Balancing openness and security in scientific data governance: Institutional logics in China and the United States

This article examines how China and the United States address the openness–security tension in scientific data governance, a central issue in contemporary digital governance. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis of 36 national-level policy documents (18 China; 18 United States), we develop a comparative framework spanning four analytical dimensions: coordination objectives, institutional actors, governance mechanisms, and stakeholder legitimacy. China tends to adopt a centralized, developmentalist approach grounded in techno-sovereignty, whereas the United States more often relies on decentralized, rights-based coordination shaped by procedural transparency and public accountability. Theoretically, the study elaborates modular coordination theory by conceptualizing openness–security trade-offs as layered, adaptive institutional processes embedded in political regimes and legitimacy economies. We suggest that openness and security are co-evolving rather than binary opposites. The analysis focuses on national-level formal policy texts and does not directly observe enforcement or public responses. Our findings contribute to debates on digital sovereignty, public value, and legitimacy-sensitive policy design across national and transnational contexts.