Introduction
International policy discussion depends on the cross-border circulation of concepts: terms such as “resilience”, “green transition” and “supply chain security” travel between languages, appearing neutral while each carries institutional assumptions and value orderings of a particular context. When concepts enter a new context their meaning may shift, be selectively appropriated, or lose key qualifications in translation. Translation is not only a linguistic matter but a politics of knowledge.
Three sources of distortion in concept migration
- Context stripping: a concept grew in specific institutional and historical settings, and its institutional premises are often ignored when used across borders.
- Selective translation: multiple meanings are simplified in translation, leaving the layer that best fits the user’s agenda.
- Reverse shaping: when a foreign concept becomes the only legitimate expression, local experience is forced into an external framework, and problems that could have been seen fall silent.
How multilingual research institutions respond
For research institutions working mainly in Chinese and English, translation politics is a daily matter. Responsible practice includes at least: defining key concepts and giving their sources on first use; retaining original wording for untranslatable concepts and explaining the difference; and actively building “concept comparison” work — comparing how the same policy problem is expressed in different linguistic traditions so that discussion does not presuppose one language as the baseline.
Translation as research method
Going further, translation can be a research method and not merely a dissemination tool. Having researchers in different languages confront the same set of concepts and compare how they are understood and used in different contexts often exposes presuppositions that monolingual research takes for granted. This is why the Institute insists on multilingual work and rejects treating translation as an “add-on”: it is part of research quality.
Conclusion
The international flow of knowledge is inevitable, but its manner can be chosen. Letting concepts be tested in translation, and letting multiple languages take part in defining them, is a more responsible way for knowledge production to cross boundaries.
Sources and version: this is an editorial opinion piece; version v1.0 (2026-09).