Politologija ISSN 1392-1681 eISSN 2424-6034

2024/4, vol. 116, pp. 8–58 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Polit.2024.116.1

European Science Diplomacy in the Southern Neighbourhood: Insights from Morocco and Tunisia

Zane Šime
Affiliated Researcher
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
zane.sime@ntnu.no

Abstract. The resilience-building in the European Southern Neighbourhood benefits from access to research-intense solutions developed by and in collaboration with centres of competence located across Europe. Data-set observations retrieved from ‘Community Research and Development Information Service’ (CORDIS) indicate that despite the overall propensity towards establishing relational ties with Horizon 2020 project coordinators located in the European Mediterranean littoral countries, Morocco and Tunisia, profited from exposure to the thematically diverse and geographically dispersed expertise hosted by the European Research Area. Practice theory with a focus on the field and process tracing provide a good basis for analysing past research interlinks that offer some limited, yet valuable insights into the implicit European science diplomacy routines, including examples that support the positioning of France, Spain, especially Barcelona, as explicit science diplomacy hubs.
Keywords: science diplomacy, practice theory, Horizon 2020, research cooperation, European Research Area, European Southern Neighbourhood.

Europos mokslinė diplomatija pietinėje kaimynystėje: Maroko ir Tuniso atvejai

Santrauka. Tyrimais grįsti sprendimai, kurie yra priimami Europos pietinėje kaimynystėje bendradarbiaujant su Europos kompetencijų centrais, prisideda prie atsparumo didinimo minėtame regione. Duomenys, gauti iš Bendrijos tyrimų ir plėtros informacijos tarnybos (CORDIS), rodo, kad nepaisant vyraujančio polinkio užmegzti ryšius su programos „Horizon 2020“ projektų dalyviais, esančiais Europos Viduržemio jūros pakrantės šalyse, Marokas ir Tunisas gavo daugiau naudos iš tematiškai įvairiapusės ir geografiškai išsklaidytos ekspertizės, atliktos bendroje Europos mokslinių tyrimų erdvėje (EMTE). Praktikos teorija, kartu su proceso atsekimo metodu, yra geras pagrindas suprasti ankstesnių tyrimų sąsajas, kurios suteikia vertingų įžvalgų apie Europos mokslo diplomatijos specifiką ir bendradarbiavimą su skirtingais mokslo diplomatijos centrais Prancūzijoje ir Ispanijoje, ypač Barselonoje.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: mokslinė diplomatija, praktikos teorija, „Horizon 2020“, bendradarbiavimas tyrimų srityje, Europos mokslinių tyrimų erdvė, Europos pietinė kaimynystė.

____________

Received: 30/03/2024. Accepted: 13/04/2024
Copyright © 2024 Zane Šime. Published by Vilnius University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

The many implicit forms and deep origins of European science diplomacy are reflected in contemporary supranational policy frameworks, instruments, and programmes.¹ This article unearths recent accomplishments to bring more empirical case studies of science diplomacy. The focus is on research projects funded by Horizon 2020 (H2020) or the 8th Framework Programme (FP) for Research and Innovation of the European Union (EU). Thereby, this article follows the completed analysis performed on the H2020 predecessor programme to study research project consortiums as collaborative encounters that display an implicit form of ‘science for diplomacy’ in the context of the European Southern Neighbourhood (ESN).² This article studies the diplomatic and external action value of EU-funded joint scientific engagements. This analytical exercise does not conflate research cooperation with science diplomacy.

A closer look at the recent EU-funded measures aims to better understand what recent research-intensive cooperation measures and the overall trend of projectification³ reveal about EU implicit science diplomacy practices. The focus is on two states in the EU neighbourhood: Morocco and Tunisia. These countries have some of the most advanced, enduring, and closest ties to the Union. These relations are diversified through various assistance instruments.⁴ Within the broader ESN context, Morocco and Tunisia have relatively similar characteristics, especially when it comes to continuously broad thematic engagement with the EU.⁵

This article explains how research cooperation between the EU and two selected ESN countries advances the main goals of the ESN policy and of the European Research Area (ERA). The ESN strengthens the capacities of the neighbouring states to face and overcome various internally and externally emanating issues. The EU develops resilience in its neighbouring areas. The Union assists in solving some of the enduring socio-economic challenges through various instruments and means. The crucial framework for these activities, which are in line with the international understanding of resilience as the ability to ‘jump back’ or recover from a shock, is the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).⁶ Over the past decade or so, areas adjacent to the Mediterranean have faced diverse challenges.⁷ Thus, the study of joined-up efforts to improve resilience remains pertinent. The ENP seeks to position geopolitically significant measures and offer a framework to strategically direct EU resilience-building initiatives.

The ERA is a pan-European framework with a pronounced integrationist orientation. Among its goals is the seamless circulation of talent and expertise to bolster the scientific excellence and competitiveness of the EU.⁸ The ERA is brought into the picture to tap into the research intensity required to develop tailored response measures to address the volatilities faced by the ESN.⁹ Following the earlier adopted approach for studying the H2020 predecessor,¹⁰ members of the consortiums are praised for their resilience-building potential. More consideration should be given to the implicit science diplomacy that occurs when ESN-based entities join project consortiums. In other words, the past selections, approvals, and support for the ESN engagement are neither seen as science diplomacy per se nor as an outright diplomatic gesture from the EU side. Explicit science diplomacy corresponds to those actions that are framed by implementers or government offices as performances of science diplomacy.

‘Science for diplomacy’ refers to the role of science as a bridge-builder that helps to either maintain, restore, or improve diplomatic links in alignment with specific foreign policy interests.¹¹ Thereby, the chosen taxonomy of science diplomacy elucidates the international and external action dimensions of research fields and multilateral research collaboration. This taxonomy is instrumental in studying science diplomacy dynamics, both in their implicit and explicit forms. Namely, this taxonomy does not restrict this study solely to the countries and cities that have formulated and announced their science diplomacy stance and ambitions to pursue science diplomacy.

The guiding straw-in-the-wind hypothesis: Research cooperation between the EU and Morocco, and Tunisia helps to achieve the overarching goals of the ESN policy and the ERA through a field pattern of dispersed cooperative research-intense ties across the whole of Europe and the ESN frontrunner states. This hypothesis follows the previous findings that the collaborative research patterns in the ESN context are not concentrated among very few dominating or ‘oligarchic’ institutional pairs.¹² The FP7 patterns display a scattered field swatch of collaboration among a notable diversity of higher education and research institutions on the European and ESN sides.

This mapping of higher education and research institutions in Europe, Morocco, and Tunisia offers a more nuanced picture of the diverse directions and exchanges of research expertise and, along with it, the shifting positioning of the institutions in the overall networked patterns of the ERA framework field. Moreover, these temporary and dynamic relational ties are praised for being in line with the goals of the EU diplomacy and external action to strengthen resilience in the vicinity of the Union.

Academic literature on the practice theory, secondary literature review on the ESN, the ERA, and the FPs complements the mapping of the EU’s open-access database ‘Community Research and Development Information Service’ (CORDIS). The collected diagnostic evidence provides a picture of evolving collaborative patterns characterising the ESN engagement in the ERA throughout the 2014–2017 time frame. The selected years correspond to the post-Arab Spring period.

The first part of the article focusses on practice theory and the field. This part elaborates on how the theoretical enquiry into expert-level and research-related routine errands assists in broadening the scholarly understanding of the various professional engagements that feed into the overall EU projection and exertion of science diplomacy. The second part elaborates on the selected methodology for project mapping and the identification of resilience-building niches. The third part explains the patterns identified during the analysis of the H2020 projects. Attention is paid to the collaborative patterns between the Europe-based coordinator institutions and consortium members located in Morocco and Tunisia, including a concise comparison with the FP7 diagnostic evidence. The consecutive part discusses the findings, focussing on the science diplomacy context. The last part recapitulates major conclusions and points towards potential directions for promising future research to broaden the overall understanding of the recent dynamics of European science diplomacy.

1. Theoretical and conceptual foundations

Practice theory is ‘morphed and augmented into divergent directions.’¹³ Practice scholarship benefits from a wealth of insight generated by studies focusing on diverse domains. Researchers of practices demonstrate a notable propensity towards various turns.¹⁴ They distinguish between ‘wild’ and ‘domesticated’ variants of Bourdieu’s thinking.¹⁵ This article focuses on advanced research cooperation. Therefore, it taps mostly into the scholarly thinking in this domain. However, some of the most prominent contemporary names in practice theory specialise in other policy domains.¹⁶ Thus, a too-narrow reading would be detrimental to setting sufficient grounds for the consecutive elaboration on empirical findings.

A field is a central element of practice theory.¹⁷ A field is a partially autonomous unit with a hierarchical structure. This networked ladder pattern is unique to each domain of activity. The singularity trait applies to relational dispositions characterising each field.¹⁸ A field consists of subfields.¹⁹ A field is applied for the study of various matters, personal,²⁰ professional²¹ and public.²² The transnational metafield of European bureaucracy, with its relational developments articulated by Georgakakis²³ is the most promising reference point for modelling the study of European research field dynamics.

Exploration of the selected field is aligned with the acknowledgment that ‘[p]ractising science is a constant quest for knowledge and, at the same time, it is a struggle over legitimate forms of cognition and one’s place in the social space.’²⁴ Research cooperation is a field that, similarly to many others, is not detached from political practice and considerations over resource allocation.²⁵ This aspect ties well with science diplomacy.

Science diplomacy refers to engagements at the interface of science and diplomacy, with science playing a pivotal role in reaching particular policy ends, not just purely research-oriented objectives.²⁶ Science diplomacy addresses pressing challenges worldwide and promotes multilateralism.²⁷ Moreover, science diplomacy guided joint efforts to resolve specific issues and improve mutual perceptions among involved experts from different countries. This encounter should be a trust-building measure.²⁸ In such a manner, science diplomacy surpasses the technicalities of well-managed scientific cooperation. In sum, science diplomacy reaps various intangible benefits from fruitful research collaborations. Additionally, science diplomacy highlights some noteworthy points for consideration regarding the potential of enhancing the societal value of future international or bilateral research encounters. Consequently, this article positions science diplomacy as a dimension of the ERA framework field dynamics. Science diplomacy addresses the relational dynamics evolving within the field, as well as intentional and unintentional policy-relevant achievements and side effects of resilience-building.

The history of the field should be distinguished from the trajectory of an agent, such as a consortium member, operating within that field.²⁹ The patterns that emerge from the institutionalisation and distribution of the organisational forms of research production and application are recognised as needing more analytical attention.³⁰ The FPs are ‘networking environments.’³¹ Consequently, they represent excellent grounds for further exploration of relational aspects.

Research projects represent temporary institutions in the framework field and its subfields. The project captures a fascinating space. Following Bicchi,³² a practitioner is exposed to the ever-evolving landscape of temporally and spatially bound practices. Consequently, the project implementer imagines and produces changing processes.³³ A typical EU-funded project assembles scientific and technological assets to exchange, generate, and disseminate specialised knowledge internationally across organisations and research groups.³⁴ The networks assembled by the projects are praised for being loci of innovation. These expert groupings have the capacity to ensure easy access to knowledge from across the world and learning opportunities. Projects improve the ability of their members to estimate and forge ahead with technological and societal advancements.³⁵

Practice theory is not without its deficiencies. One of those is its ‘difficulties with capturing when, how and why change happens,’ including whether an occurring change has a progressive or another character.³⁶ This article aims at analysing a specific snapshot of relatively short-term EU-funded relational ties and collaborative experiences, not their long-term evolution beyond the H2020 project time frame. Therefore, this flaw of the practice theory is not considered an insurmountable issue. The identified deficiency gains salience in more longitudinal studies. Instead, Stappert’s identified shortfall is taken as a helpful warning not to over-generalise the findings obtained from the chosen empirical material.

2. Methods

Process-tracing is a case-study methodology envisaged for a study of causal mechanisms. Comparative process tracing involves the study of several cases.³⁷ This article captures one of the cumulative steps performed in a more complex sequence of intellectual exercises aimed at unpacking a structural mechanism into its component parts captured by institutional mechanisms. Concisely building on the previous logic of process tracing application,³⁸ a project captures the institutional mechanism to secure a time-bound organisational relationality among consortium members. Each institutional mechanism is anchored in a specific field or subfield of the framework field. In this study, a group of systematically selected institutional mechanisms are examined by focussing exclusively on the following consortium members, the project coordinator and ESN entities. Conceptually, the institutional mechanism facilitates the incorporation and immersion of ESN entities into the structural mechanism represented by the ERA. Simultaneously, the ERA embodies the process-traced structural mechanism and the governance-oriented framework field.³⁹ This study pays specific attention to identifying whether the systematically mapped institutional mechanisms secure ad hoc or sustained relational ties to weave ESN entities into the ERA structural mechanism.

Following Beach,⁴⁰ the first step in preparing this article focuses on predictions about ‘empirical fingerprints.’ These notions are made with the assistance of a concise secondary literature review on the ERA, the ENP, and FPs. Consequently, the empirical evidence was collected in the form of diagnostic evidence obtained through a data-set observation from CORDIS. The chosen data help to map the relational patterns, namely, the European coordinating centres and the thematic domains that Morocco- and Tunisia-based institutions acquired temporary collaborative access to within the vast ERA framework field. H2020 is an especially promising FP for studying science diplomacy. H2020 was the first programming period when the EU started to fund explicit science diplomacy projects and offer high-level remarks on the EU approach to science diplomacy.

In line with Beach,⁴¹ this information retrieved from CORDIS qualifies as trace evidence. This term refers to material where the mere existence of evidence provides proof. All the chosen H2020 consortiums were implemented between 2014 and 2017, encompassing projects that began and concluded between 2014 and 2017. This aligns with the methodology used for the study of FP7 projects⁴² and some of the mapping criteria applied across both FP7 and H2020.⁴³ Each selected consortium had at least one Morocco- and/or Tunisia-based institution among its members in a participant or partner status or (in exceptional cases) in a coordinator role.

According to Beach,⁴⁴ determining the reliability of the collected evidence is the final or third phase. CORDIS details about consortium composition provide facts concerning engaged entities, not the quality of research work and the full international resonance of the academic accomplishments of each project. CORDIS is a good starting point to detect patterns of relationality characterising the ERA framework field. More in-depth research employing a broader range of research methods offers more nuances about the peer collaborative dynamics, research accomplishments, and academic and societal resonance of each project. For example, a semistructured interview with the TROPSENSE project manager provided details about an exceptional episode of the institutional shift of the host institution of the project leadership and some other aspects of the project. Generally, some limitations of the chosen theoretical underpinnings, methodology, and obtained empirical evidence are mentioned throughout the article in the thematically corresponding sections. Additionally, suggestions for future research mentioned at the end of the concluding section provide some pathways for how to craft more tests for the studied causal mechanism.

The chosen approach respects an earlier observation by Bueger⁴⁵ that ‘methods are performative, they produce certain realities’ with distinct effects. The straw-in-the-wind test captured by the hypothesis is an overall weak test that does not provide a definite answer regarding the reality under study. Nevertheless, firstly, it provides a comprehensive picture of how H2020 projects contribute towards advancing the ESN and ERA goals. Secondly, this test suits the overall study of the EU science diplomacy towards the ESN to map the general relational patterns characterising the chosen part of the ERA framework field. Mapping of the chosen relational patterns follows the earlier noted reasoning concerning the widespread interest in traditional diplomatic corps and national dynamics, including their footprint on the EU common stance.⁴⁶ In other words, an examination of diplomatic exchanges and the way those shape the EU joint position offer a rather one-sided picture of the diverse forms of the EU international engagement. The ERA deserves more nuanced attention beyond the earlier brief acknowledgement of its implications on both science and diplomacy on the national and European levels,⁴⁷ as well as the European integration as a whole.⁴⁸ Projects that establish interlinks among various centres of competence contribute to the overall role of universities as internationally connected conveyors of ‘substantial amounts of ideas and information.’⁴⁹ It is a rich ecosystem, inviting a multifaceted study of the research ‘impact agenda.’⁵⁰

Despite the wide range of institutional eligibility for the funding of the recent FPs, this article follows the selection adopted for the FP7 study.⁵¹ The focus is on higher education and research institutions. National particularities and various types of these institutions are acknowledged.⁵² However, these details are not of crucial relevance for the research design and the exploration of an area of the ERA framework field. The chosen approach excludes governmental offices, the private sector, and civil society to distil the champions among Morocco- and Tunisia-based higher education and research institutions. This focus is on how H2020 helps research and higher education institutions to better fulfil their potential in addressing societal issues related to the third mission in an international setting.⁵³ It helps to pinpoint the most pronounced relational ties of the examined field, namely, which institutions shoulder science diplomacy interlinks.

As argued earlier, the chosen criteria for selecting the overall pool of H2020 projects provide a limited picture, especially when analysing the championing institutions. This article offers only one dimension of CORDIS’s overall wealth of knowledge about some prominent institutions, such as the Pasteur Institute in Paris and its network of institutes elsewhere, including Morocco and Tunisia.⁵⁴ This is an invitation to caution against the too broad generalisation of the findings explained in the subsequent sections.

3. Empirical analysis

3.1. General overview

Basic details about the selection results of H2020 projects and major beneficiaries are indicated in the project portfolios displayed in the annex. Some of the projects had both one or several Moroccan and/or Tunisian participants or partners. One similarity with an outstanding example from the FP7 project pool deserves more attention. Specifically, a Tunisian institution – which is not a higher education or research institution – coordinated one H2020 project.⁵⁵ Another important nuance is that both countries share a pronounced Mediterranean orientation towards project managers in the EU littoral member states. This main difference distinguishes the H2020 project pool from the FP7 one. The FP7 offered both countries, including several of their championing institutions of the H2020 project acquisition, much broader access to centres of competence across Europe. The subsequent elaboration on project portfolios clarifies that along with new FP’s unique thematic contexts and prioritised directions⁵⁶ there come opportunities for the championing ESN entities to tap into a great variety of topics and expand their familiarity with expert networks.

3.2. Morocco

Cadi Ayyad University is the Moroccan leader with the acquisition of five H2020 projects displayed in table 2. FarFish worked towards improving ‘knowledge on and management of EU fisheries outside Europe’ under the leadership of the Icelandic public limited company Matís.⁵⁷ This is a noteworthy example of the vast European engagement with the ESN entities. The geographic span reaches the northernmost competence centre of Europe. Geopark studied geological, cultural, and ecological heritage in Spain and Morocco, coordinated by the French National Museum of Natural History.⁵⁸ REC dealt with irrigation management with Catalonia-based company isardSAT coordinating the project.⁵⁹ SOLPART worked towards improving renewable energy technology under the guidance of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).⁶⁰ ENGIMA focussed on the development of smart materials, with the University of Picardie Jules Vernes as the coordinator.⁶¹

Cadi Ayyad University has a thematically and partnership-wise diverse project portfolio. It is an excellent example of the wealth of expertise the ERA brings to the nationally leading H2020 beneficiaries. Moreover, when the FP7 project portfolio of the university is brought into the picture,⁶² both FPs offer thematically diverse research engagements. Both FPs provided access to the expertise of numerous centres of competence across Europe, with an overall propensity towards the Mediterranean littoral states. While France had no coordinators in the FP7 portfolio of projects implemented from 2011 onwards, this country dominates the H2020 portfolio of projects implemented from 2015 onwards. Even with the acquisition of a nationally excelling number of projects both during the FP7 and H2020 funding periods, with the project implementation lasting from 2011 until 2023, the university has not established any reoccurring ties with the same project-managing institutions. This confirms the overall scattered patterns of engagement and dispersed relational ties of the ESN-based entities in the ERA.

The National Institute of Agricultural Research is the next champion, with four H2020 projects outlined in table 3. BeFOre focussed on the olive germplasm collections, with the Italian National Research Council acting in the coordinator capacity.⁶³ IMAGE aimed ‘to enhance the use of genetic collections and to upgrade animal gene bank management’ under the leadership of the National Institute of Agricultural Research.⁶⁴ Smart Loire Valley aimed to increase the competitiveness of the Loire Valley with ‘Le Studium’ Loire Valley Institute for Advanced Studies as the project coordinator.⁶⁵ CURE-XF worked towards improving the detection and control of one of the most dangerous plant bacteria, with the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari taking the lead.⁶⁶ Overall, the institute is another example of multifaceted participation, with thematically different options for learning from and exchanging with the European competence centres. The Institute’s ties to the Mediterranean littoral countries span across various domains of specialisation.

The National Institute of Agricultural Research was among the leading Moroccan institutions with a geographically and thematically diverse FP7 project portfolio as well. FP7 facilitated access to projects coordinated by Germany, Belgium, and France. There are no significant similarities between the topics covered by FP7 projects implemented after 2010 and those financed by the H2020 programme implemented after 2015. Overall, the mapped project engagement across two EU funding periods lasts from 2010 until 2023. The project portfolios of both Cadi Ayyad University and the National Institute of Agricultural Research caution against generalising the participation of an ESN-based institution depending on the profiling obtained from only one FP. The overall picture of each institutional experience in acquiring a certain relational disposition in the ERA field is much more complex and dynamic.

Mohammed V University of Rabat, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, and the University Hassan II of Casablanca shared the third-leading position. Each institution was a member of three H2020 project consortiums. As shown in table 4, Mohammed V University of Rabat should be distinguished from its two peers with a set of projects led by coordinators exclusively from the Mediterranean littoral countries. MARSU addressed aerosols and clouds to tackle uncertainties in the atmospheric and climate system, with CNRS taking the lead.⁶⁷ AMITIE reinforced additive manufacturing with a focus on ceramic-based products under the guidance of the University of Limoges.⁶⁸ Infinite-Cell seconded researchers to work on renewable energy solutions managed by the Catalonia Institute for Energy Research.⁶⁹ This project portfolio depicts an interest in developing expertise in several directions, not a narrow profile.

Mohammed V University of Rabat ties are an interesting example of active participation in both FP7 and H2020. The university displayed a strong orientation towards projects coordinated by entities in the Mediterranean littoral states across its both FP7 and H2020 project portfolios. Moreover, the university has noteworthy ties with CNRS through (simultaneously implemented) FP7-funded EUROSUNMED⁷⁰ and H2020-funded MARSU. There is no thematic affinity between the topics addressed by each of the projects. Despite the thematic differences, this is an episode of noteworthy, reinforced relationality within the ERA field to one expertise hub in Europe.

Unlike most of the other Moroccan and Tunisian champions with the most active participation in the ERA, EUROSUNMED and MARSU capture the second episode of reoccurring ties of the university with the same Europe-based coordinator. In the FP7 portfolio, such links were established through thematically diverging PEGASO and MOSAIC, with the Autonomous University of Barcelona managing both projects.⁷¹ This exceptional trend identified across the FP7 and H2020 project portfolios comes along with being one of Morocco’s most actively engaged higher education and research institutions. These two episodes of reinforced ties, each linked to a different research hub in Europe, did not occur simultaneously. PEGASO and MOSAIC implementation overlapped in 2014. While EUROSUNMED and MARSU were implemented simultaneously in 2016 and 2017. This simultaneity in project implementation practices is tied to three years within a period of project implementation that lasted for more than a decade. Namely, the mapped FP7 projects were implemented since 2010 and the H2020 projects from 2016 until 2023. This project engagement pattern of the Mohammed V University of Rabat remains an exception and not a prevailing characteristic among the whole set of identified leading institutions.

Following table 5, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane focussed on transnational diaspora entrepreneurship during the implementation of DiasporaLink overseen by Roskilde University.⁷² MENARA studied the geopolitical order of the Middle East and North Africa region in the post-2010 setting, with the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs taking the lead.⁷³ K.I.T.F.E.M. studied ‘the management of knowledge and innovation in, to and from emerging markets, with special emphasis on its impacts on the EU, coordinated by the CUNEF University.⁷⁴ This project portfolio, implemented from 2015 until 2019, indicates a thematic propensity towards social sciences and economics. It is a rather exceptional trend among the whole examined FP7 and H2020 project portfolios.

As indicated in table 6, the University Hassan II of Casablanca implemented TARGET to build ‘the institutional capacity for a reflexive gender equality policy’ across the Mediterranean with the Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies as the coordinator of the consortium.⁷⁵ LungCARD developed an automatic system for lung cancer analysis under the leadership of the Portuguese biotechnology company STAB VIDA.⁷⁶ CybSPEED worked on systems for pedagogical rehabilitation under the guidance of the University of the Basque Country.⁷⁷ This portfolio implemented from 2017 until 2022 confirms that specialisation in Mediterranean topicalities does not restrict the ESN-based entities to ties with project partners located solely in the coastal countries. Hubs of European competence situated further away from the Mediterranean shores also offer research opportunities to develop tailored solutions.

As stipulated in tables 7–12, six higher education and research institutions participated in two H2020 projects. Besides these six higher education and research institutions, the Moroccan Ministry of National Education, Vocational Training, Higher Education, and Scientific Research was the seventh beneficiary of this group of H2020 funding receivers with a membership of two project consortiums. Tables 7–12 clarify that only one of these higher education and research institutions had both coordinating European institutions of projects located in the Mediterranean littoral countries. Thus, experience with a variety of management and steering approaches from throughout Europe was accessible even to institutions with less intense exposure to the breadth of expertise supplied by the H2020 projects. More than ten institutions (of various types) were each members of one H2020-funded project consortium.

3.3. Tunisia

Pasteur Institute is the Tunisian champion in the H2020 project acquisition, with membership in six consortiums indicated in table 13. BITRECS hosted a transnational mobility programme for clinical practice coordinated by the August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS) located in Barcelona.⁷⁸ InSPIRES developed innovative models for science shops under the lead of the Barcelona Institute for Global Health.⁷⁹ EUROLEISH-NET operated an Innovative Training Network of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions to address a neglected infectious disease, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health steering the project.⁸⁰ This is a noteworthy episode of a Tunisian institution having two simultaneously implemented projects with the same European coordinator. Moreover, it is a rather unusual situation for a high concentration of project leadership in the same city. This is an exception, not a widespread trend across the examined front-running higher education and research institutions in Morocco and Tunisia.

Furthermore, Pasteur Institute participated in PALE-Blu specialised in bluetongue viruses under the supervision of the University of Nottingham.⁸¹ TROPSENSE worked on the rapid on-site diagnosis of tropical diseases. Following the information obtained during the semistructured interview with the project manager, the TROPSENSE coordinator changed the institutional position during the project from Rovirai Virgili University to Uppsala University.⁸² IPM-4-Citrus developed ‘a new bio-pesticide active against citrus pests’ to ‘scale it up from lab to market.’⁸³ The coordination of this project was granted to the National Institute for Applied Sciences, located in Toulouse. Overall, Pasteur Institute displays an apparent propensity towards coordinators in the Mediterranean setting. Three project managers were hosted by Barcelona, one (initially) by Tarragona, and one by Toulouse. Nevertheless, collaboration with a British coordinator proves that thematically diverse partnerships are built well beyond the coastal territories of the Mediterranean.

The Pasteur Institute is the only exceptional higher education and research institution that has been able to join more than one or two consortiums due to Tunisia’s overall lower pool of H2020 projects. The project involvement pattern of the Tunisian Pasteur Institute displays exceptionally expanding relational dispositions in the ERA field. The three mapped FP7 projects were implemented since 2010 and the six mapped H2020 projects from 2015 until 2023. When compared to other leading institutions in the two ESN countries under study, the Pasteur Institute in Tunis is remarkably competitive when it comes to project-based immersion in the ERA.⁸⁴

The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research has acquired membership in three H2020 project consortiums. Following the information indicated in tables 14–18, five other institutions participated in two projects with an overwhelming propensity towards joining consortiums led by managers in Mediterranean littoral countries. Almost 20 institutions (of various types) acquired one H2020 project consortium membership each. The only exception is the Agricultural Research and Higher Education Institute because one of its two project coordinators was located in Northern Europe, namely, at the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

These Tunisian context-specific findings reaffirm that the conclusions drawn from a study of one FP cannot be extrapolated to encompass several FPs. To contrast the dynamic trends with one more stark example that clarifies the divergences in project acquisition and thematic specialisation over the same period from two consecutive FPs, the Centre of Biotechnology of Sfax (outlined in table 14) deserves attention. The centre was one of the two leading higher education and research institutions in Tunisia, with four FP7-funded projects coordinated by entities located in Germany and Austria. In comparison, H2020 displays an entirely different project portfolio. The centre does not take an overall leading position because it participates in two H2020 projects. EXANDAS was coordinated by the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and focussed on food supplements and cosmeceuticals.⁸⁵ The earlier-mentioned IPM-4-Citrus was led by the National Institute for Applied Sciences located in Toulouse.⁸⁶ The H2020 projects display a completely different orientation of the centre towards another set of leading cooperation partners than the FP7 one. Furthermore, two H2020 projects do not include a nuanced feature of water management, whereas three out of four FP7-funded initiatives did.⁸⁷

All in all, to add an even more overarching note on the diverging dynamics of performance of Tunisia under FP7 and H2020, the Pasteur Institute of Tunis obtains an outstanding number of projects from H2020 that surpass the best Tunisian performers of FP7, such as the earlier mentioned Centre of Biotechnology of Sfax. This dynamic observed in one country case attests to the swiftly evolving and changing institutional position and relational disposition in the ERA framework field due to diverse temporary connections to various competence centres across Europe.

4. Links to the hubs of science diplomacy

The ESN displays specific relational traits and field patterns. From the examined engagement standpoint of Morocco and Tunisia, the ERA is a fluid framework field. The ERA offers temporary access to a myriad of thematic subfields, as attested by the vast and changing set of project specialisations pursued by the leading higher education and research institutions. Examined project portfolios attest to projects serving as anchors for time-bound practices, not long-lasting relationality configurations.

An observation that science diplomacy is a ‘work in progress’⁸⁸ is applicable in tracing the potential of research hubs to support the EU’s external action. Their engagement, accumulated expertise, and shared familiarity through the collaboration with major partners in Morocco and Tunisia have a solid implicit science diplomacy dimension. The implicit science diplomacy is enabled by the EU funding authority through its provided guidance to pursue research-relevant and result-oriented cooperation activities. The EU’s overarching rationale is its supranational interests combined with context-specific considerations.⁸⁹ As the previous section depicts, project-based research is a dynamic work with shifting collaboration patterns. The progression through the examined years comes with various topics and unique configurations formed by each funding measure and thematic partnership. It is useful to distinguish between FPs-funded projects that link Morocco and Tunisia with explicit scientific diplomacy hubs in contradistinction to those that correspond to implicit science diplomacy dynamics. This is an important dissimilitude when assessing the science diplomacy aspect of FPs-funded initiatives.

France, Spain, and especially Barcelona (since 2018) are renowned for their explicit endorsement of science diplomacy.⁹⁰ The data-set observations indicate that there are good grounds for these science diplomacy hubs to boast about their expertise in a Mediterranean context because H2020 has offered many temporary opportunities to share their knowledge and jointly work on tailored solutions with major higher education and research institutions in Morocco and Tunisia, among others. Nearly all of the beneficiaries that were studied and who obtained more than two memberships in the H2020 consortiums had at least one manager from France and/or Spain among their European coordinators.

Furthermore, out of 44 mapped projects, ten were coordinated by an entity based in France and 11 by an entity located in Spain. As the following championing European country, Italy coordinated eight of all mapped projects. When the complete pool of H2020 projects is considered, meaning not only the portfolios of the analysed leading Moroccan and Tunisian institutions, then table 19 specifies that France and Spain maintain their leading positions. The only country that comes close to these two explicit science diplomacy proponents is Italy.

Barcelona-based institutions are widely represented among the overall H2020 project pool; namely, out of 11 projects led by an entity based in Spain, five (REC, MENARA, BITRECS, InSPIRES, EUROLESH-NET) were coordinated from Barcelona. The managerial role of Barcelona-based institutions in projects including Morocco and Tunisia is more widespread in H2020 project portfolios than the FP7 ones. The FP7 data-set observation identified unique reoccurring ties between the Mohammed V University of Rabat and the Autonomous University of Barcelona.⁹¹ The H2020 data-set observation demonstrated collaborative links between the Pasteur Institute of Tunis and the Barcelona Institute for Global Health. Nevertheless, in alignment with FP7 findings,⁹² the city does not host hegemonic or oligarchic institutions with a dominant role in managing projects that include entities from Morocco and Tunisia. The overall profile of Barcelona rests on the collaborative ties built by several hubs of expertise. The same observation applies to France. Institutions coordinating H2020 projects with Moroccan and Tunisian engagement are scattered across France, with no overwhelmingly dominant node.

The H2020 data-set observation confirms the promising conclusions drawn from the FP7 analysis⁹³ that ESN resilience-building relies on coordinating hubs of expertise disbanded across Europe. It is a significant wealth of expertise and project steering approaches that many institutions across Morocco and Tunisia had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with to advance their research excellence and tackle pressing challenges. Although certain institutions situated in Morocco and Tunisia benefited far more from access to projects and the dynamics of their consortiums, the ERA framework field was made available to a wide range of organisations, not just a handful of the most skilled research hubs.

Conclusion

The observation of the H2020 data-set is consistent with the hypothesised trend of a somewhat diffuse field of transitory relational linkages connecting European coordinators with institutions situated in Morocco and Tunisia. However, even when such dynamics are present across both FP7 and H2020 projects, each programme displays a contrasting country-specific picture. Especially when compared to the earlier completed FP7 straw-in-the-wind test, the H2020 straw-in-the-wind bends differently both in terms of thematic coverage and institutional partnerships. Most projects, as institutional mechanisms, are ad hoc facilitators for the passage of the ESN entities into the dynamically evolving structural mechanism captured by the ERA. Overall, none of the lists of top beneficiaries remain the same for both FP7 and H2020 data-set observations. This finding strengthens the argument that resilience-building through research-intensive projects is not restricted to very few hubs of competence. The project-based relational ties and collaborative practices characterising Morocco and Tunisia engagement in the ERA framework field and its thematic subfields are fluxional.

In the two chosen ESN countries, recurring institutional relationships resulting from two projects are uncommon. This pattern highlights that project-based resilience-building efforts and implicit EU-funded science diplomacy practices are temporary and might have a diverging sustainability track record. Over-reliance on projects and their time-bound activities for addressing contemporary challenges might not correspond to the most ambitious goals of science diplomacy and long-term assistance in responding to various challenges faced across ESN. However, FP-funded projects are just one of the instruments in the vast EU toolbox of external action.

Even with a prevalence of Mediterranean littoral countries, the overall broad geographic coverage of European managers further contributes to the claim of dispersed research intensity. Collegial exchanges occur across a vast framework field that contributes to developing the ESN expertise to comprehensively think about and address various challenges. The main beneficiaries of selected ESN countries do not seem to be locked into a specific subfield of the ERA. Moreover, the wide thematic coverage of projects, especially when project portfolios obtained from FP7 and H2020 are compared, further clarifies that the leading beneficiaries in Morocco and Tunisia were exposed not only to various European coordinating centres but also could enrich their expertise in numerous domains.

In order to succinctly reaffirm that research cooperation is not the same as science diplomacy, it is imperative to emphasise that the approaches selected reveal nothing about the traditional academic accomplishments or pure scientific quality of the initiatives that have been mapped. Following the ‘science for diplomacy’ logic, this article proves that supranationally managed science funding can support international partnerships to restore, maintain, or improve links with the ESN countries in close alignment with the EU’s diplomatic aspirations. Supporting links between researchers does not automatically translate into stellar merits in traditional scientific or academic sense.

The ERA proves to be a rich implicit science diplomacy resource. FPs projects are a good example to trace what earlier acquired expertise in France and Spain, especially Barcelona, could be considered valuable accumulated knowledge to support the present-day science diplomacy positioning in the Mediterranean context. However, the article does not claim that the earlier accrual of projects stems from the choice of Spain and France to pursue science diplomacy. The institutionally dispersed profile of Barcelona in terms of having had several institutions coordinating consortiums with Moroccan and Tunisian membership further supports the overall conclusion that research-intense resilience-building practices in the ESN rely on multiple centres of competence without overwhelming domination of any institutions on either the European or the Moroccan and Tunisian sides.

The trace evidence of H2020 projects confirms findings drawn from the FP7 mapping that FPs projects provide noteworthy support to the overarching goals of the ERA and ESN. Referring to the ERA goals, the researchers’ mobility is evident in many ways beyond just the project plans tailored to promote mobility among researchers. The TROPSENSE institutional migration of the project manager during the project implementation is a telling episode of the project steering being shaped by the institutional and geographical circuit across Europe. The objectives of ESN are bolstered by a significant proportion of projects that tackle issues unique to the Mediterranean region or subjects that are extremely relevant in this area.

To place these findings in a broader context, (at least) three plausible future research directions deserve mentioning. First, it might be possible to compare the proportions of project-based research intensity financed by the EU and EU Member States from their national funds to set side by side the EU and the national support pattern offered to the Moroccan and Tunisian top research and higher education institutions (identified in this article and its FP7 predecessor). This comparison may show how significant or insignificant the role of the EU-offered collaborative opportunities is. Secondly, nationally funded science diplomacy initiatives of EU Member States, such as DIPLOMAzia2, supported by Italy to train researchers from North Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkan region, might help to broaden the picture as well. Thirdly, the role of colonial history in shaping contemporary collaborative ties between France, Spain and Morocco and Tunisia, might offer some noteworthy findings.

References

Abdullah, Hannah, and Alexis Roig. City-led Science Diplomacy: Building Urban Sustainability and Resilience at the Science-policy Interface.” CIDOB Notes Internacionals, no. 258 (2021). Barcelona: Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB). Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.cidob.org/publicaciones/city-led-science-diplomacy-building-urban-sustainability-and-resilience-science.

Addi, Lahouari. «Violence symbolique et statut du politique dans l’œuvre de Pierre Bourdieu.» Revue française de science politique 51, no. 6 (2001): 949–963. https://doi.org/10.3406/rfsp.2001.403686.

Ancelovici, Marcos. «Esquisse d’une théorie de la contestation: Bourdieu et le modèle du processus politique.» Sociologie et sociétés 41, no. 2 (2009): 39–61. https://doi.org/10.7202/039258ar.

Aranda, Jorge. “Science Diplomacy: Knowledge is Power.” In Diplomacy, Organisations and Citizens, edited by Sónia Pedro Sebastião and Susana de Carvalho Spínola, 165–176. Cham: Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81877-7_10.

Arapostathis, Stathis, and Léonard Laborie. “Governing Technosciences in the Age of Grand Challenges: A European Historical Perspective on the Entanglement of Science, Technology, Diplomacy, and Democracy.” Technology and Culture 61, no. 1 (2020): 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2020.0005.

Atkinson, Will. “Reproduction Revisited: Comprehending Complex Educational Trajectories.” Sociological Review 60 (2012): 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02131.x.

Atkinson, Will. “Fields and Individuals: From Bourdieu to Lahire and back again.” European Journal of Social Theory 24, no. 2 (2021): 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020923281.

Baele, Stephane J., and Bettiza Gregorio. ““Turning” Everywhere in IR: On the Sociological Underpinnings of the Field’s Proliferating Turns.” International Theory 13, no. 2 (2021): 314–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000172.

Beach, Derek. “It’s all about Mechanisms – what Process-tracing Case Studies should be tracing.” New Political Economy 21, no. 5 (2016): 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1134466.

Bertelsen, Rasmus Gjedssø. “Private Foreign-affiliated Universities, the State, and Soft Power: The American University of Beirut and the American University in Cairo.” Foreign Policy Analysis 8, no. 3 (2012a): 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00163.x.

Bertelsen, Rasmus Gjedssø. “The Effect of Public and Private Decisions on University Governance on the Transnational Relations of American-associated Universities in the Middle East.” Revue Des Mondes Musulmans et de La Méditerranée 131 (2012b). https://doi.org/10.4000/remmm.7623.

Bertelsen, Rasmus Gjedssø. “Science Diplomacy and the Arctic.” In Routledge Handbook of Arctic Security, edited by Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv, Marc Lanteigne, and Horatio Sam-Aggrey, 234–245. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315265797.

Bicchi, Federica. “Communities of Practice and what They can do for International Relations.” Review of International Studies 48, no. 1 (2022): 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000528.

Boschetti, Anna. “How Field Theory Can Contribute to Knowledge of World Literary Space.” Paragraph 35, no. 1 (2012): 10–29. https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2012.0039

Boyer, Robert. «L’anthropologie économique de Pierre Bourdieu.» Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales 150 (2003): 65–78. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.2003.2772.

Brassett, James, Stuard Croft, and Nick Vaughan-Williams. “Introduction: An Agenda for Resilience Research in Politics and International Relations.” Politics 33, no. 4 (2013): 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12032.

Bruce, Ann, Lyall Catherine, Tait Joyce, and Williams Robin. “Interdisciplinary Integration in Europe: The Case of the Fifth Framework Programme.” Futures 36 (2004): 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003.

Bueger, Christian. “Conducting “field research” when there is no “field”. Some Notes on the Praxiographic Challenge.” In The Political Anthropology of Internationalised Rule, edited by Sara Biecker and Klaus Schlichte, 24–45. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2021.

Bueger, Christian, and Frank Gadinger. “The Play of International Practice.” International Studies Quarterly 59 (2015): 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12202.

Carnino, Guillaume. «Louis Pasteur: La science pure au service de l’industrie.» Le Mouvement social 248 (2014): 9–26. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43498042.

Cecere, Grazia, and Nicoletta Corrocher. “The Intensity of Interregional Cooperation in Information and Communication Technology Projects: An Empirical Analysis of the Framework Programme.” Regional Studies 49, no. 2 (2015): 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.759651.

Chandler, David. “International Statebuilding and the Ideology of Resilience.” Politics 33, no. 4 (2013): 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12009.

Compagnucci, Lorenzo, and Francesca Spigarelli. “The Third Mission of the University: A Systematic Literature Review on Potentials and Constraints.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 161, no. 120284 (2020): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284.

Defazio, Daniela, Andy Lockett, and Mike Wright. “Funding Incentives, Collaborative Dynamics and Scientific Productivity: Evidence from the EU Framework Program.” Research Policy 38, no. 2 (2009): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.008.

Di Paola, Nadia, and Spena Tiziana Russo. “What drives Biopharmaceutical Firms’ Exploratory Openness? A Comparative Process tracing Approach to the Analysis of R&D NMicrofoundations.” Journal of Business Research 97 (2019): 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.004.

Durac, Vincent, and Jones Alun. “EU Elite Representations of Mediterranean Space: Arab Student Perspectives.” In Mediterranean Mobilities: Europe’s Changing Relationships, edited by Maria Pradiso, 17–26. Cham: Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89632-8_2.

Edler, Jakob, and James Andrew D. “Understanding the Emergence of New Science and Technology Policies: Policy Entrepreneurship, Agenda Setting and the Development of the European Framework Programme.” Research Policy 44, no. 6 (2015), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.008.

Evengård, Birgitta, Georgia Destouni, Zahr Kalantari, Anna Albihn, Christer Björkman, Håkan Bylund, … Dmitry Orlov. “Healthy Ecosystems for Human and Animal Health: Science Diplomacy for Responsible Development in the Arctic.” Polar Record 57, no. e39 (2021), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247421000589.

Fähnrich, Birte. “Science Diplomacy: Investigating the Perspective of Scholars on Politics–science Collaboration in International Affairs.” Public Understanding of Science 26, no. 6 (2017), 688–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515616552.

Flink, Tim. “Taking the Pulse of Science Diplomacy and developing Practices of Valuation.” Science and Public Policy 49, no. 2 (2022): 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab074.

Flink, Tim, and Ulrich Schreiterer. “Science Diplomacy at the Intersection of S&T Policies and Foreign Affairs: Toward a Typology of National Approaches.” Science and Public Policy 37, no. 9 (2010): 665–677. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12778118264530.

Georgakakis, Didier. «Ce que la théorie des champs nous dit de l’administration européenne (I). Un retour réflexif sur le champ de l’eurocratie.» Revue française d’administration publique 4, no. 180 (2021a): 883–900. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.180.0883.

Georgakakis, Didier. «Ce que la théorie des champs nous dit de l’administration européenne (II): les transformations du champ bureaucratique européen (2000–2020).» Revue française d’administration publique 4, no. 180 (2021b): 933–960. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.180.0933.

Goel, Malti. “Introduction to Science Diplomacy.” In Science Diplomacy for South Asian Countries, 3–14. Singapore: Springer Verlag, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3025-5.

Goldthrope, John H. ““Cultural capital”: Some Critical Observations.” Sociologica 2 (2007): 1–23. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.2383/24755.

Goodsite, Michael Evan, Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, Sandra Cassotta Pertoldi-Bianchi, Jingzheng Ren, Lize-Marie van der Watt, and Halldor Johannsson. “The Role of Science Diplomacy: A Historical Development and International Legal Framework of Arctic Research Stations under Conditions of Climate Change, Post-cold War Geopolitics and Globalization/Power Transition.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 6, no. 4 (2016): 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0329-6

Groenewold, W. G. F. (George), J. A. A. (Joop) de Beer, and H. A. G. (Helga) de Valk. “Prospects of Labour Migration Pressure in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey.” Genus 72, no. 8 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-016-0015-x.

Hokka, Johanna. “What Counts as ‘good sociology’? Conflicting Discourses on Legitimate Sociology in Finland and Sweden.” Acta Sociologica 62, no. 4 (2019): 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699318813422.

Holbrook, J. Britt. “The Future of the Impact Agenda Depends on the Revaluation of Academic Freedom.” Palgrave Communications, 3, no. 39 (2017): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0041-0.

Howes, David. «De l’oralité et de la lettre de la loi.» Droit et Société 32 (1996): 27–49. https://doi.org/10.3406/dreso.1996.1354.

İşleyen, Beste. “The European Union and Neoliberal Governmentality: Twinning in Tunisia and Egypt.” European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (2015): 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114554464.

Joseph, Jonathan, and Milja Kurki. “The Limits of Practice: Why Realism can complement IR’s Practice Turn.” International Theory 10, no. 1 (2018): 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191700015X.

Lappalainen, Hanna K., Tuukka Petäjä, Anna Lintunen, and Markku Kulmala. “Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR): Showcases for making Science Diplomacy.” Polar Record 58, no. e15 (2022): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247421000760.

Lascoumes, Pierre, and Jean-Pierre Le Bourhis. «Des « passe-droits » aux passes du droit. La mise en œuvre socio-juridique de l’action publique.» Droit et Société 32 (1996): 51–73. https://doi.org/10.3406/dreso.1996.1355.

Lepori, Benedetto, and Andreas Bonaccorsi. “The Socio-political Construction of a European Census of Higher Education Institutions: Design, Methodological and Comparability Issues.” Minerva 51 (2013): 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9235-9.

Lepori, Benedetto, Valerio Veglio, Barbara Heller-Schuh, Thomas Scherngell, and Barber Michael. “Participations to European Framework Programs of Higher Education Institutions and Their Association with Organizational Characteristics.” Scientometrics 105 (2015): 2149–2178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1768-2.

Lueg, Klarissa. “Social Structure and Career: The Symbolic Division of the Journalistic Field.” Race, Gender & Class 21, no. 3/4 (2014): 252–272. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43496995.

Lueg, Klarissa. “Organizational Changes towards a European Academic Field. A Case Study of Frictions in the Narratives of Europeanization at a German University from an Institutional Perspective.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 31, no. 4 (2018): 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1490637.

Lueg, Klarissa, and Rainer Lueg. “Why do Students Choose English as a Medium of Instruction? A Bourdieusian Perspective on the Study Strategies of Non-native English Speakers.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 14, no. 1 (2015): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0009.

Manners, Ian. “European Communion and Planetary Organic Crisis.” In Theorising the Crises of the European Union, edited by Nathalie Brack and Seda Gürkan, 159–182. Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001423.

Martinez-Palomo, Adolfo. “The Science of Louis Pasteur: A Reconsideration.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 76, no. 1 (2001): 37–45. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2664128.

Mesot, Joël. “Advances in Science Diplomacy: Showcasing New Multidisciplinary Approaches.” In Universities as the Fifth Power? Opportunities, Risks and Strategies, edited by Ana Mari Cauce, Yves Flückiger, and Bert van der Zwaan, 175–185. Geneva: Association Glion Colloquium, 2022.

Meyer, Philippe. “Institut Pasteur: Private or State Institute?” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 5953 (1975): 326–327. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20471952.

Michaels, Eva, and Robert Kissack. “Evaluating the National Acceptability of EU External Action: Conceptual Framework for the ENGAGE Project.” ENGAGE Working Paper, no. 2 (2021). Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.engage-eu.eu/publications/evaluating-the-national-acceptability-of-eu-external-action.

Mourlon-Druol, Emmanuel. “Rich, Vivid, and Ignored: History in European Studies.” Politique Européenne 4, no. 50 (2015): 56–69. https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.050.0056.

Ocqueteau, Frédéric, and Francine Soubiran-Paillet. «Champ juridique, juristes et règles de droit : une sociologie entre disqualification et paradoxe.» Droit et Société, 32 (1996): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.3406/dreso.1996.1353.

OECD/The European Commission/EFT. “Morocco.” In SME Policy Index: The Mediterranean Middle East and North Africa 2014: Implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe, 291–305 (2014a). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264218413-en.

OECD/The European Commission/EFT. “Tunisia.” In SME Policy Index: The Mediterranean Middle East and North Africa 2014: Implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe, 321–337 (2014b). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264218413-en.

Pandza Krsto, Terry A. Wilkins, and Eva A. Alfoldi. “Collaborative Diversity in a Nanotechnology Innovation System: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme.” Technovation 31 (2011): 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.05.003.

Penca, Jerneja. “What Ever Happened to the EU’s “science diplomacy”? The Long Mission of Effective EU-Mediterranean Cooperation in Science and Research.” International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean Studies 14, no. 1 (2021): 103–124. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://emuni.si/publications/ijems/.

Pereira, Tiago Santos. “International Dimension of Research in Portugal: The European Research Area and beyond.” Science and Public Policy 29 (2002), no. 6: 451–461. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154302781780778.

Powell, Justin J. W., and Jennifer Dusdal. “Science Production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg: Comparing the Contributions of Research Universities and Institutes to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Health.” Minerva 55 (2017), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z.

Püttmann, Vitus, and Stephan L. Thomsen. “The Third Mission in the Academic Profession: Empirical Insights into Academic Identities.” LCSS Discussion Paper, no. 12. Hannover: Leibniz Center for Science and Society, 2022. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15280/the-third-mission-in-the-academic-profession-empirical-insights-into-academic-identities.

Ramel, Frédéric. «Discuter le tournant pratique en Relations internationales: De Bourdieu aux théories normatives.» Études Internationales 48, no. 2 (2017): 203–217. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043264ar.

Rasplus, Valéry. «Pierre Bourdieu et notre temps.» Raison Présente 162, no. 1 (2007): 99–106. https://doi.org/10.3406/raipr.2007.4035.

Rodríguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, and Daan Schuurbiers. “Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-level So­li­citations.” Research Policy 42, issue 5 (2013): 1126–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.006.

Ruffini, Pierre-Bruno. Science and Diplomacy: A New Dimension of International Relations. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies. Cham: Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55104-3.

Rüland, Anna-Lena. “Learning from Rivals: The Role of Science Diplomats in Transferring Iran’s Health House Policy to the US.” Globalizations (2022): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2062845.

Saurugger, Sabine. “Sociological Approaches to the European Union in Times of Turmoil.” Journal of Common Market Studies 54, no. 1 (2016): 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12330.

Schildermans, Hans. “The University and the Common: Rearticulating the Third Mission from the bottom up.” Learning and Teaching 15, no. 1 (2022): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2022.150102.

Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian. “Europeanisation, Stateness, and Professions: What Role do Economic Expertise and Economic Experts play in European Political Integration?” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4, no. 4 (2017): 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2017.1335222.

Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian. “Struggling over Crisis: Discoursive Positionings and Academic Positions in the Field of German-speaking Economists.” Historical Social Research 43, no. 3 (2018): 147–188. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.43.2018.3.147-188.

Schmidt-Wellenburg, Christian, and Frédéric Lebaron. “There is no such thing as “the Economy”: Economic Phenomena Analysed from a Field-theoretical Perspective.” Historical Social Research 43, no. 3 (2018): 7–38. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.43.2018.3.7-38.

Schwartz, Maxime. 1995. “Institut Pasteur.” Molecular Medicine 1: 596–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401597.

Seeber, Marco. “Framework and Operationalisation Challenges for Quantitative Comparative Research in Higher Education.” Higher Education Quarterly 74 (2020): 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12245.

Senabre Hidalgo, Enric and Mayo Fuster Morell. “Co-designed Strategic Planning and Agile Project Management in Academia: Case Study of an Action Research Group.” Palgrave Communications 5, no. 1 (2019): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0364-0.

Smith, Frank L. “Advancing Science Diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit.” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 6 (2014): 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714535864.

Šime, Zane. “European Union Science Diplomacy in the Southern Neighbourhood: Mapping the Field and Plurality of Resilience-builders.” EU Diplomacy Paper, no. 8. Bruges: College of Europe (2021). Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.coleurope.eu/study/eu-international-relations-and-diplomacy-studies/research-publications/eu-diplomacy-papers.

Šime, Zane. “European Science Diplomacy for Resilience-Building During the Green Transition.” Science Diplomacy: India’s Global Digest of Multidisciplinary Science 7, no. 2 (2023a): 11–15. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://niscpr.res.in/periodicals/sciencediplomacy.

Šime, Zane. “Morocco and Tunisia on the Shores of Mare Nostrum: Positive Differentiation Across the Mediterranean and Segmentation in the European Union Research Policy.” Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs 3 (2023b): 179–202. https://doi.org/10.33067/SE.3.2023.10.

Šime, Zane. “Participation of Morocco and Tunisia in the European Research Area: Research-intense Collaborative Patterns Across the European Southern Neighbourhood.” European Integration Studies 17 (2023c): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.17.33909.

Sinding, Christiane. “Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur: Contrasting Images through Public Commemorations.” Osiris 14 (1999): 61–85. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/301961.

Smith, Frank L. “Advancing Science Diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit.” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 6 (2014): 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714535864.

Stappert, Nora. “Practice Theory and Change in International Law: Theorizing the Development of Legal Meaning through the Interpretive Practices of International Criminal Courts.” International Theory 12 (2020): 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971919000150.

Uribe-Mallarino, Consuelo. “Collaborating as Peers or Targeted by Science Diplomacy? The Participation of Latin American Researchers in the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 5, no. 1 (2022): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2021.2003282.

Van Hüllen, Vera. “Europeanisation through Cooperation? EU Democracy Promotion in Morocco and Tunisia Europeanisation through Cooperation? EU Democracy Promotion in Morocco and Tunisia.” West European Politics 35, no. 1 (2012): 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.631317.

Varga, Attila, and Sebestyén Tamás. “Does EU Framework Program Participation affect Regional Innovation? The Differentiating Role of Economic Development.” International Regional Science Review 40, no. 4 (2017): 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017616642821.

Venne, Jean-François. «Réflexion sur l’usage de la diplomatie scientifique au Québec et au Canada. Chief Scientist of Quebec,» published November 2–3, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://www.ledevoir.com/documents/cahier_special/pdf/595b1a4677585d0356fd3bca1ca161b419aa81b4.pdf.

Wood-Donnelly, Corine, and Bartels Marianne Pascale. “Science Diplomacy in the Arctic: Contributions of the USGS to Policy Discourse and Impact on Governance.” Polar Record 58 (2022), no. E16: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247422000134.

Yousef, Adam. “Conclusions: EU-Moroccan and EU-North African Relations in a New, Fast-evolving Regional Context.” In Europe’s Relations with North Africa Politics, Economics and Security, 253–258. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350986282.

CORDIS data base entries

CORDIS. (2020). SOLPART. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/654663.

CORDIS. (2020a). AMITIE. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/734342.

CORDIS. (2020b). BeFOre. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/645595.

CORDIS. (2020c). BITRECS. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754550.

CORDIS. (2020d). CURE-XF. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/734353.

CORDIS. (2020e). CybSPEED. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/777720.

CORDIS. (2020f). DiasporaLink. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/645471.

CORDIS. (2020g). ENGIMA. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/778072.

CORDIS. (2020h). EUROLEISH-NET. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/642609.

CORDIS. (2020i). EXANDAS. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691247

CORDIS. (2020j). FarFish. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727891.

CORDIS. (2020k). Geopark. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/644015.

CORDIS. (2020l). H2020 WP2017-2018. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/744266.

CORDIS. (2020m). IMAGE. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/677353.

CORDIS. (2020n). Infinite-Cell. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/777968.

CORDIS. (2020o). InSPIRES. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/741677.

CORDIS. (2020p). IPM-4-Citrus. Accessed August 13>, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/734921.

CORDIS. (2020q). K.I.T.F.E.M. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/734447.

CORDIS. (2020r). LungCARD. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/734790.

CORDIS. (2020s). MARSU. Accessed August 13, 2024. >https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/690958.

CORDIS. (2020t). MENARA. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/693244.

CORDIS. (2020u). PALE-Blu. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727393.

CORDIS. (2020v). PE-FECATS. Accessed August 13, 20>24. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/747591.

CORDIS. (2020w). REC. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/645642.

CORDIS. (2020x). Smart Loire Valley. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/665790.

CORDIS. (2020y). TARGET. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/741672.

CORDIS. (2020z). TROPSENSE. Accessed August 13, 2024. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/645758.

Annexes

Tables of the article “European Science Diplomacy in the Southern Neighbourhood: Insights from Morocco and Tunisia”

Source: Own compilation based on the findings obtained from the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) open access data base.

Table 1. Agency for the Promotion of Industry and Innovation (Tunisia)

Table 2. Cadi Ayyad University (Morocco)

Table 3. National Institute for Agricultural Research (Morocco)

Table 4. Mohammed V University of Rabat (Morocco)

Table 5. Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane (Morocco)

Table 6. University Hassan II of Casablanca (Morocco)

Table 7. Moulay Ismail University (Morocco)

Table 8. Sidi Mohammed ben Abdellah University (Morocco)

Table 9. Hassan II Institute of Agronomy & Veterinary Medicine (Morocco)

Table 10. Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy SA (Morocco)

Table 11. Research Institute for Solar Energy and New Energies (IRESEN, Morocco)

Table 12. Foundation for Advanced Science, Innovation and Research Foundation Mascir (Morocco)

Table 13. Pasteur Institute (Tunisia)

Table 14. Centre of Biotechnology of Sfax (Tunisia)

Table 15. National Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology (Tunisia)

Table 16. Sahara and Sahel Observatory (Tunisia)

Table 17. Agricultural Research and Higher Education Institute (Tunisia)

Table 18. National Agricultural Research Institute (Tunisia)

Table 19. Leading European hosts of project coordinators