ABSTRACT Global North and Global South research partnerships are increasingly expected to practice equity, as advocated by decolonization movements, yet remain shaped by historically rooted power asymmetries. While structural critiques dominate current debates, less is known about how these dynamics unfold in everyday collaboration. This study explores how Global North and Global South institutional staff perceive and navigate partnership interactions, focusing on how power imbalances are managed and contested. Five region‐specific focus group discussions with 15 experienced staff were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by sociohistorical boundary work theory to examine how group distinctions negotiated and transformed in practice. Participants described tensions between the ideal of equitable collaboration and persistent structural inequities, with funders exerting configurational boundary work through their criteria to advance equity. Normative pressures to present partnerships as successful often led to emphasising benefits and avoiding open discussion of challenges. Staff employed both collaborative (e.g., negotiating roles, downplaying differences) and competitive boundary work (e.g., asserting contextual expertise) to navigate these tensions. Extending boundary work theory with a sociohistorical lens, this study highlights relational and psychological dimensions of partnerships and calls for reflexive practices and resources that enable open dialogue to support equity.
Buhl et al. (Wed,) studied this question.