As recent research indicates, refugees and people seeking asylum are suffering disproportionately from the COVID‐19 pandemic and have become more and more “shut out” and marginalised. An important pathway to integration and self‐reliance is sustainable employment. To explore the impacts of COVID‐19 on the employment prospects of refugees and people seeking asylum, we conducted 35 interviews with managers from Australian organisations that employ or assist refugees and asylum seekers in finding employment and 20 interviews with refugees and people seeking asylum. Our interviews indicate that the labour market has become more difficult for these groups in the COVID‐19 era due to (1) declines in job availabilities, (2) loss of jobs, (3) increased competition in the labour market and (4) increased discrimination and an “Australian first” mentality. Our interviews further suggest four strategies to improve employment prospects in the current situation: (1) pathways to permanent residency and citizenship for people seeking asylum; (2) access to healthcare and a financial safety net; (3) online training and education; and (4) social procurement.

Significant collaborations with research partners in China are seen in many Western countries. With increasing US-China geopolitical tensions, governments, research institutions, and individuals in established scientific systems are increasingly required to address a proliferating array of risks and challenges associated with collaboration with China. Academic researchers are only beginning to describe how countries are responding to the ongoing need for global scientific collaboration amidst intensifying geopolitical competition. Several studies have examined the securitization of scientific connections with China in the USA, while others have documented developments in nations such as Australia, the UK, and Sweden. However, there is limited comparative research on approaches to international science amid geopolitical tensions. This paper bridges the gap, illuminating the key dimensions of variation in country-level responses by comparing the cases of Sweden and Australia. The questions we ask are as follows: Who responds to the challenges? By what means? And to what ends are responses directed? Swedish government have been largely passive, but Swedish funding agencies have developed “responsible internationalisation” guidelines that aim to induce proactive reflection by institutions and individual researchers. Australia’s approach, by contrast, has centred on legislation, the exercise of ministerial powers, along with sector-wide enactment of expanded due diligence protocols. The comparison highlights key differences in the actors, methods and goals of responses to the intensifying geopolitics of scientific collaboration.

No abstract

Significant collaborations with research partners in China are seen in many Western countries. With increasing geopolitical tensions governments, research institutions and individuals are increasingly called upon to address a proliferating array of risks and challenges associated with scientific collaboration with China. The situation is characterised by two parallel, intertwined processes. On the one hand, scientific research is characterised by openness and the ambition to do good for humanity. On the other hand an increased focus on knowledge securitization. How responses in different countries develop to this conflict are starting to be apparent, and academic studies are only beginning to describe how these responses look like. To date, the majority of studies focusing on how concerns over collaboration with China shape internationalisation look at the US. A few studies focus on other advanced science nations, for example Australia, UK, or Sweden. But there is limited comparative research on approaches to internationalisation in the context of these geopolitical tensions. This paper bridges the gap by illuminating the dimensions of variation in country-level responses to this situation. Comparing the cases of Sweden and Australia illustrates the wide variation that exists in the agents, methods and goals of responses. The comparison illuminates differences in responses by countries across these three dimensions.