In this episode, Prof. Dr. Daniel Schubert of Freie Universität Berlin discusses effective doctoral supervision and his experiences as a Supervisor Award winner. He explains why personalized guidance, openness, and flexibility are, in his view, key prerequisites for a successful doctoral degree, and why he strives to give doctoral students as much freedom as possible for their academic development. The discussion also covers the selection of doctoral candidates, dealing with conflicts and challenges during the doctoral program, as well as career paths in biology both within and outside of academia.

Audio

This interview was conducted in German in May 2026. An English transcript can be found below.

Highlights

For me, good supervision means, let’s say, on the one hand, bringing out the very best in people. That means I essentially provide a framework within which the doctoral candidates or those I’m supervising—who might also be postdocs—can simply flourish. That’s very, very important to me. So I actually try as much as possible to prescribe as little as possible and first see in which direction the doctoral students can develop or what interests they have.

-from our interview with Prof. Dr. Daniel Schubert

Transcript

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I’m hosting today’s episode, in which I’ll be speaking with Professor Dr. Daniel Schubert. He is a professor of plant epigenetics at Freie Universität Berlin, has been actively supervising doctoral students for many years, and has served as dean of the Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy since 2025. For his supervision, he was honored with the DRS Supervisor Award, a prize for which doctoral students themselves nominate their advisors.

In this episode, we discuss what constitutes good doctoral supervision, how much freedom doctoral students need, and why openness and adaptability play such a major role for him in supervision. We also discuss why individually tailored supervision is central to Professor Schubert’s approach, why curiosity often matters more to him than already perfect subject knowledge, and why having fun is an important part of a successful doctoral program for him. With that in mind, enjoy listening to the interview.

Dear Prof. Schubert, first of all, welcome to the podcast. Could you please start by briefly introducing yourself?

Yes, of course. My name is Daniel Schubert. I’m a professor of plant epigenetics in the Department of Biology at Freie Universität Berlin, where I’ve been for nearly ten years. Before that, I was a junior research group leader in Düsseldorf for another nine years, and I’ve supervised quite a few doctoral students, postdocs, and so on. And for several years now, I’ve also been part of the Dean’s Office of our Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy, and for the past year, I’ve served as dean. That means I’m exposed to quite a lot, even outside my research group, which is always exciting, but more often than not, that’s where the more difficult cases end up, which I have to deal with.

Your doctoral students certainly seem to be satisfied with you, as they not only nominated you for the Supervisor Award but also helped you win it. Can you still remember the moment you found out you had won the award, and how did that make you feel?

Actually, I remember it pretty clearly—it happened at my research group’s Christmas party. I happened to glance at my phone in the middle of things, and that’s when I got the email saying I’d won the award. And I have to say, it really is something special. I mean, you have those happy moments every now and then.

I don’t know, maybe a paper gets accepted or a grant application goes through. But I’ve actually never received an award like this before, and it’s somehow really special because, of course, you put a lot of time into supervising doctoral students and do it with a lot of passion. That’s definitely the case for me. And that makes me all the more happy that it’s been recognized.

And of course, I then wondered who might have nominated me and so on. And I’ve actually had some really great doctoral students lately, so I’m naturally especially happy that this apparently came about through mutual satisfaction. So it was really wonderful. It’s a truly great thing that I’m receiving this award.

Since this award comes with a cash prize, do you already know how you’ll use it?

Actually, yes. I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while, because I don’t necessarily want to use this for individual funding; instead, I’ve been thinking that I’d like to use it primarily to do something good for the students. The thing is, we don’t have a graduation ceremony in the Biology department. We have one in Pharmacy, but not in Biology.

That means especially the bachelor’s and master’s students eventually receive their diplomas and then leave the university or go on to do their PhDs, but there’s no joint event. And so I thought this prize would be a nice seed fund to finance such an event and thereby give the bachelor’s and master’s students the opportunity to simply come together again and receive their diplomas in a festive setting. And while this isn’t directly aimed at doctoral students—which is what the prize was actually intended for—I’ve discussed this with the DRS, the Dahlem Research School, which oversees the doctoral students, and doctoral students will also assist me with the organization.

I think that’s a wonderful idea. I’d like to talk to you about the topic of effective supervision for doctoral students. Generally speaking, what do you consider to be the hallmarks of effective supervision?

For me, good supervision means, let’s say, on the one hand, getting the most out of people, so to speak. That means I essentially provide a framework within which the doctoral candidates or those I’m supervising—who might also be postdocs—can simply flourish. That’s very, very important to me. So I actually try as much as possible to prescribe as little as possible and first see in which direction the doctoral candidates can develop or what interests they have. Do they need more guidance, or do they need less? And then after a certain amount of time—usually about three to six months—we sit down together more closely and look at, okay, what is the right path for this dissertation to take. So, as much freedom as possible or as close supervision as possible. But I think, personally, I always find it important to be able to develop freely.

And it’s also very important to me to be there for the doctoral students. That means, of course, holding weekly meetings and progress reports where the students present their work, but also being there for them in difficult situations and making time to support them when needed. I believe that’s what constitutes good supervision for me, and it’s something I’ve experienced personally as well—that I find freedom in research and freedom for my thoughts to be extremely important in my career as a junior researcher, and that’s something I’d like to pass on.

So, if I may summarize it this way, what I’m hearing is that your formula for good supervision involves, on the one hand, providing individualized supervision that’s truly tailored to each person’s needs. And on the other hand—and I find this quite remarkable, because I don’t think it happens very often—it also involves open communication about what the person actually needs. That’s not something that, at least in my experience, is often brought up—especially at a point when you already have a sense of the direction things might take. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, exactly. So I really try to connect with the person, and of course—I have to say—what’s always very important is the selection of the people, that is, the doctoral candidates. That means you have to choose people with whom you can truly engage in this dynamic or interaction. In other words, the openness and opportunities I can offer, so to speak, need to be embraced by them. That’s why, in my opinion, selection and compatibility with my own personality are, of course, extremely important.

And what kind of academic qualifications and personal qualities do you look for or take into account when deciding whether or not to supervise someone’s dissertation?

When it comes to the technical aspects, it really depends on the specific project being advertised—that is, what skills are required, whether it’s more in molecular biology, cell biology, or whatever else—so what kind of work was actually done in the master’s thesis, for example. A letter of motivation is also very important to me in the selection process. That is, has the applicant taken a close look at my work and my lab and already has an idea of where the journey might lead? Those are basically the technical aspects.

The personal aspect, of course, is the selection process itself—the actual conversation and interview. And that’s also something for which I usually set aside a lot of time. That means the candidates should come by for at least a day to present their work. We have a personal exchange, but it’s also very important that the rest of the lab has a say, so to speak, and can assess whether the person would be a good fit for the lab and its atmosphere.

So that’s also important—that you’re essentially putting together a team during the selection process. And yes, as far as personal qualities go, I’d say it’s important that someone is interested in pushing their own boundaries, is curious, thinks outside the box, and, of course, has the relevant expertise. Although the latter isn’t necessarily the most crucial factor, because you naturally have plenty of time during your doctoral studies to read up on the subject and actually acquire the necessary technical skills. So for me, curiosity is very, very important—to sum it up.

If you go through what I’d call a detailed “selection process” or invite people in for the whole day to get a sense of what makes them tick, what they really want, what they’re capable of, and how the team would work with them. Does that mean you only invite a very small number of people at a time to manage that? Or do you sometimes have several people there at the same time? Or how should we picture that?

Normally, if I had a large number of applicants, I would start by conducting short online interviews to narrow the field down. And then I’ve done it different ways, but I’ve also invited three or four people at the same time and held a sort of small symposium, so to speak, where each person introduced themselves, and the individual interviews were, of course, conducted one-on-one. But I’ve also done it in a way where different applicants were there at the same time, and we’d just take a day or two for that. So it’s not like I’m hiring new people every two or three weeks. That’s why the selection process is so important.

What do you consider to be the ideal number of doctoral students to supervise at any given time, and why?

Well, I’d say that five or six at most is a number you can manage quite well. That minimum is always good because, of course, it has a positive impact on the lab atmosphere, since the doctoral students naturally interact with one another. If there are too many, you simply run into the problem of not having enough time. And I’m noticing that now, for example, as dean, that I’m very busy with academic self-governance and simply have, I’d say, too little time for supervision. And that’s just a situation I’m not personally satisfied with.

That’s why it’s important to me not to actually supervise too many people. What I also try to do, however, is to give my postdocs and research assistants a fair amount of responsibility, so that we can achieve co-supervision here as well, so that even when I’m not always available, supervision in the lab is still guaranteed through the research assistants.

You mentioned earlier that you aren’t the right caregiver for everyone. For whom would you say you aren’t the right supervisor?

I suspect I’m not the right person for doctoral students who constantly want instructions or need me to guide them on which direction to take, or exactly how an experiment should be conducted, for example, or how lab work should be done. Of course, I’m here to discuss the projects and, naturally, to go over the entire background and so on. But it is very, very important to me that students show and demonstrate initiative. That means I’m not the kind of person who stands next to someone in the lab and wants to check every pipetting step, so to speak—something I’m quite familiar with from my own experience as a doctoral student, I must say. But that’s not something I actually consider good supervision.

So definitely no micromanagement, is that what I’m getting?

Yes, exactly.

If you think back a little further to your own time as a doctoral student—you just touched on this briefly—are there any other specific experiences you recall that have had a particular influence on the way you supervise students today?

What shaped me? Well, what shaped me was, on the one hand, that I definitely took—and was given—a lot of freedom to develop both academically and personally. That was very important to me. I definitely saw other doctoral students who were, let’s say, subjected to that kind of micromanagement and were very unhappy about it.

That is, that was something where I said to myself, no, that’s not how I want to lead or supervise doctoral students. And what’s very important to me is that you just have fun doing it. So that’s something that actually ran through my entire doctoral program. I really enjoyed the research during my doctorate, but also being in the lab with the other lab staff, including people from the neighboring lab. So I think it’s very important to fully immerse yourself not just in the doctorate itself, but also in the whole, let’s say, scientific and personal environment.

“Fun”—I think that’s a great word to use, because it’s not often mentioned in the same breath as a dissertation. If I’ve understood you correctly, you’ve been supervising doctoral students for about the past ten years. Has the way you guide people changed at all over time?

Yes, well, I’ve actually been supervising doctoral students for almost 20 years now. So a lot has certainly changed in that time. For nearly nine years, I was a junior group leader, funded by external grants, with relatively few teaching responsibilities and other administrative tasks. Naturally, the supervision was very close-knit back then. I was still standing right there in the lab alongside the doctoral students, conducting my own research and working alongside them, so to speak.

It was more of a collegial relationship, which wasn’t always ideal and sometimes caused difficulties when we had to discuss challenging situations. In the meantime, that has changed primarily because I simply have much less time overall for research and supervision and simply have to, let’s say, organize the supervision situations and times more effectively. That means meetings have to be more structured, because the interaction has to be more structured in some way.

But despite that, it’s still important to me—and that hasn’t changed—that I take the time for the doctoral students at key moments. That means that if there are difficulties or even a personal crisis, or if the research isn’t going as it should, I take the time to simply help maintain their motivation and keep the enjoyment alive.

And that’s certainly something that benefits everyone when meetings are well-structured and don’t last longer than absolutely necessary, so that we can get to the point more quickly. You just mentioned that difficulties can arise from time to time. How do you handle conflicts, both within your team and between you and the doctoral students you supervise?

I usually try to address this through openness—that is, by first trying to identify the difficulties. That’s obviously the most important thing: not to tune out, so to speak, but to recognize that there are difficulties, that there might be a loss of motivation, and so on. And then, for me, the most important thing is to talk openly about where the problems lie and how we can resolve them. If there are problems within the team, that’s a different story altogether. In that case, my strategy is to first speak with each person individually, then bring them together if possible, and try to resolve these issues. Yes, and that often works. Sometimes it’s difficult, and then the best solution might be to simply appeal to them to work together professionally—after all, it is a working relationship, and you don’t have to become best friends; a good working atmosphere and a collegial work environment are perfectly acceptable in the end.

Are there any issues regarding your doctoral students that you wish would be brought up sooner?

I’d say it really depends on the person. Some people—or some doctoral students—are open and bring up problems right away, while others might bottle things up and end up feeling unhappy. So from that perspective, the most important thing for me is that problems are simply addressed as soon as they arise, even if they aren’t that big yet. Ultimately, that’s very, very important to me, and I don’t hold it against anyone; rather, I think it’s very, very important that you can just talk openly about things.

Precisely because supervision is often very close and personal, there is frequent discussion about how much power and responsibility this role entails. In many countries, it is customary for the supervisor not to grade the work at the same time. And in Germany, too, there have been several initiatives in this regard. What do you think of the idea of separating the grading of the dissertation from the supervisor’s role?

Well, I think that would be a good idea because it can go both ways. Theoretically, the work could be rated too harshly or too poorly for personal reasons, or, conversely, too highly or too positively. That means there’s always a personal bias involved in the evaluation. So, actually, I think it’s a good idea to separate the two.

And I experience this from time to time when I’m on committees abroad. For example, I’ll be at a dissertation defense in Ireland soon, and there the advisor actually has absolutely no influence at all—they aren’t even present during the discussion, the defense, or the evaluation. So, I’m curious to see how that will go, but it might be difficult for the doctoral candidates at times, though it’s definitely the fairest solution.

Biology is one of those fields where a very large number of graduates go on to earn a doctoral degree. after completing their undergraduate studies, and not all of them want to stay at the university. Could you tell us a little about why a doctorate is so important in biology in particular, and what career paths outside the university it opens up—or, conversely, which ones are closed off if one does not pursue a doctorate?

I think, first of all, I’m generally a huge fan of the doctoral program, because those are moments—or years—when you can really engage in academic work and simply discover something new, unexpected, and exciting; you actually have a lot of freedom. So, as I’ve already mentioned, I actually enjoyed my doctorate… I found it enjoyable most of the time. That’s why I actually see it as very positive in itself, and I’d say that, generally speaking, it doesn’t hurt to pursue a doctorate in biology.

Of course, there are various paths after the doctorate, ranging from industry to postdoctoral positions in the scientific field. We’re currently organizing—from my lab, specifically one of my research assistants—a career seminar for master’s students to highlight these paths. For example, yesterday we had a patent attorney who also earned a doctorate in biology and then became a patent attorney. These are possibilities, or working in government agencies—there are opportunities there as well.

Well, I believe—and this is also my experience—that when I compare the master’s students and doctoral candidates I’m in contact with, there are simply more opportunities available if you have a doctorate. And there’s very little that a doctorate actually prevents you from doing. So, in my opinion, pursuing a doctorate is still a good idea.

Another thing I might add—which I find quite important, though it may not interest everyone—is that a doctorate naturally allows for, let’s say, mobility. It doesn’t make it absolutely necessary, but with a doctorate, you’d also have the opportunity to go abroad, to do research at another institute—yes, in another country, city, and so on—and get to know a different laboratory culture. And I personally find that very positive as well.

How important do you think it is for doctoral students to be willing to go abroad? I mean, either during their doctoral studies, in preparation for their doctorate, or perhaps only during the postdoctoral phase?

Of course, that depends on the path you want to take. If you want to pursue an academic career—perhaps a university position or a research career—then I believe mobility and experience abroad are indeed very, very important. And I’ve noticed this in the hiring committees I serve on; they really do look very closely at whether candidates have spent time abroad. Otherwise, I would say it’s not decisive for most other jobs that you can aim for or qualify for with a doctorate.

Personally fulfilling, I would say, it certainly is, because it’s simply easier to work abroad with a doctorate, and that means it’s actually a good opportunity. But of course, it also depends on personal circumstances. So, do you already have a family or not? And to what extent are you willing to give up your personal life? That’s something you have to decide for yourself. To what extent it’s worth it to you, to what extent you can balance it with the rest of your personal life, and so on. And what goals you might be pursuing.

You just mentioned that spending time abroad is definitely an important part of the process if you’re aiming for a professorship. Are there any other things you would recommend so that I can position myself during my doctoral studies in a way that makes my dream of eventually landing a professorship more realistic?

I think it’s very important to have a realistic assessment. That means you have to decide relatively early on whether you actually have, let’s say, a chance of perhaps landing a professorship. Of course, there’s never a guarantee, and I know from my own experience that the path wasn’t always easy after the postdoc phase, especially when looking for a professorship. What I would highly recommend, for example, is not to take on more than one postdoc position, so to speak, but rather to treat that as the limit, and then see if you can somehow manage to get your own group, a group leadership position, a habilitation position, or something along those lines.

This path—taking on several postdoc positions one after another, because that’s somehow the easiest step—is, I believe, not a good idea, because you could very well end up in a kind of dead end where you simply have to take a step back, and where it then becomes difficult to really reflect on whether this is still the right path for you, especially during the postdoc period. Realism, I would say, is extremely important in this regard.

You just mentioned that there comes a point when it becomes possible to assess whether it’s realistic to aim for a professorship or not. Assuming I were to pursue my doctorate under your supervision, could I ask for your assessment, and if so, when would be the right time? Or is this something where you would proactively approach the person and say, “I see potential in you”?

So, I don’t necessarily talk to my doctoral students about a professorship just yet. I mean, it’s still a bit premature at that stage of their studies, but I do think it’s a good idea to discuss whether an academic career might be right for them. That’s something we discuss very closely—let’s say—and in great detail. And I’m, let’s say, always open to it, but when there’s maybe just a year or a year and a half left until the end of the doctorate, I actually always have quite intensive career discussions as well, because that’s the point at which you should start looking around if you want an academic career, a postdoc position —so which labs are interesting, what research interests me, which direction do I want to go in—because, of course, there’s always the option of securing grants, applying for them, and thereby having some choice in where you end up going.

So, about a year and a half before the end of the doctoral program, I always have very in-depth career discussions. And especially if the student is planning to pursue a career in academia, I’m always very proactive and try to leverage my professional network. And yes, it’s also about giving doctoral students the opportunity to connect with foreign researchers—if they’re planning to go abroad—or with national researchers.

Of course, it can also happen that someone says, “No, that might not be a good idea right now.” But as far as I can remember, I haven’t actually had a case yet where someone said, “I definitely want to pursue an academic career,” and I said, “That’s a really bad idea.” Instead, I think it’s actually developing quite well. And yes, during the doctorate, you actually figure out together, I’d say, quite well where things might lead.

Mr. Schubert, is there any other important point regarding supervision that we haven’t discussed yet?

Another thing that’s perhaps very important to me is that there’s no power imbalance. So, as you mentioned the topic of power earlier, there’s no power or hierarchy in that sense in my lab. Of course, as a professor, I hold a higher position, but I fundamentally believe that exercising power based on my position is wrong. And I think it’s very, very important to accept everyone just as they are. That’s something that’s also very important to me when it comes to mentoring, along with being a good listener. But I’ve already mentioned that.

Mr. Schubert, I have a few quick questions for you, and I’d like to ask you to answer them very briefly—in a single word or a short sentence. Are you ready?

Yes.

The most important character trait to finish a doctorate?

Curiosity.

How long should a doctorate in Biology take?

In case of doubt, even up to five years.

The nicest thing for you in working together with doctoral researchers?

It is to see the evolution, personal and scientific evolution of the doctoral researchers.

And the most difficult thing in working together?

The fact is that doctoral students often experience frustration during their studies, so it’s important to reignite their motivation and help them through these difficult times.

What is research to you in one word?

Finding out something new.

And what does teaching mean to you in one word?

Working together with young people.

When are you particularly proud of your doctoral researchers?

When they walk into my lab with a beaming smile and show me a great result.

I think that’s a wonderful way to wrap things up, Professor Schubert. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate that we were able to discuss topics like the enjoyment of pursuing a doctorate, as well as important issues such as mobility, power, and individual mentoring. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us.

You’re very welcome. Thank you very much for the interview.

That was Professor Dr. Daniel Schubert discussing effective doctoral supervision, academic freedom, and how doctoral students can develop both professionally and personally. Today, we discussed, among other things, why individual supervision is so important, how much initiative doctoral students should bring to the table, and why openness and early communication play a major role in difficult situations. We also talked about career paths in biology, study abroad opportunities, and the question of how realistic the path to a professorship actually is. If these topics interest you, feel free to check out the other episodes of the DRS podcast.

In addition to further interviews with Supervisor Award winners, the podcast also features episodes on first-generation doctoral students, career paths, and power structures in academia. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and this was the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Thank you for listening, and until next time!