Mutual norm socialization through knowledge-security restrictions in Sino-German academic cooperation

Igor Sevenard
{"title":"Mutual norm socialization through knowledge-security restrictions in Sino-German academic cooperation","authors":"Igor Sevenard","doi":"10.1007/s44216-026-00072-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>China’s 2021 <i>Data Security Law</i> and the 2023 revision of the <i>Counter-Espionage Law</i> frame most cross-border knowledge flows as matters of national security. Germany’s approach, evolving in parallel, embeds research security within a broader “de-risking” agenda that characterizes China as a systemic rival. Often operationalized through managerial guidelines, this approach is increasingly underpinned by binding EU export control and data regulations aimed at protecting data, technology, and personnel from unwanted foreign access. Against the backdrop of a wider global trend toward securitizing academic collaboration, this study asks how security-oriented regulations reshape the discourse of Chinese and German academic actors working in their respective settings, how research-security standards filter into the written rules and public statements of partner institutions, and what mutual or asymmetric forms of socialization emerge. Combining Copenhagen-School securitization theory with Johnston’s model of socialization as well as middle-power role theory, the study traces norm diffusion across the bilateral research space through a mixed-method design. It triangulates qualitative content analysis of policy and institutional documents (2019–2025) with process-tracing of regulatory changes across three critical temporal breakpoints (2021, 2023, 2024) that represent distinct phases of legalization and securitization. Evidence suggests that Chinese and German institutions selectively borrow each other’s security lexicon and procedural templates, which produces reciprocal yet uneven norm internalization. This raises transaction costs, narrows epistemic communities, and frames collaboration as strategic competition. By showing that knowledge-security rules act as vectors of mutual socialization rather than unilateral control, the article refines securitization theory for middle-power contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100130,"journal":{"name":"Asian Review of Political Economy","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44216-026-00072-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Review of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44216-026-00072-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

China’s 2021 Data Security Law and the 2023 revision of the Counter-Espionage Law frame most cross-border knowledge flows as matters of national security. Germany’s approach, evolving in parallel, embeds research security within a broader “de-risking” agenda that characterizes China as a systemic rival. Often operationalized through managerial guidelines, this approach is increasingly underpinned by binding EU export control and data regulations aimed at protecting data, technology, and personnel from unwanted foreign access. Against the backdrop of a wider global trend toward securitizing academic collaboration, this study asks how security-oriented regulations reshape the discourse of Chinese and German academic actors working in their respective settings, how research-security standards filter into the written rules and public statements of partner institutions, and what mutual or asymmetric forms of socialization emerge. Combining Copenhagen-School securitization theory with Johnston’s model of socialization as well as middle-power role theory, the study traces norm diffusion across the bilateral research space through a mixed-method design. It triangulates qualitative content analysis of policy and institutional documents (2019–2025) with process-tracing of regulatory changes across three critical temporal breakpoints (2021, 2023, 2024) that represent distinct phases of legalization and securitization. Evidence suggests that Chinese and German institutions selectively borrow each other’s security lexicon and procedural templates, which produces reciprocal yet uneven norm internalization. This raises transaction costs, narrows epistemic communities, and frames collaboration as strategic competition. By showing that knowledge-security rules act as vectors of mutual socialization rather than unilateral control, the article refines securitization theory for middle-power contexts.

中德学术合作中知识安全约束下的相互规范社会化
中国2021年的《数据安全法》和2023年修订的《反间谍法》将大多数跨境知识流动界定为国家安全问题。德国的做法也在同步发展,将研究安全纳入更广泛的“去风险”议程,将中国定性为系统性竞争对手。这种方法通常通过管理指导方针来实施,并越来越多地得到欧盟出口管制和数据法规的支持,这些法规旨在保护数据、技术和人员免受不必要的外国访问。在学术合作证券化的全球大趋势背景下,本研究探讨了以安全为导向的法规如何重塑中国和德国学术参与者在各自环境下的话语,研究安全标准如何渗透到合作机构的书面规则和公开声明中,以及出现了哪些相互或不对称的社会化形式。本研究将哥本哈根学派的证券化理论与约翰斯顿的社会化模型以及中等权力角色理论相结合,通过混合方法设计来追踪规范在双边研究空间中的扩散。它将政策和制度文件(2019-2025)的定性内容分析与三个关键时间断点(2021年、2023年、2024年)的监管变化过程追踪进行三角分析,这三个关键时间断点代表了合法化和证券化的不同阶段。有证据表明,中德两国机构有选择地相互借鉴对方的安全词汇和程序模板,产生了相互但不均衡的规范内化。这提高了交易成本,缩小了认知社区,并将合作定义为战略竞争。通过表明知识安全规则是相互社会化的载体,而不是单方面的控制,本文对中等大国背景下的证券化理论进行了细化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书