A partner will happily supply references, and those references will be positive. That tells you they have satisfied at least one collaborator — which was never really in question.
The useful conversation is with someone whose collaboration did not go smoothly, and finding that person takes deliberate effort.
Who to speak to
- Previous international collaborators, including ones not on their reference list.
- People who left the group.
- Others in the same field locally.
- Anyone whose project with them ended early.
Questions that produce real answers
- What surprised you about working with them?
- What would you do differently next time?
- Did the timeline hold, and if not why?
- How were disagreements handled?
- Would you work with them again, and on what conditions?
What to verify directly
- That the equipment described is present and operating.
- That named staff exist and are available.
- That previous projects produced the outputs claimed.
- That institutional approval processes are as described.
Signals worth attending to
- They volunteer their limitations without being asked.
- They have declined something before.
- Junior staff speak freely in front of the leader.
- Previous partners are still in contact with them.
Warning signs
- Every question is answered with unqualified yes.
- No previous collaborator can be named.
- Vagueness about who exactly will do the work.
- Reluctance to discuss authorship or budget specifics.
One thing worth remembering
The most informative signal is that a prospective partner tells you what they cannot do, before you ask.
It is rare, it costs them something to say, and it is the strongest available evidence that everything else they tell you can be relied on — including the parts you will have no way to verify until you are already committed.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
Why are supplied references insufficient?
Because they tell you the partner has satisfied at least one collaborator, which was never in question — the useful conversation is with someone whose collaboration did not go smoothly.
Who should you speak to?
Previous international collaborators including ones not on the reference list, people who left the group, others in the same field locally, and anyone whose project ended early.
Which questions produce real answers?
What surprised you about working with them, what would you do differently, did the timeline hold and why not, how were disagreements handled, and would you work with them again and on what conditions.
What should be verified directly?
That the described equipment is present and operating, that named staff exist and are available, that previous projects produced the claimed outputs, and that approval processes are as described.
What is the most informative signal?
That a partner tells you what they cannot do before you ask — it is rare, costs them something to say, and is the strongest evidence that everything else can be relied on.
