Much of these two weeks was devoted to writing my research paper on transnational referral mechanisms, bringing the material I had been working through into a document colleagues could use. The paper moved from definitions and existing approaches to gaps in provision, before considering IJM’s contribution and possible next steps. The most difficult part was organisation. Each section opened onto further questions, and managing my time meant deciding how much attention each needed without losing sight of the paper as a whole. Researching an institutional mechanism also meant looking beyond its legal definition: who would make a referral, who would receive it, and what would happen to the person in between? These practical questions helped give the work a clearer direction, although organising the answers was another matter.
An important source was the Survivor Voices Study, undertaken with IJM as a project partner, which examined twelve survivors’ experiences along the Romania–Germany trafficking route. One account described a participant telling a doctor about overwork and withheld wages. She received medical leave, but the encounter did not lead to a referral for possible labour exploitation. The example illustrates a wider concern explored in my paper: people can encounter institutions that could help them without their circumstances being recognised or acted upon. Alongside this, publications from the German Institute for Human Rights (DIMR) informed my discussion of fragmented responsibilities and reliance on informal contacts in cross-border referrals. Reading these sources together gave substance to what could otherwise remain a rather abstract discussion of coordination. A referral mechanism needs people who recognise when to use it, understand their responsibilities, and know whom to contact.
Putting this material together also raised questions about my own responsibility as a researcher. The survivor accounts gave the institutional analysis specificity, but a small qualitative study could not stand in for every experience of trafficking. I needed to consider what each source could support and how to explain its relevance without overstating it. This offered a more immediate connection to leadership through intellectual humility and practical judgement: producing something useful required care in both interpreting the evidence and communicating it to colleagues. In retrospect, I would have benefited from setting clearer checkpoints for each section earlier, leaving more time to review how the arguments fitted together. As the paper developed, I wanted to become better at judging when further reading was necessary and when it was time to organise what I already had.
A few days before my farewell, some colleagues brought in an electric stove to cook pasta—vegetarian again—and watch a football match. They invited me to join after a research session, and somewhere between the workday and this makeshift dinner, I realised how close I was to leaving. By then, the workplace that had initially felt so unfamiliar had become somewhere I felt included. Receiving a mug and a cute little coffee bean as send-off gifts made the farewell especially bittersweet; I was grateful for how warmly I had been welcomed, and reluctant to see it end.
