Defence University tapped to host research security node

The Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF) has endorsed the recommendation for a national support office to manage the security risks associated with global research collaboration under the rubric of ‘responsible internationalisation’ – and has suggested it be based at the Swedish Defence University in Stockholm.

In a statement on 7 March, SUHF said it supports the idea, contained in a final report compiled by the Swedish Council for Higher Education (UHR), Vinnova (Sweden’s innovation agency) and the Swedish Research Council (VR) at the behest of the government, that the support function will constitute “a national node and meeting place for responsible internationalisation”.

It would also “provide support in building capacity and culture, contribute to monitoring the world, update and develop the national guidelines, provide tools and meeting places, and handle issues when the sector's actors need support for difficult decisions and assessments”.

Arguing that the “home of a national node” should be located within the higher education sector, the statement says: “SUHF is of the opinion that responsibility for the national support function should be placed at the Swedish National Defence University with support from other higher education institutions, research funders, and the security authorities in accordance with the collaboration model proposed in the authorities’ investigation.”

It notes that the “strength of the Swedish National Defence University as the host is the confidence the university has among Sweden's higher education institutions to balance the security perspective with an understanding of the nature and conditions of the core business”.

Concerns around autonomy

The final report, National support function for responsible internationalisation, was published in March after consultation with university stakeholders.

As reported by University World News, an interim version of the report published in April 2024, received a lukewarm response from some stakeholders, including the Swedish Association of University Researchers and Teachers (SULF), who did not fully buy into the need for a nationally coordinated security response.

“[SULF] has reiterated that universities’ autonomy and academic freedom must be the starting point for all decisions regarding internationalisation and is opposed to any imposition of government guidelines,” the association said at the time.

As it stands, the report envisages that a national support function for responsible internationalisation should coordinate and interact with target groups and actors in the area. It will also act as a contact point for government offices, the European Union, and internationally, and provide support on how to build up capacity and culture.

Furthermore, it is proposed that relevant public agencies with knowledge and mandates within civil defence, sanctions, security, and defence issues are tasked to assist the support function on issues of a security nature.

The support function is to receive initial funding of SEK7 million (US$696,000) annually.

Even after the final report was published in December 2024, there were stakeholders who had reservations about a national node for the coordination of higher education institutions regarding responsible internationalisation and security issues, necessitating that the government send the proposals out for comment.

Support for SUHF’s position

However, SUHF, which organises 38 universities and university colleges in Sweden, has had a significant role in coordinating the higher education’s responses to the proposals, and its latest recommendations have been referred to and endorsed by most of the higher education institutions which have responded to the latest call for comment.

For example, Stockholm University said in a written submission: “In relation to the often sensitive character in the questions [related to security] and the need for secure handling [of the matter] Stockholm University supports the judgement of SUHF that the responsibility of the national support function should be placed at the Swedish Defence University with support from the other higher education institutions, research funding agencies and the security authorities in accordance with the model proposed in the governmental report.”

Professor Erik Renstrom, rector of Lund University and chair of the internationalisation committee of the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF), told University World News Lund University’s input was “nearly identical” to that of the SUHF.

He said any discussion of responsible internationalisation was “made difficult” by the lack of a uniform definition of the concept.

“It contains different concepts that are partially overlapping. The investigation does not clearly define which of the concepts it refers to are included within responsible internationalisation. This entails a risk of both misunderstandings about conclusions, such as the purpose of a support function, and responsibilities between the higher education institution level and the national level,” he said.

University ownership of collaboration

The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), which has focused on responsible internationalisation as a priority area for several years and now is financing two projects related to government investigations – “Responsible internationalisation in an increasingly hostile international environment” by Christer Ljungwall and “Developing state-of-the-art knowledge on responsible internationalisation” by Tommy Shih – said during the latest round of hearings that STINT also supports the national support function.

“The support tasks, however, should be concentrated on questions regarding national security. That will mean protection against improper foreign governmental influence upon research and higher education.

“Other questions within the field of responsible internationalisation should still be fully owned by those universities and university colleges that themselves have the capacity to address these,” STINT said in a statement.

Mats Benner, a professor in science policy studies at Lund University’s School of Economics and Management and past member of the Swedish government’s Research Advisory Board (2009 to 2010, 2015 to 2016), told University World News the national support function seemed “to be inevitable in today’s fragile geopolitical system”.

He said it should be “supportive in complex security matters, leaving the crucial role of sustaining viable international connections to the universities themselves. It is important not to throw the university baby out with the security bathwater and retain the proactive authority of the universities in global collaborations, which are more important than ever before”.

Student representation

Vice-chair of the National Union of Students in Sweden (SFS) Elsa Berlin and political advisor Amanda Beckman said the SFS endorses the proposal to establish a national support function starting in 2025.

However, they said they will request a role for student representation in the function, referring to the Higher Education Act that gives students the right to be represented in those bodies within higher education dealing with decisions related to students or teaching.

“Even if the national support function is not going to be a body with decision-making power, it is going to have an advisory role towards the higher education institutions that most probably will have an impact upon teaching,” they said.

Beckman told University World News: “The SFS standpoint is that as long as the national node is organised within the higher education sector and not by an external authority, we see no issue with a higher education institution taking responsibility for it. We think it should be managed by a higher education institution, but we have no opinion on which specific institution it should be.”

She said it was important to highlight the fact that the report’s proposals do not discuss any questions in regard to education but focus almost solely on research – “even though a lot of questions in regard to internationalisation could affect students [such as] student exchange, access to research, international students, etcetera”.

Technology industries

Teresa Jonek, an expert on research and innovation at Teknikföretagen, the Technology Industries of Sweden, said a strong national support system for reducing foreign interference was “welcome”.

“The support function also has to take input from industry and the knowledge and experiences that exist on security issues in the companies,” she said.

Asked if Teknikföretagen supports the proposal to locate the node at the Swedish Defence University, Jonek said: “In the report, UHR, Vinnova and VR suggest that the national support function should be housed in one of the three authorities. In this context, Teknikföretagen has highlighted Vinnova as the most suitable authority.

“The reason for this is that Vinnova is about to form a programme office for strategic technologies where security issues and external analysis are central, and we see a clear need for coordination. Moreover, Vinnova is a financier of several strategic innovation programmes, which include R&D collaboration between companies and academia.”

Broad collaboration

Approached by University World News, Swedish Defence University Vice-Chancellor Professor Robert Egnell confirmed that his university was ready to host the national support function but said it also recognises that the job will be a complex task “that requires a broad collaborative effort involving the entire sector”.

He noted: “The task requires a clear definition of the mandate of the support function, as well as sufficient resources from the political level. It also requires a breadth of competence that must be provided from all the universities, funding organisations, intelligence agencies and other government agencies.”

Hans de Wit, professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education in the United States and a senior fellow of the International Association of Universities, described the developments as “interesting”, saying in general terms, the option of a central support function “looks like a well-balanced and, within the academic community, accepted decision”.

Referencing the position taken by STINT, he said: “It should be focused on support; it should focus on national security, and all the rest should be the autonomy of the academic community.

“One could add that responsible internationalisation needs to be a balance between concern over foreign interference and misuse of international collaboration and the importance of international collaboration for global social development (Sustainable Development Goals). If the emphasis is primarily on the first, the risk of isolation and going backwards is too high.”

A research field ‘in its own right’

Professor Ole Petter Ottersen, who has led two of the region’s most internationalised universities – the University of Oslo in Norway and the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm – told University World News: “International cooperation is the lifeblood of higher education institutions and societal development and should remain firmly anchored in institutional autonomy. A ‘national support structure’ would infringe on institutional autonomy and academic freedom if guidelines escalate to instructions or decrees.

“Obviously, this is less of a risk if the support structure or node is embedded in a higher education institution, as appears to be the plan in Sweden. But what can be achieved with a budget of SEK7 million or thereabouts, given the enormous complexity of the issue at hand? And why just focus on the risk of collaboration when there is also a substantial risk of not collaborating?”

He said that in a geopolitically turbulent world facing a number of common challenges, “we run a substantial risk if vital collaborative links are severed in the name of misguided advice.

“This calls for a balanced approach to responsible internationalisation and a willingness to invest in the development of relevant competence in each and every higher education institution. This is costly, but not investing would prove even costlier in the long run”.

He suggested that instead of a national support structure with marginal funding, a national (or Nordic) research centre on responsible internationalisation could be established.

“Such a centre could explore risks, challenges, benefits, and opportunities for academic cooperation across sectors, regions, and disciplines and provide a sound evidence base for autonomous decision-making and competence-building in the individual higher education institutions.

“With its complexity and societal importance, responsible internationalisation is a research field in its own right and deserves to be treated as such,” Ottersen said.