Why finding the right group is harder than it should be
Several structural factors make Vietnamese research less visible in the databases international partners search:
- A substantial share of work is published in Vietnamese-language journals with limited international indexing.
- Institutional web presence in English is uneven; some strong groups have almost none.
- Name ambiguity is severe — a small number of surnames covers a large share of the population, so author searches return mixed results.
- Applied and policy-facing work often appears as reports rather than journal articles.
The practical consequence: absence from your usual search is weak evidence of absence of capability. It is worth using additional channels.
Channels that work better
- Recent co-authored papers. Search for international papers with a Vietnamese affiliation in your field, then look at who the local co-authors are and where they work.
- Regional conferences in Southeast Asia, where groups present work that has not yet reached international journals.
- Vietnamese researchers working abroad in your field. They often maintain active links home and can introduce you appropriately.
- International research offices of major Vietnamese universities and academies — these exist and are usually responsive.
- Existing bilateral programmes between your country and Vietnam; funding agencies often maintain lists of partner institutions.
- Professional associations in the discipline.
Who to contact
Institutional structures differ from what you may be used to. Some guidance:
- The head of the faculty, department or institute usually needs to be informed for anything involving institutional commitment, even if your working relationship is with an individual researcher.
- The international cooperation office handles formal agreements and often has to be involved for anything with a written agreement.
- For an initial scientific conversation, contacting the individual researcher directly is entirely normal.
A common mistake is either extreme: going only through administration and never reaching the scientists, or making commitments with an individual that their institution has not agreed to.
What makes a first message work
- Be specific about their work. Name the paper you read and what in it connects to yours. Generic mass emails are recognised instantly and ignored.
- Say concretely what you propose — a conversation, a joint paper, a grant application, a student exchange. Vague expressions of interest do not give the recipient anything to respond to.
- Say what you bring. Access to equipment, funding, data, training opportunities. Be honest if you are still at the exploratory stage.
- Keep it short. A first email should be readable in a minute.
- Allow time. Teaching loads are heavy and administrative duties substantial; a reply may take a couple of weeks. One polite follow-up is appropriate.
What to avoid
- Proposing a relationship where one side only collects samples or data. This is recognised as extractive and it damages your reputation locally.
- Assuming limited capability and pitching accordingly. Many groups have strong methodological expertise and international experience.
- Making commitments about funding, authorship or equipment before you can deliver them.
- Ignoring the institutional layer entirely — it will surface later, usually at the least convenient moment.
Moving from contact to collaboration
The pattern that works most reliably is incremental: a video conversation, then a small joint output such as a co-authored review or a workshop, then a funded project. Each step builds the trust and the practical understanding — of timelines, of reporting, of institutional procedure — that a larger project needs.
Note: requirements, procedures and institutional practices described here vary between countries, institutions and journals, and change over time. Always check the current rules of the specific institution or publisher you are dealing with.
