Scientific collaboration amid geopolitical tensions: a comparison of Sweden and Australia

Abstract

Significant collaborations with research partners in China are seen in many Western countries. With increasing geopolitical tensions governments, research institutions and individuals are increasingly called upon to address a proliferating array of risks and challenges associated with scientific collaboration with China. The situation is characterised by two parallel, intertwined processes. On the one hand, scientific research is characterised by openness and the ambition to do good for humanity. On the other hand an increased focus on knowledge securitization. How responses in different countries develop to this conflict are starting to be apparent, and academic studies are only beginning to describe how these responses look like. To date, the majority of studies focusing on how concerns over collaboration with China shape internationalisation look at the US. A few studies focus on other advanced science nations, for example Australia, UK, or Sweden. But there is limited comparative research on approaches to internationalisation in the context of these geopolitical tensions. This paper bridges the gap by illuminating the dimensions of variation in country-level responses to this situation. Comparing the cases of Sweden and Australia illustrates the wide variation that exists in the agents, methods and goals of responses. The comparison illuminates differences in responses by countries across these three dimensions.

The ongoing allure of China engagement in the face of national security risks: the case of Australia-China scientific university collaboration

“…Further, existing literature has shown how views that the CCP threatens Australia have led to the expansion of government policies to counter foreign interference in political institutions (Chubb, 2022) and universities (Shih, Chubb, & Cooney-O'Donoghue, 2023). Through a focus on universities and STEMM collaboration, I build on this literature to examine the influence of the perceptions over how the government, university leaders and peak bodies, and academics perceive and engage with China.…”