Equitable Global Research Partnerships: Shared Priorities, Resources and Decision-Making

Treat equity as an operating question

A partnership can include institutions from several countries while leaving major decisions concentrated in one place. Examine who defines the research question, controls funding, approves changes and decides how findings are published. Equity requires attention to those arrangements, not only an inclusive list of participating organisations.

The British Academy's call to action on equitable international collaboration emphasises understanding partners' contexts and objectives. ^[1] Apply that principle through concrete discussion. Ask each partner what it needs from the project, what constraints it faces and which decisions it must be able to influence.

Co-develop the agenda before the application

Invite partners early enough to shape the research problem, design and proposed benefits. Asking an institution to endorse a finished application is different from involving it in research planning. Allocate time for local consultation, language review and discussion of whether the question is useful to the communities concerned.

Record disagreements and how they are resolved. A shared agenda does not require identical priorities, but it does require a workable explanation of how the project serves legitimate interests. If the proposed method or timescale is inappropriate in one setting, revise the plan rather than treating local concerns as obstacles to implementation.

Make resources and administrative work visible

Create budgets that reflect the actual work at each site, including coordination, translation, participant engagement and financial administration. Discuss the timing of payments and whether reimbursement arrangements create cash-flow burdens. Where funder rules constrain choices, explain those rules and consider what can still be changed.

UKRI includes equitable partnerships within its approach to international research collaboration. ^[2] At project level, fairness also requires clear access to information. Partners should understand the relevant budget, reporting obligations and conditions affecting their work. Do not assume that a smaller institution can absorb unbudgeted tasks simply because its contribution is described as in-kind.

Agree decision rights, data access and credit

Set out which decisions are made jointly and which remain with each institution. Include a process for changing the protocol, reallocating resources and responding to emerging risks. Establish an escalation route that a junior researcher or less powerful partner can use without relying entirely on the project lead.

Discuss authorship and other forms of credit at the planning stage, then update contribution records as work develops. Data arrangements should account for consent, ethics, local rules and the partners' legitimate interests. Neither unrestricted extraction nor blanket withholding is a substitute for an agreed, lawful and responsible sharing plan.

Illustrative example: a comparative community study

Imagine a well-resourced university seeks a local partner to study adult learning in rural communities. The original proposal gives the local team responsibility for recruitment and interviews but little influence over the questions or analysis. In a joint planning meeting, the local institution identifies a different language barrier and a more relevant sampling approach.

The partners revise the protocol, budget for translation and assign joint leadership of an analysis work package. They agree how community findings will be returned and how contributions will be credited. These changes do not remove every power difference, but they create specific responsibilities and rights that can be reviewed during the project.

Review equity during delivery

• Can all partners access the information needed to make decisions?
• Are payment schedules and reporting demands workable?
• Has the distribution of work changed without corresponding resources?
• Are local concerns affecting the protocol and interpretation?
• Can researchers raise concerns through a credible process?
• Are public communications accurate about each partner's contribution?

Use confidential feedback where appropriate, especially when funding relationships make open disagreement difficult. Share the findings at a level that protects individuals while enabling corrective action. An annual statement that the partnership is equitable is less useful than evidence that identified problems were addressed.

Plan benefits and responsibilities after the project

Agree who can use outputs, maintain resources and pursue follow-on opportunities. Consider whether local teams retain usable skills, materials and access when the grant ends. Budget for returning findings in relevant languages and formats where this is appropriate and feasible.

Equity is contextual and cannot be established by a universal percentage split of funds or authorship. Some differences are justified by distinct responsibilities; others reflect avoidable exclusion. The aim is a transparent, reviewable arrangement in which partners can question decisions, understand constraints and share in the value created by the research.