The article contributes to a better understanding of the role of research in the policies of the states that are scientifically engaged in the High North. The research covers 17 European states: six are Arctic and 11 non-Arctic, which were selected according to the following (at least one) formulated criteria: having an established tradition of carrying out scientific research in the Arctic region; having issued Arctic policy documents and/or Arctic research strategies; participation in the activities of the Arctic Council; and having gained membership of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). In the analysis we have applied a mixed research method, since it incorporates elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches and offers a more comprehensive review of the scrutinised texts. The qualitative analysis relies on a discourse analysis (predicate analysis). The quantitative part of the analysis utilizes the instruments of a software research tool – The AntConc. In the end, the outcomes of both methods are merged and compared. The study reveals that conducting scientific research is not a top priority for all Arctic states. However, it has the highest similarity in terms of applied approaches among Arctic states as compared to other fields (e.g. the economy, security or pollution). At the same time, the environment and climate change are perceived to be the most important drivers behind Arctic research as defined in the Arctic states' strategies. Moreover, there are major differences among both Arctic and non-Arctic states in terms of the level of accuracy in the presentation of their research activities, particularly with regard to the implementation of scientific programmes and research aims. Finally, the research indicates that all states highlight that international scientific cooperation stimulates cooperation also in other areas and that research provides information that supports decision making and policy creation.

本文有助于更好地理解研究在高地科学参与国家的政策中的作用。这项研究涵盖了17个欧洲国家：六个北极国家和11个非北极国家，它们是根据以下（至少一个）制定的标准选定的：具有在北极地区开展科学研究的既定传统；发布了北极政策文件和/或北极研究策略；参加北极理事会的活动；并获得了国际北极科学委员会（IASC）的成员资格。在分析中，我们采用了混合研究方法，因为它结合了定性和定量方法的要素，并提供了对审查文本的更全面的审查。定性分析依赖于话语分析（谓语分析）。分析的定量部分利用了软件研究工具AntConc的工具。最后，将两种方法的结果进行合并和比较。研究表明，进行科学研究并不是所有北极国家的头等大事。但是，与其他领域（例如经济，安全或污染）相比，北极在各州之间的应用方法方面具有最高的相似性。同时，环境和气候变化被认为是北极国家战略中定义的北极研究背后最重要的推动力。此外，北极国家和非北极国家在表达其研究活动的准确性方面存在重大差异，特别是在执行科学计划和研究目标方面。最后，研究表明，所有国家都强调国际科学合作也会促进其他领域的合作，并且研究提供的信息可支持决策和政策制定。