different dimensions and understandings of power, with a clear focus on soft power. The purpose of unpacking soft power and how it differs from hard power, smart power and sharp power is to provide a deeper understanding of the differences and similarities between a diplomatic approach and a soft power approach in international relations. This analysis provides an important context to understanding the role of international higher education, research and innovation in a knowledge approach versus a soft power approach as discussed in Chap. 9.

References Badie, B. (2013). Transnationalizing diplomacy and global governance. In I. P. Kerr & G. Wiseman (Eds.), Diplomacy in a globalizing world theories and practices (pp. 85–102). Oxford University Press. Berridge, G. R., & Lloyd, L. (2012). The Palgrave Macmillan dictionary of diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2013). Understanding international diplomacy: Theory, practice, and ethics. Routledge. Bliss, K. (Ed.). (2013). The changing landscape of Global Health diplomacy. A Report of the CSIS Global Health Policy Center. Cooper, A., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Ditchley Foundation. (2012). Ditchley Foundation ( 2012). Cultural Diplomacy: Does it work? http://www.ditchley.co.uk/conferences/past-­programme/2010-­2019/2012/cultural-­diplomacy Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. (2014). International relations: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riodan, S., & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, 9(3), 8–14. Kerr, P., & Wiseman, G. (Eds.). (2013). Diplomacy in a globalizing world: Theories and practices. Oxford University Press. Knight, J. (2021). Towards a knowledge diplomacy framework: The role of international HIgher education, research and innovation in international relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Antwerp. Lee, D., & Hocking, B. (2011). Diplomacy. In B. Badie, D. B. Schossler, & L. Morlino (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of political science. Leijten, J. (2017). Exploring the future of innovation diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(20).

28

2  Examining Contemporary Diplomacy: Changes and Challenges

Light, A. (2017). Climate Diplomacy. In R. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental ethics. Oxford University Press. Maley, W. (2013). Refugee diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Melissen, J. (2013). Public diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy (pp. 436–452). Oxford University Press. Melissen, J., & Wang, J. (Eds.). (2019). Debating public diplomacy: Now and next. Brill Publishers. Nicholson, H. (1963). Diplomacy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Pigman, G. (2010). Contemporary diplomacy. Representation and communication in a globalized world. Polity Press. Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715574913 Riley, P. (2014). Media diplomacy: Public diplomacy in a new global media environment. In T. A. Hollihan (Ed.), The dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands (pp. 231–244). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443366_9 Royal Society. (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy. Navigating the changing balance of power. The Royal Society. Ruffini, P. B. (2020). Collaboration and competition: The twofold logic of science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10028 Vaisse, J. (2007). Transformational diplomacy. Institute for Security Studies, European Union. Watson, A. (1991). Diplomacy: The dialogue between states. Routledge.

Chapter 3

Focus on Soft Power

3.1 Introduction Power and diplomacy are two key concepts underpinning the discourse and study of international relations (Finnemore & Goldstein, 2013). Both concepts are hotly debated into terms of actors, functions and outcomes. Diplomacy generally refers to the management of relations between and among countries acknowledging that national self-interests are at play but not necessarily at the expense of others. There are multiple labels attached to different types of power such as structural power, institutionalized power, relational power, coercive power, production power, legitimate power, referent power, expert power, sharp power and normative power among a host of others. In simplified terms, one can discuss the meaning of power in two ways: the “power to” and the “power over” (Allen, 1998, pp. 33–37). Power, whether it is implicit or explicit power, soft or hard power, is generally understood to be the ability to influence the behaviour of others to gain self-interests or the ability to affect others to get what you want. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept of soft power and to differentiate it from related terms such as hard power, smart power, sharp power and diplomacy. The theories and writings of Joseph S. Nye and his critics inform this analysis of power. The outline of the chapter is as follows. The next section looks specifically at hard power as described by Nye and focuses on how the use of military force, sanctions, payments and agenda setting distinguishes hard power from diplomacy. This is followed by an examination of the evolution of the definition of soft power and focuses on the intangible resources such as institutions, ideas, values, culture and the perceived legitimacy of policies. These differ substantially from hard power resources which are tangibles such as force and money. The following section examines the major points made by the critics of Nye’s concept of soft power which focus on the elasticity and scope of the concept, the complex nature of attraction and the liberal-democratic bias of the concept. Smart power which Nye © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_3

29

30

3  Focus on Soft Power

believes is the calibrated use of both hard and sharp power is the topic of the next section followed by an analysis of the term sharp power which Nye maintains is not a separate category of power but is in reality a form of hard power. The last section examines the differences in the interests, values, modes and outcomes between a soft power approach in international relations compared to diplomacy as discussed in Chap. 2.

3.2 Hard Power Joseph S. Nye, a noted American scholar and policy maker, is one of the most influential, quoted and critiqued thinkers regarding the nature of power. He coined the term soft power in 2004 which has sparked widespread use of the term and has stimulated rigorous debate and criticism about the concept ever since (Nye, 2004). At the conceptual level, Nye differentiated soft power from other forms of power such as hard, smart and sharp power. The examination of these four types of power begins with the concept of hard power which is often used by international relations scholars as the starting or base point of differentiation from other forms of power. Hard power is typically referred to as the use of military force, payment or economic sanctions in solving international conflicts and is juxtaposed to diplomacy which attempts to use negotiation and peaceful means in conflict resolution. In terms of differentiating hard power from diplomacy, Cooper et al. (2013) explicitly state that “The diplomat steps aside and the soldiers take over when the government concludes that the goals being pursued can be best be achieved through the use of military force – or when the diplomat has bungled” (Cooper et al., 2013, p. 2). They elaborate on the relationship between diplomacy and hard power by suggesting that while the explicit or implicit threat of using force is still available to diplomats, the actual use of power through military force is required when diplomacy has failed, and other options must be used (Cooper et al., 2013). It is interesting to note that this statement only refers to military force and does not include other forms of hard power such as payment and sanctions. This leads to a discussion of how Nye conceptualizes hard power. According to Nye hard power involves the use of behaviours, also referred to as strategies in this book, such as force, payment and agenda setting. He distinguishes hard power from soft power strategies such as persuasion and eliciting positive attraction. Nye notes that hard power strategies are grouped together under the label “command”, whereas soft power behaviours revolve around the notion of “co-­ optation” (Nye, 2011). Important to note is that hard power is rarely discussed in relation to the role of international higher education, innovation and research (IHERI) in international relations (IR) as opposed to the frequent reference to using IHERI as an instrument of soft power in IR.

3.3  Soft Power

31

3.3 Soft Power Three of Nye’s seminal works on soft power discuss the fundamentals and evolution of the concept. In 1990, Nye framed soft power as “the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with its own”. He suggests that power tends to arise from resources such as cultural and ideological attraction as well as rules and institutions of international regimes (Nye, 1990, p.  168). According to Bakalov (2019), Nye was trying to use a concept of power that was not limited to situations of Agent A controlling/dominating target B commonly known as “power over”, thus differentiating it from the concept of “power to” (Bakalov, 2019). More than a decade later, in his 2004 book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Nye writes that soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments (Nye, 2004). Furthermore, soft power is juxtaposed to hard power which works through coercion or payments. Interestingly, he suggests that the difference between the two is one of degree in terms of behaviour. In Nye’s (2011) book The Future of Power, he writes that soft power is the ability to affect others through the cooptive means of framing the agenda, persuading and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes (Nye, 2011, p. 21). An analysis of the 2011 description compared to that of 2004 reveals a more detailed description of the strategies/behaviours used in a soft power approach such as persuasion and framing the agenda. Also important to note is that Nye uses the term preferred outcomes not just any outcome or unintended consequence. Nye also makes it clear that the types of resources associated with soft power include intangible factors such as institutions, ideas, values, culture and the perceived legitimacy of policies which differ from hard power resources which include tangibles such as force and money (Nye, 2011, p. 21). This confirms his belief that with soft power, the power comes from the ability to change the behaviour of states and getting others to want what you want. Bakalov (2019) comments that with the 2011 definition, Nye clearly detaches power resources from the exercise of power and makes a connection between intangible resources and soft power, on the one hand, and tangible resources and hard power, on the other. In the world of scholarly research on the concept of power, this differentiation between power resources and the actual exercise or use of power is important. In his detailed critique of Nye’s work on soft power, Bakalov also highlights that Nye considers power to lie in the interaction or relationship between actors, not in actors themselves. This frames soft power in relational terms but prudently acknowledges that the power of an actor is not constant across all relationships. The power is specific to each situation thus making a difference between situational power and relational power (Bakalov, 2019). This may explain the frequent reference to using IHERI as an instrument of soft power in public diplomacy.

32

3  Focus on Soft Power

3.3.1 Critiques of Soft Power While the concept of soft power is fundamental to the study and practice of international relations, it is one of the most contested topics. According to Bakalov (2020), the nature of the criticism of Nye’s conceptualization of soft power by different international relations scholars ranges from being “ambiguous” (Kearn, 2011), to “elusive” (Feklyunina, 2016), to “fuzzy” (Callahan, 2015), to maddeningly “inconsistent”… (Bakalov, 2020, p. 496) . These are only a few of the terms used to express the scepticism towards the concept but also the widespread interest and use of the term. While these criticisms are descriptive words only, there are serious theoretical arguments and applied case studies which question multiple aspects of the concept. More specific criticisms suggest that Nye’s conceptualization of soft power is too broad or elastic and could include everything and anything except military power (Gelb, 2010). Nye responds by clarifying the difference between a “behavioural definition” which focuses on the strategies used to elicit a behaviour and the more popular type of “resource-oriented definition” which focuses on the degree and type of resources the agent has (Nye, 2021). He insightfully responds that “many types of resources can contribute to soft power, but that does not mean that soft power is any type of behavior” (Nye, 2021, p. 201). As previously stated Nye maintains that the use of attraction and persuasion constitutes soft power while the use of force, payment and some agenda-setting is hard power. These are clearly very different strategies. Nye distinguishes between cooptive and coercive power and describes hard power as “push” and soft power as “pull”, or in other words, hard power is like brandishing carrots or sticks; soft power is more like a magnet (Nye, 2021, p. 202). Critics of Nye’s notion of agenda setting maintain that clarification is necessary to clarify and support his assertion that soft power (cooptive power) is located at one end of the spectrum and differs from hard power (command or coercive power) at the other end of the spectrum. Nye responds by stating that “If an agent using agenda setting deceives the targets and deprives them of choice, the structural manipulation fits the category of hard power; if the targets regard the agent’s agenda setting as welcome and legitimate, the behavior fits better in the category of soft power” (Nye, 2021, p. 202). This clearly recognizes the importance of the targets’ perception of an agent’s strategy such as agenda setting and how differently it can be interpreted. The voluntary nature of the target’s perception is key to the agenda setting behaviour of soft power. This raises another interesting question regarding the simultaneous use of hard and soft power. Nye believes that both can be used at the same time, as long as one does not undercut the other. He cites China’s Belt and Road Initiative as an example (Nye, 2021, p. 201). In Bakalov’s (2019) comprehensive review of the academic literature which addresses Nye’s conceptualization and use of soft power, he separates the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses into two categories – theoretical studies vs the case study more applied type of research. Given that this book uses a conceptual approach to exploring diplomacy and soft power, the issues and criticisms related to theory and conceptualization are discussed. Bakalov categorizes the criticisms into three groups: (1) scope of the concept; (2) nature of attraction; and (3) liberal-democratic bias (Bakalov, 2019, p. 141).

3.4  Smart Power

33

In terms of the scope of the soft power concept, Bakalov states that some authors are discontent with Nye’s actor-centred understanding of power relations criticizing it as “too narrow and oblivious to structural representations of power in a Foucauldian sense” and that an actor-centred approach to power can mislead analysis by “disregarding the broader constellation of power relations in which a soft-power situation is embedded” (Bakalov, 2019, p. 141). With regard to the second point about the nature of attraction, Bakalov reports that critics all point to the existence of a dual nature of attraction – a condition resembling a “resource” of power as well as an action representing an “exercise” of power. Yet, there does not seem to any consensus among the critics in how best to address this reality of the dual nature of attraction, and Nye asserts that this duality represents reality and can be accepted as such. The third point addresses what critics identify as the liberal-democratic or Western centric bias of Nye’s arguments. They challenge the view “that only the West or countries with democratic institutions can produce soft power”. It is hard to comprehend the only Western countries can exert soft power given the current preoccupation by many countries, particularly in Asia, who have adopted the concept of soft power and develop both policies and practices to exercise what they believe are their strengths in applying a soft power approach. Japan has been using language, culture, animation, culinary arts and exchanges among other strategies for more than a decade (Hashimoto, 2018; Iwabuchi, 2015) as has China as will be discussed in Chap. 7 with respect to the worldwide establishment of Confucius Institutes. Important to note is that Bakalov (2019) also points out that there are several aspects of the soft power concept which have remained stable over the evolution and use of the term. They include that it functions through directly or indirectly transforming the attitudes of target audiences in foreign countries; it has a longer operational time horizon compared to hard power; it is more suited to the attainment of general rather than specific goals; and it does not lie exclusively within the control of a country’s government but is shared with civil society (Bakalov, 2019, p. 134). This discussion on soft power has shown the evolution of the concept over two decades, what its key characteristics are and how it differs substantially from hard power. It also introduces several of the criticisms of the concept by other international relations scholars and Nye’s response. Lastly, it reviews the steadfast features of soft power about which there is general agreement. This leads directly to a brief explanation of smart power which is inclusive of both soft and hard power.

3.4 Smart Power The concept of smart power, developed by Nye, is generally understood as the strategic use of both soft and hard power (Nye, 2009). He explains that soft power is only one component of power in international relations and rarely sufficient by itself. The ability to combine hard and soft power into successful strategies where they reinforce rather than undercut each other is considered to be “smart power”. This introduces the idea that soft power and hard power are on the same continuum, but this proposal still needs further investigation given that the resources and

34

3  Focus on Soft Power

Table 3.1  A classification system for hard, soft and smart power Type of power Hard power

Soft power Smart power

Behavioural approach Behaviour of Strategies/instruments of sender target Rationales Military force, Coercion Involuntary Instrumental Legal force/conventions Domination Payment Sanctions Attraction Cooption Voluntary Normative Persuasion Compliance Agenda setting Manipulation A calculated and skilful use of both hard and smart power dependent on the circumstance and intentions

Author

strategies used for each type of power are very different. Such an investigation is fascinating but beyond the scope of this chapter as the focus of this book is essentially on the difference between diplomacy and soft power (as it relates to the role of IHERI in IR) not between hard and soft power. Table 3.1 summarizes the major elements of Nye’s three types of soft power. Interesting to note is that it does not include sharp power because Nye believes that in essence sharp power is a form of hard power as will be discussed in the next section.

3.5 Sharp Power The latest term in the ever-changing lexicon of power in international relations is sharp power. This term was first introduced by Walker and Ludwig (2017) and is described as the use of manipulative diplomatic policies by one country to influence the political system of a target country. A fuller description of sharp power suggests that it uses aggressive and subversive policies by authoritarian governments as a projection of state interests in democratic countries (Walker, 2018). In contrasting sharp power to soft power, Walker and Ludwig believe that sharp power “pierces, penetrates, or perforates the political and information environments in the targeted countries”, while soft power uses the attraction of intangible resources such as culture and values to enhance a country’s strength. Nye (2019) contends that sharp power, described as “the deceptive use of information for hostile purposes”, is in reality a type of hard power (Nye, 2019, p. 17). In 2021, Nye suggests that the insertion of false information into the political processes of democratic countries by authoritarian states, described as sharp power, includes both voluntarism and coercion in the manipulation of ideas as expressed in hard power (Nye, 2021, p. 202). He maintains that the introduction of the term sharp power unnecessarily complicates the situation of understanding power in international relations because sharp power, as it is currently understood, is in fact a type of hard power and need not be labelled as a separate type of power.

3.6  Differentiating Soft Power and Diplomacy

35

Furthermore, Nye points out that sharp power is not soft power. He asserts that soft and sharp power work in very different ways, although he does admit that in particular cases the distinction between them can be difficult to discern which makes responding to sharp power a difficult policy issue. He elaborates on this distinction and maintains that all persuasion involves choices about how to frame information. However, when the persuasion moves into deliberate deception, which limits the targets’ voluntary choices, it crosses the line into coercion and a form of hard power. Nye cautions “that as democracies respond to sharp power, they have to be careful not to overreact in a way that undercuts their own soft power by following the advice of those who advocate competing with sharp power on the authoritarian model” (Nye, 2021, p. 203). He points out that much of democratic soft power (if one can agree with the term of democratic soft power) comes from civil societies such as universities or foundations more than from official public diplomacy efforts and that closing down access or ending openness would damage this crucial asset.

3.6 Differentiating Soft Power and Diplomacy Chapter 2 discussed the phenomenon of diplomacy by analysing the evolution from traditional diplomacy to contemporary diplomacy. The meaning, actors and functions were examined as well as several of the major changes and challenges of contemporary diplomacy. To counterpoint the analysis of diplomacy as a lens to understanding international relations, the concept of power particularly soft power was analysed in this chapter. Four different types of power – hard, soft, smart and sharp – were explored in order to understand the resources and behaviours/strategies used in power relationships between and among countries. Table 3.2 highlights Table 3.2  Differences between diplomacy and soft power approaches

Outcomes

Diplomacy approach National self-interests leading to mutual benefits Negotiation Mediation Communication Conflict resolution Conciliation Collaboration Reciprocity Mutuality Common ground Win-win with mutual but different benefits

Nature of relationships

Horizontal Collaborative

Self-interest Modes

Values

Knight (2021)

Soft power approach National self-interests dominate Attraction Persuasion Compliance Cooption

Domination Competitive advantage Win-lose Zero-sum game Vertical Top down

36

3  Focus on Soft Power

and summarizes the similarities and differences between diplomacy and soft power. This provides the background for a more detailed study in Chaps. 8 and 9 of the similarities and differences between diplomacy, particularly knowledge diplomacy, and soft power as it relates to the role of international higher education, research and innovation in strengthening relations among countries. As illustrated in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7 which essentially reviews how diplomatic and higher education scholars understand, conceptualize and label the role of IHERI in IR, the concepts of diplomacy and soft power are often used interchangeably. This causes some confusion as to the contribution that international higher education, research and innovation can make to strengthening the relations between and among countries and to addressing global challenges. The next chapter focuses on the changing world of international higher education, research and innovation. In international relations, the role of IHERI is typically characterized by the use of scholarships, student/scholar mobility and exchanges, international student recruitment and joint conferences, exhibitions and events. While these activities are still important, there are a host of new developments such as international joint and regional universities, knowledge hubs, education cities and global private/public research initiatives which also must be taken into consideration when examining the contemporary role and contribution of IHERI in IR. The next chapter will review these new developments to ensure that an analysis of IHERI informs the conceptualization of knowledge diplomacy.

References Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21–40. Bakalov, I. (2019). Whither soft power? Divisions, milestones, and prospects of a research programme in the making. Journal of Political Power, 12(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2158379X.2019.1573613 Bakalov, I. (2020). Setting soft power in motion: Towards a dynamic conceptual framework. European Journal of International Relations, 26(2), 495–517. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354066119873374 Callahan, W.  A. (2015). Identity and security in China: The negative soft power of the China dream. Politics, 35(3–4), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9256.12088 Cooper, A., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Feklyunina, V. (2016). Soft power and identity: Russia, Ukraine and the ‘Russian world(s)’. European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 773–796. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354066115601200 Finnemore, M., & Goldstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Back to basics: State power in a contemporary world. Oxford University Press. Gelb, L.  H. (2010). Power rules: How common sense can rescue American foreign policy. Harper Perennial http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&i sbn=9780061864179 Hashimoto, K. (Ed.). (2018). Japanese language and soft power in Asia (1st ed.). Springer Singapore: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­5086-­2

References

37

Iwabuchi, K. (2015). Pop-culture diplomacy in Japan: Soft power, nation branding and the question of ‘international cultural exchange’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042469 Kearn, D. W. (2011). The hard truths about soft power. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.556869 Knight, J. (2021). Towards a knowledge diplomacy framework: The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Antwerp. Nye, J. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171. Slate Group, LLC. https://doi. org/10.2307/1148580 Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs. Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. Public Affairs -Perseus Books Group. Nye, J. S. (2019). Soft power and public. Diplomacy Revisited in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14, 7–20. Nye, J.  S. (2021). Soft power: The evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879572 Walker, C. (2018). What is “Sharp Power”? Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 9–23. Walker, C., & Ludwig, J. (2017). Sharp power: Rising authoritarian influence. National Endowment for Democracy.

Chapter 4

The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

4.1 Introduction The international dimension of higher education has been active for centuries through exchange of scholars and knowledge around the world. The fact that “universe” is the root concept for university is clear evidence of its internationality. But the priorities and strategies of international higher education have twisted and turned over the years in response to the environment and time in which it operates. There is little doubt that the current age of globalization has had a profound impact resulting in a new imperative attached to international higher education, research and innovation (King et al., 2011). Different rationales and opportunities have driven an unprecedented increase in international education and research by actors using a variety of strategies. While international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) is often understood as the recruitment of international students or student mobility, it is far more than this (Knight, 2013). Not only are people moving across borders so are higher education programs, providers, research projects and policies. The establishment of twinning, joint/double degrees and exchange programs has skyrocketed in the last two decades, as have a wide range of regional and global academic networks. The development of university branch campuses in foreign countries has increased ten times in the last 15 years, and international joint universities and regional universities are new developments illustrating the increasingly important role that higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) play in strengthening relations between countries (Knight, 2016a, b). The purpose of this chapter is to highlight some of the innovative developments in international higher education which demonstrate close collaboration between and among nations. Traditionally, international higher education’s role in strengthening relations between and among countries is understood to involve scholarships, student/scholar mobility, bilateral higher education agreements and projects, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_4

39

40

4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

international student recruitment and joint research projects. While these activities are still important, there are new initiatives which must be taken into consideration and examined in terms of their potential to expand and strengthen relations between and among countries. These include the establishment of education cities, knowledge hubs, regional centres of excellence, international joint universities, multilateral thematic and disciplinary research networks, international private-public partnerships, regional-based universities, international satellite campuses, new professional organizations and others. These developments offer new opportunities to expand the flow and exchange of ideas, knowledge, people, technologies, policies, culture, science, innovation, etc. across borders. They also need to be analysed and understood in terms of potential benefits and risks to strengthening relations between and among countries. The following sections highlight several of these new international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) initiatives.

4.2 International Joint Universities and Branch Campuses International branch campuses are satellite campuses located in a different country than the home university. They offer the same academic programs and the qualifications of the parent university and are seen to bring academic, geopolitical and economic benefits for the home and sending countries (Wilkins, 2016). There are over 250 international branch campuses operating in the world primarily in Asia and the Middle East, and the numbers continue to increase. International branch campuses strive to develop partnerships with local higher education institutions, research centres as well as industry often for internship, advisory or research opportunities. While there is a diversity of rationales driving the establishment of international branch campuses of universities, including academic, social, cultural and economic, there are also political motivations to increase partnerships with targeted countries for both self-interests and mutual benefits. International branch campuses are primarily governed and managed by their home institutions while meeting the regulations of the host country. Furthermore, the relationships with local higher education institutions, industry, civil society organizations and other relate more to academic, cultural, research-related activities rather than joint governance or management of the branch campus according to the needs and priorities of both the host and sending country. On the other hand, international joint universities (IJUs) are very different from international branch campuses of universities. They are new independent institutions located in the host country and are co-governed and co-managed by the foreign partner country and host country institutions. Many of them provide graduate education and are oriented to research and innovation. Different rationales drive the establishment of these new universities. A common one is to strengthen relations between partner countries in addition to providing increased access, diversification of programs and modernization of the host higher education system (Knight, 2016a, b).

4.3  International Research Networks

41

Germany has established seven international joint universities in countries where it is important to strengthen bilateral relations to pave the way for the expansion of Germany’s industrial presence. Japan has developed three international joint universities in targeted countries of interest through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs using Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) as the primary promoter and funder. China, on the other hand, hosts nine international joint universities with countries as varied as Russia (given the BRICs connection), the USA, the UK and Israel among others (Knight & Simpson, 2021). In 2004 there were 4 such international joint universities around the world, and as of 2022, there are 22 as illustrated in Table 4.1 with more under development. The German Jordanian University, established in Jordan in 2005, is an example of building closer relations between two countries through higher education exchanges, joint research including Jordanian and German industries and academics, scholarships, collaborative academic programs and regional conferences (Geifes & Kammueller, 2018). It is discussed in more detail in Chap. 10 in relation to the concept of knowledge diplomacy.

4.3 International Research Networks Bilateral research agreements between countries, universities and centres of excellence have a long tradition. They have been enshrined in governmental bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding and often have been seen more like protocols rather than functioning projects. But this has changed. The number of theme-based and interdisciplinary research networks has ballooned in the last decade (Uddin et al., 2015). So much so that there is no current data on the number, theme and distribution of research networks around the world. Many of the networks involve partners from the private and government sectors. Some research networks are highly dependent on external funding and can be specific to one project. While others, usually involving a diversity of research partners, are sustainable given the perceived importance of the research, global challenges and the potential for copyright patents and innovation applications. Multilateral, multi-actor and multidisciplinary research networks are integral to enhancing knowledge production, innovation and relations between and among countries (Sandberg & Crnkovic, 2017). The worldwide Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), established in 2012, is designed to produce research and practical solutions to the sustainable development challenges facing all regions of the world. It involves over 30 countries as well as multilateral thematic networks and is analysed in greater detail in Chap. 10. The RENKEI initiative is an example of a bilateral initiative involving a network of Japanese and UK universities which works collaboratively with governments, industry and civil society in both countries. The network “plays a vital role in the sharing of knowledge and ideas leading to deeper levels of trust, prosperity and security between the two countries”(British Council XE “British Council”, 2019, p. 3) and is also discussed in Chap. 10.

1 1 1 7

1 1

3

2

Foreign partner country Germany Japan UK 2 1 1 1 1 1

Knight and Simpson (2021) a Tri-country partnership

Host country China Vietnam Egypt Malaysia Indonesia Mongolia Kazakhstan Singaporea Jordon Oman Turkey Total

Table 4.1  List of international joint universities

3

1

US 2

3

Hong Kong 3

1

1

China 1

France

1

Russia 1

1

Israel 1

1

1

EU (German lead)

Total 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22

42 4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

4.4  International Education Hubs

43

4.4 International Education Hubs International education hubs are an interesting development and represent a wider and more strategic configuration of actors and activities involved in the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. An education hub is a concerted and planned effort by a country, zone or city to build a critical mass of education and knowledge actors to exert more influence in the new education marketplace and to strengthen relations with international counterparts and countries. National, regional and international students, institutions, knowledge industries, government agencies and research and development centres are integral to the establishment and operation of education hubs. They are a convincing example of how higher education is an innovative and critical factor in building bilateral and multilateral relationships to maximize international engagement. Scholars and policy makers note that international education and research, and education hubs in particular, are effective tools for increasing a country’s attractiveness, economic development, shift to the knowledge economy and building strategic and influential alliances (Cheng et  al., 2011) (Wojciuk, 2018). Chapter 10 does not include an analysis of an existing education hub, so the next sections provide more details to better understand the actors, rationales and types of education hubs.

4.4.1 Diversity of International and Local Actors from Different Sectors Education hubs bring together diverse local and international actors who engage in education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives. An education hub involves a coordinated and strategic effort to build a critical mass of domestic and international, education institutions, students and training companies, knowledge industries and science and technology centres. The creation of an education hub rests on the motivation for a country, zone or city to be perceived and act as a reputed centre for higher education, training and research by working collaboratively with international state and non-state actors. An education hub can be at the country, zone or city level. Regardless of the level or where in the world it is located, an education hub can be defined as “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and international actors strategically engaged in crossborder education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives” (Knight, 2014). In this definition of an education hub, the concept of “planned effort” indicates that a hub is an intentional project and would normally involve a strategy, policy framework and some public and private investment. Therefore, a hub is more than a coincidental interaction or co-location of actors working in the education and knowledge sectors. The idea of being planned helps to decrease the chances that it is merely a fad or branding exercise.

44

4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

The notion of “critical mass” suggests that there is more than one actor and set of activities involved. This means that a single branch campus or university, or franchise program, or science and technology park does not constitute an education hub as understood in the broader international sense. The inclusion of “local and international actors” indicates that an education hub involves both domestic and foreign players. The term actor is used in an inclusive manner to cover state and non-state providers, producers and users of the education, training, knowledge services and products. The diversity of actors will vary from hub to hub depending on the rationales and functions of the hub. The idea of “strategically engaged” is central to being a hub as it emphasizes that there is a deliberate sense of interaction or relationship among the actors. While the nature of the engagement will differ, a fundamental principle is that there is added value when the actors are connected, collaborate or share common facilities and resources. This does not deny that there will be competition among actors (and countries) who offer similar services or products, but the pros of being part of a strategic and interactive initiative appear to outweigh the cons and are a fundamental characteristic of an education hub. “Cross-border education, training, knowledge and innovation initiatives” depict the broad categories of national, regional and international activities and outputs of education hubs. Worth noting is that the level of hub is not included in the definition because the level (zone, city, country) is determined by the sponsors of the hub as is the scope of engaged actors and the spread of impact and influence. For example, a zone-, city- and country-level education hub can aim to attract actors from their immediate vicinity or beyond, and the impact can be local, national, regional or global. Finally, an education hub has not been defined in physical or spatial terms such as a designated area as this may be too limiting. Rather the central concept is one of connectedness or a network of interactions among engaged local and international actors undertaking cross-border education activities to achieve their individual objectives as well as collective goals.

4.4.2 Rationales It is understood that education hubs have different rationales and characteristics. A variety of factors drive the development of education hubs. The five most prevalent rationales are economic reasons which relate to strengthening the education industry, attracting foreign investment and diversifying the economy by building a more pervasive knowledge and service infrastructure. This can only be done by promoting collaboration between different sectors, networks and actors both near and far who are involved in the hub. Education and training reasons include aligning education and training with industry needs; improving access to learning opportunities for local, expatriate and international students; and enhancing the overall quality of higher education in the host country. Knowledge generation and innovation reasons focus on creating or enhancing research culture, capacity and outputs and

4.4  International Education Hubs

45

supporting applied joint research across sectors and countries for innovation purposes. Human resource development reasons address the need for trained skilled workers for the transformation to a knowledge- and service-based economy and the prevention of brain drain by retaining local and foreign talent in the country. Status and geopolitical influence reasons aim to promote or brand the country as a centre of excellence and use education to increase attractiveness, competitiveness and status, and at the same time create international partnerships for education and research. Underlying all these rationales is the necessity of having solid collaborative relations with a diversity of actors including local, national, regional and international.

4.4.3 Three Models of Education Hubs: Student, Talent and Knowledge One size does not fit all. In order to capture the differences among hub approaches in terms of rationales, actors and activities, and allow for a more nuanced understanding and exploration of education hubs, a typology of three categories of hubs has been developed (Knight, 2014). The typology is based on the rationales driving hub development. For a “student hub”, the key activity is the education and training of local, expatriate and international students. In addition to recruiting students, it also focuses on attracting foreign higher education institutions to offer franchise and twinning programs or establish branch campuses or joint universities as a means to increase access and develop partnerships with universities in other countries. The “talent hub” (skilled workforce) focuses on student education and training but differs from the student hub because the overarching goal is human resource development for a skilled work force. Foreign students are therefore encouraged to remain in the host country for employment purposes and to implement new innovation strategies. Retention of foreign students (and workers) is central to the talent hub. The “knowledge hub” broadens its mandate beyond education and training to include the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign actors including universities, research institutes and companies with major research and development activities are attracted through favourable business incentives to establish a base in the country and to collaborate with local partners to develop applied research, knowledge and innovation. Collaboration among the key players such foreign and local education institutions, industries, research centres and companies is a key factor to building a knowledge and innovation hub and providing added value for the major actors. The question as to whether an education hub is a fad, a branding exercise or an innovation is worth considering (Knight, 2011). Given that some of the hub countries like Singapore (Soong, 2020), Malaysia (Cheng et al., 2013), Qatar (Ibnouf et al., 2014) and the United Arab Emirates (Erfurth, 2019) have been operating for more than 10 years as a student, talent or knowledge hub leads to the conclusion that they have been sustainable and are more of an innovation than a fad. However, at the same time, there are several countries such as Botswana, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka

46

4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

which did not appear to progress past the announcement stage of planning to position itself as education or knowledge hub. Each hub responds to the local context, priorities and needs of its country and develops in different ways. Interesting to note is that the majority of these countries are small in size and most are trying to reposition their economies from being dependent on natural resources and manufacturing to one oriented to knowledge and innovation and, secondly, to promoting collaboration across sectors and actors both within the country and with international partners. Progress, costs and benefits vary substantially and are contingent on diverse factors such as political will and commitment; attraction and retention of international partners; the level of domestic and foreign investment; and the ability to adapt to new opportunities, potential risks and the dynamics of a changing economy, changing international relations landscape and changing higher education sector. Education hubs can take years to develop and become sustainable given the diversity of actors involved and changing world events, but they are a remarkable innovation which builds on the critical role that international higher education plays in national development, international relations and the move to a more knowledge-­ oriented society (Kleibert et al., 2021).

4.5 Regional Universities Regional universities represent another distinctive type of international collaborative initiative. A regional university can be described as an institution of higher education which involves a group of countries in a designated region that collaborate to establish a university offering degree and pre-degree courses, conducting research and serving the needs of the region. While regional universities can be single, multi-campus or virtual institutions, a defining feature is that they are not regulated or funded by one host government. Instead, they are governed, funded and have their qualifications recognized by a group of countries geographically, culturally or politically identified as a region. Regional universities are not a recent phenomenon as the first two were founded in 1948 (The University of the West Indies) and 1957 (Asian Institute of Technology). The last two were founded in the first two decades of the twenty-first century – the University of Central Asia in 2010 and the Pan African University in 2011. This spans six decades indicating the need and sustainability of regional wide collaboration in higher education, research and innovation. As of 2021, there are ten regional universities around the world with four in Asia Pacific, four in Africa and one each in Europe and the Caribbean. Two interesting and important features are the number of campuses the university has distributed across the region and the number of countries that participate in the founding and governance of the regional university. This requires a high degree of consultation, mediation and collaboration as countries generally have different needs, priorities and resources even though they are working to a common goal. Of

4.6  Debating the Role of IHERI in International Relations

47

Table 4.2  List of regional universities Name of regional university Eastern and Southern African Management Institute École Supérieure Multinationale des Télécommunications (ESMT)-Africa African Virtual University Pan African University Asian Institute of Technology University of the South Pacific (USP) University of Central Asia (UCA) South Asian University (SAU) The University of the West Indies (UWI) European University Institute (EUI)

Number of countries participating 10 7

Number of campuses 10 1

19 1 5 plus regional networks 5 17 2 12 14 4 4 10 1 17 5 23 1

Author – (adapted from Knight & Zhang, 2022)

the ten regional universities, three are single campus, seven are multi-campus, and one is virtual. This increases student, program and provider mobility in the region thereby increasing greater collaboration, networking and stronger relations among the countries located in the same geographic or political area (Knight & Zhang, 2022). The principles of reciprocity and mutual benefits prevail, recognizing that the benefits will differ for each country and campus given their individual context and needs. Table 4.2 identifies the ten regional universities and indicates the number of participating countries and campuses for each one. The Pan African University (PAU), established in 2011, is an example of a regional multi-campus university that has a clearly stated purpose to promote closer relations among countries with regional integration as one of the primary goals (Knight & Woldegiorgis, 2017). The Pan African University is one of the instruments the Africa Union has developed to help work towards and achieve the goals of Agenda 2063. PAU is described in more detail in Chap. 10 which focuses on the using IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach to strengthening relations between and among countries.

4.6 Debating the Role of IHERI in International Relations Both the traditional international higher education, research and innovation activities such as scholarships, student exchange, foreign language learning, joint cultural and research initiatives and the more recent developments such as international joint and regional universities and education hubs have been highlighted in this chapter. However, the role of IHERI in international relations does not come without controversy and some confusion which is discussed in great detail in Chap. 9. Much of the debate centres on IHERI’s role as soft power.

48

4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

Given higher education’s current interest in branding, rankings and competitiveness, it is strongly attracted to the concept of soft power for reasons of self-­ promotion, self-interest and also economic gain (Trilokekar, 2015). Witness the number of references to soft power in higher education conferences, academic journals and media articles during the last decade, especially from Asia. Many hail soft power as a fundamental premise and rationale of today’s international education engagement. Some treat soft power like a modern branding campaign, using education, culture and media to win over foreign publics (Waithaka & Maluka, 2016). Others interpret international higher education’s soft power as another form of neo-­ colonization or soft imperialism (Jones, 2010). And there are those who see attraction and persuasion as an effective way to build trust because trust can pay dividends in terms of economic and geopolitical benefits (British Council XE “British Council”, 2012). In short, the role and use of higher education as a soft power instrument is interpreted in multiple ways and is often linked to public diplomacy. But, as discussed in Chap. 3, Nye (2017) indicates the common motivation behind soft power is self-interest, co-option and/or compliance through attraction and persuasion – whether the benefits are political, economic or reputational. This reality raises hard questions. Are the primary goals of international higher education, research and innovation when seen as a political actor to advance national self interests and achieve dominance, especially in this era when global challenges can only be addressed through collaboration across countries, sectors and disciplines (Knight, 2015)? Often cited programs of soft power in higher education include the Fulbright Program, British Council activities, German Academic Exchange Service initiatives and the EU’s Erasmus Mundus projects. Clearly, these are respected and long-­ standing programs that are well accepted and make enormous contributions. But why are they described as instruments of soft power when at their heart they promote exchange of students, faculty, culture, research, knowledge and expertise? Yes, there are self-interests at play, but there is a mutuality of interests and benefits involved for all partners. International higher education is not traditionally seen as a zero-sum game of winners and losers – it is focused on exchange and partnerships and builds upon the respective strengths of countries and higher education/research institutions (Knight, 2018). In the current highly interconnected and interdependent world, higher education is a channel for the cross-border flow and exchange of people, knowledge, expertise, values, innovation, economy, technology and culture. This does not deny the reality that there are countries, institutions and organizations that are clearly interested in using IHERI to gain competitive advantage and increase their ranking in international university league tables or global soft power indexes of countries. However, it is important to take a 360-degree approach to analysing the differences between IHERI being used in a soft power approach and a diplomacy approach as discussed and differentiated in Chap. 3. The next two chapters provide an analysis of how international relations scholars and experts understand, conceptualize and label the role of IHERI. Chapter 5 focuses on the role of IHERI in international relations as expressed in terms of

References

49

cultural, education and public diplomacy and soft power. Chapter 6 is dedicated to a review of the role of IHERI in what is called science diplomacy which is increasing in importance in terms of both practice and policy. Chapter 7 then provides a similar analysis of how higher education scholars and experts understand, conceptualize and label the role of IHERI in international relations using the same concepts of cultural, education, public diplomacy and soft power. These three chapters are fundamental to addressing the confusion and conflation of terms in acknowledging the role that IHERI plays in both a diplomacy approach and soft power approach to international relations.

References British Council. (2012). Influence and Attraction: Culture and the Race for Soft Power in the 21st Century. British Council. (2019). RENKEI Annual Report 2018–2019. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2018-­2019.pdf. Cheng, Y.  C., Cheung, A.  C. K., & Yeun, T.  W. W. (2011). Development of a regional education hub: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(5), 474–493. Cheng, M.  Y., Mahmood, A., & Yeap, P.  K. (2013). Malaysia as a regional education hub: A demand-side analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(5), 523–536. Erfurth, M. (2019). Education Hub Strategy and Policy in the UAE: Creating a Cultural Space for Higher Education and Research. Al Qasimi Foundation. https://doi.org/10.18502/aqf.0133 Geifes, S., & Kammueller, S. (2018). Exploring Germany’s contribution to global activity in transnational higher education. In V. Tsiligiris & W. Lawton (Eds.), Exporting transnational education (pp. 9–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­74739-­2_2 Ibnouf, A., Dou, L., & Knight, J. (2014). The Evolution of Qatar as an Education Hub: Moving to a Knowledge-Based Economy. In J. Knight (Ed.), International Education Hubs (pp. 43–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7025-­6_4 Jones, W. (2010). European Union Soft power. Cultural Diplomacy & Higher Education in Southeast Asia in Silpakorn University. International Journal, 9–10, 41–70. King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education. Edward Elgar Publishers. Kleibert, J.  M., Bobée, A., Rottleb, T., & Schulze, M. (2021). Transnational education zones: Towards an urban political economy of ‘education cities’. Urban Studies, 58(14), 2845–2862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020962418 Knight, J. (2011). Education Hubs: A Fad, a Brand, an Innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311398046 Knight, J. (2013). The Changing Landscape of Higher Education Internationalization- for better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Journal of the Association of University Administrators, UK, 17, 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2012.75395 Knight, J. (2014). International education hubs: Student, talent, knowledge models. Springer. Knight, J. (2015). The potential of knowledge diplomacy: Higher education and international relations (Weimer, L., Ed.). The European Association for International Education. Knight, J. (2016a). Meaning, rationales and tensions in Internationalization of Higher Education. In S.  McGrath & Q.  Gu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook on International Education and Development (pp. 325–339). Taylor Francis. Knight, J. (2016b). Transnational Education Remodeled: Towards a common TNE framework and definitions in. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47.

50

4  The Changing World of International Higher Education, Research and Innovation

Knight, J. (2018). Knowledge diplomacy. A bridge linking International Higher Education and international relations. British Council. Knight, J., & Simpson, D. (2021). The growth of international joint universities. In D. Deardorff, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook of International Education. Stylus Publishers. Knight, J., & Woldegiorgis, E. T. (2017). Regionalization of African higher education: Progress and prospects. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­956-­0 Knight, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Regional universities around the world: An analysis of single campus, multi-campus and virtual models. In Reconfiguring global higher education in the 21st century. Springer. Nye, J.  S. (2017). Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 17008. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.8 Sandberg, A.  B., & Crnkovic, I. (2017). Meeting Industry-Academia Research Collaboration Challenges with Agile Methodologies. 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP), 73–82. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-­SEIP.2017.20. Soong, H. (2020). Singapore international education hub and its dilemmas: The challenges and makings for cosmopolitan learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(1), 112–125. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1725433 Trilokekar, R. D. (2015). From soft power to economic diplomacy? A comparison of the changing rationales and roles of the U. In S. And Canadian Federal Governments In International Education. Research and Occasional Paper Series, Centre for the Study of Higher Education. University of California. Uddin, S., Khan, A., & Baur, L. A. (2015). A framework to explore the knowledge structure of multidisciplinary research fields. PLoS One, 10(4), e0123537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0123537 Waithaka, J., & Maluka, P. (2016). International education exchanges as a public diplomacy instrument. International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, 1(3). Wilkins, S. (2016). Establishing international branch campuses: A framework for assessing opportunities and risks. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(2), 167–182. Wojciuk, A. (2018). Empires of knowledge in international relations. Education and Science as Sources of Power for the State.

Chapter 5

How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and Education Forms of Diplomacy and Soft Power

5.1 Introduction Chapter 2 highlighted the major characteristics of contemporary diplomacy in terms of new actors and modes of practice, the contested definitions and different types of diplomacy and the increase in issue-based diplomacies, and Chap. 3 examined the principles and nuances behind terms such as hard, soft and sharp power. Chapter 4 reviewed the changing dynamics of international higher education by moving beyond the traditional activities of student/scholar exchange, international students and conferences and introduced new developments such as education and knowledge hubs, research networks, international joint universities and innovative public-­ private collaborative projects. The increasingly interdependent and interconnected world in which we live, coupled with the stark reality of the pressing global issues that cannot be addressed by one country alone, necessitates a close examination of how the contemporary role of international higher education is understood by international relations researchers and policy makers. This chapter systematically reviews how a diplomacy scholars, experts and diplomats understand and label the expanding role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in strengthening relations between and among countries. While there are more than ten different labels used to describe the role of IHERI in IR, the most common ones – cultural, education and public diplomacy as well as soft power – are examined using research and references originating in or related to all regions of the world in order to avoid a western bias. An analysis of the similarities and differences in how these terms are conceptualized and used shows overlap and confusion as well as interesting insights and dilemmas. Questions about the role of state and non-state actors, intended outcomes and the contradiction of framing IHERI as a form of diplomacy to exert soft power are explored.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_5

51

52

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

5.1.1 Scope of Review of Scholars’ Perspectives The factors which informed the choice of the research include the following. The review includes research literature published in the last two decades – from 2000 to 2020. This acknowledges the dynamics of the contemporary world of both international higher education and diplomacy. Both academic and grey literatures were included, but the major emphasis was on scholarly peer-reviewed literature which focused on the conceptualization of the role of international higher education in international relations, not on the theories and policies. The review of the literature reveals that references and research which examine the contribution that international higher education makes to diplomacy is somewhat limited. Secondly, the most frequently used concepts and the related terms used to describe or give meaning to the phenomenon were cultural diplomacy (Gienow-Hecht & Donfried, 2010), education diplomacy (Piros & Koops, 2020), public diplomacy (Byrne & Hall, 2014), science diplomacy (Ruffini, 2017) and soft power (Nye, 2009). Other terms include education, academic and exchange diplomacy. As a result of this finding, the chapter is organized according to the major conceptual categories that were used by academics and experts in exploring and analysing the role of international higher education in international relations. Given the current importance and the extensive number of references to science diplomacy, it is examined separately in Chap. 5. Thus, this chapter focuses on the role of IHERI in cultural, education and public diplomacies as well as an instrument of soft power. Important to note is that the chapter uses the word “concepts” to represent the meaning, while the words “labels and terms” are used to classify the concepts. The lack of attention paid to the expanding role of international higher education in international relations is corroborated by authors such as Wojciuk (2018), Flink and Schreiterer (2010) and Leijten (2017). The references cover a broad range of the more traditional international higher education activities including (1) academics serving as lecturers, panellists or conference participants in foreign countries or as experts in track two diplomacy, (2) academic exchanges for students and scholars, (3) recruitment of international students and (4) higher education programs funded by national/regional bodies as instruments of soft power, capacity building and mutual understanding. It is fair to say that Nye’s seminal article on diplomacy ((Nye, 2004) and his 2005 article on “higher education and soft power” has had a significant influence on the discussions to date (Nye, 2005). International higher education is framed as a tool of soft power highlighting both the “bright” side of attraction (Lima, 2017) and, to a lesser extent, the “dark” side of hegemony (Woldegioris, 2018). What is somewhat surprizing is the lack of literature which contested Nye’s view of higher education and soft power. While Bakalov (2019), Hayden (2012) and Lee (2011) are recognized critics of Nye’s conceptualization of soft power, they did not specifically refer to the role of international higher education as a form of soft power (Bakalov, 2019) (Hayden, 2012) (Lee, 2011).

5.2  Cultural Diplomacy

53

5.2 Cultural Diplomacy For decades, international relation scholars and policy makers have traditionally referred to academic exchanges and conferences as effective ways of increasing mutual understanding and, secondly, international student scholarships as a means to developing positive attitudes in future leaders. These initiatives have been labelled as cultural diplomacy (Gienow-Hecht & Donfried, 2010) (Goff, 2013), and while there is agreement on framing them as cultural diplomacy, there is substantial debate as to whether cultural diplomacy is the purview of state actors only.

5.2.1 Cultural Diplomacy or Cultural Relations? Pajtinka (2015) suggests that “cultural relations” is a more appropriate term when including non-state actors as agents of cultural diplomacy (Pajtinka, 2015). The recent report by the British Council (2021) also prefers the term cultural relations over cultural diplomacy (British Council, 2021). However, given the reality of multiple state and non-state actors in contemporary diplomacy, one can question the assumption that cultural diplomacy is still the sole responsibility of the government and that the role of civil society cultural actors should be categorized as cultural relations. As discussed in Chap. 2, contemporary diplomacy involves a multi-­actor approach and includes state, civil society and private sector organizations as important actors (Hocking et al., 2012). This acknowledges that civil society actors and creative industries, both private and public, are becoming more prominent players in cultural diplomacy. Countries such as South Africa are recognizing the role that these industries have in their foreign cultural diplomacy policies and strategies (South African Cultural Observatory, 2018).

5.2.2 Mixed Motives and Outcomes Scholarships for international students continue to be cited as one of the most important strategies of cultural diplomacy. The Fulbright Program from the USA and the British Chevening Scholarships are just two of the scholarship programs which have a long history and are still operational in 2022. Both scholars and policy makers see such scholarship programs as instruments to create good will, increased mutual understanding, a way to influence future decision-makers’ predisposition to the host country and a means to get access to influential political and social networks. However, in the last decade, international students are sought after by countries as a source of brain power to meet national innovation goals and an important alternative source of revenue generations (Knight, 2013). In fact, the recruitment of international students has been labelled as economic diplomacy (Trilokekar, 2015)

54

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

given that tuition fees from international students has represented between 20 and 30% of income for universities in countries such as Australia and the UK.  The COVID-19 has impacted the number of international students, but host universities are scrambling to adapt their recruitment efforts to online delivery of their programs and expect the decrease in international student enrolments to be temporary. Since 2000, the European Union has undergone a profound transformation of higher education aimed at advancing regionalization, or what some have called the Europeanization of higher education. New European agreements such as the Lisbon Convention and the Bologna Accord were developed and led to a multiyear ambitious higher education reform project, called the Bologna Process and the development of the European Higher Education Area. The harmonization of higher education policies and programs across the 48 member countries of the Bologna Process has been a major priority of the EU for the last 20 years (Klemenčič, 2019). Funded student mobility programs within Europe and with other regions of the world have been both popular and successful. They have led to a more strategic approach to promoting the “external dimension” of the Bologna Process. The aim has been formally expressed as increasing the attractiveness of the European Union (EU) but is often informally referred to as increasing Europe’s competitiveness and soft power to meet foreign policy objectives. The “external dimension” has included major funding programs for European-based universities to cooperate with higher education institutions in Asia, Latin America and Africa. As will be discussed, there are both admirers and critics of the EU’s role in extending their generous funding programs to countries in all regions of the world. These programs have simultaneously been labelled as cultural, public, education, science and innovation diplomacy, as well as soft power and neo-colonization initiatives. This has led to confusion as to how to situate these initiatives within the practice and policies of diplomacy and international relations. Irrespective of the label, the intentions were clearly understood as trying to meet the EUs foreign policy objectives through funded higher education and research policies and programs. The perception of these programs differs widely depending on national context and the type of program. The motivations that have been attributed to these EU international programs and policy dialogues range from increasing mutual understanding, to building capacity of institutions (Piros & Koops, 2020), to policy export and compliance (Woldegioris, 2018), to hegemony and neo-colonization (Jones, 2010). For example, Woldegioris (2018) carefully examines the use of the Bologna Process as a model for regionalization of higher education in Africa. He does not frame it as cultural diplomacy per se but rather discusses it within the context of policy travel or policy export. He suggests that there are two lines of thinking about the motives and impact. The first suggests that adopting the Bologna model may be advantageous to other less developed regions such as Africa, since the harmonization strategies have already been tested in Europe and could be easily adapted to other contexts. The second is more ideological and puts the notion of policy travel as an instrument of neo-colonialism as it may perpetuate dependency of African policy processes on European models (Woldegioris, 2018). In this case, neo-­ colonization can be linked to the notion of soft power, domination and hegemony.

5.3  From Cultural Diplomacy to Education Diplomacy

55

South East Asia provides another interesting perspective. For example, Jones (2010) argues that “EU education funding in Southeast Asia has at its foundation and motivations for the revival of European influence and power within the region” (Jones, 2010, p. 41). He cites the renown EU programs such as Erasmus Mundus, Asia-Link and ASEM programs as examples of cultural diplomacy used as “soft power instruments to influence future relations via co-option and internalized agent cooperation” (Jones, 2010, p. 43). He argues that cultural diplomacy, in the form of EU higher education funding to Southeast Asia, is not about building trust, but about achieving specific policy-driven objectives. This is an example where higher education, framed as cultural diplomacy, is being used as a soft power tool to achieve self-interests. This instrumentalist use of cultural diplomacy as a tool for soft power is a common theme in both the diplomacy and international higher education literatures and will be discussed further in Chap. 8.

5.3 From Cultural Diplomacy to Education Diplomacy Piros and Koops (2020) provide another view of EU-funded higher education programs as they explore the role of the EU as a diplomatic actor engaged in education diplomacy. They argue that the EU-sponsored higher education programs, extended to other countries, can be seen as capacity building initiatives (Piros & Koops, 2020). But first, they acknowledge the confusion as to whether these programs such as Erasmus Mundus, TEMPUS and PHARE are classified as cultural diplomacy or education diplomacy. They attempt to clarify the relationship between cultural diplomacy and education diplomacy by taking a historical look at cultural diplomacy and conclude “that cultural diplomacy and education diplomacy have been intimately intertwined in historical, conceptual and policy practice terms, and we cannot understand the full extent of cultural diplomacy without also understanding and exploring the education diplomacy dimension” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p. 117). They argue that education diplomacy is the most appropriate term. Yet, they state that “there is no unified, single definition of education diplomacy, just as there is not unified single definition of cultural diplomacy”. This reflects the reality (and confusion) of how the terms public, education and cultural diplomacy are used in relation to both the diplomacy and international higher education literatures.

5.3.1 Education or Exchange or Academic Diplomacy? To add to the plethora of terms, Piros and Koops (2020) refer to the term “exchange diplomacy” which was developed by Cull (2008) and refers to “an actor’s attempt to manage the international environment by sending its citizens overseas and reciprocally accepting citizens from overseas for a period of study and or/acculturation” (Cull, 2008, p.  33). Interestingly, Cull discusses the element of reciprocity in

56

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

exchange diplomacy and then links this to public diplomacy. This represents the link between education diplomacy and public diplomacy. While Piros and Koops (2020) acknowledge the importance of exchanges and scholarships, they maintain that education diplomacy goes beyond these two activities. They believe that education includes any basic diplomatic activity (negotiation, representation and communication) in the field of education, ranging from exchanges, buying and selling of educational programs to the work of diplomats and academics in multilateral educational conferences or organizations, and from the negotiation to the implementation of treaties. Interestingly, they add the term “academic diplomacy” to their discussion by stating “a range of activities and policies under the label of academic diplomacy including activities such as international scientific collaborations (or science diplomacy), track-two diplomacy of universities, and think tanks (Sundararama, 2008), the creation of innovative approaches to diplomacy by students and researchers across multilateral networks of states …. and sub-regional initiatives by regional governments and universities in foreign and economic relations” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p.  120). Thus, they introduce the terms “education diplomacy”, “exchange diplomacy” and “academic diplomacy” and suggest that academic diplomacy includes scientific diplomacy and collaboration. This is an interesting but confusing compilation and use of terms. It reflects the adoption of terms without a deep explanation of the actual meaning and central ideas of the concepts. The distinction between education diplomacy and academic diplomacy merits further reflection and research, but worth noting is that the descriptions of both terms include non-state actors such as universities, foundations, think tanks, students and researchers. Piros and Koops (2020) conclude that “given these multi-faceted and wide-­ ranging definitions of education and academic diplomacy it is indeed impossible to offer a catch-all definition. Instead, we view ‘education diplomacy’ as an umbrella term that includes all dimensions” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p. 119). This is an example of the confusion among terms and the need for a more rigorous approach to understanding concepts and defining terms. While an umbrella term acknowledges different actors and activities, it is a conceptual challenge to work with a term that is not clearly defined and can be interpreted very differently in different contexts. This underlines the importance of developing conceptual frameworks and classification systems for large number diplomacy-related terms in order to understand similarities and differences between them.

5.3.2 Role of Non-state Actors: Education Diplomacy or Education Relations? Piros and Koops (2020) also make an important distinction between education diplomacy and education relations by stating that “education diplomacy involves …. indirect involvement of states (through, inter alia, funding or programming), while education relations can be conducted by NGOs or universities in autonomy, if not

5.3  From Cultural Diplomacy to Education Diplomacy

57

funded by the state (excluding by definition state universities)” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p. 120). Thus, they clearly believe that education diplomacy must involve the state in some manner, and when the state is not involved, it is labelled as education relations. This is a similar stance taken by Pajtinka in terms of the distinction between cultural diplomacy and cultural relations (Pajtinka, 2015). This is fertile ground for further investigation and debate. One can question whether the distinction between “diplomacy” versus “relations” will clarify or muddy the understanding about the role of international higher education in diplomacy. As previously discussed in Chap. 2, contemporary diplomacy is now characterized as including state actors and non-state actors such as civil society and private sector actors. A fundamental aspect of the study of diplomacy and soft power is intention or motivation. Thus far, in the discussion of cultural and education diplomacy, the intentions and expected outcomes have mainly focused on mutual understanding, developing a positive image of a country and networking with influential leaders. Piros and Koops introduce the idea of capacity building as a purpose of education diplomacy. They suggest that capacity building in the field of education, as promoted in particular by the European Union, has received relatively little attention. However, capacity building in higher education has for many decades been closely linked with and seen as an integral part of development cooperation activities and overseas development assistance (ODA) whether or not it has been labelled as education diplomacy for capacity building reasons.

5.3.3 Education Diplomacy as Capacity Building Piros and Koops (2020) insightfully ask the question “why would capacity building be an element of ‘education diplomacy’”? They note that capacity building in education is seldom practised as an altruistic or interest-free activity, and in the case of the EU, capacity building has the aim of increasing awareness and visibility of the European Union and EU activities. They suggest that capacity building programs are often intertwined with advancing teaching quality or innovations, as well as developing European Studies tracks. Yet, EU’s indirect approach to capacity building (funding EU universities for capacity building in the European neighbourhood) is “not following ‘pure’ and idealistic aims, but also self-interested foreign policy goals” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p. 125). This is an important point and one which was previously discussed by Jones (2010) in terms of South East Asia. Nye (2013) believes that foreign aid can also be regarded as a soft power instrument through providing international aid to developing countries, primarily for the sake of improving the funder’s national image and serving its geopolitical interests (Nye, 2013). Thus, when examining capacity building efforts in another country, one must look at intentions and principles guiding the projects and not depend only on the actors and strategies that are being used in the process of capacity building. This is elaborated on in Chap. 7  in relation to the motivations and principles of knowledge diplomacy.

58

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

5.4 Public Diplomacy According to Lima (2017), education exchange programs sponsored by the Brazilian government have clear political objectives, particularly those that are associated with public diplomacy. He contends that Brazil will be viewed more positively if Brazil is associated with the image of supporting academic exchanges and that students visiting Brazil will have a deeper understanding and better image of Brazil (Lima, 2017). While this may seem straightforward, it is based on the attraction argument of soft power but is packaged as public diplomacy. Byrne and Hall (2014) describe public diplomacy in the Australian context as “the work or activities undertaken to understand, engage, and inform individuals and organizations in other countries in order to shape their perceptions in way that will promote Australia’s foreign policy goals”. They point to the increasingly globalized nature of international education as vital for encouraging exchange and interactions between students, academics and communities via onshore and offshore/cross-border modes of delivery. Byrne and Hall (2011) also highlight international higher education as an effective means to increase soft power through attractiveness. To support this claim, they draw upon Nye’s (2008) work that states the attractiveness of the state, exhibited through its identity, values and culture, is a fundamental element in soft power (Nye, 2008). While there is general agreement on this, there are also public diplomacy risks attached to international students. This is noted by Byrne and Hall and is illustrated by the racist and violent events targeting Indian international students which took place in Australia in 2009. This damaged Australia’s reputation as an attractive and safe destination for international students and reinforced Australia’s stereotype as a racist nation. As a result of these events, Australia’s ranking as a “welcoming country” dropped to 46 out of 50 (Byrne & Hall, 2011, p. 6). Australia has regained its reputation as a leader in international higher education but perhaps for commercial advantage rather than for public diplomacy reasons. Yet, in spite of the commercial imperative, Byrne and Hall (2011) maintain that public diplomacy offers an alternative view of international education that extends beyond the immediate commercial perspective and allows for soft power outcomes. At the same time, however, they lament the fact that Australia has not moved beyond the short-term commercial focus and has not developed the necessary policies and structure to capitalize on the soft power potential of international higher education. They believe that “the positive reputation and relationships that Australia can build and leverage through international education – extend well beyond the immediate gains apparent on the current account ledger” and, as proven by the incident with Indian international students, “the negative impact of poor international education experiences will tarnish Australia’s reputation as a destination not just for students, but also for tourists and investment and may also hamper broader foreign policy ambitions” (Byrne & Hall, 2011, p. 7) Byrne and Hall raise the important point that “strategic intent” is what determines the public diplomacy approach used by Australia, not the actual activities.

5.5  Soft Power

59

This implies that the same higher education actors and activities can be used for very different purposes and result in different outcomes. They list what is considered by many scholars as the underlying principles of public diplomacy – credibility, dialogue and exchange, alliances and partnerships and authenticity of message. They suggest that when these principles are adhered to, public diplomacy has a greater chance of building soft power outcomes for the nation. Relating these principles to international higher education, they claim that it is a vehicle that enables and fosters “authentic engagement, exchange and collaboration at the individual, institutional and community levels”. This is an example where these stated principles of public diplomacy are at odds with Nye’s (2008) principles and strategies of soft power which are more oriented to attraction, persuasion, compliance and cooption not “exchange and collaboration” as stated by Byrne and Hall. This inherent contradiction in terms of intentions, strategies, values and outcomes of soft power vs diplomacy merits further reflection and will be discussed in Chaps. 7 and 8. Waithaka and Maluka (2016) take a broader view of higher education as a form of public diplomacy. Building on experiences in Kenya, they contend that international education programs have been used to build bridges and trust and are therefore a good vehicle to transmit values of a nation which in turn pays dividends in economic and geopolitical interests. More specifically they believe that “through the generation, diffusion, and exchange of acquired knowledge the relations between countries and regions can be strengthened” (Waithaka and Maluka 2016). Interestingly, they stress the exchange of knowledge not only the exchange of people. However, they believe international higher education as a public diplomacy tool requires a long-term investment as it involves relationship building not purely relying on media relations. They identify a major challenge facing higher education as public diplomacy because providers of international education abroad often have short-term commercial interests and thus are challenged to provide long-term public diplomacy benefits of mutual understanding and relationship building. This points to yet another dilemma and challenge in framing international higher education as public diplomacy.

5.5 Soft Power In the previous sections on cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy, the strong link to soft power is recognized and discussed. The introduction and use of term soft power by Joseph Nye have had a major impact on how the expanding role of international higher education in diplomacy is conceptualized. For instance, Nye (2004) believing in the importance of gaining power through attraction and persuasion states that “the number of countries that regard education as the best way to promote national interests on the world stage is increasing……….. Big powers for the first time in history started to pay special attention and importance to the education systems of their universities” (Nye, 2004, p. 16). In 2009, he continues to highlight the power of higher education and says that “countries, such as the United States are

60

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

perfectly informed about the fact that the education system is one of the most essential instruments in terms of dominance in the global political arena. Everyone knows that the education system allows the improvement of economic and political situation of the country” (Nye, 2009, p.  17). Dominance is the key concept here. As evident in the previous discussions on cultural and public diplomacy, Nye’s writings on soft power, plus these kinds of declarations, have had a major influence on how scholars and policy makers conceptualize the role of international higher education in diplomacy. In Nye’s more recent writing, he stresses the role of social media and technology in public diplomacy and soft power and does not address the role of higher education specifically (Nye, 2019). Another scholar who analyses the “power” of higher education systems is Wojciuk. She highlights the importance of studying the intersection between higher education and international relationships by stating that “Scholars and practitioners of international relations rarely take up an interest in education and science” (Wojciuk, 2018, p. 1.) Her focus is on education and science mechanisms which increase state building processes and economic development. In Wojciuk’s analysis of the international distribution of power through higher education, she points to key indicators. They include the number of doctorates awarded in science and engineering as these two disciplines are critical to technological development which, in turn, leads to economic development and power. The recruitment and retention of the most talented international students also play a significant role in increasing a country’s talent pool to advance their science, technological and innovation goals both domestically and internationally. In addition to using higher education and science to establish a country’s scientific and research power to achieve economic gains, Wojciuk believes that that the transnational mobility of scholars and students is done for “purely political purposes”. She states that countries “by inviting representatives of other states into their universities, they attempt to improve their prestige, and in some cases affect their future influence abroad” (Wojciuk, 2018, p. 153). This is completely in line with Nye’s thinking that attractiveness and brand are key elements of soft power. However, she adds that such changes can also serve to establish a common understanding between foreign national elites and the host state. It is interesting to note that Wojciuk treats higher education and scientific research as separate areas of investigation. She believes that the degree of internationalization of science and research exerts significant influence because the intellectual and financial resources of states and institutions are limited and, thus, a large proportion of the necessary knowledge must come from abroad (Wojciuk, 2018, p. 155). This can be done through international networking and international exchanges of scientists which help a country to attain competitive advantage. Ahmed Zewail, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry and the first American Science Envoy to the Middle East also refers to the soft power of science diplomacy. He believes that “by harnessing the soft power of science in the service of diplomacy, America can demonstrate its desire to bring the best of its culture and heritage to bear on building better and broader relations with the Muslim world and beyond” (Zewail, 2010, p. 5). This clearly demonstrates how science diplomacy is seen as an effective tool in easing tensions between and among countries. It also adds more

References

61

confusion to the debate by conflating “the soft power of science in the service of diplomacy”. Soft power is about dominance and compliance to achieve self-­interests by using persuasion and attraction as strategies (Nye, 2017), while diplomacy focuses on collaboration and mutuality of interests and uses negotiation and conflict resolution to achieve common ground (Lee & Hocking, 2011). Thus, in conclusion, how the role of international higher education, research and innovation is perceived by academics, policy makers and experts involved in diplomacy differs widely. While cultural, education and public diplomacy, as well as soft power, are the most frequently used terms, there is confusion and debate about whether the terms cultural diplomacy vs cultural relations and education diplomacy vs education cooperation should be used. Most importantly, the motivations and purpose related to the different types of diplomacy acknowledging the contribution of international higher education vary enormously and at times are contradictory. This could be linked to whether international higher education is seen as a diplomatic activity and simultaneously a soft power instrument, although that can be an oversimplification of the complexities involved. The rationales range from mutual understanding, relationship and trust building, projecting a positive image, exportation of norms and values, revenue generation, capacity building, competitive advantage, neo-colonization and hegemony. This illustrates the diversity of opinions and the complexities involved in analysing the intersection between international higher education and diplomacy. The next chapter focuses on the how IR scholars frame the role of IHERI as science diplomacy as opposed to soft power and cultural, education and public forms of diplomacy as discussed in this chapter.

References Bakalov, I. (2019). Whither soft power? Divisions, milestones, and prospects of a research programme in the making. Journal of Political Power, 12(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2158379X.2019.1573613 British Council. (2021). International cultural relations: Soft power and cultural relations institutions in a time of crisis. British Council. Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2011). Australia’s international education as public diplomacy: Soft power potential. A discussion paper. Clingendael Institute. http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/ files/20110700_cdsp_discussion_paper_cbryne_rhall.pdf Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2014). Australia’s international education as public diplomacy: Soft power potential. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–438. Cull, N. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories in the annals of the American Academy of political and social science. In Public diplomacy in a changing world ((Vol. 616, pp. 31–54). Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Toward a typology of national approaches in science and public. Policy, 37(9), 665–677. Gienow-Hecht, J., & Donfried, M. (2010). Searching for a cultural diplomacy. Berghahn Books. Goff, P. (2013). Cultural Diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Hayden, C. (2012). The rhetoric of soft power. Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts.

62

5  How Diplomacy Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI as Cultural, Public and…

Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riodan, S., & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Jones, W. (2010). European Union soft power. Cultural Diplomacy & Higher Education in Southeast Asia in Silpakorn University. International Journal, 9–10, 41–70. Klemenčič, M. (2019). 20 years of the Bologna process in a global setting: The external dimension of the Bologna process revisited. European Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 2–6. https://doi. org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1570670 Knight, J. (2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalization- for better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and practice in higher education. Journal of the Association of University Administrators, UK, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2012.75395. Lee, Y.  W. (2011). Soft power as productive power. In S.  J. Lee & J.  Melissen (Eds.), Public diplomacy and soft power in East Asia (pp.  33–49). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230118447_3 Lee, D., & Hocking, B. (2011). Diplomacy. In B. Badie, D. B. Schossler, & L. Morlino (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of political science. Leijten, J. (2017). Exploring the future of innovation diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(1), 1–13. Lima, A. (2017). The role of international educational exchanges sponsored by the Brazilian government in the perception of the external image of Brazil. ISA’s 58th Annual Convention. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs. Nye, J. S. (2005). Higher education and soft power. Forum Futures 2005, 11–14. Educause. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. Anals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94–109. Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160. Nye, J. S. (2013). Hard, soft and smart power. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Nye, J.  S. (2017). Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 17008. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.8 Nye, J. S. (2019). Soft power and public. Diplomacy Revisited in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14, 7–20. Observatory, S.  A. C. (2018). Proposed framework for cultural diplomacy in South Africa. Measuring and valuing South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Economy. South African Cultural Observatory (SACO) Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Pajtinka, E. (2015). Cultural diplomacy in the theory and practice of contemporary international relations Politicke vedy, Vol. 1(17). Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood. In C.  Carta & R.  Higgot (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer. Ruffini, P. B. (2017). Science and diplomacy: A new dimension of international relation. Springer. Sundararama, S. (2008). Research institutes as diplomatic actors. In A. Cooper, B. Hocking, & W. Maley (Eds.), Global governance and diplomacy—Worlds apart? Palgrave Macmillan. Trilokekar, R. D. (2015). From soft power to economic diplomacy? A comparison of the changing rationales and roles of the U. in S. and Canadian Federal Governments in International Education. Research and occasional paper series, Centre for the Study of higher education. University of California. Waithaka, J., & Maluka, P. (2016). International education exchanges as a public diplomacy instrument. International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, 1(3). Wojciuk, A. (2018). Empires of knowledge in international relations. Education and Science as Sources of Power for the State. Woldegioris, E. (2018). Policy travel in regionalization of higher education: The case of the Bologna process in Africa. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Procopie (Eds.), European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 43–59). Springer. Zewail, A. (2010). The soft Power of science. The American Interest, 05(6). https://www.theamerican-interest.com/2010/07/01/the-soft-power-of-science/

Chapter 6

Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

6.1 Introduction Given the growing attention on science diplomacy by politicians, policy makers and scientists alike, the purpose of this chapter is to examine how scholars and experts conceptualize and understand this evolving and increasingly important type of diplomacy. In a world where more research is required to address global challenges and in which technology and innovation has a more important role, the critical role of science diplomacy in international relations deserves close scrutiny. The same scope and parameters of the literature review used in Chap. 4 on the role of IHERI in cultural, education and public diplomacies as well as soft power are applied to the analysis of science diplomacy. That means both scholarly and grey literature, emanating from all regions of the world and published in English between 2000 and 2020, are examined. Furthermore, the review is inductive and exploratory and is not driven by a hypothesis. The focus is clearly on how science diplomacy is understood and conceptualized not on theoretical foundations or policy dimensions. Three interesting trends emerge from the review of the literature on the role of international higher education and research in science diplomacy. They indicate the growing importance attached to science diplomacy and why this concept is discussed at length in this chapter. The first is a marked increase during the last 5 years in the attention given to science diplomacy in terms of research and policy making, especially in Europe where science diplomacy is a key topic for the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program. The second is a discernible movement to using the term “science and technology” diplomacy instead of “science diplomacy”, and third is the multiple ways to describe and understand science diplomacy often using the purpose and actors of science diplomacy as the overall frame. Given the evolution and recent increased interest in science diplomacy plus the fact that two journals Global Policy (Volume 9, Issue 3, 2018) and the Hague © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_6

63

64

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

Journal of Diplomacy (Volume 15 Issue 3) have recently published special issues on the topic, a chronological approach has been taken to review the extensive literature on science diplomacy. An important caveat to this review is that those references which discussed science diplomacy policy making or were primarily focused on a specific scientific issue such as climate change or addressed the relations between two countries were not included as they were limited to a particular set of circumstances.

6.2 American Association for the Advancement of Science Perspectives The influence of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on the conceptualization of science diplomacy must be noted. In 2009, they published a conceptual framework for science and diplomacy which has permeated the literature and is the subject of controversy (Flink, 2020). The development of the conceptual framework rests on the assumption that science, considered in its broadest sense, encompasses not only scientific research but also the whole range of international scientific cooperation activities including education and capacity building and the people involved in the enterprise. Secondly, diplomacy is considered to include both informal (people to people) and formal (governmental) relationships between countries (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009).

6.2.1 AAAS Conceptual Framework for Science Diplomacy The AAAS proposes a framework consisting of three approaches to understand the relationship between science and diplomacy. The first is “Diplomacy for Science” where diplomacy is a mechanism for advancing a scientific goal. The second is “Science in Diplomacy” where science is considered to be necessary for the conduct of diplomacy and informs topical international issues of diplomatic concern. The third is “‘Science for Diplomacy” where science is a mechanism for enhancing or building bridges between countries. They suggest a broad range of “international science cooperation” activities, but all examples are related to science and technology projects and international agreements such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), climate change and the USA-China umbrella S&T agreement. Initiatives related to other sectors such as migration, refugees, human rights, social justice, poverty and gender do not appear to be included in the AAAS conceptualization of science and diplomacy.

6.2  American Association for the Advancement of Science Perspectives

65

6.2.2 Three Objectives of Science Diplomacy In 2012, a newsletter article from AAAS entitled Science and Diplomacy: Concepts and Real-World Examples to Guide Success emphasized that nations pursue science diplomacy with three goals in mind: (1) expressing national power or influence, (2) equipping decision-makers with information to support policy, and (3) enhancing bilateral and multilateral relations (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009). Again, the real-world examples focused on the traditional natural science, engineering and technology initiatives thereby excluding the multiple social science and humanity issues facing the world. It appears that “science in its broadest sense” is inclusive in terms of different types of research and education but narrow in terms of disciplinary and sector focus. In 2010 the UK Royal Society, in partnership with AAAS, published a report of a joint conference they held dedicated to discussing New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the Changing Balance of Power (Royal Society, 2010). The report reiterated and adopted the three AAAS approaches to science and maintains that “science for diplomacy” primarily draws on the soft power of science based on its attractiveness and influence as a national asset and as a universal activity that transcends national interests.

6.2.3 The Soft Power of Science for Diplomacy In using the “science for diplomacy” approach, the Royal Society report identifies a number of initiatives that illustrate how science can further diplomatic relations. They include (1) bilateral science cooperation agreements, (2) the establishment of multilateral institutions such as CERN, (3) educational scholarships for networking and partnership purposes, (4) track-two diplomacy by including scientists and academics as experts in informal negotiations and (5) science festivals and exhibitions. This is an interesting list of activities, but surprisingly it does not involve private sector or civil society actors except for festivals and exhibitions. In terms of “diplomacy for science”, both a top-down strategic approach and a bottom-up approach are seen as important to facilitating international cooperation. However, the report noted that cooperation is mitigated by the increasing competition between countries with increasing scientific capabilities and those with established science credentials. The question posed is whether more defensive national strategies will gather momentum or whether more creative and better resourced mechanisms for increased collaboration in pursuit of shared goals will prevail (Royal Society, 2010).

66

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

6.2.4 Competitive or Cooperative Approaches of Science Diplomacy Following the release of the report by the Royal Society in the UK a decade ago, it is still not clear whether the competitive or cooperative approach prevails. However, there is strong evidence suggesting that to address today’s pressing global challenges, collaboration is essential but competitiveness is growing. For instance, the 2013 statement from the Science and Technology in Society (STS) forum held annually in Japan called for more collaboration among academia, industry and government to ensure a sustainable global community and emphasizes cooperation with developing countries. It states that education, research and local entrepreneurship is essential for capacity building in developing countries to enable greater participation in multilateral arrangements, especially on global issues (Science & Technology in Society, 2013, p. 1). The 2019 STS statement acknowledges that the “world is experiencing some negative changes. Not only world trade and security but also international collaboration in science and technology are facing major challenges as the multilateral global system is being called into question. At the same time, we are increasingly called upon to address the negative aspects of prevailing technologies and lifestyles, ranging from climate change and biodiversity loss to cybersecurity challenges to plastic debris in the oceans in order to ensure sustainable development for humankind and our planet earth”. The statement calls upon scientists, policy makers and business executives to discuss the “lights and shadows of science and technology” and “to promote international science cooperation and collaboration to strengthen science and enhance science diplomacy to build bridges to developing nations” (Science and Technology in Society, 2019, p. 1). Comparing these statements to Wojciuk’s (2018) writings on science and technology as a source of power and competitiveness brings the debate into sharp focus.

6.3 Science Diplomacy or Science Cooperation Another critically important question is whether to use the term science diplomacy or science cooperation. This is discussed by Daryl Copeland (2015) in a policy paper published by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He writes that science diplomacy is frequently conflated with international scientific cooperation, a mistake which has given rise to confusion, but in his opinion, the distinction is clear. Science diplomacy is directly related to government interests and objectives, while science cooperation is more commercially oriented and often occurs without direct state participation and can include private sector or civil society actors. This perspective is similar to the differences discussed in this chapter between cultural diplomacy and cultural relations. The former involves state actors only, and the latter involves both state and non-state actors. Does this perspective reflect the reality

6.4  The Science Diplomacy Cluster of the European Union Horizon 2020 Program

67

of contemporary diplomacy and deny the evolution of diplomatic relations between and among countries? Using the AAAS framework of “science for diplomacy, diplomacy for science and science in diplomacy”, Copeland identifies four major uses of science diplomacy: (1) to address global issues, (2) to showcase the science and technological strengths of a country, (3) to combine international political agency with the scientific methods of knowledge production and (4) to communicate essential values of a country such as evidence-based learning, factual assurance and opening and sharing. This is a carefully calibrated combination of attributing both soft power and diplomatic approaches to the role of science in international relations and is substantially different than the three purposes of science diplomacy articulated by AAAS.  Copeland notes the gap between science and politics and quotes David Miliband, who served as UK foreign secretary from 2007 to 2010 as saying “the scientific world is fast becoming interdisciplinary …. But the biggest interdisciplinary leap needed is to connect the worlds of science and politics” (Copeland, 2015, p. 10). Efforts to bridge this gap generate very different perspectives and may have been a catalyst for further research and the development of new research and projects on science diplomacy.

6.4 The Science Diplomacy Cluster of the European Union Horizon 2020 Program With the support and funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 program, a research cluster on science diplomacy has been developed consisting of three funded projects. The first is titled “Inventing a Shared Science Diplomacy in Europe” (InsSciDE). It is described as “a first-ever interdisciplinary consortium and stakeholder engagement structure focusing on Europeans and on European science diplomacy….. and will engage historians of science and technology, networks of diplomats and scientists, experts of strategy and policy makers to bring science diplomacy into the foreground and better use it”.1 The project states that “Science diplomacy takes place when states call upon science and scientists to help advance foreign relations; when scientists and their institutions become involved in diplomacy to help advance science, technology, and innovation; or when these actors join forces to resolve conflict on a transnational scale. Scientists and diplomats will meet to better understand each other and forge a common culture”. The project recognizes that science has long been used in global diplomatic engagements in a diversity of ways and contexts but posit that this “practice is fragmented, unrecognized or lacking an overall model for leveraging and consolidation”. Thus, InsSciDE “will reveal, formalize and communicate this intangible capital, develop its conceptual

 https://www.insscide.eu/about/

1

68

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

bases and elaborate tools to help European science diplomacy emerge and blossom”.2 Interesting to note is the acknowledgement of the diversity of practices and lack of a framework to use this so-called capital to strengthen European diplomacy. The results of this work are not publicly available as of 2021. The second project is the EL-CSID project which aims to “codify and articulate the relevance of cultural, science and innovation diplomacy for EU external relations as part of a systematic and strategic approach. It aims to identify how the Union and its member states might collectively and individually develop a good institutional and strategic policy environment for extra-regional culture and science diplomacy”. More specifically it aims to “detail and analyse the manner in which the EU operates in the domains of cultural and science diplomacy in the current era, comparing its bilateral and multilateral cultural and science ties with other states, regions, and public and private international organisations.”3 A noteworthy feature of this project is that it brings together European cultural, science and innovation diplomacies with a broad set of state and non-state actors. Thus, the broad scope of the project will be instructive to understanding how they demarcate the differences and impacts of the three types of diplomacies.

6.4.1 Using Science for Addressing Global Challenges: S4D4C Project The third project is “Using Science for Addressing Global Challenges” known as S4D4C and has published several reports worth noting. A principal objective of the S4D4C project is to increase the capacities of EU and EU member state science diplomats. A research report (ref) based on a survey of science diplomacy policy makers and diplomats identified the needs, skills and challenges of science counsellors and attaches. The emphasis on the role and skills of state actors’ in science diplomacy reinforces the perception that science diplomacy is the purview of the state both in the development of foreign policy and in the practice of science diplomacy. It begs the question as to what role universities, think tanks, research centres and networks and foundation play in the practice of science diplomacy. The State-of-the Art Report (2018) by S4D4C provides a historical and informative overview of the definitions and key concepts of science diplomacy and examines the different national approaches and common challenges of science diplomacy. The conclusion is not very encouraging as they state that “from an analytical point of view, science diplomacy does not provide a clear-cut definition or conceptual framework yet. This requires additional reflection when investigating science diplomacy as an empirical phenomenon”(Rungis, 2018, p. 35). Interesting to note is that

 https://www.insscide.eu/about/article/overview  https://www.el-csid.eu/objectives

2 3

6.4  The Science Diplomacy Cluster of the European Union Horizon 2020 Program

69

this is yet another reference to a lack of clear-cut definition and conceptual framework for an increasingly important type of diplomacy – science diplomacy.

6.4.2 Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy In 2019, the S4D4C project organized what they determined to be the First Global Meeting on Science Diplomacy titled EU Science Diplomacy beyond 2020. An important outcome of the meeting was the Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy which warrants close scrutiny. The articulated vision for the Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy is that it “aims to foster agreement and raise awareness about the need to strengthen science diplomacy strategies and practices world-wide for the support of universal scientific and democratic values” (S4D4C, 2019, p. 1). It is both revealing and questionable why the promotion of democratic values would be included in such a declaration. Is this indicative of using science diplomacy’s soft power potential to promote and support democratic norms around the world? The vision statement also includes “that (science diplomacy) strategies are required to suitably include science and technology as key dimensions of foreign policy and international relationships at different political levels. This confluence of interests must be in the benefit of both the scientific endeavor as well as legitimate broader political and societal objectives” (S4D4C, 2019 p. 2). The combination of using science diplomacy to support “democratic values” with “legitimate political and societal objectives” raises interesting questions about what “legitimate” actually means. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the declaration as one of the stated key principles is “that science is an extremely useful took for addressing global challenges and for improving international relationships as long as it is not distorted by ideological goals” ((S4D4C, 2019, p. 5). Does this imply that supporting democratic values as articulated in the Madrid Declaration is not an ideological goal? Is democracy not seen to be a political ideology? The project also confirms the emphasis on technology through the statement that science diplomacy, in the context of this Declaration, is understood as “a series of practices at the intersection of science, technology and foreign policy”. The declaration also explains “that science diplomacy goes beyond international science cooperation, as it tackles interests that go beyond the scientific ones and may directly or indirectly serve to advance diplomatic goals” (S4D4C, 2019, p. 3). However, the difference between science diplomacy (state actors only) and science cooperation (state and non-state actors) as already discussed does not appear to be supported by the declaration as one of the key principles to foster science diplomacy worldwide is “science diplomacy is a multi-actor effort in which diplomats, scientists and science managers, as well as other non-state actors, can have a role and can contribute to its deployment” (S4D4C, 2019, p. 3). The Declaration states the benefits of science diplomacy which include “addressing global challenges, developing more productive and sustainable relations, preparing evidence-informed foreign policy, better conditions for the pursuit of

70

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

scientific activities, and improved interfaces between science and public policies” (S4D4C, 2019). The Declaration serves an important purpose in raising awareness and questions about science diplomacy. It should be noted that it was signed by individual participants in the meeting and is not an official declaratory statement by government officials. This, however, does not diminish its importance. The results of the three projects are awaited with anticipation as they address the same topic but tackle different dimensions of science diplomacy and consider different actors and impacts. The role and training of science diplomats coupled with the importance of European science-related policies seem to be common to all three, but individually they bring different lenses to not only examine science diplomacy but also address cultural, innovation and public diplomacy. It will be interesting to see if a common definition or conceptual model of science diplomacy emerges from these initiatives. The keywords and examples – which include climate change, innovation system and cybersecurity – suggest that the term science is more related to the natural sciences and technology and does not relate to the Latin word “scientia” which means knowledge in general.

6.5 National Approaches to Science Diplomacy: One Size Does Not Fit All As previously stated, it is important to include the work and writings of scholars and experts from all regions of the world so as to avoid a western bias. Thus it is important to look at national approaches to science diplomacy from different regions of the world. An often quoted article by Flink and Schreiterer (2010) positions diplomacy at the intersection of science and technology and foreign affairs. By examining and comparing the objectives, strategies, administrative procedures and resources of six different countries, they attempt to develop a typology of national approaches to science diplomacy. Once again, it should be noted that when they discuss science diplomacy, it includes both science and technology issues and initiatives. Flink and Schreiterer (2010) point to the scarcity of academic articles on science and diplomacy. However, this has changed in the last 2 years with the publication of special issues of Global Policy (2018) and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (2020). It is suggested that only a few “traditional” scholars have explicitly dealt with the role and contribution of science and technology to international affairs and those who have, such as have done so from a theory-­building perspective while others have used empirical case studies. They speculate that “this may have to do with the fact that the international relations and science and technology communities apply very different interests, mind-frames and methods to their studies which are difficult to reconcile” (Flink & Schreiterer, 2010, p. 668). This interesting insight can also apply to this interdisciplinary study on the role of international higher education in diplomacy.

6.5  National Approaches to Science Diplomacy: One Size Does Not Fit All

71

The results of Flink and Schreiterer’s comparative study confirmed that “one size does not fit all” given the variety of approaches both in terms of goals and strategies that different countries deploy in science diplomacy. In conclusion, they point out that “exploiting science for political purposes – to brag about competence in hot high tech fields or research areas or to demonstrate goodwill in international relations – makes little or no sense” (Flink & Schreiterer, 2010, p. 676). They assert that caution is necessary in terms of overstretching science and technology for shortterm political goals as well as the potential benefits of science and technology for improving international relations. Instead, they suggest that that science and technology be seen as an important “incubator” for international cooperation to address global challenges and for the cultivation of civil relations that are based on mutual respect, shared values and common standards. By highlighting mutual respect, shared values and common standards, they are referencing the fundamental principles of a diplomatic approach as opposed to the soft power approach which is perceived as being built on the values of competitive advantage, domination and cooption through attraction and persuasion. A key aspect of science and technology diplomacy from a Japanese perspective (Sunami et al., 2015) is a belief that an increase in the number of foreign students and researchers would raise the standards of Japanese research institutions and universities. This perspective illustrates that for Japanese policy makers, one of the primary objectives of science and technology diplomacy is to improve the human resource base and research facilities at Japanese higher education institutions and research centres. The authors emphasize that Japan “must be part of the brain circulation” networks to save “Japan’s science from a decline in the rapidly change world”. While they clearly articulate the motives and benefits for Japan, they explain that this is accomplished by (1) joint research with developing countries in order to solve global issues and provide capacity building opportunities in those countries, (2) research cooperation in the field of cutting-edge technology with technologically advanced countries and (3) cooperation based on an equal partnership with East Asian countries. Clearly cooperation forms the foundation for their approach to science and technology diplomacy with both developing and advanced countries, and those universities and research networks play a critical role. The Japanese approach differs from the perspectives and papers of Miremadi (2016) from the Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology and Leijten (2017) from the Joint Institute for Innovation Policy in Brussels (Miremadi, 2016) (Leijten, 2017). Miremadi’s paper proposes a theoretical and practical platform for science and technology diplomacy and differentiates the functions at a national level from those at the international level. In an innovative, but also slightly confusing manner, she attempts to align the rationales of foreign policy which she characterizes as “power” from the rationales of innovation policy which are labelled as “learning” (Miremadi, 2016). Interestingly, Miremadi sees science and technology diplomacy as an extension of innovation policy, while Leijten suggests that

72

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

innovative diplomacy is more far reaching but inclusive of science and technology policy. Selleslaghs (2017) focuses his interest on the nexus of higher education and international relations in relation to Latin America. In his paper entitled Science, Higher Education and Innovation Cooperation Between the EU and Latin America: All Talk and No Action?, he explores the use of diplomacy and foreign policy tools to establish stronger cooperation and interaction between states and regions. His focus on EU policies, agreements and programs is similar to the article by Piros and Koops (2020) except the focus is on Latin America. As the title suggests, in spite of the EU continually including cooperation in science, higher education and innovation in all declarations and actions plans since 1999, there has been little progress in accomplishing the goal of creating the desired “EU-LAC Research Area”. Even though more than 50 countries from both regions have indicated their interest and commitment, there are only 3 Latin America countries and 10 large universities or research organizations that are directly active in the project which contrasts sharply with the large number of European actors. This is an example of good intentions and policies that do not materialize. Clearly, this gap between intention and impact merits further investigation. It must be asked if the question raised by Wilson (2014) (as discussed in Chap. 5) regarding the importance of good will gestures even though they do not necessarily produce results is relevant. An interesting and puzzling feature of the Selleslaugh paper is that it emphasizes cooperation while it positions science, higher education and innovation as instruments of soft power. Are these two approaches not contradictory when soft power is often perceived as more cooption and compliance than cooperation which is based on working together based on a mutuality of benefits? This fundamental question is explored further in Chap. 7.

6.6 Moving from Science Diplomacy to Innovation Diplomacy In Leijten’s 2017 article entitled Exploring the Future of Innovation Diplomacy, he looks at the movement from science diplomacy to innovation diplomacy in the context of a globalized world where knowledge has become an increasingly important source of influence in the relations between nations (Leijten, 2017). Leijten acknowledges that there is not a single accepted definition of science diplomacy other than it is at “the nexus of science policy and foreign affairs”. He asserts that traditionally science diplomacy has had a focus on collaboration although those who frame science diplomacy (Zewail, 2010) (Copeland, 2015) as soft power may not agree with this assertion. Nevertheless, Leijten believes that the increasing attention given to “knowledge-driven innovation” as a growth factor in the economy results in more competitive thinking and, thus, a country’s or region’s innovative

6.6  Moving from Science Diplomacy to Innovation Diplomacy

73

system is increasingly concerned with competitive advantage, an intention usually attributed to soft power. The term innovation diplomacy, as explained by Leijten, includes science and technology diplomacy. By looking to the future, where national innovation policies and systems and knowledge-based economies will be more prevalent, he believes that innovation diplomacy, more than science diplomacy, can capture and shape the changes going forward. Furthermore, he suggests that innovation will reflect the centrality of national economic interests in international relations and will lead to changing stakeholder configurations with the private sector having a bigger role to play. This, in turn, will necessitate changes in the policies and strategies related to economic power becoming more relevant. Leijten’s description of innovation diplomacy is “the use of the full spectrum of tools of the state to achieve its (national) innovation interest in the global geopolitical arena” (Leijten, 2017, p. 20). Leijten is astute in positioning diplomacy for innovation between the two extremes of international political economy. He states that at one end is the neoliberal theory that all countries will benefit from an exchange of knowledge and capital, and at the other end, there are short-term self-interest-driven approaches based on protection of national companies. This framing of innovation diplomacy brings it closer to economic diplomacy and soft power. Leijten points out that most of the evidence of science diplomacy is “anecdotal or incidental” and thus suggests some indicators of the growth of innovation diplomacy. The proposed indicators include the number of publications about innovation diplomacy and the number of advisory reports to government. This indicator has both merits and flaws as writing about innovation diplomacy is not the same as practicing innovation diplomacy. The second indicator is the number of new academic courses, symposia and training sessions on innovation diplomacy. This indicator also relates to interest and not practice but could also be applied to the dozens of new types of diplomacy that have been introduced in the last decade. The third indicator is the growth in the number of personnel in the foreign service who are assigned the responsibility for innovation diplomacy. The examples used to illustrate the indicators come primarily from developed countries in Europe plus the USA. Nevertheless, the major point being made is that it is important to be mindful of the accelerating interest in innovation diplomacy in international relations. Whether it should be labelled as “innovation diplomacy” or “science, technology and innovation diplomacy” is up for debate, and the prediction is that both will continue to be used given the plethora of terms used in the diplomatic studies literature. Leijten ends his comprehensive analysis of science, technology and innovation diplomacy by asking a critical question. In light of the emphasis placed on national economic interests and the knowledge economy/society, he asks whether innovation diplomacy can play a role in uniting nations around global challenge such as climate change, population growth, water shortages and migration. This same question is being discussed by politicians, policy makers, diplomats and non-state actors from around the world and juxtaposes science diplomacy based on cooperation and

74

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

mutuality of benefits with science diplomacy as a soft power instrument to exert and achieve national self-interests.

6.7 Revisiting the Definition and Use of Science Diplomacy It is useful to conclude this chapter on science diplomacy by mentioning recent articles that were published in the special volumes of Global Policy (2018) and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy (2020) which addressed the question of the meaning and conceptualization of science diplomacy. The two articles by Kaltofen and Acuto (2018b) published in Global Policy (2018) pose fundamental questions as to the positioning of science diplomacy as a boundary problem.

6.7.1 Balancing Theoretical and Practice Approaches to Defining Science Diplomacy Kaltofen and Acuto (2018b) state that there is still limited academic work that deals with the complex relationships between international diplomatic and scientific endeavours. They stress the importance of bridging this divide through a “rebalance” between the practice of science diplomacy, its practitioner-driven literature and the discussion of international relations theory that underpin the study of world politics (Kaltofen & Acuto, 2018a, p. 9). They propose that this move could start from a more explicit placing of science diplomacy discussions across the international relations spectrum to move the conceptualization of science diplomacy towards more international theorizing (Kaltofen & Acuto, 2018b). They stand out as broadening the study of science diplomacy by firmly placing science diplomacy in the international relations theory literature, rather than the current focus of the practice oriented diplomacy literature. Ruffini (2020) in his introduction to the articles in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy describes science diplomacy as “both a set of tools available to nation states to exercise their diplomatic action, and a process to address major threats which challenge the world order and have a science-intensive nature”. This description of science diplomacy is an interesting example of the point that Kaltofen and Acuto (2018a) make about the science diplomacy literature being practice-driven and not theory-oriented. Ruffini (2020) believes that science diplomacy is traditionally driven by national interests and needs, but it also aims to solve global issues and that because of this “twofold rationale, being at the same time state centric and global governance oriented, science diplomacy is an instrument of choice for managing tensions between national interests and common interests”(Ruffini, 2020, p. 355).

6.7  Revisiting the Definition and Use of Science Diplomacy

75

Ruffini believes that by defining science diplomacy as the interactions between the world of science and that of diplomacy plus the influential report New Frontiers of Science Diplomacy (Royal Society, 2010) has led to the identification of scientists and scientific institutions as potential diplomatic actors. This view is consistent with the contemporary vision of new diplomacy which includes both state and non-­ state actors. Nevertheless, he uses both terms, science diplomacy and science cooperation, without noting a difference between them unlike other scholars who believe that diplomacy involves state actors only while cooperation includes both state and non-state actors. Ruffini comments that “Through the levers of international scientific cooperation and sound scientific advice to policy-making, science diplomacy (is) able to reduce political tensions and mitigate conflicts between countries, improve mutual understanding between peoples, advance the satisfaction of common interests and contribute to global peace” (Ruffini, 2020, p. 356).

6.7.2 The Idealism and Rhetoric of Science Diplomacy In the same special issue, Flink (2020) provides a different perspective on science diplomacy by criticizing what he calls the “sensationalist discourse and rhetoric” often attached to the concept of science diplomacy. He argues that the concept of science diplomacy is often over-idealistic and preaches a vision of science and scientists as the great saviours of global challenges, omitting that scientists themselves are not free of political values, bias and immoral practice (Flink, 2020). Flink refers to the conceptual framework developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and included in the 2010 Royal Society Report and describes it as “an entire bundle of three means-to-ends conjunctions of the terms science and diplomacy” and goes on to state that “obviously this so called definition, concocted by a small number of practitioners and advocates from an Anglo-­ American context, holds little value for scholarly analytical purposes, as it offers only a few ostensive examples that may — or may not — be representative of an entire intersection of two social realms, each of which is complex enough by itself” (Flink, 2020, p. 364). An interesting point in this commentary is that Flink confuses the conceptual framework developed by AAAS with definitions which are two very different approaches to understanding a concept of phenomenon. In the original article by AAAS, the three approaches to understanding science and diplomacy were clearly identified and proposed as a conceptual framework and not a definition. A conceptual framework is actually meant to elaborate on core characteristics of a concept that are not meant to be explicitly addressed in the definition (Jabareen, 2009). This seems to be overlooked by Flink as evidenced by his statement “Strikingly, for a discourse that vividly plays on the image of ‘scientificness’, its definition — some even call it a taxonomy — does not even pass muster with definitory requirements”(Flink, 2020, p. 364). This convoluted argument is yet another sign of (1) the lack of agreement on definitions of science diplomacy, (2) the importance of clear context-free definitions about diplomacy and (3) the confusion about

76

6  Diplomacy Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI as Science Diplomacy

the different uses and structures of definitions, descriptions and conceptual frameworks in academic research. Flink (2020) raises the point that the so-called definition was “concocted by a small number of practitioners and advocates from an Anglo-American context”. This statement highlights yet another challenge facing the development of a generic definition of science diplomacy and that is culture and context. It raises the question as to whether a definition should be context free as in not being aligned with a specific issue or a specific nation or culture. This review of the science diplomacy literature has shown that nations have different motives and expectations of science diplomacy and there are multiple interpretations and conceptualizations of science diplomacy. Given this reality, it is imperative that explicit purposes and outcomes are not included in generic definitions of science diplomacy. Secondly, science diplomacy is being closely linked to technology and innovation, and thus, decisions will need to be made about whether these ideas should be conceptually linked or separated. Most of all, it shows the importance attributed to science diplomacy in international relations and the need for a shared understanding of what it means. The next chapter focuses on a systematic analysis of how international higher education scholars conceptualize and analyse the expanding role of international higher education in diplomacy. This leads to an examination of the similarities and differences between how academics, policy makers and experts from two different fields of study – diplomacy and international higher education – perceive the role of IHERI in international relations.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Science and diplomacy: A conceptual framework. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/scidip_framework_aaas_2009.pdf Copeland, D. (2015). Science and diplomacy after Canada’s lost decade: Counting the costs, looking beyond. Centre for International Policy Studies. Flink, T. (2020). The sensationalist discourse of science diplomacy: A critical reflection. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10032 Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Toward a typology of national approaches in science and public. Policy, 37(9), 665–677. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/160940690900800406 Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018a). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, 9(3), 8–14. Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018b). Rebalancing the encounter between science diplomacy and international relations theory. Global Policy, 9(3), 15–22. Leijten, J. (2017). Exploring the future of innovation diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(20). Miremadi, T. (2016). A model for science and technology diplomacy: How to align rationales of foreign policy and research. SSRN Electronic Journal.

References

77

Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood. In C.  Carta & R.  Higgot (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer. Royal Society. (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy. Navigating the changing balance of power. The Royal Society. Ruffini, P.  B. (2020). Introduction to the forum on science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10033 Rungis, C. (2018). S4D4C using science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges- state of the art report. EU Horizon. S4D4C. (2019). The Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy. S4D4C-Using Science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges. Science and Technology in Society Forum. (2013). Forum Statement 2013, Japan. Science and Technology in Society Forum. (2019). Forum Statement 2019 Japan. Selleslaghs, J. (2017). Science, higher education and innovation cooperation between the EU and Latin America: All talk and no action? 15th biennial European Union studies association conference. Sunami, A., Hamachi, T., & Kitaba, S. (2015). Japanese science and technology diplomacy in science diplomacy: New day or false Dawn. World Scientific Press. Wilson, I. (2014). International education programs and political influence—Manufacturing sympathy? Palgrave Macmillan. Zewail, A. (2010). The soft power of science. THE American Interest, 05(6).

Chapter 7

Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International Relations

7.1 Introduction Chapters 5 and 6 provided a review of the diplomacy literature which explicitly or implicitly addressed the expanding role of international higher education, research and innovation in building relations between and among countries. Given the interdisciplinary nature of this investigation, the purpose of this chapter is to carefully review how scholars and experts from the higher education sector understand the intersection between higher education and international relations and how the phenomenon is understood and labelled. It is important to highlight that this is not a “state-of-the-art” literature review. Consistent with the interpretivist and exploratory nature of the research, this chapter aims to explore through inductive analysis how scholars and experts of international higher education conceptualize, explain and frame the role of international higher education, innovation and research (IHERI) in international relations (IR). The choice of articles, books and reports is meant to be illustrative not comprehensive and covers the years 2000–2020. Deliberate efforts were made to include authors and examples from all regions of the world to avoid a bias to towards North American and European perspectives and the reality that western countries have tended to dominate international higher education research in the past. The chapter is organized to align as closely as possible with the same conceptual categories used in Chap. 5 to permit a comparison of how two different fields of study explore and analyse the role of IHERI in IR. This means that IHERI in cultural diplomacy is discussed first, followed by education diplomacy and then public diplomacy. An examination of IHERI’s role in IR through the lens of soft power follows and includes an analysis of the role of Confucius Institutes, international exchanges, university league tables and scholarships. This is followed by a section on how the concept of knowledge diplomacy has more recently been used to capture the role of IHERI in IR. The final section provides a summary of the major trends © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_7

79

80

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

identified in the international higher education literature. Important to note is that the chapter uses the word “concept” to represent the meaning, while the words “labels and terms” are used to classify the concepts.

7.2 Cultural Diplomacy 7.2.1 Education Hubs and Cultural Diplomacy Unlike the diplomacy literature, there are relatively few references which refer to role of international higher education as cultural diplomacy. One of the exceptions is an article by Lee (2015) which focuses on education hubs as form of cultural diplomacy and an instrument of soft power. He acknowledges that the interface between higher education and international relations receives too little attention and broadens the scope of international higher education beyond scholarships, student mobility and academic exchanges to include education hubs. In Chap. 4, the development of education hubs and cities is discussed as a relatively recent development in international higher education over the past 20 years. The driving rationales for a nation to establish itself as a hub differ across countries but include economic, education and training, skilled workforce, geopolitical status and research (Knight, 2014). Lee (2015) extends this analysis by focusing on the motivations of education hubs to leverage their cultural heritage and colonial legacy as instruments of soft power and thus use cultural diplomacy to exert influence on the international stage. The countries/jurisdictions investigated were Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong (Lee, 2015). Lee refers to Nye’s (2004) three sources of soft power in international relations: culture, political ideals and foreign policies. Lee considers international higher education in general, and education hubs in particular, as transmitters of culture and political ideals and as such embody tremendous potential to generate soft power for a state (Lee, 2015). Based on the fact that education hubs are inherently international in design involving multiple partnerships between local and foreign actors such as governments, higher education institutions, industries and scholars, Lee’s comparative study focuses on how education hubs mobilize identities, values and norms for the purposes of soft power. He points out that the assumptions about shared identities and values, as well as the local and regional political dynamics, present serious challenges for policy implementation and hub development by the host governments. Lee emphasizes that education hubs must be seen as more than a destination for international students. Education hubs as purveyors of cultural diplomacy can use their cultural identities and values as instruments of soft power to increase their reputation and brand as centres of excellence for education, research and knowledge production.

7.2  Cultural Diplomacy

81

7.2.2 Educational Exchanges Chou and Spangler (2018) focus on exchanges and make convincing arguments about the many positive outcomes from cultural and education exchanges between rival societies. Their book entitled Cultural and Educational Exchanges Between Rival Societies: Cooperation and Competition in an Interdependent World provides case studies of exchanges between countries with a history of conflicted relations such as Israel and Palestine, China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan and Cuba and the USA.  In addition, isolationist countries such as North Korea are discussed. The authors explain that the aims of educational exchanges range from mutual understanding to knowledge sharing through books, data, research and joint meetings. Interesting to note is that theories of intercultural competence, conflict resolution, contact hypothesis and peace education are discussed in the examination of the motivations and impacts of cultural and education exchanges. The authors pay particular attention to the challenges, risks and benefits inherent in the exchanges and acknowledge both the difficulties and rewards of using exchanges to mediate tensions between countries. The positive effects can include the potential to reveal common humanity, reduce mistrust, challenge stereotypes and inspire reflexivity. The potential risks and negative outcomes can include advancing ulterior political motives, reinforcing of prejudices and encouraging human capital imbalances through brain gain/drain (Chou & Spangler, 2018, p. 16). Not all of the exchanges are framed as cultural diplomacy, nor do they all involve higher education institutions, but the message is clear. The case studies demonstrate that cultural and education exchanges play a fundamental role in international relations in general and addressing the relationships between rival societies in particular. The chapter by Park and Bennet entitled Engagement with the DPRK: Soft Power and Knowledge Sharing Through Educational Exchanges with the Hermit Kingdom refers to knowledge sharing as a “high-culture” form of soft power (Park & Bennett, 2018). Knowledge sharing is understood to be a tool for engagement and long-term influence. The authors refer to Nye’s point (2011) that soft power is highly dependent on willing interpreters and receivers in order for the desired influence to be achieved. This requires the soft power potential to be a sufficiently attractive resource that the target audience, or subservient party, is receptive and willing to pursue the attractive resource (Nye, 2011, p.  41). University level exchanges as sources of soft power rest on the assumption that it is not only the government who exerts soft power. Park and Bennett argue that non-state actors are also involved and because universities are usually perceived as legitimate entities with substantial credibility, they can be effective carriers of soft power.

82

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

7.2.3 Are Universities Politically Neutral? Park and Bennett (2018) conclude that higher education, which they refer to as a politically neutral and universally valued resource, carries a high level of attraction and forms the basis of “university soft power”. The idea that higher education is politically neutral can be contested, but, in the context of North Korea, the authors believe that foreign universities can leverage their attraction through influencing the worldview of their North Korean counterparts. They claim that by targeting key individuals, such as professors, knowledge sharing programs can “influence not only current policymakers, but the next generation of leaders within North Korea” (Park & Bennett, 2018, p. 53). This is a debatable conclusion, as not all scholars and policy makers would agree with using university influence as soft power to achieve these ideological ends. As was discussed in Chap. 5, some researchers (Jones, 2010) might not see this in such a positive light and label this as bordering on hegemonic. On the other hand, there would be more support for suggesting that meaningful engagement and knowledge sharing between universities, foundations, research centres and other education bodies are an important part of keeping dialogue open and flowing between countries with a history of conflict, tension and rivalry. The popularity and influence of Nye’s writing about soft power in international higher education cannot be underestimated, but perhaps the depth of understanding of the concept should be questioned. For example, Wang (2012) writes about the potential of “soft cultural power” of China in terms of attracting more international students to study in Chinese universities (Wang, 2012). He concludes that “the education of international students in soft culture power promotion has made Chinese brilliant culture benefit all human beings and world peace” (Wang, 2012, p. 192). Bold statements such as this require close scrutiny and a deeper understanding of the relationship between international higher education and soft power.

7.3 Education Diplomacy The concept of education diplomacy needs to be mentioned even though the term education diplomacy does not appear to be commonly used in the higher education literature, whereas it is often used in the diplomacy literature especially by Piros and Koops (2020). Why the higher education literature does not refer to the concept of education diplomacy can perhaps be explained by the fact that the term has been extensively used by advocates, policy makers and researchers in the field of early childhood education (Whitehead, 2011; Bartram et  al., 2015). For instance, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) has adopted this term and believes that “education diplomacy uses the skills of diplomacy grounded in human rights principles to advance education as a driver for human development”

7.4  Public Diplomacy

83

(Hone, 2016). This distinguishes early childhood education from the role of international higher education in strengthening relations between and among countries.

7.4 Public Diplomacy The review of the international higher education literature shows that little attention is given to higher education as a strong actor in public diplomacy. Again, this differs significantly from the diplomacy literature. Dessoff (2008) interviewed Patricia de Stacy Harrison, former president and CEO of the US Corporation for Public Broadcasting and former Assistance Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, about the relationship between higher education and public diplomacy (Dessoff, 2008). The discussion focused entirely on attracting international students to the USA and study abroad experiences for American students. Again, this illustrates the narrow focus given to the role of international higher education in building international relationships. She maintains that a long-term view must be taken to reap the benefits of international students and states “you must be patient. There is not an immediate return. You could make the case that if you wanted to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of international education programs, it shouldn’t be based on whether they support American foreign policy but whether they go back to their countries and become good citizens and contribute to their own civil societies” (Dessoff, 2008, p. 3). One can applaud this “good will” statement, but it is important to question whether it would still resonate today when US commercial motives predominate, borders are closing to students from targeted countries, there is a clear emphasis on trying to recruit and retain the best and the brightest of students, and gaining competitive advantage is a top priority for the USA. It must be acknowledged that this scenario is not specific to the USA; it is applicable to a handful of other countries such as Australia and the UK who give top priority to recruiting international students. In a 2013 article on “Weaving the Future of Global Partnerships: Diplomacy in Education”, McGill Peterson writes that “through public diplomacy initiatives and programs, nations seek to exert soft power …. which is dependent on the power of ideas and culture to influence the friendship, disposition, and action of others” (Mc Gill Peterson, 2013). She cites the Fulbright Program as an excellent example of public diplomacy as the stated goal of the 70-year-old Fulbright Program is “to foster mutual understanding between people and nations and represents a mix of government and people-generated soft power”. Interesting to note is that higher education scholars position IHERI as both a form of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy both of which can be used as a form of soft power. As discussed in Chaps. 2 and 3, diplomacy and soft power use different strategies and are based on different principles, and thus this conflation of diplomacy as a tool of soft power requires further reflection and research.

84

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

7.4.1 Good Deeds Versus Self-Interests McGill Peterson (2013) posits the idea that both researchers and practitioners should ask whether global engagement among the world’s higher education institutions brings mutual benefits for all partners or whether it is fundamentally a set of unequal relationships. She asks the question “when governments and public diplomacy organizations reach out to developing countries is their approach one of mutuality or is the outlook one of a stronger power influencing a weaker one” (McGill Peterson & Helms, 2013, p. 4). In other words, is the recruitment of international students, often with scholarships provided, a case of good deeds or one of self-­ interests or both? Usually, it is understood as both, but there are serious questions as to the mixed motives given the expected outcomes such as brain gain, revenue generation, international status and geopolitical interests from scholarships for international students. How are the seemingly “good will” motives of national- or regional-funded international higher education programs actually perceived by recipient countries? As discussed in Chap. 5, they can be offered with positive intentions and yet received with speculation and negativity. The promotion and use of English as a teaching language in countries where English is not a national language is a good example. It can be labelled as soft imperialism, hegemony or cosmopolitanism (Sonntag, 2009) or a positive consequence of globalization. It is a question of the differences in perceived intentions and impacts between host and target countries.

7.4.2 University Sovereignty and Bilateral/ Multilateral Agreements In addition to government-sponsored international higher education programs, there is an accelerated growth in institutional bilateral agreements and multilateral networks. McGill Peterson and Helms (2013) reflect on the question of whether institutions are moving beyond sovereignty when they sign these agreements (McGill Peterson & Helms, 2013). Permission from government is not a requirement for universities to establish and implement bilateral and multilateral agreements. Many universities see them as people-to-people initiatives and believe that knowledge production and exchange are critical in a more interconnected and interdependent world which faces common challenges.

7.5 Soft Power As previously discussed, IHERI is often conceptualized as a form of diplomacy, for example, cultural or public diplomacy, which is then labelled as an instrument of soft power. The contradiction of using a diplomatic instrument as a form of soft

7.5  Soft Power

85

power, when the two approaches are based on very different values and principles, is confusing and questionable. This section looks at how China through the Confucius Institutes and how the USA and Japan have conceptualized IHERI as forms of both diplomacy and soft power. Finally, using university league tables as an instrument of attraction and thus soft power is discussed, and the purpose and impact of scholarships are examined.

7.5.1 Confucius Institutes from China There are remarkable differences in how researchers have framed international higher education’s role in building international relationships as both cultural diplomacy and instruments of soft power. One of the more interesting and perhaps controversial examples is the labelling of the Confucius Institutes from China as examples of both cultural diplomacy and soft power. This deserves attention as Confucius Institutes are one of the most cited examples of international high education as soft power, and there are conflicting views of the intentions and expectations behind China’s promotion and funding of them around the world. The controversy can stem from the “benign” use of cultural diplomacy and its description as an instrument of a soft power even though soft power is driven by self-interest and domination, not by mutuality or reciprocity. References to the use of cultural and public diplomacy as effective instruments of soft power are certainly not exclusive to the international higher education literature. In Chaps. 5 and 6, the same assumptions and connections were frequently made by multiple international relations researchers. The waters are very muddy in terms of understanding how diplomatic relations and soft power relationships are conceptualized, substantiated and operationalized and, most importantly, the differences between the two approaches as discussed in Chap. 9. There are many references addressing the role and purpose of the Confucius Institutes. It is a hotly debated topic, and perceptions differ enormously. Two are analysed in this section. In 2010, Yang used the Confucius Institutes as examples of the role of soft power in education (Yang, 2010), and in 2013, Pan wrote about them as instruments of China’s cultural and soft power projection (Pan, 2013). However, it is helpful to have some context, and thus a brief introduction to the founding and growth of the Confucius Institutions over the last 15 years is discussed, and the link to the more recent Belt and Road Initiative is provided as well as an update on the new agency in China is now overseeing the expansion and operation of Confucius Institutes. First some background information on Confucius Institutes. The initiative was established by the Chinese Government in 2004 with the stated mission to promote knowledge of Chinese language and culture abroad. According to Pan (2013), the objective was to develop Chinese language and culture teaching resources and make them available worldwide to meet the demands of overseas Chinese learners (Pan, 2013). There has been substantial growth in the number of Confucius institutes,

86

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

353 in 2011 (updated to 530 as of 2019). Confucius Institutes have been described as a unique model of promoting language training and cultural awareness. Many would disagree with the claim of Confucius Institutes being a unique model, citing the British Council, Cervantes Foundation, Alliance Française and Goethe-Institut as state supported national organizations dedicated to teaching language and increasing cultural exchanges. To some extent the contested view of their uniqueness may be true as none of the aforementioned entities have specifically targeted universities and schools to be the hosts of teaching language and culture, nor have they been debated and criticized to the same degree that Confucius Institutes have been. Yang (2010) clearly states that China’s effort to establish Confucius institutes worldwide is the most innovative and systematically planned soft power policy to date (Yang, 2010). While this statement may be true in 2010, it has been surpassed by the use of higher education in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which is more ambitious and includes higher education as tool of soft power (Li, 2018). D’Hooghe suggests the Chinese believe that the BRI works in two ways – firstly, as an instrument to promote China’s higher education and science and technology agendas around the world and, secondly, as international cooperation in education and science and technology which is used to promote the Belt and Road Initiative. As such, she analyses “the BRI as an instrument, as well as a target, of China’s science and education diplomacy while international cooperation in HE and S&T is analysed as an instrument of BRI diplomacy” (d’Hooghe, 2021, p. 36). This is an interesting and different way of using the terms diplomacy and can raise further questions about the role of international higher education in international relations. Yang cites Confucius Institutes “as a unique model of international exchange and cooperation in higher education”, and at the same time, “soft power has been a fundamental part of military thinking in China for over 2000 years” (Yang, 2010, p. 236). What is puzzling is that international exchange and cooperation in higher education are seen to be linked to military thinking known as hard power and soft power in the same thought. Neither hard power, usually referred to as coercive behaviours, nor soft power usually referred to as a form of cooption, compliance or competition (Nye, 2004) is based on the notions of cooperation or exchange. This is yet another example of the confusion about the meaning, values, strategies and intentions of a soft power approach and demonstrates the many different interpretations and misunderstandings of the soft power concept by international higher education scholars. Both Pan and Yang acknowledge that Confucius Institutes have generated heated debate regarding their purpose, function and a perceived hidden agenda related to the threat to academic freedom. However, Yang believes that Confucius Institutes demonstrate a new form of Chinese higher education internationalization, featuring an improved balance between introducing the world to China and bringing China to the world. He argues that many scholars have borrowed the theory of soft power to analyse China’s Confucius Institutes but have failed to link them to China’s global engagement and internationalization of higher education (Yang, 2010, p. 243).

7.5  Soft Power

87

Pan, on the other hand, recognizes that Confucius Institutes have been framed as an instrument of soft power and perceptions of their ulterior political motives exist. But she cites them as a form of state-sponsored cultural diplomacy implemented through universities thereby making Chinese universities “cultural diplomats”. She also makes a direct link between the establishment of the Confucius Institutes and China’s need to promote trade and foreign investment. She describes the rationale for the Confucius Institutes as reflecting “China’s recognition that language teaching is a means of building relationships, enhancing socio-cultural understanding and promoting trade and foreign investments based on the belief that a lack of Chinese language efficiency and understanding of Chinese culture were barriers that hindered direct investment in China” (Pan, 2013, p.  23). This is yet another interpretation of why Confucius Institutes were established. It raises more questions as to whether they are instruments of soft power, cultural diplomacy or trade diplomacy, or perhaps all three and the inherent contradiction in using cultural diplomacy for soft power purposes when they are based on fundamentally different intentions, values, modes of operation and outcomes as discussed in Chap. 3. The discourse on Confucius Institutes continues to increase and become more controversial and politically sensitive. While US universities and several European countries continue to close them, more and more are being established in Africa, while India tries to maintain its ban on them. As with most contentious issues in the international arena, each country considers the pros and cons of being involved in the Confucius Institute project and develops its own policies about the role they play in their larger relationship with China. Clearly, the Confucius Institutes are a lightning rod for both praise and criticism in academic and political circles. It illustrates how universities are directly engaged in international relations both as agents, actors and stakeholders but also demonstrates the controversy and confusion as whether the role is framed as soft power, cultural diplomacy or trade promotion. It is interesting to note that in 2020, perhaps in response to the confusion and concern about the purpose of Confucius Institutes, China has created a new non-­ governmental organization, the Chinese International Education Foundation, which is now responsible for the Confucius Institutes. Is this move an attempt to distance the Confucius Institutes from the Hanban which is part of the Ministry of Education and was responsible for their founding and operation since 2014. There is speculation as to the reason behind this move and whether or not it will have any significant impact of the government’s influence on the Confucius Institutes and the perception of them by foreign higher education institutions and governments.

7.5.2 The Soft Power of USA’s and Japan’s Higher Education A book by Watanabe and McConnell (2008) entitled Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States clearly acknowledges the importance of higher education as a source of soft power by devoting three chapters to the topic (Watanabe & McConnell, 2008). It is one of the first

88

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

international higher education books to do so and has clearly been influenced by Nye’s theories and writings on soft power. The first article by Altbach and McGill Peterson focus on Higher Education as a Projection of America’s Soft Power (Altbach & McGill Peterson, 2008). They cite, but go beyond, the importance of using the American brand to attract international student and academic exchanges in enhancing international relations. They refer to what they call “a more sophisticated approach” and give examples of branch campuses that have been established by American universities in targeted countries. Since their article was published in 2008, the USA has established the largest number of branch campuses around the world (Kinser & Lane, 2016). While there are academic and economic benefits to the universities that develop these satellite campuses in foreign countries, there are also geopolitical advantages by increasing the attractiveness and soft power of the USA. Altbach and McGill Peterson also cite the development of universities around the world that are called The American University of X, for example, the American University of Paris, or Rome or Dubai, thereby using the perceived soft power attached to universities from countries with a respected higher education system. This strategy also increases the attraction and brand of US higher education even though there may be little or no affiliation with American counterparts. In the globalized world of today, this trend is increasing and extending to other countries. There are instances where a nation, for example, Canada, was very surprised to find that the word “Canada” was included in the name of a university in a foreign country without any substantial involvement of Canadian universities. Apparently, this practice is legal because international law prevents copyrighting and trademarking the use of a country’s name. Using the name of a country with a respected higher education system is seen as a path to legitimization, global engagement and source of soft power. Altbach and McGill Peterson (2008) point to an interesting dilemma in using higher education to increase soft power around the world. They believe that, in addition to the recognized quality of America’s education, another reason for America’s successful role in higher education worldwide is the lack of central government planning and policies. However, when they look to the anticipated increased competition in the future, they suggest that their competitors may have several advantages, one of which is the existence of coordinated national policies, strategies and programs which promote and support good will (as well as trade) through international higher education programs. Yonezawa is responsible for the chapter on Facing Crisis: Soft Power and Japanese Education in a Global Context (Yonezawa, 2008). Like many higher education scholars and policy makers, he posits that the soft power of attractiveness and influence are two aspects which link higher education and its role in international relations. However, he stands alone in acknowledging that Japan’s use of its higher education system a source of soft power is in crisis ( (Yonezawa, 2008, p. 55). He notes three phases of the relationship between Japanese use of hard and soft power with regard to education. The first phase (1868–1950) denotes the period when education was supported by military power. The second phase (1950–1980) saw the

7.5  Soft Power

89

accumulation of soft power in education through economic development, and the third phase (1980–2007) used education as soft power in the transformation to a post-industrial society. Looking to the future he asks, “how can the soft power of Japanese education be developed recognizing that in the past it has assumed an important role in transforming the country’s military and economic power to soft power?”. His answer lies in the acceleration of the internationalization of Japan’s education. Addressing Japan’s strong social customs based on cultural homogeneity, he suggests that increased dialogue based on mutual respect with foreign participants is a central component of developing Japan’s soft power and doing it through education is paramount. Interesting to note is his belief that soft power is developed through “dialogue based on mutual respect and benefits” rather than on the commonly held view that soft power is more of one way process of persuasion and attraction resulting in cooption or compliance. This is yet another example of the confusion by international higher education scholars about the nature of the soft power process. The third chapter by Mashiko and Horie addresses Nurturing Soft Power: The Impact of Japanese-US University Exchanges (Mashiko & Horie, 2008). They start their chapter by quoting Nye’s view that the development of lasting relationships with key individuals through using scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences and access to media channels is the third dimension of public diplomacy (Nye, 2004). They join the many scholars who frame higher education exchanges as an integral part of public diplomacy which in turn can be used as an instrument of soft power. However, like Yonezawa (2008), they state that “the potential role of Japanese universities in building and sustaining soft power is clear but largely unfilled” (Mashiko & Horie, 2008, p. 86). They go beyond the recruitment of international students and refer to other strategies that can help to internationalize the Japanese education system and increase its soft power. These strategies include cross-border programs such as international branch campuses, franchise arrangements, twinning programs, curricular reform, alumni networks and teaching in languages other than Japanese. They conclude that the Japanese government and universities are not paying sufficient attention to strengthening their ties with foreign countries and have thus failed to build soft power. These two chapters pointing to Japan’s lack of attention to using international higher education to build soft power were published in 2008 and reflect an earlier period of foreign policy. Since that time Japan has introduced several national funding programs, such as the Top Global Project (established in 2014 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), to further the internationalization of its higher education system. But interestingly most of the descriptions and commentary on the impact of these new efforts are not necessarily framed as building soft power. It bears repeating that Nye’s (2004) conceptualization of soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others by having them admire values, practices and prosperity. He suggests that a country’s attractiveness and hence soft power can be enhanced by increasing international student and cultural exchange programs. Nye quotes former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, as saying “I can think of no

90

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have studied here” (Nye, 2004, p. 13). But in the contemporary world of international higher education, there are many new developments which go beyond the traditional use of academic exchanges and scholarships to increase soft power through attractiveness. A good example is the recent rise and preoccupation with international league tables and university rankings as discussed by Lo (2011).

7.5.3 The Soft Power of University Rankings and League Tables Lo raises critical issues about the impact and relationship between soft power and university rankings (Lo, 2011). He makes an important distinction between hegemony and self-determination. His analysis argues that the anticolonial perspective, founded on the centrality of the Anglo-American paradigm in higher education, does not adequately explain or acknowledge the self-determination of peripheral and developing nations. The alternative he suggests is Nye’s concept of soft power. This is yet another application of Nye’s concept of soft power to international higher education. Lo considers the soft power potential of university rankings, especially in terms of the attractiveness of a nation’s higher education system, as a tool to reshape the global higher education landscape and the relationships between countries (Lo, 2011). Moving from the neo-colonialism perspective based on the centre-periphery theory, Lo argues that soft power is an alternative way to understand the dominance of the Western paradigm in higher education and its role in international relations. Instead of looking at how higher education can be considered as a national asset to expand a countries’ influence through winning hearts and minds, Lo uses Nye’s theory to understand the Western hegemony in higher education. Rather than explaining Western dominance as an oppression of indigenous culture and knowledge in developing countries, Lo suggests that the status of world-class universities can be seen as an attraction leading to compliance and modelling of the Western model. He suggests that many countries, especially in East Asia, are attracted to the world-class image created by rankings. They are reshaping their higher education sectors by learning from and also copying the Western-based world-class models of universities. Thus, dominance is gained through the use of soft power through attraction to a country’s model and approach to higher education and research. Lo (2011) probes the idea that because peripheral states are being proactive in trying to emulate the world-class institution model, they have a degree of self-­ determination. This differs from the traditional passive role they play in the alternative model of domination or oppression by Western or privileged states. Yet, he concludes that the soft power of global university rankings still supports Western or highly developed countries’ hegemony without necessarily undermining the self-­ determination of peripheral countries (Lo, 2011). Given that the importance,

7.5  Soft Power

91

influence and numbers of international ranking systems of universities have exponentially increased in the last decade, the confluence of soft power, self-determination and hegemony related to international university league tables is a perspective worthy of further reflection and research

7.5.4 Scholarships Wilson (2014) in his book entitled International Education Programs and Political Influence: Manufacturing Sympathy? questions whether scholarly mobility affects international relations in the way many of its champions claim (Wilson, 2014, p. 19). His findings are based on archival research of four major UK scholarship programs that have been in existence for decades. They are the Marshall Scholarship, the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, the Chevening Scholarships and Entente Cordiale Scholarship. All enable foreign students to study in the UK and cover tuition and living expenses. He reports that the motives and benefits have evolved and changed over time which is to be expected. The publicly supported scholarships, which include the first three previously mentioned, were framed as “good will” programs and focused on scholarships as tools for winning influential friends. However, he questions if the impact goes beyond “good will” and suggests that there is no hard evidence that illustrates scholarship recipients and targeted countries have more positive attitudes to the sponsoring country. Wilson concedes that there are benefits in terms of how mobility affects the students’ learning, but he believes that the link to international relations is tenuous. He agrees that the act of “creating programs” signals a good will gesture from the sponsoring country to the target country but asks whether the influence goes beyond this. He suggests that scholarships have symbolic power but questions whether the students and scholar recipients serve a para-diplomatic role as claimed by other scholars. His scepticism and questions are important reminders that hard evidence on the contribution that student/scholar mobility makes to international relations is critical, and more attention and research is needed. Important to remember is that the overall tenor of the relationship between countries that support academic mobility can never be ignored. For instance, scholarships offered by former colonizing countries, such as the UK, can have different impacts on countries that do not have a history of colonization. It is fair to say that not all researchers would agree with the conclusions he has drawn, but many would support his questions and support the need for further longitudinal research. As Park and Bennett (2018) and Asada (2019) point out, it is important to look beyond scholarships and focus on knowledge sharing and study abroad, respectively (Park & Bennett, 2018; Asada, 2019). But they differ from Wilson as they see direct benefits for participants and for the relationship between countries.

92

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

7.6 Knowledge Diplomacy An early reference to knowledge diplomacy relates to Ryan’s (1998) work which linked the issues of global copyright and patent regimes to trade agreements by international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (Ryan, 1998). In the higher education literature, knowledge diplomacy is used in a completely different way. In 2012 Johnston, then Governor General of Canada, referred to the concept of the “diplomacy of knowledge”. He described it as our ability and willingness to work together and share our learning across disciplines and borders. He suggests that the well-being of nations (and international relations) is increasingly being defined by the ability to develop and advance knowledge – not military might or gross domestic product. Knowledge, he claims, is gaining momentum as the new currency and passport to success and that the diplomacy of knowledge can open up relationships between peoples and foster harmony in an interconnected world (Johnston, 2012, 2014). However, this approach of using knowledge to deepen relationships between countries and foster harmony is not shared by all scholars. For instance, as discussed in Chap. 3, Wojciuk (2018) sees knowledge as an effective source of power in a world which is more oriented to using knowledge and innovation to gain a competitive edge in economic and trade development. In a 2014 opinion piece by Knight entitled “The Limits of Soft Power in Higher Education”, she questioned why international higher education initiatives that are typically based on exchange and partnerships were being framed as soft power which is generally based on principles of competition and dominance through the seemingly benign strategies of attraction and persuasion (Knight, 2014). In a follow-­up article in 2015, entitled “Moving from Soft Power to Knowledge Diplomacy”, Knight stressed the importance of collaboration, mutuality and reciprocity in producing and sharing knowledge to address global issues that were common to most countries, but which could not be solved by one country alone (Knight, 2015). Later articles by Knight (2018, 2019) explored knowledge diplomacy more deeply in terms of how the contemporary activities of international higher education and research actors such as universities, think tanks, research centres, international joint universities, education/knowledge hubs and foundations have an increasingly important role to play in strengthening relations between and among countries to address global issues and challenges that know no borders (Knight, 2018). She examines IHERI activities from all regions of the world and analyses them as forms of knowledge diplomacy (Knight, 2019). In a recent publication, Asada (2019) analyses the benefits and lessons learned from Japanese students who had study-abroad experiences to the USA during the period from 1963 to 2012 (Asada, 2019). She uses the concept of knowledge diplomacy as proposed by Knight (2014) because it provides an alternative to other terms of diplomacy that are rooted in soft power such as cultural and public diplomacy (Asada, 2019, p. 78). Asada concludes from her research that cultural diplomacy with its connotation of dominance within its soft power paradigm remains problematic to understanding the role of study abroad in diplomacy. However, it is

7.6  Knowledge Diplomacy

93

interesting to note that she uses a relatively recent term like knowledge diplomacy in a retroactive way to understand international higher education activities of the last four decades which raises question of the appropriateness of using contemporary terms to explain and analyse international higher education of 40 years ago. She suggests that the contribution of study abroad to knowledge diplomacy is an example of how diplomacy has shifted from formal state-centric actors and approaches to include informal actors and sociocultural interaction that promotes engagement between and among nations and their people. Furthermore, she concludes that study abroad contributes to knowledge diplomacy through its capacity to foster individuals who think and use the knowledge acquired during their study-­ abroad experience to engage with the rest of the world. In essence, this study aligns closely with other scholars who believe that academic exchanges are fundamental to developing mutual understanding and long-term relationships, but she positions it within a knowledge diplomacy framework which emphasizes mutuality and reciprocity and not in the soft power framework of cooption and compliance through attraction and persuasion As discussed, Asada (2019) built on the concept of knowledge diplomacy to analyse the benefits of study-abroad experiences and the role of higher education in international relations. However, higher education’s preoccupation with soft power leads to an article by Ogunnubi and Shawa (2019) entitled “Analysing South Africa’s Soft Power in Africa through the Knowledge Diplomacy of Higher Education” (Ogunnubi & Shawa, 2019). This illustrates how many higher education researchers are captured by the notion of soft power even when it is used with the concept of knowledge diplomacy which was deliberately introduced by Knight (2015, 2019) to provide an alternative to framing higher education’s role in international relations in a power paradigm. Ogunnubi and Shawa (2019) write that “in just 20 years of democracy, South Africa (SA) has benefited immensely from the products of high culture as reflected by its internationally recognized universities that have the potential to promote the country’s national interests, particularly at the continental level” (Ogunnubi & Shawa, 2019, p. 81). They go further to suggest that the influence of South Africa’s higher education system is becoming increasingly critical to the transformation of the continent, thus strengthening South Africa’s status as an important regional and global actor. One can question whether scholars and government officials from other African countries’ share this view given that South Africa’s education system has been a magnet drawing the best and brightest of researchers and graduate students from other African countries to South Africa. This has resulted in brain gain for South Africa but serious brain drain for other African countries. Ogunnubi and Shawa (2019) refer to the South African National Development Plan of 2012 which has explicitly acknowledged the value of higher education as a soft power component to help achieve its foreign policy ambition of “exercising its leaderships within Africa and beyond”. Furthermore, the authors argue that South Africa’s higher education internationalization policy has been a major catalyst for the cultivation of the country’s soft power. They suggest that an important dimension of the internationalization agenda has been the promotion of the “Africanization

94

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

of South African” which enables higher education to retain its African character in order to achieve specific academic, economic, political and cultural objectives. They cite Le Roux (2001) who believes that by emphasizing scholarship that reflects the nuances of the African people, South African higher education has played a major role as a soft power instrument to facilitate the deepening of African identity and culture (Le Roux, 2001). The relationships between soft power and the Africanization of higher education, and the subsequent promotion of African identity within Africa and beyond, are worthy of further reflection and research to understand the full implications and consequences. It aligns with the research by Lee (2015) which focused on the use of a nation’s cultural heritage and values as sources of soft power in building relationships between and among countries through international education hubs. Another interpretation of knowledge diplomacy is put forth by Rybka-Iwanska (2017) in a series of three blog articles on knowledge diplomacy published by Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of South California (Rybka-Iwanska, 2017). In Knowledge Diplomacy Part 1: The Game Over Talents Goes Global, she writes that countries traditionally compete over power, influence and resources such as usually oil, gas, water and rare metals, but one resource stands above all and that is “talent”. She argues that competition for talent is growing and new forms of international relations are emerging, where knowledge diplomacy – in the sense of competing for brain power – is being used as a significant soft power tool. This is yet another example and interpretation where knowledge diplomacy is being framed as a powerful tool of soft power when in terms of foundational principles and values soft power and diplomacy can be determined as conceptually very different terms.

7.7 Overview of Trends Identified in the Higher Education Literature Review This section provides a brief overview of the major trends and terms identified by higher education scholars and experts on the contemporary role of IHERI in IR. Instruments/Activities  Like the diplomacy literature, international higher education scholars and experts refer to the use of international students, scholarships and academic exchanges as essential and effective ways to build relationships, increase mutual understanding and promote soft power. However, the international higher education literature goes beyond these traditional strategies and includes other types of more contemporary activities such international branch campuses, alumni networks, language training institutes, joint research projects, education hubs and knowledge sharing initiatives as important to strengthening relations between and among countries. Worth noting is the use of university rankings and the world-class university model as additional ways to foster relationships or hegemony between countries (Lo, 2011).

7.7  Overview of Trends Identified in the Higher Education Literature Review

95

International Higher Education Actors  National governments, as well as quasi-­ governmental organizations, were frequently referred to in terms of their funded programs whether they be scholarships, student mobility or joint research projects. Universities, academic networks and private foundations were seen as the primary non-state actors, but interesting to note is that the idea or term – “universities” or “foundations” or “research centres” as diplomats – was not used. The one exception is Pan (2013) who used the term “universities as cultural diplomats”. There were surprisingly few references to the role of the private sector, civil society or diplomats. The focus was clearly on higher education actors but not their partnerships with other sectors and actors. Common Terms  Cultural diplomacy, public diplomacy and soft power were the most commonly used terms. Other terms included “soft cultural power” (Wang, 2012), “knowledge diplomacy” (Knight, 2018; Aseda, 2019), or “university soft power” (Park and Bennett, 2018). As noted, there were very few references that used the term education diplomacy, science diplomacy or academic diplomacy which differentiates the higher education literature from the diplomacy literature. Soft Power  The majority of references mentioned Nye’s theory of soft power and use this term. This is an interesting and important example of “terminology travel” across different fields of study. The higher education sector seems to suggest that the “carrot vs big stick” or “magnet” approach using attraction and persuasion approach of soft power leads to a two-way relationship based on cooperation leading to mutual benefits and understanding. This, in fact, differs substantially from Nye’s conceptualization of soft power which is based more using attraction and persuasion for cooption and compliance (see Chap. 3). Only three references (McGill-Peterson & Helms, 2013; Sonntag 2009; Lo, 2011) pointed to the potential of soft power leading to unequal benefits, neo-colonization or a hegemonic relationship. Most international higher education scholars appear to believe that soft power is a two-way process of exchange, mutuality and trust and is a much softer and benign approach given that hard power is about force and dominance. Alternatively, one can ask whether the use of soft power in international higher education is yet another example of “terminology travel” and borrowing a term from another discipline or sector and assigning its own meaning to it. This explanation of why the international higher education literature is so interested and committed to soft power may be flawed or misinformed, but it is clear that international higher education believes that soft power is desirable without realizing potential risks and consequences of a relationship based on compliance or cooption. Chapter 9 explores in detail the differences in using IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach versus using IHERI in a soft power approach based on the current IR theories and understanding of diplomacy vs soft power. The next chapter begins with a brief synopsis of the main insights, similarities and differences between how scholars and experts from diplomacy and higher education studies understand and label the role of IHERI in IR. In response to these

96

7  Higher Education Scholars’ Perspectives on the Role of IHERI in International…

insights, the chapter introduces, defines and analyses the concept of knowledge diplomacy. A conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy is developed, and the five foundation elements – intentions, actors, values, modes of operation and activities – are analysed and examples provided.

References Altbach, P. G., & McGill Peterson, P. (2008). Higher education as a projection of America’s soft power. In Y. Watanabe & D. McConnell (Eds.), Soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States. East Gate Book. Asada, S. (2019). 50 Years of US study abroad students. Japan as the gateway to Asia and beyond. Routledge. Bartram, L., Malhoyt Lee, J., & Sheen Diaz, C. (2015). Education diplomacy in action: Touching lives: Education diplomacy in service to others in. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 9(2), 156–159. Chou, C.  P., & Spangler, J. (2018). Cultural and education exchanges between rival societiesCooperation and competition in an interdependent world. Springer. d’Hooghe, I. (2021). China’s BRI and international cooperation in higher education and research a symbiotic relationship. In F. Schneider (Ed.), Global perspectives on China’s belt and road initiative: Asserting agency through regional connectivity (pp. 35–38). Dessoff, A. (2008). Higher education and public diplomacy. International Education, 17(5), 16–20. Johnston, D. (2012, February 17). The diplomacy of knowledge. Globe and Mail. Hone, K. (2016). Education diplomacy: Negotiating and implementing the sustainable development goals- looking back and looking ahead. Centre for Education Diplomacy and Leadership, Childhood Education International. Johnston, D. (2014). The diplomacy of knowledge: Innovation exchange across borders. Key note address at UCLA, Los Angeles. Jones, W. (2010). European union soft power. Cultural Diplomacy & Higher Education in Southeast Asia in Silpakorn University International Journal, 9–10, 41–70. Kinser, K., & Lane, J.  E. (2016). International branch campuses: Evolution of a phenomenon. International Higher Education, 85, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2016.85.9232 Knight, J. (2014). The limits of soft power in international higher education (Vols. 1–13). University World News. Knight, J. (2015). Moving from soft power to knowledge diplomacy. International Higher Education, 80. Knight, J. (2018). Knowledge diplomacy. A bridge linking international higher education and international relations. British Council. Knight, J. (2019). Knowledge diplomacy in action. British Council. Le Roux, A. (2001). A quest for the transformation and Africanization of South African Education. South African Journal of Education, 21(1), 31–36. Lee, J. (2015). Soft power and cultural diplomacy: Emerging education hubs in Asia. Comparative Education, 51(3), 1–22. Li, J. (2018). Conceptualizing soft power of higher education: Globalization and universities in China and the world. Spring Nature Publishers. Lo, W. Y. (2011). Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production: Distinctions between hegemony and self-determination in higher education. Comparative Education, 47(2), 209–222. Mashiko, E., & Horie, M. (2008). Nurturing soft power: The impact of Japanese-US-University Exchanges n Soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States (Watanbe & D. McConnell, Eds.). East Gate Book. Mc Gill Peterson, P. (2013). Weaving the future of global partnerships: Diplomacy in education. European Association for International Education.

References

97

McGill Peterson, P., & Helms, R. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the global engagement of higher education. American Council on Education. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. Public Affairs -Perseus Books Group. Ogunnubi, O., & Shawa, L. B. (2019). Analyzing South Africa’s soft power through the knowledge diplomacy of higher education. JHEA/RESA, 15(2), 81–107. Pan, S.-Y. (2013). Confucius Institute project; China’s cultural diplomacy and soft power projection. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 22–33. Park, K., & Bennett, M. (2018). Engagement with the DPRK: Soft power and knowledge sharing through educational exchanges with the Hermit Kingdom. In C. P. Chou & J. Spangler (Eds.), Cultural and education exchanges between rival societies- Cooperation and competition in an interdependent world. Springer. Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood. In C.  Carta & R.  Higgot (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer. Ryan, M. (1998). Knowledge diplomacy: Global competition and the politics of intellectual property. Brookings Institution Press. Rybka-Iwanska, K. (2017). Knowledge diplomacy part 1: The game over talent goes global. Blog for Centre for Public Diplomacy/University of Southern California. Sonntag, S.  K. (2009). Linguistic globalization and the call centre industry: Imperialism, Hegemony or cosmopolitanism. Language Policy, 8, 5–25. Wang, X. (2012). Education of international students in soft cultural power promotion in Canadian social science (Vol. 8, Issue 5). Watanabe, Y., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2008). Soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States. East Gate Book. Whitehead, D. (2011). Education diplomacy: The way forward. Childhood Education, 87, 3. Wilson, I. (2014). International education programs and political influence- Manufacturing sympathy? Palgrave Macmi1lan. Wojciuk, A. (2018). Empires of knowledge in international relations. Education and science as sources of power for the state. Yang, R. (2010). Soft Power and higher education: An examination of China’s Confucius Institutes. Globalization, Societies and Education, 8(2), 235–245. Yonezawa, A. (2008). Facing crisis. Soft power and Japanese education in a global context in soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States (Y. Watanabe & D. M. Connell, Eds.). East Gate Book.

Chapter 8

Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

8.1 Introduction As clearly illustrated in the preceding chapters, there are a multitude of terms used to understand, conceptualize and label the role of international higher education, research and research (IHERI) in international relations (IR). The most common ones are cultural, public and science forms of diplomacy plus soft power. Having multiple terms and even contradictory terms causes confusion and so-called terminology chaos. Each term has it pros and cons and has been chosen by the scholar, diplomat or policy maker for specific reasons. It is evident that “one size does not fit all” and the local context of each actor, country and sector must be respected. However, the plethora of terms is not helping to advance a robust analysis of the contemporary role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR). Therefore this chapter focuses on examining the concept of knowledge diplomacy which is proposed as a comprehensive term to capture the contemporary role of IHERI in IR and which can be used by both the diplomacy and higher education fields of study. The organization of the chapter is as follows. It starts with a brief synopsis of the main insights gained from the review of the scholarly and grey literature in the previous chapters and provides a review of the key differences and similarities in how the diplomacy and higher education fields of study understand the role of IHERI in contemporary IR. Building on this overview of trends and terms, the next section proposes the concept of knowledge diplomacy as way to capture the role of IHERI in strengthening relations between and among countries in order to address issues and challenges of mutual concern. The distinction between a definition and a description is discussed, and both are provided to elucidate the meaning of knowledge diplomacy. The following section presents a conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy based on five foundational elements – intentions, actors, principles, modes of operation and instruments. Each of the constituent dimensions of the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_8

99

100

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

conceptual framework is explored in detail, and examples are provided. This leads to a discussion on understanding how knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process and why knowledge diplomacy is neither a neutral nor a normative concept. The chapter ends with a reiteration of why it is important to distinguish the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach and a soft power approach.

8.2 How Diplomacy vs Higher Education Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI in IR This section highlights some of the similarities and differences of how the role of IHERI in IR has been conceptualized, explained and framed by the scholars and experts from both fields of study. There are multiple concepts and terms used both within and across both fields of study, and they include (1) cultural, public, exchange, science, citizen, education, innovation, knowledge, science and technology, and academic diplomacy; (2) cultural relations, education relations and science cooperation; and (3) soft power. Of these 14 terms, the most frequently used are cultural diplomacy, public diplomacy and soft power. Interesting to note, however, is that these four terms more frequently mention the term international higher education and rarely referred to research and innovation per se. On the other hand, science and innovation diplomacy did articulate the three aspects of higher education, research and innovation. Thus, while research and innovation are usually assumed to be an integral part of higher education; it became evident that it is important to delineate more clearly that international higher education includes research and innovation as well as teaching/learning and that all three aspects are critical to understanding their role in contemporary international relations. Thus, when defining or describing the concept of knowledge diplomacy, it is important to clearly delineate all three dimensions and avoid using the narrower term of international higher education.

8.2.1 Role of State and Non-state Actors An important similarity between the two fields of study is identifying universities and research centres as popular non-state actors. Yet, the involvement of these non-­ state actors is labelled differently by the two fields of study. According to several diplomatic scholars, when state actors are involved, it is explained as diplomacy, but when non-state actors are included, it should not be called diplomacy. For example, cultural diplomacy is for state actors only, while cultural relations include both state and non-state actors (Pajtinka, 2015). This distinction applies to education diplomacy and education relations (Piros & Koops, 2020) as well as science diplomacy and science cooperation (Copeland, 2015). This approach is a contested by diplomatic scholars such as Pigman (2010) and (Ruffini, 2020) who believe that

8.2  How Diplomacy vs Higher Education Scholars Frame the Role of IHERI in IR

101

contemporary diplomacy involves both state and non-state actors. However, unlike the diplomacy literature, the international higher education literature does not distinguish between cultural diplomacy and cultural relations, education diplomacy and education relations and science diplomacy and science cooperation. It is clear that the diplomacy literature places more emphasis on state actors as the primary players, especially for science diplomacy where the role of science diplomats is highlighted. In both sets of literature, there is surprisingly little discussion of the role of non-state actors such as private sector companies, non-governmental organizations, private foundations or centres of excellence. Why these actors are absent in the scholarly literature but are active in reality is a question which merits further attention.

8.2.2 IHERI Strategies In terms of international higher education, research and innovation strategies, there is no question that the most frequently mentioned activities were scholarships for international students, academic exchanges for students and scholars, language training, conferences and knowledge sharing. The higher education literature identified more contemporary developments such as education hubs, study abroad, university rankings, international branch campuses, alumni networks and international and regional universities, all of which were identified and discussed in Chap. 4. The diplomacy references which referred to science and technology diplomacy emphasized international research networks, science agencies and organizations but focused primarily on government actors especially science diplomats.

8.2.3 Contradictory Views on Using IHERI as Soft Power Soft power is the most frequently used term to frame the expanding role of international higher education in both sets of literature. However, academics and experts from the two fields of study seem to have a different understanding of the aims and impact of soft power and how attraction and persuasion are used. Scholars of diplomacy are well aware of the purpose, strategies and outcomes of both hard and soft power. For the most part, they agree that using the soft power approaches of attraction and persuasion can be used to achieve a country’s self-interests and foreign policy objectives using attraction and persuasion to gain cooption and compliance to their priorities and interests. In contrast, the majority of international higher education scholars, with some important exceptions, suggest that the use of higher education as an instrument of soft power leads to mutual understanding, trust, closer cooperation and reciprocity between countries. This dichotomy needs to be examined more closely and is addressed in Chap. 9. For international higher education

102

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

scholars, there may be a lack of understanding, or a clear dominance of Western thought, about the difference between what is driving and constitutes a soft power relationship versus a diplomatic relationship. As discussed in Chap. 3, whether it be soft or hard power, the power paradigm is focused on achieving self-interests and foreign policy objectives exclusively and most often at the expense of others. It is often seen as a top-down and unequal relationship rather than a horizontal collaborative relationship. Interestingly, it is based on voluntary actions by the target audience given the use of attraction and persuasion by the sender, but the end result is compliance and competitive advantage for the sender (Nye, 2021). Soft power is not typically based on principles or practices related to promoting cooperation, mutual understanding and reciprocity. Instead, soft power is about achieving self-interests through the cooption (not coercion as in hard power) and by using attraction and persuasion (Nye, 2010). Yet, only a few references (Jones, 2010; Lo, 2011; McGill Peterson & Helms, 2013) acknowledge the potential of hegemony or domination in the use of soft power approaches. The majority of higher education scholars concentrated on portraying soft power as way to further cooperation and collaboration for mutual understanding which is the antithesis of the way soft power is understood by Nye and even his critics. Can it be said that the higher education literature takes a rather facile approach to understanding the relationship between international higher education and soft power? Noting important exceptions, the trend has been to frame a host of traditional collaborative international higher education activities and position them as tools of soft power. Perhaps higher education sees soft power as more positive and palatable than the hard power of force and coercion and thus attributes the positive outcomes of mutual understanding and cooperation to it. But this explanation is most likely an oversimplification. Important to ask is whether there is an inherent contradiction in using a soft power approach based on compliance and cooption to further mutual understanding, capacity building and knowledge sharing based on principles of exchange and reciprocity.

8.2.4 Science Diplomacy and Knowledge Diplomacy Worth noting is that the diplomatic literature puts great emphasis on science diplomacy as well as science and technology (Rungis, 2018) diplomacy while the international higher education literature does not use these terms. The same is true with respect to the term knowledge diplomacy as it is used in the international higher education literature but is not mentioned in the diplomacy literature. This warrants close scrutiny and is discussed further in Chap. 9.

8.3  Defining and Describing Knowledge Diplomacy

103

8.3 Defining and Describing Knowledge Diplomacy In Chap. 1 the distinction between a definition and description was discussed. This difference suggests that a definition of knowledge diplomacy should be succinct and limited to addressing the fundamental ideas of knowledge diplomacy and avoid including aspects or descriptors such as rationales, values or activities. Based on this perspective, the definition proposed for knowledge diplomacy is “the process of building and strengthening relations between and among countries through international higher education, research and innovation”. In this definition, diplomacy is intentionally framed as a process – a means to an end, a series of actions to receive a result – not a policy per se. This approach to defining knowledge diplomacy is consistent with the understanding that diplomacy is generally understood as the process of developing relations between and among countries to operationalize foreign policies (Griffiths et al., 2014). It is important that a generic definition of knowledge diplomacy be used in order to increase its relevance and use in a diversity of settings, cultures or countries and to emphasis it is a means to an end. Many of the proposed definitions of diplomacy by scholars and policy experts emanate from and relate to a specific set of circumstances making it difficult to use the definitions more broadly. To illustrate the difference between a “definition” and a “description”, an example of a description of knowledge diplomacy is proposed as follows: knowledge diplomacy involves diverse state and non-state actors such as universities and research organizations involved in collaborative education, research and innovation initiatives which are based on mutual benefits and reciprocity and designed to build and strengthen relations between and among countries to increase mutual understanding and address global issues. This description includes actors, strategies, values and intended outcomes and is different from a concise definition (Knight, 2021). Worth noting is that the proposed definition of knowledge diplomacy does not actually include the term knowledge. Instead, higher education, research and innovation are used as the fundamental concepts to represent the transfer, production and application of knowledge. These three concepts form the backbone of the definition. The meaning of these three terms as used in the definition is as follows. Higher education refers to the different processes of teaching and learning whether it be in a formal or informal manner – it is a form of knowledge transfer. Research is aimed at producing new knowledge through the gathering of information on a subject, investigation or experimentation. Innovation refers to the application of research findings and new knowledge to produce change or new ideas. Not including knowledge in the definition is deliberate and can be both a strength and a weakness. While knowledge is inclusive of higher education, research and innovation, it can also be used in many different and contradictory ways. Different disciplines and sectors have their own lens to understand and define knowledge, and there are countless ways to modify the concept of knowledge such as implicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, technical knowledge, indigenous scientific knowledge, etc. (Lehrer, 2000). Furthermore, by including knowledge in the definition,

104

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

the term knowledge diplomacy could be misunderstood as a form of issue diplomacy and become one more hyphenated type of diplomacy such as climate, health or refugee diplomacy where advocacy plays a key role. It is important to avoid knowledge diplomacy being seen as being about knowledge itself, as in an issue-­ related type of diplomacy, rather than the use of knowledge, as represented by education, research and innovation, in building and strengthening international relationships. In this way, the meaning of knowledge diplomacy is similar to the concept of cultural diplomacy and different from climate diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is not about advocating for or solving issues about culture, it is about using culture to promote relations and understanding between and among countries (Gienow-Hecht & Donfried, 2010; Goff, 2013). This differs from climate diplomacy, for example, which is about addressing the issues of climate change not using climate to strengthen relations between countries.

8.4 Towards a Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Diplomacy Conceptual frameworks are analytical tools to explore the meaning and deepen the understanding of a phenomenon (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016) and can be applied to a concept such as knowledge diplomacy. The proposed conceptual framework is oriented to the process of knowledge diplomacy. Table 8.1 presents the foundational elements of the knowledge diplomacy framework structure including intentions, actors, principles, modes and activities. An elaboration of each of the major categories follows, and examples are provided. The examples noted in the framework are meant to be illustrative not comprehensive. However, the principles and values remain steadfast and are key to understanding the process and practice of knowledge diplomacy. The following sub-sections discuss each constituent element of the structure of conceptual framework.

8.4.1 Intentions, Purpose and Rationales Because knowledge diplomacy brings together a network of different partners from various sectors to address common issues, there will different intentions, self-­ interests and implications for the individual countries and actors involved. This means that in spite of common concerns, actors will bring different needs, priorities and resources to the partnership. These differences will need to be respected and negotiated to ensure that the strengths and opportunities for each partner are optimized. This is done through a horizontal collaborative type of relationship that acknowledges the different but collective rationales, needs and resources of the group of partners to reach a common understanding.

8.4  Towards a Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Diplomacy

105

Table 8.1  Conceptual framework for IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach Intentions, purpose, 1 To build/ strengthen relations between and among countries through international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) To use IHERI to help address global challenges and promote peace and prosperity To strengthen IHERI through enhanced relations between and among countries

Actors, partners 2 Government departments and agencies related to education, science, technology, innovation at all levels Intergovernmental agencies related to IHERI NGOs related to IHERI HEIs Research centres Think tanks Centres of excellence Research networks Foundations Innovation centres Experts Private sector – multinational corp

Principles, values 3 Reciprocity Mutuality Cooperation Common ground Partnership Common good Interdisciplinary Multi-sector Transparency

Modes, approaches 4 Negotiation Communication Representation Conflict resolution Compromise Collaboration Exchange Mediation Conciliation Partnerships Building trust Dialogue

Activities, instruments 5 Generic: Networks Joint projects Conferences Summits Coalitions Track two Agreements Working groups Institution building IHERI specific: Intl joint universities Student/scholar exchanges Joint research networks Regional universities Education Knowledge hubs Scholarships ODA projects Twinning and joint degree programs

Knight (2021)

8.4.2 Actors and Partners As discussed in Chap. 5, several scholars suggest that distinctions should be made between cultural diplomacy and cultural relations (Pajtinka, 2015), education diplomacy and education relations (Piros & Koops, 2020) and science diplomacy and science cooperation (Copeland, 2015). This is predicated on the belief that “diplomacy” involves state actors only while “relations” involves state and non-state actors. On one hand, this helps to avoid diplomacy being used as a catch-all phrase for any international activity by diverse actors. On the other hand, it seems to contradict the reality that in contemporary diplomacy, it is not only state actors that are involved in addressing many of the major national, regional and global issues (Cooper et al., 2013). Ruffini asserts that “science diplomacy draws its appeal from being properly attuned to its time, and it does this in two ways. First, global issues are put at its centre. Second, non-state actors find their place in it” (Ruffini, 2020, p. 11). A multi-actor and stakeholder approach to diplomacy is needed in today’s interconnected world and where countries face common challenges (Pigman, 2010).

106

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

While universities and colleges are key players in knowledge diplomacy, there is a broad range of other state and non-state IHERI actors involved. These include national, regional or international centres of excellence, research institutions, foundations, think tanks, professional associations, private sector companies, non-­ governmental organizations, education and knowledge hubs and cities and different sector governmental departments/agencies. Examples of how these non-state actors play an important role are discussed in Chap. 10. In many cases IHERI actors are working with other sectors and/or disciplines depending on the nature of the initiative. Common partners include industry, civil society groups, foundations and governmental agencies. Working with a diversity of IHERI and other partners is a key feature of knowledge diplomacy and often differentiates knowledge diplomacy from higher education internationalization. Knowledge diplomacy includes actors and partners working together in bilateral/multilateral relationships and at national, regional and international levels with the aim of building stronger relationships between countries as well as sharing knowledge to address national, regional or global issues. Internationalization of higher education concentrates more on integrating an international dimension into the primary functions of higher education institutions and systems and is primarily driven by academic, sociocultural and economic rationales as well as geopolitical motivations (Knight, 2015). When higher education internationalization involves partnerships with institutions in other countries, it is built on trust and exchange and can involve geopolitical outcomes, but the strengthening of relations between and among countries is not the primary goal or focal point but often an important by-product.

8.4.3 Principles and Values As noted, principles and values are an integral part of diplomacy (Rathbun, 2014) and foreign policy (Srinivasan et al., 2019) and thus core to understanding knowledge diplomacy and differentiating it from other terms. As identified in Table 8.1, the values of cooperation, reciprocity and mutuality are fundamental building blocks of knowledge diplomacy. Different needs and resources of actors will result in different benefits (and potential risks) for partners. Mutuality of benefits does not mean that all actors/countries will receive the same benefits in a symmetrical fashion. It does mean, however, that the principle of mutuality and reciprocity of benefits will guide the process and there will be collective and different benefits accrued for different actors and countries. The conceptual framework makes the fundamental principles/values of knowledge diplomacy explicit. Whether these values are interpreted to be inherently good or desirable is in the eye of the beholder. Making values explicit does not necessarily imply that they are normative in nature and indicating a preferred approach. For instance, cooperation and reciprocity can be seen as desirable in some cases where in other circumstances competition can be seen as more attractive and advantageous.

8.5  Knowledge Diplomacy as a Two-Way Process

107

8.4.4 Modes and Approaches Knowledge diplomacy is based on horizontal relationships between and among major actors and countries and focuses on collaboration, negotiation and compromise to ensure that the goals are met and there are benefits for all. There is no doubt that in spite of common concerns, there will be potential conflict given inevitable differences in self-interests and expectations among actors. It is naïve to deny this reality. However, a diplomatic approach in general, and knowledge diplomacy more specifically, relies on negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution to address these differences and find a common ground. In general, knowledge diplomacy is based on a collaborative win-win approach to addressing common issues as well as meeting individual country self-interests.

8.4.5 Activities and Instruments The activities/instruments generally associated with international relations and diplomacy include joint meetings, conferences, track two negotiations, summits and coalitions (Cooper et al., 2013). These are central to diplomacy in general and also apply to knowledge diplomacy. However, because knowledge diplomacy has international higher education, research and innovation at its core, there are additional salient activities which differentiate it from other types of related diplomacies. As discussed in Chap. 4, such activities include international joint universities, student/ scholar exchanges, thematic research networks, education/knowledge hubs, regional centres of excellence, scholarships, development cooperation projects, international branch campuses, alumni networks, centres of excellence and twinning programs to name a few. Important to emphasize is that the elements of the knowledge diplomacy framework can overlap with different types of higher education internationalization activities, but it is misleading to suggest that the processes of internationalization and knowledge diplomacy are the same. Knowledge diplomacy is clearly oriented to strengthening relations between and among countries and uses IHERI activities as a means to this end.

8.5 Knowledge Diplomacy as a Two-Way Process Knowledge diplomacy can be understood as a two-way process. As depicted in Fig. 8.1, IHERI can strengthen relations between and among countries. However, the converse direction is also true meaning that international relations can strengthen the capacity and impact of international higher education, research and innovation. An example of the latter is when governments or international organizations develop

108

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

IHERI Strengthens International Relations

International Higher Education, Research and Innovation (IHERI)

Knowledge Diplomacy

International Relations (IR)

International Relations Strengthens IHERI

Fig. 8.1  Knowledge diplomacy as a two-way process

policies, sign agreements or establish new initiatives that are intended to build capacity or forge new partnerships to further education, research and innovation, build trust, promote exchange and strengthen cooperation between participating countries and actors. This builds on, but goes beyond, the contribution that bilateral and multilateral agreements between higher education institutions make.

8.6 A Complementary Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Diplomacy In Chap. 6, a conceptual framework was discussed for the phenomenon of science diplomacy. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) proposed the framework in 2009, and it appears to still have credibility and in use today (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009). While there are both similarities and differences between science diplomacy and knowledge diplomacy, the major constructs of the science diplomacy framework have relevance for knowledge diplomacy. Table 8.2 applies and extends the structure and approach of the AAAS framework to knowledge diplomacy. The first two points focus respectively on the use of international higher education, research and innovation to build bridges in diplomacy and vice versa and the use of diplomacy to strengthen international higher education, research and innovation much like Fig. 8.1 depicts. But it goes further and includes the use of knowledge in the practice of diplomacy as well as the understanding of diplomacy. Because knowledge diplomacy includes a much broader spectrum of disciplines, sectors and issues than the current concept of science diplomacy, the fourth aspect of the framework “knowledge of diplomacy” is

8.7  Knowledge Diplomacy Is Neither Neutral Nor Normative

109

Table 8.2  Framework for the relationship between knowledge and diplomacy* Knowledge for diplomacy Diplomacy for knowledge Knowledge in diplomacy Knowledge of diplomacy

Use of IHERI to strengthen relations between countries Use of diplomacy to advance the creation, exchange and use of knowledge to address issues and challenges Use of IHERI in the practice diplomacy Use of IHERI to further understanding of diplomacy

Author * based and adapted from AAAS framework for science diplomacy (2009)

added. An increased understanding of how higher education, research and innovation can contribute to the practice of diplomacy also contributes to insights and knowledge about diplomacy in general.

8.7 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Neither Neutral Nor Normative It is recognized that the working definition of knowledge diplomacy is not neutral, as it infers a positive outcome. While the intention is to strengthen relations between and among countries as well as enhance IHERI, there can also be unexpected negative outcomes. Unstable and conflicted relations between states can have negative repercussions on IHERI and vice versa. There are examples where bilateral higher education cooperation schemes have been cancelled and borders closed to academics and students due to strained relations between countries as evidenced by the US ban on issuing visas for students/scholars from Arab countries in 2017 and by United Arab Emirates requiring all of the students and academics to leave Qatar during the 2017 blockade. Important to note is that while knowledge diplomacy can have unintended negative consequences, it is generally oriented to positive outcomes. It is not intended to be a normative concept in the sense that it is suggesting what a state ought to do or that it is always the preferred approach. Different needs, priorities, rationales and expected outcomes in the use of IHERI in international relations can necessitate different approaches. The use of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy is an approach which has an intended positive response which is strengthening relations between states and societies based on collaboration, reciprocity and trust. There are instances where using IHERI in a more competitive approach would also serve national interests as discussed in Chap. 5. In conclusion, this chapter has proposed that knowledge diplomacy is a useful concept to explore, understand and capture the contemporary and expanding role of IHERI in strengthening relations between and among countries. Important to note is that the analysis of the concept of knowledge diplomacy is not suggesting that it is the best approach for IHERI’s role in international relations. In an attempt to avoid the current confusion and terminology chaos that IR scholars referred to in Chaps.

110

8  Knowledge Diplomacy: A Definition and Conceptual Framework

2 and 3, a definition and a conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy were introduced to explain and justify the use of the term. The conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy clearly articulated the intentions, actors, principles, modes and activities acknowledging that they were illustrative and not necessarily comprehensive. The next chapter focuses on clarifying the understanding and use if IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach from the use of IHERI in a soft power approach. In addition, the differences between knowledge diplomacy and other terms such as cultural, education and public diplomacy, which are traditionally used to frame IHERI in international relations, are examined.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Science and diplomacy: A conceptual framework. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/scidip_framework_aaas_2009.pdf Cooper, A., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Copeland, D. (2015). Science and diplomacy after Canada’s lost decade: Counting the costs, looking beyond. Centre for International Policy Studies. Gienow-Hecht, J., & Donfried, M. (2010). Searching for a cultural diplomacy. Berghahn Books. Goff, P. (2013). Cultural diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. (2014). International relations: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. Jones, W. (2010). European Union soft power. Cultural Diplomacy & Higher Education in Southeast Asia in Silpakorn University International Journal, 9–10, 41–70. Knight, J. (2015). Meaning, rationales and tensions in internationalization of higher J.  In A. McGrath & Q. Gu (Eds.), Routledge handbook on international education and development (pp. 325–339). Taylor Francis. Knight, J. (2021). Towards a knowledge diplomacy framework: The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Antwerp. Lehrer, K. (2000). Theory of knowledge (2nd ed.). Westview Press. Lo, W. Y. (2011). Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production: Distinctions between hegemony and self-determination in higher education. Comparative Education, 47(2), 209–222. McGill Peterson, P., & Helms, R. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the global engagement of higher education. American Council on Education. Nye, J. S. (2010). The powers to lead. Oxford University Press. Nye, J.  S. (2021). Soft power: The evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879572 Pajtinka, E. (2015). Cultural diplomacy in the theory and practice of contemporary international relations Politicke vedy (Vol. 1, Issue 17). Pigman, G. (2010). Contemporary diplomacy. Representation and communication in a globalized world. Polity Press. Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood in C. carta and R.  Higgot, cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer.

References

111

Rathbun, B.  C. (2014). Diplomacy’s value: Creating security in 1920s Europe and the contemporary middle east. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/ cornell/9780801453182.001.0001 Ravitch, S.  M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage. Ruffini, P.  B. (2020). Introduction to the forum on science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10033 Rungis, C. (2018). S4D4C using science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges- state of the art report. EU Horizon. Srinivasan, K., Mayall, J., & Pulipaka, S. (Eds.). (2019). Values in foreign policy: Investigating ideals and interests. Rowman & Littlefield International.

Chapter 9

Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Forms of Diplomacy

9.1 Introduction As discussed in previous chapters, both diplomacy and higher education scholars commonly refer to the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in contemporary international relations (IR) as both a form of diplomacy and a form of soft power. This reflects reality as IHERI can be used as a soft power tool to gain compliance or cooption through using persuasion and attraction to achieve competitive advantage and serve national self-interests (Nye, 2005; Wojciuk, 2018). Scholars from both fields of study position IHERI as a type of diplomacy, such as public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, which can also be used as an instrument of soft power. This suggests that using IHERI as a form of diplomacy can be used for soft power purposes (Byrne & Hall, 2014) (Medalis, 2012) which appears to be a contradiction in terms. In this chapter the conflation of these two terms and approaches is contested and examined by comparing the differences between the conceptual frameworks of using IHERI in a soft power approach versus using IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach. The question as to whether the two approaches are ends of the same continuum or completely separate processes is considered by examining the potential of using soft power indicators to explore the differences between the two approaches. Furthermore, in order to have a clear understanding of knowledge diplomacy, the differences and similarities between knowledge diplomacy and other terms, such as cultural diplomacy, education diplomacy, science diplomacy and public diplomacy, are also examined.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_9

113

114

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

9.2 Knowledge Diplomacy and Soft Power In Chap. 8 knowledge diplomacy was proposed as a useful concept to frame and understand the role of international higher education, research and innovation in contemporary international relations. Through conceptual analysis it provided a definition and a conceptual framework which identifies, analyses and categorizes five key elements and dimensions of knowledge diplomacy. This section discusses the role of IHERI in a soft power approach and analyses the differences and similarities between the role of IHERI in a soft power approach and a knowledge diplomacy approach. The analysis of the diplomacy and higher education literatures in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7 clearly showed that many scholars and experts perceive the contemporary role of IHERI in international relationships as a form of soft power whether it be labelled explicitly as soft power or as “a soft power instrument” in the context of cultural, public and science diplomacy. It is therefore important to acknowledge and explore how IHERI can be used for soft power purposes and outcomes. For example, in Chap. 5, scholars such as Lo (2011), Nye (2005) and Wojciuk (2018) were clear that international higher education initiatives can be used to gain competitive advantage especially in the fields of science and technology and for hegemonic reasons. This type of relationship can occur between developed countries as well as between developed and developing countries where soft power can also be perceived as a means of neo-colonization (Woldegioris, 2018). However, the purposes, principles and outcomes of soft power are not the same as for knowledge diplomacy, and more attention needs to be given to this critical difference. To illustrate the relationship between diplomacy and soft power, Table 9.1 proposes and summarizes the fundamental elements and differences between the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy framework versus a soft power framework. This table is based on the multiple interpretations and definitions for diplomacy as discussed in Chap. 2 and Nye’s perspective on soft power as discussed in Chap. 3. However, in the real and messy world of international relations, the difference between these two approaches is blurred and complex, but, in the conceptualization process, the differences must be examined and clearly articulated.

9.2.1 Comparison of the Role of IHERI in a Soft Power Framework and a Knowledge Diplomacy Framework It is clear from Table 9.1 that in both approaches, meeting national interests is at play but meeting them involves using different strategies based on different values underlying each approach. To analyse and elaborate the role of IHERI in a soft power relationship, a conceptual framework is presented in Table  9.2. The same structure used in the development of the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework (see Table 9.3) is used to elucidate a soft power approach and to facilitate a

9.2  Knowledge Diplomacy and Soft Power

115

Table 9.1  Differences between the role of IHERI in knowledge diplomacy and soft power approaches

Outcomes

IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach National self-interests leading to mutual benefits Negotiation Mediation Communication Conflict resolution Conciliation Collaboration Reciprocity Mutuality Common ground Win-win with mutual but different benefits

Nature of relationships

Horizontal Collaborative

Self-interest Modes

Values

IHERI in a soft power approach National self-interests dominate Attraction Persuasion Compliance Cooption

Dominance Competitive advantage Win-lose Zero-sum game Vertical Top down

Knight (2021)

comparison of the differences and similarities between the approaches in terms of the foundational elements and core concepts. Important to note is that the three shaded columns in Table 9.2 for soft power are dramatically different than the same three columns in Table  9.3 for knowledge diplomacy. As expected, the IHERI actors in column two are similar for both approaches and include a diverse of state and non-state actors such as government departments, universities, professional associations, centres of excellence, foundations and research organization. Just as actors are similar for both approaches so are some of the activities and instruments identified in column five of each table. The fundamental difference between the two frameworks relates to intentions, guiding principles/values and the modes used to reach desired outcomes. The priority values or principles guiding the use of IHERI in a soft power approach are primarily competition and dominance usually resulting in a kind of top-down approach. This is in stark contrast to the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach which rests on the principles of cooperation, mutuality and reciprocity which makes for more of a horizontal kind of relationship. In terms of modes of operation, the soft power approach uses attraction, persuasion and agenda setting to achieve cooption or compliance, while the knowledge diplomacy approach focuses on consultation, mediation, collaboration and conflict resolution in order to reach a common ground. This comparison raises many questions and shows the stark differences between the two approaches based on motivations, principles and functions even if the actors and activities can be similar. The purpose of comparing the two conceptual frameworks is to highlight the foundational concept of knowledge diplomacy and identify the major differences between the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach and a soft power approach. It is not to assess the different approaches and suggest that one is more

116

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

Table 9.2  Conceptual framework for IHERI in a soft power approach

Intenons, Movaons 1

Actors, Partners 2

Principles, Values 3

Modes/ Approaches 4

Acvies, Instruments 5

Naonal compeve advantage economically , polically, scienfically, culturally etc.

Intergovernmen tal agencies – all levels related to IHERI

Dominaon Compeon

A†racon Persuasion Agenda Seˆng Compliance Coopon

Networks Joint projects Conferences Summits Track Two Agreements Working Groups Educaon programs

Advancemen t in technology and innovaon for To serve selfinterests

NGOs re IHERI HEIs Research centres Think Tanks Centres of Excellence Research Networks Innovaon Centres Experts Knowledge Hubs

IHERI specific: Student/scholar exchanges Research networks Educaon/ Knowledge Hub ODA projects Twinning and Joint Degree Programs

Private sector Mul-naonal Corps Knight (2021)

desirable than the other. The main goal is to explore how the concept of knowledge diplomacy can illuminate the role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations and how it is distinct from the concept of soft power. Secondly, it raises the contested point and inherent contradiction of using a knowledge diplomacy approach for soft power purposes and advantages when intentions, values, modes and outcomes are vastly different. By comparing the two conceptual frameworks, the argument for why they must be considered as different processes will hopefully be clearer and more convincing albeit requiring further research and conceptualization. While they are considered to be different processes, the two approaches can be deliberately used at the same time as mentioned in Chap. 4. It is anticipated that scholars and experts in diplomacy and international higher education may take exception to the articulated differences between IHERI’s role in a knowledge diplomacy approach vs a soft power approach as in the real world these differences are not as sharp as in the process of conceptualization illustrated in Tables 9.2 and 9.3. However, the use of conceptual

9.3  Use of Soft Power Indicators

117

Table 9.3  Conceptual framework for IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach Intenons, Purpose, 1

Actors, Partners 2

Principles, Values 3

Modes, Approaches 4

Acvies , Instruments 5

To build/ strengthen relaons between and among countries through internaonal higher educaon, research and innovaon (IHERI)

Government departments and agencies related to educaon, science, technology, innovaon at all levels

Reciprocity Mutuality Cooperaon Common ground Partnership Common good Inter-disciplinary Mul-sector Transparency

Negoaon Communicaon Representaon Conflict Resoluon Compromise Collaboraon Exchange Mediaon Conciliaon Partnerships Building trust Dialogue

Generic: Networks Joint projects Conferences Summits Coalions Track Two Agreements Working Groups Instuon building

To use IHERI to help address global challenges and promote peace and prosperity To strengthen IHERI through enhanced relaons between and among countries

Intergovernmental agencies related to IHERI NGOs related to IHERI HEIs Research centres Think Tanks Centres of Excellence Research Networks Foundaons Innovaon Centres Experts

IHERI specific: Intl joint universies Student/scholar exchanges Joint Research networks Regional Universies Educaon/ Knowledge Hubs Scholarships ODA projects Twinning and Joint Degree Programs

Private sector Mul-naonal Corp

Knight (2021)

frameworks is important to achieving greater clarity and robustness in the use of the multiple terms used in diplomacy, especially for the role of IHERI in IR.

9.3 Use of Soft Power Indicators The comparison of the two conceptual frameworks raises several important questions. One interesting question is whether the role of IHERI in knowledge diplomacy relationships, as opposed to the role of IHERI in soft power relationships, should be understood as two ends of the same continuum or should the two approaches be juxtaposed to one another and considered as different processes. The major challenge in answering this question relates to having valid and reliable indicators that could be used to determine the pivot point/s on a continuum which would

118

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

mark the transition from the use of IHERI in soft power approach to a knowledge diplomacy approach and vice versa. The development and validity of soft power indicators have a checkered history and is a contested issue as noted by Seong-Hun (2018). One of the first reports using indicators for the international ranking of the soft power of countries was entitled The New Persuaders.1 It was developed in 2011 by the Institute for Government in the UK and was based on a framework of five components – one of which was education. Its methodology was adopted and expanded by Portland Communications in partnership with the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. Portland is a US strategic communication consultancy working with a diversity of public and private clients. It developed the Soft Power Report 30 which was first published in 2015 and included a set of seven indicators, one of which is education.2 As of 2020, the Brand Finance PLC from the UK has developed yet another report called the Global Soft Power Index3 and published annual reports which provide a soft power score and ranking for over 100 countries. The Global Soft Power Index also includes education as one their key indicators in their analysis. The use of education as an indicator in each of these three indexes warrants further examination. Important to note is that the actual ranking of the soft power capacity of countries is not of interest to this discussion; rather, it is how they interpret, measure and use “education” as an indicator of soft power and whether the education metrics would help to determine a pivot point to demarcate the use of IHERI in soft power approach to a knowledge diplomacy approach. The next two sections elaborate on the how education is used as an indicator for the Soft Power 30 Report and the Global Soft Power Index.

9.3.1 Soft Power 30 Report Indicators (Portland Communications) The purpose of the Soft Power 30 research project, developed by Portland Communications, was to provide a practical analytical framework to measure and compare the soft power resources of the world’s leading nations. The index combines both objective data across six categories (government, culture, education, global engagement, enterprise and digital) and international polling to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of soft power. The “Education Indicator” is described as “the level of human capital, a countries contribution to scholarship and attractiveness to international students’’. A more in-depth analysis of the

 https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/The%20new%20persuaders_0.pdf 2  https://softpower30.com 3  https://brandirectory.com/globalsoftpower 1

9.3  Use of Soft Power Indicators

119

Education Indicator reveals that there are five metrics on which data is collected. Three of them relate directly to higher education and research. The five metrics are as follows: (1) the number of top 200 global universities (Times Higher Education), (2) the number of academic science journal articles published (World Bank), (3) the number of international students in the country (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), (4) spending on education as percentage of GDP (World Bank) and (5) average of OECD PISA science, maths and reading scores for primary and secondary education (OECD). The question must be asked as to whether these objective metrics distinguish between a soft power approach and a knowledge diplomacy approach when analysing the role of IHERI in IR. Metric three – the ranking of universities in world league tables – could definitely be considered as a tool/metric for soft power as discussed by Lo (2011), but the other three metrics which are relevant to higher education, research and innovation relate to the importance of IHERI in national priorities not as to whether IHERI is used for soft power or diplomatic purposes. What distinguishes one approach from another in the use of these metrics is the intentions or rationales, the values or principles and the modes of operation that are used in the relationship which are not apparent in the use of objective data. For example, the number of international students can be used as an indicator of attractiveness or soft power, but for many countries, it is seen to be more a source of income or a way to build bridges between countries. Thus, metrics do not tell the full story.

9.3.2 Global Soft Power Index (Brand Finance) The Global Soft Power Index is developed by Brand Finance of the UK, which describes itself as an independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy with the aim to bridge the gap between marketing and finance. The 2021 report defines soft power as “a nation’s ability to influence the preferences and behaviours of various actors in the international arena (states, corporations, communities, publics etc.) through attraction or persuasion rather than coercion” (Brand Finance, 2021, p. 17). This definition aligns closely with Nye’s (2004) influential work on the meaning of soft power and is evidence of the continuing relevance and influence of his perspectives about soft power. The Global Soft Power Index is based on surveys of over 75,000 respondents in 100 countries. The purpose is to assess how the world views the top soft power nations and helps government to better manage their brands and improve their soft power influence on certain key metrics. The methodology used by Brand Finance for determining and ranking a nation’s soft power involves seven different building blocks or pillars. They are business and trade, governance, international relations, cultural and heritage, media and communication, higher education, science and technologies and people and values. No additional information on the metrics or dimensions of the “higher education, science and technologies” pillar is available, and so there is no understanding on how they interpret and actually measure this pillar.

120

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

Both of these reports are prepared by private sector companies whose primary business in developing communication and branding strategies for their clients is whether they be governments, private sector companies or civil society organizations. At this point in time, there does not seem to be a valid and reliable set of objective indicators for determining whether IHERI is being used in international relations as a tool of diplomacy or soft power or both. Furthermore, in response to the question as to whether the role of IHERI in knowledge diplomacy relationships as opposed to the role of IHERI in soft power relationships should be understood as two ends of the same continuum, there does appear to be a marker or metric which could indicate the pivot point or line of demarcation between the two approaches. A new question arises from this examination of the two soft power indexes now being used. What kind of indicator/s can be developed which would measure the intentions, values, modes operation and outcomes of how a nation used IHERI either to strengthen relations between countries or to develop a competitive advantage over another and, secondly, what are the implications of such a set of indicators for addressing the multiple global challenges that face the world which can only be addressed in a multilateral and multi-sector way? The purpose of this section was to differentiate the use of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach versus a soft power approach. In an attempt to achieve greater clarity on the multiple terms used to describe the role of IHERI in IR, the next section focuses on examining the similarities and differences between the proposed concept of knowledge diplomacy and the related terms of cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, public diplomacy and education diplomacy.

9.4 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Broader Than Cultural Diplomacy Cultural diplomacy has been a popular term for decades. While the meaning and activities have evolved, it is primarily oriented to international exchanges, exhibitions and events in all fields of the arts, music, theatre, literature, film, media, architecture as well as sports and other cultural expressions (Goff, 2013). The goal of cultural diplomacy is primarily to enhance cross-cultural awareness, trust and relations between and among countries (Gienow-Hecht & Donfried, 2010). When higher education is referred to as part of cultural diplomacy, the most common activities cited are student/scholar exchanges, language learning, international sport competitions and cultural events (Pajtinka, 2015). While cultural diplomacy can include a wide range of people-to-people education and cultural exchanges, it is not broad enough to include the central elements of IHERI such as research and innovation. Furthermore, the focus is primarily related to people mobility as in student/ scholar exchanges. The recent increase in the scope and scale of universities and other private higher education providers moving across borders to offer foreign education programs and qualifications in the students’ home country is not usually

9.4  Knowledge Diplomacy Is Broader Than Cultural Diplomacy

121

accommodated in the notion of cultural diplomacy. Thus, while cultural diplomacy can include many IHERI activities, and is an appropriate term to discuss student and scholar mobility and exchange, and other cultural-related events between and among higher education institutions, the concept is not broad enough to encompass the wide range of contemporary higher education, research and innovation activities such as education hubs and cities, international and joint universities or regional research centres and international branch campuses as discussed in Chap. 4. A recently published report by the British Council (2021) entitled International Cultural Relations: Soft Power and Cultural Relations Institutions in a Time of Crisis addresses the issue of soft power and cultural relations. The report focuses on cultural relations institutions such as the British Council and clearly states the soft power and cultural relations are different concepts and should not be confused. The report articulates the difference by noting that the “ the primary purpose of soft power is pursuit of influence in the national interest” while “the primary purpose of cultural relations is to create the conditions for collaboration between like-minded people and countries in pursuit of the common good (most often identified with the Sustainable Development Goals)” (British Council, 2021, p.  3). This is a good example of differentiating soft power from cultural relations based on the stated purpose and intentions. The same rationale can be applied to differentiating soft power from knowledge diplomacy as already discussed. However, the perplexing question of why so many scholars and experts from both fields of study maintain that cultural diplomacy (and knowledge diplomacy) can be used as a tool of soft power remains unanswered. How can two processes which have vastly different intentions, principles and preferred outcomes be combined? Is it because the agency of volition stays with the target? Even though soft power is essentially a process of cooption and compliance, it uses attraction and persuasion as a magnet not a big stick. Thus the two primary strategies of soft power  – attraction and persuasion  – can be seen as benign processes as volition remains with the target audience. Yet, in the end, soft power is used to process as the target believes that they have agency or volition in terms of whether or not to be influenced by the source or method of attraction. This is at odds with what the intentions of the sender as the soft power of attraction or persuasion or agenda setting strategies are intended to make the target want what they want. The use of the term cultural “relations” instead of cultural “diplomacy” in the British Council report raises an important but contested point. The report acknowledges that the British Council prefers the term cultural relations and acknowledges that other countries use alternative terms to capture the role of culture in international relations. The report states that “while the most common form of self-­ description is ‘cultural diplomacy’, the same country may say that it is operating at the same time under other terms. Australia, for example, claims to be simultaneously engaged in ‘cultural diplomacy’, ‘soft power’, ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘economic diplomacy’’ (British Council, 2021, p. 11). Chapters 4, 5 and 6 make exactly the same point in relation to the role of IHERI in international relations being labelled simultaneously as several different types of diplomacy and often using the

122

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

terms interchangeably. Piros and Koops (2020) acknowledge the same challenge by concluding that “given these multi-faceted and wide-ranging definitions of education and academic diplomacy it is indeed impossible to offer a catch-all definition. Instead, we view ‘education diplomacy’ as an umbrella term that includes all dimensions” (Piros & Koops, 2020, p. 119) Clearly, the confusion with multiple terms as well as the interchangeable use of terms is an acknowledged reality and a major challenge which needs to be addressed. However, in conclusion it is suggested that knowledge diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are not in conflict; rather, knowledge diplomacy is broader than the usual strategies included in cultural diplomacy in spite of having similar intentions.

9.5 Knowledge Diplomacy Is Inclusive of Science Diplomacy but Is More Comprehensive As discussed and illustrated in Chap. 6, there is increased attention being given to science diplomacy as evidenced by an increase in national government science policies, the frequency of national and interregional international meetings on the topic and the number of academic references and recent research projects. A frequently asked question is whether science diplomacy and knowledge diplomacy are not one in the same. This is a question worthy of serious consideration. It depends on how broadly the concept of science is being defined and used. If science is broadly interpreted to mean knowledge as in the Latin word “sciencia”, then there is a close relationship. But traditionally, science diplomacy has been seen and used in the western sense of natural sciences as illustrated in all the examples provided in conceptual framework developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2009). More recently it has been placed within the broader framework of science and technology (Rungis, 2018, Miremadi, 2016). There is no doubt that this reflects the centrality of science and technology in today’s knowledge economy (Kim & Lee, 2015). However, the focus on science and technology excludes, to a large extent, other sectors, issues and disciplines related to the social sciences and humanities. For instance, it is unlikely that science diplomacy initiatives or negotiations would include humanitarian or societal issues such as migration, aging, refugees, gender, poverty or human rights. Thus, while full acknowledgement is given to the importance and role of science diplomacy, it does not exclude the necessity of knowledge diplomacy which is a more inclusive concept in terms of the range of issue sectors, and disciplines involved, the diversity in the production of research and application of knowledge, while being more consistent with the holistic concept of knowledge society (Cerroni, 2020). It is likely that different countries and actors will continue to use both “science diplomacy” and “science and technology diplomacy” as well as “knowledge diplomacy” according to their own policy priorities and contexts. However, the difference between these terms and the more comprehensive perspective of knowledge diplomacy also needs to be recognized.

9.7  Education Diplomacy

123

9.6 Public Diplomacy vs Knowledge Diplomacy The introduction and evolution of the concept of public diplomacy highlight the engagement of a broad range of actors using diverse methods to reach foreign, as well as domestic, publics. Public diplomacy has been described as a “country’s efforts to create and maintain relationships with publics in other societies to advance policies and actions” (Melissen & Wang, 2019, p. 2). Public diplomacy can involve a wide range of strategies and instruments and oriented to an equally broad spectrum of issues. There is no doubt that public diplomacy can include IHERI-related actors, issues and strategies as evidenced by the large number of IR scholars and experts from all regions of the world who framed IHERI’s role in IR as public diplomacy (Byrne & Hall, 2014; Waithaka & Maluka, 2016). Of particular interest is the conflicting views among IR scholars as to whether both state and non-state actors are involved. Thus, while public diplomacy clearly can include and be applied to IHERI issues, strategies and actors (both senders and targets), it is somewhat limited in highlighting or specifying the higher education, research and innovation activities. One can conclude that while public diplomacy is definitely appropriate, it is a wide umbrella concept, and the term knowledge diplomacy is more focused on specific state and non-state actors and activities related to international higher education, research and innovation.

9.7 Education Diplomacy Overall, the review of the literature in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7 revealed that there were only a few scholars and experts who used the term education diplomacy. In fact, there were surprisingly more scholars from diplomacy studies such as Piros and Koops (2020) than from the higher education sector who used the term education diplomacy. The literature review in Chap. 7 revealed that the term education diplomacy is usually referred to and used by early childhood and basic education. The Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) believes that “education diplomacy uses the skills of diplomacy grounded in human rights principles to advance education as a driver for human development” (Hone, 2016). This raises the question as to whether the term education diplomacy or knowledge diplomacy is more appropriate for the role of higher education in international relations . It is a question worthy of consideration. In addition to education and training, knowledge diplomacy includes the use of research and new knowledge for innovation. These two areas are not usually associated with basic education. Furthermore, the drivers and outcomes differ. Education diplomacy, as interpreted by ACEI, is oriented to “human development”, while knowledge diplomacy has a broader mandate and focuses on “strengthening relations between and among countries”. It also addresses

124

9  Differentiating Knowledge Diplomacy from Soft Power and Cultural, Science…

a diversity of global challenges which face countries in all regions of the world which are not usually part of early childhood education. An important question to ask after reviewing the use of the terms cultural, science and education diplomacy is whether constructing conceptual frameworks for these terms would bring more clarity to their use and also help to distinguish them from knowledge diplomacy. This could be done in a way similar to the way conceptual frameworks were developed to distinguish using IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach vs a soft power approach. This is a challenge for the scholars exploring the contemporary role of IHERI in international relations. An additional challenge facing the term knowledge diplomacy is the confusion that it is the sole responsibility of state actors.

9.8 Concluding Remarks This chapter has discussed the differences and similarities between the proposed concept of knowledge diplomacy and the traditionally used terms of soft power and the different forms of diplomacy such as cultural, science, public and education diplomacy. The discussion has not suggested that knowledge diplomacy “ought” to be used thereby taking a normative position. Instead, it has noted how the related terms are most commonly used and how the concept of knowledge diplomacy differs and is more (or less) comprehensive. This involves including features of contemporary diplomacy such as the engagement of state and non-state actors and expanding the types of IHERI activities beyond scholarships and academic exchanges to include international joint and regional universities, multilateral research networks, education hubs and regional centres of excellence, among others. The next chapter is designed to illustrate how the major dimensions and key characteristics of the knowledge diplomacy framework can be applied to existing IHERI initiatives from all regions of the world. The purpose is to demonstrate how the abstract concepts of the framework could be operationalized by analysing the intentions, actors, principles, modes and activities in existing IHERI initiatives.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Science and diplomacy: A conceptual framework. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/scidip_framework_aaas_2009.pdf Brand Finance. (2021). The global soft power index 2021. Brand Finance. British Council. (2021). International cultural relations: Soft power and cultural relations institutions in a time of crisis. British Council. Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2014). Australia’s international education as public diplomacy: Soft power potential. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–438. Cerroni, A. (2020). Understanding the knowledge society: A new paradigm in the sociology of knowledge. Edward Elgar Publishing. Gienow-Hecht, J., & Donfried, M. (2010). Searching for a cultural diplomacy. Berghahn Books.

References

125

Goff, P. (2013). Cultural Diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Hone, K. (2016). Education diplomacy: Negotiating and implementing the sustainable development goals- looking back and looking ahead. Centre for Education Diplomacy and Leadership, Childhood Education International. Kim, Y.  K., & Lee, K. (2015). Different impacts of scientific and technological knowledge on economic growth: Contrasting science and technology policy in East Asia and Latin America: Impact of science and technology policy. Asian Economic Policy Review, 10(1), 43–66. https:// doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12081 Knight, J. (2021). Towards a knowledge diplomacy framework: The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Antwerp. Lo, W. Y. (2011). Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production: Distinctions between hegemony and self-determination in higher education. Comparative Education, 47(2), 209–222. Medalis, D. (2012). The strength of soft power: American cultural diplomacy and the fulbright program during the 1989-1991 transition period in Hungary. The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 144–163. Melissen, J., & Wang, J. (2019). Introduction: Debating public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­14101064 Miremadi, T. (2016). A model for science and technology diplomacy: How to align the rationales of foreign policy and science. SSRN Electronic Journal. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs. Nye, J. S. (2005). Higher education and soft power. Forum futures 2005, 11–14. Educause. Pajtinka, E. (2015). Cultural diplomacy in the theory and practice of contemporary international relations. Politicke vedy, 1(17). Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood. In C. Carta & R. Higgot (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer. Rungis, C. (2018). S4D4C using science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges- State of the art report. EU Horizon. Seong-Hun, Y. (2018). An overdue critical look at soft power. Measurement, 25(2), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.2307/26909941 Waithaka, J., & Maluka, P. (2016). International education exchanges as a public diplomacy instrument. International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, 1(3), 1–8. Wojciuk, A. (2018). Empires of knowledge in international relations. Education and science as sources of power for the state. Routledge. Woldegioris, E. (2018). Policy travel in regionalization of higher education: The case of the Bologna process in Africa. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Procopie (Eds.), European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 43–59). Springer.

Chapter 10

Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

10.1 Introduction In Chaps. 8 and 9, knowledge diplomacy was discussed as a useful concept to frame the contemporary role that international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) plays in building/strengthening relations between and among countries and addressing global challenges. Using an exploratory and conceptual research approach, a proposed working definition for knowledge diplomacy as well as a conceptual framework was developed to provide a deeper understanding of the key dimensions of the phenomenon and to provide clarity in differentiating it from other concepts and terms. The purpose of the proposed conceptual framework is to identify the foundational dimensions of knowledge diplomacy to enable a clearer understanding of what it is and what it is not. The intention is not to suggest that knowledge diplomacy is the best or only term to frame the role of international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) in international relations (IR) but to ensure that the meaning is well understood so that if and when it is used, it is done so with careful consideration and not confused with related terms such as cultural, science, education diplomacy and soft power. This chapter is designed to illustrate how the major dimensions and key characteristics of the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework concept are operationalized in existing IHERI initiatives. The primary elements of the framework are (1) intentions, purpose and rationales, (2) key actors and partners, (3) guiding values and principles, (4) major modes of operation and (5) primary activities. These elements have been identified as being important based on a review of the different definitions of diplomacy as discussed in Chap. 2 and a review of the research done by scholars and experts from diplomatic and international higher education studies. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse four contemporary IHERI initiatives to demonstrate how each key element of the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework can be operationalized.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_10

127

128

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

The examples used to illustrate the constituent elements of the framework are drawn from four different IHERI initiatives (Knight, 2019). Careful attention was given to ensuring that the IHERI projects come from different regions of the world, operated at bilateral and/or multilateral levels, addressed different types of global issues and challenges, involved key state and non-state actors and used different kinds of IHERI activities to address their stated objectives. Each initiative is analysed individually, and at the end of each section, a table summarizes how the major element of the conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy has been illustrated. The four IHERI initiatives which demonstrate the use of the major elements of the knowledge diplomacy approach are (1) the Sustainable Development Solutions Network which is a global initiative, (2) the Pan African University – a region-wide multi-campus initiative founded by the African Union, (3) the joint German-Jordan University jointly established by the German and Jordanian governments and located in Jordan and (4) another bilateral initiative the RENKEI Network between Japan and UK universities and partners. All the initiatives have been operational for more than 5 years to ensure that they have been sustainable. A short description of each initiative provides the necessary background information on which to base the analysis of the key elements of the knowledge diplomacy framework. It should be noted that there is almost no academic literature or empirical data available which has measured the outcomes of these initiatives in relation to their role in strengthening relations between and among countries and to addressing global issues. This explains why annual reports, formal declaration/agreement documents and websites have been given as the primary source of information and why the intention has not been to test or prove that they are knowledge diplomacy initiatives but are meant to illustrate the foundational elements of the knowledge diplomacy framework and how they can be operationalized.

10.2 Sustainable Development Solutions Network This successful multilateral initiative was established by the United Nations in 2012 to mobilize global scientific and technological expertise and to promote practical solutions for sustainable development especially in the area of climate change. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network’s (SDSN) work uses IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach to produce research and find common implementable solutions to the diversity of sustainability development issues and challenges facing countries around the world.1 Universities play a major role in research and innovation projects in 32 countries involving researchers from across different disciplines and sectors as well as the theme-based groups. Intentions, Purpose and Rationales  The primary purpose of SDSN is to develop and promote integrated approaches to implement the Sustainable Development  http://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/

1

10.2  Sustainable Development Solutions Network

129

Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change through education, research, policy analysis and global cooperation. It mobilizes global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical solutions for sustainable development and more specifically to address climate-related challenges common to all countries. Actors  The SDSN involves a diverse group of state and non-state actors representing different sectors and disciplines who participate in three organizational structures/levels of the network with additional cross-cutting thematic groups. The first level is the executive committee which includes 15 leaders from all regions of the world and oversees the operational aspects of SDSN including the budget and membership process. The second level is the leadership council. It serves as the global advisory group consisting of 90 experts from all over the world who bring expertise from diverse sectors including academia, government, civil society and industry. The third level consists of more than 30 national networks that work within countries to support efforts to address climate change, emissions reduction and other sustainability development challenges. Running parallel to these three organizational levels are cross-cutting thematic councils developed to lead multi-country research projects on specific issues. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project is an example of a thematic network that brings together experts from different countries and a broad range of sectors and disciplines on a specific issue area. SDSN research also has strong ties to civil society to further advocacy efforts by presenting the latest scientific research on climate change and tangible steps with which to address sustainable development challenges. In short, the SDSN brings together a surprisingly diverse group of state and non-state actors from around the world and across a wide range of sectors. Key Principles/Values  The diversity of issues and broad geographical reach of the network can only function if a collaborative approach is taken to the production, sharing and application of the research to achieve solutions. Given that different countries, sectors and actors are working together to address national, regional and global issues, the network is driven by values of mutuality and reciprocity while respecting the different priorities, needs and resources of the individual countries. Being a multi-layered and multi-sector network means that collaboration, exchange and benefits for all are fundamental principles to achieve successful and sustainable solutions to the SDGs. Modes and Approaches  The SDSN plays an important role in unifying national responses to climate change while acknowledging the individual context of each countries. For example, due to the complex relationship between industry, carbon emissions and national development, countries have often faced opposition to nationally or externally mandated climate policies such as emissions reduction. With the implementation of local SDSN networks, supported by the SDSN’s global leadership council, nationally based expert networks work across sectors and actors through consultation, meditation and cooperation to ensure that differences are respected, conflicts are resolved and solutions are implemented.

130

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

Activities  The SDSN is at the epicentre of global research on SDGs and climate change. By bringing together experts from public and private research institutes, universities, private sector and government research organizations, the SDSN plays a critical role in development of new research as well as the monitoring and ­evaluation of the Sustainable Development Goals. For example, working with the European Commission, the SDSN conducted a regional assessment of the EU to determine the strength and challenges countries faced in implementing the SDGs and targets of Agenda 2030. An important and innovative initiative of the SDSN is the SDG Academy. It believes that education and knowledge is a critical first step towards achieving the SDGs. It prepares and offers education curriculum on a diversity of issues such as health, education, climate change, agriculture and food systems and sustainable investment. The educational materials are developed by technical and education experts and shared through partnerships with SDSN members, the University Partnerships Programme and other organizations around the world. Another important initiative of the SDSN is the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP). It describes itself as “a global collaboration of energy research teams charting practical pathways to deeply reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their own countries”.2 The research activities of DDPP are led by experts at 40 academic- and industry-related research institutes, located in the 16 countries which produce the large percentage of greenhouse emitting gases (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the UK and the USA). The DDPP, supported by SDSN, has produced in-depth country reports for each nation outlining concrete pathways to decrease greenhouse gases in such a way as to limit global warming to 2%. Following the publication of the individual country reports, the DDPP executive team developed a master report with a cross-cutting analysis of collective findings and an online toolkit to assist climate researchers in areas such as calculating carbon reductions (Table 10.1).

10.3 Pan African University: A Regional University The Pan African University (PAU) is an example of a contemporary IHERI initiative involving a university with multi-campuses located across the African continent. PAU was initiated in 2013 to establish a regional university system to serve the entire continent in key development areas and to strengthen the regional integration goal of Africa’s Agenda 2063.3 The initiative was started by the member states of the African Union and is funded jointly by the African Development Bank, host African countries, World Bank and international partners. The PAU is made up of  https://ddpinitiative.org/about/  https://pau-au.africa/

2 3

10.3  Pan African University: A Regional University

131

Table 10.1  SDSN: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework Element of conceptual framework Intentions/purpose

As illustrated in the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) The SDSN mobilizes global scientific and technological expertise to research and promote practical solutions for sustainable development State and non-state Universities, research centres, innovation networks actors and partners Governments at all levels Private industry, non-governmental organizations Guiding principles and Mutuality of benefits according to different needs values Reciprocity Commonality of issues Multidisciplinary/multi-sector Modes/approaches of Collaboration relationship Partnerships Networks Exchange IHERI activities Multi-sector joint research projects Advocacy Policy analysis Teaching and curriculum development Author

five post-graduate, training and research institutes, hosted at leading universities in the West, North, East, Central and South regions of the African Continent. Each institute focuses on one of the strategic areas for African advancement, as determined by the Conference of Ministers of Education of the African Union. The research institutes are (1) Kenya – Basic Sciences, Technology and Innovation located at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, (2) Nigeria – Life and Earth Sciences, including Health and agriculture, located at the University of Ibadan, (3) Cameroon – Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences located at the University of Yaoundé II, (4) Algeria – Water and Energy Sciences located at the Abou Bakr University of Tlemcen and (5) South Africa (future plan) – Space Science Institute located at Cape Peninsula University of Technology (Africa Union Commission, 2016). Intentions, Purpose and Rationales  The PAU is considered to be a key player and contributor to the operationalization of the first 10-year phase of the African Union’s Agenda 2063. The Agenda 2063 outlines a vision for pan-African unity for the creation of an “integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens, representing a dynamic force in the international arena”. The Agenda 2063 document, ratified in 2015, charts a path for “inclusive and sustainable development, a politically-integrated continent, peace and security, fused together by a strong ‘cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics’” (African Union, 2015). The five regional networks of universities and research partners are connected and strengthened by a continental framework. A review of the stated objectives reveals how PAU strives to enhance collaboration and integration between and

132

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

among African countries through IHERI activities. The two primary academic objectives are to (1) stimulate collaborative, internationally competitive, cutting-­ edge fundamental and development-oriented research, in areas having a direct bearing on the technical, economic and social development of Africa while recruiting, training and retaining African talent, and (2) enhance the mobility of students, lecturers, researchers and administrative staff between African universities to improve teaching, leadership and collaborative research and create regional/continental integrating networks. Actors  The African Union, the African Development Bank and five national African governments are the key state drivers behind the PAU. State and non-state actors include universities, centres of excellence, foundations and research centres that are members of the five regional networks. International universities and governments are additional partners and share expertise, participate in joint research projects and provide some funding opportunities. For instance, Germany cooperates with the research institute in Algeria; Sweden works with the institute in Cameroon; India and Japan are involved in supporting the institute in Nigeria; and China collaborates with the institute in Kenya. The European Union has also been involved by providing initial funding for student scholarships. The African Development Bank was the main funder of the project, and the World Bank provided additional start-up funds. Key Principles/Values  Partnership and collaboration are key principles driving the development and operation of regional networks which are coordinated by a continental wide strategy. Cooperation with African-based public and private organizations for internships, joint research and knowledge exchange is a priority and illustrates the importance of mutual benefits. The theme of each network illustrates the multi-sector and interdisciplinary nature of the entire PAU initiative. In terms of mutual benefits, African researchers and graduate students benefit from the increased collaboration in their region as well as the international support and exchange with their international thematic partners. National governments in the host African counties have benefited from increased research capacity at their institutions and their leadership role in their region to collaborate with industry and non-­governmental organization while addressing major societal issues facing the continent. International partners have benefitted from finding common ground, building trust and deepening relationships with African research institutes and industry. In turn, these activities and benefits contribute to the operationalizing of the Agenda 2063 goal of “inclusive and sustainable development, a politically-integrated continent, peace and security, fused together by a strong ‘cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics’” (African Union, 2015). Modes  A project as large and ambitious as the Pan African University is not without conflicts and differing priorities among the major players and funders. Negotiation, conflict resolution, mediation and compromise are necessary to reach

10.3  Pan African University: A Regional University

133

common ground and a way forward. The creation of five regional networks consisting of multiple state and non-state actors also requires a consultative and collaborative approach to negotiating priorities, budgets and strategies. These are fundamental modes used in diplomatic relationships as opposed to soft power approaches. Activities  Based on the primary goals and operating principles of PAU, the main IHERI activities focus on graduate-level programs including internships, knowledge production and innovation; academic exchange of students and scholars across Africa; and joint research within the networks and with international partners. Scholarships are available to students from African countries as well as those of the African diaspora. Enrolment quotas are in place to ensure regional representation and gender parity. No more than 20% of new students can be from the host country, and an equal number of men and women must be accepted. An interesting and important feature of PAU is that graduate programs are designed to intentionally build a unified African identity beyond national differences. Students are required to take two general education courses to further this aim: General History of Africa and Gender and Human Rights. All students are required to collaborate with industrial or governmental partners throughout their program, with internships being mandatory. Finally, students must sign a contract committing to work in Africa after the completion of their program to ensure that the new talent continues to work towards African development priorities.4 Two flagship research projects illustrate the emphasis on collaboration, partnerships and mutuality of benefits as well as the types of global/regional issues being addressed. The West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use project was developed jointly by researchers from the Universities of Cotonou (Benin), Bonn (Germany) and Miami (USA) and their industry and governmental partners. The aim of this project was to create sustainable institutional relationships that develop a community of experts in areas of natural resource management aiming to conduct joint research and offer practical applications. The Institute of Water and Energy Sciences in Algeria offers another example of the PAU’s collaborative research projects with its researchers working with German universities to host international research symposia bringing together specialists in water and energy sciences from around the world (Koli et al., 2019). When fully realized, the PAU will be the sum of 5 thematic regional institutions/networks with 50 related centres of excellence across the African continent working towards and using IHERI as a means to achieve the long-term goal and core aspiration of Agenda 2063 which is to make Africa “strong, united, resilient and influential global player and partner” (Table 10.2).

 https://pau-au.africa/

4

134

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

Table 10.2  PAU: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework Element of conceptual framework Intentions/ purpose

State and non-state actors and partners Guiding principles and values

Modes/ approaches of relationship

IHERI activities

As illustrated in the Pan African University initiative PAU is seen as a key player to realize Agenda 2063 which charts a path for “inclusive and sustainable development, a politically-integrated continent, peace and security, fused together by a strong cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics” (African Union Commission, 2015) African national governments, universities, research centres and industry The African union, the African development Bank, World Bank International partner governments, universities, foundations and industry Partnership Cooperation Mutual benefits Commonality of issues Multidisciplinary/multi-sector Negotiation Conflict resolution Mediation Compromise Collaboration Dialogue Joint research projects among African universities, research centres, industry, governmental agencies Collaborative academic and research initiatives between African and international universities, foundations, research centres, industry Scholarships for African graduate students, industry internships, Student and scholar mobility within Africa Regional, continental, international workshops and seminars hosted in Africa

Knight (2019)

10.4 The German-Jordanian University: An International Joint University As discussed in Chap. 4, the landscape of international higher education is changing dramatically and goes beyond the traditional activities of scholarships, student and scholar mobility and bilateral university agreements. An innovative development in international academic partnerships is the creation of international joint universities (IJUs). IJUs are new independent universities created though collaboration between higher education institutes and governments from two or more countries. These new institutions move beyond the branch-campus model where one university establishes a “bricks and mortar” campus of its own in another country. Instead, an IJU is cofounded by the government/university located in the host country and the government/universities located in the foreign partner country. Together they develop a new university based on joint academic programs, collaborative research projects, scholar and student exchanges and partnerships with local industry, governments and non-governmental organizations.

10.4  The German-Jordanian University: An International Joint University

135

Germany has been a leader in this area, establishing seven new IJUs in partnership with foreign governments in Vietnam, Egypt, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Oman and Turkey, and several more are in the planning stage. In the German experience of co-founding IJUs, it is common for the new IJU to begin with a Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments, after which a council, with representation from both countries, is established to determine the mission and operations of the new institution. These councils include university leaders, academics and government officials from foreign affairs and education ministries. Together they determine mutual priorities, roles and responsibilities and benefits. IJUs are based on and exhibit many elements of the knowledge diplomacy framework as illustrated by examining the German-Jordanian University in some detail. The German-Jordanian University (GJU) was one of the first IJUs and was jointly created in 2005. It draws on the German education and applied research model to create relevant academic programs to the meet the human resource needs of Jordan, build high-tech research capacity in Jordan through partnerships between Jordanian and German academics and industries and strengthen relationships and trust between the two countries. The German-Jordanian University is committed to facilitate student and scholar exchanges, joint academic programs, scholarships, joint research and engagement with industry and outreach in Jordan and the surrounding region. Intentions, Purpose and Rationales  The GJU was jointly created and funded by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany with the explicit mandate to integrate “people and nations; cultures and disciplines; science and practice”.5 The GJU is modelled on the German applied sciences approach and is characterized by a strong focus on putting knowledge into practice and on promoting knowledge transfer, often in collaboration with industry, non-governmental agencies, research centres and foundations. Actors  The key players in this bilateral initiative include national governments, universities and their external partners plus industry, business and local non-­ governmental organizations from both Jordan and Germany. Principles/Values  As illustrated by their collaborative efforts to fund and establish this new international joint university and its stated mandate to integrate “people and nations; cultures and disciplines; science and practice”, the key principles supporting this IHERI initiative are cooperation, reciprocity and mutual but different benefits working towards common interests according to the needs and priorities of each country. Modes/Approaches  Throughout the planning, development and operationalization stages of GJU, there was continuous consultation, dialogue, negotiation, collaboration and exchange between the Jordanian and German governments and  http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/about-gju-687

5

136

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

founding universities. It can be described as a horizontal relationship trying to maintain a win-win approach to ensure that the different needs, priorities and expectations of each country were respected and that the newly created university is successful in its mission. Activities  As already discussed, the major activities include joint academic programs, collaborative research initiatives, student and scholarly exchange, collaboration on applied science and innovation with industry and governmental and non-governmental agencies. An example of an innovative and successful joint initiative has been the establishment of the GJU Office for Industrial Links mandated to create and sustain liaison between university and non-university actors for the purposes of research, training and employment. To that end, as of 2019, the office has developed 32 partnerships within Jordan including several with major NGOs and governmental agencies and has signed 75 partnership agreements with German businesses ranging from Thymoorgan Pharmaceuticals to Puma Athletics. These partnerships focus on research and innovation and provide students with the opportunity to complete 5–6  month internships in Germany or Jordan and transition smoothly into the workforce in addition to expanding the network of partnerships between the two countries.6 In terms of research and innovation, all GJU graduate programs are actively engaged in research with an emphasis on producing new knowledge for application and innovation especially with business and industry. However, research is also conducted for the broader public good in Jordan and the surrounding area. For example, the department of Architecture and Interior Architecture has a strong focus on architectural conservation. Faculty and graduate students work with local communities to develop sustainable architecture projects that account for heritage buildings and surrounding archaeological sites. Likewise, the Graduate Department of Social Work focuses on the needs of migrants and refugees, and faculty research deepens the knowledge base on displaced people with a specific focus on Syria and other countries in the Middle East. Student mobility and exchange is a top priority of the GJU. Since 2006, up to 100 students per year travel in both directions between the two countries. The German government has provided scholarships for GJU students to continue graduate studies in Germany. GJU has also developed agreements with several German universities to host Jordanian students for a year of exchange during their degree. Similarly, agreements are in place for German students to study at the GJU either on short-­ term visits or for their whole degree program in order to better understand Jordanian culture. For Jordanian students who are not able to participate in the exchange programs, they are able to experience German culture on campus through the language training and social activities of the German Language Centre. All undergraduate students at the GJU are encouraged to take introductory levels German language  http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/industrial-relations-committee-7229

6

10.5  RENKEI: The Japan-UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge…

137

Table 10.3  GJU: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework Element of conceptual framework As illustrated in the German-Jordanian University Intentions/purpose The GJU is a means to help integrate “people and nations; cultures and disciplines; science and practice” through joint IHERI activities and partnerships State and non-state National government departments of education and research, foreign actors and partners affairs Universities and their stakeholders from both countries Industry, non-governmental organizations and research centres from both countries Guiding principles Cooperation and values Reciprocity Commonality of issues Multidisciplinary/multi-sector Modes/approaches of Negotiation relationship Consultation Collaboration Partnerships Exchange IHERI activities Joint academic programs and student/scholar exchange Collaborative research projects between Jordanian and German universities and their respective external partners Internships for Jordanian and German students with local social, cultural and industry related partners Industrial link office at GIU to create and sustain relationships with and between German and Jordanian industry partners Language training Knight (2019)

classes. GIU believes that language acquisition is helpful for Jordanian students and researchers to be more aware of German culture as they forge deeper ties with German partners. This arrangement illustrates the mutual benefits of student exchange and how it plays an important part in strengthening relations between Germany and Jordan and working towards integration “people and nationals, cultures and disciplines, science and practice” (Table 10.3).7

10.5 RENKEI: The Japan-UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives In 2010, the UK’s foreign secretary visited Japan to chart a plan for stronger university collaborations between the two nations. Japan and the UK are important allies because of their noticeable similarities: both are small, densely populated islands

 (http://www.gju.edu.jo/)

7

138

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

with similar systems of higher education, and both produce well-respected research and degree programs. Collaboration between university researchers and industry and civil society partners was viewed as a key strategy to building trust, strengthening relationships between the two nations and addressing societal issues common to both countries. To that end RENKEI was founded in 2012 as a joint initiative by the governments of Japan and the UK with the goal of strengthening relationships between the two nations by developing academic-industry research collaborations that would address major societal issues. The British Council serves as the secretariat for the network. Between 2012 and 2018, RENKEI’s working groups addressed pertinent issues such as Sustainable Energy, War, Slavery, Aerospace Engineering, Renaissance Entrepreneurship, and Living with an Aging Society,8 a truly diverse set of issues. Intentions/Purpose/Rationales  The purpose of the RENKEI network as stated in the 2018–2019 annual report is “to provide a strong foundation from which other bilateral relationships in trade and security for example can prosper…… the consortium plays a vital role in the sharing of knowledge and ideas leading to deeper levels of trust, prosperity and security between the two countries” (British Council, 2019, p. 3). This statement clearly illustrates a knowledge diplomacy approach where IHERI activities can help to strengthen relations between and among countries. Actors  The network includes six universities in Japan and six universities in the UK. Core to the mandate of the network is collaboration with partners from business, industry, civil society groups and government agencies. These external partnerships are involved to different degrees in events and projects run by the issue-specific working groups of the network. Principles/Values  The word RENKEI, in addition to the acronym for the name of the network, also means “collaboration” in Japanese. Collaboration, partnership and exchange are foundational values and expressed through the reciprocal relationships among the 12 universities and the cooperation with external partners, especially industry. Mutuality of benefits is a key principle. Both Japan and the UK benefit from the binational research collaborations developed through RENKEI. For example, in the field of Sustainable Energy, workshops were held in both Southampton and Tohoku and included senior researchers, graduate students and industry partners. Japan benefited from these activities as specific attention was given to the Fukushima incident, and strategies were developed to address energy gaps after natural disasters. Participants from the UK designed low-carbon energy systems for a new section of Southampton. Furthermore, the global scope of both the social issues and the researchers meant benefits to other countries as research

 https://www.britishcouncil.jp/en/programmes/higher-education/university-industry-partnership/renkei 8

10.5  RENKEI: The Japan-UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge…

139

groups went on to design sustainable energy interventions for cities in Bolivia, Taiwan, Mexico and Spain (British Council, 2018). Modes/Approaches  During the establishment and operation of the network, the different priorities, needs and resources of each country were discussed and negotiated in order to ensure that mutual but different benefits were accrued for the major actors. The different working groups of the network were based on a model of collaboration through partnership and exchange of research, students, professors and knowledge related to their specific theme. Activities  Workshops, seminars and conferences are key activities of the network. They differ in terms of purpose, scope, format, participants and outcomes. Each thematic working group develops a series of workshops around their topics to further research collaboration and exchange and is hosted by a member university in either Japan or the UK. For example, in 2016 the University of Osaka worked with the University of Liverpool to host a workshop “Living with an Ageing Society”. Through field visits, sessions to exchange research and insights into key challenges, the participants worked together to understand the different perceptions of “old age” in Japan and the UK and to prepare research proposals for future collaboration. The workshops/conferences related to aerospace engineering were designed to build research collaboration with industry. The workshops fulfil a key RENKEI goal of engaging external actors in university-to-university collaboration in order to strengthen knowledge production and exchange, innovation and relations between the two countries. Approximately 90 external organizations have participated in RENKEI workshops during the first 6 years of operation.9 With the completion of RENKEI’s first 5-year term (2012–2017), the organization sets new strategic priorities to guide its activities between 2018 and 2023. During this second phase, RENKEI’s key research areas are climate change and health. These issue areas were chosen to align with the priorities of the 2017 Japan-UK Joint Declaration on Prosperity Cooperation. In this way, RENKEI continues to be a key contributor to strengthening Japan-UK relations, and at the same time, it has enhanced research capacity and output of professors and graduate students and increased their collaboration with industries across the two countries (Table 10.4). These four examples individually and collectively illustrate the key characteristics of knowledge diplomacy. They come from different regions of the world, represent partnerships between higher education actors and partners from other sectors and disciplines, are based on reciprocity and mutuality of benefits and address a variety of global issues.

 https://www.britishcouncil.jp/en/programmes/higher-education/university-industry-partnership/renkei 9

140

10  Examples of IHERI Initiatives Using a Knowledge Diplomacy Approach

Table 10.4  RENKEI: Application of key elements of knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework Element of conceptual As illustrated in RENKEI – the Japan-UK Research and Education framework Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives Intentions/purposes The network is “a key strategy to building trust, strengthening relationships between the two nations and tackling societal issues” (2018 annual report) State and non-state Japanese and UK universities work together and collaborate with actors and partners partners in industry, government, think tanks and civil society Guiding principles Cooperation and values Mutual but different benefits Reciprocity Commonality of issues Multidisciplinary/multi-sector Modes/approaches of Negotiation relationship Collaboration Partnerships Exchange IHERI activities Joint training and education workshops for early career researchers in 12 universities Collaborative research projects with senior researchers from universities and industry, governmental and non-governmental organizations Seminars to identify issues and share research with key government, industry and business stakeholders Advisory and technical service to other countries re-application of research Knight (2019)

10.6 Concluding Remarks The analysis of these four IHERI initiatives has illustrated how the key elements of the conceptual framework can be operationalized. The diversity of partners involved in collaborative IHERI activities illustrates how the knowledge diplomacy approach includes both state and non-state actors. The establishment of bilateral and multilateral IHERI networks across countries, disciplines and sectors based on collaboration, exchange and partnerships was commonly used to build and expand stronger relationships between and among countries and yielded mutual but different benefits for partners. Traditional IHERI activities such as scholarships, student/scholar exchanges and language training as well contemporary IHERI projects such as regional multi-campus universities, multi-stakeholder thematic research networks and international joint universities illustrated several of the key activities used in a knowledge diplomacy approach. These correspond closely to the major principles, modes and activities detailed in the knowledge diplomacy framework. Important to note is the officially stated purposes of these IHERI initiatives all of which address strengthening relations between and among countries. RENKEI is used as “a key strategy to building trust, strengthening relationships between the two nations and tackling societal issues” and to meet the objectives of the 2017 Japan-UK Joint Declaration on Prosperity Cooperation. Similarly, PAU is seen as a

References

141

key player to realize the African Union’s Agenda 2063 declaration which charts a path for “inclusive and sustainable development, a politically-integrated continent, peace and security, fused together by a strong cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics”. The German Jordanian University “was established to help integrate, ‘people and nations; cultures and disciplines; science and practice” through joint IHERI activities and partnerships. The manner in which IHERI is used to achieve these different goals of these three projects aligns with the intentions clearly articulated in the conceptual frameworks for knowledge diplomacy. The purpose of this chapter was to illustrate how each element of the framework can be applied in order to demonstrate real-life application of the key concepts forming the conceptual framework. Overall, a review of the summary tables of the analysis of the four IHERI initiatives corresponds closely with the major elements and key concepts of the knowledge diplomacy framework. The next chapter focuses on three aspects related to looking to the future of knowledge diplomacy: (1) discussing the significance of the research findings, (2) probing the issues and challenges facing knowledge diplomacy and (3) identifying areas related to knowledge diplomacy which merit further reflection and research. N.B.  Parts of this chapter have been excerpted with permission from the British Council publication by Knight, J. (2019) Knowledge Diplomacy in Action. Discussion Paper. British Council, London, United Kingdom

References African Union Commission. (2015). Agenda 2063: First Ten Year Implementation Plan 2014–2023. African Union Commission. (2016). Revised Statue of the Pan Africa University. British Council. (2018). RENKEI Annual Report 2017–2018. British Council. (2019). RENKEI Annual Report 2018–2019. British Council. Knight, J. (2019). Knowledge diplomacy in action. A British Council discussion paper. British Council. Koli, M., Tambo, E., Cheo, E., Oduor, B.  O., & Nguedia-Nguedoung, A. (2019). Pan-­ African University and German Government Higher Education Cooperation in Algeria [Application/pdf].

Chapter 11

Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

11.1 Introduction As stated in Chap. 1, the intersection between contemporary international higher education, research, innovation (IHERI) and international relations (IR) is an understudied phenomenon and one which has not yet benefited from substantial interdisciplinary research. This raises key issues and questions that this book has tried to address. The key questions focus on the following: In what ways is contemporary international higher education changing and becoming more important to strengthening relations between and among countries? Can the contemporary role of international higher education in international relations be understood as cultural, science, public diplomacy and soft power? Can the concept of knowledge diplomacy help to understand the role of IHERI in building relationships between and among countries? These questions lead to the overall purpose of the book which was to explore how the concept of knowledge diplomacy can illuminate the contribution of international higher education, research and innovation to international relations and how is it distinct from the concepts of cultural diplomacy, soft power, science diplomacy, education and public diplomacy. These issues and questions have been explored and addressed through a careful review of how scholars and experts from the fields of diplomatic studies and international higher education have conceptualized, explained and framed the contemporary role of IHERI in IR. The findings indicate that multiple terms are used leading to a blurred picture of the purposes, actors, values, activities and intended outcomes of the role of IHERI in IR. This led to the conclusion that framing the role of IHERI in IR is not completely captured by the terms traditionally used such as cultural, science, public or education diplomacy and that the concept of knowledge diplomacy could serve as a useful comprehensive term. This in turn led to the development of a succinct definition and a carefully articulated conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy which outlined the intentions, actors, principles, modes and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1_11

143

144

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

activities related to the contemporary role of IHERI in IR. Given the frequent references, by scholars and experts from both fields of study to IHERI as a source of soft power, the differences between of the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach versus a soft power approach were examined by contrasting the distinguishing features of each approach through a comparison of their conceptual frameworks. Four contemporary IHERI initiatives from different regions of the world were elaborated on to illustrate how the major elements and key concepts of the knowledge diplomacy framework can be operationalized. Based on this exploratory, conceptual and interdisciplinary research approach, the insights and findings related to the primary questions are discussed in the following section.

11.2 Insights and Findings 11.2.1 How Is IHERI Changing and Contributing to IR In terms of the ways that contemporary IHERI is changing and becoming more important to strengthening relations between and among countries, it was revealing to see how the two fields of study used different IHERI activities to illustrate the role of IHERI in IR. The diplomacy literature focused primarily on scholarships for international students, the mobility and exchange of students and scholars and joint research and conferences as the main IHERI activities to enhancing relations between and among countries. While the higher education literature also referred to these same activities, it also mentioned other strategies such as education hubs, alumni networks and Confucius Institutes. However, the new developments in the changing landscape of IHERI as examined in Chap. 4 were largely ignored resulting in a rather narrow view of the contemporary role of IHERI in IR. These include the co-founding and co-governance of international joint universities by two or more countries, the establishment of regional centres of excellence especially in Africa and Asia and the explosion of theme-based multi-sector and cross-­disciplinary research networks working at sub-regional, regional and global levels. Other new developments include the establishment of education/knowledge cities and hubs which are international in composition and outreach with Qatar, Singapore and United Arab Emirates being successful examples. While the mobility of scholars and students has always been important to building and sustaining relations between countries, there has been little attention paid in the diplomatic studies literature to the mobility of programs and providers across jurisdictional boundaries. This includes countries establishing satellite or branch campuses in other countries, the creation of jointly developed academic programs, bilateral agreements to establish joint universities, multilateral agreements to create regional universities, the exponential increase in virtual universities as well as online education and internships. These are generic examples which demonstrate the changing landscape of IHERI

11.2  Insights and Findings

145

where actors and activities are playing an increasingly important role in building collaborative relations between and among countries. Important to note is that both state and non-state actors from different sectors and disciplines are identified as IHERI actors in both literatures and are included as important elements in the knowledge diplomacy framework; however, whether the involvement of thee non-state actors could be included in the notion of diplomacy was contested by IR scholars. These findings point to the reality that to understand and conceptualize the contemporary role of IHERI in international relations, it is critical to broaden the scope of actors, modes and activities involved in this phenomenon. This finding is reflected in the conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy as discussed in Chap. 8.

11.2.2 Can IHERI’s Role in IR Be Framed as Cultural, Science, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power A fundamental issue in the book revolved around whether the contribution of international higher education to international relations can be understood using cultural, science, public diplomacy and soft power frameworks. The confusion, issues and contradictions related to the multiplicity of terms used to understand and label the role of IHERI were raised and addressed in all of the chapters, but Chap. 9 focused solely on distinguishing between the use of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach and a soft power approach. Furthermore, in order to bring some clarity to the terminology chaos, it also highlighted the similarities but also important differences between IHERI’s role in IR as captured in cultural, education, science and public diplomacy versus knowledge diplomacy and concluded that knowledge diplomacy provided a holistic and more comprehensive view of the role of IHERI in international relations. Cultural diplomacy appropriately focuses on cultural activities and events which include student/scholar mobility, for example, but it falls short in being able to represent the breadth of more contemporary IHERI activities such as those examined in Chap. 4 and puts more emphasis on education-related activities rather than research or innovation. It offers a rather narrow lens and restricted interpretation of the role of IHERI in international relations. Science diplomacy was discussed at length in Chap. 6, and the limitations of using science diplomacy, or science and technology diplomacy, to fully capture the role of IHERI in international relation was then examined in Chap. 9. If the concept of “science” in science diplomacy is understood and used in the way that the Latin term “scientia” is used, it would be more inclusive of IHERI, but in general, science diplomacy is understood and used more in terms of the natural sciences and more recently as combining science and technology. All in all, it was concluded that science diplomacy is very important, but it may be too narrow of a term to describe the breadth of sectoral and discipline issues and actors engaged in knowledge diplomacy. For example, would IHERI projects dealing with poverty alleviation,

146

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

humanitarian aid and disaster relief, human rights or gender issues normally be considered as part of science and technology diplomacy? Public diplomacy traditionally distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of targeting foreign and domestic publics as key to strengthening international relations. The concept of public diplomacy questions the opinion that diplomacy is limited to government officials and representatives and thus broadens the slate of actors involved in diplomatic activities to include non-state actors. While knowledge diplomacy definitely aligns with the concept of public diplomacy in terms of involving foreign and domestic publics and uses both state and non-state actors, the term public diplomacy is perhaps too broad a term to adequately capture the specifics related to the focus on higher education, research and innovation in knowledge diplomacy. Soft power is a much used and misused term in explaining the role of IHERI in international relations. Its elasticity has stretched to the point that term soft power has been used to describe any and all types of bilateral and multilateral activities. For example, it is seen as a way to build mutual understanding and peace which seems to be contrary to the intentions and values that underpin soft power as identified in Chaps. 3 and 9. In relation to IHERI’s role in strengthening relations between and among countries, the term soft power has been inappropriately used to describe a relationship based on cooperation and leading to mutual understanding and benefits when soft power is primarily characterized as putting self-interests first and using attraction and persuasion to gain influence and a competitive edge. Why soft power is so popular and consistently misunderstood and misrepresented, especially by the higher education sector, is puzzling and requires serious questioning and further research. There is no doubt that IHERI can be used for soft power purposes such as gaining a competitive edge and meeting self-interests. What is confusing is how IHERI is categorized as a type of cultural, science, education or public diplomacy which can then be used for soft power ends. This conflates the terms and does not acknowledge the different intentions, values, modes of operation and outcomes between a diplomacy and soft power approach. One possible explanation for why the higher education sector promotes IHERI as a diplomatic instrument of soft power stems from the belief that because soft power is based on attraction and persuasion, it is less threatening than hard power which depends on military force and economic sanctions. Seen through this lens, one can understand why soft power is seen in a positive light and is used extensively. However, there does not seem to be a deep analysis of the reality that power, in terms of the role of IHERI in international relations, involves putting self-interests first at the cost of others and that dominance, compliance and often cooption are the principles and approaches that underpin the use of soft power. This differs significantly from the use of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach which relies on values of mutuality, reciprocity and cooperation through negotiation, conflict resolution and mediation to meet self and others’ interests and reach common ground. In short, while there are numerous types of power in international relations as discussed in Chap. 3, when hard vs soft power is considered, soft power is always

11.2  Insights and Findings

147

seen as the attractive option and often cited because it represents a more contemporary, benign and palatable approach to understanding power as it is based on compliance not coercion and force. Power can also be understood as a neutral concept when used as the “capacity to do something”, but that is not the way it is generally understood in the role of IHERI in international relations. Thus, it is important to question how appropriate it is to use soft power interchangeably with the concept of diplomacy, especially knowledge diplomacy. The inherent contradiction in conflating diplomacy with soft power is not limited to IHERI’s role in international relations and thus merits further research and reflection. Education diplomacy was used in the diplomacy literature and less so in the higher education literature. As discussed in Chaps. 5 and 9, the term education diplomacy has been adopted by the early childhood sector of education and is oriented more to human development rather than strengthening relations between and among countries. Furthermore, education is often interpreted as being about teaching and learning and does not emphasize research and innovation which are hallmarks of higher education and knowledge diplomacy. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the most frequently used terms cultural, science, public, education diplomacy as well as soft power do not adequately capture or represent the contemporary and comprehensive role and contribution that contemporary IHERI can make in expanding and strengthening relations between and among countries in today’s world and political environment. Thus, the concept and term knowledge diplomacy was introduced.

11.2.3 Can the Term Knowledge Diplomacy Illuminate and Frame the Role of IHERI in IR These findings led to questions about how the concept of knowledge diplomacy could help to further the understanding of the role of IHERI in IR. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 focus on exploring the concept of knowledge diplomacy. To prevent knowledge diplomacy being just one more addition to the current list of 14 terms used to describe IHERI’s role in IR, a concise definition of knowledge diplomacy and a conceptual framework are presented and discussed. This delineates the different intentions, actors, values, modes of operation and activities which are fundamental to the process of knowledge diplomacy. Furthermore, four IHERI initiatives from different regions of the world were analysed according to the foundational elements of the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework. However, as illustrated and discussed in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7, the analysis of how scholars and experts conceptualize the role of IHERI in IR indicates that for the last two decades, the role of IHERI in international relations has been frequently characterized as being a form of soft power which can lead to mutual understanding, greater trust and stronger relations between countries. As discussed in Chap. 3 which analyses soft power and summarizes the different between a diplomacy

148

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

approach and soft power approach, this can be seen as a contradiction in terms given that the values and approaches of diplomatic relationship differ from those inherent to a soft power-driven relationship. This perspective needed to be seriously questioned with respect to the role of IHERI in IR, and thus in Chap. 9, the essential differences between the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach and the role of IHERI in a soft power approach were explored in terms of intentions, fundamental values, approaches and activities. The analysis showed that IHERI can be used in a soft power approach as a source of dominance over another country especially in light of the knowledge divide between developed and developing countries. But the use of IHERI as a source of soft power should be clearly conceptualized and not confused with knowledge diplomacy. This is not just a case of semantics. Fundamentally different intentions, values, modes and outcomes characterize a diplomatic relationship, such as knowledge diplomacy, from those integral to a relationship based on a soft power imperative. This differentiation is intended to help avoid the inherent contradiction that knowledge diplomacy is conceptualized as a form of soft power. Yet, at the same time, it is necessary to acknowledge that IHERI can also be used in a soft power approach, and thus it is critically important to distinguish the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach from the role of IHERI in a soft power approach.

11.3 Significance of Insights and Research The insights and findings have demonstrated that both fields of study use the traditional higher activities as the basis of their research and opinions and use multiple terms to label the role of IHERI activities in IR. This book and the underlying research has tried to expand the horizon as to understanding the range of state and non-state IHERI actors involved and the diversity of contemporary IHERI activities used in building and strengthening relations between and among countries, and while IHERI can be used in both soft power and knowledge approaches, it is critical to understand the difference in terms of intentions, values, modes of operation and outcomes, even though the actors and activities can be similar. The introduction and analysis of the term knowledge diplomacy, its proposed definition and the explanation of how it is similar or different to other terms are meant to shed light on the jungle of terms currently being used to frame the role of IHERI in international relations and how developing concise definitions and conceptual frameworks may help to provide some clarification and differentiation among terms. Most importantly, the research raises the question as to the appropriateness of framing knowledge diplomacy as an instrument of soft power when there are fundamentally different motivations values and approaches at play even though actors and activities may be similar. The proposed distinction is hopefully an impetus for further reflection and research by both higher education and diplomacy scholars on the nature of knowledge diplomacy and how it differs from using IHERI to dominate

11.4  Further Research Issues and Topics

149

and create a power dynamic between countries. Equally important is the attempt to bring some clarity to the confusion caused by IHERI’s role in international relations being seen as both a collaborative approach based on reciprocity and mutuality of interests and benefits and a dominance or soft power approach based on self-­ interests first and gaining competitive edge. It is recognized that these differences are muddied in the real world of international relations and can even occur simultaneously, but in terms of the process of conceptualization, it is important to clearly identify these differences. In terms of the significance of the research, another factor worth mentioning is the conceptualization of knowledge diplomacy as a two-way process. This acknowledges that IHERI has a role to play in strengthening international relations, and conversely, international relations have a role in enhancing (or jeopardizing) IHERI. This is another potential contribution to the clarification of the role of IHERI in international relations but requires further research to examine the appropriateness and applicability of the idea that knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process. As noted, conceptual analytical tools, such as conceptual frameworks, definitions and descriptions, were used to delineate the basic elements, meaning and concepts of the term knowledge diplomacy. Perhaps the use of conceptual frameworks could lead to a more rigorous analysis of the different types of diplomacy and will influence other researchers to be more precise and provide evidence for why and how they define terms. The potential significance and contribution of this research and book will only be confirmed when other scholars, academics, policy makers and professionals reflect on the proposed conceptualization of IHERI’s role in international relations through the lens of knowledge diplomacy and use/adapt the proposed conceptual framework to help structure or guide their research. A major limitation of the research is that it has focused entirely on the process of knowledge diplomacy and not on the essential aspect of policy making. The hope is that this research will be stimulus for more interdisciplinary research and analysis to fully explore the concept of knowledge diplomacy and deepen the understanding of it both from the process and policymaking perspectives.

11.4 Further Research Issues and Topics The purpose of this section is to identify areas of further research relevant to the role IHERI in IR and in particular the conceptualization and practice of knowledge diplomacy. The development of “policies” related to knowledge diplomacy is equally important and deserves increased attention, but because this research has primarily focused on the “process” of knowledge diplomacy, the topics suggested for further research primarily focus on this aspect. Knowledge Diplomacy as a Two-Way Process: How International Relations Can Strengthen IHERI

150

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

As discussed in Chap. 8, the role of IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach has been described as a two-way process. The focus of the current analysis has been on how IHERI can contribute to strengthening and expanding relations between and among countries. The equally important issue, but not addressed in this research, is how international relations can contribute to strengthening (or weakening) of IHERI. This is a topic of significant importance as bilateral and multilateral agreements can have an enormous impact, both positive and negative, on the development and sustainability of IHERI at national and regional levels and the role of IHERI in helping to address global challenges. The example of the African Union using IHERI in a knowledge diplomacy approach to help achieve the goals of Agenda 2063 through the Pan African University is a positive example. The strong relationship among Commonwealth countries is an example where IHERI has benefited from scholarship programs, capacity building projects and major research initiatives among the Commonwealth member countries. On the other hand, US sanctions on Iran and Saudi Arabia’s tense relationship with Qatar are two examples where IHERI has been negatively impacted especially in terms of preventing visas for the exchange of scholars and students. Other examples of negative impact involve the closing of China’s Confucius Institutes in the USA and Europe as a consequence of the deteriorating relationship between the two countries. The rise of neo-­nationalism in universities and beyond (Douglass, 2021) is a topic that deserves urgent attention as it is another example where deteriorating relations between countries and universities will weaken the exchange and collaboration of international higher education, research and innovation activities. Knowledge Society vs Knowledge Economy In the last two decades, the use of the terms knowledge economy and knowledge society has increased exponentially. Again, there are a variety of meanings attributed to each concept, and in some cases, the terms are inappropriately used interchangeably. The 2005 publication of “Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report” (Bindé et al., 2005) attempts to broaden the discourse of using knowledge purely for economic purposes by focusing on building inclusive knowledge societies and increasing local communities’ access to, preservation of and sharing of information and knowledge. The UNESCO reports states that knowledge societies are built on four pillars: freedom of expression; universal access to information and knowledge; respect for cultural and linguistic diversity; and quality education for all (UNESCO, 2005). This is clearly a different discourse than focusing on the commercialization of knowledge and innovation for economic purposes. More work needs to be done on differentiating these two concepts and examining how knowledge diplomacy can help to build and sustain a knowledge society according to the four pillars identified by UNESCO. Research on the role of knowledge diplomacy in building a country’s or region’s knowledge economy also merits further attention, but the distinction between the two approaches is important. Knowledge Diplomacy as a Catch-All Term The review of the diplomacy and higher education literatures reveals that the definition of diplomacy is a much contested concept and the interpretation of the role of IHERI in international relations varies greatly. This causes much confusion and a less than robust analysis of the role of IHERI in IR. A definition, description

11.4  Further Research Issues and Topics

151

and conceptual framework has been proposed and analysed, but as the term knowledge diplomacy becomes more recognized and used, it too may become adopted and adapted to suit the purposes of the scholar or policy maker and therefore lose its focus. There is a risk of developing too much elasticity to the meaning of knowledge diplomacy so that it becomes a catch-all phrase. While any type of diplomacy used in international relations needs to be respectful of the context, it is equally important that there are some common understandings to allow for rigorous analysis and solid comparative research and discourse analysis. Thus, it is suggested that further work be done on applying the knowledge diplomacy conceptual framework to a wide variety of contexts and issues in order to refine it and help ensure a clearer understanding of the dimensions and use of the term.

11.4.1 Motivations Driving IHERI as a Source of Soft Power This book has focused on understanding knowledge diplomacy and to do so requires a close examination of related concepts. Soft power is one of these concepts and has been analysed in Chap. 9 to highlight the different intentions, values, modes and outcomes between knowledge diplomacy approach and the soft power approach. Attention was given to the fact that both approaches are used according to the priorities and resources among countries. There is the reality that IHERI and knowledge itself can be used as an instrument of soft power to enhance self-interest, competitiveness and dominance by one country. There is the potential risk that education, research and innovation will be used to widen the knowledge divide among countries instead of being a bridge to address global challenges through collaboration, exchange and trust. More interdisciplinary research on why and how countries are using IHERI as a source of soft power is urgent and an imperative for both diplomacy and higher education scholars and experts. A possible first step would be to identify examples of using IHERI for soft power purposes and identify common characteristics and outcomes which can then be collectively analysed and differentiated from the purposes and outcomes of a knowledge diplomacy approach.

11.4.2 Policies to Support Knowledge Diplomacy Interestingly, the academic and grey literature on science diplomacy, as discussed in Chap. 6, focused more on the development of foreign science policies and the competencies of the government officials which were involved in both the creation and operationalization of the policies. Furthermore, the literature on science diplomacy advocated for more attention to be given to the science diplomacy policies. This differentiates it from knowledge diplomacy as the question is not about advocating for the importance of knowledge in IR, but instead using IHERI actors and activities in the implementation of different aspects of foreign policy. That being said, it is still important to have further insight on how policy makers and ambassadors

152

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

perceive the role and contributions of IHERI to international relations and that will require further research.

11.4.3 Rationales Driving Knowledge Diplomacy Much attention is given to how knowledge diplomacy can help relate to addressing global issues that cannot be solved by one country alone such as climate change, epidemics and migration. It would advance the study of knowledge diplomacy if other motivations or outcomes were explored. For instance, if and how can the practice of knowledge diplomacy contribute, in both explicit and implicit ways, to the eternal quest for world peace, inclusivity and human rights. This demands more work on the enabling foreign policies that can be operationalized through knowledge diplomacy.

11.4.4 Understanding Knowledge Diplomacy Strategies One of the distinguishing features of knowledge diplomacy is the mixture of IHERI actors that are involved. With a diversity of actors comes a variety of motivations and rationales. As discussed, contemporary diplomacy has broadened the actors/ agents of diplomacy beyond governmental officials and representatives to include actors from civil society, the corporate sector and recognized experts. While the discussion of the proposed conceptual framework for knowledge diplomacy identifies a broad range of actors, there is very little research on the actual strategies being used. Chapter 4 have effectively demonstrated there are new types of IHERI activities such as education/knowledge hubs, international joint universities and new research networks that go beyond the traditional activities such as student/scholar exchanges, scholarships and joint conferences. It would be informative to have more in-depth research and evaluations done on the implications and outcomes of if and how these more recent IHERI initiatives are contributing to stronger relations between and among countries while serving self-interests and respecting mutual interests at the same time.

11.4.5 Knowledge Diplomacy in International Development Cooperation One area where IHERI activities are prominent in international relations is in international development cooperation and capacity building projects. Higher education and international development scholars have done significant research on the motivations and outcomes of these overseas development assistance (ODA) projects, but

11.5 

Looking to the Future

153

there seems to be a scarcity of research by scholars of diplomacy on this topic. It would be helpful to have more interdisciplinary and international relations led research on role of knowledge diplomacy in capacity building and development cooperation projects in order to better inform the development and operationalization of foreign policy related to ODA.

11.4.6 IHERI as a Private or Public Good The debate regarding the role of state and non-state actors also raises the complex issue as to whether IHERI is considered to be and/or used as a public or private good. This is an issue of importance especially to the higher education sector, but it has increasing relevance to international relations when the specific role of using IHERI for knowledge diplomacy purposes and/or soft power purposes is debated. Further reflection on the opportunities and consequences of using IHERI as a public and private good by both state and non-state actors is needed and welcomed.

11.4.7 Knowledge Diplomacy and Regionalization A major trend in both higher education and international relations is the increased emphasis on regionalization. There are multiple reasons for this with one of the major ones being a response to the turmoil and unintended consequences of globalization. The Pan African University, plus several European Union-sponsored IHERI projects promoting Europeanization, has provided evidence that IHERI actors and activities are important to promoting and sustaining the regionalization agenda. Further studies on the role of IHERI in regionalization, especially in Latin America and Central and South Asia, would provide new insights and lessons learned. Such research would also permit more comparative studies on how the motivations, values, actors, modes and activities of both a knowledge diplomacy approach and a soft power approach may differ across different regions and sub-regions of the world.

11.5 Looking to the Future Knowledge diplomacy is not without its challenges. First is the issue of values. Values play a central role in diplomacy and explain why the contribution of international higher education and research to international relations and vice versa is conceptualized in a diplomatic framework and not a soft power paradigm. Knowledge diplomacy recognizes the diversity of priorities and resources among countries, and that interests and benefits will differ among partners. However, there is the reality and risk that knowledge itself can be used as an instrument of power to enhance

154

11  Key Findings and Issues for Further Research on Knowledge Diplomacy

self-interest, competitiveness and dominance by one country as discussed by several IR scholars. This is why values and principles are important, and it is critical to distinguish between a knowledge diplomacy approach and a soft power approach. Unintended consequences are always present. While foresight can help mitigate risks, it is only hindsight that tells the story of impact. The values of collaboration and mutuality which underpin knowledge diplomacy can be easily eroded. There is the potential risk that education, research and innovation will be used to widen the knowledge divide among countries instead of being a bridge to address global challenges through collaboration, exchange and trust. Knowledge diplomacy can easily become a buzzword to camouflage national and regional ambitions to promote self-interests at the expense of mutual interests and benefits. As the concept of knowledge diplomacy becomes more commonplace, unrealistic expectations can be made about its role and contributions. Knowledge diplomacy is not a silver bullet. Expectations of its contribution to international relations need to be managed to avoid early misunderstandings or dismissal of its value and potential. There are many unanswered questions about the concept of knowledge diplomacy. Will universities and individual scholars take a collaborative and mutual benefit approach when competitiveness is becoming more prominent in higher education? Will politicians appreciate knowledge diplomacy as an international relation’s instrument that can advance the interests of some nations without limiting the prospects of others? Can knowledge diplomacy be operationalized in light of competing priorities within and between countries/regions? Can the contribution and impact of knowledge diplomacy be measured? Is it feasible to develop mechanisms where education, research and innovation complement each other to achieve goals that each could not accomplish as stand-alone activities? Will knowledge diplomacy be seen as a two-way process whereby strong relations between and among countries will help to strengthen higher education, research and innovation? These are but a few of the questions that need to be explored. Developing a framework, strategies and commitment to knowledge diplomacy cannot be done without facing the harsh realities of international politics and the challenges of the more competitive and turbulent world in which we live. However, the question must be asked whether we can afford to ignore the potential of knowledge diplomacy to address and contribute to the resolution of current national, regional and global challenges. Further reflection, analysis and research is called for to better understand and further the contribution that international higher education, research and innovation makes to strengthening relations between and among countries and to addressing global issues and challenges that do not recognize jurisdiction borders and which require multilateral and multi-sectoral approaches.

References

155

References Bindé, J., Matsuura, K., & UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. UNESCO Publishing. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=adupM6_yRPAC Douglass, J. A. (2021). Neo-nationalism and universities: Populists, autocrats, and the future of higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report. France.

Bibliography

Adolf, M., & Stehr, N. (2017). Knowledge—Is knowledge power? Routledge. African Union. (2015). Agenda 2063: First ten year implementation plan 2014–2023. African Union. https://au.int/en/agenda2063/ftyip African Union. (2016). Revised Statue of the Pan Africa University. African Union. https://au.int/ en/treaties/revised-­statute-­pan-­african-­university-­pau African Union. (2019). Annual Report of the Pan African University 2019. African Union. https:// www.pau-­au.africa/fileadmin/Annual_Report_of_the_Pan_African_University_Dec_2019-­_ FOR_RACA.pdf Alden, C., & Aron, A. (2012). Foreign policy analysis: New approaches. Routledge. Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21–40. Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE Encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781483381411 Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. G., & McGill Peterson, P. (2008). Higher education as a projection of America’s soft power. In Y. Watanabe & D. McConnell (Eds.), Soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States. East Gate Book. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Also published by UNESCO. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Science and diplomacy: A conceptual framework. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/scidip_framework_aaas_2009.pdf Amirbek, A., & Ydyrys, K. (2014). Education as a soft power instrument of foreign policy, 143(2014), 501–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.423 Ang, I., Isar, Y. R., & Mar, P. (2015). Cultural diplomacy: Beyond the national interest? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042474 Asada, S. (2019). Years of US Study abroad students: Japan as the gateway to Asia and beyond (Vol. 50). Routledge. Ayhan, K. (2018). The boundaries of public diplomacy and non-state actors: A taxononmy of perspectives. International Studies Perspectives, 20(1), 63–83. Badie, B. (2013). Transnationalizing diplomacy and global governance. In I. P. Kerr & G. Wiseman (Eds.), Diplomacy in a globalizing world theories and practices (pp.  85–102). Oxford University Press. Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., & Morlino, L. (Eds.). (2011). International encyclopedia of political science. Sage.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1

157

158

Bibliography

Bae, Y., & Lee, Y. W. (2020). Socialized soft power: Recasting analytical path and public diplomacy. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(4), 871–898. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41268-­019-­00169-­5 Bakalov, I. (2019). Whither soft power? Divisions, milestones, and prospects of a research programme in the making. Journal of Political Power, 12(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2158379X.2019.1573613 Bakalov, I. (2020). Setting soft power in motion: Towards a dynamic conceptual framework. European Journal of International Relations, 26(2), 495–517. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354066119873374 Bartram, L., Malhoyt-Lee, J., Sheen-Diaz, C., & Sullivan, J. (2015). Education diplomacy in action: Touching lives: Education diplomacy in service to others. Childhood Education, 91(2), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2015.1018797 Bayne, N., & Woolcock, S. (Eds.). (2017). The new economic diplomacy. Routledge. Bélanger, L. (1999). Redefining cultural diplomacy: Cultural security and foreign policy in Canada. Political Psychology, 20(4), 677–699. Berkman, P. A. (2020). Science diplomacy and its engine of informed decision-making: Operating through our global pandemic with humanity. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10034 Berridge, G. R. (2005). Diplomacy: Theory & practice (3rd ed.). Palgrave. Berridge, G. R., & Lloyd, L. (2012). The Palgrave Macmillan dictionary of diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. Bindé, J., Matsuura, K., & UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report: UNESCO Publishing. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=adupM6_yRPAC Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2013). Understanding international diplomacy: Theory, practice, and ethics. Routledge. Black, J. (2010). A history of diplomacy. University of Chicago Press. Bliss, K.  E. (2013). The changing landscape of global health diplomacy: A report of the CSIS Global Health Policy Center. Bolewski, W. (2007). Diplomacy and international law in globalized relations. Springer. Bolewski, W. (2008). Diplomatic processes and cultural variation: The relevance of culture in diplomacy. Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 8(2), 145–160. Bound, K., Briggs, R., Holden, J., & Jones, S. (2007). Culture is central component of international relations. It’s time to unlock its full potential... http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Cultural%20 diplomacy%20-­%20web.pdf Brand Finance. (2021). The global soft Power index 2021. Brand Finance. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2019). Diasporas and public diplomacy: Distinctions and future prospects. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­14101015 British Council. (2012). Influence and attraction: Culture and the race for soft Power in the 21st Century. British Council. (2012). Trust pays: How international cultural relationships build trust in the UK and underpin the success of the UK economy. British Council. British Council. (2013). Culture means business—How international cultural relationships contribute to increased trade and competitiveness for the UK. British Council. (2013). Influence and attractions—Culture and the race for soft Power. British Council. (2018). RENKEI Annual Report 2017–2018. British Council. British Council. (2019). RENKEI Annual Report 2018–2019. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2018-­2019.pdf British Council. (2021). International cultural relations: Soft power and cultural relations institutions in a time of crisis. British Council. Bu, L. (1999). Educational exchange and cultural diplomacy in the Cold War. Journal of American Studies, 33(3), 393–415. Bukh, A. (2014). Revisiting Japan’s cultural diplomacy: A critique of the agent-level approach to Japan’s soft power in Asian. Perspective, 38.

Bibliography

159

Burkholder, G., Cox, K., Crawford, L., Hitchcock, J., & (Eds.). (2019). Research design and methods an applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage. Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2011). Australia’s international education as public diplomacy: Soft power potential. A discussion paper. Clingendael Institute. http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/ files/20110700_cdsp_discussion_paper_cbryne_rhall.pdf Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2014). Australia’s international education as public diplomacy: Soft Power potential. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–438. Callahan, W.  A. (2015). Identity and security in China: The negative soft power of the China dream. Politics, 35(3–4), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9256.12088 Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: Building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-­011-­0058-­3 Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T., Simmons, B., & (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of international relations. Sage Publications Ltd.. Case Study: The Pan African University: (n.d.). OECD. Cerroni, A. (2020). Understanding the knowledge society: A new paradigm in the sociology of knowledge. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chasel, P., & O’Connor. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: The inside story of the sustainable development goals. Routledge. Cheng, Y.  C., Cheung, A.  C. K., & Yeun, T.  W. W. (2011). Development of a regional education hub: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(5), 474–493. Chitty, N., Ji, L., Rawnsley, G. D., & Hayden, C. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of soft power (First issued in paperback). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Chou, C.  P., & Spangler, J. (2018). Cultural and education exchanges between rival societiescooperation and competition in an interdependent world. Springer. Chou, M.-H., Kamola, I.  A., & Pietsch, T. (Eds.). (2016). The transnational politics of higher education: Contesting the global/transforming the local. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Constantinou, C., Kerr, P., & Sharp, P. (2016). The Sage handbook of diplomacy. Sage. Cooper, A. F. (2019). Adapting public diplomacy to the populist challenge. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­14101011 Cooper, A.  F., Hocking, B., & Maley, W. (Eds.). (2008). Global governance and diplomacy: Worlds apart? Palgrave Macmillan. Cooper, A.  F., Hocking, B., & Maley, W. (2008). Research institutes as diplomatic actors. In S. Sundararama (Ed.), Global governance and diplomacy: Worlds apart? Palgrave Macmillan. Cooper, A., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Copeland, D. (2015). Science and diplomacy after Canada’s lost decade: Counting the costs, looking beyond. Centre for International Policy Studies. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ cdfai/pages/690/attachments/original/1446661660/Science_and_diplomacy.pdf?1446661660 Cowan, G., & Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy in a changing world. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 6–8. Cross-Border Education Research Team. (2020). International universities list. http://cbert.org/ resources-­data/intl-­campus/ Crossley, M., & Louisy, P. (1994). The changing role of the small state in higher education: A comparison of national and regional initiatives in the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 24(2), 109–125. https://doi. org/10.1080/0305792940240202 Cull, N.  J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54.

160

Bibliography

Cull, N.  J. (2019). The tightrope to tomorrow: Reputational security, collective vision and the future of public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 21–35. https://doi. org/10.1163/1871191X-­14011014 Cummings, M. (2003). Cultural diplomacy and the United States government: A survey. Centre for Arts and Culture. d’Hooghe, I. (2021). China’s BRI and international cooperation in higher education and research— A symbiotic relationship. In F. Schneider (Ed.), Global perspectives on China’s belt and road initiative: Asserting agency through regional connectivity (pp. 35–38). Davis, L., & Patman, R. (2015). Science diplomacy: New day or false Dawn. World Scientific Press. De Keulenaar, E., Melissen, J., & Stanzel, V. (2019). Critical diplomacy and how theory can inform practice (Research report 11). German Institute for German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Defeksegger-Marquez, A., Flink, T., & Rungius, C. (2019). What it takes to do science diplomacy. Practices, identities, needs and challenges of science diplomacy practitioners deliverable. Using science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges (S4D4C). Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage. Dessoff, A. (2008). Higher education and public diplomacy. International Education, 17(5), 16–20. Ditchley Foundation. (2012). Cultural diplomacy: Does it work. http://www.ditchley.co.uk/ conferences/past-­programme/2010-­2019/2012/cultural-­diplomacy Douglass, J. A., O’Malley, B., & Krull, W. (2021). Neo-nationalism and universities: Populists, autocrats, and the future of higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Fedoroff, N. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1), 9–11. Feklyunina, V. (2016). Soft power and identity: Russia, Ukraine and the ‘Russian world(s)’. European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 773–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115601200 Finnemore, M., & Goldstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Back to basics: State Power in a contemporary world. Oxford University Press. Fling, T., & Dall, E. (2020). Science diplomacy in the making: Case-based insights from the S4D4C project (M. Young, Ed.). Flink, T. (2020). The sensationalist discourse of science diplomacy: A critical reflection. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10032 Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Toward a typology of national approaches in science and public. Policy, 37(9), 665–677. Galluccio, M. (2015). Handbook of international negotiation: Interpersonal, intercultural, and diplomatic perspectives. Springer. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P., & Lawson, S. (2012). Introduction to politics. Oxford University Press. Geeraerts, G. (1995). Analyzing non-state actors in world. Politics, 1, Issue 4. Geifes, S., & Kammueller, S. (2018). Exploring Germany’s contribution to global activity in transnational higher education. In V. Tsiligiris & W. Lawton (Eds.), Exporting transnational education (pp. 9–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­74739-­2_2 Gelb, L.  H. (2010). Power rules: How common sense can rescue American foreign policy. Harper Perennial. http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&i sbn=9780061864179 Gienow-hecht, J. (2000). Shame on US? Academics, cultural transfer, and the Cold War- a critical review. Diplomatic History, 24(3), 465–495. Gienow-Hecht, J., & Donfried, M. (2010). Searching for a cultural diplomacy. Berghahn Books. Goastellec, G. (2012). The Europeanization of the measurement of diversity in education: A soft instrument of public policy. Globalization, Societies and Education, 10(4), 493–506. Goff, P. (2013). Cultural Diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press.

Bibliography

161

Gore, M.  L., Nichols, E.  S., & Lips, K.  R. (2020). Preparing scientists for science diplomacy requires new science policy bridges. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 424–434. https:// doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10024 Green, H. E. (2014). Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 21(6), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.34.e1252 Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. (2014). International relations: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. Griset, P. (2020). Innovation diplomacy: A new concept for ancient practices? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10036 Gross Stein, J., & Robertson, C. (2011). Diplomacy in the digital age. Essays in honor of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb. McLelland and Stewart. Han, F., & Dong, J. (2011). What makes a good university? A literature review regarding the “soft Power” of colleges and universities in China. College and University, 87(1), 47–50. Hanada, S. (2022). International education in citizen diplomacy. Examining Student Learning Outcomes from Mobility Programs. Spring. Hashimoto, K. (Ed.). (2018). Japanese language and soft Power in Asia (1st ed.). Springer  : Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­5086-­2 Hayden, C. (2012). The rhetoric of soft power: Public diplomacy in global contexts. Lexington Books. Heffernan, M., Meusburger, P., & Suarsana, L. (Eds.). (2018). Geographies of the university (1st ed.). Springer : Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­75593-­9 Higgott, R., & Boers, E. (2019). Rhythms of soft Power influence and transatlantic higher education relations. European Foreign Affairs Review, 24(2/1), 119. Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riodan, S., & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Holger, G., & Kalhaus, M. (2018). International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness. Data Research Policy, 47(7), 1198–1214. Holton, R. (2009). Cosmopolitanisms. New thinking and new directions. Palgrave Macmillan. Hone, K. (2016). Education diplomacy: Negotiating and implementing the sustainable development goals- looking back and looking ahead. Centre for Education Diplomacy and Leadership, Childhood Education International. Hone, K., & Kurbalija, J. (2018). Accelerating basic science in an intergovernmental framework: Learning from CERN’s diplomacy. Global Policy, 9(3), 67–72. Hutchings, K. (1999). International political theory- rethinking ethics in a global era. Sage. Ilgen, T. (Ed.). (2006). Hard power, soft power, and the future of transatlantic relations. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4), 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.4.454 Ivey, B., & Cleggett, P. (2015). Cultural diplomacy and the National Interest: A 21st century perspective. Curb Centre for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy at Vanderbilt. Iwabuchi, K. (2015). Pop-culture diplomacy in Japan: Soft power, nation branding and the question of ‘international cultural exchange’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042469 Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/160940690900800406 Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. A practical guide for social scientists. The Guildford Press. Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2007). Introduction to international relations. Theories and approaches. Oxford University Press. Japan Council for Science and Technology Policy. (2010). Japan Council for Science and Technology Policy.

162

Bibliography

Japan Forum on International Relations. (2014). Japan’s values and foreign policy. In The intangible power in international relations. Japan’s Global Diplomacy. Views of the Next Generation. (2015). The Stimson Centre. Jessop, B. (2016). Putting higher education in its place in (East Asian) political economy. Comparative Education, 52(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1128659 Johnsen, H. C. G., Ennals, R., & Ennals, R. (2012). Creating collaborative advantage- innovation and knowledge creation in regional economies. Gower Publishing. Johnston, D. (2012). The diplomacy of knowledge. The globe and mail. Johnston, D. (2014). The diplomacy of knowledge: Innovation exchange across borders. Key Note Address at UCLA. Jones, W.  J. (2010). European Union soft power: Cultural diplomacy & higher education in Southeast Asia. Silpakorn University International Journal. Jura, J., & Kaluzynska, K. (2013). Not Confucius, nor kung Fu: Economy and business as Chinese soft power in Africa. African East-Asian Affairs, 1. Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, 9(3), 8–14. Kaltofen, C., & Acuto, M. (2018). Rebalancing the encounter between science diplomacy and international relations theory. Global Policy, 9(3), 15–22. Kaye, D. (2005). Rethinking track two diplomacy—The Middle East and South Asia. Netherlands Institute for International Relations- Clinggendael. Kazuo, O. (2009). Japan’s cultural diplomacy. The Japan Foundation. Kearn, D. W. (2011). The hard truths about soft power. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.556869 Kelley, J. R. (2010). The new diplomacy: Evolution of a revolution. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(2), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2010.482474 Kerr, P., & Wiseman, G. (Eds.). (2013). Diplomacy in a globalizing world: Theories and practices. Oxford University Press. Ketterer, J. (2010). New global engagement initiative at the Wilson Centre. http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/11/27/new-­global-­engagement-­initiative-­at-­the-­wilson-­center/ Kickbusch, I., Lister, G., Told, M., & Drager, N. (Eds.). (2013). Global health diplomacy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5401-4_6 Kim, Y.  K., & Lee, K. (2015). Different impacts of scientific and technological knowledge on economic growth: Contrasting science and technology policy in East Asia and Latin America: Impact of science and technology policy. Asian Economic Policy Review, 10(1), 43–66. https:// doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12081 King, K. (2013). China’s aid and soft power in Africa. The case of education and training. James Currey. King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education. Edward Elgar Publishers. Kinser, K., & Lane, J.  E. (2016). International branch campuses: Evolution of a phenomenon. International Higher Education, 85, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2016.85.9232 Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), 44. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p44 Kleistra, Y. (2018). Globalization and diplomacy. In G. Martel (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of diplomacy (pp. 1–13). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118885154.dipl0107 Klemenčič, M. (2019). 20 years of the Bologna process in a global setting: The external dimension of the Bologna process revisited. European Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 2–6. https://doi. org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1570670 Knight, J. (2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalization-for better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(3), 84–90. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603108.2012.75395 Knight, J. (2014). International education hubs: Student, talent, knowledge models. Springer.

Bibliography

163

Knight, J. (2014, January). The limits of soft power in international higher education (Vols. 1–13). University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story= 20140129134636725 Knight, J. (2015). Meaning, rationales and tensions in internationalization of higher. In A. McGrath & Q. Gu (Eds.), Routledge handbook on international education and development (pp. 325–339). Taylor Francis. Knight, J. (2015). Moving from soft power to knowledge diplomacy. International Higher Education, 80, 8–9. Knight, J. (2015). In L. Weimer (Ed.), The potential of knowledge diplomacy: Higher education and international relations. The European Association for International Education. Knight, J. (2016). Transnational education Remodeled: Towards a common TNE framework and definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47. Knight, J. (2017). Global: Moving from soft Power to knowledge diplomacy. In G.  Mihut, P.  G. Altbach, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Understanding higher education internationalization: Insights from key global publications (pp.  381–382). Sense Publishers. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­6351-­161-­2_82 Knight, J. (2018). Knowledge diplomacy. A bridge linking international higher education and international relations. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/kno.pdf Knight, J. (2019). Knowledge diplomacy in action. British Council. Knight, J. (2021). Towards a knowledge diplomacy framework: The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations. PhD Dissertation, University of Antwerp. Knight, J., & Simpson, D. (2021). The growth of international joint universities. In D. Deardorff, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook of international education. Stylus Publishers. Knight, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Regional universities around the world: An analysis of single campus, multi-campus and virtual models. In Reconfiguring global higher education in the 21st century. Springer. Koli, M., Tambo, E., Cheo, E., Oduor, B. O., & Nguedia-Nguedoung, A. (2019). Pan-African university and German government higher education cooperation in Algeria [Application/pdf]. 233 KB. https://doi.org/10.18418/978-­3-­96043-­071-­1_136 Kurbalija, J. (2002). Knowledge and diplomacy. Diplo Foundation https://www.diplomacy.edu/ resource/knowledge-­and-­diplomacy/ Kurbalija, J., & Katrandjiev, V. (Eds.). (2005). Multistakeholder diplomacy: Challenges and opportunities. Diplo Foundation. https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/ multistakeholder-­diplomacy-­challenges-­and-­opportunities/ Lai, H. (2012). China’s cultural diplomacy: Going for soft power. East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. Lamont, R. (2015). Research methods in international relations. Sage. Lane, J. E. (2016). Creating embassies of knowledge: Do International branch campuses mitigate or facilitate the evolution of international relations? International Studies Review, 00, 21–26. Laos, N. (2011). Foundations of cultural diplomacy. Politics among cultures and the moral autonomy of man. Algora Publishing. Layne, C. (2010). The unbearable lightness of soft power. In Soft power and US foreign policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 51–82). Routledge. Le Roux, A. (2001). A quest for the transformation and Africanization of South African education. South African Journal of Education, 21(1), 31–36. Lee, Y.  W. (2011). Soft Power as productive Power. In S.  J. Lee & J.  Melissen (Eds.), Public diplomacy and soft power in East Asia (pp.  33–49). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230118447_3 Lee, J.  T. (2015). Soft power and cultural diplomacy: Emerging education hubs in Asia. Comparative Education, 51(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1037551 Lee, D., & Hocking, B. (2011). Diplomacy. In B. Badie, D. B. Schossler, & L. Morlino (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of political science.

164

Bibliography

Lee, S.  J., & Melissen, J. (2011). Public diplomacy and soft Power in East Asia. Palgrave, Macmillan. Leguey- Feilleux, J. (2009). The dynamics of diplomacy. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Lehrer, K. (2000). Theory of knowledge (2nd ed.). Westview Press. Leijten, J. (2017). Exploring the future of innovation diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(1), 1–13. Leite, D., & Pinho, I. (2017). Evaluating collaboration networks in higher education research: Drivers of excellence. Lepgold, J., & Nincic, M. (2001). Beyond the ivory tower. International relations theory and the issue of policy relevance. Columbia University Press. Li, J. (2018). Conceptualizing soft Power of higher education: Globalization and universities in China and the world. Spring. Light, A. (2017). Climate Diplomacy. In R. Gardiner & A. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental ethics. Oxford University Press. Lima, A. (2017). The role of international educational exchanges sponsored by the Brazilian government in the perception of the external image of Brazil. ISA’s 58th Annual Convention. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.  Denzin & Y.  Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1065–1122). Sage. Lo, W. Y. (2011). Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production: Distinctions between hegemony and self-determination in higher education. Comparative Education, 47(2), 209–222. Maley, W. (2013). Refugee diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Maley, W. (Ed.). (2008). Global governance and diplomacy: Worlds apart? Palgrave. Mark, S. (2008). A comparative Study of the cultural diplomacy of Canada, New Zealand and India. University of Auckland. Mark, S. (2009). A greater role for cultural diplomacy. Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael.’ Martin, M., & Bray, M. (Eds.). (2012). Tertiary education in small states: Planning in the context of globalization (Vol. 58). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11159-­012-­9303-­7 Mashiko, E., & Horii, M. (2008). Nurturing soft Power: The impact of Japanese-US-University exchanges n soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States (Y. Watanabe, & D. McConnell, Eds.). East Gate Book-. Mattern, J. B. (2005). Why “soft Power” Isn’t so soft: Representational force and the sociolinguistic construction of attraction in world politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 583–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330031601 Mc Gill Peterson, P. (Ed.). (2013). Weaving the future of global partnerships: Diplomacy in education. European Association for International Education. Mc Grew, A. (2011). Globalization and global politics. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.), The globalization of world politics. Oxford University Press. McClory, J. (2011). The new persuaders II: A 2011 global ranking of soft power. London Institute for Government. McGill Peterson, P., & Helms, R. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for the global engagement of higher education. American Council on Education. Medalis, D. (2012). The strength of soft Power: American cultural diplomacy and the Fulbright program during the 1989-1991 transition period in Hungary. The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 144–163. Melchor, L. (2020). What is a science diplomat? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10026 Melissen, J. (2005a). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J.  Melissen (Ed.), Soft Power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan. Melissen, J. (2005b). Wielding soft Power: The new public diplomacy. Netherlands Institute of International Relations.

Bibliography

165

Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2007). The new public diplomacy. Soft power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan. Melissen, J. (2013). Public diplomacy. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy (pp. 436–452). Oxford University Press. Melissen, J. & Sohn, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Understanding public diplomacy in East Asia. In Middle power in a troubled region. Palgrave Macmillan. Melissen, J., & Wang, J. (Eds.). (2019). Debating public diplomacy: Now and next. Brill Publishers. Melissen, J., & Wang, J. (2019). Introduction: Debating public diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­14101064 Meusburger, P., Walker, M., & Wunder, E. (Eds.). (2008). Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion. Springer. Meusburger, P., Gregory, D., & Suarsana, L. (Eds.). (2015). Geographies of knowledge and Power. Springer. Meusburger, P., Freyag, P., & Suarsana, L. (Eds.). (2016). Ethnic and cultural dimensions of knowledge. Springer. Middell, M. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of transregional studies. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Milne, D. (2010). America’s ‘intellectual diplomacy’. International Affairs, 86(1), 49–68. Mingst, K. (2008). Essentials of international relations (4th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. Miremadi, T. (2016). A model for science and technology diplomacy: How to align the rationales of foreign policy and science. SSRN Electronic Journal. Morse, J. M. (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Left Coast Press. Morse, J.  M., & Mitcham, C. (2002). Exploring qualitatively-derived concepts: Inductive— Deductive pitfalls. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(4), 28–35. https://doi. org/10.1177/160940690200100404 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2012). U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=13300 National Research Council. (2002). Knowledge and diplomacy: Science advice in the United Nations system. National Academies Press. Newsom, D. (1995). Foreign policy and academia. Foreign policy, 101, 52–67. Nicholson, H. (1963). Diplomacy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Nordquist, R. (Ed.). (2010). Crossing boundaries. Peter Lang. https://doi. org/10.3726/978-­3-­653-­00289-­8 Nye, J. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, Slate Group, LLC. (80), 153–171. https://doi. org/10.2307/1148580 Nye, J. S. (2002). The paradox of American Power. Oxford University Press. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs. Nye, J. (2005). Soft power and higher education. Forum for the Future of Higher Education (Archives), 11–14. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94–109. Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160. Nye, J. S. (2010). The powers to Lead. Oxford University Press. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of Power. Public Affairs -Perseus Books Group. Nye, J. S. (2013). Hard, soft and smart Power. In A. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur (Eds.), Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Nye, J.  S. (2017). Soft power: The origins and political progress of a concept. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 17008. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.8 Nye, J. S. (2019). Soft Power and public. Diplomacy Revisited in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14, 7–20. Nye, J. S. (2019). Soft Power and public diplomacy revisited. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­14101013

166

Bibliography

Nye, J.  S. (2021). Soft power: The evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1879572 O’Brien. (2011). Hard vs soft Power in global and National Politics: Innovative concepts of smart Power and cultural diplomacy in an age of interdependence, Digital Revolution and Social Media. Presentation at the International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy. Ogunnubi, O., & Shawa, L. B. (2019). Analyzing South Africa’s soft power through the knowledge diplomacy of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 15(2), 81–107. Ohnesorge, H.  W. (2020). Power in international relations: Understandings and varieties. In H.  W. Ohnesorge (Ed.), Soft Power (pp.  23–83). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­29922-­4_2 Owen, T. (2015). Disruptive power: The crisis of the state in the digital age. Oxford University Press. Pajtinka, E. (2015). Cultural diplomacy in the theory and practice of contemporary international relations. Politicke vedy, 1(17). Pal, L. (1997). Beyond policy analysis: Public issue Management in Turbulent Times. International Thomsen Publishing. Pamment, J. (2013). New public diplomacy in the 21st century. A comparative study of policy and practice. Routledge. Pan, S. Y. (2013). Confucius institute project; China’s cultural diplomacy and soft power projection. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 22–33. Paradise, J. F. (2009). China and international harmony: The role of Confucius institutes in bolstering Beijing’s soft power. Asian Survey, 49(4), 647–669. Park, S. M. (2009). Wartime Japan’s cultural diplomacy and the establishment of culture bureaus. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study. Park, K., & Bennett, M. (2018). Engagement with the DPRK: Soft Power and knowledge sharing through educational exchanges with the hermit kingdom. In C. P. Chou & J. Spangler (Eds.), Cultural and education exchanges between rival societies- cooperation and competition in an interdependent world. Springer. Parmar, I., & Cox, M. (Eds.). (2010). Soft power and US foreign policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives. Routledge. Peters, M. (2007). Knowledge economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education. Sense Publishers. Peters, M. (2020). China’s belt and road initiative: Reshaping global higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 5(6), 586–592. Peterson, R. (2017). Confucius institutes on campus: A new threat to academic freedom. Academic Questions, 30, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-­017-­9649-­1 Pigman, G. (2010). Contemporary diplomacy. Representation and communication in a globalized world. Polity Press. Piros, S., & Koops, J. (2020). Towards a sustainable approach to EU education diplomacy? The case of capacity-building in the eastern neighbourhood. In C.  Carta & R.  Higgot (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Springer. Potter, E.  H. (2009). Branding Canada. Projecting Canada’s Soft power through public diplomacy. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715574913 Procopio, M. (2015). The effectiveness of Confucius institutes as a tool of China’s soft power in South Africa. African East-Asian Affairs, 1–2. Rathbun, B.  C. (2014). Diplomacy’s value: Creating security in 1920s Europe and the contemporary Middle East. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/ cornell/9780801453182.001.0001 Ravitch, S.  M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage.

Bibliography

167

Riley, P. (2014). Media diplomacy: Public diplomacy in a new global media environment. In T. A. Hollihan (Ed.), The dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands (pp. 231–244). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443366_9 Ross, C. (2004). Pillars of public diplomacy: Grappling with public opinion. Harvard International Review, 5. Royal Society. (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. The Royal Society. Ruffini, P. B. (2017). Science and diplomacy: A new dimension of international relation. Springer. Ruffini, P. B. (2020). Collaboration and competition: The twofold logic of science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10028 Ruffini, P.  B. (2020). Introduction to the forum on science diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(3), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10033 Rungis, C. (2018). S4D4C using science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges-state of the art report. EU Horizon. https://www.s4d4c.eu/wp-­content/uploads/2018/08/S4D4C_ State-­of-­the-­Art_Report_DZHW.pdf Ryan, M. (1998). Knowledge diplomacy: Global competition and the politics of intellectual property. Brookings Institution Press. Rybka-Iwanska, K. (2017). Knowledge diplomacy part 1: The game over talent goes global. https:// uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/knowledge-­diplomacy-­part-­i-­game-­over-­talents-­goes-­global Ryniejska–Kiełdanowicz, M. (2009). Cultural diplomacy as a form of international communication”. In Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-­content/uploads/ Ryniejska_Kieldanowicz.pdf S4D4C. (2019). The Madrid declaration on science diplomacy. S4D4C-Using Science for/in diplomacy for addressing global challenges. https://www.s4d4c.eu/s4d4c-­1st-­global-­meeting/ the-­madrid-­declaration-­on-­science-­diplomacy/ Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161 Schneider, C. (2006). Cultural diplomacy: Hard to define, but you’d know it if you saw it. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 13(1), 191–203. Schneider, F., & (Ed.). (2021). Global perspectives on China’s belt and road initiative: Asserting agency through regional connectivity. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j. ctv1dc9k7j Science and Technology in Society Forum. (2013). Forum Statement 2013, Japan. https://www. stsforum.org/file/2018/07/2013_Statement.pdf Science and Technology in Society Forum. (2019). Forum statement 2019 Japan. https://www. stsforum.org/file/2019/10/Statement-­2019.pdf Scott-Smith, G. (2008). Mapping the undefinable: Some thoughts on the relevance of exchange programs within international relations theory. In Cowan & N. Cull (Eds.), The annals-public diplomacy in a changing world (Vol. 616, pp. 173–197). Selleslaghs, J. (2017). Science, higher education and innovation cooperation between the EU and Latin America: All talk and no action? 15th biennial European Union studies association conference. Seong-Hun, Y. (2018). An overdue critical look at soft power. Measurement, 25(2), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.2307/26909941 Sharp, P. (1999). For diplomacy: Representation and the Study of international relations. International Study Review, 1(1), 33–57. Singh. (2010). International cultural policies and Power. Palgrave Macmillan. Sjostedt, G. (2009). Knowledge diplomacy: The things we need to know to understand it better. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis PIN-Points Newsletter, 33, 4–7. Snow, N. (2009). Valuing personal exchange in public diplomacy. In N. Snow & P. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge handbook on public diplomacy (pp. 233–247). Routledge. Snow, N., & Taylor, P. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. Routledge.

168

Bibliography

Solana, J. (2020). The Case for ‘Human Diplomacy’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(4), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X-­BJA10048 Sonntag, S. K. (2009). Linguistic globalization and the call center industry: Imperialism, hegemony or cosmopolitanism? Language Policy, 8, 5–25. South African Cultural Observatory. (2018). Proposed framework for cultural diplomacy in South Africa. Measuring and valuing South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Economy. South African Cultural Observatory (SACO) Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Srinivasan, K., Mayall, J., & Pulipaka, S. (Eds.). (2019). Values in foreign policy: Investigating ideals and interests. Rowman & Littlefield International. Starr, D. (2009). Chinese language education in Europe: The Confucius Institutes. European Journal of Education, 44(1), 65–82. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-­3319(91)90040-­B Stoddart, B. (2014). International education: The hard edge of soft Power. Global Policy, 5(4), 483–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-­5899.12100 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Sunami, A., & Kitaba, S. (2013). The rise of science and technology diplomacy in Japan in science and diplomacy. Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS. http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2013/ rise-­science-­and-­technology-­diplomacy-­in-­japan Sunami, A., Hamachi, T., & Kitaba, S. (2015). Japanese science and technology diplomacy in science diplomacy: New day or false Dawn. World Scientific Press. Sundararama, S. (2008). Research institutes as diplomatic actors. In A. Cooper, B. Hocking, & W. Maley (Eds.), Global governance and diplomacy—Worlds apart? Palgrave Macmillan. Tavares, R. (2016). Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players. Oxford University Press. Temple, P. (Ed.). (2012). Universities in the knowledge economy: Higher education organisation and global change. Routledge. Trilokekar, R. D. (2010). International education as soft power? The contributions and challenges of Canadian foreign policy to the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 59, 131–147. Trilokekar, R. D. (2015). From soft Power to economic diplomacy? A comparison of the changing rationales and roles of the U. In S. And Canadian Federal Governments in International Education. Research and Occasional Paper Series, Centre for the Study of Higher Education. University of California. Turekian, V. (2018). The evolution of science diplomacy. Global Policy, 9, 5–7. https://doi. org/10.1111/1758-­5899.12622 UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report. Vaisse, J. (2007). Transformational diplomacy. Institute for Security Studies, European Union. Waithaka, J., & Maluka, P. (2016). International education exchanges as a public diplomacy instrument. International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, 1(3). Walker, C. (2018). What is" Sharp Power"? Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 9–23. Walker, C., & Ludwig, J. (2017). Sharp Power: Rising authoritarian influence. National Endowment for Democracy. https://www.ned.org/wp-­content/uploads/2017/12/Sharp-­Power-­ Rising-­Authoritarian-­Influence-­Full-­Report.pdf Wang, Y. (2008). Public diplomacy and the rise of Chinese soft Power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 6(16), 257–273. Wang, X. (2012). Education of international students in soft cultural Power promotion in Canadian. Social Science, 8, Issue 5. Watanabe, Y., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2008). Soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States. East Gate Book. Watson, A. (1991). Diplomacy: The dialogue between states. Routledge. Weber, C. (2010). International relations theory: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Bibliography

169

Weiler, H. (2011). Knowledge and Power: The new politics of higher education in. Journal of Education Planning and Administration, 15(3), 205–221. Whitehead, D. (2011). Education diplomacy: The way forward. Childhood Education, 87, 3. Wiarda, H. (2013). Culture and foreign policy. The neglected factor in international relations. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race. Princeton University Press. Wilkins, S. (2016). Establishing international branch campuses: A framework for assessing opportunities and risks. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(2), 167–182. Wilkins, S. (2021). Two decades of international branch campus development, 2000–2020: A review. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 311–326. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJEM-­08-­2020-­0409 Wilkinson, P. (2007). International relations: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Wilson, A. (2010). Knowledge Power: Interdisciplinary education for a complex world. Routledge. Wilson, I. (2014). International education programs and political influence—Manufacturing sympathy? Palgrave Macmillan. Winter, A. (2000). The “new” right: Definition, identification, differentiation. Sociological Research Online, 5(1), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.451 Wojciuk, A. (2018). Empires of knowledge in international relations: Education and science as sources of power for the state. Routledge. Woldegioris, E. (2018). Policy travel in regionalization of higher education: The case of the Bologna process in Africa. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 43–59). Springer. Wong, C.  L., Chu, H.-E., & Yap, K.  C. (2014). Developing a framework for Analyzing definitions: A study of the Feynman lectures. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2481–2513. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.893594 Wu, H. (2019). Three dimensions of China’s “outward-oriented higher education internationalization”. Higher Education, 77(1), 81–96. Yang, R. (2010). Soft Power and higher education: An examination of China’s Confucius institutes. Globalization, Societies and Education, 8(2), 235–245. Yonezawa, A. (2008). Facing crisis. Soft Power and Japanese education in a global context n soft power superpowers: Cultural and national assets of Japan and the United States (Y. Watanabe, & D. M. Connell, Eds.). East Gate Book. Yunnis, M. (2003). Foreign policy. A theoretical introduction. Oxford University Press. Zaharna, R.  S., Arsenault, A., & Fisher, A. (2013). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy. Zamorano, M.  M. (2016). Reframing cultural diplomacy: The Instrumentalization of cultural under the soft power theory. Culture Unbound, 8(2), 166–186. Zewail, A. (2010). The soft Power of science. The American Interest, 05(6). https://www.the-­ american-­interest.com/2010/07/01/the-­soft-­power-­of-­science/ Zhao, H., & Huang, J. (2010). China’s policy of Chinese as a foreign language and the use of overseas Confucius institutions. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 127–142.

Author Index

A Acuto, M., 3, 23, 74 Alden, C., 5 Allen, A., 29 Altbach, C., 1 Altbach, P.G., 88 Aron, A., 5 Asada, S., 91–93, 95 B Badie, B., 5, 25, 26 Bakalov, I., 30, 32, 33, 52 Bartram, L., 82 Bennett, M., 81, 82, 91, 95 Berridge, G.R., 18, 19 Bindé, J., 150 Bjola, C., 3, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26 Bliss, K., 18 Byrne, C., 52, 58, 59, 113, 123 C Callahan, W.A., 32 Cerroni, A., 122 Cheng, M.Y., 45 Cheng, Y.C., 43 Chou, C.P., 81 Chou, M.-H., 6 Cooper, A., 1, 3, 5, 6, 18, 23, 26, 30, 105, 107 Copeland, D., 66, 67, 72, 100, 105 Cornut, J., 21 Crnkovic, I., 41 Cull, N., 55

D Dessoff, A., 83 d’Hooghe, I., 86 Donfried, M., 52, 53, 104, 120 Douglass, J.A., 150 E Erfurth, M., 45 F Feklyunina, V., 32 Finnemore, M., 29 Flink, T., 52, 64, 70, 71, 75, 76 G Geifes, S., 41 Gelb, L.H., 32 Gienow-Hecht, J., 52, 53, 104, 120 Goff, P., 53, 104, 120 Goldstein, J., 29 Griffiths, M., 5, 18, 103 H Hall, R., 52, 58, 59, 113 Hashimoto, K., 33 Hayden, C., 52 Helms, R., 84, 95, 102 Hocking, B., 17, 21–23, 53, 61 Hone, K., 83, 123 Horie, M., 89

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1

171

172 I Ibnouf, A., 45 Iwabuchi, K., 33 J Jabareen, Y., 75 Johnston, D., 92 Jones, W., 48, 54, 55, 57, 82, 102 K Kaltofen, C., 3, 23, 74 Kammueller, S., 41 Kearn, D.W., 32 Kerr, P., 16, 17 Kim, Y., 122 King, R., 39 Kinser, K., 88 Kleibert, J., 46 Kleistra, Y., 1 Klemenčič, M., 54 Knight, J., 1, 2, 23, 25, 35, 39–45, 47, 48, 53, 80, 92, 93, 95, 103, 105, 106, 116, 117, 128, 134, 137, 140 Koli, M., 133 Koops, J., 52, 54–57, 72, 82, 100, 105, 122, 123 Kornprobst, M., 3, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26 L Lamont, R., 4 Lane, J.E., 88 Le Roux, A., 94 Lee, D., 17, 21 Lee, J., 80, 94 Lee, K., 122 Lee, Y.W., 52, 61 Lehrer, K., 103 Leijten, J., 3, 18, 23, 52, 72, 73 Li, J., 86 Light, A., 18 Lima, A., 52, 58 Lloyd, L., 18, 19 Lo, W.Y., 90, 94, 95, 102, 119 Ludwig, J., 34 M Maley, W., 18 Maluka, P., 48, 59, 123 Mashiko, E., 89

Author Index McConnell, D., 87 McGill Peterson, P., 83, 84, 88, 95, 102 Medalis, D., 113 Melissen, J., 18, 123 Miremadi, J., 122 Miremadi, T., 71 N Nicholson, H., 16, 23 Nordquist, R., 7 Nye, J.S., 6, 8, 29–35, 48, 52, 57–61, 80–82, 86, 88–90, 95, 102, 113, 114, 119 O Ogunnubi, O., 93 P Pajtinka, E., 53, 57, 100, 105, 120 Pan, S.-Y., 85–87, 95 Park, K., 81, 82, 91, 95 Pigman, G., 21, 26, 100, 105 Piros, S., 52, 54–57, 72, 100, 105, 122, 123 Pouliot, V., 21 R Rathbun, B.C., 106 Ravitch, S.M., 4, 6, 7, 104 Riggan, M., 4, 6, 7, 104 Riley, P., 22 Ruffini, P.B., 18, 52, 74, 75, 100, 105 Rungis, C., 102, 122 Ryan, M., 92 Rybka-Iwanska, K., 94 S Sandberg, A.B., 41 Schreiterer, U., 52, 70, 71 Selleslaghs, J., 72 Seong-Hun, Y., 118 Shawa, L.B., 93 Simpson, D., 41, 42 Sonntag, S.K., 84, 95 Soong, H., 45 Spangler, J., 81 Srinivasan, K., 106 Stember, M., 4 Sunami, A., 71 Sundararama, S., 5, 56

Author Index T Trilokekar, R.D., 48, 53 U Uddin, S., 41

173 Watson, A., 17, 18 Whitehead, D., 82 Wilkins, S., 40 Wilson, I., 72, 91 Wiseman, G., 16, 17 Wojciuk, A., 43, 52, 60, 92, 113, 114 Woldegiorgis, E.T., 47 Woldegioris, E., 52, 54, 114

V Vaisse, J., 23 W Waithaka, J., 48, 59, 123 Walker, C., 34 Wang, J., 18, 123 Wang, X., 82, 95 Watanabe, Y., 87

Y Yang, R., 85, 86 Yonezawa, A., 88, 89 Z Zewail, A., 60, 72 Zhang, Y., 47

Subject Index

A Academic diplomacy, 2, 55, 56, 95, 100, 122 Advocacy, 24, 104, 129, 131 Africa, 12, 46, 47, 54, 87, 93, 94, 130–134, 144, 150, 153 African Union, 128, 130–132, 134, 141, 150 Algeria, 131–133 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 10, 64–66, 75, 108, 122 Attraction, 2, 8, 33–35, 46, 48, 82, 90, 95, 101, 102, 115, 121, 146 Australia, 54, 58, 59, 83, 121, 130 B Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), 32, 85, 86 Bologna Process, 54 Brain power, 53 Branding, 43, 45, 48, 120 Brazil, 58, 130 British Council, 41, 48, 53, 86, 121, 138, 139, 141 C Cameroon, 131, 132 Capacity building, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 66, 71, 102, 150, 152, 153 Centres of excellence, 2, 6, 9, 25, 40, 41, 80, 101, 105–107, 115, 124, 132, 133, 144 China, 32, 33, 41, 42, 81, 82, 85–87, 130, 132, 150 Citizen diplomacy, 2

Civil society, 6, 17, 20, 24, 26, 33, 35, 40, 41, 53, 57, 65, 66, 83, 95, 106, 120, 129, 138, 140, 152 Climate diplomacy, 2, 18, 104 Coercion, 31, 34, 35, 102, 119, 147 Collaboration, 1, 10, 22–24, 35, 39, 44–48, 56, 59, 61, 65, 66, 72, 92, 102, 105, 107, 109, 115, 121, 129–140, 150, 151, 154 Command vs. co-optation, 30 Commercial interests, 59 Commitment, 1, 46, 72, 154 Common good, 105, 121 Common ground, 1, 24, 35, 61, 105, 107, 115, 132, 133, 146 Competition, 10, 44, 65, 81, 86, 88, 92, 94, 106, 115, 120 Compliance, 34, 35, 95, 115 Compromise, 1, 24, 105, 107, 132, 134 Conceptual framework, 3, 4, 7, 10–12, 56, 64, 69, 75, 76, 96, 99–110, 113–117, 122, 124, 127, 128, 131, 134, 137, 140, 141, 143–145, 147–149, 151, 152 Conceptual research, 4, 127 Conflict resolution, 24, 30, 35, 61, 81, 105, 107, 115, 132, 134, 146 Confucius Institutes, 10, 33, 79, 85–87, 144, 150 Cooperation, 1, 12, 22, 24, 41, 55, 57, 64–66, 71, 72, 74, 75, 81, 86, 95, 101, 102, 105–108, 115, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137–140, 146, 153 Co-option, 34, 35, 115 Cosmopolitanism, 84

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Knight, Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1

175

176 Cultural diplomacy, 2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 19, 22, 52–57, 59, 61, 66, 79–83, 85, 87, 92, 95, 100, 101, 104, 105, 113, 120–122, 143, 145 Cultural identities, 80, 131, 132, 134, 141 Cultural relations, 2, 53, 57, 61, 66, 100, 101, 105, 121 D Definitions, 2–4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15–22, 25, 29, 31, 32, 43, 44, 51, 55–57, 68–70, 72, 74–76, 99–110, 114, 119, 122, 127, 143, 147–150 Descriptions, 4, 7, 10–12, 16–20, 31, 34, 56, 73, 74, 76, 85, 89, 99, 103, 128, 149, 150 Diplomacy actor based, 24 actors, 1, 2, 10–12, 15–23, 26, 27, 29, 35, 51, 55, 56, 59, 63, 65–67, 70, 75, 80, 83, 92, 93, 96, 99, 101, 104, 106–108, 110, 115, 122–124, 127, 143, 145–148, 151–153 classification framework, 24–25 communication, 17, 19–21, 24, 26, 35, 56, 118 contemporary, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 16–19, 21–23, 26, 35, 51, 53, 57, 67, 75, 92–94, 99–101, 105, 109, 113, 114, 121, 124, 127, 140, 143–145, 147, 152 definitions, 2–4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15–21, 25, 51, 55, 56, 68, 70, 72, 74, 99–110, 114, 127, 143, 147, 148, 150 dialogue between states, 17 functions based, 24 informal, 18, 64, 65, 93, 103 issue based, 15 level-based, 24 mode based, 24 negotiation, 17, 19, 65, 107, 122 period based, 24–25 self interests, 23, 24, 29, 35, 48, 55, 57, 61, 73, 74, 84, 85, 101, 104, 107, 113, 115, 146, 149, 151, 154 set of processes, 17 set of structures, 17 vs. soft power, 95, 146 state-based approach, 21 from traditional to contemporary, 8, 15 values based, 24 Diplomats, 3, 5, 6, 8–10, 15–22, 26, 30, 51, 56, 67–70, 73, 87, 95, 99, 101

Subject Index E Early Childhood Education International, 82 Economic diplomacy, 19, 53, 73, 121 Education cooperation, 61, 109 Education diplomacy, 2, 3, 52, 55–58, 61, 79, 82, 83, 86, 95, 100, 101, 105, 113, 120, 122–124, 127, 143, 147 Education exchanges, 41, 58, 81, 89 Education hubs, 10, 43–47, 80, 94, 101, 121, 124, 144 Education relations, 2, 56, 57, 100, 101 EL-CSID Project, 68 Europe, 46, 54, 63, 67, 73, 150 European Union (EU), 10, 42, 48, 54, 55, 57, 63, 67–69, 72, 130, 132, 153 Exchange, 2, 9, 10, 33, 36, 39, 40, 47, 48, 51–53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 73, 79–81, 84, 86, 88–90, 92–95, 100–102, 105–109, 120, 121, 124, 129, 131–140, 144, 150–152, 154 Exchange diplomacy, 2, 52, 55, 56 F Foreign policy, 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25–27, 54, 57, 58, 68–72, 80, 83, 89, 93, 101–103, 106, 151–153 Foundations, 5, 6, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 55, 56, 63, 68, 71, 82, 86, 87, 92, 95, 96, 101, 105, 106, 115, 132, 134, 135, 138 Fulbright program, 48, 53, 83 G Geo-political, 40, 45, 59, 80, 84, 88, 106 German-Jordanian Joint International University, 12 Germany, 41, 42, 130, 132, 133, 135–137 Global challenges, 1, 2, 10, 12, 22, 36, 41, 48, 63, 66, 68–71, 73, 75, 105, 120, 124, 127, 150, 151, 154 Global governance, 5, 25–27, 75 Globalization, 1, 21, 39, 84, 153 Global Soft Power Index, 118–120 Good will, 53, 72, 83, 84, 88, 91 Governmental agencies, 17, 21, 106, 134, 136 Government representatives, 17, 19, 21 Graduate students, 93, 132, 134, 136, 138, 139 H Hard power agenda setting, 8, 29, 30, 32

Subject Index coercive, 29, 32, 86 deception, 35 dominance, 95 military force, 8, 18, 29, 30, 146 payment, 8, 29–32 sanctions, 8, 18, 29, 30, 146 sharp power, 34–35 smart power, 33 soft power, 29–32, 146 Hegemony, 52, 54, 61, 84, 90, 91, 94, 102 I Indicators Education Indicator, 118–119 innovation diplomacy, 73 research, 118, 119 soft power, 113, 117–120 Innovation, 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 10, 21, 24, 30, 39–41, 43–48, 53, 54, 57, 60, 63, 67, 68, 70–76, 79, 92, 100, 103–105, 108, 109, 119–121, 123, 128, 131, 133, 136, 139, 143, 145–147, 150, 151, 154 Innovation diplomacy, 2, 10, 16, 54, 68, 72–74, 100 Intentions, 11, 12, 34, 54, 57, 59, 72, 73, 84–87, 96, 99, 104, 105, 109, 110, 115, 116, 119–122, 124, 127, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 146–148, 151 International branch campuses, 40, 89, 94, 101, 107, 121 International development cooperation, 12, 152–153 International higher education, 1–7, 10, 16, 30, 39, 46–48, 51, 52, 55, 57–61, 63, 76, 79, 80, 82–86, 88–90, 92–95, 99–102, 114, 116, 127, 134, 143, 145, 153 International Higher Education, Research and Innovation (IHERI), 1–12, 15, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 39–49, 51–61, 63–76, 79–96, 99–103, 105–110, 113–121, 123, 124, 127–141, 143–154 Internationalization, 1, 61, 86, 89, 93, 106, 107 International joint universities (IJUs), 9, 39–42, 51, 92, 107, 134–137, 140, 144, 152 International relations (IR), 1–11, 15, 16, 19–23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32–36, 43, 46–49, 51, 52, 54, 60, 63, 67, 71–74, 76, 79–96, 99–102, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119–121, 123, 124, 127, 143–154

177 International students, 2, 9, 36, 39, 40, 43–45, 51–54, 58, 60, 80, 82–84, 88, 89, 94, 101, 118, 119, 144 Inventing a Shared Science Diplomacy in Europe (InsSciDE) Project, 67 Iran, 150 J Japan, 12, 33, 41, 42, 66, 71, 85, 87–90, 128, 130, 132, 137–139 Jordan, 41, 128, 135–137 K Kenya, 59, 131, 132 Knowledge, 2, 4, 6, 9, 21, 27, 39–41, 43–46, 48, 59, 61, 67, 70, 72, 73, 80, 84, 85, 90, 92, 93, 100, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 122, 123, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 144, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154 Knowledge diplomacy, 2–6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 25, 36, 41, 47, 58, 79, 92–96, 99–110, 113–124, 127–141, 143–154 activities, 107 actors, 100–102, 105–106 approach, 3, 11, 12, 17, 47, 95, 100, 105, 107, 110, 113–120, 124, 144–146, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154 conceptual framework, 11, 104–109 cultural diplomacy, 120–122 definition, 11, 103–104 description, 103–104 diplomacy for knowledge, 109 examples of IHERI Initiatives, 12, 127–141 higher education, 92–94 IHERI role in IR, 147–148 in International Development Cooperation, 152–153 knowledge for diplomacy, 109 knowledge in diplomacy, 109 knowledge of diplomacy, 108 modes, 107 policies, 151–152 positive outcomes, 109 principles, 106 vs. public diplomacy, 106 and regionalization, 153 and science diplomacy, 102, 122 and soft power, 114–117 state and non-state actors, 100–102 strategies, 152 as a two-way process, 107

178 Knowledge divide, 148, 151, 154 Knowledge economy, 12, 43, 73, 122, 137–140, 150 Knowledge hubs, 9, 36, 40, 45, 46, 51, 92, 105–107, 152 Knowledge sharing, 81, 82, 91, 94, 101, 102 Knowledge society, 2, 12, 122, 150 L Latin America, 5, 54, 72, 153 M Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy, 69, 70 Mediation, 23, 24, 35, 46, 105, 107, 115, 132, 134, 146 Migration, 1, 24, 64, 73, 122, 152 Modes of operation, 11, 12, 87, 96, 99, 115, 119, 127, 146–148 Multi-disciplinary, 41, 131, 134, 137, 140 Multi-lateral, 7, 9, 23, 24, 40, 41, 43, 65, 108, 120, 128, 140, 144, 146, 154 Multi-national corporations, 21 Multi-sector, 7, 105, 120, 129, 131, 132, 134, 137, 140, 144 Mutuality, 1, 12, 35, 48, 61, 72, 74, 84, 85, 92, 93, 95, 105, 106, 115, 129, 131, 133, 138, 139, 146, 149, 154 Mutual understanding, 22, 52–54, 57, 59, 61, 75, 81, 83, 93, 94, 101–103, 146, 147 N Negotiation, 1, 16–18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 30, 35, 56, 61, 105, 107, 115, 132, 134, 135, 137, 140, 146 Neo-colonization, 54, 61, 95, 114 Networks, 2, 12, 17, 21, 25, 39, 41, 44, 47, 53, 56, 67, 68, 71, 84, 89, 94, 95, 101, 104, 105, 107, 128, 129, 131–133, 136–140, 144 Nigeria, 131, 132 Non-governmental organizations, 24, 25, 101, 106, 135, 140 Non-state actors, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17–20, 23, 25, 43, 51, 53, 56, 57, 67, 69, 73, 75, 81, 95, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 115, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 140, 145, 146, 153 Normative, 11, 29, 34, 100, 106, 109, 110, 124 North Korea, 81, 82

Subject Index O Outcomes, 8, 9, 12, 25, 29–31, 35, 51, 53–55, 57–59, 69, 76, 81, 84, 87, 101–103, 106, 109, 114–116, 120, 121, 123, 128, 139, 143, 146, 148, 151, 152 P Pan-African Regional University, 130–134 Partnership, 2, 9, 25, 40, 42, 45, 48, 59, 65, 71, 80, 83, 92, 95, 104–106, 108, 118, 130–141 Peace, 24, 75, 81, 82, 105, 131, 132, 134, 141, 146, 152 Persuasion, 2, 8, 17, 34, 35, 48, 95, 101, 102, 115, 121, 146 Policymaking, 149 Power ability to do something, 29, 31 instrumental, 34, 55 normative, 11, 29, 34, 100, 124 paradigm, 23, 90, 92, 93, 102, 153 power over, 29, 31 regional, 2, 7, 47, 52, 80 relational, 29, 31 resource based, 29, 31, 118 situation, 31, 33, 34, 60 Principles, 5, 11, 12, 15, 24, 44, 47, 51, 57–59, 69, 71, 82, 83, 85, 92, 99, 102, 104–106, 110, 114, 115, 119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 129, 131–135, 137, 138, 140, 143, 146, 154 Private sector actors, 57 Public diplomacy, 2, 3, 9, 16, 18, 22, 23, 31, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 58–61, 63, 70, 79, 83–85, 89, 92, 94, 95, 100, 110, 113, 118, 120, 121, 123, 143, 145–147 Q Qatar, 45, 109, 144, 150 R Rationales, 10, 12, 34, 39, 40, 43–45, 48, 61, 71, 75, 80, 87, 103, 104, 106, 109, 119, 121, 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, 138, 152 Reciprocity, 12, 24, 35, 47, 55, 85, 92, 93, 101–103, 105, 106, 109, 115, 129, 131, 135, 137, 139, 140, 146, 149 Refugee diplomacy, 2, 7, 18, 19, 104 Regional centres of excellence, 2, 9, 25, 40, 107, 124, 144 Regionalization, 12, 54, 153

Subject Index

179

Regional universities, 12, 36, 39, 46, 47, 101, 105, 124, 130–133, 144 RENKEI, 41, 128, 137–140 Representation, 24, 26, 33, 56, 105, 133, 135 Research, 1–7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 21, 23, 30–32, 36, 39–41, 43–48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 61, 63–68, 71, 72, 76, 79–81, 83, 90–92, 94, 95, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 115, 116, 118–123, 127–141, 143–154 Research centres, 6, 21, 24, 40, 45, 68, 71, 82, 92, 95, 100, 105, 121, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137 Research interdisciplinary, 3, 41, 143, 144, 149, 151 Research interpretivist, 4, 79 Research networks, 9, 25, 40, 41, 51, 71, 101, 105, 107, 124, 140, 144, 152 Revenue generation, 53, 61, 84 Risks and benefits, 81 Royal Society UK, 65, 66

compliance, 8, 48, 54, 59, 61, 72, 86, 89, 90, 93, 95, 101, 102, 113, 115, 121, 146, 147 cooption, 8, 59, 71, 86, 89, 95, 101, 102, 113, 115, 121, 146 cultural and ideological attraction, 31 framing the agenda, 31 intangible resources, 8, 29, 31, 34 persuasion, 8, 30–32, 35, 48, 59–61, 71, 89, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 113, 115, 119, 121, 146 30 report, 118, 119 western biased, 9 South Africa, 53, 93, 94, 130, 131 State actors, 18, 25, 26, 53, 57, 66, 68, 69, 75, 100, 101, 105, 124 Student mobility, 39, 54, 80, 95, 136 Study abroad, 83, 91–93, 101 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 121, 128–130 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 12, 41, 128–131

S S4D4C Project, 68, 69 Scholar mobility, 2, 9, 36, 39, 91, 121, 134, 145 Scholarships, 2, 9, 10, 36, 39, 41, 47, 53, 56, 65, 79, 80, 84, 85, 89–91, 94, 95, 101, 105, 107, 118, 124, 132–136, 140, 144, 150, 152 Science and technology diplomacy, 2, 71–73, 101, 122, 145, 146 Science cooperation, 2, 10, 64–67, 69, 75, 100, 101, 105 Science diplomacy diplomacy for science, 22, 67 science for diplomacy, 22, 65, 67 science in diplomacy, 67 Sharp power, 8, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 51 Smart power, 8, 27, 29, 33, 34 Soft imperialism, 48 Soft-imperialism, 84 Soft power approach, 3, 7, 10–12, 23, 27, 30–33, 35, 48, 49, 54, 57, 59, 65, 67, 71, 72, 85, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 100–102, 110, 113–120, 124, 133, 144–149, 151, 153, 154 attraction, 8, 29–34, 48, 52, 58–61, 71, 82, 85, 88–90, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 113, 115, 119, 121, 146 competitive advantage, 48, 61, 71, 73, 102, 113, 114, 120

T Terminology chaos, 3, 7, 19, 99, 109, 145 Terminology travel, 2, 4, 95 Think tanks, 25, 56, 68, 92, 105, 106, 140 Track two diplomacy, 52, 56, 65 Trust building, 24, 61 U United Arab Emirates, 45, 109, 144 United Kingdom, 42, 130, 138, 141 United States, 42, 60, 73, 87, 130 Universities, 2, 6, 9, 12, 21, 24, 25, 35, 39–41, 44–48, 54, 56, 57, 60, 68, 71, 72, 79, 81, 82, 84–95, 100, 103, 105, 106, 115, 118–121, 128, 130–141, 144, 150, 153, 154 University rankings, 90, 91, 94, 101 V Values, 1, 2, 8, 12, 19, 29–31, 34, 35, 44, 45, 48, 58, 59, 61, 67, 69, 71, 75, 80, 85–87, 89, 93, 94, 96, 103–106, 114–116, 119, 120, 127, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 146–148, 151, 153, 154 W Win-win approach, 1, 107, 136