Responsible Internationalization: Research-Intensive Universities in Canada and Australia Balancing International Collaboration with National Security Priorities

• In Event: Critical Perspectives of Internationalization in Higher Education

Proposal

In recent years, the nature of internationalization in higher education has been changing. Once celebrated for its emphasis on global mobility, cross-border research collaboration, and the influx of international students, internationalization is now increasingly shaped by national security concerns (Sa et al., 2025). Heightened geopolitical tensions and the strategic importance of technological innovation have prompted several Western governments to introduce policies aimed at safeguarding research from foreign interference (Walker-Munro, 2023; Shih, 2024). These developments have led to a new paradigm—responsible internationalization—where institutions must balance openness and collaboration with vigilance and compliance (Shih et al, 2020; Shih, 2024).
This study investigates how research-intensive universities in Canada and Australia are navigating this evolving terrain. Specifically, it seeks to answer: How do research security units in these countries translate national research security policies into institutional policies? What strategies do they employ to build responsible internationalization practices?
Each of the two countries examined in this study has introduced distinct frameworks to address research security. Canada’s Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (STRAC) directly links compliance to federal research funding. If a proposal includes collaboration with a partner listed among the Named Research Organizations, the funding request is automatically denied. This creates a strong incentive for institutions to conduct thorough due diligence and align their practices with national security priorities (Evans, 2022; Sa et al, 2025).
In contrast, Australia has adopted a more advisory approach. Australia’s Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference is voluntary and not tied to funding mechanisms. While the Australian framework encourages institutions to assess risks and adopt best practices, it relies on normative pressure and institutional commitment rather than financial incentives or penalties (Smith & Walsh, 2023; Walker-Munro, 2024) .
Despite these differences, both countries share a common goal: to protect sensitive research while maintaining the integrity and openness of academic collaboration. This dual mandate has led to the emergence of responsible internationalization as a guiding principle in university research offices. Faculty members, in addition to the university administrators, are now expected to assess the risks associated with international partnerships, conduct due diligence on potential collaborators, and ensure that affiliations do not compromise national security. These practices extend beyond research to include student enrollment in sensitive programs, doctoral student recruitment, and institutional agreements.
Research security, as defined by Walker-Munro (2025, p.348), encompasses the protection of “sensitive, classified or commercially valuable knowledge and technologies from espionage, theft, interference and illicit transfers.” It represents a shift in the norms governing academic research, introducing new layers of scrutiny and accountability. Universities must now reconcile traditional values such as academic freedom, research integrity, and openness with emerging expectations around security and compliance.
To analyze how institutions are responding to these challenges, this study is grounded in two theoretical frameworks: resource dependency theory and institutional theory. Resource dependency theory states that organizations are influenced by their external environment, particularly in their pursuit of critical resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). In the context of higher education, universities depend on government funding, international partnerships, and reputational capital, all of which are shaped by national policy frameworks (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Institutional theory, on the other hand, explains how organizations within a sector tend to conform to external expectations through processes of coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1988; 1991). Coercive isomorphism arises from formal pressures such as regulations and funding requirements; normative isomorphism stems from professional standards and shared values; and mimetic isomorphism occurs when organizations emulate peers perceived as successful or legitimate. These dynamics are evident in the way universities in Canada and Australia are adapting to research security policies. Canadian institutions, for example, exhibit coercive isomorphism due to the direct link between compliance and funding. In Australia, normative and mimetic pressures play a more prominent role, as institutions voluntarily adopt best practices and emulate leading peers.
Methodologically, this study employs a multiple case study approach to explore institutional responses in depth. Two research-intensive universities from each country were selected for analysis. Data collection will involve semi-structured interviews with research security officers or individuals responsible for implementing these policies, as well as document analysis and policy review. This triangulated approach will provide a comprehensive understanding of how responsible internationalization is operationalized across different institutional and national contexts.
Preliminary findings suggest that while the overarching goals of research security policies are consistent across countries, the mechanisms of implementation and institutional responses vary significantly. Canadian universities have developed compliance infrastructures, including research security units, risk assessment protocols and centralized vetting processes. In Australia, universities are more likely to integrate research security into broader frameworks of research ethics and integrity, relying on faculty awareness and decentralized decision-making.
Moreover, the concept of responsible internationalization is evolving to encompass a wider range of institutional practices. It is no longer limited to safeguarding research outputs but includes considerations around student mobility, program design, and institutional affiliations. Universities are increasingly aware of the reputational and strategic risks associated with international partnerships, and are investing in training, policy development, and interdepartmental coordination to mitigate these risks.
There is a lack of studies on research security, especially comparative ones. This is mostly due to the fact that each country’s practice of research security is unique. This study contributes to the growing literature on internationalization and research security by highlighting the tensions and trade-offs involved in balancing openness with protection. It underscores the need for nuanced, context-sensitive approaches that recognize the diversity of institutional missions and national policy environments.
In conclusion, responsible internationalization represents a critical frontier in higher education policy and practice. By examining the experiences of Canada and Australia, this study sheds light on the strategies and dilemmas faced by institutions as they navigate the intersection of global engagement and national security. It calls for continued dialogue among policymakers, university leaders, and researchers to ensure that international collaboration remains both vibrant and secure in an increasingly complex world.

Author

• Aytaj Pashayeva, OISE - University of Toronto