Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful links on managing „crises“ during your doctorate here.

transcripT

The interview is held in German, the following transcript is translated.

INTRO

Welcome to the podcast of the Dahlem Research School, where today you can expect an interview with Christine Eßmann-Stern, the Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer at one of the departments of Freie Universität Berlin.

I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’ll be your host for today’s episode.

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

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

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

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

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

INTERVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and it also sends out the wrong signals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that legal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be great. Thank you very much.

OUTRO

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

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

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlie Klamt

This interview has been conducted in German. An English transcript is available at the bottom of this page.

Prof. Dr. Christian Lammert, Political Scientist and winner of the DRS Supervisor Award 2023, talks about the importance of good supervision of doctoral candidates, his plans for the prize money and the changes in his role as a supervisor over time. Other topics include the often lacking self-confidence of doctoral candidates and possible reasons for the dissatisfaction of many doctoral candidates with their supervision. Professor Lammert also reveals what he believes is the ideal number of doctoral students that a professor can effectively supervise at the same time.

Highlights

„One cannot make a single-lane plan for the supervision of a dissertation“

„It is important to not only know the topic and methode of a dissertation during the supervision, but also the context of each candidate because one can only supervise correctly and see the necessary next steps to bring people to their degree within these three to three and a half years.“

„I have noticed for me that at a point where I supervised more than six doctoral candidates at the same time, it became a little bit more. For this reason I would probably say, three to five is a field that one can handle well. Everything else and the supervision could suffer.“

from our interview with Prof. Dr. Lammert

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find more information on the supervision award of DRS and the past winners here.

English transcript

INTRO

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I am Dr. Marlies Klamt and I am excited to host today’s episode for you. This episode is part of a series of interviews we have conducted with the winners of the DRS Supervisor Award, a prize awarded for excellent supervision of doctoral candidates.

In this episode, I talk to Christian Lammert, who is professor of political science and was one of the two winners of the Supervisor Award in 2023.

We talked about what good supervision means to him, how he plans to use the prize money and whether and how he has changed as a supervisor over time. But we also talk about the lack of self-confidence of many doctoral candidates, especially women, and about why doctoral candidates are often not satisfied with their supervision and how he thinks this can be changed.

I also found Professor Lammert’s answer to my question about the maximum number of doctoral students that a professor can supervise at the same time very interesting.

I don’t want to tell you any more in advance, but we’ll start with the interview straight away.

Professor Lammert, please briefly introduce yourself to the listeners of our podcast. 

Yes, I am a political scientist and have been at the John F. Kennedy Institute at the Free University of Berlin for over 15 years now, where I hold the professorship for North American political systems. 

And in this role, you also supervise doctoral students who nominated you for the Supervision Award. And you didn’t just get nominated by them, you also won it. Do you remember the moment when you were informed that you had won and what was your first thought?  

Yes, I remember it pretty clearly. I took my cell phone and checked my e-mails and got this e-mail. You get it by e-mail before it officially arrives by post. And at first I was a bit skeptical and thought, what is this again? Nowadays you’re always very sensitive when you’re told somewhere that you’ve won something. But when I saw that it was all very solid and that I knew the senders by name at least, I have to admit that I was really happy and satisfied because I was also surprised. I didn’t know that anyone had nominated me and I think getting a prize like this, which is about mentoring other doctoral students, is something really nice and that’s why I was really pleased. 

I can imagine that. Also that you were suspicious at first, as I always am when I think I’ve won something…. In addition to this non-material recognition that you have just mentioned, there is also prize money of 2,000 euros, which in turn is intended to benefit the doctoral students. Do you already have an idea of what you will invest this money in?  

Yes, I already have an idea. That was always a point that many doctoral students raised. When we met regularly in a larger group to discuss the individual projects, we usually did this at the institute. And people have always suggested that we could get together somewhere outside of Berlin for an overnight stay or two and not just talk directly about the projects, but also talk a bit about the broader environment of science and what it means to become a scientist in the first place, to exchange ideas a bit. And I think I will use at least some of these funds for a retreat like this.  

On the other hand, which is always very important for our doctoral students, especially when you have such a broad spectrum of topics and, above all, methodological approaches in your work, and if I’m not so well versed in certain methods, is that you then organize special method workshops where you invite people so that the candidates can get the necessary grounding from the methods side.

That sounds like two very nice ideas. Firstly, the retreat as a team-building measure and then the methodological training. I’m sure your doctoral students will be delighted. And the special thing about this DRS Supervision Award is that the award winners are nominated by the doctoral candidates themselves, as you have just mentioned. Why do you think your doctoral candidates or one of your doctoral candidates nominated you? And what makes the way you supervise doctoral candidates so special?    

Well, I reconstructed it a bit afterwards and found out who specifically nominated me when I asked. People or the nominee didn’t tell me that beforehand,  but then she was particularly pleased that I got the award. Why was I nominated by the candidates? Yes, I don’t really know and then you ask yourself, it’s not the first time you’ve supervised doctoral students, I’ve been doing it for over ten years now. Why did you get the award now? You also think about that maybe you weren’t so good before, but now you’re better. 

But I think it always has to do with the specific contexts and I would also like to relativize my role a little. This candidate came from our graduate school. We have the Graduate School for North American Studies at the Kennedy Institute. And there it always has to do with which group comes together, how comfortable they feel and how the whole thing, the whole social context is right. And I already know in the year that I received the award that this group worked very well, that there was also very intensive contact among the candidates outside of the graduate school. And I think that’s always part of making people feel comfortable overall. And if they then consider whether it might also have something to do with the supervisor, then I’m pleased when they come to that conclusion and express their trust in me afterwards.  

What constitutes good supervision for you?  

Yes, I believe that good supervision is about engaging with the respective candidates. I don’t think you can have a one-way roadmap for supervising a dissertation. It also depends on whether they are candidates who are at the graduate school, whether they are individual doctorates, whether they are people who want to stay in academia and articulate this early on, or whether we sometimes have people who come and say I primarily want the title. I’m already on my career path, but a title like that helps me. These are different approaches that you have to consider when dealing with people and you have to find that out early on. 

You also have to get to know the candidates early on to know whether they are people you have to put under a bit of pressure because they need deadlines, because they need intensive support. Are they people who need to be slowed down a bit? I’ve also seen people take on far too much and then overwork themselves if you don’t intervene. So I think that in addition to the basic supervision in terms of topic and method, it is important that you also know the candidate’s context well, because only then can you provide good supervision and take the necessary steps to get people to graduate in these three, three and a half years. 

Is that something you specifically ask or does it come out anyway if you know each other well?  

I don’t ask that specifically. I would find that … That would somehow be a breach of trust and it would also make it seem as if you really had a pattern that you were using. So we meet regularly with the doctoral students to discuss things. But we also meet up after such meetings or at the beginning or end of the semester to go to the beer garden together and talk about other things. And then you get to know the people a bit, also in the group, when they are at the graduate school, how it works there, how they work together, that they tend to motivate each other. It can also happen that a group like that blocks you or makes you anxious because you think you’re not smart enough. So I think you always have to observe everything closely at the beginning and then you’ll realize that. I think a questionnaire like that would be counterproductive.  

Now you mentioned earlier the surprise when you won this award and that you wondered why it was at this precise moment in time. Do you think that the way you supervise has changed over the years and that you are a different supervisor today than you were ten years ago?  

By all means. Or let’s say I hope so, at least. But of course you learn from every supervision. It’s also an intensive relationship that you build up with the candidates here. And sometimes you realize that something didn’t go well. There are always conflict situations. And then you always ask yourself, why is that? Are you too close? Are you giving people too much freedom? Do you have to intervene more in terms of content? Are you putting too little pressure on them? You always realize that afterwards, hopefully in most cases in between, that you can still make corrections. 

But that’s always the case at the end of any promotion, when it’s finished, and then of course you review it again. If it could have gone faster, if it could have been done differently. You also notice whether people are satisfied with the result. And that usually doesn’t stop there. That’s what it’s all about and you have to discuss it with people at an early stage: What should happen next? And that’s always a nice indicator, where you realize that you haven’t done everything wrong and, above all, that the candidates haven’t done everything wrong, if there are employment prospects afterwards and you can also be supportive, for example in publishing the work. And if it all works well, then you have the feeling that you’ve done quite well. And that’s been happening more and more recently. And then I think that you’ve also learned from the examples before. 

Yes, great, I’m pleased to hear that your doctoral students are finding employment well there. And that is definitely a point that I will come back to towards the end of the interview. But what would interest me right now is whether there are or were one or more people or perhaps experiences that have shaped the way you support your doctoral students today. 

I’m now thinking about the positive things, whether I had candidates. Yes, I think it’s more when there are problems that you start thinking about what you can do better. If everything goes smoothly, I always tell that to the people, if you think it’s going smoothly, then I won’t intervene much, apart from the normal feedback rounds that you always have. But if you notice that something isn’t working, then of course you try to improve it. For example, I had … I mentioned earlier that sometimes dissertations are submitted by people who are not planning an academic career at all, but who need it for their job.   And I also had one candidate who was always very short on time because he was of course also very involved in his job and had to use his vacation time and that is of course also a high stress factor. And I hadn’t taken that into account and sometimes I think I put him under a bit too much pressure and expected too much. And now I also know that I have to ask people beforehand exactly how much time they really have and how they imagine they can manage the whole thing in parallel with their dissertation and their job, because it’s an immense burden. 

Another problem that I often see is that some people lack self-confidence and you have to discover that early on. Sometimes female candidates try …,and there it really is often a gender problem. In my experience, women are often more insecure, not in general, but more often, there is a tendency to question their own performance. They question themselves much more often than male candidates do. And you also have to recognize this early on and signal to people that if they are insecure, they should get in touch immediately. And sometimes they don’t. And you have to develop a sense for when people somehow run into a dead end because they don’t trust themselves, so that you recognize this crisis situation early on. I think I’m sensitized to the fact that I can recognize such things earlier and that I can support them so that they don’t run into this dead end. 

Yes, I think that’s a very important point about self-confidence and I think it’s wonderful that you also have an eye on it, because it’s also something that people don’t necessarily dare to address on their own. 

Exactly. 

Unfortunately, not all doctoral candidates are as satisfied with their supervision as yours. According to a study by the Leibniz PhD Network, the satisfaction of doctoral candidates with their supervision also decreases over the course of their doctorate. Do you have any ideas as to why this is the case? 

I would emphasize two factors. On the one hand, I would want to criticize myself and my colleagues a little and perhaps also the university system, that traditionally, and this is only now slowly changing, you are not prepared to properly supervise such work, to deal with people over such a long period of time. That’s a social skill that you have to have. Of course, it’s also a professional skill that you have to have. 

And many of my colleagues, and sometimes I don’t exclude myself from this, think that if you have the technical expertise, you’ll be fine. And then the candidates just have to fall back on this professional expertise. And I believe that the university should offer more support at an early stage, perhaps even for young academics, when it’s clear that people are aiming for an academic career, in terms of what supervision looks like. The FU already has a very good program that is voluntary and is mostly used by people who are already better mentors than others. But here you have to consider to what extent you can create incentives for professors to voluntarily train themselves to provide better supervision. 

The other thing that I think is a problem is the overall work overload and the expectations in the scientific landscape in Germany. And that’s a big difference. I know this from American colleagues or Canadian colleagues who are under much less pressure to acquire third-party funding, to write these applications. And in this system, of course, there are also incentives to exploit such doctoral candidates a little for other purposes by having them co-write such applications and incorporate their expertise. Of course, this can also benefit people for their future career, but my experience is often that you actually distract people, that you also increase the pressure, because then there is a completely different set of expectations, which can then become problematic in such a relationship of dependency. 

And here you should simply say that if someone supervises a lot of doctorates, you first have to make sure that there aren’t too many. So I sometimes ask myself, what is the maximum number of doctorates you can supervise at the same time? If you have a graduate school like this, that’s something you have to ask yourself so that everyone still benefits from it. And then you also have to give people a bit of support so that they can use sufficient resources to provide good training. Because that is the future of universities and science, that we produce good young talent. And sometimes this is treated a bit neglected in the overall concept of expectations in science. 

Where would you personally see the limit for how many doctoral students you can supervise at the same time? 

Well, I’ve often thought about that and there is even a minimum number, I would say. So I would say that if you only ever have one candidate, that can be problematic because you might become too fixated on them and then people don’t have any colleagues with whom they can exchange ideas. They can also talk about the supervisor, the supervision. I think it’s also important for people to have an environment outside of this relationship with the supervisor where they can talk about the work, but also about the situation. And that’s where three people are really good. And I noticed that when I was supervising more than six doctorates at the same time, it became a bit much. That’s why I would probably say that three to five is a field that you can still manage well. Everything else suffers in terms of supervision.  

How many doctoral students are you currently supervising?  

I currently still have three. This is partly due to the fact that we are now out of DFG funding for our graduate school, where we had twelve doctoral scholarships every year at the beginning or for almost twelve years, with three of them sometimes going to our department, where you were also involved as a first or second supervisor. And this is currently being cut back because the DFG funding has come to an end. And I now have two remaining cases. That sounds a bit negative. In other words, people who are already a bit past the doctoral period, who still want to finish, but who are both already working. And another individual doctorate that is being processed. And the next one will have to wait until after the graduate school. That’s another strategy, looking for funding in order to supervise such projects again. 

How do you think universities can deal with the fact that there are now supervisors who either – which unfortunately also happens – don’t actually fulfill their duties of support and don’t provide assistance or are perhaps even toxic? 

Yes, I think there needs to be massive intervention here. I don’t know how you can introduce such a warning system. Berlin now also has the Dahlem Research School, which mainly looks after doctoral students and programs on how they can be improved. There are also representatives of the doctoral candidates in it and I think that contact options need to be found here so that such candidates can also address problematic supervisory relationships, which can be problematic in very different ways, either you are ignored, exploited or there are other forms of abuse, so that this can be addressed. And then, of course, you would have to have committees that discuss such things and possibly also draw consequences and, in case of doubt, if there are extreme violations of the obligation to supervise, also temporarily restrict the right to award doctorates for certain people or recommend some kind of further training so that such things don’t happen. 

But I think there is a lack of contact persons at the universities for doctoral candidates to exchange ideas in such cases. I think the institution of the Graduate School has actually been a very good step forward here, because it has enabled candidates to exchange ideas with each other. Because sometimes you don’t even realize that you’re in a problematic supervisory relationship if you can’t exchange ideas with others. But if you discuss it with others, and that happens in graduate schools like this, then you’re more likely to have the courage to articulate something. But then of course you also have to do that, because you can’t leave the candidates to find a new supervisor on their own with all the effort and distraction that this entails from the actual doctoral project. So there has to be intensive support from the university.  

Yes, I definitely agree with you and in my experience, it’s often not a lack of contact points, but rather a lack of consequences. I have already conducted an interview for this podcast with the central ombudsperson of the FU and with the women’s representative of a department. And what came out of that was actually rather… Well, they are available as contact persons, for example, but that often nothing happens when a complaint is made and that is of course also a deterrent for future doctoral candidates, other early career researchers, etc., when you see, okay, someone actually complained, but in the end nothing even came of it. 

Exactly, exactly. But sometimes, even if you have the places, many of the candidates don’t even know that they can go there with such problems. You always think that something must have really happened. But there are also more subtle forms in which this support can be exploited, in which people are put under psychological pressure for whatever reason. And then, as I’ve also heard from conversations with doctoral students, they often don’t even know that this is a case that should definitely be discussed with gender officers and ombudspersons. So I think it would be important here, when someone starts a doctorate, to communicate these options openly and perhaps provide addresses and telephone numbers as a kind of handout on who to contact in which cases.  

That was exactly the topic I discussed with the Women’s and Equal Opportunities Officer. We’ve already talked about what constitutes good support and what constitutes less good support. But to come back to this point, good supervision doesn’t just involve the supervisor, but of course also the doctoral student. What is particularly important to you when you talk to potential doctoral candidates and what do you think they should bring to the table, both on a professional level, but perhaps also on a personal or other level?  

That’s a good question. And that’s also something I always try to make clear to people at an early stage in discussions about what it means to write a doctorate. We also have some candidates who ended up at the graduate school, who we got to know beforehand during their studies. Some have even completed a BA, a Master’s degree with us at the Kennedy Institute and then a doctorate, others just a Master’s degree, some come from outside and apply. You have to talk to people early on about what their ideas are, what it means to write a thesis, a doctoral thesis, what they think they need to invest in terms of work.  

So if you write a doctorate, you need over three and a half years, some people need four years, some people only need three years, that’s also possible. You have to be extremely disciplined, but you also have to – and I think it’s very important because most people find this very difficult – be careful not to start exhausting yourself, because sometimes you’re not in any normal context where you’re off work or where you know you have to finish it in 14 days and then you’ve done something and then something new comes along. You have a big project ahead of you and then you think you have to work 24 hours a day. It’s also a discipline to say, I’m not working now. And you have to talk to people at an early stage to discuss strategies for structuring your day so that you can put down the keyboard in the evening with a reasonably good feeling and say, that’s it and now I’m going to do something else. So you have to have the discipline and the sense not to exhaust yourself.  

And what is very important is that people have to work on a topic. A colleague of mine once put it like this: you have to have an inner fire for it. So you have to have a real interest in the topic. If you notice that these individual doctorates, who usually only want a title, come to you and say, yes, I’m a bit interested in this and that area, could you perhaps give me a topic to work on. That’s never a good starting point. So people have to try to come up with their own idea that really interests them and has the nutritional value to feed the candidates intellectually for these three years.  

If that’s not there, then you have to question the whole thing early on. And I think that’s also very important, and that’s more the role of the supervisor again, to tell people honestly quite early on that it might not make sense to go through the three years and waste the time, and then you end up with a degree that doesn’t qualify you to stay in academia or you might not get a degree at all. 

So that’s also something I always do. I observe people very, very closely at the beginning and after six months at the latest, if I think it doesn’t make sense, then I communicate that. These are moments of crisis, of course, and you have to be very sensitive, but I think it’s also fair to the people who invest so much time in working on a project. 

I can hear that you have also done this in the past, that people have suggested that you drop out of the doctorate, right? 

Yes. 

And how was that received? 

It’s usually not well received. Especially when people have already received a scholarship. I had a candidate whose Master’s thesis I supervised and it was a very difficult project, with emotional crises where you had to spend hours in the office providing psychological support because there was such a crisis of meaning. And then there was also a candidate who came back at some point and said, I’ve got it under control now and I’d like to do a doctorate because she was also in a certain context where she would actually have been able to access materials well in terms of the topic, but after just a few months I realized that it would start all over again. Nothing has changed. And I told her that too. And that was very emotional again. But then she realized that too and dropped out of the doctorate. 

And do you know whether she continued elsewhere or actually finished with it? 

No, she’s no longer doing her doctorate. She ended up at an international organization and is now working in the field of human rights policy. 

I also asked so precisely because I could well imagine that if someone tells you that you’re not suitable for a doctorate or that you’re not doing yourself any good by doing so, that this will initially meet with resistance …  

I wouldn’t put it like that either. I think that would be too harsh. I couldn’t do that. Of course, I always say that I try to ask, is that really what you want? And how do you envisage things continuing like this? Don’t you think that this will happen again, especially if you’ve already seen the experience with the Master’s thesis, that it will rob you of the same strength again and then you’ll get people to do it. I would consider it an affront to tell someone that you are not suitable for a doctorate. At that moment, I would also consider my competencies to have been exceeded. Once I’ve accepted someone as a candidate, I can ask whether they really believe they can do it on their own or whether another path might be better. But if they say no, this route is better, then as a supervisor I have to accompany them on the best possible path and hope that I can get them through. Also with further training courses that are offered in the university context.  

I didn’t mean to accuse you of being too direct and you have a sensitive way of approaching the conversation. But I can still imagine that it’s a big shock at first when you’re told that the other person doesn’t necessarily see you where you used to see yourself. 

Yes, that’s right. Yes.  

Do you often receive initial applications from people you don’t even know who would like to do a doctorate with you? 

Yes, we get that quite often because we are also one of the few research and teaching institutes at the FU where everything is done entirely in English. This means that we get an incredible number of unsolicited inquiries from people from all over the world. And you have to take a look at how well-founded the interest really is and also the discussion as to why these people have now asked me. With most things, you can tell from the cover letter that it’s a collective letter and only my name is written at the top and then you ask a few colleagues and then they say yes, I got them all. 

In such cases, I always say no straight away. I also say no to candidates that I don’t know and where it doesn’t fit thematically. For example, if they … I’m mainly responsible for domestic policy in political systems at our institute. I also get a lot of requests from people who want to do something about American foreign policy. And if there’s no justification as to why I’m an excellent supervisor, then I always say no, because for me that’s also a sign that people haven’t really looked into the options for supervisors. But we do get a lot of requests like that. 

And how can I increase my chances there, apart from the things you have already mentioned now? Of course, I should send a cover letter and make it clear in any way why I think you are a suitable supervisor for my doctoral thesis. But will it help if I send you a short exposé? Would you like to have a long, elaborated exposé to see that I have worked my way into it? Or is it really about the topic first and it must be clear why the person is contacting you?  

No, that’s absolutely right. So a brief description of the project, that’s what I need. That’s what most people send. That’s not usually what is lacking. Of course, you can talk about the quality of these proposals, but if someone has just finished their studies and develops an idea like this, then it’s okay if it’s still a bit cloudy. So that’s what I expect. I expect a cover letter that makes the motivation clear. And it shouldn’t contain generalities like „the FU is one of the most prestigious universities and that would be good for my career“. 

But you also have to have dealt with the content a bit, why the institute, the FU, the Kennedy Institute and why I would be suitable as a supervisor now. Then I actually also expect people to have looked into my research a bit, to what extent they can benefit from it. That sometimes happens, motivated students do that. I always find that quite good, because then I can also assess for myself that people have thought about why I should be the supervisor. So this information has to be there and there has to be a project idea that really has the potential to bring something surprising to light or generate something new in terms of knowledge.  

If something is missing from that, then I am always very skeptical and ask again. And I would say that if you then ask so critically why I should supervise it or why the Kennedy Institute is so suitable: In 50 percent of cases, you don’t get an answer at all. And then you also know that it was perhaps a collective email. So it should give the impression that you already have a specific project idea and that people have thought about why I would be a good supervisor.  

Yes, it’s also interesting that when you ask back, that you don’t even get an answer, because people are obviously looking for a job or a place to do a doctorate. 

I would like to come back to the topic of self-exploitation, which you mentioned earlier, because I find this very important in the university context or in the academic world in general. And unfortunately, this self-exploitation and working around the clock is something that is often exemplified by professors. How do you perhaps try to set an example against this? I’m thinking of things like availability outside of working hours or something like that. Do you have certain rules that you perhaps even put into words directly? Or do you behave in a certain way to show your doctoral students how they can or should manage their time? 

Yes, that’s absolutely part of it. I don’t just do that with doctoral students. I also try to make it clear to people on my Bachelor’s and Master’s degree courses that I write directly in my syllabus how they can reach me and that I generally don’t answer emails after 6 p.m. and before 8 a.m. and also don’t answer emails at the weekend. I then tell the doctoral students the same thing, with the exception of course, unless it’s somehow an emergency. And by emergency, of course, I mean that you somehow think … That’s also something that happens very often, that people are in the third year of their doctorate and suddenly find a publication that does something similar. And then the big crisis of meaning begins. So I said that in emergencies like that, where you really have doubts about the project, you can contact me in the evening or at the weekend. 

But like this I also try to signal that scientists are allowed to call it a day. That’s how I try to set an example. I always say quite openly and honestly that I’ll tell people when I’m going on vacation, when I’m not available and that they can still email me if they have any problems, acute problems of course, but otherwise they should leave me alone. And I also try to give people strategies on how to manage to stop working. So what I always tell people, for example, is that they should stop working from late afternoon around 5 or 6 p.m., and of course that also depends on what kind of candidates they are. Of course, I’ve also had PhD students who are night owls, who don’t get up until 11 and work until two in the morning. That’s fine if that’s what they have to do. I don’t want to forbid them to do that.  

But when they finish work, a good tool is always to briefly write down what you’ve done that day, in bullet points. So that you also have some reassurance that it wasn’t wasted time and at the same time to make a note of what you’re planning to do the next day, what the to-dos are, two or three points. Because the moment you’ve done something like that, you can also finish. If you haven’t written it down, then you keep thinking about it. So I try to teach people things like that, techniques like that, so that people have a certain distance from their work. And I think it’s also part of it and that’s why I also said that you often go to the beer garden with a group or have dinner somewhere in a restaurant, that it’s not just the dissertation, but that people also realize that there’s a life besides academia and that you have to set an example for people. 

Yes, I think it’s very important and thank you for sharing this technique, which is almost like a ritual to bring the day to a close and to say goodbye to one day and get in the mood for the next or to make it easier to start the next day. 

We’ve almost reached the end, but I have one more question to pick up on the topic from the beginning. You talked about the fact that doctoral candidates also have very different career aspirations. Let’s assume that someone is aiming for an academic career and wants to become a professor later on. What advice would you give this person? What should they definitely do to ensure they are well positioned? 

Yes, that’s always part of the discussions I usually have after a year of the doctorate, when I also see that people really have the potential. Then I try to make it clear to people that it’s not just a good job, but that you also have to present yourself specifically with this first work in certain scientific communities where you want to be recognized later. That you need to think about this early on. And that is precisely …. I can only speak for political science now, but if you are a political scientist doing a doctorate at the Kennedy Institute, for example, you have to be careful that you are not seen as an Americanist. 

People need to learn early on that they have expertise that is in demand in the scientific field in addition to the topic of North America, which is very prominent here. And you have to think about this at an early stage. Is it party research, is it federalism research, is it certain methodological approaches that you refine and that the USA is then just a case study that is important for the academic profile, but does not offer any future options as a unique selling point. The next question is how and where you have to publish, how many articles should you try to place somewhere during your doctorate, which conferences do you go to in order to form networks, how important are such networks.  

So I try to discuss this with people at an early stage. If they are already reasonably confident in their project, we usually get them to write their first proposal for a conference on a smaller scale, and then I go to the conference with them. Then you go there together, so it’s also a kind of safe space when you present your results for the first time. And then at some point you push them to the big conferences. 

And you have to be careful that it all works, but I’ve only had very good experiences so far. We once had six doctoral students at our institute who applied for such conferences. We always give practice presentations so that they can present their papers in a small setting and then get feedback so that they are more confident when they go out to compete with others for ideas. I think you have to make it clear to people early on what the risks are. What does it mean to live in this postdoc phase with great uncertainty as far as employment prospects are concerned for up to ten years? Some are even longer, having to move from one externally funded project to the next. You also have to prepare people for this so that they don’t enter the academic world with too much idealization.  

That sounds like a wonderful accompaniment and a wonderful introduction to the difficult situations that you are then exposed to. Professor Lammert, I would like to thank you very much for your time and for this interview. 

Yes, of course. 

OUTRO 

This was an interview with Professor Lammert, who won the DRS Supervisor Award in 2023. If you enjoyed this interview, you are also welcome to listen to the other interviews we have already conducted with other award winners. You can also find the link to the Supervisor Award on the website for this episode if you are doing your own doctorate at the FU and have a great supervisor you would like to nominate. 

That was Dr. Marlies Klamt for the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School of Freie Universität Berlin.  

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt

 

To decide whether or not a doctorate is the right choice for you is not easy. This episode is meant to assist you in the decision making process. It will explore the pros and cons of doing a doctorate, what kind of motivation can contribute to a happy and successful journey, and other factors you should take into account.

Highlights

„You won’t be the same person after finishing your doctorate as you have been before“

„A pro and con list alone will most likely not help you make your final decision.“

„Distinguish between what you want and what other people think is good for you.“

„Don’t forget that making a decision can also involve setting conditions or exclusions.“

from our episode with co-host Dr. Marlies Klamt

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful links to this and many more topics.

transcript

1. First question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you enjoy doing scientific work?
2. Second question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you enjoy reading scientific texts?
3. Third question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you enjoy scientific writing?
4. Fourth question. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy doing your master’s thesis?
5. Fifth question, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much of your time and energy are you willing to invest in your doctorate?

Your host for this podcast was Dr. Marlies Klamt

In this episode we talk to Dr. Anselm Spindler, a writing coach and workshop facilitator. He shares tips and ideas for how to manage academic writing, how to deal with common challenges when writing your thesis, and what to do if you get stuck. We also talk about some of the writing events the DRS offers and how they might benefit doctoral students.

Highlights

„….share your writing with more people more often and sooner and use other people’s feedback to work on your text and to reflect your writing. Don’t just sit there and work on your own for a very long time and at some point in the end submit it. But yeah, talk to people about your writing and it doesn’t have to be your supervisor or even an expert from your field. In a sense, it could be anyone and it will be useful for your writing process and for your actual text“

from our interview with Dr. Anselm Spindler

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful links on the subject of today’s podcast and more resources for help during your doctorate here.

transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Amanda Wichert

In this episode, we’ll hear from Anna Figoluschka, Founder Advisor, and Teresa Kollakowski, technology transfer officer at Profund Innovation at the Freie Universität Berlin. Learn what the transfer offices at the university can do for you as a researcher and find out about the benefits of having a chat with the transfer office team even if you don’t already have a clear idea of how to bring your research to the market. We also talk about how fields like social science and humanities can benefit from transfer support at the university. Listen or read the transcript below!

Highlights

„I guess, everyone who is in science or who’s doing his or her PhD right now, at least I imagine, is in science because he or she wants to have an impact. They want to invent something or find out some new things and make the world a better place. I know that’s quite often used phrase. But yeah, if you want to have an impact, society and the market need to know about your results. They have to get out of the drawer next to your desk and come to the public. And so, we will support you with that either in the way of bringing you together with companies or to support you to found your own company.“

from our interview with Profund Innovation

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful links and information on life after the doctorate here.

transcript

I’m so excited to be here today with you guys. I’m going to just ask you to briefly introduce yourselves and tell me a little bit about who you are and why you’re here with us. I’ll start with you.

Teresa: Hello, I’m Teresa Kolakowski, working as technology transfer officer at Freie Universität Berlin at Profund Innovation. I support industry-university collaborations and help researchers to get in contact with enterprises.

Anna: Hello. I’m Anna Figulushka. I’m Founder Advisor at Profund Innovation, Freie Universität Berlin. I’m there for any student or alumni or PhD candidates who would like to find out if they want to found a startup. They can come up to me and I will try to find a funding program or will try to give them advice on a business model.

That sounds very exciting. I want to just start off with this question: What is Profund and what is transfer? What do you do?

Anna: I can start with the Profund Innovation institution. We are there for the transfer of research ideas into society and economy. And to find interesting and good ideas in the university and outside of the university that may be the right ideas to found a company with. So we support any researcher who comes up to us and finds a connection to our own university, to see whether they can found a startup. We are a team of almost eight people that work in different areas of that topic, either innovation management or transfer management or startup support. We have a huge, nice building in Dahlem, close to the Freie Universität, which has 25 offices for startups and labs where researchers can still try to find the right formula for their idea and where we give them support of different kinds: their workshops or coaching or an office space to work together with their team. That’s what we do.

If you guys could maybe just tell me really briefly: What is transfer?

Teresa: So I would say in general transfer means we have knowledge and technology transfer in the meaning of bringing your research results into society and/or the market. That you don’t just stay in your scientific community, scientific bubble, but that you make your knowledge accessible for other persons, for the public, for people like you and me.
That you can do either in the way of working together with other stakeholders or in the way of founding your own company.

I would love to kind of ask you guys how you got into this and I want to start with you, Teresa. How did you get into the topic of working on transfer and why is this an important topic for you?

Teresa: Thanks for that question. Well, in my master’s degree I studied science and technology studies at Humboldt University, which was about scientific results and what we are doing with them. How to generate them and what does science do for society. After that it was quite clear for me to work at a university, at a place where scientific knowledge is produced, where I can work with scientists, researchers.
So I started working as Grant Advisor at Freie Universität four years ago. There I was responsible for the Department of Veterinary Medicine and the Department of Biology, Pharmacy, and Chemistry, and supported the researchers to apply for funding at the DFG Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft or the BMBF Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung for a European grant. All the stuff you can imagine that researchers have to deal with every day. I really liked that job, but I always asked myself what’s happening after that. So you have this three years project and what’s coming next. What do you do with the results? How to get it into society, into the market.
And then I saw this open position at Profund Innovation and thought: Okay, that’s my chance to change the position and support researchers not only with the grants and the basic research, but to also help them to bring their ideas, their results into the society market and do something with it, to have a use case, have an application. Do not just publish it in journals, but bring a product into the market or in the health sector, to do something good for society and heal infections or anything.

Thanks. It’s very important because in our podcast series we’ve talked to a lot of people about the challenges of the academic job market. I really like to bring this idea that there are many ways to have a career even if you go into research. And I think this is a really interesting option for researchers who are thinking about what do I do after my PhD or after my doctorate. So I’d love to hear from you, Anna, as well. What got you into this topic? What made you want to work on this with students at the university?

Anna: Well, I didn’t study at Freie Universität Berlin, but I studied communication design. And I guess that is something that made me, or influenced me in that way that I always thought I want to work on something new or find something new. That’s what designers do. They find and they organize ideas. Sowhat I did afterwards were many steps. I worked at a pharmaceutical company. I worked for an IT service company and I founded three companies as well. The last one was an app and that’s almost six years ago. Since four years I’m at Profund Innovation and I’m supporting startups. Mainly startups coming from Freie Universität. Well, ideas that evolved from research at Freie Universität, but also any others can draw a connection. That is why I’m here and I’m really happy, that it’s such a creative work. Because on the way the idea may change and I’m always happy when it comes to a complete new perspective and to find a niche in the market.

So when we think about transfer in general and this idea of starting a startup, what do you think you would say if there was a researcher, an early career researcher, who says: I see no connection between what I’m doing right now. I’m in a lab. How do I not have any cool ideas. So how is this relevant for me? What would you tell them to help them to understand to come to you guys, or maybe even that it’s worth having a conversation about transfer?

Teresa: Actually, it’s always good having a conversation because we have innovation scouts in our team. They help you to identify the innovation potential and use cases or applications that you might not have in mind because you’re thinking only of your lab or the researchers in your field. Our innovation managers will be happy to invite you for a coffee here, have a conversation, ask you if have you ever imagined that someone from another field could be interested in your results, because maybe it helps them to improve their ideas. And then, yes, sometimes you get new inputs. For instance, we had one researcher from the department of earth science working with dust in the atmosphere. And she always thought: Well, I’m doing basic research and there isn’t any application for that. But with the help of our innovation manager, we identified photovoltaic is quite interesting because the technique doesn’t work if dust is on the PVC. So that’s a use case she never thought of before. And now we think of working together with a company or bringing up a project together.

That’s a fantastic example. I would love to hear if there are any other examples that you guys can think of where people came to you and maybe really had a hard time imagining this connection between startups or developing a cool idea outside of research. And they were able to come out with maybe not even a startup idea, but just a new idea, a benefit to them talking to you guys.

Anna: Yes, I can think of another idea. There was one PhD candidate. She was at the Department of Linguistics at Freie Universität, at the Department of Romanian Philology. She was working on parts of words and found out that the pronunciation in Vietnamese is so very difficult, so different to other languages and it’s so difficult for Vietnamese to learn German. And she developed a way how to teach Vietnamese people to learn German. And then she met her later co-founder. He was a data scientist and he said, „Oh, it’s possible to train an AI on how to learn German and make Vietnamese people learn German quicker.“ And so they worked together and now found a company called Silbi. And they’re training their AI model successfully and now found investors to invest in the company. That’s another example. And, of course, we know many more because there are coming a lot of ideas into our office.

Very cool. Say, I am really new to this idea about coming up with an idea, and I’m not really sure, about how this might work. What process would I go through if I come to you? What might that look like to develop an idea into something long term?

Anna: As Teresa already mentioned, first it is maybe a coffee with the innovation managers on like: Hey, I’m working on a project at the lab or wherever in the university. Then the innovation manager would say: Hey, I’ve got a connection to an existing company, or why don’t you work in the area of renewable energies, for instance? And then, someone would come to me and we could already work on a business case, on a business model. We normally use the business model canvas, which is a training or model to easily evaluate whether your idea does fit into a market. You will find out whether there’s a target group. You will find out what stakeholders are there, which interest groups, and who would pay for the product in the end. What else needs to be done? Does it need development? Maybe a data scientist works on the development of the product or does it need a lab, or is it hardware which you need to be connected to any company in our network? We provide you with all kinds of contacts. We kind of give you homework and meet up again and again until we think: Alright, now it’s a good point to find the matching funding program. And there are quite a few different ones. There are different ones for the transfer part than for the startup part. For instance, for startup ideas there’s the Berlin Startup Stipendium. It’s a program that is for early-stage ideas. When you’ve already found: Yes, there’s the market for my idea. And you know already: Okay, I need to work on a prototype to test it in the market., then the Berlin Startup Stipendium is a really good thing. You get a grant, a stipend for up to four team members for half a year or even for 12 months. That’s around 2,300 euros. You get workshops and a lot of support from us and you get connected to our big ecosystem, which I haven’t mentioned yet. We call it Science and Startup. It’s the ecosystem of all three Berlin universities in cooperation with Charité. And we at Freie Universität Berlin have the healthcare and prevention startups in our cluster. There are two other clusters, which are technologies and materials. That’s of course connected to Technical University. And sustainability and society is connected to Humboldt University. And in cooperation with Charité we do the healthcare part. And then there’s another funding program. It’s called EXIST. There is the EXIST Founders Business Grant, which is a stipend for 12 months, which supports teams for up to three team members with a stipend of up to 3,000 euros for PhDs and material money of 30,000 euros and coaching money of 5,000 euros. And during the projects the teams are always in our house and our startup Villa and/or in other houses of other university and incubators, depending on where they apply. They have an office in the house and get access to all kinds of lab spaces and conference rooms. They get connected with mentors, coaches, and experts.

So it sounds like a lot of possibilities for people who are thinking about this. Do I need business knowledge? Like, do I have to be someone who really feels like an entrepreneur or is it possible to do this if I feel like that I’m not really sure how businessy I am. Or maybe I have one foot still in research and I’m kind of thinking about it.

Anna: Well, I’ve met quite a few researchers who started a business without having done business before. So it’s good if you are driven. I mean, if you’ve got the energy to do it. Because doing or starting a startup is kind of starting anew, like new studies at university. It’s like a whole new thing. And you need to have some energy, but best case is that you wear all hats: You’re the idea giver and you’re the business guy and you know marketing and sales. But that’s not very often the case. More often it is that you find other team members who are experienced in business or sales or marketing and we help find additional team members. It’s possible to post a job offer at the university or at our network and it’s mostly possible to find a person that fits into the team.

It sounds like you really don’t have to be the business person if you want to try this out. And it sounds like you’d be able to test it out a little bit, get to know you guys and you don’t have to decide right away that you want to do a whole startup. So I have a second question. And that would be. Imagine that I get involved and I start developing an idea. Maybe I go all the way through this startup founding or come up with this business idea, but it’s not successful. What benefit do I have as a researcher for trying this out? And maybe I tried out during my PhD or during my early postdoc phase. What is the benefit of it? If I don’t succeed, what do I get out of that?

Anna: Well, in my opinion, it is really like another education that you went through. And like you’ve had an upgrade on your education. That’s an experience that you will always need because you’ve been able to build up a network that you will probably keep for a long time and you will always be able to get back to people you met during starting up a business. And of course, if it didn’t work, maybe you will try again. Because that’s what a lot of people do. They fail once and try it again and do it better the next time. So that is, I think, what you get out of it.

Teresa: I wanted to add, that if you’re more into the transfer perspective from industry-university collaboration then founding your own startup, I guess that it’s quite similar. You get a new network because you will work with the company, you get to know people there, get new insights, also see what kind of jobs are available. Like who’s working in this company? Could I imagine myself working there? So having first contact with them. We also support you going to fairs and present your idea. For instance, we are having your prototype at this fair and then you could also meet new interesting people. Or you go to any network events we organize. For instance, we have Industry on Campus with a focus on green chemistry, where students and researchers from Berlin or any other place are able to meet startups, companies that engage in green chemistry. Just talk to them, get new ideas, new input, and learn something.

Excellent. So it sounds like there’s a possibility not just to start a company, but also to sort of talk to companies that exist to find out a little bit about how I can bring my idea into existing structures? Did I understand that correctly?

Teresa: Exactly. So there are funding programs supporting the cooperation between small and medium enterprises in Germany with universities or research institutions in general. And we’re happy to support those projects. Also, if you don’t know any company working in your field, you can tell us your idea and then we are happy to have a look if we know anyone who’s working in this field. We bring you together, have a meeting and maybe a project arises and then we apply for this funding.

Excellent. So maybe that’s also another option for listeners who are kind of interested in this startup idea, but they’re not really sure if they see themselves starting a whole company. Where they can find out a little bit more about what’s going on in the industry. If they’re not so sure how that might work, or maybe they want to bring an idea.
So you guys also do a couple of other things. You have a lot of services that you already mentioned. Is there anything else that you haven’t talked about that you think that I should know about, if I were doing a PhD at the Freie Universität and I was thinking about transfer in general?

Teresa: We also organize a lot of competitions. For instance, the Research to Market Challenge, where you can submit a short concept note presenting your idea and then, if you are selected, you will get through some workshops, get this knowledge Anna mentioned before, some canvas business model or a pitch training and you will have the chance to develop your idea further with the help of trainers and the help of our grant advisors. Or another competition is Forum Junge Spitzenforschung, which will open a new call this autumn and the topic will be sensors and data generated by them. There you could also hand in your recent research and hope to get funding and workshops with the trainers.

It sounds like there are a lot of opportunities, but it also sounds like something where you could get really important skills, even if you don’t kind of go in this direction, even if you stay in academia. Because pitching your project and being able to get people excited about it, is something that you need to know across the board. So that sounds very cool. So what is the benefit of working with you guys versus just doing this by myself?

Anna: We’ve been in this area since 2006. Profund Innovation and the call to do transfer at university exists since 2006. So there is some experience . And we do see a lot of projects and ideas. So I think we are really a good address to go to as well as the other transfer and startup teams at other universities. So you should really just write us or call us and talk to us if you plan on developing your idea further, or if you just want to find out if this idea is eligible for any funding program. And I wanted to add a service that we offer, or at least a colleague of ours offers. Whenever researchers start, he or she should come up to us, or to our colleague. She does IP management and patent management. So if there’s any issue about where you could find out whether your idea is able to file a patent for or if you want to find out how to protect your IP, you should definitely go to our colleague Dr. Christine Reuter.

Could you tell us a little bit about this IP process and patent process? Like what is important and what are some of the concerns that researchers have when they’re thinking about this process, what might be some of the questions?

Teresa: The biggest concern is „I will lose time“, because a patent isn’t published in a journal, as PhD students or researchers are used to, but there is a different process. So most of the people say, „No, I want to publish it because I want to submit my PhD soon. I want to have the certificate.“, and there we would recommend before publishing, to come to our colleague, Christine to talk to her about your research results. And also the patent process can be quite fast. So after you have talked to her and both of you decided you have a good result, you have something that is worth to go for a patent, then you can submit together with the other persons who were involved in the process of getting this research results, an invention disclosure. After that, Christine and her team will do some research like: Are there other patents in this field? If so, what content do they have? Is your content new enough or different enough to be a new patent? Is there an inventive step in your research results? She always says, research results can be patented if the guy in the lab next door would have never expected this result. If you go to him or her, tell him or her your ideas and he’s like, „Oh, wow. That’s totally new. I would have thought if I put A and B together, it’s C and now you say it’s D. So amazing.“ That’s worth going for a patent. So you submit this invention disclosure to Christine and her team. And after that, they do some research, have talks with our lawyer, the patent lawyer. And after that we will confirm or not confirm to take it. And after that it’s published, I think, 12 months later. But having in mind that also reviews at journals take quite a while. At least in life science I know stories where a paper took two years to be published. So compared to that it’s quite fast. Not slower than a paper, let’s say it this way. And for your track record, a patent counts as a publication. So that’s sometimes important as well.

So if I publish something as a patent, one benefit of doing the patent is that I have a publication basically. What is the other benefit of getting a patent? Like, why do I want one? Why is it important?

Teresa: For most funding agencies, the probability of funding is higher if you have a patent. At least for the funding programs we support at Profund Innovation, which deal with transferring knowledge into industry. There it’s a plus point if you can show I have a patent on that.

I would love to hear from you guys if there are any examples you can share with us. We love all examples, but I would love to hear if there are examples that have a connection to the social sciences, to the humanities, because I think that’s a little bit harder sometimes for people to imagine, you know, how do I fit in here? I think it’s a little easier for life sciences. And I know you guys are specializing in the life science and the health, as you mentioned. But if you have any, and when you’ve heard about it, I would just think it’d be really interesting for our listeners to hear about.

Anna: Yes, we all love to see more ideas evolving from the social sciences. And we are waiting for it patiently, but there are examples at least. Quite a few that are from the Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences at Freie Universität. One, for example, is an app called Aumio, which is the meditation app for kids with ADHD. The founder studied psychology at Freie Universität Berlin and he was an ADHD patient himself when he was a child. And his parents were like: Oh yeah, we don’t make a big topic out of it. Just wait and see until it gets better and so on. But one day he discovered that meditation helped him a lot. So when studying psychology, he did his master thesis about that topic and did quite a few surveys and started to study on that and found out it really, really helps. So, he built up the startup idea and found team members in the business area and design. And designed this beautiful app with meditation, adventurous trips for kids. And came up with funding and made it to the health insurance company. All the big ones from Germany. That’s a well going startup right now. And there’s another idea that evolved also from the psychology department, which is an awesome app for chemotherapy. Normally, when they receive chemotherapy, they have kind of a chain of little beads and they can say: Okay,now I’ve gained another bead and I have chemotherapy one, then there’s the other therapy and I get another bead and so on. They developed an app for that because, of course, kids today find it way cooler to have a digital tool to see their progress. Developing that app, the idea giver did not only study psychology at Freie Universität but she was a nurse before. A children’s nurse at Charité. And she could also find out that of course parents were really kind of feeling helpless, supporting their kids. And then she also developed an app for parents and caregivers. So she made up a lot of content to help caregivers deal with this situation.

That’s a great example of a connection to the social sciences, because I can think of a lot of ideas where people are talking about research, where they’re dealing with, you know, what do people, how do people behave, or what do they do, or what do they need? And I also really like that idea of connecting to a prior career path, because I think it’s easy for a lot of people to think: I’ve done all these different things. How do I put those two things together?

Teresa: Maybe I can add something to that question because it’s not only us hoping for new projects or more projects in the field of social science and humanities, but also the politics are going that way. The Federal Ministry for Research and Education will publish a call for social innovations in October, November. And we will be happy to have some info sessions on that as soon as it is published. I hope to have a lot of applications from Freie Universität.

I have one more question for you, and that is: What have I not asked you that you think that I should ask you? And maybe there’s some questions that people come to you guys with and you really feel like that’s a question that you would love for everyone to have the answer to, because it gets asked so often. Or maybe there’s a question or information that you would love to share. And I’ll ask both of you.

Anna: Yeah, maybe people come up and wonder when is the best time to approach us. It’s always a question. I think we all would say: Whenever you feel like it. Whenever you think you’ve found something that is possibly a good startup idea or that could be interesting for industry partners, just give us a call.

Teresa: And maybe it’s not only the question, „When should I come to you?“, but also, „Why should I come to you?“ And there, I guess, everyone who is in science or who’s doing his or her PhD right now, is in science because he or she wants to have an impact. They want to invent something or find out some new things and make the world a better place. I know that’s a quite often used phrase. But if you want to have an impact, society and the market need to know about your results. They have to get out of the drawer next to your desk and come to the public. And so we will support you with that. Either in the way of bringing you together with companies or to support you to found your own company.

So I just want to thank you guys so much for talking to us today. We’re recording this interview in the fall, but it’s possible that it might not be published for a little while. So for our listeners, you will be able to find information about what is coming up by visiting the links, which we’ll also provide, to the Profund Innovation website. Or by getting in touch with the team at Profund Innovation. Thank you so much.

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Amanda Wichert

Content Advisory: This episode features a discussion of mental health challenges and positive strategies to deal with mental health. There is a very brief mention of suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling with feelings of self-harm or suicidal thoughts, please reach out to the Seelesorge hotline in Germany at 0800 1110 111 or get emergency help by calling 112. Additional resources for mental health are available in the links below.

In this episode, we talk to Sandra Neumann of Scholar Minds about mental health during your doctorate. We’ll discuss how to manage the challenges of doing a doctorate and what strategies exist to help you! We’ll also learn more about Scholar Minds, a ECR-led initiative for mental health during the doctorate, and how you can get involved.

Highlights

„I think the most important message for us to convey is, please don’t [wait to] come to us when you are already suffering. Come to us when you feel like, „Oh, I’m not sure. I think I need, maybe I need to be there in a preventative manner.““

„I think mental health should be, call it however you want to call it, but should be part of a curriculum. It should be […] included in the PhD you’re doing, be it a graduate program that includes fixed courses or when you do an individual PhD“

from our interview with Sandra Neumann

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful resources and more information on this subject here.

Transcript

Please note: This is a machine-generated translation that has been (minimally) edited for readability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity.

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Amanda Wichert

This episode is in German, but you can read an English transcript of this interview at the bottom of the page.

In this episode we talk to Professor Joachim Heberle, Central Ombudsperson for Freie Universität Berlin. He explains what an ombudsperson does, what to do if you are facing a case of academic misconduct, and answers some questions about what types of cases can be supported and how an ombuds process can help you in difficult times. The interview is in German, the English translation can be read under the recording.

Highlights

„It is, I think, fundamentally, always good to seek help. No one should think that they can handle all of these types of things on their own.“

from our interview with Professor Heberle

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Links

Find useful links on the subject of today’s podcast and many more themes that will be covered this season here.

English Transcript

Please note: This is a machine-generated translation that has been (minimally) edited for readability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt

In this episode, we talk with Kirsten Schmiester from the Welcome Service here at the Freie Universität Berlin. We learn about how the Welcome Service team can help international researchers coming to the Freie Universität and the highlights of what you need to know when you arrive in Berlin as an international student. Note: This episode focuses on doctoral students who have employment contracts with the FU Berlin. In an upcoming episode, we’ll hear more about resources and support for international doctoral students who aren’t employed through the university.

Listen below!

Highlights

„… because like we obviously coming from my own experience, I’ve lived abroad, I know what it’s like to start over in a new country, and not really know what’s going on. So we know how valuable it is to have someone who can, a translate things, but then also explain them, and just be able to be like, man, maybe you should do this or that, or just sort of help you along the way“

„… So I think that also just, it’s a big step that you’ve taken moving to a new country. And so be gentle with yourself and take the time. And yeah, acknowledge the magnitude of the step that you’ve taken to move to a different country. Like obviously have fun, but also maybe take a step back at some point and be gentle with yourself.“

from our interview with Kirsten Schmeister

Audio

Download or listen to the audio version of the podcast here.

Video

Note: if the player does not load, you can click here to view the video in a new tab/window.

Links

Find useful links on this and many more subjects here.

Transcript

Hello everyone and welcome! My name is Amanda Wichert and I’ll be your host for this episode of the Dahlem Research School Podcast. In this episode we are going to be talking to Kirsten Schmeister. She is from the welcome service of the Freie Universität Berlin and she’s going to be telling us some tips and important information for international doctoral researchers who are coming to the Freie Universität Berlin from abroad. So I’m really excited to hear what Kirsten has to say – let’s get started!

If you could introduce yourself and tell us your name and a little bit about what you do at the Freie Universität…

Hi, my name is Kirsten Schmeister. I work at the Welcome Service at Freie Universität and we support new staff members while they settle in Germany in Berlin and at our university. And that obviously also includes anyone who’s doing a PhD at who’s also employed.

So I would like to start by asking you a little bit about what you guys offer. So could you tell us a little bit about what services you offer and what you do for incoming new employees?

Yeah. Absolutely. So our service actually starts before you even get to Freie Universität. So what we do is we pull the data of anyone joining Freie Universität from our SAP system and then we send everyone a postcard introducing ourselves, or an email if we don’t have your address. And basically, yeah, introducing ourselves and saying that we’re here to help if you have any issues, even before you arrive in Germany, before you sign your contract, cause that’s obviously when you also already start to compile all of the documents that you need for, visa issues, employment documents, et cetera, et cetera. You might also already wanna start looking for an apartment from abroad.

So those are the services that we already offer before you even get to Berlin. And then once you’re here, we’re happy to answer any questions you might have about the employment documents, because those are usually in German, and sometimes a little bit hard to understand. It’s – it’s a very bureaucratic German, so even for someone who’s native in German, they’re difficult, let alone someone who doesn’t speak German very well. So we do that.

We’re happy to accompany to your, just signing, to when you go and sign your contract. We also offer a lot of information for new staff members on our website. Basically everything you need to know is on there, so that’s always a good place to start as well.

We also have – carrying on from our website – an onboarding platform which is only accessible for staff members. So you would need your FU account to access that, but that has a whole lot more information, a couple of videos where other departments introduce themselves. A campus tour that we filmed, things like that.

And then we also offer our events throughout the year. So we do a big welcoming event, usually every November for new staff members. And then we have several information sessions on any sort of topic. Everything from taxes to welcome in for a PhD student specifically. Everything where we notice that there is a demand and that there’s a lot of questions we try and offer information sessions for. Yeah, so that’s pretty much what we do in a nutshell.

Thank you. My next question is, maybe you could imagine I’m starting at the university. I just got a job. I’m a foreign, or an international, employee, and I’ve just started with a PhD. What steps do I need to take to make sure that my start is smooth?

Okay. That’s a big question because there’s a lot of things that you have to do. So usually what will happen when you join Freie Universität, as a staff member is, at some point, HR will get in touch with you. That’s the first thing that’s going to happen.

They’re going to send you a whole lot of, employment documents that I mentioned earlier, that you need to fill in. Those are usually in German. We’re happy to help you fill them in and to translate. You will, depending on where you’re from, you will need to look into, whether or not you need a visa, and a residence permit.

The best place to start is usually on your country’s German Embassy website, or the DAAD or any kind of service like that offers information on entry requirements into the country. Then once you have your visa issue sorted out, you’ll probably get an appointment at the HR department to sign your contract.

You’ll need to bring along all of the forms that they sent you by that time. It would also be good if you had opened a bank account. Which again, we’re happy to advise you on how to do that. That’s also not super simple when you first arrive because most banks will require you to be registered in Berlin, which is another thing that you need to do when you arrive here, is to register at a district office.

You need to look into getting health insurance, that’s really important as well. But HR will also tell you a little bit more about that and whether you should get a private insurance company or a statutory insurance company. That depends on your salary. And then obviously you need somewhere to live, which unfortunately is a bit difficult in Berlin. But Freie Universität has an accommodation service that can support you depending on your status at the university. And we also have a long list of different websites and portals that you can use when looking for an apartment. So those are the main sort of basic things. You need a visa, you need a contract, you need a roof over your head.

Those are a lot of steps and yeah, from personal experience, Germany can be a bit challenging, but it’s great to have you guys as a service cause that means a lot. You mentioned at the beginning that students are, that new employees with PhD contracts have to get a visa. Do you guys offer service or support if they’re not sure how to do that or with navigating that process?

We do to an extent. So we can basically give you some general information about what, type of different visas and, residence permits are out there. But obviously the visa and residence permit, situation can get quite tricky, quite fast depending on, where you’re from, what you’re going to be doing in Germany.

And then we actually have experts in, Freie Universität’s international division, and the welcome center over there for international guest researchers. And sometimes we would refer you, to our colleagues over there because they just have a lot more in-depth knowledge, about visa issues and residents permits, et cetera.

So when you think about working in Germany, I know you mentioned you had experience, living abroad as well. Yeah. About Germany. What is special about working in Germany when you think about paperwork or what are the things that you think someone really needs to know when they come here and work here?

Maybe two things, maybe one that’s a bit more, negative and one that’s more positive. Obviously the, the negative aspect or I guess, yeah, I guess it’s ah it’s just a bit exhausting really. And maybe unexpected for someone who comes from a country where it’s different. But we do love bureaucracy in Germany and there is a lot of paperwork.

And like actual physical paper, like it’s. We’re not very digitalized, unfortunately. So you will probably have to deal with mountains and mountains of actual physical paper, that you need to fill in. And it does sometimes feel like it’s just a lot, that you need to get through before you can even start your position here.

Like you need the residence permit, you need to be registered. All of those things require you to, make an appointment at the immigration office and at the district office. Both of which. Are difficult to get an appointment right now. So that’s a bit of a challenge. But I think once you’ve navigated that, great job.

So that’s something to be prepared for that there’s going to be a lot of bureaucracy, and a lot of paperwork. But maybe one of the positive things of working in Germany is that, We have a very, solid social security system. I think that’s what a lot of people coming from other countries might not be, aware of and are positively surprised.

Actually like we get 30 days of vacation at Freie Universität which I know for anyone coming from America is insane. You get basically unlimited sick days. You have all these like health insurance obviously, but also pension insurance, accident insurance, unemployment insurance. So Germany really does take care of its workforce very well. And you would also obviously benefit from that when working in Germany.

So I had a question. I was just at the PhD retreat last week, and a couple students asked me, I know you said all this, my professor, can’t he just fire me if he doesn’t like me? They kept telling me, oh, I don’t know. Are you sure? And so maybe you can tell us, if you could tell us a little bit about, how much of a risk do I have to get fired as a PhD student? What if my professor, my supervisor, my PI doesn’t like my work and they just let me go?

This is again, from the perspective of you being an employee and having, a full-time contract with Freie Universität.

It’s very hard to get fired. So the first six months of your, contract are a probationary period where it is easier for your employer to, fire you, but it’s it’s a two-way street. It’s also easier for you to leave the employer. So it’s the first six months where you both get to know each other a little bit better.

But basically after you’ve made it through the first six months, it’s very hard to get fired in Germany. So that’s great news as well.

I wanted to ask you a little bit about, a few more things. When you think about working in Germany. What if I, I don’t have a contract. I don’t have a job contract. Is there a benefit to looking for a paid position, as a PhD student? Versus, not having one, especially as an international student?

Sure. Obviously the financial aspect. Yeah. If you’re just doing a PhD and not, having a job, you might. Depending on your financial situation, it might be a little bit difficult.

Obviously getting a job, working somewhere, would help with that. And like I said, you would benefit from all of the Social security, things that we already talked about. So that would be health insurance and all the other insurances, that you would get when working, at Freie Universität, for instance.

So yeah, really there’s a lot of benefits for getting a job.

Yeah. So when we, think about, working at the university, and I know one of the benefits would probably also be that you get to, benefit from these amazing services that you, you mentioned that there’s a lot of, a lot of different things that you can do.

I wanna go back to this finding an apartment. Let’s talk about that a little bit more because yeah. Big thing, what would you say to somebody who came to you and said, I’m stuck. I don’t have an apartment.

Yeah. The first thing I would do is ask them about their status at the university.

So if you’re, an invited guest researcher who already has a PhD, so that might not be applicable for the group that we’re talking to now, but, you could, contact the accommodation service because that is their target group. And they will actively support you in finding an apartment.

If that’s not, or if you don’t fall into that category, they also have a very long list of websites, and portals and, things that you can use when looking, for an apartment yourself. And the other thing that we always tell people is just word of mouth. Just tell everyone you know, that you’re looking for an apartment.

It’s unfortunately gotten very difficult to find an apartment in Berlin or an affordable apartment in Berlin. You would probably get something that’s, like 1,500 euros a month for one tiny room. Yeah. But, yeah, spread the word. Tell everyone, you know at your department, Even if you’re new, obviously like everyone in Berlin or all the berliners know, that’s very difficult to find an apartment here.

So usually if you have some sort of connection, if someone, someone knows someone who knows someone, so just spread the word and tell everyone you know, that you’re looking for an apartment and just stay persistent. I know it’s hard, but you’ll find something eventually.

Yes, that is the, it’s hard. I know we looked for two, two years and Yeah. And, so one question I get a lot is, what is those WBS or WBS next to the, the apartment listings? Wohnberechtigungsschein. Can you tell us a little bit about what that is?

Yeah, exactly. So the WBS is, stands for Wohnberechtigungsschein which basically means if you have, a fairly low income or there’s certain, like income levels, that you need to prove that you’re below that.

And if you are below that and there’s the calculation’s quite. Tricky and quite complicated. But, on the city of Berlin’s website, there’s a calculator where you can put in all of your different sort of source of income and et cetera, and it will calculate for you whether or not you’re eligible.

And if you are, that would actually be really helpful because there is, there’s a lot of sort of social housing apartments. That you can only get with the WBS Schein. So if you do qualify, that will all of a sudden open up a whole lot more apartments that you can view and then potentially get.

So that’s always worth looking into. And just, even if you’re not sure if you qualify, just do the calculator on the City of Berlin’s website. Have a look at it, and if you do, definitely apply for it.

Thanks. So if you are here at the Freie Universität and you have, kids, and you’re an employee, what kind of services or benefits do you know about? Could you share with our listeners about what they can do, or what they can take advantage of?

Yeah. One thing that’s really popular is the Freie Universität has its own kindergarten.

So you could try and apply for a spot there. Usually, kids of employees are, get preferred access, to spots, so that’s, always a good thing and I guess very convenient to have your kid on campus. If you’re working here. And then there’s also, our colleagues over in the dual career and family service, and they support anyone working Freie Universität with any sort of family issues, with being able to combine your job with your family.

They offer different information sessions as well. So I would definitely recommend checking out their website, seeing what they offer, going to some of their events or taking advantage of their services and their offers.

Thank you. You, we mentioned at the beginning you also have international experience, and I would like to ask you just about your experience, you were abroad.

What should someone do if they’re studying abroad or they’re doing a PhD abroad? What kind of skill, strategies or tools do you have? Tips do you have for them to really have a successful experience?

Yeah, that’s such a great question. So I, I’m German, but I grew up in America and in England, and then I studied in England, and came back to Germany, for when I started working.

I just really benefited from getting to know the local people. I think that was really helpful. So obviously this is a slightly different situation, but when I started college in England, I made sure to sign up for all these. Societies, just try and just get to know a lot of people. Be open for new experiences.

That was really helpful. And also to explore the city. Just, go walk around Berlin, take a look at your new city, at your new home. I think that’s really helpful just to get a bit of your, get your bearings, see where you are, within the city, and get to know people and get to know locals if you can.

I know it’s not very easy sometimes. But try and go to some events. Even Freie Universität events, there’s a lot of, open lectures or talks or readings, that anyone who works here or anyone really, I think they’re open for the general public as well, can go to. So that’s a great place to start, to get to know people and to make your first connections.

Do you have any suggestions on how to get to know Germans? And it’s a really question. The international students always ask me this, how do I meet people who are really German? How can I practice my German, any ideas?

I know it’s difficult, but I think, for, to meet German Germans, I would maybe recommend going through the website meetup.

I think there’s a lot of different, events and groups on there as well. You can join different groups depending on what you’re interested in. Just like from personal experience. There’s different groups that you know, where you just Go to the theater together. That’s really fun. Like I’ve done that a couple of times.

And obviously if you would go to a German play, in that instance you would probably meet some local Germans there. Most Germans actually speak English really well, so you might have to force ‚em to speak German with you. That might be an issue. Yeah. But I think Meetup is a really great website to use, to get to know locals.

Thank you. That’s a great suggestion. I get this question a lot, like how do I connect to people who are here? And you also mentioned that the university has a lot of events. Are there any events that are coming up in the next, I’d say Couple of months. Anything that’ll, that you would say that is definitely don’t miss, event at the Freie Universität.

Obviously I’m gonna take this chance to promote our, So the welcome services, welcome day for international PhD candidates that we have coming up on the 25th of May. So that’s a day where, we’re like half a day, it’s like from nine to three o’clock in the afternoon, that we’ve designed specifically for international PhD candidates.

So we have different, doctoral degree offices coming in to talk about. Sort of the administrative process of doing a PhD, what you need to do, what forms you have to fill in, things like that. We have the international division coming in to talk, about potential or exchanges that you could do while you’re a PhD student.

Colleague of mine from who’s based in the HR department, is going to come and talk a little bit more in detail about working in Germany. Some of the things that we already spoke about earlier, a little bit. So social security, visa issues, things like that. And we also made sure to plan in a lot of networking, time during the day where you can get to know other.

International PhD candidates. So that’s a really fun event that I would definitely recommend. And then we also, run monthly campus tours actually at the welcome service, that are, alternating in English and German. And we really usually get a really nice group together there as well. And there’s also a lot of opportunities.

To chat to other colleagues and get to know them as well and make some connections. So yeah, I think we have the next campus tour coming up on 21st of April. So take a look at our website there as well and join us for a tour, which is also just really fun to get to know the Freie Universität Berlin’s history, if you’re not really familiar with that yet.

It’s a really fascinating and turbulent history. Yeah, so those are my two recommendations.

Would definitely, I feel like maybe I should, take one of those tours someday days.

Kirsten Schmiester: Absolutely. Join us.

Is there anything else that I didn’t ask you that I should have asked you, that you think, would be really, interesting to, to our listeners.

Let me have a think. What else is important? A question. This is very, again, very like bureaucratic, technical, working at Freie Universität information or question, but something that we get asked a lot about a lot, because maybe other countries don’t do this or it’s very confusing when you first start, is that is the V B L supplementary pension, scheme.

That, you automatically get enrolled into when you start a position at any sort of public sector, company or anything, in Germany in the public sector, which may hesitate obviously is. And that’s something that people are tend to be a little bit confused about. And that we, answer a lot of questions about.

So the V B L is a supplementary pension scheme, that you automatically get enrolled into when you start your position here. I think it’s about 1.81% of your gross monthly income that would get deducted and put into the pension scheme and higher annual visit would also pay, their share, or they actually pay more than the 1.81%.

However, and this is something that you should really look into if you’re a scientific employee doing a PhD, and you have a temporary contract that lasts less than five years, see this is very technical. You have the option to opt out of the scheme, and that’s sometimes where it gets a little bit confusing, because people aren’t aware of that.

And then maybe if you’re not planning on staying in Germany for very long, it’s not really worth it. And you’re paying into this pension scheme, that you might never use. So that’s something to keep an eye out. Or maybe you decide it can’t be, it’s not too bad to collect a little bit of extra pension.

But definitely take a look at that when you’re going through your employment documents, and see which option is better for you.

And that sounds like there’s just, that’s kind of Germany, right? There’s a lot of, a lot of rules and yeah. Questions. And I think if we take, one, maybe big takeaway is ask questions, about these Yes.

Things. Cause it sounds like you guys are really great at answering them. And if you don’t know, you know what you’re looking at, you can take it. To you guys, and it sounds like they, you guys will be able to really help them out.

Absolutely. That’s, that’s what we’re here for and that’s what we’re really happy to do.

Because like we obviously like coming from my own experience, like I’ve lived abroad, I know what it’s like to start over in a new country, and not really know what’s going on. So we know how valuable it is to have someone who can, a translate things, but then also explain them, and just be able to be like, man, maybe you should do this or that, or just sort of help you along the way. So absolutely that’s what we’re here for. We’re here to help you translate anything you need translated, but also just any questions that you have. And literally, like any question, nothing is too small or too complicated to ask us, so absolutely feel free.

I’m thinking we probably also have some listeners who are not working at the Freie Universität, but also interested, do you have any resources that you could say, Hey, we maybe can’t help you, but if you have questions, you can go here for people who don’t have a job at the Freie Universität

So I guess that would be if you’re, if you have a scholarship, rather than, a contract, or if you’re just, doing a PhD without any sort of financial funding from the university or any other funding body, definitely contact the Dahlem Research School if you haven’t already.

Their sort of your go-to point for any junior researchers at Freie Universität. Or you could also contact the international division at Freie Universität and they can also help you if you have a scholarship and have questions about that.

Thanks. And, I’ll say, these are, there are lots of questions, a lot of things we didn’t get to.

I’ll say, keep in mind that you can probably also ask your questions about those as you just heard. So I know you studied abroad. If you could time travel back to the beginning of your studies, the very beginning, what would you say to your past self?

What tips do you have for a student that’s starting out?

Oh, wow. That’s a really good question. It’s been a while. What would I tell myself? What would I do? I think, like I talked earlier about, being open for new experiences, and getting to know people, that’s obviously a huge aspect, of, of moving somewhere new. And, obviously like it, we all need social connections and interactions and that’s really important.

But I think going back to when I first started, college in England, it was a lot. And like I didn’t really anticipate the whole culture shock aspect of it all. And I really, I think I was very like harsh on myself because I, it took me a while to actually settle in and not be like, oh my God, what’s going on?

And why is everything so different here from America, even though we speak the same language. So I think also just, it’s a big step that you’ve taken moving to a new country. And so be gentle with yourself and take the time. And yeah, acknowledge the magnitude, of the step that you’ve taken to move to a different country.

Like obviously have fun, but also maybe take a step back at some point and just be gentle with yourself. And if you need some alone time, that’s fine too.

Thank you very much. That’s great advice. So thank you very much.

So you might still have some questions. Maybe you’re an international researcher who isn’t working at the fight when he visited vetting and you thought, wow, that sounds really cool. I would love to be able to take my questions somewhere. What can I do? We’re going to be talking to other experts and upcoming expert.

We’re going to be talking to other experts in upcoming episodes that will focus on things. You can do resources that are available to you. If you are a scholarship holder, or if you’re just an individual student without a contract at the university, where can you go? And what can you do? What do you need to know?

In season two of the podcast, we’ll be talking to experts that have information for you from lots of different areas. And we’ll be talking to other experts on being an international student abroad. In season one of our podcast, which is running at the same time -so it’s a parallel season one season two, they’re just different topics. And in season one, we’ll be continuing our interview series where we talk to people who’ve already completed their doctorate here in Berlin or in Germany. And we’ll ask them some questions about their lessons learned and where they landed and their career experience. And maybe looking back at their doctorate. What would they do differently? And what did they, really love about the experience?

I’d also like to remind you about our workshops series. We have a series of really short workshops, just two hours, two and a half hours. And each of these little workshops are designed to give you some information or to give you a chance to learn some new skills to explore some topics that we’ve been talking about in this podcast series. So we’ll have workshops on navigating challenges in the workplace, on your career, case studies on good science. And lots of other topics that can be really helpful for you. You can join those workshops completely spontaneously. You can find them in Lounjee, which is our conference platform and workshop platform. And you will find a link if you’re not already familiar with that Lounjee platform. In the episode notes. On the Dahlem Research School podcast website or just by sending us an email. If you get stuck, you can ask us, Hey, I can’t find it and we’ll help you out. Thank you so much for being here today for listening to our podcast. If you liked it, we invite you to share it with your friends and your colleagues. And if you have an idea for us, for the future, something you’d like to hear about, send us a message We would love to hear from you. Until next time, have a wonderful rest of your day.

This interview was conducted by the co-host of our podcast Amanda Wichert