[Note: This interview was conducted in German. The following trnascript is an automatic English translation of the German interview, which you can find here.]

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Today I’m speaking with Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, philosopher, moderator, and process facilitator. In her courses on research ethics and good scientific practice, it becomes clear time and again that power dynamics also shape supervisory relationships. Today we’ll be discussing how power manifests between doctoral candidates and supervisors and what this means for everyday doctoral studies. We’ll examine how communication functions as a tool of power, where expectations and tasks should be clearly defined, and how proximity, boundaries, and language in supervision can be managed responsibly. We’ll also discuss structural frameworks such as hierarchies, contracts, and publication pressure, as well as the scope for action available to doctoral candidates.

Interview

Elisabeth, you work in very different contexts: in academia, in political education, and in facilitating groups. In what way do you encounter the topic of doctoral candidates and supervisors in your work?

Especially in the courses I teach for doctoral students. I teach courses on research ethics and good scientific practice. And my goal in these courses is always for people to understand how broad this field is. That it’s not just about animal testing and Blackyard, although those are important topics, but that it touches on many areas, including, for example, the supervisory relationship.

And that’s usually a top topic in the courses, even when it involves personal cases. But I also sometimes teach courses where I’m explicitly asked to cover topics like power dynamics or even sexism at the university. And alongside other topics, the issue of supervisory relationships is always a recurring theme, one that comes up relatively quickly from the doctoral candidates themselves.

And that’s precisely the topic we’ll be discussing in today’s interview: the supervision of doctoral candidates and power dynamics. A crucial aspect of this is communication. Power is often revealed in the way communication takes place, or perhaps the lack thereof. How do supervisory relationships change when, for example, feedback from supervisors is delayed or when doctoral candidates receive very little feedback?

So, I think it’s really important that you bring this up, that this is part of using or abusing power, and it’s not always just about doing something specific, but sometimes also about inaction. For example, the lack of feedback, the sluggish communication, the absence of meetings or canceled meetings – that’s also a way in which power is, at the very least, not being used appropriately by the supervisor, if that’s what happens on their part.

And what I’m experiencing is that it affects doctoral candidates in so many different ways when this happens. What’s always present is uncertainty. Uncertainty about what this means. Uncertainty about how to reach the person. Uncertainty about whether I can simply continue working. How do I proceed? And also a huge uncertainty about how to address it. Can I write an email and say, „You haven’t responded to four emails now, how do I handle this?“ So, the question is, what’s the appropriate way to deal with this in a way that doesn’t jeopardize my own supervisory relationship, my own doctoral project?

That’s a fear that’s very often behind it. Because there are often at least these dual relationships in many areas of German-language academia, namely that the supervisor is also the examiner or one of the examiners, this creates a dependency: oh dear, what if they think I’m stupid, what impact will that have on my doctorate?

You just mentioned the example of „I wrote four emails and received no reply,“ and you raised the problem or challenge of how I, as a doctoral candidate, should address this. What tips do you have for me? How can I bring this up without jeopardizing my grade or my position?

So, I don’t know if there’s a way to guarantee that I won’t jeopardize my position or my grade. I think it’s a good idea to address it. That’s the first thing to get out of the way. I also think that discussing this uncertainty with someone is often a good first step. I often see that, for example, in courses, when people have talked about it with others—with peers, with other doctoral candidates in the course—in a collegial exchange, that can already bring at least some relief. Realizing that I might not be the only one feeling this way and then considering together what a possible response could be. I think it’s important to bring it up.

The problem, of course, is that I’d then have to write another email pointing out that our last meeting was cancelled and I haven’t received a reply to four emails. In some cases, I might not even get a reply to this email addressing the issue, if things go badly. I would try that first, and as a first step, I would probably try to phrase it in a friendly and polite way, if possible. This is also because email communication might not be the most suitable way to express frustration or uncertainty and to request and reschedule a meeting.

If this doesn’t work out in the long run, it says something about the supervisory relationship. Then it’s necessary to reassess whether I need to contact other services. And in the worst-case scenario, if I lose all contact with my supervisor, then the question inevitably arises whether I need to change supervisors, which is often a huge step for many.

And then there’s the fact that nowadays… Many doctoral candidates have to conclude a doctoral agreement, a supervision agreement, regarding the conduct of their supervision. And that’s something you can refer to. And of course, it’s also something you can update if you realize, we’ve concluded it, now we’ve been supervising for a year, perhaps we should evaluate it. So we’ve done it as it’s written in the agreement, and perhaps there are still things we need to adjust.

We’ve now discussed the opportunities available to doctoral candidates, and I think that’s very important because they’re usually in a position to want something. But let’s also shift our perspective and look at the supervisors‘ side and what they might be able to do better. We know that professors have stressful workdays. Sometimes an email gets lost in the shuffle, or you might not be able to reply immediately, or you simply don’t have the time. But do you perhaps have any tips for supervisors on how they can ensure emails don’t go unanswered, even if they have little time right now? I don’t know, would you say: Just reply briefly, „I don’t have time.“ Ask for a deadline. What tips would you have for the other side, who also have supervision responsibilities?

I think it starts with two very personal things. Firstly, you have to consider how many people you can realistically supervise. Yes, with the workload you’ll have. That’s the first thing. There are supervisors and professors who simply accept anyone. Which is perhaps nice, in the sense that people aren’t turned down, but they can’t actually guarantee good supervision. So that’s the first point.

And then, of course, there’s also the matter of looking at things like email communication. I would say that supervisors and managers in general have a responsibility to develop a system over the years that works and fulfills their responsibilities. This could include marking emails as unread, providing brief feedback, or establishing clear email processing times that can be communicated externally.

And the third point is, of course: Mentoring isn’t something you’re born with, and it doesn’t just fall from the sky. That means I think it’s perfectly fine, and perhaps even important, to take a course where I can learn how to create a good mentoring relationship. Just because I do cutting-edge research doesn’t automatically mean I’m a good leader or that I’m good at guiding people through their projects. And that’s perfectly okay, because it’s something you can learn. You just need to consider your strengths and your potential for development. These days, there are courses for many things, and there are often courses specifically for professors, so they don’t have to mix with other professional groups.

Thank you for these tips as well. Besides communication, work tasks and expectations also play a major role, and I keep hearing from doctoral candidates that they take on tasks that have nothing to do with their dissertation. From your perspective, when does this simply become part of everyday academic life, and where do you say it starts to become problematic?

So, if it’s not agreed upon beforehand, I think it starts to become problematic relatively quickly, from my perspective. I certainly have a fairly strong position on this, my personal position. Because it touches on the question of when it becomes exploitation. And in academia, a lot of things are always sugarcoated when it comes to employment relationships. Doctoral degrees are often talked about as a qualification stage. On the one hand, that’s true, but these people are usually in their thirties and are making a research contribution. So, in a way, it’s also their paid work, the job they’re doing. And then to always argue that they’re learning something by taking on unpaid work in the research group and that it’s important for their career—that’s a form of exploitation.

That means I also believe it’s important to discuss mutual expectations relatively early on, ideally before or at the beginning of the doctoral studies, especially when it comes to things like the supervision agreement. And ideally, these expectations should be documented so that they can be referred to later. This is because it’s often the case that people have a position in the same department where they are pursuing their doctorate, in the same research group.

Even then, the question remains: what exactly is related to my job and what goes beyond that? Of course, you can’t always define these boundaries perfectly clearly, but I think it’s very good to discuss them and evaluate them regularly. Does it still correspond to the agreed-upon workload? There are quite a few cases where people have a certain workload and the expectation is that they then pursue their doctorate in their free time. I consider that fundamentally problematic, and it has systemic reasons. But then it would at least be good if this were clear from the outset, so that the other person can also decide for or against it.

So, this is definitely something to clarify before starting the job or during the interview? I think it’s also important to distinguish which field I’m pursuing my doctorate in. What’s the academic culture like? Do I have a permanent position? Is it a postgraduate position? Is the dissertation part of my paid work? What percentage of my time does it cover? And then perhaps calculate the total workload of my position.

But I understand that the cases you were referring to are primarily those where it was promised, in quotation marks, whether explicitly or implicitly, that one could pursue a doctorate in that position, but then there is an implicit expectation that one would do this in one’s free time and then ideally work 100 percent of the 50 percent position one has.

Yes, something like that. And often it’s simply not agreed upon at all. Very often, there’s a complete lack of communication about what exactly this 50% position means. Does it mean that my doctorate is included in this position? Does it mean I’ll essentially complete it after the 50% I’m working here in this department? So, all these questions are often not openly discussed. This often leads to a lot of confusion. And then, of course, if it hasn’t been discussed—and if it’s difficult to discuss, which is often the case due to dependencies—then new tasks keep coming, possibly from the supervisor, who is often also the mentor. And often at short notice. That’s another factor. And then it’s difficult to say no.

Because this often creates anxiety for doctoral candidates. I see this in the stories I hear. What happens if I say no now? And this applies on several levels. Will our relationship deteriorate? If I say no now, will I miss out on important academic experience because I didn’t participate in the project or can’t include it in my CV? That makes saying no very difficult.

Some tasks, and I want to emphasize this, are very subtle. For example, when people take on care work within their department. Let me give you an example from someone who told me about this, a woman—it often affects women. For instance, a new person might not receive adequate on boarding from the professor, and it’s never been agreed that the doctoral candidate should be responsible for this on boarding. But it happens because they sit at the same desks in the office, and the doctoral candidate is the one who gets all the questions. Suddenly, there’s an additional workload due to this on boarding process, including introducing them to the team, perhaps going to lunch with them, explaining structures, and so on. And suddenly, an additional task arises, one that’s completely implicit and subtle because it was never agreed upon, because the professor might not even be aware that this task exists, yet it still ends up there. And setting boundaries against this is incredibly difficult.

Yes, I can totally understand that. I also find the term „care work“ very interesting, especially in relation to work at the university in a team or working group; I haven’t heard it used that way before, but I think it’s very fitting. What scope for action do doctoral candidates actually have to demand their rights without immediately jeopardizing their relationship with their supervisors or perhaps even a contract extension or something similar?

So I think for those affected, it initially feels like they don’t have much say. Preparing for the podcast has made this even clearer to me, because I talked to people around me about it, asking if I could use their stories for this conversation. Everyone immediately said yes, absolutely. And then came the immediate reply: „But please anonymize and distance them as much as possible.“

It absolutely must not become clear who this is, or at which institute, department, and so on. I think that’s what makes this fear so clear. This knowledge is important, it’s significant. We’re experiencing terrible and challenging things, but we’re afraid of what will happen if it becomes public.

At the same time, if things aren’t made public, they always remain a private problem for individuals, a personal one. So, the challenge is that, in order for me as a doctoral candidate to not be the only one dealing with this, there needs to be some kind of public discourse, and yet that’s also dangerous. It’s a reality that it can be dangerous. But I think, for example, seeking out peer exchange, with other doctoral candidates, is incredibly useful. Because then you usually realize that others are going through the same thing. Others have had this experience too. And that allows people to realize, „Ah, this isn’t just my individual problem.“ It also has something to do with university structures that make this happen. And that also allows you to see how you dealt with it.

I always find a way, though it’s sometimes challenging, not just to look for peers across the university, but also to see how other colleagues in the same working group are doing. Are they having these experiences too? Perhaps to gently bring that up.

This can lead to others having the same experience, and it’s not unlikely. Then I might not have to have the conversation with the caregiver alone; the three of us can do it together. That gives us some strength. And it’s harder to fire three people, let’s say, than one. So I always think that’s something to consider.

Of course, there’s always the option of contacting the ombudsperson of your department, university, or the general ombudsperson of the DFG (German Research Foundation) for advice on your specific issue. At the Free University of Berlin, and indeed at many universities, institutions like the Dahlem Research School offer such services, which are a good place to start for initial consultation.

Simply talking about it is already an action and begins to lead to a kind of competence. That’s the feedback I get in my courses: doctoral candidates from very different disciplines sit in my classes, discuss these topics, and often the feedback is that it was so beneficial to exchange experiences with other doctoral candidates. This always makes it clear to me that this kind of exchange doesn’t usually happen in the everyday life of a doctoral researchers.

Yes, I think that’s a very important point, and thank you for bringing it up and emphasizing how important exchanging ideas with others is, and also for joining forces. You’ve already mentioned termination. I think it’s also important to point out that this isn’t necessarily the most obvious consequence, but rather a very extreme one. It’s often not in the interest of supervisors or professors to terminate someone, because it involves a lot of stress and effort, and isn’t even that simple from a legal standpoint. Being terminated after the first complaint seems very, very unlikely to me.

And what I also think is important to address here is that it’s not just about… well, this feeling of perhaps being exploited, or the realization, perhaps while listening to this podcast, that you might have taken on tasks that have little to do with your academic qualification. I want to address that this can certainly happen even if you say, „I actually have a pretty good relationship with my supervisor(s),“ or „I have several supervisors.“ That’s not a bad relationship, and that’s a point I’d like to discuss with you. If you say, „I have a good relationship, we get along well, and it’s a good fit professionally,“ when can this closeness be helpful, and when is there a risk that it might tip into a problematic dynamic?

My first impulse would be to say that there are so many different kinds of closeness. And what always catches my attention is when doctoral candidates describe their relationship with their supervisor in a way that sounds like they’re friends or something along those lines. Then I think: That doesn’t reflect the existing hierarchies and power imbalances. We need to look at why that is.

So, that’s something that definitely exists, in my view. I think that’s very different from having a good collegial relationship where we have a professional exchange, where we perhaps also, because that’s customary in our team, all go to lunch together or something like that, right? That’s different from some kind of friendly relationship where the professor shows up at the doctoral students‘ game night. That would seem odd to me.

And I think that when it comes to questions like, „When does this kind of problematic closeness begin, where you wonder if it’s still within the bounds of what our relationship actually is?“, it’s quite good to trust your own intuition. In the sense that usually someone senses something, it could be from the outside, it might not even affect me personally, but I perceive that my colleague and the professor are somehow off, a little bit. I can’t even put it into words, but there’s just something off about it. I think such feelings should be taken seriously.

And it’s also important to take seriously if you simultaneously feel like you can’t bring it up. Because you don’t know how, and you’re afraid of doing something wrong, or it’s somehow taboo. I think it’s always important to take such feelings seriously, because they usually indicate that something is off or perhaps not as it should be. That would be my first response to that.

And I think it’s also important to constantly remind ourselves that this power dynamic exists. Unfortunately, that’s just the way it is. The person who supervises me, assesses me, or is my superior, is in a different position of power than I am as a doctoral candidate. And is that really the foundation on which I want to build a friendship? Perhaps that’s something to think about carefully.

Yes, especially in cases where there might not be a significant age difference, or, as can also happen, where the supervisor is younger than the doctoral candidate. You just mentioned the game night as an example. Are there any other examples of, let’s say, gray areas you could mention, where you’ve observed that supervisors themselves might not even realize they’re crossing a line?

I think there are many examples. There’s a part to boundaries where you could say they’re also personal, individual. In the sense that my boundary might not be your boundary in exactly the same relationship with a third person.

That’s why it definitely happens. It can happen in situations like being lightly touched on the shoulder, for example. Sometimes it happens simply as a paternalistic gesture. For some, that might not be a huge problem, but for others, it’s a boundary violation.

And I think that as a supervisor, you should carefully consider whether or not to physically interact with the person. I also think that something that’s often a gray area, especially in academia, is… There are so many things that fall between informal and formal. For example, people go on team retreats with their research groups. Good, important thing. And then the question is, what happens after the more formal part? People have all participated in a colloquium or discussed things that affect the team. And then they sit together in the evening. And that’s often where a gray area begins. Do you drink alcohol with your supervisor or not? So, what happens then with the boundaries blurring? What conversations take place? How long does the supervisor stay there?

So, you could also ask yourself, if I’m the only manager, is it appropriate to stay with the rest of the team for maybe fifteen minutes or half an hour in the evening, or should I be the last one to go to bed? Yes, that’s perhaps a good example, also because I’ve often heard people ask these questions about team events.

What role does language play in this? You already mentioned the example of physical touch as a boundary violation, and how supervisors should carefully consider whether it’s best to avoid it. What about language itself? I mean jokes, evaluations, perhaps even subtle comments. Do you have any other examples of things you’d consider unacceptable, or things that could be interpreted in different ways, where, as a supervisor in a hierarchical position, you should be particularly careful?

I have an example in mind that was told to me, where the professor said to people from her research group at a team event, when they were getting more drinks, „Yes, and bring some more beers for the guys.“ I think that’s a very inappropriate way to put it.

Can you explain why?

So, first of all, it’s a gender stereotype to say, „Boys, men drink beer.“ That’s where part of the problem starts. And the other thing, of course, is that describing adult men as „boys“ diminishes them. It’s a kind of devaluation, a kind of trivialization. And we’re talking about people who are employed by this person, who are doing their doctorate under this person, so they’re in a supervisory relationship. That’s a devaluation, that’s trivialization. It affects the relationship of equality. It creates a parent-child dynamic, which a supervisory relationship isn’t.

Then I have another example regarding language. This goes in a completely different direction, but I think it’s important to address. So, yet another way of transgressing boundaries is the question of how feedback is given. We were just discussing what happens when there’s no feedback and no contact with the supervisor. And another question is… First, let’s keep things within reasonable bounds. Feedback does exist. How is it given? For example, how is the work discussed within the supervisory relationship? Is it constant criticism? Are there also appreciative comments? There are cases where people cry after a colloquium where they’ve presented a dissertation chapter because they feel they were torn to shreds, because they only received criticism.

Although they had previously asked that the good things, the things that could stand, also be acknowledged. And that, of course, has a lot to do with a scientific culture so characterized by criticism, dissection, and analysis. But I think a kind of transgression can also occur when there is little appreciation.

Thank you for these examples. We’ve talked a lot about the individual level. I’d like to take this opportunity to also talk a little about structures. What institutional conditions foster abuse of power? For example, I’m also thinking about contracts, financing, or responsibilities.

It’s often said that abuse of power always occurs within a system that somehow enables it. And if we look at universities and colleges, these strong formal hierarchies, linked to dependencies, certainly facilitate it. The fact that certain individuals are endowed with so much power and are so difficult to challenge. Once you have a tenured professorship, you can, to put it somewhat bluntly, do pretty much whatever you want. It’s a dream job. You have a great deal of freedom, ideally. You have a permanent position and are well-funded. This naturally fosters abuse of power when some people have these advantages and others don’t.

All of this stuff you mentioned, these questions about contracts, yes, these short-term contracts that are often available at universities, like six months for parental leave cover, and then I have to figure out how I’ll be funded afterwards. That’s a huge problem.

Then I also come across this issue of publication pressure. This is a topic that comes up quite often when I talk to doctoral candidates: this pressure to publish and to publish a certain kind of result. Namely, that I’ve discovered something, and in the sense of a positive result, not in the sense of discovering that something doesn’t work. These so-called negative results are generally not publishable. This also creates pressure. It also affects how much work I do.

Then there’s this entanglement, as we’ve already discussed, of these multiple dependencies. The supervisor is also an expert witness and might even be the boss – that’s three dependencies in one sense. And I can’t really criticize the person on one level without jeopardizing the other relationships. At least, that’s how it seems at first if it’s not well-structured.

And regarding this last point, for example, there are definitely models for decoupling these two things. Yes, this already exists abroad, and it’s also becoming increasingly common at some German universities, where the supervisor isn’t the same person who ultimately gives the grade. This opens up a whole range of possibilities.

It certainly has its own pitfalls, yes, but I agree with you. Now, it’s true that there are indeed support services at universities that one can turn to. However, I repeatedly hear that doctoral candidates are afraid to contact them, perhaps because they lack trust in these services. For example, because they know there’s a direct connection to their supervisor. What would help in such a case to ensure that these structures, which exist at universities for good reason, actually provide protection and are helpful?

It’s obviously good if these are external structures, or if they exist in addition to existing ones. Because there is this ombudsperson, and it’s important that they exist. They’re like, let’s call them, trusted contacts you can turn to. If you ‚re unsure about anything regarding good scientific practice, if you’ve experienced something that doesn’t conform to good scientific practice, or if you’ve observed something, then they could be the first point of contact. And as you just mentioned, someone in my course recently said the same thing. We were talking about this ombudsperson and how they’re independent and treat things confidentially, and that’s all true. And then someone in the course said something like, „Yeah, that’s complete nonsense. I don’t need to go to the ombudsperson in my department. They’re really close to my supervisor, a colleague or even friends. That’s unacceptable.“ And that person is right. I find it perfectly understandable that they wouldn’t go to them. And then the question, of course, is: where else can I go?

You can check again; the ombudsperson, which is also available at the university or research institution, is a good point of contact—the general one, or even the one at the DFG (German Research Foundation). But what’s often missing, of course, are proper external contact points. They don’t exist. But there are things like the Dahlem Research School, which, I think, can also be a point of contact in its advisory capacity. There are also equality and anti-discrimination officers you can contact. All of this has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s not the only solution, but these can be initial points of contact that can work with the person affected to explore further options. What could the next steps be? What is possible? Of course, you also need to know that these institutions exist. So, one thing is, I don’t trust this office. Another is, I’m not even aware of it.

I frequently encounter doctoral candidates who have never heard of an ombudsperson, let alone an anti-discrimination office at the university. And if I don’t know about it, I can’t contact them. Even if I know it exists, but I’m not sure it’s responsible for the specific issue that’s currently on my mind, I won’t go there. So, the first step is knowledge, and then checking to see if there are multiple offices available.

Yes, thank you so much for mentioning so many different contact points.

I want to give another example where things went really well with such an ombudsperson, because there are often these obstacles.

Yes gladly.

I heard about a doctoral candidate who also had major problems with her supervisor, examiner, and head of department. It was exactly this triple whammy… Her examiner wasn’t the problem, but he was her supervisor and head of department. There were significant communication issues, also in the way he led the research group. He wasn’t good at managing the research group and so on. It was very stressful for the doctoral candidate, and she went to the ombudsperson responsible for her case and found the experience very positive. They discussed various issues. Changing supervisors during the doctoral program is an option, but it wasn’t a suitable option for her.

But she then regularly went to the ombudsperson, I believe, or to another person, for coaching sessions, and thus had a place to unburden herself, to discuss steps on how she could deal with the situation. This didn’t make everything easier, but it enabled her to complete her doctorate in that field. I always think it’s important to have a positive example like this; these are indeed important aspects of the ombudsperson’s role.

Absolutely. Thank you so much for mentioning this positive example. We’ve now had a thorough discussion about the dependency of doctoral candidates. To wrap things up, I’d like to talk to you about the responsibilities doctoral candidates also carry. They often supervise students, work on their papers, correct and grade them, and even supervise bachelor’s and master’s theses or smaller projects. Again, the question is, how can this responsibility be structured so that it fosters not only a hierarchical but also a supportive relationship?

Yes, I think it’s important to emphasize this perspective: doctoral candidates aren’t always just the ones being supervised, but are often also in a position to supervise others, whether in teaching or when they take on theses. And I think that’s a good first step – to consider what it actually means to supervise someone, to mentor someone, and to do so in a supportive way. And I also recommend looking into whether there are any courses available.

For example, in Berlin, the Berlin University Alliance, specifically the Dahlem Research School, offers courses where, if I haven’t done this before, if I don’t feel entirely confident, if I feel I can improve, where I can learn how to structure a mentoring relationship and perhaps make it supportive and constructive from the very beginning. It’s a bit of extra work, but I’d say it’s worthwhile.

It’s also important to constantly reflect on how I, as the supervisor, am doing this in a way that I would want to be supervised myself. What are the key aspects that are important to me? It’s also crucial to discuss from the outset what the person I’m supervising actually wants, especially when it comes to their thesis or dissertation. How often do they need feedback? How detailed, how frequent? What challenges might they face? Where do I need more frequent support? Because that’s something they might find difficult, where they need more guidance. Where might they only need to meet with me again in the next two months? These would be some initial points to consider.

Regarding teaching, I strongly and emphatically recommend that you take courses to become qualified teachers. There’s this assumption at universities that people in teaching positions automatically know how to teach. That’s simply not true. University teaching methodology is something you can and should learn. Many terrible things happen in teaching, things that simply don’t reflect current academic standards. These teaching qualification programs are now available at all universities. Take advantage of them. They’re usually free, even for doctoral candidates.

Let’s return to our main topic today: power dynamics in supervising. Is there any other important point we haven’t addressed yet?

We’ve already touched on this somewhat, but I want to emphasize it again. I think one path must always be to move away from this individualization. To move away from this „me-alone“ feeling with my research project, my supervisory relationship, my problem. To look, as you said earlier, at joining forces with others, starting to talk about these things as a first step, and also looking at what joint action steps can be taken.

To get out of this, I’m almost calling it, isolation. And I also think it’s important, beyond that, not just to focus on my own situation, but also to see how the other doctoral candidates are doing. To practice solidarity, too. To look not only at where I need support, but also at where I can support others. Because they just told me at lunch that they’re having this or that problem with their supervisor. How can I help? Can I offer to have this conversation with them together? With our supervisor, for example.

Thank you so much for this addition. Thank you also for the many suggestions today, for the many ideas you shared with us, and for the many tips.

You’re welcome. Thank you for the conversation.

Outro

In conversation with Dr. Elisabeth Zschache about power and responsibility in supervisory relationships, one thing became clear: it’s important not to face problems and challenges with doctoral supervision alone, but to involve colleagues and utilize available resources. On the page for this episode, we’ve linked various resources so you don’t have to search for long. There you’ll also find a link to other episodes of the DRS Podcast, including another interview with Dr. Elisabeth Zschache on the topics of power dynamics, accessibility, the selection of research topics, and privileges. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I’m delighted you joined us today. Thank you for listening, and see you in the next episode here on the Dahlem Research School podcast at Freie Universität Berlin.

[Note: your host for this episode was Dr. Marlies Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

[Note: This interview was conducted in German. The following transcript is an automatic English translation of the German interview, which you can find here.]

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. My name is Marlies Klamt, and today I am pleased to focus on a topic that is still too rarely discussed openly in academia.
When people talk about abuse of power in academia, many think of very personal experiences, sexual violence, racism, or the discrimination of people who have less influence within university structures. And these experiences certainly deserve attention and reappraisal.
At the same time, however, it is also worth looking at the structures that make such dynamics possible in the first place. Power relations also manifest themselves on another level. In the question of who has access to science in the first place, which topics are considered relevant, and which knowledge is heard and which is not. Today, I would like to talk to Dr. Elisabeth Zschache about power in the academic system, about privileges, about accessibility, and about what needs to change to make science more open, diverse, and equitable.

Interview

Elisabeth, tell us a little bit about yourself. In what context do you deal with issues of access, privilege, and the selection of research topics in science?

Yes, gladly. Hello from me too, and thank you for the invitation. I am a philosopher by training, so to speak, based on my academic background. I also have a doctorate in this field. This gives me an insight into ethical issues that are part of practical philosophy. And with that, I also have an insight into scientific ethics, which I believe is fundamentally a very questioning and analytical attitude.

I no longer work in science, but am self-employed in the fields of moderation, process facilitation, and educational work. As part of this work, I teach courses on scientific ethics and good scientific practice. In my work, I also deal a lot with power relations, so to speak. I would say that these things come together in my courses and in my examination of scientific ethics. So my view of good scientific practice is not only shaped by what people often associate with it: Is animal testing okay or not? That is also a power-critical question. But I am also very interested in what power relations actually exist in science. In which areas do they exist everywhere? And what does that actually mean for our scientific practice and for good scientific practice?

Thank you very much for introducing yourself. Let’s dive right into the topic. When we talk about power in science, it starts with the question of who actually has access to the academic world and research. What barriers do you see for people who want to go into science? Or maybe they don’t want to go into science at all because they don’t have the desire to do so. But I’m thinking now of social and cultural barriers, as well as physical and financial ones.

Yes, everything you mention plays a role. We see this time and again when we talk about Germany. When it comes to education, empirical evidence repeatedly shows that educational success—if you want to call it that—and access to education depend heavily on the socioeconomic background of the parents. In short, it depends on how much money the parents have at their disposal. This means that the question of class background, the question of how much financial capital I have in the background, for example, but perhaps also how much cultural and social capital is in the background, plays a huge role.

And when you talk to people who describe themselves as first-gen, for example, meaning they are the first in their families to attend university, you realize what a big issue this is for people. And this is not an individual issue, but it is still the case that most people who attend universities and colleges come from academic families. And for individuals and students or even doctoral candidates for whom this is not the case, who naturally have to overcome much greater hurdles, it is much more difficult.

A colleague once told me—we were at a conference, a conference for political educators, but it took place at a university—and we were sitting there together at lunch and my colleague said to me: “Tell me, do you also feel a bit disoriented in places like universities and colleges, not really knowing where you’re allowed to go, how you should behave, and so on?”

I don’t feel that way. I come from an academic family. But my colleague obviously did. And I think that shows, on a very basic level, what a difference it makes: Where do I come from, did I grow up in these structures? Do I know how to navigate the library? Do I have a sense of belonging, of “I belong here”?

And that’s just one example of what class background can mean. We could also talk about—you mentioned it—people with disabilities. We’re talking about looking at how many universities and colleges are somehow—well, we can’t really talk about barrier-free—at least barrier-reduced.

What kind of support is there in the education system before college and university to enable people with certain disabilities to graduate from school, which would allow them to study and maybe even get a doctorate?

You just mentioned the topic of barrier-free universities. Could you elaborate on that a little more? I’m sure it’s not just about ramps so that people in wheelchairs can access buildings, but I imagine there’s a lot more to it than that. Could you elaborate on that a little more?

It’s not just about ramps and wheelchair-accessible entrances, but also, of course. What are the paths like? Is it possible to get there with a wheelchair or even with crutches?

I’m also thinking about things like, for example, for deaf people: what about sign language lectures? Do they even exist?

I’m thinking of people—not just those with physical disabilities, but perhaps other types of disabilities as well—for example, neurodivergent people, i.e., people with ADHD or autism. Are there any options for listening to lectures online or live, for example?

So perhaps a practical example that would be relatively easy to implement: Why are lectures still held exclusively in person in many places? What is the reason for this? And why is this not made possible? This is a format where one would think it would be very easy to run online in parallel. Why can’t people follow it from home or other locations, for example?

And this is not just an issue for people with disabilities or certain disabilities, by the way. It is also an issue for people who have care responsibilities, such as students/doctoral researchers with children, for whom certain lecture and seminar times are a huge challenge to integrate into their everyday lives. For them, listening to a 90-minute lecture while doing the laundry in the evening would, of course, be a possible solution.

Yes, that means we can definitely say that there is very unequal access to the academic world, to higher education in general, for different groups. But even for those who do have access, what and how research is conducted is also crucial. And I’d like to talk to you a little bit about that next. Which research is considered important and which is considered less important, because that also says a lot about power relations.

Who ultimately decides what is, in quotation marks, a valuable or interesting research topic? So when we think about research work or projects, not only by doctoral candidates, but also by students and beyond.

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that question. And the answers are also linked to what we just discussed: the question of access. If certain individuals and groups of people don’t even have access to higher education and science in the first place, then of course their topics, their methods, and their approaches are not represented.

And I think this is very clear in some areas. For example, ableism research, i.e., research on disability, is something that simply does not happen very often. For me, this is a very good example of what this means.

Furthermore, when it comes to topics like this, as well as the choice of methods and everything else, I think that power relations in science become very visible. Because, of course, the question is: Who has access to it in the first place? But then there is also the question: What research is funded? In these areas, we also have to ask: Where does the money for scientific research come from and how do funders influence it? How is this perhaps intertwined with politics?

I can perhaps illustrate this with two examples:

Firstly, we have… Well, in the USA we are currently experiencing this with the current administration and so on. And we are seeing, for example, that chairs for gender studies are being abolished. And this entire subject is also being devalued, at the very least, and classified as irrelevant. And it also has something to do with whether funds are flowing in and so on. That would be one example.

Another is that right now… In Brandenburg, the AfD—which is represented in the state parliament—submitted a motion (which did not pass) to withdraw basic funding from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. They didn’t get it through, but I think it’s a very good example of how, depending on who is in power politically, there are different interests in terms of what research is classified as fundable and relevant.

When we’re talking about third-party funding, we can also look at which subjects actually receive third-party funding and how. In other words, which subjects receive funding easily because the knowledge generated from them is easily exploitable? I am thinking primarily of technical subjects. And in which subjects—philosophy, for example, is one of them—is the added value perhaps not so easy to grasp, making it much more difficult to obtain third-party funding? At the same time, when we talk about third-party funding, we might think, “Okay, one subject is then less well funded than another.” On the other hand, of course, there is always the question: if the money comes from a specific source, what does that actually mean in terms of dependence on the donor and the donor’s influence on research?

So it’s complex, to say the least, I would say.

That sounds very complex. So we can conclude that the decision about what is considered relevant does not depend solely on scientific criteria, but also on political interests and, if I understood correctly, economic interests, right?

Yes, I would say so. And I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing, so to speak. It can be incredibly morally charged. The challenge, the problem I see with it, is of course that it’s often not always transparent or visible.

So the question is, where is this actually being negotiated? How do we deal with it? Are individual scientists left alone with these issues, or are there also common places to negotiate them?

Because this touches on such deeply rooted ideals of science: science as an independent practice, as an objective practice. We have to ask ourselves what this actually means, given that some groups of people have no access to it and therefore certain topics are not addressed. That there may also be groups that influence research in terms of content and methodology. What does that do to these fundamentals?

How do you think the whole process could be made more transparent? How could we have an open discussion about accessibility, but also about how research funding is allocated?

Well, I don’t think there’s a simple recipe for easy solutions here either. There’s always a great desire for one. When I teach my courses, I sometimes notice a sense of disillusionment when I don’t conclude by saying: “And these are the five steps, and if we follow them, we will all be doing super ethical, flawless research and won’t have to concern ourselves further with the topic of scientific ethics and good scientific practice.”

I believe that the first step is actually to “talk about it.” And to take a look at the power relations and hierarchies that exist. And that happens very little. At colleges and universities, the opposite often happens: namely, that people act as if it were a space with at least a low level of hierarchy and as if power relations were not so relevant. And as a result, structures of dependency cannot be discussed or addressed at all. That’s where the problem begins. We definitely need more places where this can be discussed. Where we look at: What is science?

It must be said that this has been increasing in recent years, I would say. In the last two or three years, I have received an increasing number of requests for courses on good scientific practice, where the clients explicitly want the focus to be on power relations. I experience this especially in departments where the subject matter deals with power relations.

I have observed that researchers are grappling with the question: As a white person from the Global North, am I actually permitted to conduct research on topics that affect the Global South? In other words, as a white person who, in my case, now lives in Leipzig, am I permitted to conduct research on indigenous populations in South America? And what legitimizes this type of research, given that there is a global power relationship between the groups? And against the backdrop that, if we were to turn it around, we would probably very rarely have a case of indigenous people from South America researching white people in Germany. And I think that … Just the fact that researchers are starting to ask themselves this question and discuss it with colleagues is definitely a step in the right direction.

I believe we must continue to ask ourselves: What research should be funded? So the question of funding is, I believe, an important one. And how can this be done transparently? In a way, the underlying question is always how much money it is worth to us as a society, how much it is worth to us as a state, to invest in certain types of research and thus make it at least somewhat independent of economic interests.

And then, of course, there is the whole issue we discussed at the beginning: namely, the question of access. How can this be improved? Yes, I think part of it starts before college and university, namely by looking at the education system. And, of course, different people will give different answers to that.

I tend to say that we need to address the highly selective education system we have in Germany. This means that we select children and young people relatively early on—compared to other countries—and it starts with certain children going to grammar school, people with disabilities going to special schools, and so on. So that’s where the question of access begins, and it continues from there.

I also have another example of access that I think illustrates quite well how certain support measures can be effective. It concerns the issue of gender relations in science.

In recent years, probably in the last ten years, I would say, maybe even fifteen or twenty, there has been a lot of support for women, as I would call it, at universities, both among students and doctoral candidates. As a result, many more women are earning doctorates today than ten years ago. All these programs to promote women’s doctoral studies are working, as you can see. But what we also see is that these programs are specifically for the doctoral phase and then stop. And that means that if you look at this leaky pipeline, as it is called, there is a break after the doctorate; that the ratio of – if you want to think in terms of a binary gender ratio – in the case of women, changes significantly in the postdoctoral phase at the latest. And that in turn shows that support programs can also be a way of responding to different approaches to science.

This means that we could conclude that support programs work, but they must not stop at any stage; they must continue. And perhaps they should not focus on just one group, but also take into account the many other groups that you mentioned earlier and that we will certainly talk about in a moment, in order to ensure that existing inequalities are, if not eliminated, at least gradually reduced, and that access is also made possible for other groups that do not currently have it.

Hm, yes.

You just mentioned… The example you gave: As a white person, am I allowed to conduct research in the Global South? Let’s talk about that a little more. How can researchers ensure that they are not talking about people, but with them, so that they are perhaps also actively involved in research processes?

Well, I don’t know if they can guarantee that. I think it’s a legitimate demand. I just don’t know if it will work 100 percent. In the sense that it will still be talking about people. And at the same time, of course, there are also approaches in participatory research that involve the groups of people being researched in such a way that the research is conducted with them. In ethnology and anthropology, for example, a lot has happened in this area, at least in some areas. It’s a field of science, or a branch of science, that has dealt extensively with this issue in recent years, and methods have also changed.

Of course, this often leads to new problems. So what I meant by that is that it is an understandable desire to say: I want research that is reasonably free of problems. The reality is that this does not exist. There is no point at which we are done dealing with power relations.

And by these new problems, I mean things like this: when researchers work with marginalized groups, for example, and involve them in their research, the question quickly arises: should we compensate these groups, these people with whom we are conducting research and whose knowledge we are currently using? Should they receive money for their participation? Should they receive some other form of compensation? Is that okay? How does that affect motivation? What ethical implications does that have?

That’s what I mean, new questions and challenges and problems arise, and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Perhaps that’s also what science and research are all about, constantly asking these questions, because they are… In a way, you could say that they are fundamental questions underlying research, namely, how does the framework in which I conduct research affect the results I obtain?

Yes, that’s a very interesting point, and I also think that it’s a process and that you have to keep going back and reflecting on whether what you’re doing is appropriate or not, whether there are better ways of doing things, what works and what doesn’t. The fact is that in scientific contexts, it is still primarily people in privileged positions—i.e., mostly white, male individuals without disabilities from academically privileged backgrounds who are not affected by racism—who have the power to make decisions and thus often reproduce the structures from which they themselves benefit. How do you think the system can change under such conditions? How great is the desire for change when those who have the power to make decisions often benefit from the system?

Yes, I always think the question is who can initiate change. Most of the time, it’s the people you just described, those who are currently in positions of power, who aren’t the ones most interested in changing the situation, because that would probably mean they would have to share power if they changed the balance of power.

That means I don’t think it helps to wait to gain power; instead, it’s about taking power. It’s a kind of, I’ll call it self-empowerment. It’s a struggle for… Yes, I would actually call it a struggle.

And I always say in my courses that one key point that we find very difficult to learn, but which is very crucial, is organization. In other words, organizing with other people to fight for more rights and more influence. No one can take these issues of change and power relations off our hands. But what I always do is ask my doctoral students in my courses, “Who among you is actually in a union?” And very few are. I find that interesting.

Trade unions are, of course, a very basic way for employees to organize themselves. And at least some of the doctoral candidates also have positions at the university. Trade unions are precisely the kind of organizations that work to improve employment conditions at universities, for example. We haven’t talked about this yet, but just as a side note… Starting with the whole issue of precarious employment for academic staff at universities, where people have contracts for six months or so.

That’s right, I think it’s about organizing. And that, in turn, is something that is of course very difficult, especially in the higher education system, because it is so strongly geared towards individualization. We have a system that is so strongly focused on individual careers. Where it is somehow clear that if I want to stay in academia in the long term, the goal must be a professorship, because before that there is somehow nothing that is designed to be a permanent position. To get there, I have to fight my way through, in some way. This means that we learn to promote our individual careers. A doctorate is also a very individual project, or is designed to be so. Authorship, even if it is shared authorship: in the end, it’s about who is the first author and things like that.

So there is… this system is very much geared towards the individual. That makes it difficult, to say the least, to organize collectively and show solidarity with groups and people who may be worse off. But I think that’s the way forward: organizing, creating places for exchange among peers. Organizing in initiatives that are committed to this cause: for example, in unions, in doctoral student representatives (another place), in any kind of group.

I always say: folks, get organized!

Can you think of any alternatives to the individualistic scientific system, or do you perhaps even know of any?

I can definitely imagine that. Interestingly, this ideal of collaborative work also exists in science. And it does happen, to some extent, in working groups: data is exchanged, people work together on a project. That happens. The only question is always what ends up on the paper and so on. But I can imagine it, and I think many people would enjoy working with others more.

And I found it quite interesting, I was talking to a friend who left academia after completing his doctorate, who does AI research, and went into the private sector. That’s also a special field. In AI research, the most crucial research apparently takes place in the private sector, or so I’ve been told. And he said that in the publications of the company he works for—of course, there’s a list of the people involved somewhere—but at the top it says the name of the company or the working group, not the individual. This is just one example of how things can be done differently. Of course, I think that in terms of visibility, how it is presented as a joint achievement, a joint success, is very different from when there is a list that focuses on who is at the top and who are the first authors. Because that is the decisive factor in getting a certain position.

Yes, thank you for that example. Let’s return to the point you just made about organization. You were referring primarily to the people sitting in your workshop, for example. But also to individuals who are able to organize themselves or join unions.

If we now turn our attention back to the universities themselves, what structural levers can universities or funding institutions use to enable greater diversity and more equitable access? And in such a way that real change takes place and diversity is not just promoted externally, but that the decision-making structures and power relations ultimately remain the same.

So I believe there are levers in various places, which of course have varying degrees of impact. I think one area is really important—and universities may not be able to achieve this on their own, but they can certainly work towards it—and that is the whole issue of precarious employment conditions. But there is a different kind of security and thus also a different kind of freedom for research and for certain topics when I know that my job is not just for six months and I don’t have to worry about finding new funding every six months, but that I am secure for the next five years, at least. That would be one point, for example.

Then I find the whole question of: How does leadership actually take place? How are leadership positions filled and how are they, let’s call it, trained? I think that’s also a very relevant question for colleges and universities.

Because these professorships are such specialized positions. The reality is still that professorships are often awarded for, let’s say, outstanding research—in the best case scenario. Certainly also based on networks and contacts and so on. Teaching may be playing an increasingly important role, but I think it’s very clear which people who have a professorship have undergone further training in leadership. And these people are all bosses too, and the way they lead shapes their work areas and the university. I think there is definitely a need for improvement here.

So, if we talk again about this question of power relations in the field of research topics: How does the working group, the people in the department, deal with these issues? Well, there are now departments in certain subjects that are definitely addressing this issue. They get together and say: We’re going to engage in a power-critical process here, where we look at how we actually reproduce power relations with our research and how this can be done differently. There are requests for this. Interestingly, the impetus for this often comes from doctoral students, not necessarily from professors.

And I believe that, overall, we need to address these hierarchies. Universities and colleges are simply very hierarchical systems. We know that hierarchical systems are very susceptible to abuse of power on so many levels. And the problem becomes even more acute when the institution fails to address it. In other words, I believe we need places where this issue is addressed.

And I know that these are not answers that make you think, “Oh, we’ll do that and then tomorrow somehow… everything will be better.”

That’s a real shame. I can only describe impulses for processes and I have to say: I don’t have all the answers either. These are answers that we have to find together as a scientific community. And I think an underlying question is: “How do I, how do we use our power as researchers?”

And other participants [in the system] should ask themselves the same question.

Yes, that’s a very important question, Elisabeth.

And with that, we’re coming to the end of our fascinating conversation. Is there anything else on the subject of power relations and accessibility that’s particularly important to you, that we haven’t touched on today? Or was that your final word?

I have perhaps two more things to say.

One thing I would like to address, because we haven’t discussed it in depth yet and it is often overlooked, is how global power relations are reflected at the university. One question I find interesting is: Why do people from other countries in the Global South want to do research in Europe, even under poor conditions? And I believe that global power relations are reflected in this, because European research institutions, for example, may have such a high status that people are willing to come here to do research, even under such poor working conditions.

By poor working conditions, I mean things like people who come to Europe to conduct research—from the Global South, for example—and find themselves heavily dependent on visas. For these groups of people, the issue of precarious working conditions is even more acute because they often need a job in order to extend their visas. But if their job ends and no one is working to get it extended or to find funding, then their visa suddenly expires and they can’t finish their research here. Yes, and I really wanted to bring that up again because I think it’s an issue that is often overlooked. In a way, the researchers who are affected by this are left to deal with it on their own.

And the other thing is, what I… what perhaps also became clear from that last question… We are often both, we have positions of power and we have positions of powerlessness. And I think we need to talk about both and reflect on both.

So, for example, as a doctoral candidate, I am in a position of powerlessness for various reasons. But I also have power and influence because, as a doctoral candidate, I also teach or supervise people. And there I can also see how I actually deal with access in this position; that is, which topics are discussed in my seminars. How do I select literature? Which topics come up?

These are also opportunities to exert influence. And then I would say that we… many of us often hold both positions within ourselves.

Yes, definitely. Thank you for those two important additions. Thank you for the conversation, for the many insights and ideas. I really hope that they will encourage the people listening to this podcast to think a little more about how power and responsibility in science can perhaps be exercised more consciously. Thank you very much for your time.

Yes, thank you for the interview.

Outro

That was Dr. Elisabeth Zschache talking about power, responsibility, and change in science, here on the DRS podcast of Freie Universität Berlin.

What I take away from this conversation is that change does not happen by itself, but begins where people are willing to question structures and reflect on their own role in them.

Thank you for listening, and if the conversation has inspired you to think further or discuss further, that is exactly the goal of this podcast. Feel free to listen to the other interview with Dr. Elisabeth Zschache [coming soon], which deals with power relations in doctoral supervision.

I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I wish you a wonderful day. See you next time here on the Dahlem Research School podcast.

[Note: your host for this episode was Dr. Marlies Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast for doctoral researchers at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’ll be your host for today’s episode. Sexual harassment, discrimination and violence are difficult topics, but also essential ones to address, especially in academic environments shaped by hierarchies, power imbalances, and international diversity.

My guest today is Wendy Stollberg, the university’s official contact person for cases of sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence. In our conversation, Wendy explains what her role entails and how affected individuals can seek confidential support whether they are unsure about what happened, looking for structural change, or simply need someone to talk to. We talk about the specific challenges that doctoral researchers, especially international female or non-binary researchers, often face, and how universities can do more to prevent such incidents in the first place. Wendy Stollberg also gives clear guidance on how to distinguish inappropriate behaviour from acceptable interactions, and why it’s so important to speak up, even if you’re unsure or a bystander.

Whether you’ve experienced something yourself, want to support a colleague, or simply want to be part of a safer academic culture, this episode will give you both insights and practical advice.

Interview

Welcome to the DRS podcast, Wendy Stollberg. To begin with, could you briefly introduce yourself and explain your role at the university?

Hello and thank you very much for having me at this podcast. My name is Wendy Stollberg, as you just said, and I’m the contact person in cases of sexual harassment, discrimination and violence at Freie Universität Berlin. What does it mean? It means that people who have experienced sexual harassment, discrimination or violence, any form of it, can come to me for an appointment for confidential counselling.

And that’s very important. It is confidential. So it is just between me and the person who comes to me and nothing will necessarily follow from our consultation that we have. So I’m listening, I’m trying to understand what has happened, I help the person who comes to me to assess the situation, and we try to figure out what could possibly follow from that.

So, are there any interventions wanted by the person that helps this person to cope with what has happened, to prevent further harassment situations, and possibly also to change things on a structural level. But very important, the focus is really on the person who comes to me. So it is always according to their wishes, what will follow, if there’s anything that needs to follow up, that is wanted to follow.

What the consultation includes from my side is also empowering. Empowering the person, reassuring that it was a very brave and good move to come to me, to speak to someone and to empower with everything that I can, because every person who speaks about sexual harassment that he or she has experienced is really very brave, as it is very hard after such incidents to really believe themselves and to talk to other people.

Thank you for this introduction. I will ask you further on in this interview how exactly people can contact you. But for now, I would like to know, maybe you can state the most common issues people approach you about. Is this something you can narrow down to, I don’t know, a few topics or is it really broad and very individual?

It is both actually. It is broad, and general and it’s also individual. And what I mean by this is that there are some incidents or some forms of sexual harassment that happen again and again because of structural issues. And then on the other hand, it is always individual, because people are different.

People are different in what they want, how much energy they have, and who is involved in the end, how dependencies are, and so on. And if you ask me about examples maybe of cases, I’d say what has come to my attention several times are harassment situations, of a verbal nature and also of a physical nature between supervisors, PhD supervisors and doctoral students. And so far, for example, that the supervisor has shared a lot of private information, intimate information about his relationship, about wife or whatever, and asked on the other side in turn. What is the situation with the PhD student?

So very, very intimate questions that really have nothing to do at the workplace or in this kind of situations. And where doctoral students then feel a lot of pressure on how to react as they have supervisors that grade them, that are responsible to write recommendations and things like that. So this is something that has, as I said, come to my attention several times. There has been also incidents of sexual harassment with groups, for example, in situations on travels, in seminar situations at other places, for example, that have to do with the university context, but somehow seem to be also of a private nature.

And these are really tricky situations. And I would mention a third situation, and that is stalking. That is situations where doctoral students have been stalked either by other students, for example, or places that took place within the university, but also sometimes situations of stalking outside of the university on the way to the university at the U-Bahn or something like that. So situations that really are very scary and that come with a lot of insecurity.

When I say the stalking situation, sometimes also included situations of sexist behaviour. And this has been, at least in my statistics, in my personal statistics, has happened more in surroundings that are male dominated.

I can imagine. Thanks a lot for sharing those examples. I would like to talk a bit more about the supervisor-doctoral researchers‘ relationship and how sexual harassment, discrimination and violence play a role in this relationship because obviously, as you already mentioned, it’s a hierarchical relationship and there are power issues going on here. You already mentioned a few examples. Are there any other types of issues that come up frequently among doctoral researchers in particular?

In my observation, there is a group of doctoral students or researchers that are most at risk again, according to my counselling statistics. And those are usually female or non-binary people coming from other countries than from Germany, so internationals. And for them, the situation is very tough because additional to this power asymmetry and hierarchical situation that you already also mentioned in your question, there is isolation. Very often, these people do not have friends or family that they can turn to that can support them.

There is also a lack of knowledge about the culture in Germany, but also at the university, how are things handled? What can I do? What is expected of me? There’s also a factor of dependency very often, as other students also have from grades, from recommendations, but also from visa, for example.

Financing plays a role. Also, the fact that sometimes their research is funded or approved of by their family, their parents, and now they feel the pressure to perform even if they have been sexually harassed. So there’s a lot of pressure and a lot of dependencies. And one more fact I would say that is even more severe with internationals is that they do not know where to turn to. They do not know whether they would receive support and if so, where would they turn to? What would happen? So a lot of things that are not known.

So hopefully a lot of people from the international community are listening to this podcast today to get an idea where to turn to. And I can imagine, as you already mentioned, like cultural norms might be also more difficult to understand. But even for Germans who grew up in the German culture, I can imagine that it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between something is like a harmless flirt or maybe a compliment. And when does it actually cross the line to something that is harassment?

I’m still talking about the supervisor-doctoral researcher-relationship. How can I actually distinguish between those two? Are there any criteria that can help making that distinction? Is it something more personal that I have to decide how I interpret the situation or are there criteria out there?

I think the most important criteria is when you do not feel good with what happens to you or what has happened to you. If you feel somehow ashamed or have a bit of a stomach ache or you think about it all the time, you’re unsure, you think you’re overreacting, then I think it’s a good indicator that something was wrong. That it was behaviour that was not a flirt, but behaviour that falls in the category of harassment. Sexual harassment, discrimination, violence is one-sided and unwanted by the person who is experiencing it.

There is no consent by the person who is experiencing it and the person really doesn’t feel good in the situation. And I think that’s a very crucial factor if you think about whether it was sexual harassment or not in the situation. In general, I would like to add that sexual harassment, discrimination and violence means that someone, can be also several people, are demonstrating abusing their power. It is very much about power relations.

Someone is maybe trying to get control over you, or sometimes it might not be the aim because some harassed perpetrators might not aim at this. However, it will be the result that if you experience it, that you might feel degraded, that you might feel ashamed, devaluated, humiliated, at least not respected by the other person. And that’s why sexual harassment, discrimination and violence is a form of gender-based discrimination.

What would you say to someone who’s listening to this podcast right now, but unsure whether to reach out or not, maybe because they worry things could get worse?

I would say, I can understand that. And I can understand how difficult it might be for you in this situation. And at the same time, I would encourage this person to speak to someone, to not stay alone with what has happened and what is still working in this person. This can be a person that is trusted a lot, a friend, for example, or a fellow PhD researcher, when there’s trust.

And it can also be me, or it can be also gender equality officers at the different institutes and faculties that we have. It is always good not to stay alone with that. And when you come to me and you’re not sure, that’s perfectly fine, because we will look at what has happened, how you feel about it, and what can you do in order to make you feel better. So it’s really not a must.

There’s no criteria to say, okay, only if this and this happens, you can come to me and talk to other people. No, definitely if you’re unsure, that’s perfect to talk to someone else.

And if I want to reach out to you, how exactly can I do that? Do I need to call? Can I write an email? Is it also possible to contact you anonymously at first or how does it work?

You can contact me via email, and you can also book an appointment. We have this website, no means no, at Freie Universität Berlin. And if you look at this website, you find information on sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence in general. And you also find my contact details and you find also the possibility where to book appointments.

And for this appointment or for making an appointment, you just need an email address. That doesn’t need to include your name, just an email address. And then we make an appointment either via Webex or in person. Or if you tell me you prefer something else via telephone or that we go for a stroll somewhere, we can also do that.

And for me, it is not important to have the name. It is only helpful for later, if it comes to later, when the person, for example, decides to file a formal complaint, then it will be necessary to give the name, but not when talking to me. That’s absolutely not necessary at this point.

So I understand what happens is you get an appointment, you talk to you online or in person. You already said before that this conversation is 100% confidential. And let’s say I want to file a formal complaint. What kind of support can I expect from you, especially if the person involved is my supervisor or my PI?

Very difficult situation. And we would in our consultations figure out together if a formal complaint would be a good option or if there are any other options where we could involve maybe other supervisors or the supervisor of your supervisor. And this we would discuss and find out. And for this, it would be helpful if the person who comes to me has some kind of idea who to trust within their faculty or the place where the research is done, so that we can find a person who can be supportive.

When a formal complaint is wanted, I would try to assess based on my knowledge, not because I’m a lawyer, but based on my experiences and knowledge so far, whether a complaint would be something helpful and something that could work. Or whether I’d say it’s a lot of energy that would be taken and the outcome would probably not be as expected by the person affected. So I would, as I said, I would try to counsel on the options and I would also, if wanted, gather information from what is needed, if there are any deadlines. Yeah, I would gather all the information.

What is possible, apart from a formal complaint, is also that we might agree that I talk to a supervisor with the consent of the person who’s come to me and to discuss with him or her options. But only in this case, and that was not the case you constructed, that it’s not the supervisor who is the person who is harassing, but who could be a person with authority and also responsibility to do something about it.

So you wouldn’t talk to the aggressor directly?

Me, no. I would not do this. However, it could be possible that I approach a supervisor – again, only if there’s trust and only if we talked about it –, and ask the supervisor or recommend that he or she approaches and invites the aggressor for a conversation.

And I could be within this conversation, I could support the supervisor in how to do this conversation. But I wouldn’t approach the aggressor myself because I’m not in this role. My role is the confidential counselling and I’m with the person who came to me and I don’t see my role in approaching the aggressor. That would be difficult.

And I think that this should be also coming from people at the institution with, as I said, responsibility and authority, and these are the deans, for example, or the leaders of research groups, something like that.

Now, not everyone listening may be directly affected, but many may find themselves in situations where they notice something or feel that something isn’t quite right. What if I’m a bystander or colleague? Can I also turn to you for advice? Can I also report incidents directly, anonymously, or not?

Yes, you could do that. It hasn’t happened so much, but the role of the bystanders is a very, very important role. The bystanders as people who observe something, who have heard something while not being affected themselves, but who can support and do something in the situation and help to change the situation. So yes, please also feel invited to come to me and we could also figure out something that could also help you as a bystander in what could be done, what could be options for the future, for example, or also if the situation is still ongoing.

And it would also be very important information that would influence my other part of the work, which we haven’t talked about yet, which is also in changing structures and in preventing sexual harassment, discrimination and violence in the first place. That would be the goal anyway, to not have it. So if we know of situations or also of places or structural deficits where things happen, we can use it to change things in a customized way.

And that’s definitely something I want to talk with you about in a minute. I just have one quick follow-up question to the topic of the bystanders. If I find myself in a situation where I see something is going on, where definitely one person is not happy anymore, would you recommend stepping in right at the spot if I feel comfortable doing so? Or would you say that’s something maybe you have to really think well about and you shouldn’t do it without reflecting maybe what it can lead to?

If you feel strong enough and you have the impulse to stop the situation, to say something, then please do so. You have seen discrimination, you have seen harassment, and this can only be good to say that you noticed it, you observed it, and you think it’s wrong. Even if the person who might have been affected or who it was directed with might not have felt like this or might be uncomfortable with this, it’s good for yourself because somehow, you’ve also been affected. You have seen something, and you think it’s not okay and you show a stop sign.

So if you feel you can do this, yeah, please intervene. If not, if you don’t think it’s possible in this situation, and it can be very difficult and it needs a lot of courage, I think, to step in. We could, for example, discuss then options what could be done afterwards like talking to the person who it was directed at and tell him or her that you’ve seen it and that if the person wants to talk about it and then you could both go and find counselling or develop some ideas of what to do.

Or yeah, there could be also other ways, maybe also the person who has been the aggressor could also be approached. But this really it’s something that also involves courage and should in many cases be thought of well, because especially if you think of a situation where the hierarchy levels, the power levels are very, very different, and you rather think yourself being in a lower power position, then this in general wouldn’t be a good idea. But we could talk about it and think about the situation and figure out what could be helpful for you as a bystander and what could also probably be helpful for the person who has experienced it.

Thanks a lot for clarifying that. Now, back to what we already said. The other part of your work is working on changing structures, preventing incidents in the first place. I know that you’re working on a care and intervention plan with colleagues. Could you tell us a little more about this plan, what’s its purpose and what does it aim to change?

The care and intervention plan, that’s the project which has been initiated by my colleague Katharina Schmidt and me. And that’s something we really would love to see that in reality at Freie Universität Berlin. And this care and intervention plan includes or means that if people will have experienced any form of sexual harassment, discrimination, violence, go to any place at the university and report it. And at this point, it’s not important whether it’s a big formal complaint or if it’s just I want to talk to you about something has happened to me that this has been taken seriously and this report helps the person of course who has been affected and at the same time it helps the university to change structures and to learn from what has happened.

And that would mean that each case would be looked at from a team, we would call it then the intervention team, with people who are trained on the subject and who would coordinate all the actions that would follow. Because right now, people can turn to basically anywhere, and then sometimes a gender equality officer does something, sometimes the person who is taking the complaint, or a colleague, or a supervisor, or the HR department, and it is not coordinated, and it doesn’t really go together. But then it would be taken together, and any report would be taken seriously and something would follow from that, some kind of intervention.

And interventions being on the level of the individual situation. So for example, some kind of interventions where the perpetrator is involved. where he or she can reflect on their behaviour or has to do some kind of balance. And on the level, again, of the faculty or of the place where this happened, and also for the whole university so what measures should be taken that we all learn from that and that the atmosphere, because there’s always a change in the atmosphere in the whole research group, for example, changes and that people know what happens, that also bystanders are taken seriously, and that there is some kind of development process also at the research departments or groups where something happens.

And this involves an attitude of Yes, we take every report seriously and it’s not our intention to investigate. We’re not the police or we are not in court, but we take it seriously and we do something without it. We don’t ignore it because we don’t know what to do or we think it’s not important enough, but we do something with it. And for this, as I said, a specialized group, the intervention team must be installed and will be installed, which works as transparent as possible, as confidential as possible, and also having the care of everyone involved.

It sounds maybe a bit like a fantasy, but I’m pretty sure that it could work and we actually know that it works from other universities, smaller universities though, but universities who have implemented it. That was in very, very brief words what the care and intervention plan includes. And we’ve started a process on developing it. And for this, we work together with the John F. Kennedy Institute. We use it as a pilot institute where we talk about it, where we talk about also terms – in English, very important. We talk about who could be in the intervention team, what would be the necessary conditions, what is all important. And then the idea is actually to develop such a care and intervention plan with a reporting system first at the John F. Kennedy Institute and then later would be the idea to have it for the whole university.

Besides the measures you just mentioned, is there anything else you would say that needs to change in structures or in attitudes maybe for universities to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence in the first place?

We must do more than just write: we do not accept sexual harassment, discrimination, violence or any other forms of discrimination at Freie Universität. We have the code of conduct. We have guidelines against sexual harassment, discrimination, violence. We have anti-discrimination guidelines. That’s very, very good. And there it’s written down several times. We do not accept it and we do not want it. And we do something about it.

That’s very important. Now we must do something about it. Now we must support people who say, I have experienced something, or people who say as bystanders, I have seen something. We must take this seriously and act.

And so far, this is not always the case. And it’s not the case also in a structured way. So that would be, I think, a big change. And also a big change would be the approach to say, okay, it’s not just the legal definition that is interesting for us. So we’re not looking at the general act of equal treatment, Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, for example, or the penal law, the Strafgesetzbuch, and look what is defined there. And only if it’s defined there, a sexual harassment, then it’s valid for us.

So we must stop looking only at the legal definitions, because not everything is written in law. And we must understand where sexual harassment, discrimination and violence comes from, what conditions are important that it exists or that makes it difficult for people to speak up. And as I said again, we must take every report seriously and do something. And this would be a very new approach, where the focus is really on the affected people.

Thank you very much for elaborating. Before we come to an end of this interview, I would like to talk a little bit about the “No Means No”-slogan you’ve also been involved in or your website, part of your website is called like this, your email address. Could you tell us what it is about?

“No Means No” is an international slogan that I think can be recognized in what it stands for. It means if someone says no, then there has to be no. It is a slogan against sexualized discrimination, harassment and violence. As I said, it’s very international and you find it also in other languages and also some theatre plays work with it, so it has its foundation.

However, and yes, you’re right, we’re using it, we’re definitely using it, still we want to go further. Why should someone have to say no? We should focus on what is before. Why does someone else think he or she can harass another person so that he or she must say no? This must stop. So there should be a prevention on this. And in some countries, on some contexts, it’s rather the slogan, yes means yes where you have to give your consent right at the beginning. And that’s why I think we will slowly leave the slogan, no means no, and go for another slogan.

We have around November 25, that’s the International Day Against Violence Against Women. We have activities each year and for that we have used different slogans. And I think the last slogan was for the university and against sexualized discrimination, harassment and violence. So that’s actually the focus, that we want to do everything for the university, for all the members of the university, and we all have responsibility to do something and to act against sexual harassment, discrimination and violence.

Great. If that’s something you can already link to, the event in November, we can definitely do that on the podcast episode website as well. We’re also definitely going to link to your contact so that people who listen to this podcast can get in contact with you if they want to. They can get more information. So we’re going to put a whole list of links on the DRS podcast website so that everybody listening knows they can actually get the information right there as well.

I can tell you already as a little spoiler that this year in November, there will be a workshop with Dr. Gina Sissoko. She is herself a postdoc and a researcher and a psychologist from Yale University, and she will talk about microaggressions, and also how we can identify them and what can we do about it. And a second, I think, very interesting event, and I would really like to invite you all to come to this, will be a theatre play on masculinity because we definitely want to reach everyone and we want to engage males also in our fight against sexual harassment, discrimination, violence. So November 25th and November 27th and I’ll be happy to provide you with the links.

… in 2025, in case people are listening to this podcast later, but I guess that’s something that’s happening every year in November, but this year with two very interesting topics. Wendy Stollberg, thank you so much for sharing all your expertise here, for giving many examples, for explaining to our listeners what sexual harassment, discrimination and violence what is about, and also the university is doing to fight it. Thank you so much for your time.

My pleasure. Thank you.

outro

That was such an eye-opening and thoughtful conversation with Wendy Stollberg. I hope it helped clarify some of the difficult but important questions around sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence at university.

One of my key takeaways: you don’t have to go through anything alone. Whether you’ve experienced something directly or are unsure about a situation, there’s confidential help available. And it’s okay to reach out, even if you don’t know whether something counts. If it doesn’t feel right, it’s worth talking about.

We’ve also touched on the university’s structural efforts, like the care and intervention plan and upcoming workshops and events aimed at prevention and awareness. If you want to learn more, we’ve linked helpful resources, including Wendy Stollberg’s contact information and the “No Means No” website, on the page of this episode. And remember, a safer university culture is something we all help create, by speaking up, by supporting others, and by challenging harmful structures together.

That was Dr. Marlies Klamt. Thank you so much for listening, and I hope you’ll tune in again for the next episode of the DRS Podcast.

[Note: Your host for this episode was Dr. Marlies Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

[Note: This interview was conducted in German. The following transcript is an automatic translation of the German interview, which you can find here.]

INTRO

Welcome to the podcast of the Dahlem Research School, where today you can expect an interview with Christine Eßmann-Stern, the Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer at one of the departments of Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’ll be your host for today’s episode.

To give you an idea of what to expect from this episode, I would like to give you a brief summary in advance. My interview partner Christine Eßmann-Stern shares exciting and sometimes very humbling experiences from her everyday life as a decentralized women’s representative and gender equality officer with us. We talked in particular detail about the abuse of power by superiors, as this is one of the most common reasons why doctoral students turn to her.

We also talk about what she thinks can be done to ensure that there is less abuse of power on the part of professors and leaders of working groups.

Ms. Eßmann-Stern explains what usually happens after someone has contacted her, why she doesn’t always speak or can’t speak to the heads of the working groups and what consequences you can and can’t expect if you contact her.

It turned out to be a very informative interview, which can be encouraging, but also shows where the academic system can still be upgraded to ensure more justice and fairness in science.

And I don’t want to say any more in advance, but we’ll start directly with the interview.

INTERVIEW

Welcome to the podcast, Ms. Essmann-Stern. Could you please just briefly introduce yourself so that our listeners know who they are dealing with today?

Yes, with pleasure. My name is Christine Eßmann-Stern. I am the decentralized Women’s representative and Gender Equality Officer at Freie Universität in the Department of Biology, Chemistry and Pharmacy.

As you have just said, you are the department’s Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer. What is the most common issue that people approach you with in this role?

Abuse of power is definitely at the top of the list. This means that academic staff and postdocs are discriminated against, stalked and bullied by their superiors as a result of abuse of power.

You’ve already mentioned a few examples, such as stalking or discrimination. But what exactly is abuse of power?

Research assistants and postdocs are dependent on the head of the working group. This means that doctoral researchers are dependent on evaluations and are sometimes put under pressure. In other words, they are told that if you don’t do this and that, you won’t get these and those benefits. It goes as far as shouting at them, putting them under pressure by saying that if you don’t do this or that, then I will no longer support your project and you can do it all on your own.
This also concerns vacation, which everyone is entitled to, including doctoral candidates and postdocs. They’ll be told, if you want to apply for a leave, it’s not possible, our project must continue. But the fact is, you have the right to take leave. This is recreational leave. You don’t have to say why you’re taking this leave. But the AG leaders sometimes simply refuse, even though you are entitled to it.

Now you’ve just said that the head of the working group says, for example, if my doctoral researcher doesn’t do as I say, then I won’t help them any more and I won’t support them any more. What is it that they might be more or less forced to do ?

A lot of working group leaders don’t get on with their doctoral researchers expressing their own opinion. There you can find a lot of pressure. There are so many different problems that I learn about. Every employee is entitled to turn to me if, for example, they feel discriminated against or are constantly being shouted at. And if that happens and the person comes to me, then I first listen to them, try to advise them and then, with the consent of the person who comes to me, I contact the head of the working group.

When I do that, the hammer usually comes down immediately afterwards. For example the head of the working group saying that there’s someone here who has betrayed me. Everything is anonymous, which means that the AG leader doesn’t know who was with me. I also just say that I’ve heard that…
Of course, they keep asking who it was, even though they know it’s confidential, and that I don’t have to tell them. Then a team meeting is held in the working group and then the leaders might say, that someone betrayed them, and they could have come forward, and as long as the person who did it hasn’t been found, they won’t support the doctoral researchers any more.

It is very profound, because when doctoral researchers come to work with us, the supervisor enters into a contract with them. This means that they sign up to being a doctoral supervisor and they have to continue to support these people. And people forget that it is the right of every employee, i.e. every member of staff, to turn to me. And it’s always very difficult to criticize the AG leader, because they often misunderstand or do not want to understand. There’s also a lot of narcissism involved because, of course, many AG leaders think they are doing everything right. But if they don’t listen to what I say…
After all, they’re not slaves, they’re employees, for whom the head of the working group also has a duty of care. And that is often forgotten. And a lot of people sit with me crying because they just don’t know what to do.

Most of those who have these problems are undergoing psychological treatment because they usually come too late. Either because they don’t know that we exist or what we are there for. We don’t just sign contracts as decentralized Women’s Representative and and Gender Equality Officers, we also try to solve problems and concerns, to negotiate, to discuss things with people, preferably together. But the is often the issue of fear involved and they do not want that.

So it’s a difficult thing that I do, but I often have a good feeling when it turns out well. And that also makes me happy when someone comes up to me and says that everything worked out wonderfully, that my working group leader is completely different. They understood the problem. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen that often. I try to move people if it’s no longer working at all in this working group. I then sit down with the administrative management or the Office of Faculty Recruitment and Appointment Strategy directly under the Executive Board and say, well, we have this and that problem and we have to move this or that person on.

You have already touched on many, many different topics that I would like to go into them a little deeper. First of all, let’s go back to the situation you’ve just described. Let’s assume that I really do have a professor sitting in front of me who says in the team meeting that as long as I haven’t found the person who has betrayed me here, based on his feelings, I won’t supervise anyone else here. That’s basically a refusal to work on the part of the professor. And if this happened in front of witnesses, as was the case in the example you described, is it still acceptable for the university to allow such a person to remain in their position?

Not really. It’s a very big problem as far as university lecturers are concerned. I can talk about the problems, I can pass them on, but there are usually no consequences. And that’s actually what bothers us all decentralized Women’s Representatives at the FU. We can try, if we get permission from the person concerned, to talk to them, to the heads of the working groups. We can pass it on to the administrative management, but nothing happens. In other words, nothing happens from the top. Of course, you could also go straight to the Executive Board, to the HR department.

It’s just that I’m only doing this internally for the time being, i.e. within our department. I also want it to stay there, I don’t want it to be passed on to the staff council or the HR department. That’s why I actually try to do everything I can beforehand to ensure that we sort it out internally in our department. Unfortunately, usually not much happens. The administrative management may talk to the person, the university lecturer. But there are no consequences. And I think that in such a case of refusal to work, as you said, he has entered into a contract with the doctoral candidate, he has had the doctoral reseracher employed and has agreed to be the doctoral supervisor. Then this person must supervise the doctoral candidate. And I also consider that a refusal to work.

And I always think that if it were any other employee, we would have already received something from HR, a warning or I don’t know what. In other words, there have to be consequences for such cases. And unfortunately, they are very, very rare. I have a lot of conversations with university lecturers, especially with controversial working groups, where I know there are often fires. But I don’t get anywhere because this narcissism gets to me. People don’t realize that they make mistakes themselves. This self-reflection, what am I doing, do I need to change something, that doesn’t happen, instead I’m always being told that I’m doing everything right here, that my work group is doing well. Apparently not, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many people coming to me. And of course I’m very perceptive when several people come from a working group. Then there’s something to it.

I listen to both sides. But when four people or so come from the working group and say, well, our working group management does this and does that and I have minutes of their discussions then also emailed to me. Then I know that something is wrong. And that means we have to do something to change it. That’s a very important story. That’s why I’m also in favor of every university lecturer, whether they’re long-established or newly appointed and will be leading a working group, getting some kind of coaching or attend a workshop beforehand. How do I lead a AG? What are my duties? What are my rights? Also administrative matters, which is also very important.
As I said, it does not concern all university lecturers , but there are some where the staff keeps coming back and saying that something is wrong here. So there must be consequences also for university lecturers. And there has to be a workshop or whatever, because I have to get a driver’s license if I drive a car. I also have to be trained to lead a AG.… I’m a leader, I have a responsibility, a duty of care, so I have to be trained in advance. How do I deal with it? What do I do? That’s actually what I would like to achieve.

I think that’s a great idea, also mandatory for new professors or for those starting out.

That’s actually coming soon. I know that it’s in work for newly appointed professors. But as I said, we still have a lot of long-established professors. And it does not work like that, they think I’m up here and you’re all down there and you do what I say. And if you don’t, I’ll get loud or you’ll face some kind of consequences if you don’t get your act together. That doesn’t work. We work together. We are employed by Freie Universität. Our working group leader is put in front of us, in quotation marks. That’s why it’s our supervisor. And we all have to treat each other well. And that’s not always the case, unfortunately.

Do you have any ideas, or perhaps there are already some in the pipeline, on how to detect and prevent such abuse of power more quickly during a professor’s entire term of office? Without waiting for people to turn to you once problems have arisen or, as you have now described, for several people from a working group to turn to you when the fire is already burning. How could you perhaps introduce a kind of quality control on a regular basis so that such things don’t happen in the first place?

Well, that’s very difficult. We have so many working groups in our department. Biology, Chemistry and Pharmacy is the largest department at Freie Universität. And there are so many working groups in each individual institute that it’s impossible to control them. This means that in order for me to be able to do something and to find out I am of course dependent on the employees, on everyone, whether it’s another employee, a doctoral student or a postdoc or a technical assistant, whoever. Otherwise I would never find out.
I believe that the number of unreported cases of abuse of power is very high because people are afraid to make it public. One way of possibly curbing it would perhaps be to make it compulsory to attend a workshop once a year. What has changed in that year? What else can I do? Is there any new law? Most people don’t even know that yet. Maybe if something like that would be compulsory. That wouldn’t be bad at all. Once a year it would be compulsory for university lecturers to attend a course on how to run a working group, how to deal with employees. I think that would be good.

But otherwise, if that doesn’t happen, we can’t control it because we can’t see it. And if no one approaches us – out of fear or for other reasons, or a doctoral candidate says, oh, gosh, I’ll get through the three or four years here and only realizes afterwards that he’s actually become completely ill as a result – if they don’t come to us and we really do treat everything confidentially, we don’t need to name names, I don’t need to go to the heads of the working groups either. Of course I’d like to change things. That’s why people come to me. But if the person says to me, no, I don’t want to do that because I’m scared…
Of course I always try to say, oh, come on and I’ll try to convince them. But many people say, no, please don’t, the conversation has actually already helped me, where I can look for help elsewhere, for example, psychological support. But if that’s not the case, then there’s nothing we can do because we have no insight into how the heads of the working groups treat their employees.

You have already mentioned several times the fear that academic staff have when it comes to approaching you in confidence, if there has been a case of abuse of power. Could it be that, in addition to this fear, which I am quite sure is also very present in many people, also simply be a rational consideration and to say, okay, if I now turn to the Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer and also allow you to turn to the head of department or the head of the working group, then I can expect this or then I have to expect that in the worst case there will be no consequences at all. And that’s not unlikely, but there could certainly be negative consequences for me as a person or for the working group as a whole, because the professor might feel that he or she has been stepped on the toes and perhaps treat people even more unfairly?

Yes, there are two problems. Of course, people don’t know how it will end, what the consequences will be, which is often very disappointing. Because they come to me, let’s say, they give their consent, I can go on, I talk to the head of the working group, but they realize that there are no consequences at all. And in return, the head of the working group is then on the case and says, watch out, not like this. I do what I can here. I do everything I can to help you progress here so that you can complete your research project. I help and do and do, and that’s the thanks I get.

I understand those people. It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s just that I always think that together we are strong. Of course, as I’ve already mentioned, that it is really bad that there are no consequences. You run into walls. There was a case of a working group leader where it was quite extreme. He was also spoken to at a higher level. And then it was said that the man was simply overworked, that’s why he reacted like that. And then they simply gave him one or two more employees. For me, or let’s say for the people who came to me, which wasn’t just one person, it’s like a slap in the face. This person treats employees really badly and, because the poor man or woman is supposedly overworked, he gets two more employees. I think to myself, that’s like getting another sweet when I’ve made a mistake. And that’s the big problem.

Sure, the person may be overworked, and I may have a certain amount of understanding for that, but it doesn’t help the employees.When I lead a working group, I know that it has so and so many employees. I can’t shout about it or freak out or, because I’m unbalanced at home, take it out on my work group. I mean, we all have bad moods from time to time, but it’s not anyone’s fault and certainly not the employees in a working group. And if there are no consequences, and here we are again, but instead sweets, then the WG management won’t learn anything from it. Then the WG management will say to itself, well, okay, then I’ll just go and talk to a higher authority. But so what?After all, I did get one or two employees out of it. That’s not a consequence for me, it’s a reward.

Yes, and it also sends out the wrong signals.

Right, right. And then I always don’t know what to say to the people who come to me with their problems and worries. Of course I tell them that I’m completely dissatisfied. And that nothing else is happening, and that it’s taking forever. The process from the day they come to me until something happens or doesn’t happen takes forever. It takes months before the person has time, before we can have a new conversation, before he or she answers. There are discussions without end. And I think that in a certain case, i.e. according to the degree of severity, for example repeat offenders, in quotation marks, consequences should really follow quickly. And it’s not enough to have a conversation with an administrative manager. It has to happen at the very top so that the person realizes that I’ve made a mistake here, I have to change something, otherwise the consequence might be that I’m no longer allowed to lead a working group. Something like that, for example.

What are your experiences with the people who come to you, how well do they know about their rights as academic staff?

Not at all. No. The thing is, they apply when there are calls for applications for doctoral candidates. Then they apply and are accepted. But I don’t think there is enough information beforehand. What are my rights and obligations? There should actually be a kind of handbook for everyone who starts working at Freie Universität, where, for example, there are emergency numbers, i.e. for sexual harassment, which Women’s Representative is responsible for my area. There is the SPDG group, for sexual violence and discrimination, where you can go to. There are many contact points at the FU, but very few of them are known.

A year or so ago, when I listed them all together, I had posters and flyers printed and sent them out. I sent them to the first-year students, for example. We always have the first-semester introduction where all the students come, and I put them in their goodie bag so that they know about them. But doctoral students, they don’t actually get anything.
They start out and we assume that most of them have already studied with us, completed their Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, are now doing their doctorates and now let’s see. But they should also get an introduction. So, where can I go if I have this or that problem? What are my obligations as a doctoral student? What are my rights?

And there should be some kind of manual containing all this. It doesn’t have to be a big book. Who likes reading thick books? It’s like having a homepage with 1000 subpages and I’m looking for something and just can’t find it because I have to click through so much. Then you just don’t feel like it anymore. So you have to reduce it to a minimum. Yes, write down the rights and obligations in bullet points:What do I have to do at the beginning? Where do I go if…? There should be something like that. But I know that this is already being discussed with the central Women’s Representative and Officer for Gender Equality of the FU, that we want to propose this to the Executive Board.

Yes, I think that’s a great idea. Or I could also imagine lectures or fireside evenings, for example. Where things are perhaps a bit livelier and where people are pointed out to those things again. With a book like this, you might have a look at it as a reference book if you really have a problem.
But if you’re made aware of certain things from the outset, for example through a lecture, that you might not even be aware of, that problems could arise during the course of your doctorate, then you might have created a different level of awareness. And then in connection with that: If the problem arises that your supervisor doesn’t want to sign the leave request for the third time and the leave now expires if you don’t take it, then the next step would be to do this and that. Or then you can make use of this and that assistance, contact this and that person.

Yes, I think the problem is time. The fact is that most academic staff work 50 percent when they are hired. But it’s also a fact that a research assistant is actually 100 percent at the FU.

Is that legal?

It is legal, yes. So actually 50 percent of my work is for the FU and the other 50 percent I’m writing my research paper or my dissertation. So that’s combined. So I would say it’s not not legal. But of course it’s at the beginning… You see 50 percent advertised and you’re actually working 12 hours for your employer.
And if vacation is being refused, because we have to be here and as quickly as possible, then you can imagine about the time… If they ask, that they would like to go to the workshop here or I want to inform myself, some working group leader would say there is no time for that. You don’t have time because you’re still behind or you have to work a bit faster. It’s not that easy either.

We have the Graduate Center here. Doctor Alette Winter does an excellent job. All doctoral candidates can go there for advice. She helps, she is also a coach. She does a great job. But some people don’t even know that this Graduate Center exists. Because, as I said, I always have the feeling that I don’t like clicking through emails and the homepage. So I don’t look or type into Google, where can I go as a doctoral candidate at the FU? That’s simply not done.

Everything should be much more transparent. There needs to be more communication. With a flood of emails, most people skip a lot of them or delete them straight away if they only see the subject line. Poster notices, yes, are actually good too, but they don’t reach the target everywhere. I don’t have the right solution yet. But I think the more we communicate, also with people such as doctoral candidates, students and other employees, who also have their problems, be it that they want to be promoted and don’t know how to do that.

So there are so many questions and sometimes perhaps too many places to go. It’s like a maze. Where do I go now? What do I do now? Is this right or is that right? What does she even do? Can she help me? I have to be careful here. If my employer finds out, there will be consequences.

That’s why I would first suggest a handbook for everyone who is newly hired. And, of course, there are always offers from the Graduate Center of the FU’s continuing education program. Workshops, further training on the subject of abuse of power, how do I get through my doctorate? So all these controversial topics that are always listed there, that people are made aware of.
There are mailing list where I can only reach doctoral candidates and postdocs and I send them something like this at regular intervals. For example there is further training for your doctorate here. Because they don’t see anything in their flood of work. They have to take care of their research project, they have to make sure that they please the head of the working group, that everything works, and at some point they also have a private life. Then they write their dissertation, which is all very stressful. And so you don’t really have an eye for anything else and try to get through these years. Only sometimes with consequences that wouldn’t have been necessary if they had gone to a contact point sooner.

I think that a nice addition to the handbook you mentioned could also be something like this podcast, for example, where you conduct regular interviews because you can also consume it on the side. You don’t have to be totally focused on it. You can also listen to it on the train, for example. And then it’s a nice addition. A simply different way to get in touch with this topic and to do educational work or to get information from the scientific staff. Have you personally had any experience of abuse of power?

Yes, unfortunately. I’ve been at Freie Universität for 40 years. The problem was simply that this appreciation, that you actually do everything you can, and even more as a secretary. Well, I can only say that as a secretary. As a Women’s Representative I am independent. I don’t have anyone reporting to me. But when I work as a secretary, I always have problems with the head of the working group, with disputes, and unfortunately I’ve had that experience. That also made me very ill at times.

Thank you very much for sharing these personal experiences with us, even if they were unfortunately not so pleasant. What are your plans for the future?

I would like to retire next year, but I would like to continue working at the FU as Women’s Representative and Officer for Gender Equality on the side, because that is the office that is so close to my heart. To support people in their worries and problems. To achieve things, to change things, to simply tackle everything that is not running smoothly or is unfair. Even the things that are always swept under the carpet. Because I can present myself to the outside world with all sorts of things. A homepage, paper is patient. But as decentralized Women’s Representative and Officer for Gender Equality, we can see what it looks like on the inside. What problems are there with the employees of the FU, in their working groups, wherever. And that’s where I’d like to be able to continue to carry out my duties in a supportive way and to be able to let people become happy again and for them to be able to say that you’ve helped me so much. That is also support.

I don’t just give advice and try to solve problems and concerns, I also provide funding for conference trips and printing work for dissertations. Because a research assistant or a member of staff doesn’t earn that much. That means I also support them with babysitting, which was extremely difficult during the corona period. It was difficult to continue working during the corona period, especially during the lockdown. And then I said, okay, you have to go to the lab sometimes because some test or project has to be done there. Find a babysitter and I’ll pay for it with the funding.
I also do lab exchanges or students who take part in excursions and simply can’t afford the 150 euros, for example, but the excursion has to take place or is part of their studies. Then of course I also fund them. And that’s all I can do to help people get through their work or their studies and relieve them of a few worries. And that’s why I would like to stay on as Women’s Representative and Officer for Gender Equality for at least another two years.

Ms. Christine Eßmann-Stern, thank you very much for this interview, but also for the important work that you do, which I think you do with a great deal of passion.

Yes, thank you for this interview and I hope many people listen to it. And maybe one or two of them will have the courage to come to me and discuss their problem with me.

We will definitely link to you again on the podcast website, as well as to the Women’s Representatives and Officers for Gender Equality in the other departments.

That would be great. Thank you very much.

OUTRO

That was the interview with Christine Eßmann-Stern. Please note that we recorded this interview last year, i.e. in 2023. So when Ms. Eßmann-Stern speaks or has spoken about next year, then she was referring to the current year, i.e. 2024.

And while I certainly hope that you yourself aren’t struggling with abuse of power, at least now you know who to turn to if that should ever happen, or if you hear about it from someone else. Remember that Christine Eßmann-Stern is the decentralized Women’s Representative and Officer for Gender Equality for the departments of biology, chemistry and pharmacy, which means that if you are doing your doctorate in another department, then check out the website for this episode. There we have an overview page for everyone and you can find which FU’s decentralized women’s representative and Officer for Gender Equality is in charge of you. On the page you will also find a link to the other episodes of the DRS Podcast. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’m pleased that I was able to accompany you through today’s episode as presenter. Thanks for listening and see you next time!

[Note: Your host for this episode was Dr. Marlie Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

Welcome. We are here today with Sandra Neumann, a doctoral candidate at the Berlin School of Mind and Brain at Humboldt University, and she is one of the founders of Scholar Minds, which we are going to learn about more today.

Welcome. So the first question that I’d like to ask you is if you could tell us a little bit about Scholar Minds. What is it? And where did it start? And what do you do with your organization?

Yeah, Scholar Minds is actually an initiative which is nonprofit. And we founded ourselves pretty much at the start of the Corona Pandemic because we realized that a lot of people really were asking for events to talk about mental health and to make aware that people are suffering at home, especially during this very month of strict isolation.

And so Scholar Minds is an initiative from early career researchers, and we are really including postdocs here as well, who are in the early stages as well as PhD candidates. And we want to both have, or want to foster changes both on the individual level. Meaning that we want to approach early career researchers with talks and events, and at the same time also trying to make changes on the institutional level really, and try to talk to principal investigators, graduate schools on how to improve creating awareness for mental health really.

You’d mentioned this expectation survey and I would love to hear more about that and maybe you can fill us in on what that is.

Yeah, Scholar Minds has very different goals. I think the first goal that I already mentioned was that we want to create awareness for mental health, and we can do that through very many different things.

And one thing is like having events and then talking about mental health. And another aspect is to do surveys. And we actually did two surveys now, and I can talk about the first one because we are still analyzing the second one. And here we really looked into satisfaction with the PhD and mental wellbeing.

And we also looked into how was it before the pandemic versus how is it now? And I think just to name some of the findings that we have, is that within our sample we had approximately 16% who had a mental health disorder before starting the PhD. But what is alarming is that then 50% of these 15 had another diagnosis, which was connected to their PhD. So that really shows the vulnerability, really, that comes through being in this PhD program when not being equipped with the right competencies and maybe support for resilience. And what we also found is that, and I think that is really not surprising, and this is really built with other studies that are coming up now, is that the pandemic really decreased satisfaction with the PhD training and that the mental wellbeing also changed for the worse for over half of the sample. And I think when you talked about expectation management, one thing that we ask in the end, and this is very much the same in the first survey which we did in 2020, and the second one in 2021, is that we ask, „So you enter the PhD, and then how is it compared to what you expected?“

And here, actually over 60% say, „It’s actually worse. This experience that I thought I would have is actually worse than I thought it would be, being in this PhD training.“ And I think this really gives us insights on how to design these PhD programs and how to advertise them, to really give realistic expectations on what this PhD will be like. Maybe what are the working hours, what are things that you need to maybe be in interaction with your supervisor and so forth. So there are really so many implications from this question.

That’s really interesting, and when I think back, we have another podcast season where we interview PhD students and ask them about their PhD experience or graduates actually. And we asked them a little bit about, „What is the difference between what you expected and what you actually experienced?“ And so far, the answers have been everything. So that’s a very interesting study and I’m sure really useful in application.

So my next question for you is, what are some of the most common challenges that doctoral students face? What are they when they maybe when you guys interact with them or when you meet with doctoral students, or when you guys think about your own challenges, what are the challenges that they’re facing? And particularly, what about the environment is challenging? So being in the system or the structure of the PhD?

Yeah, I think that’s a really good question, and I think every stage of the PhD comes with its own challenges. I think the first challenge is, and this is connected to this expectation management, is when I start the PhD, what is really expected of me?

Should I work endlessly? How fast should I finish projects? Am I supposed to communicate with, like my colleagues? Should we work together? Should each individual work? And then really having this ratio of competition and collaboration and also this individual contract with your supervisor.

So what does your supervisor expect from you? And then going into the PhD and then thinking about, okay, you have to at some point finish and there are certain criteria that you need for finishing, which could be, for example, publishing. And that entails a certain timeline because it’s not that you submit something and then it’s published a week later.

So really then, during these long periods of being in publishing processes, which can be also in terms of becoming harsh criticism, to really being up for the challenge and really enduring the criticism you might receive. And then yeah, toward the end, just really seeing still the worst of the PhD work you did maybe throughout several years.

And then you know, who in these very challenging times, when it comes to working environment, who is the person you might potentially talk to about these problems? Can you talk to your supervisor or will the supervisor then potentially perceive you as weak or not up to the task? How open can you be about your own struggles?

So there are really lots of different challenges when it comes to the PhD.

I think that’s what you said. Just the last thing was really interesting because that’s something we would like to know. How do you approach colleagues or even your supervisor when you are having difficulties or challenges?

Can I ask for help? And maybe why do you think that’s such a challenging thing? You mentioned already, we don’t want our supervisors to think we’re weak or beyond that, what do you think makes that such a difficult thing for people to do and how can we overcome that?

I think the first thing is that in the academic world, now it’s known as the mental health crisis, so that in general, people are suffering more or coming out more with that they’re having a mental health problem, which is great, but it means that the system has to learn and also supervisors have to learn to deal with it.

But it’s not like having a physical problem where there’s something to fix it, and then you are basically fixed and healed. Having a mental health problem is way more difficult and way more delicate to approach. So as a supervisor, I can imagine it is very difficult to when someone tells me, I might face depression or anxiety.

So as a supervisor, what should I do? Should I, because I have to not only have the person in mind, but I have to have my lab in mind, my laboratory that I’m working in. So it’s very different factors. So the knowledge about what to do in these cases, should I provide help? Should I say maybe you need to find professional help, has this person already has professional help?

So it’s a topic that requires a lot of knowledge to deal with and I’m not sure that all like of the supervisors we have to talk to are already aware of how to actually deal with it. And then I think it’s very like super individual. Is this like a connection between a supervisor and a PhD candidate that happens once in a month? Is it something that happens weekly? So how much trust do I have in this relationship, to keep me safe in this relationship? And then to really be open and talk about the mental health problems.

So I think something that I find helpful is to, if I’m comfortable sharing it with someone, who would it be in this environment and maybe starting, for example, with a colleague that I feel comfortable with. So basically looking for allies because I think it also needs to be separated between. Are these mental health challenges that come up because I’m in this environment or are these mental health challenges that come up because of something else? Maybe I have problems with my partner. Maybe I have a physical problem that might have led to mental health challenges.

So I think it’s also important to discern that and really think about, okay, in that case, what do I actually need? And I think that’s also important to think about. Why, like what’s the reasoning for me to tell it? Do I need support in terms of do I actually don’t know how I can get support? Which could be quite likely when, for example, you do a PhD, but this is for example, not the country you’ve been grown up in and you don’t know about the system and so you’re actually looking for help or you just want to give a notice and say, „Hey, sometimes I’m not coming to the meetings because I have maybe social anxiety or something.“

So I’m looking for understanding. So what’s really the rationale, the rationale of why I’m doing this? Which is very difficult when you are in emergency situations. So sometimes it’s not clear from the beginning. But if it is, I would think about first, who is the first person I want to have? Do I need allies? And then the second thing we, what is basically, the reasoning of me telling it?

So that is, I think, really helpful because it’s something that we actually would advise a lot is if you’re having a problem and you want to address it, to think about what do I want from the other person? And I think that’s fantastic advice. You guys have mental health offers that you also offer. So one source of support could be my colleagues and my supervisors, but I could also go to Scholar Minds. What do you specifically offer? And what can I do? Say I am a PhD student who needs support? What can I get from you guys?

Yeah, so what we offer are mental health toolkits. And what that means is that we offer this, for example, for graduate schools where, for example, if you feel like maybe your graduate school could profit from this, if you can approach your graduate school and then your graduate school can contact us.

And then we offer this for groups of PhD candidates where, over the course of four weeks, we have four sessions. And then we talk about all kinds of things that are helpful to maintain your mental health because I think the most important message for us to convey is, please don’t come to us when you are already suffering. Come to us when you feel like, „Oh, I’m not sure. I think I need, maybe I need to be there in a preventative manner.“

Because if it’s already in a state where you are like, „I think I’m in a deep depression,“ then I think Scholar Minds can direct you to psychotherapy help. But this is really not what we do. We are more on the preventative side and to really make sure that you maintain your mental health. And in that sense, we are doing a lot of mindset exercises. So we are looking together at what our core beliefs in our work and maybe how to challenge them. And we are looking at imposter feelings, which in high-achieving individuals, such as many academics, are common feelings.

And we want to tackle them and think about how to. It’s not about losing these feelings, it’s more about finding acceptance with them and coping at points where they are very strong. And we’re also making exercises on why am I actually doing this PhD? What is the vision behind it? What is my goal in life? Is this PhD a step toward an academic career and do I want to follow that? Or is it one step and then the next step is a career in industry? Is it really necessary that I put all my heart and soul and time in it, or can there be a ratio because I have other things in life like my family, my friends, my personal development that also should have a space in there.

And then we also have really psychoeducation. So we are just talking about how do I recognize depression? How do I recognize anxiety? And because these are the most prevalent disorders among PhD candidates. And maybe how can I, if I am seeing that a colleague is not doing well, how can I approach a colleague really and ask if he or she’s not doing well?

That’s really interesting. So what would you suggest, maybe you could give us like a few really brief tips. Say, I noticed that my colleague is really struggling and I want to reach out to them and ask them maybe can I support them or I want to try and help them in some way. What would you suggest that I do?

I think the first thing is really to, when you offer to give help, I think first of all, it’s important to create a safe space where this person feels that he or she can talk about it. Maybe it’s not the right place in the office where everybody else is, or in the team meeting, but maybe it’s a place where you go for a walk and a coffee.

And if the person is comfortable sharing, then really it’s about listening. And it’s not about giving advice, if I were in your situation, this is what you have to do. No. It’s really about accepting, listening, and really asking the person if the person needs advice at this point, and not being afraid. I think some people have this misconception that when they ask, things will turn bad or worse, but the reality is that sometimes just having this open ear and just normalizing it can be really helpful already.

And then I think, this is what I said earlier, okay, now we are allies in that. And then what’s the best step for you to move forward because the person is the expert of his or her experiences. So we have to trust in that. Obviously, if and I think that’s a very serious topic, if thoughts and ideas of suicidal actions come up, then this is where the purely listening part stops. This is where you have to openly say, „Look, you told me this and that, and this is something where you are endangering your life.“

And this is basically where my only listening stops. And I think this is where we need to get someone professional. I can get you there. I can call, for example, an ambulance, but this is where you also have to protect yourself. I think this is the last part. When someone gives you this information, you have to still protect yourself first.

Because at the end of the day, you have to also make sure that you are not then going into a mental health crisis because you’re taking on all the burden of your colleagues.

I think that’s really important. What you’ve just said is also to protect yourself. And I think that is probably an important aspect in this environment and in academia where everyone is really maybe struggling and having a hard time, in some way or another. Is there a good way that you recommend approaching maybe a supervisor or a PI if you notice that, maybe you think that it would be really helpful for your team to have your toolkit or to get an intervention from you guys, but you’re not really sure how to address it with your supervisor?

Do you guys have suggestions on how to bring that up with the supervisor that’s maybe not as experienced or that doesn’t have as much knowledge as you mentioned earlier, which is really important in understanding how valuable this could be?

Yeah. I think one thing in general that we experience is that if we call it mental health, it gets way easier rejected. Instead, when we call it self-care and self-management, this is something that is easier digestible, and so this could be one way of phrasing it and saying, „Hey, I think we as a team may need some self-management. This could be helpful, something in this direction.“

And I think one thing we need to be really honest about is that this might always be challenging to talk about and to expect that it might be difficult and there might be a „no“ first, because then maybe the supervisor goes back into the team meetings and then realizes for him or herself, maybe actually we might need that. So maybe in one meeting, just planting a seed and then being very persistent about it. And just asking maybe again, and then also maybe showing the website again, asking for allies. So I think making this change, and this is something we as Initiative also more and more realized, making changes in terms of mental health is not something that comes overnight. It’s a process and like being open and talking about it, it’s just the first step. There are so many more steps to go.

When we spoke earlier, you mentioned this project or this idea that I really wanted to touch on while we’re talking and I think it connects to this idea of changing the way we think about mental health. And that is this idea of CVs of failure. And I think, as you mentioned earlier, one of the issues that we have with mental health in academia is really this pressure to do really well and to not make mistakes or to do things that aren’t perfect, or really this lack of, let’s say, space to fail. And maybe if you want to talk a little bit about the CVs of failures and maybe why it’s important for us to be aware of the fact that even successful people have failed.

So the event that we are doing once a month is called Growing Up in Science. And there we invite supervisors or principal investigators from the Berlin, the wider Berlin area, but we also had them from different countries now. Then we asked them to present their way from being a PhD candidate to becoming this principal investigator.

And we specifically asked to not show us their success stories, but show us how it really was. And this could entail, it was pure luck that I got into this position or I applied for 50 professorships and then I got one. Or it was just about the right time, because a new field opened up and this was my chance.

And there are so many different reasons and quite often, it makes this experience so much more enjoyable when you see that others struggle too, and that, I don’t know, principal investigators also took more than these three years to finish their PhDs and that there was family in between, that they got children and that they didn’t shift from country to country because they thought about this, but because life happened and it makes experiences. Yeah, so much more normalizing for everybody. And I mean, there is the saying that successful people have just failed more. And I think this is something that we also want to portray, is that, yeah, you will fail and it’s totally normal and you will learn from it. And even as a principal investigator or supervisor, you still make mistakes. We are not robots. We are all humans. And it makes it easier to talk about mistakes because I think in general, in academia, we don’t have a culture of being allowed to fail. I remember when I started my PhD, every email I wrote, I meticulously, I like spent hours and hours writing emails because I was so afraid to make a mistake.

And then I received emails back from people who are high up in the hierarchy, and I realized, okay, they also make mistakes. But there is not really this culture of being allowed to make a mistake. And I think what this series, we want to show is that it’s okay to make mistakes. Everybody failed and they still made it up the hierarchy.

Nonetheless, though, it doesn’t take away the fact that it is really difficult to come into these positions of being principal investigators because there is this bottleneck that there are not, at least in Germany, not enough positions. So I think this is something that still needs to be told here, that just because you failed doesn’t guarantee you’re gonna become a principal investigator. At least in Germany, that’s not just how it works.

Yeah, I think the statistics are 3% of PhD students become professors, or at least those are the ones that I have. I also think it helps, like you said, if you know that’s out there as opposed to being surprised when you learn about it, maybe right before you finish. Yeah. What do you think would have to change for people who are not getting support to get support? Maybe we mentioned this in an earlier conversation we had, and this is an issue of course we have across the board in our workshops and in our, I do a lot of mental health workshops as well, and the people who come, it’s self-selecting. So often the people who show up are, I always say, „You guys are the, you’re doing this already. You’re the ones with the gratitude journals and who are taking these classes,“ and it’s really hard to reach that group of people who aren’t looking for support. So what do you think would have to change to get those people to be involved?

Absolutely. I think that’s really a challenge to get these people in. I think mental health should be, call it however you want to call it, but should be part of a curriculum. It should be told, or it should be included in the PhD you’re doing, be it a graduate program that includes fixed courses or when you do an individual PhD, that like really.

Be it a course that you have to take, but it has to be something that is there throughout your PhD journey. I think what I found really helpful, what we had in the, I think, in the first year of our PhD, was that we had counseling. So regardless of what your needs were, you just had this counseling where you were asked, „How are you doing? What are your challenges?“ And this was there for everybody so that you really reach everyone. And I know we had this for one year. And then it wasn’t available anymore because it was too expensive. And if I could dream up a solution, I would say yes, we would need this every half year, every six months, for every PhD candidate.

And some people might be like, „Yeah, I’m doing my gratitude journals, I’m fine. I have it all covered.“ But there might be people who have not even realized that they have a problem or that they need support. So having this monitoring in a very valuing way, like always asking, „How are you doing? What are your next challenges?“ could already go a long way. If we could, for example, it could also be incorporated in a way that every lab has this. So there’s one person who is like the mental health advocate, and this person is then responsible for checking up every six months. But obviously, then you also have to pay for this.

So I think there is where the systemic, yeah, challenges come in, that these extracurricular activities also cost money.

That’s always the question. How do we convince the system to value different things that aren’t maybe just producing science? So I have one more question for you, and that is, I have two actually. The first one is, what haven’t I asked you that you think that I should have asked you? What do you think would be really important? Is there anything you want to share with the listeners?

I think I want to just maybe highlight it once more because I think I said it earlier, but I think I want to say it again, that mental health is not something that should become a topic when you feel like things are not going well. Mental health is something that, like your physical health, that you go to the gym for weekly, should also be a weekly appointment for you and should be a check-in, should be a walk, should be going to the sauna or having a massage. Anything that helps you to release stress and maintaining your mental health. I think this is something I want to give to the audience. If I could give myself advice, I would give that to myself.

That’s a question I also like to ask, what would you, if you could travel in time back to the beginning of your PhD, what would you tell yourself in that time? Maybe in relation to mental health?

Yeah. Work less, enjoy more. I think when I talk about expectation management, I think why it is such a topic to me is because I felt that in the beginning I wasn’t sure what was to be expected. And I think if someone would’ve told me, „Hey, it takes a lot of years anyways, and it doesn’t matter if you work 10 hours on it or eight hours on it, or 12 hours, then what?“ That would have been a big relief for me and that there are so many things in this process that I cannot control. And I think having this idea of these are things I can control and these are things that are not up to me and having this liberty of saying, okay, I, I choose tasks. There are things I have to do, but there are things I can choose and I’m not taking on everything. I’m taking on what I can take on. And that I am giving back responsibility to my principal investigator and saying, if I’m taking this task on, which other task should I then not do because I’m not able to do it in the time that I’m having? That would have been nice to have more of this self-confidence, which I have today, but I didn’t have six years ago.

I think that’s really interesting to hear and important because you can only do so many things in the day. So the last question I have for you is, how can people get involved in Scholar Minds? So maybe someone’s listening to this and they think, or they’re reading it and say, „I really want this sounds so cool. I want to do this.“ How do they get involved?

I think it’s very easy. Just contact us. We are on Twitter, Berlin dot minds. We are also on Instagram. You can Google us. Just Google Scholar minds and you will find us. We have a homepage and really you can, you can join and then decide if you want to organize events with us. We have a yearly mental health conference. If you’re interested in doing that or if you’re interested in giving those mental health toolkits or organizing growing up in science, or if you say, „Okay, no, I’m more interested in public outreach. I want to design tweets or Instagram posts,“ that’s also possible. So there are really many ways of being and helping us. So just reaching out and then we’ll see what, how it goes from there. So there’s really no pressure. It’s more about going for a goal together.

Cool. And maybe I’ll add because sometimes students ask me, „Oh, I don’t know if I could really do that. I don’t know, am I good enough or do I have enough knowledge, maybe I don’t know enough about it.“ It’s, I understand it’s okay to just contact you even if you’re not an expert.

Definitely. I’m a psychologist and like psychotherapist in training, but like a lot of the people that aren’t scholar mites have no professional connection to mental health whatsoever. And even if you only decide you want to come to the weekly meetings and be there, that’s also totally fine. We are open to anybody who just wants to make a change and wants to create awareness.

Thank you so much. So thank you for talking to us, for sharing your experience.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Note: your host for this episode was Amanda Wichert.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

Welcome to the podcast. I would love to have you introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what you do.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I am Stefan Skupien. I am the scientific coordinator for Open Science of the Berlin University Alliance, and I work at the Center for Open and Responsible Research that is part of the Berlin University Alliance. As you perhaps know, the Berlin University Alliance is a new project of an alliance that’s constituted of the Freie University, Humboldt University, TechUniversity and our University Medicine Hospital Charité. And I am responsible for the topic Open Science, working closely together with colleagues who work on research integrity on good scientific practice. And we developed a cluster of activities that I will be happy to speak about yes.

So, my first question for you is what is open science? What maybe I’m sure a lot of most of our listeners have heard of open science before, but you could maybe give us a brief overview so that we’re all on the same page. What do you mean by open science?

We mean by open science, basically a movement of researchers and others who want to let me start over. Okay. So basically, by open science, we mean a movement that emphasizes the value of accessibility of scientific products. Mostly scientific products that are financed by public funds. So, there are several arguments for open science. There was one very interesting study done about 10 years ago and the authors tried to cluster different approaches to open science calling it schools of thoughts about open science. And one would for example, be a pragmatic school. What you find maybe in some fields of research and climate science or in geological science or in computer science is that it’s just pragmatic to share research results to others, because then they can use it and makes it to get better science. Another one would be a democratic argument is that. Science as knowledge and knowledge of society should be open to society, and everyone should be able to use it. You also have the moral argument, or the ethical argument is to say that you’re obliged to open your research because it’s funded by us as scientists.

So, there are different schools out there with how you can justify open science. It’s also an international movement. It’s carried on by several actors especially among research funders lately. But also, the UNESCO recommendations on open science are a document of reference, and they include very several practices by open science, we try to cover the whole research cycle from the input of ideas to the output of research results. And we try to understand open science also as a bundle of principles and the principle that we emphasize in our mission statement are inclusion and cooperation as one set of principles. Then transparency, re-usability, accessibility. And validation or so, yes, those are like, try to always bring forwards and strengthen through our activities. And they cover the whole research cycle, and they also affect a lot of other aspects of the research community.

Thank you. Excellent. If I am a doctoral student and I’m thinking about open science or not open science, what would you say the benefit is of doing open science versus maybe the alternative where I’m not doing open science why should this be interesting to me or why should I get excited about it?

That’s a very good question. So, I see two major benefits. The one is it improves your own science your own scientific work. And the other one, it helps you to be in contact with the scientific community, but also with any other user outside of the scientific community. I am myself a social scientist by training. But now in my work, I have come in contact with a lot of different disciplines and some disciplines, for example it’s very common that you being given a problem or puzzle by someone or by your supervisor or study. And they say could you just replicate the study just to see whether it works or how does it work?

So, you would want to have access to protocols. You would have wanted access to the data so that you can replicate it. And here we come to the inner academic aspect of open science is that more to at least accessibility to good research results or to good documented research result helps you to improve science. And in general, because it improves the quality of science there have been some crisis and some disciplines replication crisis and psychology, but also some of our life science experts say that if there would be more openness, we would save a lot of time to develop medications. For a and we could plan our studies better.

So, it, and the other thing is that many of the researchers want by themselves to solve also problems that are posed by society, like we call it grand challenges and individual university alliance where you have to work together with non-academic actors. And if you have a good documented and accessible research results, be it like publications or data, then you can share it easily with other actors like NGOs, civil society, administration, industry, and others to solve societal problems.

Yes, those are the two major aspects I see are the benefits. And of course, you learn a lot, you take a lot of skills that you can apply in other fields as well.

It’s really an interesting point. You said, skills you can take in other fields. It sounds doctoral researchers who are involved in open science are learning how to communicate with people that are not just in science, but also outside of science. Did I understand that correctly?

It can be one aspect of so that’s where the overlap often science comes with science communication. But some of the for example, a lot of people talk about research data at the moment, and it’s very tedious work to prepare. And it’s how you produce in physics you produce software that is specifically designed for your own research question. And then maybe you leave the department because you have a job, and you don’t work on your thesis any longer. If you document the software level and you leave it at your institute where you did your PhD, then someone else can actually work well with it. And that is at the moment that documentation and where to keep it is still not embedded, but of course it’s a lot of work. And takes more time to actually have good quality documentation of research results. But it can, it’s of course still linked to the benefits that I talked about earlier.

So, my next question is say that I really am interested in working. Openly having this open science approach in my doctoral thesis and my P. I. is sceptical. What are some of the challenges that I might face there? How might I navigate that? That discussion with my PR with my supervisor to get them on board and more excited, especially maybe a generation of supervisors who haven’t had that much experience with open science.

Then that’s also a very good question. And I can recommend that is to look into the practices of your research culture and see if you meet others at conferences and who and find. Allies who already have good practice in in open science practices documenting research data or publishing preprints in fields where preprints are not yet. That often you used like in the humanities, for example so you could find examples and make an argument that it’s already been used, and it’s led to these benefits and we should use it as well. Of course, very often the supervisor is also the one who has an overview of the field and who knows that you have to work.

On this topic now to get to the next step. And it’s very often a time question. But I guess there are a lot of arguments also within research cultures or disciplines that you could use to talk to your supervisor about what you could to, for example, publish a preprint or pre-register a study in a field where it hasn’t been done before. For example, the German Association for Psychology they have an open science working group and they try to set standards for the whole field. That’s psychology, but you will also find similar working groups in other fields. Where it’s not common to publish preprints or pre-register or to put your metadata in a very high qualified documentation somewhere. But yeah, that’s what would be my advice.

Thank you. So, at the beginning, you mentioned a little bit about what the Berlin University Alliance does and what you do to support open science. And I want to come back to that. And just hear a little bit more about maybe what does the Berlin University align to? What do you specifically do to support researchers and maybe to support doctoral researchers in the open science process?

The Berlin University Alliance was founded by the four institutions that I mentioned, and all of these four institutions already have high levels of expertise and research integrity questions and good scientific practice and providing open access infrastructures, for example, for publications. And we build on these and the idea of the Berlin University Alliance is to create a, like a kind of a common ground where we can exchange, where we can use synergies of our approaches and where we could add. If there’s a complimentary issue at Freie University and at Humboldt University, you could meet, for example, and could use the resources of the other partner. Specifically, we support trainings you will find on our website, you will find each, for each semester, you will find a list of courses that we collect from all partners and where we make sure that we also say that it’s open to others. Where, for example, if you want to have a general introduction into research data management. You could go to Freie University if at your institution at Humboldt University, there’s nothing available at the moment. So, this is one opportunity, for example, but there are also other courses on open science practices. And we also established a master’s course, which could also be interesting for PhD students if you are in need of credits or general overview about how science works. And there we talk a lot about research integrity and open science, and we try to embed it in coursework for students. So training is one very important thing.

Then the other one is where you could benefit is in our networking activities. We have regular meetings where we present case studies of open science and research integrity. We can also invite you to apply for our fellowship program that is for students and also doctoral students who are interested in either inviting guests. Or going out to some institutions where some open science practice is very frequently used and you want to learn from it. So that’s this mobility team you can use as, and we provide information about open science in Berlin monitoring it to some extent, the Berlin science survey will give you also a good set of arguments for discussing open science in your institute or with your supervisor by providing arguments, for example, about the value of open science seen by the scientific community in general, or where you where it’s just a need to improve the support system for open science lately. And that I would say in this podcast as well, if you’re interested in, and if your contract, It’s long enough we established an ambassador program, which is also open to doctoral students and there you will get training, you will get a small fund for organizing events yourself, and you can showcase your own work in open science and you will be able to network with colleagues from different disciplines across the Alliance and across Berlin.

That’s also open to doctoral students. We will send out the next call in March next or next year, so 2025. And you are invited to become open science ambassadors for your faculty. But you can also contact us already now if you want to contribute to the activities of the ambassadors that will work during the next year at doing this year 2024-25.

Was that okay? Do you want to know more about it, Amanda? Should I get more of what we do?

Yeah, that’s perfect. Yeah, that would be wonderful.

I was talking that there’s already a lot of expertise within the universities, for example the technical university has a very strong emphasis on transdisciplinarity that including non-academic actors in the formulation of research question and into the research. And they provide some services to organize such research that you can also access and they have a team, a dedicated team that is supported by the Berlin University Alliance, but works in and also at Technical University which you can use to open your research and also as a doctoral student. And we have a funded project in the digital humanities, where we could link you to, to the researchers either in engineering or digital humanities, where you could find also inspiration, new methods. Also, there is for, also for doctoral students the Crest Center for responsible research at Charité. They are organizing an annual summer school and open science at the Oxford-Berlin summer school, which you can also apply for and attend, where you will be given insight into a lot of specific technical questions, but also in overall general discussions.

What do you think? So, if I we’re thinking about whether or not I want to do open science. I have all these cool resources. I can reach out and maybe learn a little bit more about it, get involved with it. But maybe I’m still a little bit uncertain. What do you think if, say I’m a doctoral student today how does getting involved in open science help me in my research career? So, a lot of the benefits we talked about, or you talked about so far are about, for science, for society. What about if I say, okay, I really want to be successful. I want to stay in science, or maybe I want to go into industry, but I want to, stay in research. What is the benefit of getting involved in open science for me as an individual right now when I think about my future.

I said earlier that Open Science is a movement that’s carried by a very different set of actors, like individuals, institutions, and there you will find first examples of how far you can get if you apply open science principles. If you learn certain techniques that would allow the transparency and reusability and validation of your research results, which makes your own research better, there are within the practices of publishing preprints or publishing diamond open access, which means that there’s no barrier to at all that you don’t have to pay. And the reader doesn’t have to pay. That means diamond open access also increases your reach. We could also say that publishing open access at all increases your citation, which then again increases the response to your research. And you get in contact with new, maybe interesting research questions. So content wise, it improves the thing that you want to do the thing that you want to study and the work around it. And you, as I said earlier, you learn a whole lot of new skills. And Open Science is also driven by the technical advance. The whole accessibility is fostered by the digitalization of research.

And it’s maybe you could understand Open Science as an adaptation process to these new digital tools that are part of our research anyway and making it easier to access large data sets. You learn a lot of skills about programming, for example, in some disciplines, or you learn skill that you can then later transfer to others to other areas in your career, also apply to other methods and things just because open science is very much driven by the new tech, the tools available.

Thirdly, there are funders at the moment major funders also who expect you, if you write a grant proposal to say something about your open science practice. And the better you can explain your open science practice, going beyond okay, I publish open access because I have access to the financial funds of my university library gives you thumbs up or gives you an advantage to others. We don’t yet apply open science principle as profoundly as you would do after your PhD. If there are changes not so much in Germany, but in other international funders like the EU, that they really look at the open science section that you have to fill in and grant proposals. And it’s not just a nice to have, but it’s also giving you points in the overall Judgment of your grand proposal.

So, it’s also giving you skills and experience to showcase in grand proposals and in future research. Additionally, within this movement, there are several initiatives taking up in trying to think about how we can change or how we can alter the whole evaluation system of individual researchers trying to get away from publications and high citation impact. To more, to other diverse products. And then it could be that in the future, that some universities that are interesting for you that are a good spot to, to be because you would learn, you could apply because they have an open science policy, and they are very visible in the open science community.

You could say that I already did that, this and this with my own research. So, I’m very, keen to also expand my open science knowledge. You could also apply with more reasons to this place on the ground that you share the values of open science, the same universities and funders and public administration actors are thinking about how to get away from the focus on publication would also mean that you’re free to present other results.

As I said earlier, tedious work is necessary to prepare the documentation of research data. And that work is still not as much recognized as publishing an article or doing what they in life sciences say it’s very much needed is why is why are so, few people doing public why let me start over. As in the life sciences, that’s a big issue to publish negative results meaning that you follow the hypothesis, but it didn’t come out as you expected. And that itself is also a result for the overall scientific knowledge generation, but it’s not being incentivized to publish negative results because that’s okay, it didn’t work.

But if we shift away from the positive publication output would focus on Oxford journals or nature journals hit to other products of science, including negative result publications or taking care of repositories or being editors in diamond open access journals. In smaller settings will allow you to present yourself in a more diverse way than usually your career is being portrayed at the moment. And that again could lead to better research quality all over that if we have these very negative impacts. Be they intended on unattended to publish as much as possible. And then you start publishing in yeah in ways that are not conducive for the whole enterprise of producing scientific knowledge, like salami tactics or others actors for maybe not equipped science systems, let’s say in in countries such as Ghana or Ivory coast and others where they don’t have the funds to publish in Oxford journals open access for 3000 euros you could help to generate infrastructures that they could use that are equally recognized and your field with diamond open access, so that they don’t have to have another barrier. Previously, they couldn’t read the research because it was too expensive to buy subscriptions. And now it’s a barrier to publish research and to be visible in the system by having to pay for gold open access, for example. So, your work and your investment in your individual investment in open science. Values and practices also help others and that again comes back to you as a positive effect. I assume.

Thank you. So, I have I have a question. So, the second to last question would be what haven’t I asked you? So, is there something that you really want to share with the listeners of our podcast that you think they need to know, maybe about, about your work or about open science in general, about the Berlin University Alliance? What haven’t I asked you that you think we should hear?

At the moment I could use this spot to encourage you to just reach out either to us or to any of our colleagues at Berlin University Alliance, because many of the topics can relate to open science and research integrity. I mentioned the transdisciplinary approach at technical universities but also, we are in close contact with our colleagues from the international offices who having who are organizing a networking and trainings also for organizing research with researchers from less advantaged science systems and they also touch on the topic of open science. So, I would like to encourage you to just reach out if you have a question and use the Berlin science survey as an in your thinking about open science. You can also join several networks in Berlin. We have a map on our website. We’re trying to map the open science activities so that you can just join them.

Or if you have, if you know of a working group on open science in your research culture specific or in the disciplinary groups just reach out to them because very often they can give you a very specific information about how to deal with Open science or publishing your data or reusing data or doing replication studies I assume this is something that you will learn at least doing your doctoral studies anyway, but we also try to. Bring it into teaching much further even bachelor or master studies. So, if you want to teach open science, please also reach out to us in your courses, we can think about providing content or think about providing some sort of material either, either using what’s already out there, there’s an open science online master’s course. I hope I say it right. But and that can be used as a resource also for your teaching and that will bring you again into very fruitful discussions with students about the value and the benefits of open science. Otherwise no, I don’t think I, we forgot any major question.

So, I have one more question and maybe you can decide if you have an answer, it’s great if you don’t. We usually ask people in the podcast; we like to ask people who’ve done a PhD or done a doctorate. If you could go back to the beginning of your doctoral studies, knowing what you know now, maybe about open science or just in general, your experience in the work that you’re doing now what advice would you give yourself if you could go back to the beginning of your, meet yourself at the first day of your research? What would you tell yourself and what guidance would you give yourself for the doctoral process?

In general, or focused on open science?

You can decide.

I guess I would also think about applying open science principles more constantly and or at all publishing my research data, which was text which was copied from libraries in Ghana. And I could have transcribed the text better and shared it with my Ghanaian colleagues. So, sharing with the research partner would be like one, one thing I would advise myself.

The other more general thing is that writing consistently or writing frequently and using like different methods that are available since already a long time. For example, experimenting with what we call in German Zettelkasten. It’s a method to structure knowledge in a way that it can be reused at the end. And then also instead of writing only like in the second half of the PhD. So, those are two things I would advise myself.

And the third one is I had the privilege I was very lucky to be in a graduate school that was interdisciplinary, and I learned a lot from my colleagues. From the philosophy side, from the legal from the law side and from the historical side. And that was very fruitful for my own thinking. So, if you’re not in an interdisciplinary setting, which I doubt because I get the many interdisciplinary credits called at the moment. Just yeah, look out for other disciplines and follow their discussions. Even if you’re interested in natural sciences or in life sciences, because that is always a broadening of the horizon that can eventually lead you to new ideas transfer of metaphors of concepts of theories to your own thinking. And if I advise myself on the first day of the of starting the PhD, it’s yeah, use this source of the knowledge of the other disciplines by default.

Thank you very much. Thanks so much for sharing that with us. And also, for the information on open science. And we will link to many of the things that you mentioned in the podcast website. So, if you are looking at this on the website, you can find all the links below and please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions about, about open science at the Berlin University Alliance. So, thank you so much.

Thank you for having me.

[Note: your host for this episode was Amanda Wichert.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

[Note: This interview was conducted in German. The following transcript is an automatic translation of the German interview, which you can find here.]

INTRO

Hello and welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I will be your host for this episode. Our guest today is Professor Joachim Heberle, a physics professor and the central ombudsperson at FU. In this interview, Prof. Heberle explains the role of an ombudsperson and how they can provide support when issues arise with supervisors or violations of good scientific practice. He shares concrete examples of when it may be beneficial to contact an ombudsperson. We also discuss how you can reach out to Prof. Heberle and other ombudspersons, including the option of remaining anonymous. It can sometimes be challenging to seek assistance, especially when conflicts involve individuals in higher positions within the hierarchy.

Additionally, I want to announce that there will be a Q&A session with Prof. Heberle in June. If you are interested in this topic and have specific questions, please register for the session. The event will be conducted in English, so feel free to inform other doctoral students at FU who may not speak German. More information can be found on the Dahlem Research School website. Now, enjoy listening to the interview!

INTERVIEW

Good afternoon, Professor Herberle. I would like to welcome you to the podcast and would like to start by asking you to briefly explain to the podcast listeners and also to me what an ombudsperson actually is and what you do in this position.

Yes, good afternoon. This cannot be summarized in one sentence – the role of an ombudsperson is always to mediate. That means that in cases of possible scientific misconduct, and this is important for me to emphasize, we try to mediate between the two conflicting parties, which is the classic case. Doctoral student and supervisor relationship is designed as a process, the asymmetrical relationship first. And there, of course, as in all human relationships, there can be challenges, and the ombudsperson system is designed to mediate there before considering steps under labor law, which of course can also happen if there are serious interpersonal problems or which need to be clarified under labor law.

Can you then give a few very specific examples of concerns that people have who come to see you?

Yes, the most common inquiries I receive as an ombudsperson are related to authorship issues in scientific publications. In modern science, teamwork is prevalent, where multiple authors contribute to the success of a research paper. The order of authors often represents a form of ranking, with the first author being responsible for the main work and deserving the most credit. This order is typically indicated by position numbers, such as 1, 2, 3, and 4, and it is important to clarify who should be assigned to each position. It is always advisable to address this matter beforehand rather than waiting until it becomes a major issue. Additionally, there are specific responsibilities for the group, particularly for the group leader or senior author, who takes charge in facilitating such discussions. It is essential that all individuals involved have the opportunity to express their views democratically and ideally reach a consensus on the author order. However, as you can imagine, conflicts and contradictions can arise in certain circumstances. In such cases, it is beneficial to have an external mediator, like an ombudsperson, who can provide assistance in moderating the discussion.

Yes, I can very well imagine that there are difficult situations. Let’s stay with the example and assume that a doctoral student comes to you and says, „I actually assumed that we had agreed with my supervisor that I would be the first author of the article, and now I’ve ended up further down the list.” What would be the next steps that you would take? Or what would you first try to find out together in conversation?

It is crucial to ensure that both parties are heard during the proceedings, as it is always a triangular process involving the complainant, the counterparty, and the ombudsperson. This triangular dynamic is also characterized by strict confidentiality, meaning that the discussions must remain confidential. This is especially important in delicate relationships, such as those involving student and supervisor. In a specific case, I would first approach the supervisor and inquire about their perspective. I would then relay that information back to the complainant, and if necessary, I would facilitate a meeting between both parties. This face-to-face discussion within the triangular relationship aims to reach a solution and resolve the issue at hand.

And what experiences have you had there? When you contact the other side, is it received sympathetically in any way? Or maybe the person thinks, oh man or I didn’t mean that, it’s just a misunderstanding, or is there often direct conflict?

Yes, that’s correct. The scope of potential conflicts within the process is vast. It involves human beings, and the outcomes depend on the individuals involved and their characters, which cannot be predicted in advance. The stage and level of escalation also play a role. At the early stages, when conflicts are more informational in nature, people involved tend to be relatively calm. However, if a conflict has been simmering for years and intensifies, especially with the involvement of publications, emotions can run very high on both sides. As the ombudsperson, my role is to help de-escalate these emotions. One strategy we often recommend is to write down the issues at hand. The act of writing allows individuals to express their emotions and provides an opportunity for reflection the following day. This helps individuals consider whether they can leave the issue behind or if further action is necessary. By introducing this writing process, we aim to bring a sense of rationality to the overall process.

Yes. Is there a case that has stayed in your memory the most, perhaps, or that has touched you personally very much?

Yes, there is, but as I emphasized at the beginning, these are confidential cases. Of course, I can talk in principle about why it happened, but of course I can’t name any persons.

If you can talk about it in principle, please feel free to share some details within the scope of what is possible.

This particular case involved a typical relationship between an institute director and a postdoc. The director had decided to ban the postdoc from the institute, preventing them from continuing their work. The postdoc viewed this as detrimental to their scientific career. We intervened by seeking the director’s input, who responded with objections and raised concerns about the postdoc’s behavior, particularly regarding missed deadlines that could impact the lab’s certification. The conversation between them escalated, resulting in a situation akin to an expulsion. Various aspects came into play, including labor law considerations. Questions arose regarding the director’s authority to exercise a ban and whether it was permissible since they were also a professor. Additionally, the case touched upon the future career of young scientists. It was a complex and time-consuming case that occupied our attention at the German Research Ombudsman, where I served as a member for over seven years. Despite our efforts, the matter could not be fully resolved, and it extended for several years, involving discussions among the institutions concerned.

If I heard correctly, unfortunately there was no happy ending in this case either.

A happy ending is rare in such cases, I must admit. Usually, it comes down to a compromise, which, like any compromise, may be seen as less than ideal by the parties involved. They may feel it’s a flawed resolution because neither side feels completely vindicated. However, the advantage of a compromise is that it brings closure to the matter. Over the past ten years in this field, I have encountered numerous cases where individuals were emotionally affected to the extent that their scientific work suffered. They found themselves unable to continue their research. In such emotionally challenging situations, reaching a compromise, even if it may not fully align with their personal stance, can provide a sense of closure. They can accept it and say, „Okay, at least I can move on and put it behind me.“ This can be a cathartic experience for many individuals.

Is there nevertheless a situation where you would say that you would not advise getting help from outside, from the ombudsperson or beyond?

I think it’s always good to seek help. No one should believe that they can handle all these things on their own. While there may be a few individuals who can, they are the exception. It is generally beneficial to seek help. The question is, what kind of help? And is the help actually helpful? Is it appropriate for the problem at hand? It is also important to acknowledge that not all issues can be resolved through an ombudsman procedure, especially in certain relationships. Many of these cases involve aspects of labor law, and in such situations, we recommend seeking advice from a lawyer instead. When it comes to labor law matters, it is often better to consult with a lawyer and consider legal actions rather than seeking conciliation through our services.

I was thinking in particular of cases that are not quite so serious, and that perhaps a relationship with the caregiver, which was perhaps not so bad from the start, can be shaken up if you bring in someone from the outside, as it were, who then also first makes public in some form, even if on a small scale, that you had a problem with a certain procedure or decision.

Yes, that’s exactly it. It is important to clearly communicate to the other person that it is not about being unfaithful, but rather addressing the frequent uncertainties and challenges faced by students in the scientific process. It is also a task of the ombudsperson to help supervisors understand that their role is a calling to assist and support, and it should be taken seriously. When a doctoral candidate approaches me as an ombudsperson, I strive to provide assistance. My goal is to foster a more balanced relationship between supervisors and supervisees, bridging the perceived asymmetry and striving for equal footing. In the scientific process, we are all equal, and it is important to create horizontal relationships, if possible. This requires the insight and cooperation of the professor involved in the case.

With the power imbalance it remains nevertheless necessarily straight if one also still has an employer-employee relationship.

Precisely, precisely, it is crucial to establish some level of separation. In my experience, I consistently emphasize in scientific processes that both parties share a common goal – the advancement of science and the pursuit of knowledge, albeit through different approaches. Ultimately, both sides are driven by the same interest, which is to uncover insights in the realm of science. Labor law matters, which pertain to the employee-employer relationship, should ideally take a secondary role in this process that is primarily focused on pure science.

Repeatedly reflecting on the common interests and shared intersection allows individuals to align on a common denominator.

Exactly.

You have emphasized multiple times that doctoral students are often approached by individuals experiencing scientific misconduct or personal conflicts. Can you identify any differences within the group of doctoral students in terms of who is more likely to be affected by these issues? For instance, are there variations between different departments or in relation to gender?

Gender does not play a role when it comes to the occurrence of scientific misconduct. Similarly, within the faculties, we have found no significant differences. The Ombudsman for Science, an independent transnational body established by the DFG (German Research Foundation), provides clear statistics on cases, which are presented in their annual report. These cases are categorized by subject area, such as life sciences, natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences. However, it’s important to note that these numbers are not normalized to the number of researchers in each field. From my personal experience, I can say that no specific area is more prone to scientific misconduct. However, there is a difference in the dynamics within the humanities and social sciences compared to natural sciences, including life sciences. In my work with PhD students, I interact with them daily in the lab, holding regular seminars and engaging in discussions. This level of interaction may not be as frequent in the humanities and social sciences, which can influence the relationship dynamics. Therefore, I strongly encourage colleagues in those fields to maintain good contact with their doctoral students, as establishing a positive relationship lowers the threshold for open conversations and helps address potential problems in advance.

Yes, your observations are quite intriguing. One might assume that when individuals have extensive interactions, close collaboration, and even co-author publications, the potential for conflicts could be even greater. The increased interdependencies and higher stakes involved could lead to more opportunities for things to go awry.

That is correct. That’s exactly what can happen. But I think that by having the contact, you can try to clarify such things in advance. The supervisors or the structure of the supervision can also be designed in a way that includes courses on the rules of good scientific practice. This way, both doctoral students and professors/lecturers can become better acquainted with the rules and regulations. As I mentioned before, it is important to emphasize the importance of both sides, ensuring that both doctoral students and professors/lecturers understand their roles and responsibilities.

If I were to find myself in a situation where I needed help from you, how can I specifically approach you and make contact?

At the Freie Universität in Berlin, we have a comprehensive system in place. Each department has at least one decentralized ombudsperson, often with a representative, to handle cases. This ensures that if there are any concerns about biases or sensitivities, another ombudsperson can handle the case. However, if you feel that both the local ombudsperson and the decentralized ombudsperson may be biased, you can directly approach the central ombudsperson, whom I currently represent. We can step in and take over the role of mediation in such rare cases.

That means that the more likely case would actually be that I first look at my department to see who the ombudsperson is and then turn to that person.

The reason for having subject-specific decentralized ombudspersons is to address subject-specific differences and ensure that someone with expertise in the particular field handles the cases. However, we maintain regular communication and discussions with these decentralized ombudspersons. It’s important to note that this exchange does not violate confidentiality, as we all operate within the ombud system. We also aim to share our experiences from the central office with the decentralized ombudsman offices, which typically have fewer cases throughout their ombudsman career, especially if they are not based in a central office.

Is it possible to approach you or the decentralized ombudsperson anonymously? I imagine it’s a bit more difficult in the department, depending on how big it is. But this possibility probably exists in principle.

In principle, the option to approach the ombudsman’s office anonymously is available, and we consider it very important. This addresses the fear that caregivers may have regarding potential personal disadvantages if they raise concerns. Anonymity allows individuals to seek guidance and support without revealing their identities. It can also be useful in situations where someone has questions or uncertainties, such as determining if certain actions constitute scientific misconduct. By reaching out to the ombudsman’s office anonymously, individuals can inquire and seek clarification on such matters, ensuring they make informed decisions.

And if I were a doctoral candidate with fears and uncertainties, then I would call you with a suppressed number or send an e-mail from a specially created e-mail address. Or what would be the procedure then?

Exactly, and while it is important to provide the option of anonymity initially, when it comes to an ombudsman procedure, we encourage the complainant to eventually reveal their identity. This is done to ensure fairness and protect all parties involved. By disclosing their identity, it allows for a more open and transparent process where both sides can engage on an equal level. Granting anonymity to only one side would create an imbalance. However, we understand that during the initial contact, it may be crucial for individuals to feel protected and have the freedom to explain their situation without fear. This allows us to assess the case and determine if further action is warranted.

Or whether that’s just a bitter pill to swallow scientifically? That’s why I’d like to ask you again, do you have a duty of confidentiality?

In the legal sense, I don’t believe I have a duty of confidentiality as a doctor would. However, we adhere to the principle of confidentiality, and I strongly believe that this principle must be fully respected. Maintaining confidentiality is essential for the effective functioning of the ombudsman system. If individuals involved have concerns that their information will be used against them, it hinders the system’s ability to fulfill its role. Confidentiality ensures that individuals can trust the process and share their concerns without fear of negative consequences.

Exactly, that means that I could rely on the fact that I can talk to you first and that nothing will leak out, at least until I have given my consent.

Exactly, that’s correct. In certain cases, such as potentially serious instances of scientific misconduct, there may be a need to seek an external expert opinion. However, it is crucial that we respect the confidentiality and consent of all parties involved. Before obtaining an external opinion, we always seek the consent of those affected by the issue. If consent is not given, we will not proceed with involving external experts. This ensures that the process remains fair and respects the rights and privacy of all individuals involved.

And do you continue to provide support yourself in the event of legal action, or do you refer people to other agencies, or are they left to their own devices for the time being?

Exactly, you’ve highlighted an important distinction. As ombudspersons, our role is primarily focused on mediation and resolving conflicts through dialogue and negotiation. We aim to create a space for equal and fair communication between the parties involved. However, if the situation escalates and legal action is pursued, it is beyond the scope of our role. In such cases, individuals are free to seek legal advice and the matter will be determined by a judge. Our resources are primarily dedicated to the mediation process, and once legal action is initiated, we step back as our role shifts from mediation to legal confrontation.

Is there anything you would say should be changed structurally to reduce the occurrence of scientific misconduct or conflicts? Or is there something we could learn from other countries in this regard?

In my experience as a member of the Ombudsman for Science, where we also dealt with other countries through organizations like ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices) and participated in global meetings on scientific integrity, I find that Germany is well positioned in terms of scientific integrity. However, there are certain structural aspects that can be improved, and we are actively addressing them. One important area is raising awareness of scientific integrity within university education. It is crucial to teach students about the principles of good scientific practice at different levels of their education. For example, in their first semester, students should understand that they cannot simply copy from Wikipedia for their assignments. These are essential points that need to be taught early on, both from a practical and ethical standpoint. At Freie Universität, we are already implementing pilot initiatives to introduce these concepts into various courses of study.

And have you already been able to see the first results?

It takes time for changes to take effect. We have been implementing this for a year now, focusing on the department of physics, and we are about to start implementing it for the department of PolSoz. However, it is still too early to see significant results.

Yes, one year is indeed short, I agree with you. You are also a professor in physics, right?

Yes.

Why do you personally take on the additional time burden of serving as the central ombudsperson for the FU, considering that [being a professor] is already a time-consuming position in itself?

Certainly, it has to do with how one perceives their responsibilities as a university teacher. Personally, I view this task as an integral part of the scientific landscape at our university and in Germany as a whole. As university professors, we have various obligations beyond teaching and research, including reviewing applications and potentially serving as legal representatives in court proceedings, or as with our colleagues in political science who give interviews in talk shows. This perspective aligns with my identity as a university teacher, and I believe it is crucial to safeguard the integrity of science, considering its immense value.

Were there any experiences in your own scientific career where you would have wished for or perhaps received support from outsiders?

Yes, you raise a valid point, and I believe it resonates with almost everyone, not just scientists, but particularly those involved in the ombudsman system. We all have experiences related to scientific integrity. Personally, I encountered a significant challenge during my postdoctoral years in the context of a collaboration with a highly esteemed institution. The director of that institution, who was from Max Planck, expressed dissatisfaction with my conduct and proceeded to write an open, official letter of complaint to the director of my institute. Fortunately, I was fortunate to have the support of my director at that time, who stood by me and expressed a different perspective. I found this support to be immensely important.

Thank you very much for sharing this experience. Is there anything else you would like to add? Is there another important aspect that we haven’t touched on yet?

Yes, there were numerous aspects to consider, but delving into all of them would consume a significant amount of time. However, it is crucial to highlight the availability of various opportunities. In addition, this podcast is currently being produced in collaboration with the Dahlem Research School (DRS), and I personally enjoy participating in DRS events. We should appreciate the support we receive from our university’s presidency for institutions like the DRS, which facilitates the dissemination of such opportunities to students and doctoral candidates. I strongly encourage doctoral students to make the most of these offerings as they can be beneficial and enjoyable experiences.

Professor Heberle, thank you very much for this very exciting interview.

Thank you.

OUTRO

I hope you now have a better understanding of the role and importance of an ombudsperson, as well as when it can be beneficial to seek their guidance. While I sincerely hope that you won’t encounter any challenges during your academic journey, it is reassuring to know that at Freie Universität, there are individuals available to support you and ensure you’re not alone in case of conflicts or concerns. Please remember that if you have any specific questions for Prof. Heberle, you are welcome to join the Q&A session in June. Have a great day and until the next episode!

[Note: your host for this interview was Dr. Marlies Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

Welcome. If you could start off by telling me a little bit about yourself, maybe a little about your background and what you do now.

Yeah, sure. Thank you for inviting me to your podcast. My name is Anselm. I live in Frankfurt, the southern one from your perspective, not the eastern one. And I got my PhD in philosophy. And I also used to work as a research assistant at Goethe University in Frankfurt, where I used to teach and do my research. Nowadays, I’m a freelance coach and workshop instructor, and I mainly work with PhD students who write their dissertations in any one of a broad spectrum of academic disciplines.

Excellent. So, when you think about how you got from doing your doctorate to working as a coach, could you just tell us a little bit about that process or that transition? We’re going to talk about writing in just a moment, but I’d really love to hear a little bit about your career before we get started.

I think the word transition is spot on. It was a big transition for me. At some point during my doctorate, especially in the early stages, I was really thinking and wanting to be in an academic career. So, at some point, I really thought that I will be in the university my whole life basically. And that’s why I’m doing the PhD. But things went a different way. And I went a different way. So it’s a combination of these two factors. And I really enjoy what I’m doing now because I’m still in contact with the academic world. And I really like writing and academic writing specifically. At the same time, I feel I’m in a good place because I am no longer working in the academic world. Because I think it it really wasn’t for me in certain aspects of it anyway. And yeah, it was a big transition.

Thank you. So when you think about writing, what motivated you to work with students who are stuck or having challenges with writing. And maybe you could tell us a little bit about those challenges that doctoral students face. And a little bit about why do you think that this is something that you enjoy working with?

I think the main idea behind my work is that the workshops create a space where you can talk openly and freely about your writing process. And I always felt that this space was missing in the academic world, or at least very rare. People talk a lot about their writing or their text in the academic world, at least in my field in the humanities. But they are typically very complicated and charged situations. So you’re talking, giving a talk at a conference or you’re presenting your work to a funding institution, or you’re talking to your supervisor who will be grading your PhD. And so these situations tend to be a little bit overloaded. And I felt, and it’s my experience from what people report in my workshop, a simple space where you can talk about your writing without having to present your work to others, without being judged or graded is really helpful and is really surprisingly rare in the typical working environment of PhD students and it was in my working environment back then. So the idea was just to create this kind of space.

When students come to you and they say that I’m having trouble with writing or I’m stuck, what’s really happening? What are the problems that they’re facing? It’s a big word, I’m stuck. But what is it really that makes people get stuck when they’re writing?

Yeah, it is a big word, but I think it’s really accurate in the sense that people do feel stuck. And it’s really unpleasant for them. And the roots of the problem are really varied. You have been asking about challenges. In my experience, there are two main challenges, you could say. The first one is – it’s logistical, if you will. So simply finding the time to write in a demanding working environment, which the university is. And the other challenge is a little bit more psychological, I think. It has to do with dealing with expectations. And also with the simple fact that a PhD is a kind of exam. You and your work will be evaluated. And for most people, the stakes are really high in terms of their academic self-understanding, in terms of academic careers. And also in terms of the personal energy and time that they invest. And that can make the writing really difficult because so much is coming together when you’re writing a PhD. It’s not just any old text.

So imagine that I’m a student and I’ve come to you and I have a problem. Maybe I’m having trouble writing the actual text, maybe I’m having trouble finding time. Maybe I feel frustrated as you just said with this feeling of, oh, it’s got to be really good. Do students often know what they’re dealing with, or do they come to you and just say, I don’t know what’s going on?

That’s a really good question. I think, because many people who find that their writing isn’t going as well as they would like, they have a certain tendency to focus on solutions. So what do I need to do in order to get back to into the flow of writing? And I think I find it very understandable because it’s an unpleasant situation to be in. But my approach is to invite people to simply start by talking a little bit to me or to someone else about their problem and really describe it in detail. What is it that’s not working? How often does it happen? What could the possible causes of the problem be? And I think there’s a variety of reasons why people do get stuck and sometimes they are, a bit more mundane. Sometimes they are a bit deeper actually. And it’s really worth spending some time investigating what is my situation, how do I feel? Sometimes people overlook how they feel in a particular situation. And like I said, it’s a challenging working environment and it can have all sorts of effects. I think once you started to investigate a little more closely what the causes of the problem might be, the solutions are really not that difficult to find. It’s more about really spending the time with yourself in a way and explaining yourself and situation to someone. And oftentimes people find those solutions really quickly once they’ve started to describe the problem to someone else.

That sounds like it would be really helpful. And I think it’s something that a lot of people probably deal with, being alone, but having the feeling that there’re not so many people around in their work that they can really talk to about these things. And that brings me to your workshops. So what you described sounds a lot like it would work in a coaching setting of one on one, how does it work when you’re in a group of people? And in these workshops that you have at the Dahlem Research School or in other settings, what do you do to help people who are already facing challenges with their writing?

Yeah, it really is a different setting if you compare it to the coaching, like one on one situation. And there are different workshops for different challenges, in a sense. So I’m offering workshops on specific writing techniques, for instance, and also on specific parts of the text like the introduction and the conclusion. And also, a workshop on self-organization and academic writing, which in my mind includes writer’s block and procrastination. In my mind these are connected with the broader topic of self-organization. But what my workshops have in common is on the one hand that they are really based on a practical approach so people have a chance to work on their current writing project in the workshop in one way or another. So they typically make some progress with their actual project, and it’s not just theory input to take home. And another thing is that the workshops are designed in such a way that people have the chance to get quite a lot of feedback and input for their specific writing project and their specific situation. Input from me and feedback from me, but also from their peers. And that’s the third point I’d like to make. I’m working under the assumption that the people who come to my workshops are already experienced academic authors. They have written texts, they have acquired quite a lot of knowledge about academic writing in their field, they have a lot of experience already, so they’re not beginners. Part of the idea of the workshop is to really mobilize that experience and share it with others in order to decide what the next steps in my project might be. And a lot of it is already there because people bring so much into the workshops, in terms of writing strategies, things they’ve tried out. Maybe they did work, maybe they didn’t work, but maybe it works for someone else. And so it’s a lot about sharing experience and getting feedback from other people who are also academic professionals and academic authors.

I really love that. I think that is so important also for so many researchers early in their career really second guess themselves. And I love the idea of having them support each other because I think that also, as you said, gives them the idea, reminds them that they really are experts in their fields and not all just at the very beginning. You have tons of knowledge and experience already even at the beginning of your PhD.

And also, I think it connects to what you said earlier that many people who write their PhD have the feeling that they are maybe not isolated but basically working on their own. Which may be also have to do with the fact that in academic working culture the idea is that you have to do it on your own, which is not mistaken, obviously, but it can lead to a feeling that you’re really alone with your problems and in my workshops and probably in yours as well, people discover that other people, sometimes from completely different academic fields are really struggling with the same problems. That feels good in itself. And you can also share the burden of looking for solutions. You don’t have to come up with all the solutions by yourself.

That is so important. And really, I think one of the aims of the workshops at the Dahlem Research School and in the Berlin University Alliance altogether is to get everybody to come together and experience and see we’re not alone, and there’s so much that you have in common with others, even if you feel like you’re really stuck and alone. And so that is one of the things why I really like to encourage people to come to the writing week or the retreat. And for the writing week a benefit of it is that you can join unlike the retreat at any point in your doctorate, that’s correct, right? Do you want to tell us a little bit about the writing week and what you do there?

Yeah, sure. It’s a full week. It consists of, on the one hand, writing workshops slot, rather short three-hour writing workshops on different topics that have to do with academic writing or different aspects of academic texts. And in the afternoon, it’s basically writing time for the people. The participants actually work on their texts in writing groups or writing tandems. And they can also attend coaching sessions there, which take place in parallel to the writing sessions. That’s the main idea to have some input and workshops and exercises on academic writing on one hand. And on the other hand, it may sound simple, but just time to write. And to also have connected time to write like a full week. A lot can be done in a full week and typically in their everyday life, these kinds of weeks are, for many people rather rare. They do a lot of stuff in the university and the university is very good at inviting people into all sorts of projects and attending talks and then sometimes it’s difficult to have a concentrated block of time for your writing. In my mind, it’s a way of really prioritizing your writing. My writing project is really important. That’s why I’m spending the full week on it. And that’s what the writing week in my view is really good for.

Can you tell us a little more about tandems? You mentioned that before, but I would love to hear about that. And maybe a little bit about why you think they’re useful and helpful for doctoral students.

I find that question really interesting because my impression is that sometimes people have different views about why they are useful. One thing some people say very quickly is that a writing group or writing tandem is good because it stimulates their discipline, so they stick to whatever their writing plan was. And to be honest I’m rather skeptical of the term discipline in this context because it suggests to me anyway that people are somehow unwilling to do their academic work. And that’s just something I don’t see. It’s people are doing a lot of stuff and they are certainly not lazy and that’s somehow in my mind connected to the idea of discipline. What I think, and that’s my alternative suggestion, an alternative to the discipline discourse, if you will, I think writing groups and writing tandems provide structure and resonance. And by structure, it is very simply, when will I write this week and for how long? And by resonance, is there anyone out there paying attention to what I’m doing? And I think many people who have difficulties in their writing project. They are not lacking discipline, but they are lacking and what they want is structure and resonance. Some feedback from other authors and really some structure in which to work. And if I can add just one more thought to this. Many people many PhD students are also engaged in teaching. So they’re teaching seminars and obviously and naturally they have an arranged time for the seminar. So my seminar is on Thursdays at 10 o’clock and that’s very natural because they want others to come to the seminar. And for some reason people don’t do that as often for their writing. So why not say my writing time is on Tuesdays from 10 to 12. These kinds of structures are really helpful to support continual writing habits and a writing group is the easiest way to do it because it’s fun to meet others, you have a chance to talk, you don’t feel alone. It’s very easy to arrange in times of video calls. And yeah, it’s just another way of sharing the burden of self-organization.

That’s fantastic. I love this idea that students shouldn’t think that they don’t have this discipline because I hear this a lot in my work as well. People say I’m good at this. I’m bad at self-organization or, I don’t know what I want from my life and my career. And I often think, how much time have you given yourself to actually sit down and think about these things? Or do you have time to be organized? If you don’t give yourself the time, then it can be a huge challenge. It doesn’t mean that you’re not good at it. I think this is so important. And so I want to pick that back up. It’s not that you’re not doing a good job. It’s that you’re so busy that you haven’t actually have to sit down and make space for writing in order to be able to say that you are stuck.

Yeah.

I want to ask you, what would you suggest? What kind of, we mentioned a lot of mindset, ideas or how would you change the way you think about it? Are there, setting time aside and maybe a writing group, other techniques or tools that you would suggest that students try if they’ve gotten stuck? Anything else where you’d say this, maybe one or two small things or big things that you say would be worth trying out if they feel like they’re having trouble writing?

I’ll start with my favorite one. I’m not sure if it works really well for most people, but for some people in my experience, and it’s creative writing. And it’s something that academics, in my experience, don’t do so often. And it’s something that is not just fun to do, but I think the deeper truth behind it, if you will, is that writing really is a matter of training. So if you see an academic who is pretty good at writing something, an academic text, under pretty much all circumstances, like between two seminars or between a seminar and a conference, I have one and a half hours to spare and some people are able to write something during these one and a half hours. And it’s not that they are geniuses. They might be, but I think they have a lot of experience and a lot of training. It’s a bit like like juggling or speaking French. The more often you do it and the more stuff you try out, the easier it gets. And this is also true, I think, of the transition from non-writing to writing, and that’s what many people find difficult. And creative writing, just, for instance, writing a short story, a really short one, just without any preparation, just gets you into the flow of writing, the words begin to come, and then it might be easier to work on an academic text. And it also introduces it may introduce some variety into your writing just like trying out stuff with really low stakes. And it’s fun, and I think it’s instructive.

What ideas do you have to get someone to start doing creative writing that maybe has never done that before? Because that sounds like a really great way to get into writing if you’re maybe having some trouble with it to take the pressure off of it. What are some things that you might suggest that students could do who don’t know where to start? And they say, oh, creative writing, that sounds great, but how do I do it?

That’s a great question because it has to do with creative writing specifically, but I think it’s also connected to an interesting aspect of academic writing. I think what’s really challenging is the situation where you are sitting in front of an empty sheet of paper and you have a pen and you think now I’m going to write something creative. And this in itself can be a really challenging situation because like you said, you don’t know where to start. And what I find makes this transition from not writing to writing easier is to provide some structure and a specific task just in order to get started. For instance when I do creative writing in my workshops, there are really strict time limits. Sometimes one of the exercises we do is called five-word stories and it’s short stories that people write in 90 seconds, which is an amazingly short amount of time. And the good thing is that you don’t have time to think too much. You simply begin to write and that’s actually what most academics or many academics in my experience find really difficult to simply start writing without thinking first. Oh, I have to read 68 books about the topic before I can even begin to think about writing, then I have to come up with a really good project outline and so on and so forth, which is in for academic writing. It’s the natural process but it can make it really difficult to connect with your creativity and to say, I’m simply going to start writing something and I will later look at it and see what needs improving or what might still be missing. Just setting yourself and coming back to creative writing, setting yourself small and simple and doable tasks. Yeah, a short story, for instance, which contains five keywords that you’ve picked earlier. And it makes it easier to choose from the infinite variety of possibilities that are out there. And once you have more experience, you could decide to write more freely and just go to the park with your notebook and write whatever comes to your mind.

I have a question about this idea of just writing. I know a lot of people when they start or they said, Okay, when I started writing, I felt stuck because I was thinking. Okay, this has to be really good, and I have to use it. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the benefit or not ,however you see it, of writing. Stuff that you’re going to get rid of, needs everything that I write to be good or is it okay, in academic writing if I find myself writing tons of material that I don’t use or is that not a good approach. What do you think about that?

Again, that’s a good question and a difficult one, I think, because on the one hand this idea that my text has to be really good and it has to be a text that others approve of my fellow researchers, the fellow experts in my field. I want them to maybe, even if they don’t agree with me, agree with what I want to say specifically. I want them to say that the text is simply good academic quality. And this expectation, which is justified, makes sense in the system, but it can really block up your creativity and really limit the scope of possibilities that you even consider in your research. And maybe you have tons of ideas, but you’re really narrowing down the range because you think all people won’t like that. And that’s a silly thought and it’s not going to work anyway. And getting yourself to simply start writing might be a way of exploring these possibilities and only later to really edit the text and produce what will be the finished product. And I think that’s only one side of the issue. The other is you mentioned that some people choose to write a lot of stuff that they will not use in the end. I find that a really useful technique. Partly because you’re probably be writing in two documents, if you will, literally or metaphorically. So you’re writing stuff under the assumption that not necessarily everything of it has to go into the finished text. And this can make it easier to explore things and to really find what you want to say in the writing process. And sometimes people get stuck because they are writing text under the assumption that the actual sentences they are writing will be the ones that the readers will later read and evaluate. And this adds a lot of stress to the writing process. And I think it can help to really divide the different stages of the writing process and say, I’m in the early stages. It’s about exploration and not about polishing the text or revising the text or checking it for mistakes. And yeah, that can help get into the flow of writing and really explore your ideas. And at the same time, there’s one more thought I’d like to share because some people also do use this technique of producing a lot of text and then they themselves in a situation where they have produced a ton of notes and find it really difficult to decide what goes into the text and what not – what does not go into the text and this too can be a real challenge too, if you overdo it with this technique and, so to speak, if you reduce a lot of notes, you might feel lost at some point snd may make it more difficult to come up with a text that leaves certain things out. For some people it’s hard to leave stuff aside.

I really enjoyed hearing you talk about the possibilities of doing things maybe one way or another way and I think that’s really important for students to hear because it’s often possible for students to feel like, „I’m doing it this way, but someone else is doing it that way. And am I doing it the right way?“ or, „I’m writing a lot and my colleague is only writing when they know exactly what they’re going to say.“ And I think that it’s good to hear from others that there are many ways to get to the same goal. And in connection to that, I would love to know the answer to a question. There are a lot of students in my workshops that come up and ask me, „What digital tools do you use?“ I get asked, „I don’t do writing workshops, but I get asked this question a lot anyway. What writing tools should I use? And how should I approach tools?“ And I would love to hear from you a little bit about what you think about writing tools. Do you have digital tools that you love to work with and that you suggest students test out or try, or are you more of a pen and paper person, and what do you think the benefit is of both of those or either of those?

I get that question too, in my workshops: „Which tools can I use?“ or „Should I use even?“ And I believe that you should use the tools that are useful for the specific task you have or for the specific challenge that you want to overcome. And I have two examples for that. The first one is the difference between handwriting and machine writing, if you will. You were talking about handwriting in your question, and I think it is a useful tool or it can be. Writing by hand in specific situations, because one feature of machine writing with my computer or with my laptop, is that I have the ability to edit my text while I’m writing it, and I still have a clean document. It still looks very good. And if I do that in handwriting, if I keep crossing out words and then writing something new, it gets messy really quickly. And one way to take advantage of this difference could be that you say it’s a good thing in handwriting that I can’t edit my text all the time. And that could help me to tell my inner critic to spend some time in the cafe and come back later. And during that time, I have time just to write something and to write a complete version of the text before going back and rereading it and editing the text. Handwriting can really help to differentiate between different stages in the writing process. The second example that I thought of is collaborative writing where you’re writing a text together with others. And there’s a ton of digital tools out there for this and they all have different features. In my view, it’s really useful to spend some time in the group to figure out which tool is best suited for the writing purpose and the kind of group you are. Maybe you want to work in a document simultaneously. Then there are some tools that provide this service or this function and others that don’t. So make your choice on the basis of the kind of task that is ahead of you and the kind of group you are. That would be my general thoughts on writing tools. Try to describe what you need and then pick your tool.

I think this is great advice. I feel like it’s really easy to get excited about all these apps that are out there. And then, in the end, do we actually need all of the functions? This is a huge issue in productivity. You can really easily feel like, „Okay, now I’ve got to learn this app and I don’t actually need it, or do I even need all the things that it’s offering me?“ So fantastic.

Can I add something to this? Because you’re making a really important point, in my view, because sometimes it is suggested that these tools are useful and making things easier, but sometimes it’s the opposite. They make things a bit more difficult, and it’s only later in the process that I even know or learn about that. And one example that just came to my mind is that I once had a PhD student, or she was a postdoc actually whhen she was in my workshop, and we were talking about digital writing tools. And she said that she was writing her PhD with Google Docs and it was really late in the process when she discovered that it’s not possible to download the document once you have crossed a certain number of pages, and it caused her several heart attacks and it was nerve-wracking. She only discovered it really late in the process and it can be really unpleasant. And just the thought of having all your text deleted because of some software glitch is terrible. And so like you say, it’s not evident that all the programs help all the time. So it’s a really good idea to think about what do you want it to do, and which software really does what you do want it to do.

This is very important advice and a good approach. I think a solid approach to digital tools. So I have just two more questions for you. And the first one is. What do people say when they leave your workshops? And I’m going to ask you this, I know it’s a little bit of a challenging question to answer as a trainer, as a workshop facilitator, but I think sometimes students are hesitant to participate in workshops because they don’t know what am I going to leave with knowing how to do. What takeaways do your participants have when they leave your workshop? What do they say about their writing process or about their experience?

One thing many people do is point to a specific writing technique or an idea or a tool that they learned about or rediscovered in the workshop, and they say that was really useful for where I am right now in my writing process. And what most people say actually is that it was a good group experience for them. It renewed their motivation to work and think about their writing project. It’s a lot of encouragement and a lot of feedback they take away. And just a lot of inspiration, and that’s typically what’s coming from the group as a whole and not simply or even mostly from me as a workshop instructor. And that’s actually what most people say. It was a good group experience and it connected me again to my writing and my research.

That’s great. And I think I would say it is not always easy to do that. So I would say it does come from you as a trainer and that also underlines what you said earlier about the importance of working together in groups or group experience of talking to each other about writing. That’s great. So I have one more, my very final question for you. We usually like to ask our guests on the podcast if they were to go back to the beginning of their own experience in writing or in the university or in your case in your doctorate if you could give yourself advice. So you’re time traveling back to the very beginning, what advice would you give yourself, maybe about the writing process. Maybe about the whole thing from where you are today. And obviously we can’t change what we do in the past, but what would you tell yourself if you could time travel?

Let me think about that. Maybe, yeah, there’s a number of things, but the one that stands out really is to share your writing with more people more often and sooner and use other people’s feedback to work on your text and to reflect your writing. Don’t just sit there and work on your own for a very long time and at some point in the end submit it. Talk to people about your writing and it doesn’t have to be your supervisor or even an expert from your field. In a sense, it could be anyone and it will be useful for your writing process and for your actual text.

Thank you very much and thank you for the wonderful advice that you’ve given.

[Note: your host for this episode was Amanda Wichert.]

Return to the Podcast episode here

INTRO

Hello and welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’m your host for today’s episode. Today I’m speaking with Dr. Klaus Wiehl from Freie Universität Berlin. He works in a coordinating role in the context of the European University Alliance Una Europa and is responsible for bringing together different projects and activities across the university.

In this episode, we talk about career paths beyond research at universities and what it can look like to move from a doctorate into a non-research role within academia. You will hear, for example, what working in a coordination role at university actually looks like in practice, which career options exist beyond research that many doctoral researchers might not be aware of, which skills from a doctorate are useful in non-research roles, and what challenges can come up when moving from research into a different kind of role. So let’s get started with the interview.

INTERVIEW

To start, could you briefly introduce yourself? What did you study and what is your current role at Freie Universität Berlin?

Very glad to do so. So I studied German literature and linguistics, English and American literature and linguistics and German as a foreign language. I then did a PhD in German literature and I now work as the institutional coordinator or in the language of Una Europa, senior local lead at Freie Universität Berlin, which means that I oversee all the activities and projects and try to coordinate basically all things Una Europa at Freie Universität.

You just mentioned that you did a doctorate in German literature and then moved into a non-research role at universities. Did you already know when you started your doctorate that you didn’t want to stay in academic research, or how did that transition come about?

It was a bit of a development, to be honest, a process that didn’t start right away, because if I had known from the very beginning, I’m not sure if I would have found the energy to completely finish the PhD. So this transition started more or less, I would say, in the ending phase of my doctorate, where I was lucky enough, shortly before I actually handed in my dissertation, that I was offered a job that was partly science management, partly academic researcher. So a coordination role where I could be a bit of both or be present in both worlds. So in that respect, I had a bit of luck, I must also admit. And it was made a bit easier for me than maybe for someone who would have to search completely for their own, how they would go about this.

And also, as you already said, today you work in the context of European University alliances, like Una Europa. What does your role actually look like in practice? You already told us a little bit about it. Can you go into a bit more detail and maybe let us also know how one of your normal working days looks like?

To start off, there is no normal day. There is a lot of very, very different roles and tasks that have to be fulfilled and lived. But in general, so I am what is called in German a „Referent“, which is basically meaning that I report to the rectorate. So I report directly to the vice president international, to the head of the international affairs division and the president in all things Una Europa, which means I prepare meetings where they participate. I write briefings. That is what a referent usually does. Apart from that, I am a coordinator in the very basic sense of the role that I try to communicate with everyone, at least has a certain role to play in the alliance at Freie Universität, which can be up to 40 to 80 people, regarding on how you count it. So meaning gathering information, trying to support people in the projects that they are pursuing, writing reports, a little bit of administration also, but I have also colleagues who do this. So a normal day is reading a lot of text, and I think we will talk about this later on, and writing a lot of text.

Thanks for sharing the activities you usually do during your working days. Let’s zoom out a bit and look more broadly at careers beyond research at universities. Many doctoral researchers mainly think of the research path when they consider careers at universities. Besides your own job as a „Referent“ you just told us about, what other options are there that people might not be aware of?

I think there’s a plethora of things to do when you consider the specific tasks. But in general, of course, it’s probably not as many. So when people think about university, they only see science and they see administration. But in reality, even there, there’s more things to do. So I come from the literary science or the humanities, where if you’re not completely into research, you could always look for a position that is more teaching oriented. Not that there are so many. And in Germany, the system is still very, I would say, focused on you’re either in the preparation of becoming a professor or you’re a professor. Those are the two options.

But in reality, of course, you can be a person like a lecturer, it’s called in the English speaking sphere, which would then focus more on teaching. But if you really want to do this job, that’s another question, because it is a lot of work. Apart from that, what we usually call the administration there’s very, very different roles. Like for example, you could be a grant manager at the faculty level. So you could help prepare writing grants or keep track of the third party funds that are coming in. You could do the same thing at the central administration level and advise people on how to apply for funding. You can play a lot of roles in where I am based in, the international division. So even at university, I think more and more job opportunities are opening up right now because the role of the university in itself probably has not changed completely, but the way that universities communicate about what they are doing has changed.

So if you have a specific interest in science communication, I’m sure that in the coming years, there will be more jobs than even now opening up in that sphere, for example. So between administration and science management, there’s always something going on that’s worth looking into.

And based on your experience, what makes these roles attractive career options?

I think you can use in these job opportunities a lot what you’ve learned during your academic career. And maybe you have a bit more of a predictability. But I think it’s important to stress that even there, it’s not a given that there is complete stability. Because also there seems to be a misunderstanding in that there is a fundamental difference between administration and research or teaching. So when you change sides, you’re, of course, always in a fixed contract. And that is not the case. So even if you work in science management or administration, there’s a lot of positions that have limited contracts because they are project-based. And with the same thing that is happening in academic positions, be it either in a qualification phase or because things are project-based, same applies to management and administration. There’s roles that are limited.

So it’s not like you’re changing sides because it’s much more easy, but once you have acquired a certain standing or learned a few things, I would say it is easier to predict where the voyage is going.

As you have experience in both fields, what would you say are the biggest differences between working as a researcher and working in a non-research role at university?

I mean, the first thing that comes to mind would be that speaking about my field, you spend much less time in a library, of course, but you don’t necessarily read less and you don’t necessarily communicate less. Of course, I was a teacher. I do not do that anymore. But still, one of my main tasks is to convey information. I just do it in a different way. So in that respect, I would say that having been a teacher at a higher education institution is a very good preparation. But yeah, as I said, it’s a lot about writing. It’s still a lot about interpreting, analyzing, but probably in a different kind of language.

When you look back at your own transition, what was the most challenging adjustment when moving from research into a non-research role for you personally?

Well, all of a sudden, it’s not about your project anymore, and it’s not about your seminar anymore. It’s about so many other things that you have to keep in mind. And even as an academic, there is always a certain part of self-administration or really good coordination that is necessary if you want to be successful. But to do this on a central level and not just for yourself, of course, now a lot of other people are dependent on you all of a sudden. And that is, I wouldn’t say more, but a different kind of responsibility.

And how would you say, can you make that transition easier? Or do you say it’s just something over the years you get used to it and it comes by itself?

I think you can learn this, but I think to a certain degree, this is also a question of personal style. So for me, for example, I felt it was always a bit uneasy to promote myself as an academic, or if you think about networking: to stand up and be the person that wants to draw attention to me as a person, as an individual. I do this right now, but now I do it for the institution. So I try to network for other people. And for me, personally, this feels a bit easier. But as I said, I don’t know if this is something that you can completely learn, but that is also a question of personal style. What you definitely can learn and should learn if you haven’t done so before, is a style of good communication, brief and precise communication. Again, talking about the discipline where I am from, where this is not completely natural all the time.

But you also have to be an extremely good listener if you want to be successful in science management. Because you’re definitely now in a supporting role. It’s not about you come first, you and your project, but it’s trying to advance projects of others.

Do you have any tips on how you can make your style of communication better?

I think you have to, again, start by listening to other people and take a lot of time to think how you want to communicate. Not saying that when you’re doing research and writing a thesis, writing a paper, presenting a poster, you’re not doing this. Of course you’re doing this, but you’re talking to another audience and you’re talking in another language. When you’re working as a sort of medium between administration and science, which is the role that I have, you have to talk different languages and you have to interpret what people are saying and find the middle ground in between what people want and do. So you have to use the skills that you have usually as an academic to learn a new language or learn new languages and cultures and try to adapt to these. Because also in my field, you’re not only talking about different academic cultures within one institution, but also about different academic cultures in international settings, which complicate things, obviously.

Do you want to tell us a bit more about that?

Well, we have completely different academic calendars, obviously, but apart from that, I would really say we have academic cultures that are differently, where you usually would say, oh yes, a chemist from Germany or Belgium are practically the same, whereas a chemist from Germany and a person from political science can’t talk to each other. And this might be true to a certain degree, but in general, the cultural differences come to play, of course, always in an international setting. So I think on more than one level, intercultural competency is something that you have to be aware of and that you should try to acquire in any sort of coordinating role.

You just shared with us the most challenging adjustment. Let’s talk a bit about the flip side. What do you enjoy most about working in a non-research role? It could be more than one thing, obviously, as well.

The most interesting thing to me is that all I do is new every day. So new tasks, new roles, new projects, but that my work is also very, very interdisciplinary. So I’m not doing research in physics and I’m not doing research in chemistry, obviously, but I’m in contact with these people and nonetheless, I can support their projects. So I have a whole new oversight of what is going on in the whole institution.

And in my case, also the partner universities in Una Europa that I work with. And the next thing would be is that I work in such an international setting. Of course, all science, all education and research is and should be international. It doesn’t work any other way today anymore, of course. But me, for example, each week I work with my colleagues from all over Europe and I have meetings with them, sometimes more regular than with the colleagues that are next door to my office. So this is a truly international setting to an intensity which I as a researcher never experienced before.

I imagine a lot of our listeners are intrigued by now by this path and might consider a role beyond research at universities themselves. I would like to talk with you about transferable skills, because I assume that many doctoral researchers wonder what skills from a doctorate are actually useful outside of research. You mentioned a few before. But I would like to know, are there other skills that you would say carry over well? And I guess we might have to distinguish a bit between humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and so on.

Yeah, totally. So I would always say on the one hand, of course you can study something like science management. So there are study programs where you can do this as a master program. But if you’re doing a PhD in any discipline, I think you’re almost there because so many of the skills that you acquire as an early career researcher or as a researcher in early career stages, you can use these things and you should be an expert.

And that is gathering information, analyzing this information, interpreting it, and then using it, maybe translating it, and then giving someone else this information to do something with it, to use it. In this way, you’re an advisor, but information has to go through you before. So you’re a medium in that way. So in my work or in my research in the humanities, of course, we talked about this on a theoretical level, circulation of knowledge, the institutional creation of knowledge or how discourse analysis works. But in the end, everyone in every discipline can do this. So these would be the skills that everyone, I think to a certain degree, already has.

Other things, and those can be learned in continuous education, is the way you talk to people, the way you handle meetings, the way you write precise briefings in a higher education political context. Because no one probably doubts that you can write a 300 to 500 pages dissertation, but that is not necessary here because here it is necessary that you write a one pager where all the necessary information about a certain topic can be found so that someone can make a decision based on the way you present vital information.

And even though our focus today is on careers in academia, but not in research, I think these are skills you just mentioned that can be very helpful also if you want to look at a job outside of university, which is not in research.

Oh, definitely. I think so. This is what is the best qualification about anyone who either studied or did a PhD somewhere, because we are living in a knowledge society, right? So in any kind of way, if you can prove to someone that you’re able to analyze or to move through vast landscapes of knowledge and not get lost there, but to find a certain structure and to work with the structure, and make use of that knowledge in some way or another. That is one of the biggest requirements for any job, I would say, nowadays.

Would you go as far as to recommend doing a doctorate if you know beforehand that you don’t want to stay in research? You already said that you probably wouldn’t have finished your own doctorate if you would have known that your career develops the way it developed. But if people just haven’t started their doctorate yet or are just beginning, and they already feel like, oh, maybe research isn’t really where I want to stay, would you still recommend going on with it or would you say there are other things that are more useful if you want to have a job that is similar to yours?

That is a very difficult question to answer because I don’t think it’s a requirement and I don’t think it should be a hard requirement to have a PhD to be in the position where I am in. Having said that, I think it helps me a lot. And a lot of what I learned during my PhD is helping me every day, because it also guarantees that I have gathered insights into how universities work, into how science and research works. And when you’re talking with academics and you’re trying to support them in research projects, you can always say, I’ve been there, I know what you’re doing, or at least I’ve had a glimpse at what you’re doing. So not trying to overstretch what I did with a PhD. And also, to be honest, it’s a great opportunity to do a PhD. And it’s been a few extremely educating and invigorating years for me. So I wouldn’t want to miss that. But I would not suggest to anyone, if you’re really keen on fulfilling this role as a non-researcher at university, I would ask people to think twice about doing it again. Because maybe that would probably be the wrong way to approach it, I think.

I’m nodding here, you can’t tell, but I definitely agree. Often I think people also want to kind of keep both doors open. Let’s say if someone wants to prepare early for a career beyond research or at least have the opportunity to have good chances to get a job in that field, what would you recommend they focus on during their doctorate?

That’s an extremely good point because if you want to keep both doors open, trying to step into the, I would say, administrative or management side, that is always a good option. That was my first step, to be honest, into the world of science management. I became the academic coordinator of a bi-national PhD program, where I was still a scientific researcher, but I also got the chance to have a first look into how it is to do the administrative work on such a project, how to deal with the money, how to make sure that if people go on a travel, they actually get their money. Stuff like that.

And this is something that is vital knowledge for any researcher, I would also say. Because if you ever want to apply for a big grant, you have to know how these things work. You have to know how to make a budget. You have to know how to write a proposal. And you have to show, if you want to become a professor, that you have acquired third-party funds and know how to handle those. And of course, there will always be members of the administration to support you in that, and that’s their job, and they are there for that.

But still, even if you’re a speaker of a big project or the lead, you should have some fundamental knowledge on how that works. And also, that would be the next thing, maybe if you want to fulfill any political role at the university level, at some point you also have to know how the administration works, because then you will be in direct contact with them all the time in the organizational level, structural and political level of the institution.

If a doctoral researcher is currently unsure whether to stay in academia or leave research, what would you tell them?

Again, a very good question, really depending on the field, because I guess that so many doctoral researchers during their dissertation phase have had hard times. And to a certain degree, I think that’s normal, maybe not healthy, but definitely normal. So I think there is this very problematic phase where we really want to throw everything away and think about just leaving everything behind you. But still, if this becomes a regular thing and if this becomes normal, you should really consider it.

But finishing a PhD probably is never wrong. Staying in a postdoc position, if you’re unsure, too long, that probably can become a problem at some point. So usually in order to answer the question, I would say, really think how hard would it be to finish the PhD? What is the stage that you’re at now?

How much more trouble would it be for you? Because if you have the opportunity, I would probably advise people to still try and finish. Because at least in the German system, even in administration, if you have a PhD, it won’t hurt you. So people won’t look down on you and say, this is the person who didn’t make it in research. But of course, considering the sunk cost fallacy, if it’s too hard, you can give it up. You’re still not a failure.

You just touched on a point that I find very interesting and also important. You said staying in a postdoc position too long might be the bigger problem or might be a problem as to finishing your doctorate, which is giving you usually good opportunities afterwards and it’s not something bad for you. I was wondering, could you define „too long“? How many years, or maybe it’s not even years, would you say you can stay in a postdoc position when you already feel, maybe this is not where I see myself in the long term? In research, I mean.

That’s really not for me to say because I haven’t been there. And this is also really a question about your personal way of life. I just never saw myself in trying to pursue a goal that would lead me into my late forties with all the insecurity that is attached to that. Because I also thought that at some point it would be too late to start another career.

So for me, it was really clear that a decision was due at least at the end of my doctoral phase. But I don’t think I’m in the position to say how long you can be a postdoc and still be on the safe side. That’s probably for everyone on their own to decide. And also, talk to your advisors on a constant way, because they are the ones that have this responsibility for you, of course. But if you don’t have a plan B, it will definitely become a struggle at some point.

I think that’s still very helpful to hear your story and what you thought about when taking the decision. Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you think is important when it comes to careers beyond research at universities?

I think it is important to always keep an open mind about the endless possibilities there are, because it’s not only universities. A lot of people have these very, very high-level academic CVs that read great, but you always have to have a certain look outside academia at some point, which again is a very field distinctive problem, right? Because if you’re from the biochemistry field of research, or if you’re specializing in AI, you can do a PhD as many times as you want. People will definitely be looking for you.

People in the humanities, however, probably should have a more clearer understanding where they could be going anywhere. But the suggestion would be to keep an open mind, be inquisitive about whatever is possible, to mingle with other people, to mingle with other disciplines, but really always take into consideration how many advisors you want for your academic career. And I’m not talking only about professors because they also in the normal way, they have very academic CVs. So I guess you should also find people beyond academia to talk about your academia dreams.

At the end of our interview, I have a few quick questions. Just answer with whatever comes to mind first, one word or a short phrase. Are you ready?

Yes.

One thing you don’t miss about academic research?

The fear of the white paper when I have to start writing a paper.

That’s a good one. One thing you didn’t expect to enjoy in your current role?

Actually preparing briefings for other people.

I thought you might say networking.

Yeah.

What matters more in your job, structure or flexibility?

That is a really good question, but I think I would always go with flexibility.

One task that takes up more of your time than people would expect?

Finding dates for meetings.

One word you would use to describe your current role?

Diplomatic.

And the last question I have for you, the best career advice you’ve ever received?

I think I was once given the advice to find something to do where I would have a good ratio of being in a place where I could be idealistic and work on something that I’m really 100% behind. And I would say that working in any role at a university is always something that is worthwhile and maybe even a privilege. But at the same time see that idealism is not the only driving factor and something that can be used in order to get more out of you than is maybe good for yourself, if that makes any sense.

It definitely does. Thank you so much, Klaus, for your time and for sharing your insights and experiences.

Thank you so much for having me.

OUTRO

That was Dr. Klaus Wiehl talking about his career path beyond research and his current role at Freie Universität Berlin. We talked about different career options within universities, what skills from a doctorate can be transferred to non-research roles, and what it can look like to move from research into a coordinating role. If you’re interested in related topics, you can find more episodes here in the podcast. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt and this is the DRS Podcast by the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Thank you for listening and until next time.

[Note: your host for this episode was Dr. Marlies Klamt.]

Return to the Podcast episode here