This study, focused on the Czech Republic, examines the influence of ethnic nationalism on the public willingness to accept war refugees from countries with different cultural and religious backgrounds. We present evidence relating to forced migration from Ukraine (predominantly Christian) and from countries with predominantly Muslim populations. The theoretical-conceptual framework for our study encompasses the concepts of ethnicity and historical institutionalism, and the theory of social identity. Our theoretical analysis is strengthened by evidence from structured and semi-structured interviews. We find that ethnic nationalism does contribute in part to public rejection of migrants with different ethnic or religious backgrounds in the Czech Republic, as one of several factors that encourage a perceived ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy among certain sectors of the Czech population.

Most literary histories with a global ambition attempt to map the world, often tilted toward a European/Western perspective and written as a teamwork by individual experts on a variety of regions – and maybe originating from those regions – each of them taking responsibility for their own linguistic and regional specialty. Often, the regional or local chapters offer few new insights for readers from that region, but useful insights for people from other parts of the world. A project along those lines follows what I will call a mapping strategy, which often leaves out an idea or a concept of what ‘world’ means in this context apart from the sum total of separate localities. This is, however, a necessary conceptualization which allows for a rethinking and rewriting of literary history, leading it in new directions beyond the aim of achieving global coverage. This article attempts to sketch an alternative to the mapping strategy.

Authoritarian populism can be defined by anti-establishment attitudes, exclusionary identity politics and anti-pluralism. It denies and derides diverging opinions. Authoritarian populism rejects the legitimacy of opponents, both political and academic, and is susceptible to post-truth politics often steered by tropes and conspiracy theories. It poses a real danger to academic freedom and scientific standards. This article supports this assertion and describes higher education under the authoritarian populist government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He has centralized the authority over higher education, and has in effect created a deep state, nurturing not just cronyism, but efforts to reorient the mindset of a generation of young Hungarians in an attempt to guarantee the populist and traditionalist ideological legacy of his regime. The article notes that forms of hierarchal political control over the universities and research institutes are falsely presented under the facade of the global process of marketizing universities. However, even in authoritarian Hungary, prompted by dissonance and commitments to academic freedom and scientific standards, there have been progressive counter-movements. These counter-movements provide insights into alternative visions of higher education that seek to preserve the integrity of academic standards, deliberation and intellectual plurality.

A fundamental question in relation to academic freedom is the setting of research agendas. In relation to this issue, this article first points to the great diversity of research as a result of the complex structure of the research ecosystem. Against this backdrop, the article continues by discussing six different steps in setting a research agenda. This, in turn, leads to a comparison of the two main approaches to set up a research agenda: bottom-up and top-down. Finally, the article presents recent tendencies and limitations to research agendas.

‘No nation has produced more anthologies or collections of women’s poetry than late imperial China’, according to Kang-i Sun Chang. Indeed, the open-access database of Ming–Qing Women’s Writings at McGill University Library includes 5239 women writers and 431 poetry collections. Yet virtually no trace of this phenomenon, or of these women writers, can be found in transcultural literary histories and anthologies of world literature published in the West in the twentieth century and beyond. How is this possible? The reason is not simply the lack of translations of many of the poems, but rather it has to do with the lack of canonization of these women poets in Chinese literary history until the late twentieth century, when they were ‘rediscovered’. This article investigates this neglect with the aim of showing that there were several different reasons for it, related to poetics, genre hierarchies, anthology editing practices, etc., in the imperial era, and to aspects of Chinese literary historiography in the twentieth century. Two women ci poets, Liu Shi and Qiu Jin, are briefly introduced to show that the reasons for their exclusion, as well as their later inclusion in the national literary canon, also need to be addressed on an individual level.

While the previous studies of the world history of literature are mostly concerned with the cross-cultural dissemination of literature, this article intends to analyse the intermediality of world literature in light of intermedial studies. It argues that the cross-cultural transmissions of literature are often entangled with and empowered by the intermedial interactions between literature and different forms of art. Under the theoretical framework of cross-cultural and intermedial studies, two representative Chinese literary works are discussed at length, namely Mulan ci (The Ballad of Mulan, sixth century) and Hong gaoliang (Red Sorghum, 1987). In addition to a careful analysis of their respective history of overseas transmissions, a comparative study of the two, an ancient poem and a modern novel, is carried out to show how the evolution of media has contributed to the cross-cultural transmissions of literature.

Who should decide a scientist’s research agenda? The scientist him- or herself? Superiors, such as science ministries or university management? Sponsors, such as funding organizations or industry? Interest groups, such as churches, political parties, animal rights organizations or patient initiatives? What is the right balance between the scientist’s autonomous decision on the one hand and players’ interests on the other? These questions will not be answered here, but reflected upon with regard to the difficult trade-offs involved and the threats to scientific freedom that can result from them. For this purpose, I propose an analytical framework that conceptualizes the thematic autonomy of science as a gradual interplay of individual choices of research topics made in the context of the respective scientific community, on the one hand, and external constraints, on the other. With regard to them, seven basic levers will be distinguished. This framework will be applied to the current state of German professors’ freedom to choose their research agenda.

The tendency to dismiss history in favour of close reading by twentieth-century British critics has cast a long shadow over critical practice. Yet the tendency to revere a formalist, a-historical, even a-political critical method primarily for its own sake seems to be singularly strong in English studies. This somewhat self-isolating tendency has not, for example, appeared as a noteworthy part of critical practice in comparative literature. Of course, the two fields have built up over time a mutual suspicion of each other’s critical methods, though it wasn’t just about the necessity of multilingualism but also about the value of history.

This article addresses the question of whether the ‘freedom of science’ (or ‘academic freedom’) is affected by the various measures of evaluation and performance measurement that have been introduced into research and higher education. The assumption is that the political, economic and technical changes that have taken place over the last three quarters of a century have had profound effects on the communication of science in general and on scientific publishing in particular. The crucial developments are: overall growth of science, the change of science policy in response to it, especially with respect to the governance of universities; the commercialization of academic publishing companies and the concentration of the journal market; the digitization of academic publishing and the capture of the process of evaluation internal to science by the publishing companies via the production of performance indicators, as well as of communication on digital platforms. All of these developments are interrelated in specific ways and, as such, unfold their effects on the publishing process and specifically on the publishing behaviour of academics. Rather than concluding that academic freedom is curtailed by evaluations and the application of performance indicators, these have led to a fundamental change of the publishing behaviour of scholars, and more generally of the culture of communication in science.

When Johann Wolfgang von Goethe coined the term ‘world literature’ (Weltliteratur) in 1831, he made it clear that this epoch had begun in his time and, like every epoch, would come to an end. This article is about the end of that epoch and the future of comparative literature in an era after the end of world literature. It is easy to see that we are now living in the era of world literatures. In a world in which, at first sight, literature counts for less and less, it must emphasize its unique selling point: it is the only form of human discourse that has actively expanded the realm of knowledge over several millennia. Only comparative literature, which draws on the most diverse literatures of the world, is able to bring this uniqueness into focus and highlight its social relevance.

This article investigates the evolving dynamics of global scientific production and collaboration from 2000 to 2022, focusing on the impact of geopolitical changes on academic freedom and international research collaboration. Historically dominated by Western liberal democracies, the global scientific landscape has seen a significant shift with the rise of emerging economies, particularly within the BRICS group. This transition reflects broader changes in wealth distribution and scientific output, with China emerging as the largest scientific system. The analysis employs bibliometric indicators and political metrics, including the V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index and the Academic Freedom Index, to assess changes in scientific output, academic freedom, and international collaboration. Results reveal a decline in academic freedom and liberal democracy in major science-producing countries, coinciding with increased scientific output from nations with lower academic freedoms. The study also examines international collaboration patterns, highlighting a shift away from traditional Western partners towards increased collaboration within the BRICS group. This shift is particularly evident in the growing partnerships between China, India and Russia. Despite the increased scientific output from these countries, Western countries, particularly the USA and European nations, remain pivotal in global scientific networks. In summary, the findings suggest a move towards a more multipolar scientific world, where the balance of power is shifting away from traditional Western hegemony. However, this shift comes with significant challenges, particularly concerning the erosion of academic freedom in many of the expanding scientific regions.