انجمن ژئوپلیتیک ایران فصلنامه بین المللی ژئوپلیتیک 1735-4331 22 3 2026 09 23 A Critical Analysis of Dominant Theoretical Approaches to Science Diplomacy in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape تحلیلی انتقادی از رویکردهای مسلط نظری دیپلماسی علمی در جهان متغیر ژئوپلیتیکی 70 108 243149 10.22034/igq.2026.564839.2139 FA حسن جباری نصیر استادیار سیاست و روابط بین‌الملل موسسه مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری، تهران، ایران. 0000-0003-3181-6101 لیلا خادم مخصوص حسینی دانشجوی فوق دکترا، دانشگاه دولتی روابط بین‌الملل مسکو، روسیه. پژوهشگر دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب، قم، ایران. 0000-0003-3181-6101 Journal Article 2026 01 07 Extended Abstract 1. Introduction Science diplomacy has increasingly become a pivotal domain at the intersection of international relations, scientific advancement, and global governance. The emergence of complex geopolitical transformations—including strategic competition among major powers, the securitization of emerging technologies, and the rise of new scientific actors—has fundamentally reshaped the environment in which science diplomacy operates. Early frameworks, most notably the 2010 Royal Society–AAAS tripartite model, conceptualized science diplomacy as a cooperative, universal, and largely apolitical arena. This model framed the field around three functions: Science in Diplomacy, Diplomacy for Science, and Science for Diplomacy, each emphasizing the potential of science to foster trust, enable collaboration, and support peaceful international engagement. A second influential framework, developed by Gluckman et al. (2017), introduced a more pragmatic and interest-oriented understanding of science diplomacy. Their approach highlighted the role of science as a strategic asset for national interests, while simultaneously acknowledging its potential to generate collective transnational benefits. While these frameworks played an essential role in establishing the conceptual foundations of the field, they were formulated before the onset of profound geopolitical changes now shaping global scientific interactions. The accelerating rise of AI-driven geopolitics, quantum technology competition, biotechnology rivalries, and data governance disputes challenges existing theoretical models. Moreover, the increased influence of non-state actors—such as multinational technology firms, transnational scientific networks, and indigenous knowledge communities—reveals a need for theoretical refinement. This study offers a critical analysis of the dominant theoretical approaches, identifies their limitations in the contemporary geopolitical context, and outlines conceptual directions for a more comprehensive analytical model. 2. Methodology This research employs a directed qualitative content analysis, a method well-suited for examining theoretical adequacy against evolving geopolitical realities. The approach allows for a structured interrogation of the assumptions, internal coherence, and empirical applicability of dominant frameworks in science diplomacy. 2.1. Primary Sources and Analytical Corpus the Royal Society–AAAS and Gluckman et al approaches to science diplomacy are the two foundational theoretical sources which serve as the basis of our analysis: (1) the Royal Society–AAAS (2010) report, representing the normative-holistic framework; (2) Gluckman et al. (2017), representing the pragmatic-interest-based framework. These works are supplemented by recent literature (2020–2024) in science–technology studies, geopolitical risk, global scientific collaboration, and emerging technology governance. 2.2. Coding Strategy Analytical coding is focused on three dimensions: Ontological assumptions (conceptualization of science, diplomacy, and power); Functional mechanisms (how science diplomacy is theorized to operate); Limitations and contradictions (normative biases, empirical validity, geopolitical blind spots). 2.3. Comparative Evaluation The frameworks were examined in relation to contemporary geopolitical developments, including: rising technological powers in the Global South, securitization of AI, quantum, and biotechnology, technological decoupling and new blocs, multi-level and multi-actor governance systems, disruptions in global knowledge infrastructures. 2.4. Conceptual Synthesis Insights were integrated into a multi-level model connecting geopolitical structures, policy mechanisms, and knowledge infrastructures. This synthesis highlights conceptual gaps and informs potential revisions to science diplomacy theory. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Limitations of the 2010 Royal Society–AAAS Framework The tripartite model remains foundational but insufficient for contemporary analysis. The study identifies several challenges: Conceptual Ambiguity The boundaries between the three categories lack analytical clarity and often overlap in practice, complicating empirical application. Normative and Idealistic Orientation The framework assumes scientific neutrality, universality, and cooperation, overlooking the deeply political and competitive nature of scientific activity in global affairs. Limited Attention to Power Asymmetries It does not adequately account for geopolitical inequalities or the role of science in advancing strategic national interests. Incompatibility with Technological Geopolitics The framework predates the AI–quantum–biotech revolution, global data regimes, and the rise of private tech giants—now central forces in shaping science diplomacy. As a result, the 2010 model functions more as an inspirational or normative narrative than a robust analytical tool. 3.2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gluckman et al. (2017) Framework The 2017 framework offers an important corrective by positioning science diplomacy within the domain of national interests and geopolitical strategy. It acknowledges: the strategic use of science for national advantage; the role of multi-sector actors; the tension between national priorities and global challenges. Yet, limitations remain: Static Interpretation of National Interest In a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment—marked by tech competition, sanctions, and supply chain disruption—national interests are fluid and contingent. Underrepresentation of Non-State Power Actors While more inclusive than earlier models, it still fails to fully integrate multinational tech corporations, global scientific platforms, and data-driven governance structures. Insufficient Treatment of Security Dimensions The model does not fully account for the securitization of scientific domains, particularly AI, biotech, and cyber. Lack of Adaptation to Geopolitical Fragmentation Emerging technological blocs (e.g., U.S.–EU vs. China), South–South scientific alliances, and regional science diplomacy architectures require a more dynamic theoretical lens. Despite these shortcomings, the model marks an essential transition from idealism to pragmatism. 3.3. Emerging Context: Science Diplomacy in the Age of Techno-political Rivalry This study demonstrates that science diplomacy now functions within a radically changed landscape shaped by: Technological Power Politics: AI, quantum, biotech, and cloud infrastructures act as strategic assets and tools of geopolitical competition. Multi-Actor Networks: Scientific collaboration increasingly involves universities, NGOs, private tech firms, indigenous communities, and transnational research alliances. Redefinition of Interests: Access to critical technologies, data sovereignty, standard-setting power, and resilience capacities now shape national and transnational priorities. These transformations render classical frameworks analytically insufficient. 4. Conclusion This critical analysis concludes that dominant theoretical approaches in science diplomacy—both the normative 2010 model and the pragmatic 2017 model—lack the conceptual capacity to explain the dynamics of the current geopolitical–technoscientific environment. Science diplomacy has evolved into a hybrid ecosystem of power, knowledge, and technology, where cooperation and competition co-exist and where emerging technologies reshape notions of national and global interest. The study underscores the need for a new conceptual framework that captures: the interplay between geopolitical structures and scientific infrastructures, the role of multi-actor and multi-level governance, the implications of transformative technologies, fluid national–transnational interest alignments. Such a framework will enhance theoretical precision and policy relevance for analyzing science diplomacy in an era defined by technological rivalry and geopolitical fragmentation. با آغاز هزاره سوم، دیپلماسی علمی به حوزه‌ای کلیدی در پیوند علم، فناوری و سیاست خارجی تبدیل شده است. با این حال، رویکردهای نظری مسلط آن با چالش‌هایی تبیینی مواجه هستند. چارچوب ارائه‌شده توسط انجمن سلطنتی(2010)، به دلیل آرمان‌گرایی، ابهام مفهومی و غفلت از ابعاد قدرت‌محور و رقابتی علم، کارآمدی لازم را ندارد. رویکرد گلاکمن و همکاران (2017) نیز علی‌رغم توجه به منافع ملی و جهانی، در پاسخ به تحولات معاصر- از جمله گذار از علم‌محوری به فناوری‌محوری، ظهور قدرت‌های نوظهور علمی در جنوب جهانی و امنیتی‌شدن فناوری‌های مبتنی بر هوش مصنوعی و محاسبات کوانتومی در بستر تحولات ژئوپلیتیک جدید- ناکارآمد مانده است. این پژوهش با مرور تحلیلی ادبیات علمی کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی با رویکرد توصیفی-انتقادی، یک چارچوب‌نظری پیشنهاد می‌کند که مؤلفه‌های استفاده از علم و پژوهش به مثابه «قدرت بعنوان سازه ژئوپلیتیکی»، گذار به فناوری‌محوری در عرصه‌های مختلف دیپلماسی علمی به‌عنوان «سازه فناورانه ژئوپلیتیکی» و در نهایت چندگانگی حکمرانی علمی در قالب «سازه شبکه‌ای-تعادلی» با شمولیت ذی‌نفعان متنوع جهانی را یکپارچه می‌کند. تلفیق این سازه‌ها نه‌تنها شکاف تبیینی چارچوب‌های پیشین را پر می‌کند، بلکه درک عمل‌گرایانه‌ای از دیپلماسی علمی را برای ذی‌نفعان متعدد در نظم ژئوپلیتیک معاصر فراهم می‌آورد

https://journal.iag.ir/article_243149_2fdf422d88122890be310655d1aba66f.pdf