LAUSR

Academic research and policy thinking on international research collaboration across the globe have relied on the categories “North” and “South,” alternatively described as “Global North” and “Global South.” Over time, these have become more commonplace than the “developed/developing” dichotomy or the Cold War–inspired nomenclature of “First,” “Second,” and “Third” Worlds (Wolvers et al., 2015). However, the assumptions and ideologies underpinning these categories are rarely made explicit. In practice, they are often based on the understanding that countries in the “North” can enhance research quality and impacts of the “South,” whereas those in the “South” are either trying to catch up or are merely recipients. In addition to oversimplifying world geography, these categories are vague and incomplete. They fail to distinctly position several countries that do not directly align within the “North” or the “South” in socioeconomic and political terms. Their use overemphasizes national contexts while obscuring the specific capabilities and constraints of those engaged in research partnerships. For one, increased academic mobility means that the people who are involved in these collaborations have experiences and backgrounds from a range of settings that may span both “North” and “South.” Moreover, researchers’ socialization into disciplinary communities, through which they develop specific intellectual outlooks and orientations, is not necessarily bound by national borders. Some argue that, as “the geographical location of researchers becomes more and more irrelevant,” terms such as “North” and “South” are blurred (Aksnes et al., 2008, p. 456; Sørensen & Wiborg Schneider, 2017). How can we better understand international research collaborations in this context? How can we address blind spots created by the “North–South” framing? In tackling these questions, we must acknowledge the persistent global inequities and vast asymmetries in research activity. Nevertheless, we believe that the assumptions under-