In out study we examined four submissions, submitted to a public call for contributions in early 2017. These submissions went on to inform the Australian Government White Paper on Foreign Affairs, released in late 2017. We had two research questions: RQ1: How and to what degree, if any, did authors of submissions to the Foreign Policy White Paper employ explicit Science Diplomacy discourses to position themselves and others in particular ways? And RQ2: What evidence indicated positioning aimed to achieve specific public diplomacy goals or outcomes?

1. POSTURING, OR PUBLIC-SPIRITED?
A CASE STUDY APPLYING
POSITIONING THEORY TO
OPEN COMMUNICATION
IN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
Dr Deborah Wise
Dr Melanie James
Professor Luk van Langenhove

2. We found
• Science diplomacy motivations
include combinations of altruism
and self-interest
• PT framework approach could
drive the positive and ethical
behaviour intrinsic to open
communication, open science
and public diplomacy.

3. Moral
Normativity
• refers to one's rights and duties
• to judgments about what is right or wrong

4. Positioning theory -
5 moral orders
• Cultural
• Legal
• Institutional
• Conversational
• Personal

5. • RQ1: How and to what degree did submissions employ
explicit Science Diplomacy discourses to position themselves
and others?
• RQ2: What evidence indicated positioning aimed to achieve
specific public diplomacy goals or outcomes?

6. Australian
Academy
of Science
- institution
Kanishka
Jayasuriya
- individual
The
Crawford
Fund
- institution
Professor
Jenny
Corbett
- individual

7. 2. Pre-positioning domain
•Pertains to the discursive attributing
of characteristics to self or others as a
precursor to entering a specific
situations
3. Positioning type domain
• Defensive or proactive?
• Power relations - examines entity’s
power to position itself and others and
discourse devices employed
4. Positioning goal domain
•Aids identification & analysis of stated
and unstated goals
• Can show goals attempting to shape
various moral orders
1. Positioning triangle domain

8. M
• Positioning triangle domain findings:
• An array of rights, duties, obligations, requirements and
entitlements were self-assigned, or assigned to other SD actors
• Deontic power exercised through the use of speech acts - mainly
assertions and directives
• Narratives within overarching storylines enacted to facilitate
strategic co-construction of preferred meanings

9. M
2. Pre-positioning domain findings:

10. M
3. Positioning type domain findings:
Positioning as a key Science Diplomacy stakeholder can be
interpreted as a strategic manoeuvre; potentially one that
some actors felt forced to undertake.

11. 4 levels of goals identified:
• shaping Australia’s future foreign policy
• shaping definition of SD
• confirming a right to be part of future national strategy
• linking SD to delivering various benefits
M
4. Positioning goal domain findings:

12. M
Overall, the Positioning
Theory Framework showed:
• How specific strategic attempts to discursively
construct versions of the social reality of Science
Diplomacy were undertaken
• How the moral orders in operation, primarily
institutional and cultural, impacted on such
attempts

13. Closer look at
Australian Academy
of Science submission
analysis

15. M
Assertive Speech acts
“Australia needs to continue to identify opportunities to increase its
level of global engagement in science...” (p.4).
Conversant with the ‘rules’ of the ‘institutional’ moral order
Hallmarks of professional presentation; Language usage; Tone.
Power relations enacted as expected
DFAT would clearly expect AAS would make a submission
Goals
Shaping future policy direction (stated) AND claiming non-negotiable
position as leading authority (implied)
Discourse devices included:

16. AAS CASE SUMMARY
The AAS positioning analysis shows the granular
aspects of this SD episode by addressing:
• what could the AAS have done?
• what did the AAS actually do?
• what was the AAS permitted or forbidden to do within
the operating moral orders?

17. Answering the overall study's
research questions

18. M
Q: How and to what degree, if any, did authors of submissions to
the Foreign Policy White Paper employ explicit Science Diplomacy
discourses to position themselves and others in particular ways?
A: Submission authors, to various degrees, used deontic
power and discourse devices and techniques to:
a) to assert rights and duties
b) strategically co-construct meaning,
c) self-claim favourable attributes; and
d) proactively self-position as a science diplomacy actor.
Research question 1

19. M
Q: Was it evident that positioning related to explicit Science
Diplomacy was being undertaken in order to achieve specific public
diplomacy goals or outcomes?
A: Yes. Submission authors articulated their overt goals relating to SD
Additionally, findings indicated:
• the layered nature of goals
• goals could be both stated and implied
• stated goals most often "public spirited"
• implied goals were sometimes self-interested
Research question 2

20. OVERALL RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Approach potentially allows for:
• comparison of different cases while using the same
analytical language.
• development of awareness and capacity-building training
• a logical and strategic design process for
developing SD/public diplomacy positioning plans and
strategies
• developing SD theory that better accounts for
legitimacy and power relations

21. CONCLUSION
• A greater understanding of the mechanisms of SD can be
gained by using positioning analysis.
• Such analysis and critique could allow evaluation of
degrees of openness and to assess motivations and goals.
• Could potentially be applied to other public diplomacy
areas

22. HOPE YOU'RE INSPIRED
TO READ OUR FULL
PAPER!
CONTACT
DR DEBORAH WISE
M