Knowledge Diplomacy Conference: Paris, 3-4 July 2023
Last week, in Paris, the first conference was held of the Knowledge Diplomacy project ICR Research has been working on with the University of London in the form of the University of London Institute in Paris, the Centre for Online and Distance Education (CODE), and the Institute of Languages, Cultures and Societies at the School of Advanced Study. The project has also been generously supported by the British Council, the Goethe Institut, the University of London Convocation Trust, and the University of London Knowledge Exchange Fund.
Its overall aim of the project is to promote and understand the significance of Knowledge Diplomacy (KD) in both academic and policy discussions that contribute to tackling pressing global issues. The conference in Paris specifically aimed to understand access, participation and exchange of knowledge in our increasingly fragmented world.
So, how did the conference go?
Firstly, there was a great turn-out. It was great to see so many people, from so many organisations, academic and practice.
Secondly, we covered a lot of ground. Over the two days, there were six panel discussions and a session on Artificial Intelligence. I will not list them all or try to mention all of the individual contributions (there were too many), but I will try to summarise with some key takeaways.
There was a general feeling that KD is about shaping the environment and trying to move things forward. Traditional ways of seeing knowledge and diplomacy as separate don’t work anymore given global challenges. There is also a need to be able to translate knowledge to policymakers. KD offers an opportunity to address big challenges by opening a dialogue between different decision-making communities. It also offers a legitimising space for multiple knowledges.
There is a leading role for Higher Education in KD. Universities are uniquely placed to have conversations that governments cannot have. These are possible because of the position of universities which are able to look for areas of mutual benefit and develop long-standing relationships – without the burden of having a policy position. There are challenges, however, as universities face economic constraints and sometimes limits imposed by states and changing transnational dynamics.
It should be acknowledged that current models of knowledge production are steeped in Western history. Who feeds the knowledge in KD? There is a risk in KD as a foreign policy instrument given resource and power asymmetries between countries. However, the perception that knowledge can be separated from power is itself a Western concept which doesn’t work in Asia where “power is seen as sharing”. This is playing out, for example, in the Arctic, where scientific cooperation is a key point of China’s Arctic (and Antarctic) strategy.
Day 2 brought new perspectives. A fascinating session on Environmental Humanities made the important point that losses in biodiversity cannot be disentangled from losses in epistemic diversity. KD has the potential to be a way to promote epistemic diversity. In response to a question about how the concept of KD was being framed, one response was that there was interest in ‘sense-making practices’ rather than ‘knowledge’. Also, diplomacy was needed as a response to antagonism rather than as an effect of inclusivity. The question of who knowledge is for is central. It is important to think ethically.
The conversation then moved on to access to knowledge. There were issues even in relation to open access repositories (including on cultural relations). There was a need for a reform of the law of copyright. The current system was focused on the needs of producers rather than users and was driven too much by commercial considerations. This problem was getting worse as a result of digitalisation. However, there are also opportunities for equal access in the wave of digitalisation if knowledge exchange is viewed ethically by the producers and users.
The conference ended with a discussion on cultural relations, including the difficult conflation of culture and nationalism.
Overall, some observations:
The KD agenda is wide – there is a big structure, which encourages a lot of thinking and many points of view.
KD is essentially relational and depends on trust. Personal relations remain essential.
Is relationality enough, however? Does KD need to go further? Who produces knowledge? How does it contribute to decision making? How do you have transparency, openness, how do you maintain trust?
It would be good to think about infrastructure that can support this kind of project going forward. But who will lead the way on this?
As with all good conferences, there were more questions than answers by the end. For me, it proved the idea we had been developing in the project team that KD is a productive unifying concept that brings together a range of different ‘diplomacies’: cultural, educational, digital, scientific… and ‘knowledges’ - the word means different things to different communities, academic disciplines, and practices. This is not only exciting to those involved in scholarship and diplomacy, but it also offers a productive and much needed way to approach global challenges. ‘Knowledge’ is a huge word, and ‘diplomacy’ is only slightly less so. The discussions went beyond definitions and connected very directly with urgent questions: legal, (geo)political, SDGs… So, what next? Stay tuned.