Inverting the Decolonization Agenda for Research Partnerships

Despite decades of talk, why does “decolonizing” research partnerships still feel like a colonial project? The uncomfortable truth is that the reform is still being led by the very powers it seeks to dismantle.

Even with decades of critique and countless well-meaning declarations, the architecture of global research collaborations continues to be largely shaped by Global Northern institutions that set agendas, control funding, and define success, consequently dictating the terms of a conversation that should be about dismantling their own dominance. The underlying frameworks, vocabularies, and metrics for what counts as decolonial remain firmly anchored in Northern thought. The result is a paradoxical echo chamber where reformist language repackages the very hierarchies it claims to undo.

The consequence of the above is the recentering of the Global North’s authority in the very spaces that seek to question it. It subtly reinforces the idea that voices from the “Global South” still require validation from the “Global North,” and that their liberation must be supervised. By this, researchers from the “Global North” are cast as enlightened problem-solvers diagnosing challenges from the “Global South.” This is a narrative that quietly sustains racist assumptions about the competence and credibility of institutions in the “Global South.”

A System Working as Designed

The system is not failing; it is functioning to reproduce Northern spaces as the default site of knowledge and legitimacy. Partners from the “Global South,” in turn, become „grateful“ recipients rather than equal, problem-solving architects (especially when these “problems” are about them) (see, e.g., Abimbola 2021). This paternalism not only undermines ethical collaboration but also impoverishes the global knowledge landscape by sidelining epistemologies that could offer more grounded, pluralistic perspectives.

Funding, Accountability, and the Politics of Donorship

At the heart of this imbalance lies the politics of funding. Even well-intentioned “Global North” donors often set thematic priorities aligned with their own interests, with topics that may not reflect local realities. Consequently, “Global South” researchers feel compelled to reframe their work to fit donor expectations.

Decolonizing research partnerships therefore requires decolonizing funding itself. Developing alternative financing ecosystems rooted in “Global South” priorities such as regional endowments, diaspora-supported research funds, and cross-continental partnerships can loosen dependency.

Pathways to Inversion in Practice

Inversion begins with creating autonomous frameworks led by the “Global South” from which the “Northern” partners can learn and align. Researchers and institutions from the “Global South” can form independent consortia that draft and enforce collaboration charters. The Global Research Partnerships (GRP) Alliance guide for transboundary research partnerships is a good example of such frameworks.

They should clearly define equitable task distribution, transparent authorship based on contribution, methodological processes, and fair resource allocation. For instance, such charters could mandate reverse capacity-building, where “Global North” teams learn local epistemologies through immersive exchanges. These exchanges should be non-extractive, designed not to mine Indigenous knowledge but to understand it as an equal mode of reasoning. By this, “Global North” researchers would spend time understanding the philosophical and cultural contexts that give the data-in-use meaning, and there would be reciprocal learning models where expertise flows bidirectionally, transforming partnerships from hierarchical arrangements into collaborative ecosystems.

Decolonization must also extend to logistics and finance. Among other things, this means tackling humiliating visa barriers through pre-agreed diplomatic advocacy built into grant proposals. It also means reallocating budgets to prioritize “Global South”-led conferences, ensuring that the sites of knowledge exchange and networking are not perpetually in the “Global North.” Rather than waiting for “Northern” invitations, “Global South” institutions can host global gatherings on their own soil and their own spaces, spaces where the “Global North” should travel, listen, and adapt.

The Ethics of Relinquishment

For institutions in the “Global North,” decolonization should be seen not as an act of generosity but as an ethical practice of relinquishment (see e.g., Tuck and Wayne Yang 2012; Tuhiwai Smith 2021). This involves asking difficult questions about how whiteness, institutional prestige, and donor influence shape partnership practices. Universities can conduct internal equity audits and link funding eligibility to demonstrable power-sharing outcomes. Accountability must move from symbolism to structure.

Timelines and deliverables should also be flexible, respecting “Southern” contexts. Partnership work should not be forced into “Northern grant” cycles or publication pressures. Aligning with local calendars, languages, and relational ethics is not inefficiency; it is integrity. Decolonized research partnerships evolve at the pace of trust, not bureaucracy.

The Imperative for Inversion

Finally, this inversion is not a call for the exclusion of the “Global North.” However, its involvement should be reconfigured to consciously avoid reinforcing colonial tendencies. Their role becomes one of leveraging privilege to create space, redirect resources, and dismantle the very structures that have historically granted them dominance. It is a move from leading the conversation to listening, from directing to supporting, from defining to aligning, from commanding to co-learning, from setting the agenda to supporting agendas set by others. Decolonization, in this sense, becomes an act of humility, and decolonized partnerships would emerge from “Global South” voices, anchored in their own approaches to knowledge production, priorities, and definitions of justice.

Equally, this is a call for researchers and institutions in the “Global South” to assume the responsibility and momentum required to drive the process of decolonizing research partnerships. They cannot afford to wait for the “Global North” to initiate or validate these efforts, nor should they accept being invited into the conversation as an act of tokenism. True inversion demands proactive leadership, dedicating time, resources, and commitment to shaping agendas, building research infrastructures, and sustaining collaborative networks on their own terms. Decolonization will only take root when the “Global South” defines both the questions and the frameworks through which answers are pursued.

The decolonization of research partnerships requires inverting the agenda where the margins define the center. Through this, we can begin to transform research partnerships from a site of colonial repetition into a genuine practice of intellectual solidarity and shared discovery. It is when we invert the agenda that the future of knowledge production can finally reflect the world’s true diversity.

Note: The terms “Global North” and “Global South” are used here for lack of better alternatives. They are imperfect shorthand for deeply complex geopolitical, historical, and epistemic realities that resist simple categorization.

Medinat Malefakis is a Senior Lecturer at NADEL Institute for Global Cooperation and Sustainable Development at ETH Zurich. 

References:

–Abimbola S. (2021). The uses of knowledge in global health. BMJ Global Health.;6:e005802.
–Tuck E, Wayne Yang K (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor, Decolonization: Indigeneity, education & society 1 (1), 1-40
–Tuhiwai Smith, L (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (Third edition) Zed Books

To go back to our blog series on International Academic Mobility.