Intensifying geopolitical rivalries have triggered a series of national and international policy initiatives designed to safeguard research security and reduce risks associated with international scientific collaboration. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, examining the structures, processes, and policy frames that shape their respective approaches to research security and responsible internationalization. Although the Scandinavian countries share cultural, linguistic, and political similarities, as well as advanced research capabilities, their institutionalized strategies for managing the tension between openness and security diverge in significant ways. By examining the policy frames and the interplay between structural and processual factors, the study reveals how these variations produce distinct governance outcomes. Through this analysis, the paper contributes to conceptualizing a typology of national approaches, offering insights into how small, open knowledge economies navigate the dual imperatives of international engagement and strategic protection in an era of geopolitical uncertainty.

This article examines how de-risking policy instruments interact to shape implementation conditions for Sino-research collaboration in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish higher education institutions (HEIs). Using comparative policy analysis, it analyses how instruments combine across types, functions and actor loci, and what these interactions mean for HEIs. The findings show that implementation conditions are shaped less by individual instruments than by broader governance arrangements. Across the three cases, nodal instruments like guidelines depended on organisational settings to be reinforced, with different consequences for institutional practice. Denmark displays a reinforced, security-oriented mix that supports more coherent action among HEIs. Norway exhibits a layered mix that offers coordination support while preserving interpretive space. Sweden shows a less coordinated set of instruments that leaves HEIs with greater interpretive space but less coherent national guidance. The article shows that the actor loci behind nodal and organisational instruments matter. Policy mixes anchored more closely in security-oriented state structures appear more protection-oriented, while mixes mediated through higher education sector actors preserve more room for collaboration-oriented logics. The article contributes to research on policy instrument mixes, research security and higher education governance by showing that de-risking is an interactive governance arrangement rather than a set of isolated instruments.

This paper examines how national higher education priorities are translated into the everyday experiences of Chinese academics. Drawing primarily on 23 semi-structured interviews with academics from different types of Chinese universities, and supplemented by other documents, it develops a layered filtering model to explain how policy signals are transformed across national, organizational, and individual levels. The findings show that state priorities are translated by universities into performance-based governance mechanisms centered on quantitative evaluation, contractual employment arrangements, and career thresholds. These pressures are further reinforced by labor market imbalance, institutional stratification, and intense competition for academic resources. In response, academics adopt strategies of compliance, mobility, and career reorientation. However, these adaptations often result in emotional exhaustion, identity strain, and work-family tensions. The study argues that state priorities are not transmitted linearly but are selectively filtered and recombined through organizational interests and individual concerns, producing a metricized form of performance pressure that differs from the original policy intentions.

In recent years, international scientific collaboration has become increasingly entangled with geopolitical tensions, especially between China and Western countries. While institutional and policy-level analyses have offered important insights, relatively little is known about how these global dynamics are experienced and navigated by individual researchers within China. Drawing on the analytical lens of institutional complexity and in-depth interviews with scholars in China engaged in international research, this study examines how researchers navigate the often conflicting expectations of national political agendas, organizational performance metrics, and global academic norms. The findings reveal five cross-cutting themes: the growing salience of national imperatives, intensifying organizational pressures, sustained commitment to global scientific values, pragmatic navigation of international collaborations, and perceived misrecognition and emotional tensions. By highlighting the micro-level strategies and adaptation, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of researcher agency under competing institutional logics in a rapidly evolving academic landscape.

Amid rising geopolitical tensions, governments increasingly face the challenge of balancing open academic collaboration with China against the imperatives of national security and institutional autonomy. This study examines how the governments of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway operationalise the de-risking agenda through distinct policy instrument mixes related to their research and innovation Sino relationship. The study uses qualitative, comparative policy analysis based on desk research and semi-structured interviews. It employs an abductive approach to analyse the type, coerciveness, and objectives of policy instruments, focusing on whether they enable or restrict collaboration, and how they interact with each other. While all three governments deploy similar instruments such as guidelines, export controls, and coordination forums, their design and combination differ significantly. The interaction of instruments - through reinforcement, layering, or drift - profoundly shapes national governance conditions. A key finding is the varying role of coordination mechanisms, depending on whether they are state-led, intra-academic, theme-specific, or framed around national security. Particularly notable is the involvement of security authorities in Denmark, which contributes to a more protectionist orientation. The study highlights how policy instruments are not neutral but reflect deeper institutional tensions between openness, autonomy, and securitisation in global science governance.