Call for papers, AAG San Francisco March 29-April 2, 2016

Global Science ’Scapes

*This session is in association with The Leverhulme Trust International Network Global Science ’Scapes: Dimensions of Transnationalism. See the network website at: http://www.globalsciencespaces.org/

Please contact session organisers: Dave Valler ([log in to unmask]), Nick Phelps ([log in to unmask]), or Tian Miao ([log in to unmask]) if you would like to take part in this session. Abstracts of around 250 words should be submitted to the organisers by Oct 12th and we will seek to confirm session participation shortly thereafter.
 

Major science spaces have become vital elements of economic and development strategy in societies across the world. These spatial imaginaries find expression in government policy across scales and are an important aspect of political discourse projecting the dynamism of national, regional and local economies. While considerable research attention has been directed towards the efficacy of such spaces in promoting economic competitiveness and innovation, science spaces also operate as a locus for transnational flows of technological know-how, development practice and symbolic capital. In this context we focus on processes of transnational development and policy exchange, in particular among three axes based on Arjun Appadurai’s (1996) diverse landscapes of modernity, i.e. science spaces: (i) as physical forms, or 'technoscapes', reflecting the global circulation of architectural, built environment and real estate formats; (ii) as science diplomacy, or 'ideoscapes' projecting soft power; and (iii) as patterns of transnational labour mobility and knowledge transfer, or 'ethnoscapes'. These three axes are further outlined further below.

In this session we seek papers that reflect upon the nature of science spaces around the world, and on their hybrid physical, political-ideological and cultural forms. Papers might seek to approach, for example:

- Explanation and characterisation of the physical form of science spaces.
- The emergence and contestation of science-based spatial imaginaries.
- International flows of ideas around architectural form and built environment development processes.
- Relations between the development of science spaces and broader patterns of urbanization.
- The position of science spaces in constructions of national identity and political-economic strategy
- The representation of science spaces in national-regional political discourse and associated media/marketing/publicity.
- Mechanisms through which science spaces exert symbolic/soft power.
- Exploration of the views and experiences of international labour, and identities constructed by expatriate and returnee scientists.
- Labour mobility and transnational science culture.
- Scientific labour and the creative class.


On Science ’Scapes…

1. 'Technoscapes' as physical form – variations on the international style
Science spaces have emerged in varied forms across highly diverse national and global-regional contexts (Forsyth, 2014; Forsyth and Crewe, 2010; Phelps et al, 2014). In the forerunner case of the United States the distinctive ‘international-campus-garden-suburb’ (Forsyth and Crewe, 2010) format of science and technology parks represented an acceptable post-war political compromise within the extensive suburbs growing in contiguous fashion around major cities. Yet the model has proved highly mutable, subject to rearticulation in the face of alternative political frames and regulatory regimes. In the UK, for example, a similar logic of dispersal of R&D laboratories and defence was part and parcel of more scattered non-contiguous urban sprawl to essentially rural settings of villages and market towns in the South East of England. In France, grander state urban and regional planning projects sought to re-distribute economic activity with scientific installations often at the heart of such endeavours: Sofia Antipolis remains as perhaps the most conspicuous attempt to fashion a new settlement space – a ‘retreat’ – thought suitable for fostering major contributions to industrial research and science. Elsewhere, notably in ‘developmental state’ national contexts such as Korea and Japan, science parks have been fully planned as new urban spaces from the outset. In yet others, including China and India, they appear to have grown organically as part of, or extensions to, booming extended city-regions as with the case of Beijing’s Zhongguancun science and technology zone. International technological and developmental flows thus combine with national and regional political projects to produce patterns of both homogeniety and heterogeneity in the physical expression of science spaces, and complex relations with forms of urbanization.

2. Technoscapes as 'Ideoscapes'
The physical accomplishment of technoscapes has been intimately bound up with varied national political ambitions and the projection of scientific diplomacy via 'ideoscapes'. While international scientific endeavours were influential in post-war US foreign policy, gradually helping to improve relations with the Soviet Union and subsequently with China, more recently China has begun to deploy its own science-park models abroad in a sustained programme of ‘science diplomacy’. As Hvistendahl (2007) documents, China has funded foreign investments in Russia, Singapore, the UK and the US, as well as initiatives involving ‘South-South’ cooperation with developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Such initiatives, led by the Ministry of Science and Technology, exert critical ‘soft power’ (Royal Society, 2010) by emphasizing the economic and cultural strengths of China on a global stage. In other contexts science spaces have diverse and ambiguous positions in relation to regional and national economic policy agendas. In the UK, the role of science parks has been integrated into national discourse somewhat after the event, while in Japan and South Korea, science parks are clearly integrated into significant national policy agendas for promoting economic competitiveness. Elsewhere strong national agendas are more cultural in orientation. In Malaysia, for example, science and technology parks are ‘cities for nations’ – new settlement spaces that are explicitly aimed to project national modernity. Clearly, then, science spaces exert significant symbolic power at a global scale and in some cases have been actively cultivated as explicit political and diplomatic projects.

3. Technoscapes and ethnoscapes
By virtue of their highly-skilled labour requirements, global science spaces attract highly internationalised workforces. A recent study by the Royal Society (2011) found that cross-border scientific collaboration is increasing, that it disproportionately involves scientists with diaspora ties, and that it holds potential to improve the quality of science. Diasporas have always been a potent economic force, but their value is further extended in this highly mobile, globalised arena (Saxenian, 2006). For example, highly skilled migrants can provide additional collaborative reach by virtue of their individual personal histories, their enhanced sensitivity to local circumstances and their capacity to establish relations of trust (e.g. Filatotchev et al, 2011). At the same time, technoscapes are complex assemblages of global enterprises, international labour, national and international research institutes, SMEs and other organisations working across multi-scaled governance jurisdictions. Understanding these spaces therefore requires sensitivity to processes of transnational mobility and linkage, and the mechanisms for knowledge transfer.


Indicative Bibliography:
Appadurai, A. (2011) ‘Decoding Diaspora and Disjuncture’ New Formations 73, 1: 43-55
Collins, F.L. (2012) ‘Transnational mobilities and urban spatialities: Notes from the Asia-Pacific’ Progress in Human Geography 36, 3: 316-335
Filatotchev, I. Liu, X. Lu, J. Wright, M. (2011) ‘Knowledge spillovers through human mobility across national borders: Evidence from Zhongguancun Science Park in China’ Research Policy 40,3: 453-462
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.
Forsyth, A. (2014) Alternative forms of the high-technology district: corridors, clumps, cores, campuses, subdivisions and sites Environment and Planning C 32.5. 809-823
Forsyth, A. Crewe,K. (2010) ‘Suburban Technopoles as Places: The International Campus-Garden-Suburb Style’ Urban Design International 15, 3: 165-182
Hao, J. Welch, A. (2012) ‘A Tale of Sea Turtles: Job-Seeking Experiences of Hai Gui (High-Skilled Returnees) in China’ Higher Education Policy 25, 243–260
Hvistendahl, M. (2007) ‘The Chinese are rolling out science as a tool for foreign policy’ Seed Magazine, Available at: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/global_science_park/
Phelps, N.A. Valler, D. Kim, H. Lee, Y-S. (2014) ‘Science and the City: Comparative perspectives on the urbanity of science and technology parks’ Special edition of Environment and Planning C 32.5.
Powell, J.L. (2011) ‘Revisiting Appadurai: Globalizing Scapes in a Global World – the pervasiveness of economic and cultural power’ Sincronia, Available at: http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/powellfall2011.htm
Royal Society (2011) ‘Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century’ RS Policy document 03/11, Science Policy Centre 6–9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG Royal Society
(2010) ‘New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power’ RS Policy document 01/10, Science Policy Centre 6–9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG
Saxenian, A.L. (2006) The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Turekian, V.C. Neureiter, N.P. (2012) ‘Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue’ Science & Diplomacy, 1.1. Available at: http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/science-and-diplomacy
Valler,D. Phelps,N. Radford,J. (2014) ‘Soft space, hard bargaining: Planning for hi-tech growth in Science Vale UK’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32.5. 824-842
Velema, T.A. (2012) ‘The contingent nature of brain gain and brain circulation: their foreign context and the impact of return scientists on the scientific community in their country of origin’ Scientometrics 93, 3: 893-913
Zhou, Y. Hsu, J.Y. (2012) Divergent engagements: roles and strategies of Taiwanese and mainland Chinese returnee entrepreneurs in the IT industry Global Networks 11, 3: 398–419

_______________________________________________________
[log in to unmask]
An urban geography discussion and announcement forum
List Archives: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/URB-GEOG-FORUM
Maintained by: RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group
UGRG Home Page: http://www.urban-geography.org.uk