Exiled Syrian researchers built lasting networks by moving from asking for help to offering expertise
Syrian researchers in exile formed more enduring academic networks once they became collaborators, mentors or experts, a Written Communication paper reports. Lead author Baraa Khuder of Chalmers says university programs should leave room for researchers to give as well as receive.
The Scientist · Science desk
Researchers offered expertise, data, feedback and contacts. A conversation could lead to an introduction, data or feedback, then a collaboration. Networks led to conference presentations, funding applications and data access; one researcher got a postdoctoral position.
- capability Researchers as contributors Contributed methodological expertise, data, feedback and professional contacts of their own, claim 4
- precedent A single conversation Could lead to an introduction, then data or manuscript feedback, then a new collaboration, claim 5
- capability The researchers' networks Led to conference presentations, applications for research funding and access to data, claim 6
- precedent One researcher Secured a postdoctoral position through their network, claim 6
| Who | How | Kind | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Researchers as contributors | Contributed methodological expertise, data, feedback and professional contacts of their own | capability | 4 |
| A single conversation | Could lead to an introduction, then data or manuscript feedback, then a new collaboration | precedent | 5 |
| The researchers' networks | Led to conference presentations, applications for research funding and access to data | capability | 6 |
| One researcher | Secured a postdoctoral position through their network | precedent | 6 |
What happened
- The paper is by Baraa Khuder of Chalmers University of Technology and Bojana Petric of the University of London, and appeared in Written Communication.
- It belongs to a three-year project on Syrian researchers in exile, looking at how they build networks that support writing for scholarly publication.
- Ties developed in small steps: a conversation led to an introduction, which led to data or manuscript feedback, and sometimes to a collaboration.
- Those networks led to publications, conference presentations, funding applications and data access, and one researcher secured a postdoctoral position through theirs.
Why it matters
- decision A program that only hands out introductions now has to add a step: asking each participant what they can offer, and leaving room for work to continue after the meeting.
- exposure Schemes that treat exiled researchers only as recipients keep them in the position the study links to less enduring relationships.
- constraint The finding supports building reciprocity into programs, but a funder cannot yet price what that buys in publication quality, because the listed outcomes are types of output.
"For researchers in stable circumstances, networks are often seen as a route to academic excellence. For researchers in vulnerable situations, they can be a matter of survival," Khuder said [7].
The study describes tie-building as slow and cumulative. A single conversation could lead to an introduction, the introduction to data or to feedback on a manuscript, and that in turn to a new collaboration [5]. "We saw how what initially appeared to be a small step could, over time, lead to much more significant academic outcomes," Khuder said [11].
According to the summary, the most important finding was that networks became stronger and more sustainable when researchers could contribute themselves [3]. "We found that relationships became more enduring when researchers moved from being help-seekers to becoming collaborators, mentors or experts. They contributed methodological expertise, data, feedback and professional contacts of their own," Khuder said [4].
The outcomes listed are kinds of output, and none is a measure of quality [6]. The summary does not include the number of researchers followed, how the networks were mapped, or any comparison of structured with informal programs.
The study cannot show which way the effect runs. Researchers with more to offer may have been the ones whose contacts lasted, or lasting contacts may have given them room to contribute. The sample is also one national group, tracked within a three-year project [2].
Universities and research funders, Khuder argues, need to do more than create chances to meet. She wants support that helps researchers identify their goals, the contacts they need and what they can contribute themselves, with meetings that leave scope for ongoing collaboration [8]. "Informal meetings certainly have value, but our findings suggest that more guidance and structure are needed. Particularly for researchers in vulnerable situations, support needs to create the conditions for reciprocal and long-term collaboration," she said [9].
She uses the same exercise with doctoral students, who map their future goals and networks and reflect on the support they need and what they can offer others [10].
What to watch
- The published paper itself, which should show how many researchers were followed and how outcomes were counted.
- Any university or funder that runs structured and informal networking programs side by side for displaced researchers, since the study offers no such comparison.
- Further papers from the three-year Syrian-researcher project, particularly any that measure publication quality directly.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence35
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+10
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence50
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
The study, titled 'Academic Networking in Transition: Mapping Trajectories of Mobility and Precarity', was conducted by Baraa Khuder of Chalmers University of Technology and Bojana Petric of the University of London, and was published in Written Communication.
- [2]
The study is part of a three-year project on Syrian researchers in exile and their pathways into new academic environments, and explores how researchers build networks to support their efforts to write for scholarly publication.
- [3]
The most important finding was that networks became stronger and more sustainable when researchers were able to contribute themselves.
- [4]
Khuder said: "We found that relationships became more enduring when researchers moved from being help-seekers to becoming collaborators, mentors or experts. They contributed methodological expertise, data, feedback and professional contacts of their own."
- [5]
Progress often developed gradually: a single conversation could lead to an introduction, which provided access to data or feedback on a manuscript, and this could then develop into a new collaboration.
- [6]
The networks led to publications, conference presentations, applications for research funding and access to data, and one of the researchers also secured a postdoctoral position through their network.
- [7]
Khuder said: "For researchers in stable circumstances, networks are often seen as a route to academic excellence. For researchers in vulnerable situations, they can be a matter of survival."
- [8]
Khuder argues that universities and research funders need to do more than create opportunities to meet; she recommends support that helps researchers identify their goals, the contacts they need and what they can contribute, with meetings that provide scope for ongoing collaboration.
- [9]
Khuder said: "Informal meetings certainly have value, but our findings suggest that more guidance and structure are needed. Particularly for researchers in vulnerable situations, support needs to create the conditions for reciprocal and long-term collaboration."
- [10]
Khuder applies the same approach in teaching doctoral students, who map their future goals and networks and reflect on the support they need as well as what they can offer others.
- [11]
Khuder said: "We saw how what initially appeared to be a small step could, over time, lead to much more significant academic outcomes."
Get this ledger inside ChatGPT. Ask about any of our stories and the answer brings its figure, each claim’s verdict and the sources. Free, no account.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.