Abstract

Funders (located primarily in high‐income countries) and high‐income country researchers have historically dominated decision‐making within global health research collaborations: from setting agendas and research design to determining how data are collected and analysed and what happens with findings and outputs. The ethical principle of shared decision‐making has been proposed as a way to help address these imbalances within collaborations and to reduce semicolonial and exploitative forms of global health research. It is important to be clear about what shared decision‐making means in order to ensure that it is not done in a tokenistic, shallow way. Thus far, the principle’s content has not been examined and articulated in detail. This paper aims to start the process of delineating a concept of fair shared decision‐making as a minimum standard for global health research. Using two hypothetical case examples, the paper will demonstrate that global health research practice is often inconsistent with ideal shared decision‐making. In such instances, it can be difficult to decide whether shared decision‐making within collaborations is fair. The paper describes how the two cases do not meet criteria for unfair or non‐ideal shared decision‐making, despite having potentially morally troubling features. The nuances of these examples of research practice help to generate clearer ideas about how to judge fairness in shared decision‐making. The paper concludes by presenting ideas about when soft power can be fairly employed between high‐income‐country and low‐ and middle‐income‐country partners and what fair compromise agreements may look like in shared decision‐making.