Marina Cino Pagliarello

In the evolving landscape of the global higher education market, higher education institutions (HEIs) have transformed from  ivory towers  into dynamic hubs of innovation and societal engagement. Influenced by technological advancements and the growing complexity of global issues - such as pandemics and climate change - universities now play a crucial role in integrating scientific knowledge into policy-making processes. Beyond the traditional use of higher education in science diplomacy as soft power tool for governments, universities now play a more dynamic and independent role as actors of “informal” diplomacy. They engage in addressing global issues not only through the application of knowledgebut also through activities and initiatives such as the establishment of joint universities, multi-disciplinary research networks, new universities alliances, and partnerships with industries. This shift prompts intriguing questions: what is informal diplomacy in the context of higher education? Are universities simply extensions of state-centric actions, or do they possess autonomy and agency in their own right?

Universities in traditional (science) diplomacy

The use of higher education as a tool of soft power is not a new concept. Soft power, defined as the ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, has long been associated with science and technology. These fields are considered crucial sources of soft power, with science contributing to enhance a country’s reputation, building trust, and fostering collaboration. Science diplomacy, defined as leveraging scientific collaboration and engagement to address global issues and foster cooperation, is therefore a means to advance national interests by bolstering influence, promoting a country’s values, and pursuing strategic objectives aligned with national priorities. 

In this more traditional understanding of science diplomacy, HEIs serve as channels for state-led soft power initiatives. Notable examples include the Fulbright programme, the British Council and the controversial Confucius Institutes. Similarly, European Union (EU) programmes such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe, are important vectors forpromoting European values, fostering collaboration, and enhancing mutual understanding. Taken together, these initiatives that promote the exchange of students, faculty, culture, research, knowledge, and expertise, can be regarded as diplomatic activities essential for developing mutual understanding and promoting foreign policy objectives through soft power. 

In essence, whereas soft power refers to a country’s ability to influence others through cultural appeal and attraction, science diplomacy focuses on international scientific cooperation to foster mutual understanding and address global challenges. At the same time, among these more traditional science diplomacy initiatives and activities, new trends are also emerging, exemplified by the proliferation of international branch campuses (IBCs) that are overseas extensions of educational institutions, strategically deployed as ‘embassies of knowledge’. The evolution of China's stance towards IBCs is emblematic of this shift, transitioning from a recipient to a prominent host. Opening Fudan University's IBC inHungary amid political tensions and collaborating with Russia on a new IBC, underscores China's strategic deployment of IBCs for geopolitical influence. 

Universities as informal diplomatic actors? 

In parallel with government-led diplomatic efforts, we are witnessing the emergence of autonomous ‘informal’ diplomacy driven by universities themselves. This form of diplomacy is characterized by a structured and unstructured exchange of knowledge, ideas, and initiatives among academic institutions and stakeholders outside formal diplomatic channels. Unlike traditional diplomacy, which revolves around political and economic negotiations, this type of diplomacy places emphasis on the role of ‘knowledge’ as a key factor in fostering understanding, cooperation, and addressing common global challenges.

For instance, the German Jordanian University (GJU) exemplifies informal diplomacy through its collaborative initiatives and partnerships with industry. Through student delegations, research collaborations, and dual studies programs, GJU serves as a dynamic platform for fostering international connections and promoting mutual understanding. Similarly, Brown University's Humanitarian Relief Initiatives also demonstrate the tangible impact of higher education diplomacy. By working directly with communities in need, particularly in regions like the Philippines, Brown University fosters cross-cultural understanding and collaboration, enhancing the university's leadership in disaster response. 

In addition, the rise of university alliances further illustrates the diplomatic role of HEIs. University alliances are transnational collaborative networks formed by higher education institutions from different countries to address common problems, promote knowledge exchange, and foster international cooperation in various fields. For example, the European Universities Initiative alliance, operating at the EU level and currently comprising 64 Alliances and over 500 universities, serves as an example of universities as informal diplomatic actors coming together around specific ‘missions’ to address global ‘grand challenges’ and promote cross-border collaboration. Finally, universities are also engaged in practical actions that contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) goals without relying solely on formal diplomatic channels. For instance, Western Sydney University, named the world’s number one university in terms of its contribution to the United Nations SDGs, exemplifies how universities can play a role not only in engaging in education and research projects but also in advancing sustainable development worldwide.

Challenges, tension, and the way forward

While universities  increasingly position themselves as autonomous agents of diplomacy, they may face potential challenges and tensions when navigating between being conduits of state action and autonomous agents pursuing their own initiatives seeking to influence policy-making. For instance, they may face constraints on academic freedom and cooperation and encountering obstacles in fostering scientific exchanges across borders. Additionally, ethical considerations are also essential, especially when collaborating with institutions known for questionable research practices or human rights violations.

Moreover, limited funding and resources might make it difficult to sustain international research projects and cover essential expenses, particularly amidst competing budgetary priorities. In striving for equitable partnerships, universities must address power imbalances between institutions from developed and developing nations while also facing severe dilemmas of responding to rising tensions impacting campuses and students’ demands, including the risk of universities being ‘instrumentalised’ or ‘geopoliticised’ by governments. For instance, Pro-Palestinian protests on US university campuses have escalated globally, with students and faculty members demanding academic institutions divest from companies linked to Israel’s military campaign. These protests have led to various demands, including severing financial ties with Israel and its affiliated entities, transparency over financial connections, and amnesty for protesters. The impact has been significant, with Columbia University and California State Polytechnic University Humboldt closing due to the occupations, Portland State University pausing financial ties with Boeing over its links to Israel, and Trinity College Dublin agreeing to end certain investments in Israeli companies.

This underscores the complexities and challenges universities face in addressing geopolitical tensions while upholding their academic mission and values. In this respect, another crucial aspect for universities is managing public perception and trust. Effective science communication and transparent engagement are essential for building public support and understanding for diplomatic efforts, countering scepticism and ensuring the legitimacy of university-led initiatives in the informal diplomacy arena.

As universities continue to evolve into dynamic hubs of global engagement and diplomacy, stakeholders must recognize and embrace the opportunities and challenges presented by this (r)evolution. Key questions arise from this discussion: How can universities maintain their autonomy while navigating geopolitical tensions? What mechanisms ensure equitable partnerships amidst power imbalances and challenges in international collaboration? And how do knowledge activities intersect with diplomatic power? These questions are not merely academic; they are at the heart of redefining diplomatic norms in the 21st century, enabling universities to shape a more interconnected, sustainable, and peaceful world.

Marina Cino Pagliarello is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow at the Florence School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute (Italy), Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economic and Political Science European Institute, and honorary lecturer at the Department of Political Science, University College London.

This post was originally published on Europe of Knowledge blog.

From the Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies.

Dear colleagues,

As you may already know, we continue the tradition and organise again a section on Knowledge Politics and Policies at the 2025 ECPR conference in Thessaloniki, 26-29 August 2024.

ECPR has indicated we would be available to organise 10 panels.

There are two ways to apply for the conference:

1. If your proposal fits into one of the topics covered by the existing panels, you can submit your proposal to the chair(s) of that panel by email (addresses are listed below). If the chair(s) of your targeted panel inform(s) you that the panel is full, please submit your proposal directly to the section and indicate clearly which panel you were interested in.
2. If your proposal does not fit clearly into one of the existing panels, you should submit your proposal directly to the Section, via ECPR website. if the paper fits an existing panel the authors should get in touch with the panel chairs as soon as possible. If it does not, they should submit it to the section, considering that, at least one panel will be formed from the papers submitted directly to the section. 

The deadline to submit all proposals for panels and papers to ECPR is 6 January 2025. 

This is right before the winter holiday break, so please make sure that you submit your proposal on time.

This is particularly important in case you are interested in an existing panel. In this case, please contact the panel chair ASAP. 

The titles and descriptions of panels, as well as contact details of their chairs are given below.

Demystifying power in/ of Artificial Intelligence

Chairs: Inga Ulnicane (University of Birmingham, ingaulnicane@gmail.com), Tero Erkkilä (University of Helsinki, tero.erkkila@helsinki.fi) and Ronit Justo-Hanani (Tel Aviv University, ronitjus@mail.tau.ac.il)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) today is often seen as an all-powerful technology changing almost every aspect of our lives. This panel invites theoretical and empirical contributions that critically examine what power means when we talk about AI. Who has the power to make AI (seem) powerful and who is left powerless?

Interest organizations in knowledge politics and policies

Chair: Martina Vukasovic (University of Bergen, martina.vukasovic@uib.no)

The panel focuses on organizations representing interests of various stakeholders in the knowledge policy domain. The panel is particularly interested in studies that analyze the role of these organizations in the policy process, how they develop their policy agendas, how they relate to their members, their internal organization and operation, as well as their positioning towards other policy actors.

Science diplomacy: new directions and area of study

Chair: Mitchell Young (Charles University, young.mitchell@gmail.com)

Papers in the panel will seek to uncover new theoretical angles for the study of science diplomacy as well as new areas of study which could bring insight, focus and coherence to this emerging area of global policymaking and diplomacy.

Academia in Times of Crises

Chair: Hila Zahavi (Ben Gurion University, hilape@bgu.ac.il) 

The proposed panel aims to examine the complex role of academia during crises and wars. Using various perspectives of case studies from recent global events, the panel will illustrate the challenges faced by academia in times of crises: maintaining its activities and fulfilling its different missions while serving as both refuges for critical thought and battlegrounds for ideological conflict. Ultimately, this discussion will shed light on how academia can adapt and contribute meaningfully during tumultuous times.

The politics of migration-higher education policy nexus (2 panels!)

Chairs: Meng-Hsuan Chou (NTU, hsuan.chou@cantab.net), Tero Erkkilä (University of Helsinki, tero.erkkila@helsinki.fi),  Alina Felder-Stindt (University of St.Gallen, alina.felder-stindt@unisg.ch) 

These panels aim to uncover and compare the roles of migration and higher education policy nexus in filling or exacerbating contemporary skills shortages. While shortages affect all skills levels, these panels zoom into the tertiary level of skills where shortages have traditionally been met by skilled labour migration and, increasingly, policies concerning post-study pathways. These panels address the overlaps, coordination issues, and administrative conflicts among the relevant political, institutional, and economic actors when meeting the demands for changing high skills through skilled migration and higher education internationalisation.

Comparing University Alliances: Politics, Policies, Actors and Institutions.

Chairs: Marina Cino Pagliarello (EUI, marina.cinopagliarello@eui.eu), Andrew Gunn (University of Manchester,andrew.gunn@manchester.ac.uk) 

This panel looks at the rise in university collaboration through multilateral and bilaterial alliances from a comparative perspective. In addition to the European Universities initiative there has been growing interest in alliances globally. The panel welcomes theorical and empirical studies that focus on one alliance as a case study or engage in a comparative analysis across different alliances.

Academic freedom in higher education

Chairs: Mari Elken (University of Oslo, mari.elken@iped.uio.no) & Peter Maassen (University of Oslo peter.maassen@iped.uio.no) 

Recent studies have shown how academic freedom is declining in a number of countries globally, including in Europe. Threats are manyfold and include, for example, strengthening geopolitical tensions, security concerns in research, and political interference. The panel invites contributions that explore various aspects of academic freedom, both the threats to academic freedom as well as measures to safeguard it.

How do universities die? (not yet included in the Section description that is online, but will be very soon)

Chair: Alexander Mitterle (Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, alexander.mitterle@soziologie.uni-freiburg.de)

Universities are survival experts. Despite the common trope that universities are difficult to reform, they have shown a high level of adaptability and resilience since their formal organization in the 13th century. Still, the success story of higher education as a global institution is scattered by gravestones of universities that died along the way, especially private endeavours. The panel invites contributions that shed light on how universities as organizations adapt to changing environmental pressures, how they fail, close, or continue in a different form in their organizational afterlife.

In case you have any questions, do not hesitate to get in touch. 

Martina (martina.vukasovic@uib.no) and Mitchell (young.mitchell@gmail.com), KPP section chairs

From the Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies.

Large science projects, also known as “Big Science”, are typically presented as a win-win for all stakeholders involved, including for the local community. Yet research has shown that local opposition to Big Science is common, although it tends to be short-lived and often fails to raise wide-spread awareness. Some argue that this is because activists that oppose Big Science struggle to appear legitimate while criticizing a project that is generally associated with economic development and scientific progress.

The story is different for the kiaʻi mauna (Hawaiian for protectors of the mountain). The kiaʻi have sustained opposition to the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaiʻi Island, since 2011, and have managed to raise wide-spread attention of their resistance. In a recently published article, I investigate why the kiaʻi have succeeded in sustaining such momentum. Based on interviews that I conducted with community members, local astronomers, and kiaʻi, I found that there are six factors which explain the resilience of local resistance to the Thirty Meter Telescope. To the local community, most of my findings are unlikely to be a revelation. But for those that are not familiar with Hawaiʻi, a deep dive into the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy holds valuable lessons about science-society relations.

Hawaiʻi is a unique case with a unique history, much of which has considerably shaped local resistance to the Thirty Meter Telescope. To provide some of the background knowledge that is needed to understand the controversy, I draw on the excellent work of Hawaiian scholars that have meticulously chronicled the history of astronomy development on Hawaiʻi and local opposition to it. Their research indicates that a multitude of factors have triggered local opposition to astronomy development on Mauna Kea. For instance, it has been argued that astronomy development on Mauna Kea, a volcanic mountain of great cultural significance to many Native Hawaiians, infringes on indigenous practices and rights. Existing research also indicates that past mismanagement of the mountain, that has seen the construction of 13 telescopes over 40 years, has led to local discontent. Finally, some scholars contend that local opposition to astronomy development on Mauna Kea mirrors a broader struggle to decolonize Hawaiʻi, whose annexation by the US in 1898 is politically and legally contested.

Within this tense context, the proposal to build the Thirty Meter Telescope, a construction that rivals imposing landmarks like the Parisian Arc de Triomphe, almost instantly triggered local resistance. When the Thirty Meter Telescope was first proposed in 2010, local opposition materialized in the form of legal challenges. Later, in 2014 and 2015, a growing number of local community members, by then known as kiaʻi, engaged in non-violent direct action to prevent the telescope’s construction. Between 2015 and 2019, during the height of the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy, thousands of kiaʻi blocked access to the telescope construction site. Only the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 eventually put a halt to the blockade.

In my article, I identify six factors that help to explain why the kiaʻi have succeeded in sustaining opposition to the Thirty Meter Telescope since 2011. These six factors are:

1) Multi-generational leaderful organization Including different generations of (Native) Hawaiians in the resistance was essential because each generation was able to contribute different skillsets and experiences. Over time, this facilitated effective task division. For instance, younger kiaʻi were able to publicize local opposition on social media. Kiaʻi of an older generation that had participated in past Hawaiian movements, in turn, helped to shape kiaʻi strategies by sharing their knowledge of which tactics had proven successful in previous resistance movements. Having several leaders, or in other words a leaderful organization, was crucial for similar reasons. This organizational strategy enabled the effective distribution of responsibilities among a group of individuals that had the willingness, capacity, and skills to take on leadership tasks. As local resistance continued, distributing leadership responsibilities among several individuals also ensured that leaders did not burn out.

2) Grassroots resources Sustained local opposition would not have been possible without a continuous flow of tangible and intangible grassroots resources like money, food, and time. These were needed for the kiaʻi to vary the use of tactics throughout their struggle and to draw attention to local grievances.

3) Versatile tactics Combining different tactics such as legal challenges, non-violent direct action, and campaigning on social media significantly stalled telescope development and helped the kiaʻi to bring attention to their cause. Especially social media campaigns helped the kiaʻi to recruit likeminded individuals for their struggle and to gain additional supporters, both of which were needed to sustain resistance and to raise wide-spread awareness.

4) Anti-science counterframing Local opposition furthermore sustained momentum because the kiaʻi successfully framed the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy as a multidimensional issue, where not science itself but rather questionable research practices of “mainstream” science were up for debate. Making this distinction in framing the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy was crucial for the kiaʻi because it helped them to counter popular media frames which presented the issue as one of “science vs. religion” and portrayed the kiaʻi as anti-science.

5) Local and national political opportunity The kiaʻi also succeeded in sustaining momentum for their advocacy because the local and national political context were conducive to it. At the national level, advocating to protect a place of great cultural significance to an indigenous population resonated with a greater awareness of indigenous (land) rights. At the local level, the kiaʻi experienced little pushback as those in favor of the telescope were not as well organized and media-savvy as the kiaʻi. Local community members that supported the Thirty Meter Telescope moreover tended to be less vocal than the kiaʻi because their pro-telescope activism was met with disapproval and, in some cases, harassment.

6) Place attachment-driven commitment Finally, local opposition persisted because activists were deeply committed to preventing further astronomy development on Mauna Kea. This commitment was largely driven by a strong attachment to the mountain, including to its unique environment and the cultural sites that it harbors.

What do we learn from this? I believe that there are at least two important take-aways from the Thirty Meter Telescope controversy. First, it demonstrates that there are instances where activists succeed in framing their struggle against Big Science as legitimate. This, in turn, is an important precondition to sustain and raise wider support for it. Second and more broadly, the controversy also underlines the need for Big Science proponents to be knowledgeable about and respectful of the distinct circumstances and historical grievances of the local community which is or will be hosting a project. This especially applies to contexts where particular groups have been or continue to be marginalized. Acquiring such context sensitivity requires Big Science proponents to engage with and, where possible, thoroughly embed themselves in the local community. This is easier said than done, but community-based research practices that have been introduced in fields like archaeology or anthropology may provide a blueprint for the effective inclusion of local communities into the planning, design, and outreach activities of Big Science initiatives.

Dr. Anna-Lena Rüland is a research fellow at University College London. In her current research, she focuses on science diplomacy, research security, and European science, technology and innovation policy.

References:

Rüland A-L (2024) Sustaining Local Opposition to Big Science: A Case Study of the Thirty Meter Telescope Controversy. Technology in Society 78: 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102597.

Salazar JA (2014) Multicultural Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Struggle in Hawaiʻi: The Politics of Astronomy on Mauna a Wākea. University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu.

TMT International Observatory (2022) About. Available at: https://www.tmt.org/page/about (accessed 11 September 2024).

This blog post was initially posted on Europe of Knowledge blog.