Journal of Iranian Cultural Research

Journal of Iranian Cultural Research

Science diplomacy as a sphere of intercultural communication: Presenting a conceptual model of representation and interaction

Document Type : Scientific Research Manuscript

Author
Assistant Prof. Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Science, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
10.22035/jicr.2027.3623.3835
Abstract
Science diplomacy is frequently conceptualized as a neutral tool serving the soft power and foreign policies of states. However, this functionalist and reductionist approach overlooks the hidden power dynamics, linguistic hegemony, and epistemic injustices governing international scientific communication. Aiming to deconstruct this instrumentalist perspective, the present study seeks to redefine science diplomacy as a “sphere of intercultural communication.” To this end, employing a systematic literature review and the Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) approach, 20 key international studies were thematically analyzed. The extracted data were organized and conceptualized based on Stuart Hall’s three-level model of the “Circuit of Culture.” The findings indicate that at the macro level (encoding), science diplomacy reproduces hegemonic interests by imposing an unequal geo-epistemic division of labor between the Global North and the Global South. At the meso level (circulation), publishing institutions inflict a form of “epistemic violence” and structural exclusion upon marginalized researchers through gatekeeping and linguistic imperialism. Nevertheless, the results at the micro level (decoding) demonstrate that peripheral scientific actors are not entirely passive; rather, through strategies such as strategic co-authorship and parallel networking, they create a “third space” to preserve their agency and resist this hermeneutical injustice. This study concludes that realizing the true emancipatory potentials of science diplomacy requires a paradigmatic shift from the discourse of “soft power” toward “epistemic justice,” marking a transition from a Western monologue to a polyphonic and egalitarian dialogue.

Keywords
Subjects

Araei, V. (2023). Science and technology diplomacy and Islamic and regional inspiration of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Islamic Awakening Studies, 12(2), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1001.1.23225645.1402.12.2.5.1
Baghban, M., & Sanaei, A. (2024). Explaining the approaches of science and technology diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Policy Letter of Science and Technology, 14(2), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1001.1.24767220.1403.14.2.3.4
Saniejlal, M. (2025). Strategic approaches to achieving science diplomacy through international student recruitment: Analyzing challenges and opportunities in Iran’s Seventh Development Plan. Rahbord, 34(4), 979–1012. https://doi.org/10.22034/rahbord.2025.543437.1854
Ghavidel, S., Danesh, F., & Gharebaghloo, V. (2024). A study on the convergence of scientific diplomacy and governance of data in science, technology, and innovation. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 10(3), 33–70. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2024.10719.2096
Adamson, M., & Lalli, R. (2021). Global perspectives on science diplomacy: Exploring the diplomacy-knowledge nexus in contemporary histories of science. Centaurus, 63(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12369
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2004.9967114
Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLOS Biology, 14(12), e2000933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933
Ammon, U. (Ed.). (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities. Walter de Gruyter.
Beigel, F. (2014). Publishing from the periphery: Structural heterogeneity and segmented circuits. The evaluation of scientific publications for tenure in Argentina’s CONICET. Current Sociology, 62(5), 743-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114533977
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
Bhambra, G. K. (2014). Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues. Postcolonial Studies, 17(2), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2014.966414
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Collyer, F. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.776990
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284
De Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
Demeter, M. (2020). Academic knowledge production and the Global South: Questioning inequality and under-representation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
Domingues, A. A., & Ribeiro Neto, P. H. (2017). Science diplomacy as a tool of international politics: The power of ‘soft power’. Brazilian Journal of International Relations, 6(3), 607-629. https://doi.org/10.36311/2237-7743.2017.v6n3.09.p607
Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x
du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (2013). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. SAGE Publications.
Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.030
Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: Toward a typology of national approaches. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 665-677. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12778118264530
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V., Grimes, R. W., & Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4). http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/pragmatic-perspective
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn: Beyond political-economy paradigms. Cultural Studies, 21(2-3), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128-138). Hutchinson.
Hamel, R.E. (2007) The Dominance of English in the International Scientific Periodical Literature and the Future of Language Use in Science. AILA Review, 20, 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20.06ham
Hanauer, D. I., Sheridan, C. L., & Englander, K. (2019). Linguistic injustice in the writing of research articles in English as a second language: Data from Taiwanese and Mexican researchers. Written Communication, 36(1), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804821
Heilbron, J. (2014). The social sciences as an emerging global field. Current Sociology, 62(5), 685-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114533100
Komiyama, H., Kajikawa, Y., Mejia, C., Elsamani, Y., & Fukushi, K. (Eds.). (2025). AI, innovation, and beyond: A report from STS forum 2025. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-7020-1
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lord, K. M., & Turekian, V. C. (2007). Time for a new era of science diplomacy. Science, 315(5813), 769-770. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139880
Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination. Oxford University Press.
Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7-8), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Ruffini, P. B. (2017). Science and diplomacy: A new dimension of international relations. Springer.
Ruffini, P. B. (2020). Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: A critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), Article 124. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00609-5
Rungius, C., & Flink, T. (2020). Romancing science for global solutions: On narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00585-w
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Shahjahan, R. A. (2015). Being ‘lazy’ and slowing down: Toward decolonizing time, our body, and pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 488-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.880645
Shapin, S. (2012). The sciences of subjectivity. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435375
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). University of Illinois Press.
The Royal Society. (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power (RS Policy Document 01/10). The Royal Society & AAAS.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 22 December 2026

  • Receive Date 07 January 2026
  • Revise Date 30 April 2026
  • Accept Date 01 June 2026