Instituting solidarity: the role of research institutes in advancing global health equity

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing discourse around equity, social justice and partnership, global health (GH) research remains shaped by entrenched asymmetries in funding, authorship, data ownership and priority-setting. Solidarity, framed variously as a moral principle or political stance, has been promoted as both corrective and a necessary response to these inequities. Yet, the operationalization of solidarity within research institutes (RIs) (i.e. how leaders interpret, institutionalize and negotiate solidaristic commitments) remains underexplored. This paper draws on findings from a global study of meanings and practices relevant to solidarity among diverse GH stakeholders. METHODS: In 2024-2025, we conducted exploratory qualitative research using semistructured interviews (N = 75) with a range of GH stakeholders. In this paper, we draw on the 13 interviews conducted with leaders of GH RIs to highlight findings specific to solidarity in and for GH research. Data analysis was conducted using team-based thematic analysis supported by NVIVO 15 (QSR). RESULTS: Thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified five themes in research institute leaders' accounts of how solidarity is or is not enactment in their GH research experience. Each theme describes a requirement or outcome of solidarity-informed research, and includes that such research: (1) generates tangible equitable results or outcomes; (2) accounts for how relationships and impacts unfold over time; (3) operationalizes and depends on less hierarchical ways of working; (4) demands fair distribution of burdens and benefits in research; and (5) requires deep, active listening. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides insight on how solidarity is understood and can be actualized in GH research practice, according to directors in GH RIs who occupy critical roles in structuring and legitimizing GH research agendas. The findings emphasize the need to treat solidarity in and for GH research not as a static ethical ideal, but as a dynamic, relational practice requiring reflexivity, structural reforms and sustained commitment. RIs, as ethical actors, must reconfigure their practices to meaningfully institutionalize solidarity through co-design, authorship, partnership and funding practices. Ultimately, this paper contributes to a growing agenda to reimagine GH research not merely as a technical endeavour but also as a site of political and ethical action.