Nine qualitative case studies conducted by the S4D4C consortium constitute the empirical corpus from which the building bricks of our science diplomacy governance framework were derived. All of these case studies revolve around contemporary topics on the intersection of foreign policy and science/science policy that are perceived as or bear the potential of being characterized as science diplomatic fields of action. The contemporary nature of the case studies, as well as their transcendence of the traditional, restricted delimitation of what science diplomacy is, makes them a valuable corpus to assess its potential breadth and depth. The case selection in the overarching project consortium followed a theoretical sampling logic. Cases were selected from potentially relevant, ongoing governance processes in the fields of foreign policy, science and science instruments (Table: Case Studies). The diversity and contextual difference of the cases was chosen deliberately to ensure a widespread representation of de facto science diplomacy governance processes where the interface of science and foreign policy involving transboundary knowledge flows was found. As such, this is a case selection design that roughly follows the most-different-systems logic and allows conclusions as to the general patterns across these cases (Seawright and Gerring 2008).
Table: Case studies
As the case studies were carried out by researchers from the whole S4D4C project consortium and their topics differed considerably, it was necessary to coordinate data generation. This was done by a common case study principle containing all questions that would be relevant to compare across cases. Hence, the principle consisted of three sections dealing with (a) the governance arrangement, (b) the stakeholder landscape and (c) de facto governance practices in the respective case. By governance arrangement the formal organization of the case topic is meant. This includes legal frameworks, rules, policy instruments, governmental strategies, official principles and prescribed actors. Furthermore, governance arrangements deal with the direction of implementation – i.e. top-down or bottom-up – and the structure of the arrangement, i.e. whether it resembles a hierarchical structure (where there is a clear mandate from an authority), a network structure (where processes take place in the framework of a sort of ‘epistemic community’) or rather a market structure (where supply/demand of information/action comes from different and sporadic actors and emergent needs/opportunities). The stakeholder landscape describes the actors involved in the case topic and their attributes (i.e. interests, roles, power to influence/facilitate/block, etc.). De facto governance practices are the actual workings of the case in practice. This involves the actual mix of all formal processes and procedures and those where actors deviate from the formal governance arrangement. In addition, under this section the problems actors are dealing with in practice were to be described, as well as possible rules and procedures in the case study and interfaces through which resources pertaining to the case topic are exchanged. Interfaces were thought of as loci of exchange or absorption, such as personal meetings or conferences, but also material/non-human elements like websites, portals, physical infrastructure, etc. They can be institutionalized in the form of programmes, positions, etc. They can be (a) permanent, (b) temporary, (c) formal, or (d) informal occasions, on which actors meet and interact (both nationally and internationally).
In an introductory text to the case researchers it was explicitly stated that each case study’s situatedness and idiosyncrasies required a different selection of those questions to be answered. The principle was not supposed to serve as an interview topic list. Rather, the questions served as analytical guidance for the case study teams to sketch the governance situation in their case and to extract information for the transversal case analysis. This had two consequences. First, it may not have been necessary, nor applicable, to answer all questions for every case study. Second, generating all necessary knowledge from interviews was not imperative, especially, if some/many questions could already be answered by the case study teams themselves without reaching out to other experts (via internal dialogues or desk research, for example). Through this method of ‘coordinated freedom’ we were able to capture the empirical richness of the case studies. It enabled us to distinguish positive and negative examples of governance structures, actors and practices that pertain to science diplomacy. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews – executed between September 2018 and May 2019 – were used to generate the data. Interviews were recorded where possible and permitted. At the completion of the case study process, transversal analyses were performed by the case authors, where a selection of ‘key matters’ was possible, which led to some lessons useful for the development of the science diplomacy governance framework (Young et al. 2020).
Besides the case studies, the work done in S4D4C provided four other sources of information, for example, the science diplomacy state-of-the-art-report (D2.2, Rungius, Flink, and Degelsegger-Márquez 2018), the needs assessment (D2.3, Degelsegger-Márquez, Flink, and Rungius 2019), and the FECYT Policy Report (Melchor, Elorza Moreno, and Lacunza 2020). The fourth data source were the two co-creation workshops carried out in Berlin and Vienna with high-level diplomats, scientists and actors on the boundary of science and diplomacy by S4D4C work package 4 (Task 4.2: “Co-creation and validation of a science diplomacy governance framework”). Together, these empirical sources provided an up-to-date view on the topic of science diplomacy governance in practice (see Figure above). We combined this with scientific knowledge from the current debates in STI policy and governance literature as well as with experience with a previous meta-governance framework (Lindner et al. 2016). The process by which we generated the principles for the governance framework will be described in the following section.
