Professor Dr. Cornelia Reiher was one of two recipients of the Supervisor Award 2023, an award presented annually by the Dahlem Research School for exceptional supervision of doctoral researchers. The special aspect of this award is that doctoral researchers nominate their supervisors themselves.
In this DRS podcast episode, Professor Reiher talks about what good supervision entails for her, how she supports her doctoral researchers and what she expects from them. We also talked about how she and her doctoral researchers dealt with the challenges during the pandemic, which particularly affected them due to their field research in Japan. Professor Reiher emphasizes the importance of recreational breaks and a good work-life balance in order not to lose creativity in the scientific creative process.

HIGHLIGHTS

„You can’t be creative and productive 24/7. That’s why these recovery phases are immensely important, especially for creative ideas. I think a lot of people, myself included, have the best ideas in their free time and not when they’re staring desperately at a screen.“

„The most important factor is not to lose the passion and enthusiasm for the project.“

AUDIO

TRANSCRIPT

INTRO
Welcome to a new episode of the Dahlem Research School podcast. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt and I am happy to accompany you through today’s episode.
In this episode, you can expect another exciting interview with one of two winners of the Supervision Award, Professor Cornelia Reiher, who is a Japanologist at the FU Berlin and won the award in fall 2023.

In this interview we talk about the following:

How she plans to use the prize money

What is generally important to her when supervising doctoral researchers

What challenges she and her doctoral researchers, who are all doing field research, have faced during the pandemic and how they have dealt with these challenges

What she wishes from her doctoral researchers

Why she herself completed her doctorate on the train

And how she assesses the situation of doctoral researcher parents – and I can already tell you, more positively than I would have thought.

I also found her attitude to work-life balance, which we talk about at the end of the interview, particularly interesting.

I hope you enjoy listening to it now.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Prof. Reiher, please introduce yourself briefly.

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
I am a professor of Japanese Studies at the Free University of Berlin. My work focuses on the society and politics of contemporary Japan. And I deal with two larger topics. One is food and nutrition in Japan, but also culinary globalization. So I also have a project on Japanese cuisine in Berlin.

At the same time, the other is Japan’s rural areas. I am particularly interested in finding out how rural areas in Japan are changing against the backdrop of demographic change.

The two topics combine the larger issue of migration, i.e. on the one hand transnational migration of Japanese people to Germany, for example, and on the other hand urban-rural migration of Japanese people within Japan, as well as the role of transnational migrants in rural Japan.

Another topic I have dealt with a lot in recent years is qualitative methods in Japan research. It’s more about how do we actually research Japan? And in this context, I have also published a handbook that doctoral researchers also like to work with.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
This is already the perfect segue, because even though that sounds like a very exciting field of research, we are going to talk about something else today, and that is that you have won an award for the exceptionally good supervision of doctoral researchers. How many doctoral researchers are you currently supervising?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
There are currently five. Two are in a DFG project and the other three are at the Graduate School of East Asian Studies, where I am PI.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
How did you find out that you had won the DRS Supervision Award and what was your first thought?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Well, I received an email and thought, oh wow, I’m really pleased that my work has been recognized. Especially from the doctoral researchers who were allowed to nominate me. In other words, it’s really nice when doctoral researchers are satisfied, because that’s not a given. After all, a doctorate is a fairly long-term, difficult and not entirely easy undertaking. A time with many ups and downs. And if the doctoral researchers then feel that they are well supported by their supervisor, i.e. by me, then I am extremely pleased.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
I think that was a very nice recognition that comes with the award, but it also comes with a payout of 2,000 euros, which is intended for the further promotion of young scientists. How did you use the money, or how do you plan to use it in the future?

Well, I received an email and thought, oh wow, I’m really pleased that my work has been recognized. Especially from the doctoral researchers who nominated me. In other words, it’s really nice when doctoral researchers are satisfied, because that’s not a given. After all, a doctorate is a fairly long-term, difficult and not entirely easy undertaking. A time with many ups and downs. And if the doctoral researchers then feel that they are well supported by their supervisor, i.e. by me, then I am extremely pleased.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
I think that was a very nice recognition that comes with the award, but it also comes with a payout of 2,000 euros, which is intended for the further promotion of young scientists. How did you use the money, or how do you plan to use it in the future?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, I think there are two big issues for which there is never enough money: proofreading the dissertations. One of my doctoral researchers is a native English speaker, but they all write in English. This means that it’s always nice to have the English proofread by a professional at the end if there’s a bit of money available. That’s one option I’m thinking about.
The other is, of course, conference travel. Because when the results are actually available, it’s nice to take them out into the world and present them to a specialist audience. So those are the two thoughts I have at the moment. I will discuss this with the doctoral researchers to see what their needs are.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
I think that’s two great ideas and of course it’s also great that you then want to discuss this with the doctoral researchers. Can you still remember the first doctoral researchers you supervised and what it was like to suddenly be on the other side and guide someone in their scientific work? And what challenges, but perhaps also what wonderful moments can you remember?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
This is quite a good time for this question because next week the first doctoral researcher I have ever supervised will be defending her dissertation. That was a bit of a lengthy process, because maybe I can say something about corona afterwards. This has been a very, very difficult time for Japanologists, especially those who have to conduct field research in Japan. I came to the FU in 2014 to teach at the graduate school and to get involved. That means that I was already involved in teaching doctoral researchers before I was officially allowed to supervise the first doctoral student, so it wasn’t the first time that I was allowed to supervise and advise doctoral researchers.
But being the first doctoral researcher of my own was of course a very intense experience. It wasn’t an easy path for either of us, precisely because of the many ups and downs. At some point, we ran out of funding and then, or actually especially during the pandemic, field research was not possible, so we had to go through some ups and downs together, not only intellectually but also personally.
After all, it wasn’t just the doctoral researchers who were handicapped during this time, but of course also the researchers who were already a bit further along. That affected me just as much as my doctoral researchers. And in this respect, I am very pleased that, despite these many hurdles and obstacles, it has now come to a successful conclusion.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Then I’ll keep my fingers crossed that the defense goes well next week. And I will ask you the question about corona and Japanese studies, but first I would like to talk a little more about doctoral supervision. I would be interested to know how you rate the importance of good supervision for the success of a doctorate.

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Well, good supervision helps when there are problems, of course. I assume that most doctoral researchers are motivated to start because they are interested in working on a research topic in depth. This means that intrinsic motivation is usually very strong, especially at the beginning. But then, of course, such a doctorate proceeds in phases. Before the field research, most doctoral researchers are still in relatively good spirits, optimistically happy that they are now doctoral researchers. Especially in connection with the graduate school, you get to know a lot of new people, the Dahlem Research School offers fabulous workshops and then suddenly you’re all alone in the field.
And it may not work out the way you had imagined. Maybe nobody wants to conduct interviews, maybe access to the field is difficult. There are all kinds of intercultural problems that can arise and perhaps personal problems, loneliness, whatever. And I think it’s important to have good support. So that there is a relationship of trust, that you can turn to your doctoral supervisor to talk about it openly, to address it.
At the same time, however, and this is the strength of the graduate schools, I also point out, for example, that peer groups are very important because doctoral students never have this experience alone. And then simply getting support from other doctoral researchersis important. Interestingly, however, sometimes doctoral candidates in this situation don’t even realize that this is a possibility and that they can provide the impetus. And this also applies to the other phase after the field research, which is often very enjoyable, actually analyzing and writing the data. It’s quite a lonely process at your desk, after you’ve been on the road a lot and perhaps had some great adventures, to then say „make writing social“, i.e. write together, get together in writing groups, meet up, you don’t have to go through it alone. That’s an impulse that a good tutor should also give.
And of course I read everything I receive and comment on it openly and honestly. And of course that prevents situations in which a dissertation is submitted and then perhaps fails because nobody looked at it beforehand.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Yes, I agree with you 100 percent. Both in terms of the fact that you don’t have to do a doctorate alone. I always say that you don’t have to do a doctorate alone, just write your thesis alone. But also that it is good to exchange ideas with each other and that the supervisor is not the only person who can provide support.
Do you think there are also areas where it is not appropriate for them to provide support, where you say that the person doing the doctorate has to do it alone?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
I see a doctorate as a process in which you learn to conduct research independently. And that of course also means that you have to establish contacts in the field independently and of course be able to work independently with the data and acquire certain methodological skills yourself, for example, if you don’t have them.
Of course, there are all kinds of offers for this, which I can also point out. But the work of data collection and data analysis can, of course, only be carried out independently by the doctoral student with support.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
In my experience, the vast majority of doctoral candidates have problems with the fact that they don’t have enough accountability, i.e. commitment. Have you established structures to regularly review the progress of your doctoral students or do you say that this is now an area that is their responsibility?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Here I would differentiate a little between doctoral researchers at the graduate school, who are ultimately committed to themselves and their sponsor, and doctoral students who are working on a research project. I have to write a report at the end and I have to present the results and they are employed directly by me. I make sure that certain milestones are met or achievements are made. More so than with doctoral researchers, who can actually work on a free topic at the graduate school. But if I don’t hear anything for a while, I ask. At the same time, the graduate school also has milestones. So sometimes papers are due or literature reports and things like that, so you have to be careful that the doctoral researchers don’t get lost.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
If you had to describe in one sentence what kind of supervisor you are or would like to be, what would that sentence be?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Good supervision means that you adapt to the needs of the doctoral candidates.

Marlies Klamt:
And thinking the other way around, what does your ideal doctoral researchers look like? What expectations do you have of them? What skills should they have, but perhaps also what human values?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, ideally doctoral candidates are creative, passionate about their subject, interested and full of a thirst for knowledge and ideally friendly and cooperative.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
That’s a bit different for everyone. I think your colleagues would perhaps give a different answer, but that’s exactly right. If you think back to your own doctoral studies, what influence do you think your relationship with your supervisor(s) back then had on how you work with doctoral researchers today and how you lead and guide them?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
I myself did my doctorate in a Research Training Group and I can say that I really appreciated this experience of working together, and in some cases suffering through the doctoral period. That’s why it’s so important to me to encourage doctoral students today to get together with their peers, with their fellow researchers, to exchange ideas, perhaps even to plan their first publications together, to organize workshops. And perhaps also to be aware that these are the networks that may endure and become important in the future, regardless of whether they work in academia or perhaps outside academia.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Do you see a change in the function of supervisors of doctoral researchers? Do you think that supervision is different today than it was perhaps ten or 20 years ago?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Well, I only have one German doctoral researcher, all the others are international doctoral candidates. And I think that, on the one hand, there is certainly a change over time, but on the other hand, there are also different doctoral cultures that we have to deal with. I think that the expectations of supervisors are sometimes very different from what I experienced myself. I had a lot of freedom. I also didn’t expect my doctoral supervisor to read everything I sent. I always knew that the professors I was dealing with at the time were all very busy.
Today, the expectation is more that doctoral researchers want to play it safe in my opinion, prefer to ask again, want to be absolutely sure that they are going in the right direction, don’t make any mistakes. And I would perhaps also like to see a little more self-confidence and a little more freedom to be creative and solve the problem yourself first, or perhaps with the help of peers. In other words, to dare to be more proactive again.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
I find it very exciting that you have just mentioned that your working group or the group of doctoral researchers that you supervise is very international. How do you deal with the fact that there are perhaps very different expectations and approaches?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
This is a work in progress. Our working language is English. And we come across problems from time to time that I would never have thought of. The only thing we can do is to talk openly with each other and explain how the German university system works, perhaps also how the job market works, and hope that the next problem, which is sure to come, will be addressed just as openly. And I believe that a basis of trust and direct communication is also important here. Sometimes that works more, sometimes less well.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
But all your doctoral researchers are on site with you in Berlin when you’re not doing field research in Japan?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes and no. So perhaps we will also have to address the tiresome issue of funding. Some of the doctoral researchers whose scholarships or positions have expired and who are not yet finished are no longer on site. So at the moment I’m in a phase where only three of the doctoral researchers are still here on site, two are no longer, so in principle we are now doing more of what we practiced during the pandemic, namely communicating online. At the same time, these are also the strategies that we practiced during the field research. In this respect, it no longer seems so unusual to me, but is really, really helpful.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Let’s stay directly on the subject of funding. What challenges do you see, or perhaps you have seen, during corona, but also now in particular?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, first of all, scholarships are of course rare, especially for foreign students. The graduate school where I am a PI receives DAAD scholarships and China Scholarship Council scholarships, but these are not available to everyone interested in doing a doctorate, for example not to German citizens. And secondly, you can of course raise third-party funds to supervise doctoral researchers. But these then expire. This means that the duration of a doctorate is clearly limited, usually to three years. And for projects with intensive field research, this is actually relatively unrealistic and almost impossible to achieve. And that’s why it would of course be nice if the FU were to put a little more money into the graduate schools if it wants good doctoral researchers, but also good supervision.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Could one solution then also be to narrow down the projects? In other words, not to do without field research, but to make the project smaller overall?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, but a doctorate should also have a certain level. You certainly have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, you never use all the data that you bring back from field research. Even if it’s tempting, of course, it won’t work. It’s also my job to curb some of the enthusiasm, to say, look what you have here, you can actually leave it as it is and save the rest for papers. But in the end, it just takes time. We work with Japanese informants, Japanese-language sources. So on the one hand, we have to take the foreign language component into account.
And on the other hand, field research is also something that you can’t plan well if there are problems somehow, that you can’t get access to the field, that the timing is perhaps also bad because it’s a time when no one can talk to you. Then you have to be a bit creative. I think the pandemic has also opened up many new opportunities for us that we perhaps hadn’t even considered before, namely that you can also conduct online interviews, that you can even do digital ethnography.
So these are all newer methods that, I believe, also benefit doctoral researchers. At the same time, what you just mentioned, namely the problem of too much data, does not solve the problem at all, but actually increases the amount of data and many doctoral researchers naturally feel overwhelmed by it, and here it is important to try to narrow things down by talking to each other.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Do you do that in addition then, the online interviews for example, or could that also replace the field research on site?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
That depends on the topic. I have a project that I am currently supervising, which is mainly about what policymakers say about rural revitalization policies, so I don’t think you have to be on site. There are also a lot of written sources, policy papers and so on. But if you want to find out how people do certain things in their everyday lives, then it makes a lot of sense to be on the ground. We have now done a lot of hybrid ethnography. This means that we conducted online field research during the pandemic and were able to go back into the field afterwards.
And it’s very interesting to observe the differences. In other words, what you learn when you look at the online representation of various practices or online practices and what you don’t see. For example, sometimes you don’t even notice that people might be neighbors because it’s never been an issue. And many things that you would otherwise not even notice, you can actually only notice on site. That’s why I would argue in favor of maintaining field research, on-site.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Yes, you’ve just said a lot about the situation during corona. Perhaps we can still talk a little more in detail about what the particular challenges were in your field, i.e. in Japanese Studies, during the pandemic and how you dealt with them?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, with pleasure. Japan is one of the few countries where there was a complete ban on non-citizens entering the country between 2020 and 2022. Our project started in October 2020, so it was a challenge to get the doctoral researchers to Berlin in the first place. After a week in which I think we actually saw each other here on site, there was a new lockdown and we were really only able to meet online for six months.
That was of course difficult for many reasons. On the one hand for motivation, but also of course for getting to know each other. And especially for international doctoral researchers who were new to Berlin, it also meant that they didn’t get to know anyone and felt quite alone.
I then tried to solve this with a study group. We met online, sometimes every week during the pandemic. Since all of my doctoral researchers have something to do with migration and rural Japan, it worked out quite well and we invited more and more people or they somehow found us, so the study group became bigger and bigger, and more international.

And then we started a blog at the same time, so that the doctoral researchers, even if they couldn’t go into the field yet, could at least start writing small posts about what they had already read and what we had discussed, which helped them to get into writing, so that there was simply the feeling that a text was being created. And of course it was also a very good exercise. But there were always crises. The Japanese government briefly opened the borders, but closed them again immediately afterwards. This naturally led to a lot of uncertainty and increased psychological stress in the group.
And then we simply tried to support each other. We organized a small online Christmas party. So it was really more about giving social encouragement again and again and reminding people how we could perhaps carry out the project by other means. And then we came up with these digital tools. And that was good that we were able to continue the project at all, that the doctoral researchers were able to continue their doctorates, even if they were fortunately all able to travel to Japan again for real field research in 2022.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
And what delays did this cause? For some, it must have been almost two years, if you actually wanted to fly there at the time when the borders were closed?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, that is not yet entirely foreseeable. We now have some work that is still in progress. I think it will take one to two years. There’s also parenthood, which often happens during a doctorate. In this respect, several factors have come together that have been challenging. But the great thing is that I also saw how wonderfully the doctoral researchers coped in the end, even though they may not have felt that way when it was difficult. So I think we really made the best of it and, above all, discovered new methods that we wouldn’t have thought of before. And I think we all grew together. And I thought that was very, very nice.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
So in the end, the result was a positive one, even if the general conditions weren’t exactly ideal.

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Well, if you now apply the criterion of rapid completion, then certainly not. But when it comes to intellectual growth, then I would say yes.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Yes, and above all, you have now described it in such a way that you have developed strategies and methods that can be continued and are conceivable in the future, perhaps only as a supplement, which you would not have thought of before.
Fortunately, there was no pandemic during your own doctorate. What was the biggest challenge you faced during your own doctorate?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Well, I already had one child when I started my doctorate and then had a second and then my scholarship came to an end at some point. And then I had a full-time job in the last year in another city and basically finished my doctorate on the train. I don’t think that was so easy in retrospect. But I think that might be a good thing, because I can then show my doctoral researchers that it’s possible. So yes, perhaps as a positive example, even if ideally everything is a bit easier.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Of course I didn’t know that, that you did your doctorate with two children. Perhaps you have some special advice for doctoral researcher parents?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Very difficult. My general impression is that parents are better organized in their doctoral studies. I believe that the procrastination time is simply not there. In other words, if I can shovel four hours off, then I work more concentrated during those four hours because I don’t know exactly when I’ll have time again. That’s why I believe that doctoral researcher parents, if they have a good support network, are actually not in such a bad position. And of course you have to ensure a work-life balance somehow, find a balance, allow yourself to do nothing for a day.
So I think that’s the biggest problem anyway, that a lot of time is wasted being ashamed that you haven’t done anything. That’s okay. And then you might feel refreshed and get a lot more done. And it’s not just assembly line work. There are days when creativity doesn’t flow and it’s difficult. And then it’s okay to say, okay, I’ll take a break for today and pick my child up from daycare earlier and do something nice and then things will work out better tomorrow. But all the small and big disasters when the child gets sick and there’s a deadline, how to deal with it successfully, I don’t think there’s a magic formula. Unfortunately.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
I am a great advocate of taking regular vacations and days off. I mean regularly, every week – not the vacation, but the days off, to simply recharge the batteries and then move forward better and with more energy. How do you see it? Have you ever had to send a doctoral researcher on vacation? Do you say that’s their responsibility? Or how do you talk to your doctoral researchers about the fact that time off can perhaps also be an important thing, and one without a guilty conscience?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Of course, I can’t send anyone on vacation, but there have been situations where doctoral researchers who are extremely exhausted, especially during field research, have given feedback that they can’t do any more. And then, of course, I’ve told them to take a few days off. I see it the same way you do. It’s extremely important. You can’t be creative and productive 24/7. And that’s why these recovery phases are immensely important, especially for creative ideas. I think a lot of people, myself included, have the best ideas in their free time and not when they’re staring desperately at a screen.

Dr. Marlies Klamt:
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Is there another important point, an important area that I forgot to mention, that we should definitely talk about today?

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Yes, I think it is perhaps important for doctoral researchers, when they are desperate, to simply remember again the passion with which they started the project and the curiosity. I always find it helpful to perhaps take another look at the first synopsis. Most of the time you end up there again in a roundabout way anyway, which I find very interesting. So I think it’s always good to remember why you started, even if it’s difficult at the time. The most important thing is not to lose your passion and enthusiasm for the project.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: I think that’s a very nice thing to say at the end. Thank you very much, Professor Reiher, for this interview.

Prof. Dr. Reiher:
Thank you very much.

OUTRO
If you enjoyed this episode, please listen to the other episodes as well. For example, there are more interviews on the topic of good doctoral supervision that you can listen to and also an episode in which you can find out what you can do as a doctoral candidate to build a good relationship with your supervisor.
This was Dr. Marlies Klamt for the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School of Freie Universität Berlin.

In this episode, Prof. Pagel was one of the two winners of the Supervisor Award 2022, which is an award presented annually by the Dahlem Research School for exceptional supervision of doctoral researchers. Prof. Pagel talks about what makes a good, but also a bad doctorate relationship, what he himself experienced during his doctorate and what one would have to do to win him over as a supervisor. He also talked about many other things, including micromanagement, answering emails outside of working hours and what doctoral researchers can do on their part to ensure a good relationship with their supervisor. Enjoy listening to the interview!

HIGHLIGHTS

„I’m not just here to give lectures, but one of my central tasks is to supervise doctoral students. And to turn them into real scientists with solid specialist training.“

„In the natural sciences, you have to realize that if someone starts their doctorate and after about a year and a half doesn’t understand more about the subject than the person supervising them, then something has gone wrong.“

AUDIO

LINKS

DRS Supervision Award

Workshops on Managing Research at DRS

Muster einer Betreuungsvereinbarung

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Marlies Klamt:

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt and today I am interviewing Professor Dr. Kevin Pagel. Mr. Pagel was one of the two winners of the Supervisor Award 2022, which is an award presented annually by the Dahlem Research School for exceptional supervision of doctoral researchers. The special thing about this award is that doctoral students nominate their supervisors themselves. If you also have an outstanding supervisor, you can find the link for the nomination in the show notes. I talked to Prof. Pagel about what makes a good, but also a bad doctorate relationship, what he himself experienced during his doctorate and what I would have to do to win him over as a supervisor.
But we also talk about many other things, including micromanagement, answering emails outside of working hours and what doctoral researchers can do on their part to ensure a good relationship with their supervisor.
And now I hope you enjoy listening to the interview!

Professor Pagel, could you please briefly introduce yourself?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: My name is Kevin Pagel, I am a professor of bio-organic chemistry at the Free University of Berlin. In our research, we mainly deal with the structural investigation of complex biomolecules, especially carbohydrates and sugars, which we look at more closely using various methods. In particular, we use mass spectrometry methods to determine the weights of the molecules.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: And you also supervise doctoral researchers.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: I also supervise doctoral researchers. At the moment, there are eight students in my working group who are aiming for a doctorate.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: You are one of the two winners of the 2022 Supervisor Award from Freie Universität Berlin. What was your first thought when you found out that you were receiving this award?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, first of all, I was delighted to have received this award because I actually knew that it existed. And above all, I knew that my own students had to nominate someone. And of course it’s a very special honor when your own people nominate you for such an award. It has twice the impact.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: This prize is awarded for exemplary supervision of doctoral researchers. In your opinion, what constitutes good doctoral supervision?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, I think the most important thing when supervising doctoral researchers is to strike a balance between mentoring and providing support, but at the same time giving them enough freedom. Nobody comes to a university for a doctoral position like this who isn’t intrinsically motivated anyway. And that’s why I’m not a big fan of giving people too many guidelines. First and foremost, it’s about really getting the best potential out of everyone. And that includes giving students a certain amount of freedom.
At the same time, of course, you have to make sure that no one drifts off course and that everyone keeps their focus. And that really is a big challenge. So taking good enough care, but not taking too good care.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Yes, I definitely agree with you. When you think back to your own doctoral studies, what experiences did you have with your doctoral supervisor? Perhaps there was something that you particularly appreciated about your supervisor or perhaps something that you remember negatively, where you say I want to consciously distance myself from them today?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: In my own doctorate, I actually experienced exactly what I am now trying to convey to my own students. Because I had an incredible number of opportunities. I had a great deal of academic freedom and I was also able to determine the topics I worked on to a certain extent. But what was always there was the infrastructure and the resources to actually carry out the experiments. And that was very, very productive. Because, as I said, as a young person in particular, you are bursting with ideas.
It would be downright stupid to cut it all off and limit it and not let people do it. And that was definitely the case during my doctorate. I was able to express myself very, very well and had a lot of academic freedom.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: I asked you what you think makes a good doctoral relationship. What do you think constitutes poor doctoral supervision?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, I think the fine line between too much supervision and too little supervision cannot be overestimated. You really have to find a fine balance. I see it more often in my day-to-day work that supervisors go into micromanagement and then make really, really detailed specifications about what should be achieved when, what should be written down and how, and so on. And that often leads to any creativity, which is the greatest asset of the young people we work with, simply being cut off. And that’s exactly what we really need to prevent. And then the whole thing can become very, very productive.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: You’ve already mentioned the balance between providing support as a supervisor and at the same time giving doctoral researchers their freedom. What problems can the doctoral researchers you supervise turn to you for help with and where do you perhaps also say that this is the limit, that this is something they have to manage themselves?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: In my experience, one of the biggest problems that students have in their day-to-day work is writer’s block. This is really the thing that occurs most frequently by far, that the data is there, the experiments are done, everything looks great. We’ve had presentations and meetings about it and now the publication can actually be written and then it starts to get tough. And that’s exactly why we’ve actually established a kind of master plan, a kind of system for how to ultimately turn the data into a publication. This follows a relatively clear pattern of what should be written down and when.
In other words, it usually starts with a concept sketch, then the illustrations are created, then you have a meeting with everyone involved, then the illustrations are used to knit a red thread for a publication, which is then underpinned with the appropriate words in the next step in order to turn it into a publication. In my experience, this is very, very helpful for students, especially those who have major problems with writing. And in my opinion, that really is the biggest challenge for doctoral researchers at the moment.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: That sounds great. So I can imagine it as a kind of handbook?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: There’s even a PDF and a presentation.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: And you get that right at the beginning of the doctorate or only when you start writing?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: No, I give this presentation in the working group seminars at regular intervals, also elsewhere. And the students can of course also download it from the website. And it exists here, it’s all over the internal folders. And people are familiar with it and know that it exists.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Yes, great. I think it’s a really great idea, because I know that writer’s block can be a real hindrance and can drag out the doctorate unnecessarily. Even if the supervision is going well in principle, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be any conflicts. After all, a doctorate is a time when there are numerous challenges and often crises. How do you deal with it if there is a crisis between you and one of the people you are supervising?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: I actually try to resolve conflicts relatively openly. In this context, resolving conflicts openly also means that everyone is allowed to have their say. It’s not always easy, but there’s little point in carrying such conflicts around forever. And I then usually try to have a clarifying conversation with the people concerned. This has actually always worked quite well so far because, as I said, intrinsic motivation is inherent in all doctoral researchers, which is why it has always worked quite well. Occasionally there is friction between the members of the working group, but this can usually be resolved relatively easily.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: In other words, you would invite the relevant employees to a meeting and try to clarify this together at the table?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Exactly. A meeting is then arranged and then you try to talk to each other and solve the problem. It’s actually relatively trivial things that are usually involved. It’s about authorship, about publications. It’s about who gets to go on which business trip or who is nominated for which award. But all of that can usually be resolved. So it’s rare for really deep conflicts to arise.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: And do you sometimes have to make decisions that you think I would rather not have made?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, there are decisions that can be unpleasant because sometimes you just can’t decide things properly. That’s just the way it is. I would say that I’ve never had to make a decision that really made my stomach hurt. Not even afterwards.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Assuming I wanted to do a doctorate with you and asked you to supervise me, what would I have to bring to the table for you to accept me as a doctoral candidate?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: As a rule, the requirements are actually relatively low, because you have to imagine that if you dive really deep into a research project like this, you usually don’t know what it’s about beforehand anyway. So there are no experts at doctoral level, at least when the students are just starting out. That’s why the skills, methodological and analytical skills are very, very important to me. In other words, the basic knowledge should be halfway there and creative thinking and so on should also be present. As far as the actual techniques are concerned, you learn everything on the job. You don’t have to bring too much with you.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: You mentioned methodical and analytical skills and creative thinking. How do you check that this is present in a person?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: As a rule, almost nobody in my working group starts a doctorate without having seen the person in a different context beforehand. These are either research internships that people complete as part of their studies. These are presentations at conferences. You’ve talked to the person in question in other ways. And you get a really good feel for whether it works and whether people are capable of doing it. I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving applicants any tests to find out what they are particularly good at. I don’t think that would do the job justice either.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Do you occasionally accept people via initial applications? In other words, people you haven’t been in contact with before at conferences or who you don’t already know from your Master’s degree, for example?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Yes, that has actually happened several times. There has also been a situation where we advertised a position and several suitable people applied. And then there were two new doctoral researchers and not just one. That was actually quite good.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Great, if you have the funds to hire both of them, all the better.
One question I’m always asked is, if I apply to someone now, to a professor who doesn’t know me yet, and I’d like to do my doctorate with that person, should I send them a fully prepared exposé? Or do I first write who I am, maybe send a CV and then ask if there are any projects I could work on? Of course, this is also subject-specific, but what about you? Do you prefer more concrete ideas or is it more important that the person fits in with you and your working group in principle?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: It’s actually unusual to come with fully developed ideas, but it’s more the case that you develop ideas together and also try to decide together where the person fits in best based on their own skills. So it’s actually more the case that I talk to suitable candidates, give them a short presentation and simply show them what topics we are researching in the working group. And then we try to identify a topic together and work out together in which direction it could go. Of course, you often have guidelines from larger research projects as to which areas to research. However, these positions are advertised in such a way that they explicitly state what the doctoral position is for.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: And what do you do if you have a person in front of you and you say that the CV fits well, the skills fit well, but I somehow have a strange gut feeling or I don’t like the person, I can’t say exactly what it is, but something bothers me. Would you still put them on the shortlist or would you say that’s a direct exclusion criterion?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, if the person is suitable and there are no formal objections, then it definitely makes sense to shortlist them. There are rules about that. There doesn’t always have to be perfect harmony in a working group. There can also be… Minor conflicts can also be managed. That’s not the problem. Everyone doesn’t always have to be a perfect match. And in any case, you should also take such applicants into account.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: For whom are you not the right supervisor?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: What’s problematic is when people really expect very, very detailed supervision every day. I know there are colleagues who do this, who issue very, very detailed guidelines, where it is really clear week after week what the students have to do. I can’t do that and I don’t want to do that either, to be honest, because it’s far too restrictive for me. In other words, if someone really needs a very, very detailed work plan and supervision, then I’m probably not the right person to talk to. I provide resources, I provide the monetary means to carry out the experiments, but I’m not going to check exactly what people are doing every day.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: How often do you talk to your doctoral researchers about their projects that are relevant to their doctorates?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Well, of course we have a working group seminar. That’s what everyone does. We get together once a week. There’s usually a presentation and we talk openly about topics. I meet with the doctoral researchers at least once every six months and keep a record of the whole thing with a plan. But of course we also try to exchange ideas as best we can in our everyday lives. That means I also go to the lab or to people’s desks and talk to them and try to get a feel for where things are going wrong and where they are not. It’s actually a habit I picked up a bit from one of my postdoc’s supervisors. She was very busy, had a very, very large working group and still managed to go round once a week and talk to everyone for five minutes. And that really is a great thing. I also really appreciated that.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: In other words, you actually always have an overview of who is standing roughly where and can then also see if things are stuck somewhere and the person is simply not making progress.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Yes, absolutely. I mean, you have to. It’s relatively important, because the end result should be a doctorate and a failed doctorate doesn’t just reflect negatively on the doctoral researcher, but also on me. It’s actually my job to make sure that the students can complete their doctorates properly and quickly.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: In an ideal world, definitely. Unfortunately, the experiences that my coachees have with their supervisors are not always like that. Especially in doctorates in the humanities and social sciences, it can sometimes happen that you don’t have any contact at all for two years if you are doing an external doctorate. From this point of view, a weekly exchange, even if it is only short, is of course very ideal and very good for the doctoral researchers.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Yes. It has to be said that many of the doctoral projects in my department are directly linked to larger third-party funded research projects. And there is always a kind of reporting obligation for these. This means that if the doctorate doesn’t work, the research project won’t work either. And then, of course, you get into trouble at some point when these reports have to be written. That’s why it’s in my own interest to make sure that something sensible comes out of it.
The most important thing is that you see it as a bit of a job. I mean, that’s why I’m here. I’m not just here to give lectures, but it’s one of my central tasks to supervise doctoral researchers. And to turn them into real academics with solid specialist training. And of course you want to do that well. And you have to think about the best way to do that.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: And what does that give you on a personal level?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Above all, it’s really nice to see how people mature. They often come to me when they are just starting their Master’s degree, at the beginning of their Master’s degree and have very, very good theoretical knowledge and are totally fit. But in many other areas, academic writing, thought structures and so on, they lack a bit of experience.
And when you really supervise people for three, four or five years, sometimes over these different stages, it’s really great to see, especially when they then go out and acquire major funding projects themselves, take up great positions and write great publications.
One of my first doctoral researchers has actually become a junior professor. That’s really great to see, of course. It’s a bit of an accolade.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Now, a good relationship between doctoral supervisors and doctoral candidates is a two-way street. Perhaps you have a few tips for doctoral researchers on what they can do to build a good relationship with their supervisor and then maintain it. So what can I do specifically as a doctoral researcher to ensure that my supervisor is happy with me and what should I perhaps not do?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: In any case, what is always very, very useful is to seek contact, to seek discussions. Not all the time, but I think it’s very important to keep in touch. What always goes down very, very well is actually developing your own ideas and concepts. I also see this with my colleagues. It’s something that goes down very well everywhere if the doctoral researchers really immerse themselves in the topic.
In the natural sciences, you simply have to realize that if someone starts a doctorate and after about a year and a half doesn’t understand more about the topic than the supervisor, then something has gone wrong. And interaction often takes place on this basis. And that’s really great fun, because you’re dealing with experts once people have got to grips with a topic.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Does that mean you still learn a lot from your doctoral researchers?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Absolutely. So it’s not just the subject matter, but sometimes it’s simply the creativity, the train of thought that is completely different from my own. And sometimes you scratch your head and ask yourself, what is this actually about? And then at some point you realize it’s a really great idea, let’s do it.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: How do you deal with the fact that you are now working on publications together with your colleagues, for example, and you have different working styles or different approaches? For example, if you have a deadline for a paper, there are people who do everything at the last minute and others who try to finish as far in advance as possible. How do you deal with this when you have different approaches?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Yes, I actually adapt a bit to the needs of the doctoral researchers. I actually experience this on a daily basis. There are students who come to me with their manuscripts four weeks before the deadline, simply to have enough time, and I then try to process them quickly. But if the house is on fire and a paper has to be finished within three days at the very end, then I get stuck in too. It’s just very different. I actually try to meet everyone’s needs in that respect.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: How do you handle communication after official working hours, i.e. in the evening, at weekends, on public holidays?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: I actually saw this once from a colleague in England. I don’t have this in my own email signature, but I tell my employees this and they all know it. Sometimes it suits me very well to send an email at nine in the evening. But that doesn’t mean that I expect it to be answered at nine in the evening. Just because it suits me doesn’t mean I expect the others to do the same.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: In other words, you also rely on clear communication in this case and say that I do it and don’t set an implicit example, which is what it is in principle when you set an example, but I make it very transparent that it’s something I do because it fits into my daily routine, but that I don’t expect anyone else to do the same.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Exactly, that’s how I actually communicate it. Everyone in my working group actually knows that too. Especially when you have a family, you often have to answer certain things in the evening. Or you’re on a business trip and you quickly reply from the train and so on. And everyone knows that I don’t expect anyone to reply to an email at eight o’clock on a Friday evening. That’s clear to everyone. If I get an answer on Monday morning, that’s perfectly fine.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Do you see a change in the role of doctoral supervisors? I’m thinking of a longer period of time, such as the last 10 or 20 years, but perhaps also the last few years due to covid.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Yes, I think the trend over the last 10 or 20 years is that hierarchies have generally become much flatter. In the past, it was often seen as my doctoral student. Today, the view is actually more that you work together with the doctoral students and that you build things up for each other and so on. And that’s not just the case in my working group, I think it’s the case everywhere, that it’s all becoming a bit flatter.
Due to covid… We’re not even feeling the direct effects so much here at doctoral student level. We’re seeing it more with Master’s students, because they’re just slowly finishing up. And it’s mainly the practical skills where more supervision is needed at the moment. That is noticeable.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: How do you explain that?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: It certainly has to do with the fact that far fewer practical courses could take place in the laboratories themselves during the coronavirus period. Practical work was already massively restricted. Another major problem was that students were no longer able to interact with each other as actively because they no longer saw each other. There’s simply a difference between making appointments by phone or online and simply meeting in the corridor and talking about things. And that already leads to major restrictions and especially the research internships, which are quite common here, where students sometimes work on a topic in a working group for 15 weeks, were already extremely limited during the corona period. And you notice that.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Mr. Pagel, is there another important point that we have forgotten that we should definitely address?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: I think it’s really important… At every stage of academic training, there are certain criteria that are used to measure or evaluate. It’s about publications and grades and things like that. And I sometimes have the feeling that one aspect that is much, much more important in other European countries is falling behind, namely the ability to organize your own funding. In my opinion, this is actually still a little underdeveloped in Germany. I know this from international colleagues, where it is quite common for doctoral students to be much more actively involved in writing applications, in writing their own grant applications and so on and so forth.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Is that something you are also trying to actively promote?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Absolutely. I also help people to write their own proposals. This skill becomes extremely important later on, especially if you want to stay in science, because a great proposal that you get through sometimes counts as much as five good publications or ten. This is a very, very important criterion for your future academic career. And you can’t start practicing this early enough.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Is that also a point that you address at some point when someone tells you that they have decided that they would rather go into industry after their doctorate, that they just want to get it over with as quickly as possible, or that they are really aiming for a professorship, that you then also try to support people in different ways and provide different kinds of assistance?

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Absolutely. Of course, it’s really important to focus a little on the professional goals of the person in question. Sometimes I even assign topics in this direction. So it does happen that someone comes to me and says I want to do a doctorate and then do this and that in industry. Then we sometimes even select the topics where the whole thing would fit well. Because the research that is required in industry or the skills that are required there are not always completely the same as in an academic laboratory.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: Mr. Pagel, thank you very much for this wonderful interview.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Pagel: Thank you very much.

Dr. Marlies Klamt: After this very informative conversation, I would just like to remind you once again that you can also put your supervisor in the running for the Supervisor Award. This happens once a year and we provide information about the deadlines on the website and in the newsletter. So it’s best to register directly so that you don’t miss the next round.
On the website for this episode, we also link to the Supervisor Award page, where you can see who has won the award since 2011, if you’re curious.