This project reconsiders British diplomacy from the perspective of the everyday interactions with other diplomatic entities that are prior to, and shape, foreign policy formation. It does so through a series of historical snapshots of moments when new 'outside' elements were incorporated into the British diplomatic apparatus. Produced through archival research and interviews, these snapshots together provide a different picture of the way foreign policy is produced than is usually presented. The first historical snapshot is of the creation of the Foreign Office itself, in the late eighteenth century. Prior to this there had been two secretaries of state, each of whom had domestic and international responsibilities. The creation of the Foreign Office involved producing everyday bureaucratic procedures and interactions among those previously attached to the two secretaries, and constituted for the first time a coherent approach to that which was beyond the kingdom's borders. This understanding of foreign policy, as the coherent, rational decision-making emanating from within a specialized bureaucracy, remains popular to today - both within the FCO and outside of it. The remaining historical snapshots serve to problematize this account, as they entail the steady incorporation of 'outside elements' into the foreign policy apparatus. The first of these is the implementation of intelligence sharing in the post-WWII context, first with the United States and later with other allies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From this point on, British foreign policy would be premised on a slate of information shared among a group of states. That these states were like-minded in some way prior to the agreement is obviously true. But the everyday sharing of intelligence serves to predispose these states further to like-mindedness, given a common set of understandings of what is going on in the world. Other historical moments widen this circle of collaboration, such as the creation of NATO and its principle of interoperability (by which allies prepare to act in common, both in terms of infrastructure and procedures) and the creation of the EU's External Action Service (which attempts to coordinate member state's foreign policies, both centrally and among EU embassies 'in country'). While none of these dictate UK foreign policy, and clearly there are moments of divergence (e.g., the Iraq War), they nonetheless hint at the ways in which British diplomacy can be understood to be integrated with other diplomatic actors in an everyday sense, meaning that the 'outside' is already 'inside' before any formal diplomacy occurs. This theoretical shift towards everyday diplomacy is important because it hints at the possibility that a loose group of states (often referred to as 'the West') have enmeshed their foreign policy apparatuses in ways that predispose them to (but do not require) collective action. Just as a group of people can congeal into a crowd, with their micro-scaled interactions resonating to create collective actions (like a crowd becoming a mob) without each individual losing the sense of their own agency, we might imagine everyday diplomatic interactions as productive of just such a collective. This is particularly important, as the final snapshot is of the First Class Foreign Policy Programme, an attempt to, among other things, advance the meaning of 'digital diplomacy' by integrating internet-based expertise into foreign policy formation processes. This ongoing effort promises to incorporate non-state elements into the British foreign policy apparatus. Therefore, understanding how these micro-scaled interactions might resonate and shape international relations is of paramount importance.

The early-modern period was foundational for modern diplomacy. Yet it was an age of religious turmoil and increasing globalization. How did diplomatic actors overcome barriers of language, religion, and culture to interact with each other? How did they use non-verbal languages (art, rituals, and space)? These are the central problems addressed by the network. They also provide a key to engagment with current practice in two senses. First, modern diplomacy faces seemingly comparable issues: challenges such as the 'Arab Spring', and even Wikileaks, have questioned a view that diplomacy is grounded on a shared understanding of international relations, especially on what constitutes a state and who controls state information. Accordingly, what can we learn today from early-modern diplomats who faced similar challenges? Equally, what can scholars learn from the experiences of contemporary diplomats dealing with 'new' states (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan) and with cross-cultural relations. Secondly, the interdisciplinary network will eschew narrowly political accounts of diplomacy. It will bring together established scholars and early-career researchers from history, modern languages, anthropology, art and architectural history, legal history, and international relations. It will also involve members of the heritage sector (e.g. English Heritage). Together, we will analyze the social and cultural processes that contribute to creating a global diplomatic community. These aims and objectives will be examined through four themes: Translating cultures How did peoples of different political and religious persuasions find common diplomatic ground? Our period was of critical importance in the history of cross-cultural relations - issues of enormous sensitivity today - as Europeans frequently engaged with 'others': Muslim, African and Asian powers, as well as competing confessions following the Reformation. Who were best qualified to bridge cultural and confessional boundaries - merchants, artists, scientists, translators? Symbolic languages We will assess the power of diplomatic rituals and symbols - did shared understandings emerge of how diplomats should be treated and how they should interact? What happened when rituals were challenged? Could rituals re-define the very notion of sovereignty? The non-textual languages of diplomacy included space and material culture. How did diplomats move through palaces and charged political spaces? What access did they have to each other and to sovereigns? How were diplomatic gifts and the exchange of art interpreted? The methodologies for studying diplomatic practice How can researchers from different disciplines and countries learn from each other and develop a robust methodological framework for the area of study? Ideas will be shared through a dedicated website and the outcomes disseminated through an edited volume. We aim to ensure that the network leads to future collaborative work beyond the life of the AHRC funding. Between the early-modern and modern worlds To what extent are current problems comparable to, or different from, those faced by early-modern diplomatic actors? What can early-modern scholars learn from current practitioners of diplomacy and vice-versa? Also, how can we re-interpret material culture through the study of early-modern diplomacy? The network's potential beneficiaries will include the academic sector, the FCO and the heritage sector. First, the network will serve as a unique international hub for various research projects that are currently taking place around Europe, encompassing established and early-career researchers. The FCO and the academic network will gain mutual insights into diplomatic practice through understanding the early-modern 'models' and their contemporary counterparts. The heritage sector will benefit by fresh interpretations of assets such as palaces and other items of material culture, forming potentials for future collaboration

India

Development, and in particular, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are indelibly linked to questions of gender with gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls underpinning Goal 5. Despite the UN Charter clearly laying the basis for gender equality it is absent from the Organisation. This is a major issue for the UN as it depends upon its own legitimacy to lead across many global issues including on gender and development. Without gender equality too many of the UN's activities and too much of its work remains predominantly - if not entirely- informed and spearheaded by the male perspective. Centring on the Secretariat and SDG implementation, the Network is an innovative intervention in understanding how gender impacts on the UN's activities particularly its leadership of the SDGs and development. Through the SDGs the UN encourages states to uphold women's rights, eliminate gender discrimination, and to achieve gender equality. Yet, the UN fails to give effect to those principles within the Organisation. This has to change. In 2016 the UN admitted that 83% of its entities have failed to hit gender targets with no progress since 2012 and only 33% possessed a gender unit or equivalent to aid in achieving gender mainstreaming and equality. The UN Gender Network brings academics, civil society, member states and the UN Secretariat itself together in a spirit of conversation and collaboration. It will achieve a deep understanding of the causes and impact of gender inequality within the UN and the impact this has on its leadership of the SDGs and broader development policy. The collaboration of academics led by the PI and Co-I, its Network Partners AIDsFreeWorld, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and civil society as well as Network participants will lead to the development of an agenda for UN policy reform that will directly impact upon the implementation of the SDGs in the Global South. An emerging discourse within academia suggests that collaborative work around specific themes has much to offer in advancing understanding of gender inequality within the UN. State delegation support is a necessity if change is to occur and thus the role of the FCO is key to bringing a wider array of states, particularly those in the Global South, on board to push for UN reform. Collaboration enables all parties to offer cross-sectoral feedback to decision-makers; a process of joint advocacy that increases the likelihood of policy and organisational change. The impact of such collaborative activities can be seen with the steps already taken in the creation of UN Women and the Focal Point for Women by project partners. The UN Gender network aims to: 1. establish a transnational UN Gender network that includes academics, civil society, the UN and state delegations through a series of workshops and an online community; 2. Explore how long-term collaborative activities can be fostered that can bring about effective policy change within the Organisation; 3. Harness expertise from the academic and civil society, state delegations and the UN itself in the co-production of a research project agenda to understand the cause and impact of gender inequality within the UN and its impact upon the UN's leadership and legitimacy in the operationalisation of the SDGs; 4. Use the network's activities as a platform from which to develop targeted policy proposals alongside specific research collaborations that make effective policy recommendations to the UN to ensure long term change and to underpin the implementation of the SDGs, particularly Goal 5 and; 5. Ensure the network's sustainability through the active participation of postgraduate and early career researchers alongside establishing effective collaboration amongst the transnational participants. Stakeholders will be able to utilise the Network's reform proposals and research to ensure the SDGs are better placed to achieve gender equality and other development goals.

Neural interfaces are devices that interact directly with the nervous system, bypassing the usual sensory and motor modalities. Such devices have a number of clinical applications, in particular as neural prostheses designed to replace functions lost through neural injury or disease. One of the most successful neural prostheses is the cochlear implant, which has restored hearing in around 150,000 people worldwide and works by converting sound directly into electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. Researchers in the UK and Japan are working on new applications for neural interfaces, for example retinal implants to treat blindness, or Brain-Machine Interfaces to allow paralysed patients to control computers or assistive devices via signals derived directly from the brain. However, considerable challenges remain, for example developing biocompatible electrodes that can safely be implanted into patients, and understanding how information is encoded by signals in the brain. We are organising a two-day workshop which will allow ten leading UK researchers and ten Japanese counterparts to present reports on their work. As well as disseminating the latest research findings, the workshop will be a forum for discussions to identify key scientific and technological requirements for developing successful neural interfaces in order to promote international collaboration. Such collaborations will help maintain the UK's place as a world-leader in neurotechnology, as well as stimulating new research leading to clinical devices that could help a considerable patient population.