Assumptions the international partner often makes
"Decisions can be made by the researcher I am talking to"
Institutional commitments typically require approval at levels above the individual researcher, and sometimes across several offices. Asking a researcher to commit on behalf of their institution puts them in an impossible position. Ask instead what the internal process is and how long it takes.
"Not indexed internationally means not much research capacity"
Indexing coverage of Vietnamese-language journals is limited, and a substantial body of applied and policy work appears as reports. Absence from your usual search is weak evidence about capability.
"Our timeline will work"
Teaching loads are typically heavy and administrative duties substantial. Approvals involve more steps. Both compress the time available for the project itself. Build realistic slack rather than discovering this at the first milestone.
"Agreement means yes"
In many professional settings, direct refusal to a senior or external partner is avoided. A non-committal reply, a change of subject, or agreement without follow-through may signal a problem rather than assent. Create low-cost ways to disagree: ask what would make this difficult, ask for concerns in writing, ask a junior colleague separately.
"Ethics approval is a formality"
Requirements exist and vary by institution and by the nature of the research, and obtaining them takes time. Establish early which side obtains which approvals and how long each takes.
Assumptions the local partner often makes
"Interest means funding is coming"
An enthusiastic conversation is not a commitment. Ask explicitly what stage the funding is at: is there money now, is an application planned, or is this exploratory?
"The written agreement is a formality"
It is the document that governs when something goes wrong. Read the clauses on data, intellectual property and publication carefully, and involve your own institution's offices before signing.
"Publication will be sorted out later"
Later is when positions are hardest to negotiate. Settle authorship principles before results exist.
"Reporting will be straightforward"
Funders require documentation in specific formats, and requirements differ from local practice. Agree the format at the start and confirm what your own finance office needs in parallel.
Misunderstandings on both sides
- Silence means agreement. It often means the message was not understood, or that the recipient does not know how to raise a problem. Confirm explicitly.
- Email is enough. For anything important, a video call resolves in twenty minutes what email takes three weeks to muddle. Follow it with written confirmation.
- Everyone reads English the same way. Indiomatic and indirect phrasing — "we might want to consider", "it would be good to" — is read as a suggestion by one side and an instruction by the other. Be plain.
- The other side knows what we need. Reporting deadlines, ethics requirements, institutional constraints — state them explicitly rather than assuming they are obvious.
Practices that prevent most of this
- Write a one-page understanding early covering scope, roles, money, data, publication and timeline.
- Send a short summary after every substantive call, listing decisions and next steps, and ask for confirmation.
- Set a regular short meeting rather than meeting only when there is a problem.
- Ask direct questions that make disagreement easy: "What would make this difficult on your side?" rather than "Is this fine?"
- Visit in person once if resources allow. It changes the quality of communication for the rest of the project more than any other single action.
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.
