CORDIS

ECHOES seeks to re-evaluate the notion of ‘science diplomacy’, which hitherto has often associated with ‘diffusion’; that is, the export of ideas, values, expertise and money. This emphasis is perhaps most commonly associated with US cultural diplomacy post-WW2, when American cultural norms were mobilized to combat the incipient threat of communism and the Soviet Union. Similar ideas have been embedded in a lot of thinking (in the past) about Europe’s exercise of ‘soft power’, not least in its former colonies. ECHOES proposes a different approach, one that places an emphasis not on ‘diffusion’ but rather on ‘dialogue’. Here, we have been influenced by a lot of development theory that, again, emphasizes the importance of dialogue. Our understanding of ‘science diplomacy’ is informed by the detailed work going on in WPs 1-5. Across a broad range of activities – from museums to artists and citizens – we are keen to map the different ways in which communities, particularly indigenous and/or marginalized groups, engage with colonialism, whether as something they disavow, or something they have deliberately ‘reframed’ to suit their own purposes.

This inquiry is important because it touches on current debates about migration, trafficking and people smuggling. It also touches on questions relating to European integration (that is, at a societal and/or community level) and Europe’s relationship with its ex-colonies. Growing interest in the excavation of indigenous traditions, notably the oral tradition of storytelling, has radically changed the ways in which we interpret heritage. What we might call ‘cultural distinctiveness’ has also become an important register, not least for migrants from Europe’s ex-colonies, who enjoy a kind of ‘insider/outsider’ status. These preferences cannot be ignored or silenced. The challenge, rather, for European policymakers is to develop (and articulate) policies that are sensitive to cultural difference and place an emphasis on mutual co-operation.

Our overall objective is to frame and disseminate a different notion of ‘science diplomacy’ that will emphasise the importance of ‘dialogue’ and ‘inter-cultural exchange, and, in so doing, impact on EU policymakers at the highest strategic level. Our work presses heavily on current debates about migration, refugees and the rise of ‘populist’ movements across Europe. Our aim is to influence these debates by offering a different strategic emphasis, and one that is more attuned to realities on the ground.

WP 1 has conducted theoretical and methodological research into global scholarship on decolonial and postcolonial theories and methods. All deliverables planned for this reporting period (D1.1 D1.2 D1.3) have been achieved. This includes two articles in peer-reviewed journals, a dissemination of findings at an international conference on decoloniality and finally the Methodological Toolkit through which the idea of the keyword anthology as a publication and dissemination strategy is being implemented.

WP 2 has conducted historiographic and archival research into European scholarship on colonialism. Data collection on European public Foreign Policy discourses via online sources and EU Archives as well as a research trip to Brussels to set up interviews with relevant organisations and committees have also been carried out. Actors from relevant EU and EU related cultural institutions have been selected for a first round of interviews. Deliverable planned for this reporting period (D2.1) has been slightly delayed. Two out of three peer-reviewed articles have been produced with one of them published and another awaiting formal approval by the journal. The third is planned to be published shortly after submission of this report.

WP 3 realised comparative, site-specific research of museums of three cities situated in different and contrasting geopolitical and cultural zones: Amsterdam that stands for the Western imperial situatedness; Shanghai that represents the ways China responds to European colonization; and finally Warsaw that speaks for the Europe’s internal colonization. All deliverables planned for this reporting period (D3.1 D3.2) have been achieved. This includes the WP input to the Methodological Toolkit and organisation of an international workshop on methodology for heritage experts.

WP 4 has contributed to the ECHOES Methodological Toolkit and organised an international workshop on the issue of ‘entangled cities’ (Lisbon – Rio de Janeiro, Nuuk – Copenhagen). The Team has also developed cultural maps of all the sites – this deliverable, planned originally for July 2019 will be published ahead of schedule as a result of the collaborative and horizontal relations created in the team, and of its cultural and interdisciplinary diversity. This WP did not have deliverables planned for this reporting period.

WP 5 research expressed a renewed urgency for our understanding of art and society in an era of globalization and migration, where West-centered interpretations of modernism and modernity have been thrown into crisis. All deliverables planned for this reporting period (D5.1 D5.7) have been achieved. This includes the WP input to the Methodological Toolkit and the first set of sub-reports on artists and citizens. An international workshop on the issue of re-emergence of colonial heritage has also been organised.

In WP 6 researchers have been evaluating European science diplomacy, while at the same time framing a new discourse – what we have chosen to call ‘intercultural heritage diplomacy’. We have now devised a brief outline model, which we propose to introduce to key EU policymakers. These discussions will be the basis for a subsequent policy brief, to be discussed further at a series of workshops, open to EU officials and policymakers. The WP has also established all project management structures and communication channels necessary to carry out the action. Three deliverables planned for this reporting period (D6.1 D6.3 D6.4) have been achieved. This includes the Consortium Agreement, Quality Assurance, Risk Assessment and Data Management Plans and the creation of a digital repository.

We propose to bring a holistic approach to the question of ‘science diplomacy’, one that is at once practical and methodologically sound. A key priority over the next twelve months will be to engage with EU policymakers and relevant officials and to open up a dialogue on ‘science diplomacy’ – one that emphasises the importance of inter-cultural exchange. We believe that the ECHOES project has the potential to make a lasting impact on questions of migration, identity politics and inclusion across Europe. At the heart of this inquiry is a different notion of ‘science diplomacy’. Here, we have been influenced by a lot of development theory that, again, emphasizes the importance of dialogue. In the UK, recent initiatives linked to the Global Challenges Research Fund have stressed the importance of community-led heritage projects, aimed at empowering local communities, even to the extent of allowing these communities to determine their own priorities, particularly when it comes to the design of local projects. Heritage, in this sense, has the potential to foster greater cohesion among sometimes fragmented communities. It also has the potential to foster greater creativity and economic impact, particularly among migrant communities.