Scholarlink

<p>In post-truth contexts, the boundaries of academic freedom are redrawn at the intersection of political, market and technological pressures. Growing governmental intervention, pre-emptive digital forms of governance and new forms of intellectual censorship redefine what can be said, and by whom, within university classrooms. Drawing on 30 interviews with visiting lecturers in International Relations and Economics in Russia, China and the US, the paper examines how ‘forbidden’, or restricted topics are produced, negotiated and resisted. Building on securitisation theory, the paper introduces a typology of regulatory, normative and social securitisation, showing how control is enacted through legal frameworks, tacit norms and polarised contestation. It identifies practices of anticipatory and self-securitisation, as faculty adapt to uncertainty, and analyses how AI operates as an infrastructural mediator of speech and knowledge. The findings suggest that academic freedom has become an ongoing act of negotiation, in which shifting boundaries present new threats but also create opportunities to de-securitise contested issues once their political or identity-based significance fades.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Forbidden topics? The securitisation of university teaching in Russia, China and the United States

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月23日

查看全文
  • Anne Crowley-Vigneau,
  • Andrey Baykov,
  • Tinghao Zhang

摘要

In post-truth contexts, the boundaries of academic freedom are redrawn at the intersection of political, market and technological pressures. Growing governmental intervention, pre-emptive digital forms of governance and new forms of intellectual censorship redefine what can be said, and by whom, within university classrooms. Drawing on 30 interviews with visiting lecturers in International Relations and Economics in Russia, China and the US, the paper examines how ‘forbidden’, or restricted topics are produced, negotiated and resisted. Building on securitisation theory, the paper introduces a typology of regulatory, normative and social securitisation, showing how control is enacted through legal frameworks, tacit norms and polarised contestation. It identifies practices of anticipatory and self-securitisation, as faculty adapt to uncertainty, and analyses how AI operates as an infrastructural mediator of speech and knowledge. The findings suggest that academic freedom has become an ongoing act of negotiation, in which shifting boundaries present new threats but also create opportunities to de-securitise contested issues once their political or identity-based significance fades.