Christine Eßmann-Stern, Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer at Freie Universität Berlin’s department of biology, chemistry and pharmacy, reports on her work combatting cases of power abuse at the university workplace.

If you are seeking help for such cases, contact FUB’s Central Gender Equality Office Team geschlechter*gerecht or the Equality Officer at your department.

Audio

This interview was conducted in August 2024.

Highlights

„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.“

-from our interview with Ms. Eßmann-Stern

SUMMARY

[Note: This interview was conducted in German. You can find a full English translation here.]

English:

In this episode, Christine Eßmann-Stern, Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer at Freie Universität Berlin’s department of Biology, Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, discusses the difficulties faced by academic staff, including issues like discrimination and bullying by supervisors. Many doctoral researchers depend on their supervisors for guidance, which creates fear around reporting misconduct. While Ms. Eßmann-Stern provides a safe space for discussing such experiences, she notes that fully successful resolutions are rare, even when reporting to higher authorities.

Ms. Eßmann-Stern expresses concern over the lack of accountability for professors who supervise their students poorly. She advocates for faculty training programs to address these challenges. She calls for more prompt action against repeat offenders in academic misconduct and stresses that accountability should start at the top of the management hierarchy. She believes that doctoral researchers need better guidance concerning their rights and obligations at the beginning of their programs, for example through organized discussions to raise awareness and a handbook with essential information, including emergency contacts and support resources.

Ms. Eßmann-Stern highlights the value of the FUB Graduate Center for Natural Sciences, as it provides advice and coaching for doctoral candidates; however, many are unaware of its existence. She calls for clearer communication and transparency within the university, especially since many doctoral candidates are overwhelmed with their research and personal lives.

She aims to continue to address issues that remain unresolved, support funding for students‘ needs, and help ensure a fair and supportive environment at the university.

German:

In dieser Folge spricht Christine Eßmann-Stern, Frauen- und Gleichstellungsbeauftragte am Fachbereich Biologie, Chemie und Pharmazie der Freien Universität Berlin, über die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen Wissenschaftliche Beschäftigte konfrontiert sind – darunter Probleme wie Diskriminierung und Mobbing durch Vorgesetzte. Viele Promovierende sind bei der Betreuung auf ihre Vorgesetzten angewiesen, was die Angst schürt, Fehlverhalten zu melden. Zwar bietet Frau Eßmann-Stern einen geschützten Raum, um solche Erfahrungen zu besprechen, doch sie weist darauf hin, dass wirklich erfolgreiche Lösungen selbst bei Meldungen an höhere Stellen selten sind.

Frau Eßmann-Stern äußert sich besorgt darüber, dass Professor:innen, die ihre Promovierenden unzureichend betreuen, kaum zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Sie plädiert für Schulungsprogramme für das Lehrpersonal, um diesen Herausforderungen zu begegnen. Außerdem fordert sie ein rascheres Vorgehen gegen Wiederholungstäter:innen bei wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten und betont, dass die Verantwortlichkeit an der Spitze der Führungshierarchie beginnen müsse. Ihrer Ansicht nach benötigen Promovierende bereits zu Beginn ihrer Promotion eine bessere Aufklärung über ihre Rechte und Pflichten – etwa durch organisierte Gespräche zur Sensibilisierung und durch ein Handbuch mit wichtigen Informationen, einschließlich Notfallkontakten und Unterstützungsangeboten.

Frau Eßmann-Stern hebt die Bedeutung des FUB-Graduiertenzentrums für Naturwissenschaften hervor, da es Beratung und Coaching für Promovierende anbietet; vielen ist dessen Existenz jedoch nicht bekannt. Sie fordert eine klarere Kommunikation und mehr Transparenz innerhalb der Universität, insbesondere da viele Promovierende durch ihre Forschung und ihr Privatleben stark belastet sind.

Ihr Ziel ist es, sich weiterhin für ungelöste Probleme einzusetzen, die Finanzierung für Promovierende zu unterstützen und zu einem fairen und unterstützenden Umfeld an der Universität beizutragen.

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.

Audio

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

This interview was conducted in June 2024.

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

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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in February 2024.

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 Dr. Marlies Klamt

SUMMARY

English:

In this episode, PhD coach Dr. Marlies Klamt gives you advice on how to figure out whether pursuing a doctorate is the right choice for you. She highlights the importance of aligning this decision with personal traits and future goals, and reviews both the benefits and drawbacks of obtaining a PhD, focusing on motivations for pursuing it.

First, Dr. Klamt points out the challenges of a doctorate, which include a large time commitment that often requires personal sacrifices and can reduce leisure time. Financial concerns are also significant, as many non-academic jobs offer better pay, and funding for doctoral studies can be competitive. Students who move away from family and friends for their PhD can also be affected by isolation. Overall, Dr. Klamt points out that the process can be tough and filled with self-doubt, although support systems are available.

On the positive side, earning a doctorate is rewarding: it provides new insights and contributes to knowledge. Dr. Klamt notes that a passion for scientific work and writing can make the journey enjoyable and that a doctorate often opens doors to better job opportunities, which usually come with higher pay. During a doctorate, you also gain important soft skills like critical thinking and communication. All of this contributes to personal growth and enhanced self-confidence.

Dr. Klamt emphasizes the need to evaluate personal motivation for pursuing a doctorate, suggesting a motivation check with five questions related to scientific work and past experiences. She encourages deep reflection on the personal reasons versus the external expectations of everyone who is thinking about pursuing a doctorate.

Lastly, Dr. Klamt provides further topics to look into before you make your choice, mainly funding options, PhD prerequisites, different doctoral paths, possible dissertation topics, and alternatives to a doctorate. She points out the importance of making an informed choice, since this decision greatly affects your future.

[see the full transcript of the episode here]

German:

In dieser Folge gibt die PhD Coach Dr. Marlies Klamt Ratschläge, wie Sie herausfinden können, ob eine Promotion die richtige Wahl für Sie ist. Sie betont, wie wichtig es ist, diese Entscheidung mit persönlichen Eigenschaften und Zielen für die Zukunft in Einklang zu bringen, und beleuchtet sowohl die Vor- als auch die Nachteile einer Promotion. Dabei geht sie besonders auf die Beweggründe für dieses Vorhaben ein.

Zunächst weist Dr. Klamt auf die Herausforderungen einer Promotion hin, zu denen ein erheblicher Zeitaufwand gehört; dieser erfordert oft persönliche Opfer und kann die Freizeit einschränken. Auch finanzielle Aspekte spielen eine wichtige Rolle, da viele Stellen außerhalb der Wissenschaft besser bezahlt werden und die Finanzierung einer Promotion hart umkämpft sein kann. Zudem können sich Promovierende, die für ihr Studium von Familie und Freunden wegziehen, isoliert fühlen. Insgesamt macht Dr. Klamt deutlich, dass der Weg zur Promotion beschwerlich sein und von Selbstzweifeln begleitet werden kann, auch wenn Unterstützungsangebote zur Verfügung stehen.

Auf der positiven Seite ist die Promotion eine lohnende Erfahrung: Sie eröffnet neue Erkenntnisse und leistet einen Beitrag zum wissenschaftlichen Wissen. Dr. Klamt merkt an, dass Begeisterung für wissenschaftliches Arbeiten und Schreiben den Prozess bereichern kann und dass eine Promotion oft Türen zu besseren Karrieremöglichkeiten öffnet, die meist mit einer höheren Vergütung einhergehen. Während der Promotion werden zudem wichtige Kompetenzen wie kritisches Denken und Kommunikationsfähigkeit erworben. All dies trägt zur persönlichen Weiterentwicklung und zu einem gestärkten Selbstvertrauen bei.

Dr. Klamt unterstreicht, wie wichtig es ist, die eigene Motivation für eine Promotion zu hinterfragen, und schlägt hierfür einen „Motivationscheck“ mit fünf Fragen zu wissenschaftlicher Arbeit und bisherigen Erfahrungen vor. Sie ermutigt alle, die eine Promotion in Erwägung ziehen, sich intensiv mit ihren persönlichen Beweggründen im Vergleich zu externen Erwartungen auseinanderzusetzen.

Abschließend nennt Dr. Klamt weitere Themen, mit denen man sich vor der Entscheidung befassen sollte: Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten, Voraussetzungen für die Promotion, verschiedene Promotionswege, mögliche Dissertationsthemen sowie Alternativen zur Promotion. Sie weist darauf hin, wie wichtig eine fundierte Entscheidung ist, da diese einen großen Einfluss auf die eigene Zukunft hat.

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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in February 2024.

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

SUMMARY

English:

In this episode, Dr. Anselm Spindler talks about his experiences with coaching PhD students in academic writing. He identifies the main challenges students face, for example feeling stuck due to time management issues and fear of judgement. Anselm believes writing a dissertation is both an academic task and a personal challenge. He urges students to talk about their writing difficulties with others to find solutions. In his workshops, he fosters a supportive atmosphere where students can assist each other, and helps them overcome challenges like writer’s block.

He has introduced a „writing week“ for students to focus solely on their writing, and overall recommends joining writing groups or setting specific personal writing times for better commitment. Anselm also suggests creative writing exercises to make academic writing enjoyable and points out that drafting ideas before writing can relieve stress and enhance creativity. He also discusses digital tools: He advises selecting tools that meet individual needs and compares the benefits of handwriting and digital writing. He warns that not all tools are beneficial for every student or every type of text, emphasizing careful consideration in their use.

Participants often leave his workshops with specific techniques or tools they’ve found helpful, expressing renewed motivation. Anselm encourages sharing one’s writing with others early in the writing process and using their feedback to improve it, rather than waiting until the deadline.

[see the full transcript of the episode here]

German:

In dieser Folge spricht Dr. Anselm Spindler über seine Erfahrungen bei der Betreuung von Promovierenden im Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Er benennt die zentralen Herausforderungen, mit denen Studierende und Promovierende konfrontiert sind – etwa das Gefühl des Feststeckens aufgrund von Zeitmanagementproblemen oder die Angst vor negativer Bewertung. Für Anselm ist das Verfassen einer Dissertation sowohl eine wissenschaftliche Aufgabe als auch eine persönliche Herausforderung. Er ermutigt die Schreibenden, über ihre Schreibschwierigkeiten zu sprechen, um gemeinsam Lösungen zu finden. In seinen Workshops schafft er eine unterstützende Atmosphäre, in der sich die Teilnehmenden gegenseitig helfen können, und unterstützt sie dabei, Hürden wie Schreibblockaden zu überwinden.

Er hat eine „Schreibwoche“ ins Leben gerufen, die es den Teilnehmenden ermöglicht, sich voll und ganz auf das Schreiben zu konzentrieren; zudem empfiehlt er generell den Beitritt zu Schreibgruppen oder die Festlegung persönlicher Schreibzeiten, um die Verbindlichkeit zu erhöhen. Anselm schlägt zudem Übungen in kreativem Schreiben vor, um das wissenschaftliche Schreiben angenehmer zu gestalten, und weist darauf hin, dass das Skizzieren von Ideen vor dem eigentlichen Schreiben Stress abbauen und die Kreativität fördern kann. Auch digitale Werkzeuge kommen zur Sprache: Er rät dazu, Tools auszuwählen, die den individuellen Bedürfnissen entsprechen, und vergleicht die Vor- und Nachteile von handschriftlichem und digitalem Schreiben. Er warnt davor, dass nicht jedes Werkzeug für jede:n Schreibende:n oder jede Textart geeignet ist, und betont, wie wichtig eine sorgfältige Auswahl ist.

Die Teilnehmenden verlassen seine Workshops oft mit konkreten Techniken oder Hilfsmitteln, die sie als nützlich empfunden haben, und berichten von neuer Motivation. Anselm ermutigt dazu, eigene Texte schon früh im Schreibprozess mit anderen zu teilen und deren Feedback zur Verbesserung zu nutzen, anstatt bis zur Abgabefrist zu warten.

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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in February 2024.

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

SUMMARY

English:

In this episode, founder advisor Anna Figoluschka and Teresa Kollakowski, technology transfer officer at Profund Innovation at Freie Universität Berlin, talk about their support for startups. Teresa connects researchers with industry partners, while Anna helps students and PhD candidates find funding and develop business models. They stress the importance of transforming research into practical solutions and collaborating with various stakeholders, and overall encourage PhD graduates to look for career options beyond traditional academia.

To assist researchers who are unsure about their startup ideas, Teresa and Anna recommend consulting innovation scouts for potential applications, outline steps for business idea development and emphasize the potential gains from pursuing startup ideas despite risks. They share a few success stories, including one of a researcher who integrated earth science with photovoltaic technology, and discuss opportunities like industry fairs and the Research to Market Challenge to help researchers enhance their skills.

The conversation also covers the patent process, addressing common concerns like the timing of publishing research. Teresa and Anna encourage researchers to reach out to them if they feel they have a promising idea and emphasize the need to share researchers’ work with society.

[see the full transcript of the episode here]

German:

In dieser Folge sprechen die Gründerberaterin Anna Figoluschka und Teresa Kollakowski, Referentin für Technologietransfer bei Profund Innovation an der Freien Universität Berlin, über ihre Unterstützung für Start-ups. Teresa vernetzt Forschende mit Industriepartnern, während Anna Studierende und Promovierende dabei unterstützt, Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten zu finden und Geschäftsmodelle zu entwickeln. Sie betonen, wie wichtig es ist, Forschungsergebnisse in praxisnahe Lösungen zu überführen und mit verschiedenen Akteuren zusammenzuarbeiten; zudem ermutigen sie Promovierte dazu, auch Karrierewege außerhalb des klassischen Wissenschaftsbetriebs in Betracht zu ziehen.

Um Forschende zu unterstützen, die sich bei ihren Start-up-Ideen noch unsicher sind, raten Teresa und Anna dazu, sich bezüglich möglicher Anwendungsbereiche an Innovationsscouts zu wenden. Sie skizzieren die Schritte zur Entwicklung einer Geschäftsidee und heben die Chancen hervor, die sich aus der Verfolgung einer Start-up-Idee trotz bestehender Risiken ergeben können. Sie berichten von Erfolgsgeschichten – etwa von einem Forschenden, der Geowissenschaften mit Photovoltaik-Technologie verknüpfte – und stellen Möglichkeiten wie Industriemessen oder die „Research to Market Challenge“ vor, durch die Forschende ihre Kompetenzen erweitern können.

Auch das Patentverfahren kommt zur Sprache, wobei häufige Bedenken – etwa hinsichtlich des Zeitpunkts von Forschungspublikationen – thematisiert werden. Teresa und Anna ermutigen Forschende, bei vielversprechenden Ideen Kontakt zu ihnen aufzunehmen, und unterstreichen, wie wichtig es ist, die eigene Forschungsarbeit mit der Gesellschaft zu teilen.

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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in June 2023.

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

SUMMARY

English:

In this episode, Sandra Neumann, a doctoral candidate and co-founder of Scholar Minds, discusses the organization’s mission to aid early career researchers facing mental health issues, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scholar Minds is a nonprofit focused on raising mental health awareness through events and discussions and advocates for changes in academic institutions.

Sandra shares survey findings indicating that 50% of PhD candidates have reported mental health disorders, with many feeling dissatisfied with their PhD training, especially during the pandemic. She notes the ways in which many students experience great stress and feel reluctant to seek help for fear of appearing weak. Sandra encourages finding trustworthy peers to talk about mental health and underscores the importance of support.

Scholar Minds offers mental health toolkits for groups and especially graduate schools, centered on coping with issues like imposter syndrome, setting PhD goals, and recognizing signs of depression and anxiety. The organization aims to promote preventive measures to help individuals before crises arise. Additionally, Sandra suggests ways to discuss mental health interventions with supervisors and encourages successful academics to share personal struggle and failures to foster a supportive environment.

Sandra argues that mental health support should be part of the PhD curriculum and advocates for regular counseling to check on student well-being, as proactive mental health monitoring can greatly benefit PhD candidates.

She concludes by highlighting that mental health, like physical health, should be a regular focus rather than addressed only when issues arise. She advises prioritizing self-care and managing expectations to relieve stress, emphasizing the importance of understanding what is within one’s control during the PhD journey.

[see the full transcript of the episode here]

German:

In dieser Folge spricht Sandra Neumann, Doktorandin und Mitbegründerin von Scholar Minds, über das Ziel der Organisation, Nachwuchswissenschaftler:innen bei psychischen Problemen zu unterstützen – insbesondere während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Scholar Minds ist eine gemeinnützige Organisation, die durch Veranstaltungen und Gespräche das Bewusstsein für psychische Gesundheit schärft und sich für Veränderungen an akademischen Einrichtungen einsetzt.

Sandra erläutert Umfrageergebnisse, laut denen 50 % der teilnehmenden Doktorand:innen von psychischen Problemen berichten; viele sind mit ihrer Promotionszeit unzufrieden, besonders während der Pandemie. Sie weist darauf hin, dass viele unter starkem Stress stehen und zögern, sich Hilfe zu suchen aus Angst, schwach zu wirken. Sandra ermutigt dazu, sich mit vertrauenswürdigen Kolleg:innen über psychische Gesundheit auszutauschen, und unterstreicht die Bedeutsamkeit von Unterstützung.

Scholar Minds bietet Toolkits zum Thema psychische Gesundheit für Gruppen und insbesondere für Graduiertenschulen an. Diese behandeln Themen wie das Hochstapler-Syndrom (Imposter-Syndrom), das Setzen von Zielen für die Promotion sowie das Erkennen von Anzeichen für Depressionen und Angstzustände. Ziel der Organisation ist es, präventive Maßnahmen zu fördern, um Einzelpersonen zu helfen, bevor Krisen entstehen. Zudem gibt Sandra Tipps, wie man das Thema psychische Gesundheit bei Betreuer:innen ansprechen kann, und ermutigt erfolgreiche Wissenschaftler:innen dazu, über eigene Schwierigkeiten und Misserfolge zu sprechen, um ein unterstützendes Umfeld zu schaffen.

Sandra plädiert dafür, Unterstützung für die psychische Gesundheit fest in Promotionsprogramme zu integrieren, und setzt sich für regelmäßige Beratungsangebote zum Wohlbefinden der Doktorand:innen ein, da ein proaktives Monitoring der psychischen Gesundheit ihnen erheblich zugutekommen kann.

Abschließend betont sie, dass die psychische Gesundheit – ebenso wie die körperliche – regelmäßig im Fokus stehen sollte, anstatt sie erst dann zu thematisieren, wenn bereits Probleme aufgetreten sind. Sie rät dazu, Selbstfürsorge und den Umgang mit Erwartungen zur Stressbewältigung in den Vordergrund zu stellen, und hebt hervor, wie wichtig es ist, während der Promotionszeit zu verstehen, worauf man selbst Einfluss nehmen kann.

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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in May 2023.

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

SUMMARY

[Note: This interview was conducted in German. You can find a full English translation here.]

English:

In this episode, Professor Joachim Heberle, physics professor and central ombudsperson at Freie Universität Berlin, discusses the ombudsperson’s role in helping resolve conflicts, for example between students and supervisors in academia. The ombudsperson mediates disputes, particularly around authorship in collaborative research, and promotes early resolution through communication and confidential discussions.

Prof. Heberle shares an example of the harmful effects of unresolved conflicts, and emphasizes that compromises are often needed, although they may not fully please everyone. While it is encouraged to seek personal and academic support, some issues, especially those related to labor law, require legal advice instead.

To prevent issues, he stresses the need for good supervisor relationships with doctoral students. Prof. Heberle also states that Germany is overall well-positioned in terms of scientific integrity but acknowledges areas for improvement. He highlights the need to raise student awareness of scientific integrity to teach students about good scientific practices early on. 

Prof. Heberle explains how to contact an ombudsperson at FUB, noting that each department has its own ombudspersons for specific cases and that individuals can reach out anonymously, although revealing one’s identity eventually is encouraged for fairness. He views his role as ombudsperson as essential to maintaining scientific integrity and shares a personal experience involving support he received during a challenging situation earlier in his career. He encourages doctoral students to take advantage of available resources, such as the networking opportunities and workshops organised by the Dahlem Research School.

German:

In dieser Folge erörtert Professor Joachim Heberle, Physikprofessor und zentrale Ombudsperson der Freien Universität Berlin, die Rolle der Ombudsperson bei der Beilegung von Konflikten, unter anderem zwischen Promovierenden und Betreuenden im akademischen Umfeld. Die Ombudsperson vermittelt bei Streitigkeiten – insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit der Autorenschaft bei gemeinsamer Forschung – und fördert eine frühzeitige Lösung durch Kommunikation und vertrauliche Gespräche.

Prof. Heberle schildert die negativen Auswirkungen ungelöster Konflikte und betont, dass häufig Kompromisse erforderlich sind, auch wenn diese nicht allen Beteiligten vollauf gerecht werden. Zwar wird dazu ermutigt, persönliche und akademische Unterstützung in Anspruch zu nehmen, aber manche Angelegenheiten – insbesondere arbeitsrechtliche Fragen – erfordern stattdessen juristischen Rat.

Um Problemen vorzubeugen, unterstreicht er die Bedeutung eines guten Verhältnisses zwischen Betreuenden und Promovierenden. Prof. Heberle stellt zudem fest, dass Deutschland im Hinblick auf wissenschaftliche Integrität insgesamt gut aufgestellt ist, räumt jedoch ein, dass es noch Verbesserungspotenzial gibt. Er hebt hervor, wie wichtig es ist, das Bewusstsein von Studierenden für wissenschaftliche Integrität zu schärfen und ihnen frühzeitig gute wissenschaftliche Praxis zu vermitteln.

Prof. Heberle erläutert, wie man Kontakt zu einer Ombudsperson an der Freien Universität Berlin aufnehmen kann; dabei weist er darauf hin, dass jeder Fachbereich über eigene Ombudspersonen für spezifische Fälle verfügt und eine Kontaktaufnahme auch anonym erfolgen kann, wenngleich die Offenlegung der Identität im Sinne der Fairness begrüßt wird. Er betrachtet seine Rolle als Ombudsperson als essenziell für die Wahrung wissenschaftlicher Integrität und berichtet von einer persönlichen Erfahrung, bei der er in einer schwierigen Phase seiner frühen Laufbahn Unterstützung erhielt. Er ermutigt Promovierende, die verfügbaren Angebote zu nutzen, wie etwa die von der Dahlem Research School organisierten Vernetzungsmöglichkeiten und Workshops.

In this episode, we talk with the Welcome Service here at the Freie Universität Berlin. We learn about how the Welcome Service team can help researchers coming to the Freie Universität and what you need to know when you arrive in Berlin as an international researcher. Note: This episode focusses 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.

Audio

This interview was conducted in April 2023.

Highlights

„… because like 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 Schmiester

SUMMARY

English:

In this episode, we spoke with Kirsten Schmiester from the Welcome Service at Freie Universität Berlin. Kirsten shares helpful advice for international doctoral researchers who are beginning their journey at FUB and explains how the Welcome Service helps them in their transition to life in Berlin. 

She explains that their support starts even before your arrival in Germany, as they can assist with complicated visa and job paperwork. Once you arrive, the Welcome Service helps with understanding employment documents, which are often in German. They also offer various resources such as campus tours, an onboarding platform with videos, and different events for orientation, advice and networking.

Kirsten outlines key steps for those who have just arrived, such as filling out employment documents, checking visa requirements, and signing contracts. She recommends opening a German bank account, registering at a district office, and obtaining health insurance as early as possible. Finding housing can be challenging in Berlin, but the university provides some accommodation services and housing resources. In regard to social life, Kirsten encourages newcomers to connect with locals, join clubs and societies, and explore the city, suggesting the use of specific websites for language practice and group activities.

Kirsten points out the complicated nature of German paperwork, but highlights the advantages of the country’s strong social security system, which includes generous vacation, sick leave, and various insurance types. She reassures that job security is substantial after the six-month probation period and emphasizes the necessity of having a job during doctoral studies for financial security. Additionally, she explains the VBL supplementary pension scheme. 

Finally, Kirsten emphasizes the importance of asking questions regarding all these matters and offers resources for those not affiliated with the university.

[see the full transcript of the episode here]

German:

In dieser Folge haben wir mit Kirsten Schmiester vom Welcome Service der Freien Universität Berlin gesprochen. Kirsten gibt hilfreiche Ratschläge für internationale Promovierende, die ihren Aufenthalt an der FU Berlin beginnen, und erläutert, wie der Welcome Service sie bei der Eingewöhnung in Berlin unterstützt.

Sie erklärt, dass die Unterstützung bereits vor der Ankunft in Deutschland beginnt, etwa bei komplizierten Formalitäten rund um Visum und Arbeitsvertrag. Nach der Ankunft hilft der Welcome Service, sich in den oft auf Deutsch verfassten Arbeitsunterlagen zurechtzufinden. Zudem stellen sie verschiedene Angebote bereit, darunter Campusführungen, eine Onboarding-Plattform mit Videos sowie diverse Veranstaltungen zur Orientierung, Beratung und Vernetzung.

Kirsten nennt wichtige Schritte für neu angereiste Promovierende, etwa das Ausfüllen von Arbeitsunterlagen, die Prüfung der Visabestimmungen und die Unterzeichnung von Verträgen. Sie empfiehlt, so früh wie möglich ein deutsches Bankkonto zu eröffnen, sich beim Bürgeramt anzumelden und eine Krankenversicherung abzuschließen. Die Wohnungssuche in Berlin kann eine Herausforderung darstellen, aber die Universität bietet Unterstützung und Informationen zu Wohnmöglichkeiten an. Was das soziale Leben betrifft, ermutigt Kirsten die Neuankömmlinge dazu, Kontakte zu Einheimischen zu knüpfen, Vereinen oder Gruppen beizutreten und die Stadt zu erkunden; hierfür empfiehlt sie spezielle Websites für Sprachpraxis und Gruppenaktivitäten.

Kirsten weist auf die Komplexität deutscher Behördenangelegenheiten hin, hebt aber gleichzeitig die Vorteile des starken sozialen Sicherungssystems hervor, das unter anderem großzügige Urlaubs- und Krankheitsregelungen sowie verschiedene Versicherungsleistungen umfasst. Sie betont die hohe Arbeitsplatzsicherheit nach der sechsmonatigen Probezeit und unterstreicht, wie wichtig eine Anstellung während der Promotion für die finanzielle Absicherung ist. Zudem erläutert sie das Zusatzversorgungssystem der VBL.

Abschließend betont Kirsten, wie wichtig es ist, Fragen zu all diesen Themen zu stellen, und verweist auf Informationsangebote für Personen, die nicht direkt an der Universität tätig sind.