Same Destination, Different Paths
One of the first things noticeable upon arriving in the Netherlands on 18 June 2026 was the sense of order. After completing immigration at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, the journey continued to Groningen by train. The integration between the airport and the railway station made transferring between modes easy and efficient. Travel schedules could be accessed via an app or information boards scattered throughout the station. Passengers often had to change platforms in a relatively short time, requiring brisk walks or even a short run to avoid missing a train that arrived exactly on schedule. The timetable felt like a shared commitment, maintained by a system designed to be predictable, measurable, and reliable.
However, even the most precise system is not immune to unforeseen events. On a journey from Groningen to Maastricht, the train could not continue due to a power failure on the line after the first city passed. Following the announcement, passengers accustomed to using the train immediately opened their travel apps to find alternative routes to their destinations. Tourists like us, however, had to first ask staff or other passengers to confirm the replacement route. Information was clearly available, but each passenger still had to make their own decision on the next step. The system provided alternatives, while the user determined the choice most suited to their needs.
Beyond technical disruptions, we also faced disturbances caused by human factors, namely strike actions in the Netherlands and Belgium. What was impressive, however, was not the disruption itself, but how the information was communicated. Well before the day of the strike, official apps and websites displayed the affected schedules, cancelled services, and available alternatives, giving passengers ample time to adjust their travel plans. Scheduled infrastructure renovations were communicated in the same way. A good system is not one that never fails, but one that responds to failure transparently and honourably.
A similar experience occurred when using a Belgian train from Liège-Guillemins station to Brussels Midi station to continue the journey by high-speed train to France. At one of the cities along the route, another power failure occurred. This time, the response was different but equally intelligent. The train did not stop and wait; instead, it took a detour to avoid the problem area before returning to the original line after passing the disruption. Passengers did not need to disembark or find an alternative connection. The train arrived at Brussels Midi station exactly on time. Two incidents, two different responses, one shared principle: the destination must still be reached, even if the path must change.
These two experiences are not unlike the journey of master’s and doctoral students conducting research at Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta. In the research process, disruptions are almost certain to occur. Data may not be collected as planned, methods may yield findings different from initial assumptions, foundational literature may have been refuted by newer studies, or repeatedly scheduled respondents may remain difficult to meet. No research runs smoothly from start to finish exactly as written in the proposal. What distinguishes successful researchers from unsuccessful ones is not the absence of problems, but the speed and intelligence of their response.
The Dutch railway system provided alternative routes and compensation rights. The Belgian railway system chose a detour before returning to the original line. Both teach something highly relevant to researchers. Sometimes we need to pause, evaluate, and find a new path to the same goal. At other times, we need to take a detour, using an approach not planned from the start, before returning to the main path after overcoming the obstacle. What must not be done is to remain stuck at the point of disruption, hoping the problem will resolve itself. Research does not wait for the researcher to be ready; it waits for the researcher to move.
This is where the role of supervisors, co-supervisors, and the institution becomes crucial. Like railway staff who promptly provide information and alternatives when a disruption occurs, a good supervisor is present not only when everything is running smoothly, but precisely when the researcher faces a dead end. However, just as passengers must ultimately choose their own travel route, researchers must also make their own academic decisions. Providing a map of alternative routes, helping evaluate whether a detour or a pause is needed, and ensuring students do not remain trapped in frustration for too long are all part of the genuine mentoring process. A culture of supervision that is responsive to research obstacles is an important factor in maintaining the quality of the postgraduate education process.