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-

中文翻译：

---

超越“北方”和“南方”：国际研究合作的全球视角

关于全球国际研究合作的学术研究和政策思考依赖于“北方”和“南方”类别，也可称为“全球北方”和“全球南方”。随着时间的流逝，这些已经比“发达/发展中”的二分法或冷战时代激发的“第一，第二和第三世界”的命名法更加普遍（Wolvers等，2015）。但是，很少明确阐明支持这些类别的假设和意识形态。实际上，它们通常基于这样的理解，即“北方”国家可以提高研究质量和“南方”国家的影响，而“南方”国家则是试图追赶或仅仅是接受国。除了过分简化世界地理之外，这些类别也是模糊且不完整的。他们未能明确地定位在社会经济和政治意义上不在“北方”或“南方”内直接统一的几个国家。他们的使用过分强调了国情，而掩盖了从事研究伙伴关系的人的具体能力和制约因素。首先，学术流动性的提高意味着参与这些合作的人们具有来自可能跨越“北方”和“南方”的一系列环境的经验和背景。此外，研究人员进入学科社区的社交化，通过他们发展出特定的智力观和取向，并不一定受国界的束缚。一些人认为，随着“研究人员的地理位置变得越来越不相关”，诸如“北方”和“南方”之类的术语变得模糊了（Aksnes等，2008，第456页；Sørensen和Wiborg Schneider，2017年）。在这种情况下，我们如何更好地了解国际研究合作？我们如何解决“南北”框架造成的盲点？在解决这些问题时，我们必须承认研究活动中持续存在的全球不平等和巨大的不对称性。尽管如此，我们认为这些假设不足-