‘Responsible internationalisation’: How responsible is it?

The European Commission recently unveiled its guidelines on tackling foreign interference in research and innovation, a document that (re)defines “responsible internationalisation” in higher education.

While internationalisation was once conceived as a means to address global societal challenges, the commission’s current definition of “responsibility” now prioritises national security and economic competitiveness.

This shift – along with similar ones in other countries and regions – marks a significant departure from the rapid growth of international scientific collaboration since the 1990s, which saw cross-border co-authorship rise from less than 2% of all Web of Science papers in 1970 to 23.2% in 2020.

Political framing

This view of “responsible internationalisation” marks a significant departure from the emphasis on “social responsibility”, as, for instance, emphasised in the 2015 definition of internationalisation, promoting a meaningful contribution to society, and calls by scholars and practitioners advocating for a more ethical, inclusive and localised approach.

The political interpretation of “responsible internationalisation” has been driven by a complex interplay of factors. Rising geopolitical tensions have created an environment where international collaborations can inadvertently become conduits for political influence or coercion.

Concerns over intellectual property theft are not unfounded, with documented cases of economic espionage and unauthorised technology transfer occurring through academic channels. Additionally, there are real risks of ethics dumping, where less stringent ethical standards in some countries could be exploited, and of dual-use research being misappropriated for harmful purposes.

However, geopolitical tensions and security concerns have led to the evolution of the term “responsible”. The key difference is that “responsible” is now framed in political terms, not societal ones, and is focused on knowledge security rather than exchange and cooperation.

As Tommy Shih argues, it now “focuses on the discretionary responsibilities that researchers have when building international relationships”, and is more narrowly aimed at national interests than ever before.

Cold War-era similarities and differences

This shift in European Union policy – like similar shifts in Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – marks a significant change in international scientific collaboration with echoes of the Cold War-era but with crucial differences.

During the Cold War, scientific collaboration was heavily restricted along ideological lines, with limited exchange between Eastern and Western blocs. Unlike the binary East-West divide of the Cold War, current policies must navigate a multipolar world with complex, intertwined research networks. The challenge lies in implementing this principle effectively, balancing security concerns with the need for open scientific exchange in a way that Cold War-era policies often failed to do.

The Council of the European Union seems aware of the chilling effect that overregulation or excessive intervention could have on science, reflected in its guiding principle for its responsible internationalisation policy: “As open as possible, as closed as necessary.” Transferring control over research openness from scientists to institutions and policy-makers risks undermining the autonomy of scientists and politicising research agendas.

Across Europe, academic communities are voicing apprehension about the potential consequences if security considerations take precedence.

In Sweden, Agneta Bladh, former chair of the Swedish Research Council, warns that the traditional openness of research and internationalisation is under threat.

The Guild, a network of European research-intensive universities, echoes these concerns. While acknowledging the need for risk mitigation, they emphasise that such measures should not hinder our collective ability to tackle pressing scientific research that requires international cooperation.

Similar concerns related to national security versus international collaboration can also be found elsewhere.

Multifaceted implications

The implications of the political interpretation of “responsible internationalisation” are multifaceted. Fields such as climate science, epidemiology and renewable energy research, while not traditionally high-security areas, may face challenges due to data sensitivity and economic competitiveness concerns. Moreover, these policies risk widening the research gap between high-, mid- and low-income countries.

Finally, this new emphasis on national interests could fragment the research landscape, leading to duplicated efforts and slower overall progress. These implications drive responsible internationalisation in the opposite direction as advocated in calls for internationalisation for society, and challenge academic freedom and autonomy.

We have to ask ourselves a number of questions.

Who defines what is responsible practice, and what is open or closed? What are the implications of policies that emphasise necessary closedness more than possible openness? Should responsible internationalisation not be primarily international and social instead of national and political?

Is the new approach to responsible internationalisation about protecting national interests, competitiveness and liberal democratic values not a new form of internationalisation as a Western paradigm? Should the guiding principle not be the other way around: as open as necessary, as little as possible closed?

Hans de Wit is professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States. (E-mail: dewitj@bc.edu). Chris Glass is professor of the practice in the department of educational leadership and higher education at Boston College where he leads the Executive Doctor of Education (EdD) in higher education programme and serves as an affiliated faculty member in the Center for International Higher Education. This article was first published in the current edition of International Higher Education.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.