[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
