Science and Library Diplomacy: A Framework for the Future of International Librarianship

The value of international cooperation around knowledge – as well as the potential barriers to it – are on the agenda. Focusing in particular on science, there is growing recognition of the need to treat science diplomacy as an issue, not least with the agreement of a set of Ministerial Conclusions on the topic in the European Union, but also a drive at the global level led by the International Science Council to boost research collaboration.

Behind this are two key drivers. First of all is the recognition that in the face of challenges that are as complex as they are serious, the need for collaborative research is pressing. Second, however, is a growing list of factors that are making this harder, coming both from outside and inside the sector (read on for more).

These questions are not foreign to libraries. The concept of ‘library diplomacy’ has also been around for a number of years, most notably in the doctoral work of Randolf Mariano, as well as Scout Bell. By exploring this as a concept, their work not only helps highlight the role of libraries within wider science (and knowledge) diplomacy concepts, but also provides a valuable reference structure for libraries in thinking about how and why we engage internationally (and how we can do it better).

The topic is a particularly interesting one in the light of IFLA’s rapidly approaching centenary in 2027. This is – in some ways at least – also the centenary of a particular type of library and science diplomacy. In this context, this article starts by looking at definitions of science diplomacy and how this can apply to libraries. Next, it looks at some of the barriers to both of these, and finally sets out some questions that IFLA itself could look to address in the context of its centenary.

What Do We Mean by Science Diplomacy?

We, just like Randolf Mariano, start with the framework developed by the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2010. This highlights the following pillars of science diplomacy:

· Science in Diplomacy: how science can inform foreign policy and global agreements, such as around climate and environmental negotiations

· Science for Diplomacy: using connections between scientists as a means of improving international relationships more generally.

· Diplomacy for Science: diplomatic activity that specifically enables scientific cooperation, for example by enabling exchanges or meetings, creating structures, or developing conventions.

The recent model adopted in the European Union adds a fourth pillar to this – Diplomacy in Science. This is defined as the application of diplomatic skills and tools by scientists and science in order to achieve relevant goals, and can apply both to the need to develop the ability to work across cultures, but also to find a balance between openness and the need to protect particular interests.

Across these themes, there is a potentially important distinction to be made between forms of diplomacy primarily aimed at advancing national interests, and those which are more focused on a common interest. Differences between the EU approach (which highlights the desire to promote the EU’s own profile, values and interests, alongside the pursuit of global goals) and the Royal Society/AAAS approach (which are more focused on the latter) become clear.

It is easy to dismiss ‘national interest’ concerns as being somehow less ‘virtuous’ than the common interest, but this is not necessarily helpful. First of all, it is not always as if a national interest is in opposition to a common one – we all, for example, benefit from meaningful climate action. There are governments which do explicitly choose to champion shared interests also.

Secondly, the line is not always an easy one to draw; for example, international scientific scholarship programmes may be promoted as being about selling a culture and way of life to those travelling, but they can also help expose ‘receiving’ countries to other cultures. We will return to this point later in this article.

From Science Diplomacy to Library Diplomacy

Mariano’s work then applies the Royal Society/AAAS model to libraries. Libraries in diplomacy refers to the work of libraries to shape international policy agendas (such as through work around the SDGs), as well as to influence national approaches to cross-border issues (such as copyright).

Libraries for diplomacy refers to initiatives through which libraries become part of wider initiatives in order to promote understanding among peoples. He cites examples like American Corners and the work of national cultural agencies with library services, as well as the goals pursued by Libraries for Peace.

Diplomacy for libraries would be best seen in initiatives to enable international collaboration between libraries themselves, in order to advance libraries and librarianship. IFLA itself is a good example here, but so too are other networks, for example to enable document supply and more.

Mariano doesn’t address the topic of diplomacy in libraries, but implicitly this is present both in how libraries and information workers learn how to cooperate themselves across borders, and in the degree to which they are expected to apply different principles, such as around security or sanctions.

The same distinction between approaches focused more on national as opposed to common interests may also be made. Libraries within foreign or security ministries have a clear role in helping to strengthen national policy-making through the knowledge to which they give access. Libraries within international organisations are more focused on the common interest, as is (ideally) IFLA in its work to shape work at the United Nations, UNESCO, WIPO and more.

Science and Library Diplomacy at Risk

As highlighted in the introduction, a key reason for the focus on the role of science diplomacy today is the sense that international scientific cooperation is under threat. As underlined by the International Science Council’s Maria Jarquin in IFLA’s UN STI Forum Side-Event, the sorts of international events that opened the way to the understanding of plate tectonics in the 1950s, for example, seem almost unimaginable today.

One challenge is around polarisation and fragmentation around the world. There is a loss of faith in the multilateral system and so multilateral cooperation in general, driven in particular by larger powers seemingly no longer feeling like they need to work within that framework. Rather than seeing cooperation and consensus as valuable goals in themselves, there is a more naked pursuit of self-interest, as well as appeals to sovereignty that often look more like isolationism or bids for self-sufficiency. This all too often runs against free investigation and exchange with others

A linked concern is around security and protectionism. With less focus on cooperation, and more on gaining an advantage over others – or at least avoiding dependence on them – the need to consider security is become normalised in many settings. Cooperations with certain countries are banned, or need to be vetted. Materials cannot be shared. There is even talk of geoblocking open access, with access only possible to countries which are seen as not hostile, or which are also strong on applying open access to their own output. While some security measures do of course make sense – not least of course to protect privacy or in the case of particularly sensitive content – it is not possible to eliminate risk without also shutting down collaboration.

A broader concern – also linked to polarisation – is the risk of a loss of trust in science, as well as deliberate rejection of scientific consensus in support of national interests. A strong example seen today is ongoing climate change denial. Populists have gained plenty of attention by dismissing ‘experts’ and focusing rather on what they feel people want to hear. But of course the scientific sector is not blameless, with growing concerns about research malpractice and the impact of papermills driven by perverse incentives within the sector. While this is not an issue unique to international scientific collaboration, populism is not associated with stronger cross-border cooperation, while mistrust (and differing approaches to addressing it) can also constitute a barrier.

Finally, there are risks around too strong an emphasis on the national interest, as highlighted in the previous section. Where science becomes associated with particular national agendas (or a colonial approach), obtaining information and resources (potentially in covert ways), and an instrumentalised approach to the exercise of power, it loses credibility.

These issues filter through into library diplomacy also. There are risks when information inequalities serve to strengthen power inequalities, when libraries are clearly used as a national ‘shop window’, when international cooperation serves to promote a particular model of librarianship rather than being a space for different models to come together, and when national/political differences are placed before what library and information workers have in common.

What Role for IFLA in the Future of Library Diplomacy?

Mariano’s approach sees IFLA as primarily having a role in the libraries in diplomacy and diplomacy for libraries pillars (respectively through its advocacy towards the UN, UNESCO and WIPO, and through providing a forum for cooperation intended to boost librarianship respectively).

However, it arguably also plays its part more broadly. Also under libraries in diplomacy, there is the work of IFLA’s professional units focusing on Government and Parliamentary Libraries, which aims to help them to boost their effectiveness in informing government decision-making. IFLA also offers a structure for pursuing libraries for diplomacy; it is an arena where bilaterial partnerships can be developed and strengthened, and of course people involved in IFLA do – hopefully – spread a more international perspective among their peers.

IFLA’s contribution to diplomacy for libraries is clear enough, and perhaps in an alternative university we would have become an intergovernmental organisation, similar to the Universal Postal Union or International Telecommunications Union. We certainly do benefit from an international environment that enables meeting and exchange. And for those involved in IFLA’s work, there is also both a need for diplomacy in libraries, and an opportunity to develop regular skills, in order to make the most of the opportunities that the structure offers.

However, and particularly with IFLA100 soon upon us, we do need to think about how we can make sure that we are making the most of library diplomacy. Possible areas of focus could include:

· How can we work – both in our practice and advocacy – to ensure maximum global access to information, and push back against self-interested and disproportionate restrictions on this?

· How can we support each other to provide access to knowledge – including through international exchanges – in ways that support the common good rather than purely pursuing particular interests?

· How can we ensure that in our own collaboration, there is space for all voices and experiences, and we resist single definitions of success that may serve to promote narrow visions of librarianship?

· How can we in our own interactions focus best on what we have in common, rather than making our differences a reason for a fragmented approach to collaboration?

· How can we provide structures, spaces and tools that make intercultural communication, collaboration and cocreation as rich and effective as possible?