Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, philosopher and trainer in research ethics, discusses supervision and power dynamics during doctoral studies: how communication manifests as a tool of power, the role of dependencies and unspoken expectations, and why a lack of feedback or implicit task assignments are more than just harmless communication problems. The conversation also addresses the responsibilities of supervisors, how doctoral candidates can strengthen their agency, and why solidarity and exchange are crucial antidotes to feelings of powerlessness.

audio

Highlights

„It’s often said that abuse of power always occurs within a system that somehow enables it. And if we look at universities and colleges, then these strong formal hierarchies, which are linked to dependencies, certainly facilitate this. Yes, the fact that certain individuals are endowed with so much more power and are so difficult to challenge. Once you have a tenured professorship, you can, to put it somewhat bluntly, do pretty much whatever you want.“

– Dr. Elisabeth Zscache

Transcript

Intro

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

Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes gladly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re welcome. Thank you for the conversation.

Outro

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

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

Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, philosopher and trainer in scientific ethics, discusses power relations in science: who gains access, whose topics are promoted, and how dependencies, hierarchies, and precarious employment shape everyday research life. In this conversation, she explains why structural changes can only succeed if scientists organize themselves and reflect on privileges.

Audio

Highlights

„Overall, these hierarchies need to be addressed. Universities and colleges are simply very hierarchical systems. We know that hierarchical systems are very susceptible to abuse of power on so many levels. And the problem becomes even more acute when the institution fails to address it.“

– Dr. Elisabeth Zschache, trainer in scientific ethics

Transcript

Intro

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

Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can perhaps illustrate this with two examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hm, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I always say: folks, get organized!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have perhaps two more things to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thank you for the interview.

Outro

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

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

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

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

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

Counsellor Wendy Stollberg, central contact person for cases of sexualized harassment, discrimination, and violence at Freie Universität Berlin, shares her insights into the challenges doctoral researchers may face in this context. In this interview, she explains her role, the confidential support she offers, and how affected individuals can seek help — whether they’re unsure about what happened, want to address structural problems, or simply need someone to talk to.

Contact via email: no-means-no@fu-berlin.de or phone: +49 30 838 54970

Audio

Highlights

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

Wendy Stollberg, Central Contact person for cases of sexualized harassment, discrimination, and violance at Freie Universität Berlin

Links

Useful links on this subject and other situations that might arise during your doctorate can be found here.

Transcript

Intro

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

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

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

Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you wouldn’t talk to the aggressor directly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My pleasure. Thank you.

outro

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

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

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

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

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

For this episode, we have interviewed Indira Chue from the University Library of Freie Universität Berlin about the procedure of publishing and potential challenges that might arise when publishing your dissertation.

Audio

HIghlights

Indira Chue, Hochschulsschriftenstelle (HSS) der Freie Universität Berlin

Links

Transcript

In this interview we talk with Marie-Claire Steinkraus, doctoral researcher and research assistant at the University of Saarland, about changing universities for your doctorate.

audio

Highlights

Marie-Claire Steinkraus, research assistant at the University of Saarland

Links

Transcript

Alina Franziska Becker, doctoral candidate and long-standing member of ArbeiterKind.de, discusses financial barriers and social differences during the doctorate. In this interview, she shares her experiences on how background and money influence the decision to pursue a doctorate – and what support first-generation doctoral candidates need to successfully pursue their path. Find additional links to help you get started with your doctorate here.

Audio

highlights

„For someone who is a first-generation academic and perhaps also has care responsibilities, it’s not so easy to do the unpaid work that is expected. And it’s certainly also a structural problem in academia that it’s simply common practice to expect so much unpaid work.“

„I thought to myself, the main thing is that my PhD is funded. I am aware that both a job and a PhD scholarship have advantages and disadvantages. […]. But I didn’t have the luxury of choosing what suited me best. Instead, I really thought, okay, whatever opportunity I get, I’ll take it.“

Alina Franziska Becker, volunteer at ArbeiterKind.de

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 delighted to be hosting today’s episode, in which my guest is Alina Franziska Becker. Alina is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at LMU Munich, a scholarship holder at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, and has been active at ArbeiterKind.de for many years. Today, we will be discussing the topic of first-generation doctorates and financing doctoral studies. We will focus on questions such as what funding options are generally available and how Alina uses the combination of a scholarship and a university position; what the choice of funding means for everyday life, time pressure, networks and career opportunities; why transitions between expiring contracts or scholarships are so crucial; and what support from networks such as ArbeiterKind.de looks like in practice. But enough introductions, here is the interview.

Interview

Alina, it’s great to have you here on the podcast today. I’ll start right away with two questions and warn you in advance. The second one is one that you might not normally ask. First of all, what stage of your doctorate are you currently at and how are you financing your doctorate at the moment?

Hello, Marlies. Yes, I’m actually in the middle of my doctorate right now. I’ve already collected my data and am now working on the evaluation and writing process. And yes, the question of financing is quite exciting. I’m financing my doctorate through a scholarship as well as a position at LMU Munich.

I see, very interesting. I’m sure you’ll tell us more about that in a moment. What was it like when you decided to do your doctorate? What role did your financing play in that decision? So was that something you considered from the outset? Or did you perhaps say to yourself, no, without secure funding, I won’t even attempt the doctoral project? Or was that an issue that only came up later?

That was definitely an issue for me from the outset, and to be honest, I kind of stumbled into it. I really wanted to do a doctorate. At the end of my master’s degree, it was clear to me that I really enjoyed it and that I could definitely see myself doing it. But only on condition that it was funded.

I asked my master’s thesis supervisor, because I also worked for him as a research assistant, and he said he would think it was great if I did a doctorate, but he didn’t have a position for me and we could write an application together to the German Research Foundation. But writing an application like that takes time. It takes at least a few months, I would say. And during that time, you’re not funded, and you don’t know whether it will be successful at all, whether the application will be approved.

So I had already kind of given up on the idea of doing a doctorate. Then a position as a research assistant was advertised at the institute where I did my bachelor’s degree. I applied for it and was actually accepted, so I had a 75 per cent position at the university for two years and started my doctorate during that time.

During those two years, I also wrote an application to the German Research Foundation together with my doctoral supervisor. But I wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t been funded, because it simply wouldn’t have been an option for me. It was just too uncertain.

Yes, it’s very interesting that you say that, even before the topic of supervision, perhaps even before the thematic focus or the methodological approach, securing funding was your top priority, so to speak. Do you think that’s typical for first-generation students?

Yes. I think everyone has to deal with these uncertainties, of course, and that’s difficult for everyone, but it’s different when I know that I have this financial background, that I have this security that I can at least get through six months. But if I don’t have that security, if I know… Well, it depends on me, and if there’s no money, then there’s just no money, and that’s something that affects first-generation academics more often than people from academic households.

There are many different ways to finance a doctorate. You have already mentioned two options. Could you outline the main options available for our listeners?

Of course, there is a position at a department as a research assistant. And these are often staggered, i.e. 50, 65, 75 per cent. Or they are not directly affiliated with the department at all, but are funded by the German Research Foundation or other third-party funding sources.

Or there is the possibility of a scholarship. And to that end, I should perhaps briefly explain how I ended up with my scholarship and also got a job at the university. And yes, what actually happened was that the application I wrote together with my doctoral supervisor was not accepted at first. Because you have to know that only about a third of all applications are successful.

This also means that once you’ve written an application, there’s still uncertainty as to whether the funding will actually be available. And it takes a relatively long time to get feedback. You can certainly have a bit of luck or a bit of bad luck. In my case, it took almost a year before we knew whether the application had been successful.

And although we had two positive reviews, we ultimately received a negative decision. You can then make improvements and resubmit the application and perhaps just wait it out. But for me, the question of funding was again in the back of my mind and I knew that my contract would eventually expire and now I had somehow started this doctorate and would like to continue it. What if the application was rejected again the second time around?

So I applied for a doctoral scholarship at the same time. That’s the other major option for financing your doctorate. And to be honest, that also took some time. The application process takes several months, but fortunately it was successful in my case.

But I just didn’t have the opportunity to wait and see if it would work out this time when my contract expired. The chances are good. We have two positive reviews. It’ll work out.

In the end, I just didn’t have that ease, partly because I have two daughters and therefore a responsibility to ensure that we can continue financially. And since my doctorate… It’s important to me and I’d like to do it, but without funding, no doctorate.

Did you have your daughters already before you started your doctorate?

I actually had them during my doctoral studies, right at the beginning of my doctorate. One in 2020 and the other in 2022. That means they have accompanied me throughout the entire process of both my doctoral studies and my search for funding, and are now three and five years old.

So you had the research assistant position, you also named a scholarship as a financing option. What other options are there for financing a doctorate?

Of course, you can always work full-time and do your doctorate on the side, although that naturally requires extreme time management skills.

And I also regularly deal with doctoral candidates who, at least temporarily, finance their doctorates through their family environment, be it parents or partners.

Of course, you have to be able to do that, and I do think that first-generation academics in particular may have fewer opportunities to do so, which makes it all the more important to have a secure source of funding that does not place too much of a burden on other family members, even though it is nice to have that option, of course.

Yes. Nowadays, the different forms of funding differ not only in terms of what you get, i.e. the financial aspect, but also in terms of the consequences this has for how you do your doctorate, for example the time pressure you are under, the freedom you have in the research process, but also in terms of access to networks and career opportunities. Did that influence your own decision to choose a particular form of funding, or did you say, the main thing is that my doctorate is funded, the rest is not so important to me?

So I actually thought to myself, the main thing is that my doctorate is funded. I am aware that, of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to both a job and a scholarship. And perhaps it also depends a little on what stage of the doctorate you are currently at. But I didn’t have the luxury of choosing what suited me best. Instead, I really thought, okay, whatever opportunity I get, I’ll take it.

And in the end, I now have the doctoral scholarship, and this doctoral scholarship can be combined with ten hours of academic work at a university with all major scholarship providers. And that actually gives you a bit of the best of both worlds, because on the one hand you have the independence that comes with a doctoral scholarship, three and a half years of funding, or even four and a half years if you have children. On the other hand, this position at the university gives you access to a network, and you are more involved in academic processes, conferences and perhaps even publications. And that can actually be combined quite well if it’s a position that’s up to 25 per cent of full-time.

Exactly, you just told us that. So you currently have a 25 per cent position as a research assistant. Does that affect your scholarship? Is it reduced, or are you allowed to work up to 10 hours a week, and if so, is that exactly what you earn?

Exactly, so you can combine the two. That’s either five hours a week doing non-academic work or ten hours a week doing academic work that is beneficial to your doctorate in some way. And that’s exactly why, in my case, I can combine those ten hours at the university. Exactly, 25 per cent plus the doctoral scholarship.

Would you like to say a little more about the advantages and disadvantages for you personally of having both the scholarship and the research assistant position? In other words, where do you see the benefits of both and where might the disadvantages lie?

So if you are fully involved in university life, you usually have a great deal of work to do. Teaching, for example, takes up a lot of time, as do other tasks that are always required in such departments. And because I am now only involved in a 25 per cent position, I am of course only burdened with 25 per cent of the tasks, in quotation marks, and have relatively little teaching, only from time to time, not every semester.

So, thanks to the doctoral scholarship, I have a relatively high degree of freedom and a lot of time for my dissertation. I would say that this is definitely one advantage of a doctoral scholarship, that you can really concentrate on your own dissertation and don’t get completely bogged down in institute tasks. At the same time, you are still involved, you have a kind of collegium, you are not completely alone with your doctorate, but are always in contact with others. Of course, you can also have that with a doctoral scholarship, but it’s something else when you’re at a university like this, when you regularly attend the Joure Fix, the research colloquia and so on, and you also have contact with all the people, especially when it comes to what might happen after the doctorate, because that’s the next big question, which then becomes even more difficult in terms of financing. And there it is certainly an advantage to have a good network, to be connected in some way, to be known and, ideally, to have already published a little something.

When it comes to access to networks, would you say that both types of funding give you access to different networks? Or, as you just described, do you see the advantage in your work at the university, where you simply come into contact with other people who also work in an academic context?

So definitely both, but it certainly also depends on the subject. The scholarship also gives you access to a network of really great, committed, interesting people, who may not necessarily be in your own field. And then there’s the question of what you want. Do you want to continue in academia or do you want to switch fields and look for a job?

Do I need contacts for this, or do I want to stay in academia? And then it certainly depends on the subject, but in my subject, which is also rather small, in empirical cultural studies, I think it’s important to actually be at the university, because there you have completely different contacts. So, definitely both networks are super helpful and super important, but perhaps with slightly different focuses.

Thank you very much for these important points. Based on your experience, are there any types of financing that you would say are particularly difficult for first-generation students to access or might seem risky at first? Or, to ask the question the other way around, which options are perhaps underestimated, even though they could offer good opportunities?

The classic scenario is that people always think a scholarship isn’t for them. I would absolutely refute that and say you should definitely give it a try and apply. I think it’s a great opportunity to do a doctorate with a scholarship. I see the danger that, especially as a first-generation academic, you might feel a bit lonely and have to find your own way in, if you don’t have any other connections.

At the same time, research assistant positions are incredibly rare, although this certainly varies from department to department. In general, however, there aren’t that many of them, and writing an application to the German Research Foundation or most other third-party funding providers is not something you can do as a doctoral candidate. You always need someone who already has a doctorate or even a postdoctoral qualification to help you write the application. This means that you need to have the right contacts in order to be able to write the application in the first place and have a chance of getting funding. That’s why it’s often another big hurdle and, as I mentioned at the beginning, both require an exposé, which I have to write first.

And writing this exposé, in turn, costs me time. And if I’m not funded during this time, then that’s a hurdle that first-generation academics often can’t overcome because they don’t have the funding to bridge this gap. Some universities offer an exposé scholarship for a few months, but not all universities do, and that is certainly the first hurdle that first-generation academics have to overcome when it comes to funding, because they have to take this exposé time for both a scholarship and an application. Ideally, there will be a position advertised somewhere that you can apply for, but of course there are simply not many of those.

Let’s say I’m listening to the podcast now, I’m just finishing my master’s degree, I’m thinking about doing a doctorate, and now I’m a little scared because I’m thinking, oh, how am I going to manage all this? Do you think it might also be a good idea to be strategic and start thinking about a Master’s thesis topic that I could expand into a PhD topic, perhaps even discussing it with my supervisor in advance if I already know that I want to go down this path? Simply to shorten the time it takes to write the exposé a little, because you’re already well versed in the topic.

Absolutely. That’s definitely one option. And something else you mentioned briefly just now, you said maybe I should just talk to my supervisor. And I think that’s the even more important point, because if you’re interested in doing a doctorate, I think it’s always worth just getting in touch and asking where there might be some start-up funding or an exposé scholarship, where there might be a parental leave replacement available, a position that is only advertised for a short time and that not many people apply for, but that I could perhaps use to get started somehow. So definitely engage in dialogue and ask questions, and then you may find more opportunities than there appear to be at first glance.

Nowadays, many doctoral candidates start with a specific form of funding, whether it be a research assistant position or a scholarship, and often assume that this will be sufficient for the entire duration of their doctoral studies. In practice, however, things often turn out differently. Funding and scholarships eventually run out, projects come to an end and, last but not least, doctoral programmes often take longer than planned or expected. In your experience, what does this mean for the doctoral process and especially for first-generation doctoral researchers?

Of course, this is always a very precarious situation that has to be resolved on an individual basis. There are things like completion grants, but I’ve heard some crazy stories from friends. People who have taken a break from their jobs to claim six months of unemployment benefits and then gone back to work, using this period of unemployment to write. Yes, there are really different ways of piecing together funding, going abroad again to get a foreign grant, to add more time.

This is of course especially true for first-generation academics, who may not have this security from their families. Not all first-generation academics lack financial security in their families, but many do, so that security is missing. And then, of course, it becomes difficult and always has to be solved individually. But even there, I believe there are always possibilities.

And yes, I know some who actually finished their doctorates while unemployed. But maybe it’s just worth it because you’ve made it and finished it.

Perhaps it’s important to reiterate what you just mentioned, namely to talk to others and ask them: How did you manage to finance five or six years of doctoral studies even though you may have only had a three-year contract or a scholarship that lasted three years? What different types of funding did you have? I think it’s also important to talk to people who have already completed their doctorates. One point you just mentioned is unemployment benefits. Would you like to say a little more about the consequences for unemployment benefits if you are now only financing yourself through a scholarship?

Exactly, as far as I know, the scholarship is not counted towards unemployment benefits. That means you are not entitled to unemployment benefit I. That is, of course, a consequence. So the 25 per cent position at the university is counted, but you can then consider what that means at 25 per cent.

It’s always a question of these positions, which are measured at 25, 50 or 75 per cent, and which you can sometimes increase or extend, and how that affects your unemployment benefits.

Yes, that’s also my understanding, that if you receive a scholarship, you don’t pay into the unemployment fund and then you don’t get anything out of it, and I think it’s also important to keep in mind that if you have a job, at least with a higher percentage of working hours, and you can calculate in advance whether that will be enough to live on or not, that you at least have the option of financing yourself temporarily with unemployment benefit [Editor’s note: unemployment benefit I] and simply have social security, which you don’t have with a scholarship [Editor’s note: only citizen’s income / basic income support applies here]. So I still think that’s important, perhaps also from the point of view of thinking early enough about what follow-up financing might look like.

Yes, for sure.

Now I want to tell you something that happened ten years ago, maybe even longer, but I still remember it really well. When I was doing my doctorate, I was friends with a doctoral student and I had a conversation with him that really bothered me at the time. He comes from a working-class family and told me that he found it extremely difficult to accept that unpaid work and overtime are often simply taken for granted in academia, regardless of whether it was conferences at the weekend, night work or unpaid teaching. Especially for people who come from families where work and pay are perhaps more closely linked, this can be quite a culture shock. How do you experience this? To what extent does this difference in the perception of work and performance play a role for first-generation doctoral researchers?

I still find it difficult that so much more is demanded of us. Whether it’s unpaid teaching or investing a lot of time in conferences that isn’t billed by the hour. Or the voluntary work that you still have to do on top of your doctoral scholarship, which is also good and important. But of course, you have to be able to afford this unpaid work somehow.

And I think that’s something that people with an academic background, for whom it may not be such a challenge, often fail to consider. But for someone who is a first-generation academic and perhaps also has care responsibilities, it is not so easy to always be able to do this unpaid work, which is virtually expected. And it is certainly also a structural problem in academia that it is simply common practice to expect so much unpaid work.

Thank you very much for these important additions. I am also familiar with the expectation that one will work significantly more than what is stated on paper. Sometimes, even with a 50 per cent position, 100 per cent work is expected. But I would also like to add that this can also be subject-specific, and there are certainly supervisors and subjects where it is common practice or where you don’t have to work more than what is stated on paper, perhaps just as an addition, so that not everyone listening is shocked, but so that people simply know that, okay, this can happen, but there are also other cases.

One initiative that promotes educational advancement for people from families without an academic background is ArbeiterKind.de. You have been involved there since 2016, if I am correctly informed. Take us back in time. How did you come to be involved there back then?

I actually became aware of the organisation through a lecture by Katja Urbatsch, the founder of ArbeiterKind, and during this lecture I kept having moments where I thought to myself, aha, ah yes, that’s me, that totally applies to me. And that really helped me to somehow reposition myself in my study experience and also in my family environment. Then, together with a fellow student, I decided that we would also start an ArbeiterKind group at the university we were attending. We set it up there, and I’ve been active in it ever since.

Perhaps not quite as intensively as at the beginning, when we actually founded the group. Now, with my doctorate and children, I am often involved in mentoring, responding to specific enquiries about doctorates, financing and scholarship advice. And there are two great formats at ArbeiterKind, especially for doctoral researchers. I am also active there.

One is the open meeting of the doctoral group, which you can attend once a month. But this doctoral group also exists in the online network beyond that, where you can simply ask any question in a very low-threshold way and without feeling completely stupid, and you’re sure to find someone there who has had this problem before and can help you.

The other one is not specifically for doctoral students, it’s the CoStudySpace, but it also helps me a lot because it’s a place where you can meet online and study together. And especially with a long-term project like a doctorate, I think it’s incredibly important that you’re not alone in this process. It’s also about exchange, but not only that. It’s also simply about working together and finding the motivation and perhaps also a little bit of obligation to actually sit down and work together.

And that’s with people who have the same experiences, who have the same family background, which makes the hurdle of perhaps going to a writing group at university or something like that much higher. And here in this protected space at ArbeiterKind, it’s totally possible and a really nice get-together, which is very helpful for me in particular and which I can only recommend to all first-generation academics.

If I wanted to participate, how would I go about it? What do I need to do to be part of it?

Just google ArbeiterKind and then register with the ArbeiterKind network. You will need to create an account there, but then you will find all the information you need, including all the groups that exist, including the group in your area that offers a monthly open meeting. Depending on your interests, you can then choose to join the doctoral group or select the CoStudySpace, and you will automatically be included once you have made your selection.

And since today’s topic is financing and money, I assume that everything is free of charge for participants.

Of course.

Perhaps for those who don’t know Katja Urbatsch, she is the founder of ArbeiterKind.de. And what I would be interested to know is, you said that you had heard her give a talk and that there were many moments when you could identify with what she was saying. Can you still remember what those moments were, when you thought, that’s exactly me, and recognised yourself in what she was saying?

At first, the title of the lecture confused me a bit, because I didn’t really see or understand myself as a working-class child. But during the lecture, I realised that the term “working-class child” has a much broader meaning and that many of the experiences described in the lecture were ones that I had also had. One of these was navigating university life, either with a sense of confidence or, in my case, without.

But it was also about how to put together my timetable and who I could ask if I didn’t know how to do it. Or even my first assignments. Who could proofread them? I didn’t have anyone in my family who had experience in this area or who could help me proofread assignments at that level.

And then I felt somehow understood and thought to myself, ah yes, this experience I’m having is really an experience. And I’m not alone in this. And those were two very important points for me. And that kind of carries through to my doctorate, that on the one hand you have this thought, is it just me? And it’s actually never just you. But that it’s also justified to have certain worries and thoughts, because as a first-generation academic you have different experiences or have these experiences with a different background than others.

And that’s exactly why this exchange, for example via ArbeiterKind, but of course also with a doctoral scholarship and its entire network, or even at the university as a research assistant, is so incredibly important, so that you can get through this long period of doctoral study well. And not just with a good grade, but also financially well and, ultimately, mentally healthy.

Yes, I would say mental health is at least as important. You already got to know ArbeiterKind.de during your studies. Did they also play a role in your decision to consider doing a doctorate after graduating?

In my case, actually not. But now, as a mentor, I find that questions keep coming up that are specifically tailored to doctoral studies, or where you can perhaps provide direct support and help proofread an exposé, so I would say that Arbeiterkind can definitely provide support in this area.

Looking back on your own experiences, what do you think would need to change structurally so that social background no longer plays a role when it comes to financing a doctorate and, by extension, who can afford to do a doctorate and consider embarking on one?

For me, these transitions are key. And these transitions are, of course, difficult for all scientists. But as I said, without this financial background and the serenity to endure these precarious transitions between master’s and doctoral studies, between different funding models, or between doctoral studies and postdoctoral research, it is simply not possible for many people. That is why there need to be more secure transitions or perhaps another form of scholarship that goes beyond this, in other words, more start-up funding, more exposé scholarships that somehow accompany these transitions, so that a great many people don’t simply drop out at this point because of this uncertainty, people who might otherwise be able to continue, but who simply cannot bridge and endure this period, and perhaps do not want to.

And this transitional scholarship, do you envisage it being specifically for first-generation doctoral students or for everyone in general?

Well, I think that would be useful for everyone, but for first-generation academics it would of course be even more important. That’s why I believe it’s important in principle that first-generation status is a criterion that plays a role. This also applies to applications and scholarships, depending on which scholarship provider I apply to, but it also plays a role in funding: who is actually applying? What kind of person is it? What kind of CV do they have? What kind of background? What kind of illnesses or care responsibilities do they have, or are they first-generation or not? If that were simply included in the assessment, then I believe it would be very valuable for first-generation academics and also very important in this process not to see being a first-generation academic as a flaw, but rather as a strength and something to be proud of, that you have made it this far with this family background and are not ashamed of it.

What advice would you give to someone from a non-academic family who wants to do a doctorate but is unsure whether it is financially feasible?

I find that a really difficult question, because in principle I would like to encourage everyone, but I also think it’s important to be aware of your limits and then say, hey, before this goes beyond your personal limits, so the question of whether I would take out a loan, for example, is a very individual one and is much more existential for first-generation academics than for other scientists. That’s why I don’t want to make a blanket statement, but would rather tailor my advice to the individual.

Is there anything you wish you had known earlier about scholarships, employment opportunities, and funding options for doctoral studies?

How important networks are. I think everyone knows that already. But you only really realise how important it is over time. So always stay in touch, always talk calmly about your own situation, because then opportunities often open up again because someone thinks of you. Especially with scholarships, always try, always keep trying. ‘They’re only human, too’ is another phrase we at ArbeiterKind always say to our students when they apply for university and scholarships. So definitely always give it a try.

And yes, in retrospect, everything looks pretty smooth on my CV now. But of course I know that it wasn’t all that smooth, but that it was always quite bumpy and uncertain in between. And I would like to tell myself to be a bit more relaxed, that everything will be fine. But of course that’s easy to say from today’s perspective, and I know that it wasn’t so easy for me to cope with at the time.

Thank you for your honesty and openness on this point. Dear Alina, to conclude, I have a few quick questions for you. Short questions, short answers. Just answer from the heart, whatever comes to mind first. Ready?

Ready.

Is there a book, podcast, YouTube channel or similar that you would recommend to other doctoral researchers?

„Frei geschrieben“ is a really great book. [Editor’s note: Alina is referring to the book „Frei geschrieben“ by Judith Wolfsberger]

What is the best way for you to unwind after a long day at work?

With my children and if they let me have some free time with yoga.

If you could give doctoral researchers just one piece of advice, what would it be?

Just keep going, you’ve got this.

What has been the best moment of your scientific career so far?

Oh, that’s a difficult one. I think it’s always the exchange. And when others say, wow, that’s exciting, and you’ve almost forgotten how exciting what you do actually is.

What do you wish for in the future of the sciences?

That there is a reform of the system of academia and that academia becomes more accessible.

Coffee or tea when writing?

Coffee.

And one last question: what would you have liked to have known at the beginning of your doctoral studies, regardless of whether it was related to financing or perhaps something else entirely?

That there will always be difficult phases, but also easy phases. And that it’s really about overcoming the difficult phases. And then it’s fun again.

Thank you, Alina. I am sure that many doctoral researchers can learn a lot from what you have shared, as can many who may be interested in pursuing a doctorate but are not yet sure whether they can finance the project or not.

Thank you very much Marlies.

Outro

In conversation with Alina Franziska Becker, it became clear how much the question of financing shapes the path to a doctorate and that it is often much more complex than one might initially think. The discussion focused on how different forms of financing influence everyday life and one’s own sense of security, and why exchange, networks and initiatives such as ArbeiterKind.de play such an important role here.

I found it particularly interesting how Alina showed that financial stability is not only an organisational issue for first-generation doctoral candidates, but also an emotional one. This is because it means security, belonging and, often, the opportunity to truly shape one’s research freely.

More insights into the many facets of doctoral studies can be found in the other episodes of the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin – both on the topic of first-generation doctoral candidates and on other exciting topics, such as good doctoral supervision. There are also episodes on the various phases of doctoral studies with lots of practical insights. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, thank you for listening, and see you next time here on the DRS Podcast.

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

Dr. Steffen Jaksztat, Sociologist at the German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), investigates how social background shapes the path to a doctorate—from the decision to pursue a dissertation to careers afterward. In the DRS podcast interview, he explains the importance of financial security, family expectations, and role models, the opportunities offered by formalized selection processes, and why mentors play a key role in the success of first-generation doctoral candidates.

Audio

highlights

„What may also be relevant in this decision-making situation is that, in my opinion, pursuing a doctorate often requires greater adjustment on the part of children of non-academics and may also be accompanied by a certain degree of alienation from their social background.“

„If you take a broader view of costs, or rather, let’s say, psychological costs, then it’s also a question of how do I deal with uncertainty? Will I manage to successfully complete my doctorate? Do I believe I can do it? Do I have any idea what I’ll do with my degree? Yes, these are decision-relevant questions that are likely to be answered differently depending on social background.“

Dr. Steffen Jaksztat

Links

Find links to resources for first-gen academics and different support systems here.

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 delighted to be hosting today’s episode, in which I will be talking to Dr. Steffen Jaksztat. He is a sociologist and has been working at the DZHW, the German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, since 2008. His research focuses on the educational and career paths of doctoral graduates and on how social background influences decisions to pursue a doctorate and career opportunities.

This makes him the perfect guest for today’s episode topic: first-generation doctorates and the influence of social background on the decision to pursue a doctorate. We talk about how the social composition of doctoral candidates in Germany has changed, the role of the parental home in the decision to pursue a doctorate, why role models and expectations are so important, and what needs to change to better align educational advancement and doctoral studies.

Interview

Welcome, Mr. Jaksztat. It’s great to have you as a guest on the DRS podcast today. You conduct research at the German Center for Higher Education and Science Studies on the educational and career paths of doctoral graduates. Social inequalities play a recurring role in this research. Perhaps we could start by you briefly introducing yourself. What are you currently working on, and what fascinates you most about doctoral research?

I am also very much looking forward to the interview. My name is Steffen Jaksztat, I am a researcher at the DZHW and I am the project manager of the Nacaps project. Nacaps stands for National Academics Panel Study. What we do in this project is try to improve the data available on young academics, i.e. doctoral students and doctoral graduates in Germany, by conducting regular surveys within these groups.

We have been doing this for several years now with a team of currently seven employees and two student assistants. We conduct long-term studies with doctoral candidates and doctoral graduates to learn more about their qualification progress during their doctorates, about the heterogeneity of doctorates, and, of course, about their career paths after graduation. The data we collect will be made available to the scientific community via Scientific Use Files, and we also want to give the universities participating in our project the opportunity to learn more about their doctoral candidates.

If you look at your data and studies, who is doing a doctorate in Germany today and who is not?

The official statistics from the Federal Statistical Office provide a relatively large amount of information about doctoral candidates and graduates. The latest figures available show that there are currently over 200,000 doctoral candidates at German universities. And yes, there are clear focal points in terms of subject groups. The largest group are doctoral candidates in human medicine and health sciences, followed by doctoral candidates in mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering. So those are the largest groups of doctoral candidates.

If you look at this over a longitudinal period, i.e., over time, and take a look at the number of doctorates completed, you can clearly see that the number of doctorates completed in Germany has tended to rise in recent decades. Here, you also have relatively long time series to look at, covering the last 30 years. And we can see that at the beginning of the 1990s, we still had 21,000 doctorates completed annually in Germany.

And now, a good 30 years later, there are just under 27,000 doctorates, which is a noticeable increase, but one that has not been linear; there have always been peaks and valleys. And what you can also see quite clearly in the figures is that this upward trend in the number of doctorates is largely due to the fact that, over time, more and more women have completed a doctorate.

So here, too, we have a comparison over time. In 1993, just over 30 percent of all doctorates were completed by women. And now, 30 years later, the figure is 46 percent. What we can also see in the data is that we have seen significant growth in the number of young international researchers in Germany, who now account for more than a fifth of doctoral degrees. That’s just some structural information, so to speak, about the size of the group we’re talking about.

Thank you very much for this interesting information. You have already mentioned a number of developments that have taken place over the last few decades. Do you think that structured doctoral programs or new funding programs, for example, have also had an influence?

I think you can see that… I mentioned that the number of doctorates has not increased linearly, but that there have always been peaks. This is certainly also related to funding programs, such as the Excellence Initiative, in connection with which many structured doctoral programs have of course been developed. Basically, I think it’s fair to say that the doctoral landscape has become more diverse in recent years, with more structured programs being added. However, this does not mean that the classic doctorate in a research assistant position is no longer relevant, but rather that there is now a coexistence of different forms of doctoral study.

You mentioned at the beginning that there are major differences in terms of the subjects in which doctoral degrees are awarded. You pointed out that women now account for a much higher proportion of doctoral degrees—almost half, not quite, but almost half. What is the situation beyond that in terms of the social composition of doctoral candidates? Can you say anything more about that?

There are several studies that have looked into this question, i.e., the extent to which social background influences the likelihood of pursuing a doctorate. And all of these studies actually come to the conclusion that there are social differences. In other words, the higher the level of education in the parental home, the more likely it is that someone will start a doctorate after completing their studies.

Yes, I find it very interesting that even at this, if you will, very late or final stage of education, which is the last one you can tackle, so to speak, inequalities still exist, because inequality research and education research have consistently shown that social inequalities also occur in all preceding educational decisions and stages of education, i.e., in the transition to high school, the acquisition of a high school diploma, the commencement of a degree program, and the successful completion of a degree program. In other words, social inequalities can be found in all preceding stages of education. To perhaps back this up with figures once again, there is a regular publication called the Education Funnel, which is published by the DZHW, and it shows that in Germany, out of 100 children from non-academic families, 25 children find their way to university. And if the parents have studied, 78 out of 100 children take up a course of study. So, inequalities in educational attainment accumulate over time, so to speak.

Do you happen to have the figures for doctoral students at hand? How much difference is there?

That depends very much on which study you look at and what data was used. I once conducted a study myself, which looked at university graduates from 2005. I looked at who had started a doctoral program in the five years after graduating, and found that around a quarter of those from non-academic backgrounds had started a doctoral program, while over 40 percent of those whose parents both had a university degree had started a doctoral program.

Okay, so it also makes a difference whether both parents went to university or just one parent.

That’s what the data shows, yes. It’s relatively clear. I mean, it’s a relatively broad categorization. We have non-academics, then the group with one academic parent and with two academic parents. Of course, that’s still a relatively broad categorization. If you were to differentiate further, for example, the group of non-academic children, that could mean many different things. Either the parents have no professional qualifications at all, or they have vocational training, or whatever. And even among academics, one could differentiate further, for example, whether the parents have a doctorate. If one differentiates further, one naturally gets a more differentiated picture, and a particularly high tendency to pursue a doctorate is naturally found among people who come from a family where either the father or mother has a doctorate.

So, in summary, we could say that the higher the level of education attained by parents, the more likely it is that I will also attain a high level of education or a comparably high level.

Yes, one can say this for sure.

I have another question about the definition. You just mentioned it. When we talk about first-generation doctoral students, which is often the case, are we referring to doctoral students from working-class families, or are we referring to doctoral students whose parents may have studied but did not earn a doctorate themselves?

Yes, ultimately it’s a question of operationalization. I would say that first-generation students are people who come from a family where their parents did not attend university themselves. But as I said, it’s a question of how educational background was ultimately measured in empirical studies.

Yes, I find it more detailed for students. For the doctoral candidates, I have always asked my self, is this about whether the parents have also done their doctorate or is it more about whether they have an academic background.

Well, I would say that I would personally define first-generation doctoral candidates as people from non-academic backgrounds who are pursuing a doctorate.

I would like to come back to the point you mentioned earlier, which I find very important and also very interesting. Namely, how strongly the parental home influences the decision of whether someone pursues a doctorate or not. Can you say a little bit about that?

Studies on this topic often attribute differences in background to so-called primary and secondary background effects. Primary effects of origin essentially refer to differences in performance between individuals from academic and non-academic backgrounds, which are mainly the result of different socialization and support conditions. It can therefore be assumed that the level of education in the parental home and its cultural proximity I would say, to university-relevant educational content, the early promotion of cognitive abilities, cultural, linguistic, and social skills, and that this ultimately results in the performance potential of members of education-oriented social classes simply being better exploited because they are simply better supported.

And this, of course, leads to better school and university performance and higher participation in education. So, primary effects of origin: performance differences due to socialization. And the secondary effects of origin, which refer to origin-specific decision-making behavior. Educational research often assumes that educational decisions involve weighing up costs, benefits, and probabilities of success.

And this shows that educational qualifications are valued differently depending on social background and, consequently, are pursued with varying frequency. For example, it’s about the question of to what extent a doctorate or other educational qualification can be a means of status reproduction. In other words, can I achieve at least the same level as my parents with the educational qualification I’m aiming for? This, especially when referring to a doctorate, means that those from higher social classes are the primary beneficiaries.

So for everyone else from non-academic backgrounds, this goal is essentially already more than achieved the moment they obtain a university degree. On the cost side, it’s about the question of whether I can imagine temporarily foregoing income, because I generally earn less during a doctorate than if I enter the job market directly with my master’s degree. If we broaden the concept of costs, perhaps to include psychological costs, then it also involves the question of how I cope with uncertainty. Will I be able to successfully complete my doctorate? Do I have the confidence to do it? Do I have an idea of ​​what I will do with the degree? Yes, these are crucial questions that are likely to be answered differently depending on one’s social background.

One can assume that for people from materially privileged backgrounds, not every decision necessarily has to be evaluated based on its, let’s say, direct benefit, simply because material security allows more room to perhaps try things out or pursue one’s own interests more strongly, without immediately knowing what one will do with it, without a guarantee that it will ultimately benefit one.

What is also perhaps relevant in this decision-making situation is that pursuing a doctorate for children from non-academic backgrounds often requires greater adjustments and may also involve a degree of alienation from their social environment. So, these would be, if you will, psychological costs that can arise for those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, but not to the same extent for those from more highly educated backgrounds.

Yes, very interesting. And that also shows how multifaceted and complex the influence of one’s family background is on the decision to pursue a doctorate. All these things can play a role to varying degrees. What role would you say role role models or family expectations play with regard to the decision to pursue a doctorate?

I think both of those things play a very important role. Educational expectations are generally a good predictor of educational success, I think that’s fair to say. And social role models are especially important, and this is often what children from non-academic backgrounds lack, because they don’t necessarily know people in their family who have already earned a doctorate, and therefore might not have such a clear idea of ​​what career paths are possible with a doctorate.

And the reaction isn’t always positive, because, as you mentioned, you can become estranged from your family, who might also be afraid of losing you if you pursue a doctorate. I remember my mother, who didn’t study herself, actually said to me when I told her I wanted to do a doctorate: „Does this really have to happen too?“ So, the expected reaction from your family, whether it occurs or not, certainly plays a role when you decide to pursue a doctorate or are even considering it.

Yes, I think many people from non-academic backgrounds are familiar with this, especially after graduating from high school. They often hear things like, „Well, now you have your high school diploma, you can choose what kind of training you want to do, what kind of vocational training.“ Or, „Why don’t you do vocational training before university, so you have something to fall back on and not this…“ They’re often advised against making the uncertain decision of going to university, studying something with an unclear career path, so to speak. And that certainly applies to doctoral studies after university as well.

Or perhaps even more so.

Yes.

We’ve talked a lot about the decision to pursue a doctorate, specifically the point at the end of one’s studies, or perhaps even later, when one considers starting a doctorate. Now, let’s look at doctoral candidates who are already well into their studies: What challenges do doctoral candidates without an academic background most frequently face during their doctoral studies?

I think it’s often about gaining confidence in one’s own abilities, developing the feeling, „Yes, I can do this, I can achieve this, I have what it takes to pursue this further education.“ And I would guess that people from less privileged backgrounds can particularly benefit from mentors who simply give them positive feedback. This can even happen during their studies. For example, if I work as a student assistant alongside my studies and make contact with professors or other early-career researchers, and simply realize that what I’m doing, the work I’m doing, is recognized and I’m receiving positive feedback. This can, of course, have a positive impact on self-efficacy, on confidence in one’s own abilities.

Thank you for highlighting the importance of mentors. That leads perfectly into my next question. One thing you repeatedly emphasize in your research is the importance of supervision and working conditions. Why do you think these play such a crucial role?

Yes, it has been shown, for example, that close contact with the supervisor can have a positive effect and, for instance, reduce the risk of dropping out of the doctoral program, as can the exchange with other doctoral candidates who are in the same situation. In a sense, one could break this down to social and academic integration, which I believe is an important factor for all doctoral candidates in order to master this long doctoral phase, which is inevitably associated with minor crises and challenges of varying degrees.

You just mentioned dropping out of doctoral studies. Is there any evidence that students from non-academic households drop out more frequently or perhaps take longer to complete their studies? Or are there no available statistics on this?

There is not enough data for that. It seems to be that people from non-academic households could have a somewhat bigger possibility of dropping out. Same goes for women during the doctoral studies.

Do we know why that is?

I can only speculate at this point. Perhaps it’s due to issues of integration into this academic context. Perhaps they also become somewhat discouraged during their doctoral studies by the uncertain prospects that arise after a doctorate, especially when considering academic careers. These are primarily just assumptions.

Let’s stick with the point in time, namely the end of the doctorate or the period after the doctorate. How do the career decisions of doctoral graduates from non-academic backgrounds differ from those of graduates from academic backgrounds after completing their doctorates?

What we’re seeing is that only a small percentage of graduates actually remain in academia in the medium term. We conducted a study looking at where graduates are employed five years after completing their doctorates, and it showed that far less than a third are still working in academia five years later. The vast majority move into non-academic or non-scientific fields, into the private sector, or into the public service after their doctorates. That seems to be the norm.

What I find interesting is that a doctorate is an academic qualification; it’s supposed to teach you how to conduct independent research and demonstrate that through an independent contribution to research. And yet, due in part to career structures and the number of available positions at universities and research institutions, the vast majority leave academia after completing their doctorates. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t use the skills and abilities they learned during their doctoral studies; rather, it means that they simply move into other fields of activity and still frequently perform science-related tasks there as well.

There are also studies—you asked about this—on whether these groups differ, meaning people from academic and non-academic backgrounds. Several studies have specifically examined academic career paths, and these show little to no difference. In other words, background doesn’t necessarily influence the likelihood of someone remaining in academia after their doctorate. There are isolated studies, for specific disciplines, such as those focusing on postdoctoral researchers, that show social background can play a role in professorial appointments, but overall, there don’t seem to be significant differences between background groups regarding career paths after the doctorate. However, there are also other, older studies, such as the one by Michael Hartmann. He investigated whether social background affects the chances of reaching top positions in the private sector, for example. He did find disadvantages for doctoral graduates from non-academic backgrounds.

Yes, so perhaps a cautiously positive outlook for the future. In your more recent work, you often talk about the so-called job mismatch, meaning that someone is employed below their qualification level. Is this something that occurs very frequently among doctoral graduates, and how exactly can we imagine it? Do you perhaps have a few examples?

Exactly, I’m currently working on a study about this with a colleague. We’ve found that job mismatch does occur, but it doesn’t seem to be a very big problem. We’ve found that approximately 15 percent of graduates are affected by job mismatch in the first seven years after completing their doctorate. Job mismatch here means that someone has a professional position where their doctorate plays no role, might even be a disadvantage, or where there’s no connection to the skills and knowledge gained during their doctoral studies.

But this only affects a relatively small percentage of graduates overall. We’re also seeing significant differences between disciplines and that it’s strongly linked to the fields of work graduates enter after completing their doctorate. For example, if you imagine an engineer moving into private sector research and development, that would be a good example where there’s likely to be a very close match between the job and the qualifications acquired through the doctorate. And in other areas, the situation might look different. For example, if you switch to a non-research-related position in the public sector or to the private sector. Here, the data shows that there are also differences depending on the discipline, meaning that people with humanities backgrounds are particularly affected by job mismatch than, for example, people with technical or scientific backgrounds.

To be honest, I almost expected it to primarily affect humanities scholars, although 15 percent is a relatively small percentage. And as you said at the beginning, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one might be unhappy in the position one has afterwards, just because it’s no longer directly related to the doctorate or the skills acquired there.

Yes, exactly, if I may chime in. While switching to fields outside academia does increase the risk of job mismatch, there are also several positive aspects, such as higher income in the private sector or greater job security. This is because, at least below professorships, temporary contracts are the norm in academia, which is quite different in other professional contexts. And research also shows that doctorate holders can generally generate income advantages, particularly in the private sector. So, a doctorate is financially worthwhile, if you will.

I’d like to briefly return to an aspect you touched upon earlier, namely that I believe only about a third of graduates are still working in academia five years after completing their doctorates. Who stays in academia, who changes careers, and for what reasons?

The decision regarding which career path to pursue depends, among other things, on one’s personal preferences. For example, our data shows that graduates with strong career aspirations—that is, those who prioritize earning a high salary, having high status, and holding a prestigious position—are more likely to move into the private sector. Conversely, graduates with strong preferences for autonomy tend to remain in academia. Of course, objective labor market conditions also play a role.

Here, the specific field of study, subjective assessment (how do I perceive my opportunities in a particular area?), and support also come into play. To what extent was I encouraged during my doctoral studies to consider different career paths and explore my professional options?

Now back to the first-generation doctoral students. What would you say helps those who are the first in their family to study and then also earn a doctorate the most to successfully complete their doctorate?

I think this probably applies to all doctoral candidates: you need to create an environment that is supportive and beneficial for you. And I don’t think there’s one specific context you have to choose; rather, you can have a very supportive relationship with your supervisors, with other doctoral candidates, and of course also with your personal social network. It’s about reflecting on what kind of support you need and then considering where and how you can get it.

Perhaps specifically for first-generation doctoral candidates, it can also be helpful to examine your own biography and become aware of your own strengths and successes—your educational background, what you’ve already achieved, and what obstacles you may have already overcome. It might also be helpful to exchange experiences with others who have similar biographies. I think these could be ways to get support. In addition, of course, a certain degree of stability is necessary, in terms of employment and funding for the doctorate; this should be a given for everyone. That one has scholarships or doctoral positions that actually make it possible to carry out a doctoral project from beginning to end.

That leads directly to my next question. Thinking about the future, what would need to change in the doctoral system, in the academic system, so that social background eventually no longer plays a role?

Do you mean the educational system in general or just regarding doctoral candidates?

Especially with regard to doctoral candidates, but I suspect it would probably have to start earlier so that more doctorates are pursued by people from non-academic families.

Yes, fundamentally, I believe we must assume that the education system as a whole needs to provide special support, particularly for those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, simply to unlock the full potential that people possess. And if this potential cannot be realized through support at home, then it should happen within the education system, in schools or universities. I think that what people from non-academic backgrounds can benefit from are things like, if we’re talking about doctoral studies, formalized selection and evaluation procedures. For example, when awarding doctoral positions, decisions should be made based on objective criteria and not ultimately on personal fit.

That could be one possibility. If we think about students, the research assistant positions I already mentioned would be a way to provide support before the doctoral phase, simply because I think research assistant positions have the potential to inspire people to pursue research, to encourage them to undertake a doctorate, to make contacts, and simply to get a glimpse into academic work contexts. I think that could be helpful.

Mr. Jaksztat, we are nearing the end of our interview. Is there any important aspect we should definitely address that we haven’t mentioned yet?

Another point worth mentioning, which also explains some of the differences in access to doctoral studies, is the choice of subject based on background, which plays a significant role in the emergence of inequalities. Certain subjects, like medicine or law, are more commonly chosen by children of academics. And these are also subjects with relatively high doctoral graduation rates. Medicine, in particular, where a doctorate is practically the standard qualification. We haven’t yet discussed this path. I think it’s a relevant point for understanding how inequalities arise.

Yes, thank you for this important explanation. It’s definitely a very interesting point and might give some people pause for thought, especially those who are just starting their studies or deciding on a career path, although they probably aren’t yet considering a doctorate. I’d like to thank you for this wonderful interview. I learned a great deal and gained a lot from it, and I’m sure our listeners feel the same way.

Yes, thank you very much for the interview.

Outro

This was Dr. Steffen Jaksztat discussing educational background, social inequality, and the role of one’s family in the decision for or against pursuing a doctorate. This is the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. The conversation made it very clear how strongly background and environment can shape one’s path into academia, from the initial decision to pursue a doctorate to the subsequent career steps. Further perspectives on doctoral studies and the academic world can be found in other episodes of the DRS Podcast, covering topics such as supervision, funding, and the dynamics of power in academia. Thank you for listening, and we look forward to the next episode here on the Dahlem Research School Podcast.

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

In this episode we discuss with Jonathan Bär from the Center for Academic Advising and Psychological Counseling (support.points FUB) about imposter syndrome in academia as a first generation doctoral candidate.

Audio

HIghlights

„I feel that the academic context is still pretty far from being vocal about class differences or like explicitly working on being more inclusive. There are some things happening, but there’s still a long way to go, I would say. And I think what is also important for me is it’s not only a vulnerability or a soft spot, but it’s also something to be proud of. And I think I also want to encourage this kind of a culture that is like taking pride in being a first generation academic and being more vocal about it“

Jonathan Bär, psychologist and psychological psychotherapist in training

Links

Find useful links on today’s subject and other important things to know when starting your doctorate here.

Transcript

Welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast of Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I’m delighted to guide you through today’s episode. We’re going to talk about a feeling that many doctoral candidates know all too well, imposter syndrome. That inner voice that keeps telling you that you don’t really belong, that your achievements don’t count, or that one day you’ll be found out as a fraud.

These feelings can be even stronger for first-gen academics, those who are the first in their families to enter university, who often face additional challenges, like navigating unwritten rules, a lack of informal resources, and a stronger sense of not belonging. My guest today is Jonathan Bär, psychologist and psychotherapist-in-training. He works at the support points at Freie Universität Berlin, where students and staff can access low-threshold psychological counselling. Jonathan is also a first-gen academic himself, and in our conversation, he explains what imposter syndrome actually is, why it is so common in academia, and shares many practical tips and examples that can help you cope with those feelings in your own doctoral journey.

Jonathan, to start with, could you briefly introduce yourself, who you are and what you do professionally?

Yes, my name is Jonathan Bär. I’m a psychologist and I work here at the FU Berlin as a psychological counsellor for students and staff at the support point of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities.

You are a first-gen academic yourself. Could you describe what first-gen means in the academic context and what kind of challenges often come with it?

Being a first-generation academic means that your parents did not obtain a university degree and challenges can be feelings of not belonging or like lack of access to informal resources. How does university work? What are the unwritten rules in the academic context? How to navigate all of these things in academia.

Thank you for this description. Looking back to your own time of studying, was there a moment when you especially felt the difference of being first gen?

Yes, I remember one moment of giving a presentation at the beginning of my undergrad studies where I got the feedback after giving the presentation that my language was a little bit too sloppy for the academic context, which was a pretty shameful experience and made me feel like not belonging or not being part of this academic culture and its language.

Did you at that given time already connect that with being a first-gen academic, or was that not anything that came to your mind?

I think there was always a certain awareness of it, but I did not really confront myself with this aspect of my identity so much during studies. It came up more after studies that I was reflecting on what does that actually mean and how can I contribute to empowering first-generation students now in this like role of a psychological counsellor at the uni.

Thanks for the explanation. And the challenge you just described about language being a means to maybe feel excluded or being excluded, actively being excluded, is something many first-gens experience. And it can be connected, but that’s something I want to talk with you about in a minute, it can be connected with something called the imposter syndrome.

Now you’re a psychologist, so you’re the perfect person to ask for a definition. How would you define imposter syndrome? What does it mean in general, not yet in respect to first gen?

So even though I learned lots of definitions by heart during psychology studies, I did not internalize the definition of the imposter syndrome enough to give you a spontaneous recall of it. I found a definition online, which I will cite here. The imposter syndrome refers to a persistent psychological pattern of doubting one’s abilities and fearing being exposed as a fraud. Despite clear evidence of success or competence, it often manifests in academic contexts where individuals attribute achievement to luck, timing, or external help rather than their own capability.

So maybe in my own words, I would define the imposter syndrome as not attributing success, especially in these like achievement related contexts to your own abilities or intelligence or competencies that you acquired, but on external factors and being convinced that at some point you will be found out as a fraud, as someone who actually just fakes it.

Now, the main audience of this podcast are PhD candidates. Why would you think imposter syndrome is so common among people who do their doctorate?

I think the stakes are pretty high. The standards are pretty high. You’re in this very advanced stage of academic achievement and academic career. You’ve made it to a point where very few people make it, which is even more true for first generation academics where it’s extremely unlikely to make it to the point of doing a PhD.

And I just also realized that I didn’t answer to the second part of your previous question, how the imposter syndrome relates to first generation academics or might relate. Of course, there’s like high achievement context at the intersection of being basically a minority in the academic context as a first generation academic can fuel imposter feelings and can increase them and can heighten your sense of not belonging or not having access to informal resources, unwritten rules and stuff like that.

You already mentioned that imposter syndrome is more common among first-gen academics and can also increase the imposter syndrome. Would you say that there are different feelings that show up or that imposter syndrome occurs in different situations compared to doctoral candidates that are not first-gen?

I mean, I’m speaking now from like… anecdotal or like from a position of my own counselling experience maybe, or what I would imagine, not so much from the position of a researcher or someone who can name empirical evidence on this topic. But what I would imagine is that first of all, this decision to do a PhD can also be a decision of taking a risk, of taking financial risks, also doing unpaid labour, which I would imagine is a decision that is more hard for first generation academics. So to speak, you need to be able to afford doing unpaid labour and to navigate these like unwritten rules of you get a 50% contract or a 65% contract, but we expect you to work 100 or 150%. So I would imagine taking this decision is already something that is very tightly related to class background or socioeconomic background.

And in my experience, it’s also often in the contact with supervisors as well as peers that these class differences can show. For example, with which kind of a sense of entitlement or self-esteem do you approach your supervisor? How serious do you take their feedback? In which relation do you see yourself to them? Do you maybe perceive this hierarchy as even stronger because of class differences or trying to make it in the academic context?

And with peers it can also be especially important for first generation academics to actively seek the contact with peers, to get empowerment and support from them, to talk about insecurities. And in turn, this aspect doesn’t only go for the contact with peers, but also for the contact with supervisors.

I would also strongly encourage first-generation PhD students to address this topic, this part of their identity in the contact with their supervisors and to actively seek the support of supervisors and mentoring. And there are great networks such as arbeiterkind.de in Germany, which provide a platform for connecting with other first-generation academics, organizing mentorship, and they do all kinds of things including workshops for staff in the university, teaching staff, to become more sensitive in terms of, in relation to class issues and first-generation academics. So, I think they are a great address.

Now, you recommended coming forward with being a first-gen regarding your supervisor, but maybe also your peers. I imagine that might sound quite scary for many first-gen academics who are listening to this podcast right now. Could you give any tips about how such a conversation could look like? In which situation would you address this, and which approach would you choose?

I’m trying to imagine now if I would talk to my peers and if I would feel like insecure about my PhD thesis or how to approach a certain conflict or a certain difficulty on the way and if I would feel that my being a first-generation academic relates to this or plays an important part in this, I think I would just openly speak about these insecurities and speak about this sense of isolation that come with it and ask them for their support. Or sometimes it’s just also important to express yourself and your insecurities. And of course, that can be scary and is also not always the way to go maybe, but I think it can be also something very helpful and creating more of a sense of belonging and connection with others.

Yeah, and I also think that it’s important to acknowledge these differences. Of course, there are so many potential differences that you have with your peers. And this being a first-generation academic is just one of them. And maybe you have friends who are also first-generation academics. Maybe you feel more comfortable talking with them about these issues.

Maybe you have other friends who are not first-generation academics, but who are also important and supportive. Also, I think it can be important to seek the contact with peers also to get insights into these unwritten rules. So for example, maybe your friends or peers who are not first-generation academics can support you on the way because they have more this informal knowledge and this implicit knowledge.

Yeah, thank you. I completely agree with you that in many situations it might be the right way to be transparent and that way also to access the knowledge you’re lacking by admitting that there’s something that you don’t have yet, you don’t know the rules of communication, you don’t know maybe how to express yourself, how to behave in certain situations. And at the same time, as I said, I think it’s very scary because you make yourself vulnerable, which can have different outcomes, of course.

And I hope, I don’t know what’s your perspective on that, but I hope that we are in an academic culture that’s moving forward more towards transparency and addressing those things instead of just not talking about it.

Yes, I agree. I mean, I’m hoping that. At this current moment, I feel that the academic context is still pretty far from being vocal about class differences or like explicitly working on being more inclusive. There are some things happening, but there’s still a long way to go, I would say. And I think what is also important for me is it’s not only a vulnerability or a soft spot, but it’s also something to be proud of.

And I think I also want to encourage this kind of a culture that is like taking pride in being a first generation academic and being more vocal about it without falling into these like neoliberal narratives of despite or against all odds I made it, I’m super successful, that’s great. You can also do it. Of course, there are these like systemic barriers that need to be addressed but I would also tell people who made it this far and who are pursuing a PhD despite all these barriers that they can be proud of themselves and that they, yeah, can see that as an achievement also, which is, of course, kind of the opposite of imposter feelings.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe it could also be something that helps you overcome imposter syndrome by taking the step forward, which might be hard at first. It might reward you with that feeling of pride afterwards and maybe also give you a sense of connection because it gives the possibility to other people to come to you and say, I’ve experienced the same. I’m in the same position.

Yes.

Also, I was just remembering, if I’m not mistaken, I made an interview with a professor being first-gen, and he had in his CV on the university websites, he put first-gen on the first line, so he made it very transparent. When I asked him about it, he also said, it’s because I’m proud of it. I made it so far, not many people do that and it’s something I want other people to see and also my students to see so that they know I’m also really open of them addressing the topic when we have conversations.

Yes, I also listened to that interview and I found this aspect also very inspirational. Like I think this is like a good example of making this change and starting to be more vocal and bringing up the topic and creating visibility or increasing visibility and sensitivity to also all these like potential discriminational aspects related to class.

For all our listeners who now don’t know what we’re talking about, we’re also going to link the interview on this episode’s website. So if you want to listen to that interview after this one, you’re very welcome to do so. I would like to circle back for a moment to the imposter syndrome. As you’re being also a first-gen or a doctoral candidate as well, which also is already something which can lead to imposter syndrome as you described before, have you experienced these feelings of imposter syndrome yourself? And if so, what helped you most to cope with them?

I’m not a doctoral student, but of course, I have my experiences with feeling like an imposter or having the feeling that maybe I did not deserve this position that I got. Of course, I have a personal relation to this topic. For me, I think it’s always helpful to address these issues, as I already mentioned, to talk with friends about these insecurities or moments when you feel insecure and to get support from people who are close to you and who you trust.

Based on what you see in your daily work with students, are there some other strategies you might want to add that can make a difference when imposter thoughts come up? I’m thinking, for example, about maybe before presenting your work or maybe before meeting with your supervisor.

Yeah, I think sometimes it can help to use things like positive affirmations like “I belong here” or “I can do this”. But what I really like as a psychologist and in my counselling and therapeutic practice is to work with the concept of inner parts. So, to maybe see these like critical voices and these imposter feelings as one critical part that is speaking within you on this inner stage. So maybe I mean in psychoanalysis or psychodynamic therapy that would be called your superego and in other forms of therapy maybe the demanding and punishing inner part and to see it as one aspect of your inner world.

And there can also be other parts that can enter the stage or whose volume can be increased, who can maybe see the emotional need that you feel at the same time of having these critical thoughts. And in my therapeutic or counselling practice, I would focus more on seeing these emotional needs and finding out how you can meet them.

Is there an exercise you can recommend? I was thinking about maybe, I don’t know, making like a little sketch of yourself on a piece of paper and then just writing all the different voices you might hear inside and then decide which volume you want to turn up or something like that?

Yeah, I think it can help to find a visualization for like different inner parts. My own practice is very much shaped by schema therapy and in schema therapy you would work with different chairs, for example. Which is an intervention that comes from Gestalt therapy originally, but you can like place these inner parts on different chairs in the room, take a seat on these chairs and see how it feels to sit there and get into an inner dialogue. And I think this is an important therapeutic strategy.

But coming back to your question, what can individuals do by themselves? I think like all kinds of like journaling or visualization, as you mentioned, can be helpful. I strongly believe that the connection with others and our relationships with others are extremely helpful and crucial in dealing with these self-doubts and trying to find connection with others. And this is also the approach that we are pursuing here at the university when we are organizing exchange meetings for first-generation students, which I do once per semester with my colleague Marina Allal, where we explicitly try to get people into exchange with one another and support one another. And there have been beautiful moments where students really encourage each other and hear each other and provide each other with access to resources. I think this can be very helpful with overcoming these imposter feelings and feeling more as an integral part of the academic community, even though the academic community can feel like very exclusionary.

And these exchange meetings, can anyone go, like every student, every PhD candidate, or are they targeting only a specific group?

No, they are open to all students and PhD students at the FU Berlin.

And just out of interest, how many people do you usually show up? Is that like a really big group or is it a more intimate setting?

There’s a strong fluctuation, I would say. In our last meeting, we were a very small group. In the previous one, we were like, I think, 17 people or something like that. So, it always depends and we are doing our best to find good moments in the semester where people are maybe not too stressed from exam stress or other things. But I also always tell people in these meetings that it’s already extremely unlikely that they are sitting in this meeting because that means that they are making time for it. And time is a very scarce resource often in first-generation academics because very often they are working besides studies to finance themselves. And then it can be a pretty big thing to also find time for extracurricular activities.

Yes, I can imagine. And that also is connected to the next question I wanted to ask, because you already mentioned a few times how important it is to reach out for support. You mentioned the exchange meeting, but also before you talked about peer groups, counselling, mentoring and so on. And all those things obviously need time.

But in case there are people listening who want to free their time, who think this is really important, this might really help me in the long term in overcoming these feelings of being a first-gen and being excluded or having imposter syndrome, for example. Can you mention other institutions, groups and so on at university that people might want to check out and where they could go and connect with other first-gen students or PhD candidates?

Yes, so in the FU Berlin, one example is a regular meeting for philosophy first generation students, which is organized at the Institute of Philosophy. And in general, I can recommend arbeiterkind.de, which is this platform for first generation students, which organizes regular meetings in the different districts of Berlin,0020and you can choose which meeting you want to go to. They also have an online platform and a support hotline, and they are, in my opinion, a very helpful resource.

Yes, all those resources we will also link to on the episode’s website. So in case you’re listening, you’ll find them all listed there. And speaking of support, you’re working at the support points at FU Berlin. Some of our listeners might not know what that actually is about. For those who haven’t heard of them before, what exactly are support points at the Freie Universität Berlin and how can students benefit from them?

Yes, so the support points are a network of psychological counselling offices which are implemented within the different departments of the university. We are providing low-threshold psychological consultations where people can come without an appointment during open consultation hours or people can book appointments on short notice. And we provide like initial psychological counselling sessions, which usually serve the purpose of getting an overview of the current situation and the current difficulties and getting an idea which steps to take next. And this network of psychological counselling offices exists in addition to the centralized psychological counselling unit at the university, which provides more in-depth psychological counselling with a bit of a waiting time. But these structures exist at the same time and are like complementary to one another.

If I’d like to get in contact with you or someone from the other support points, what would be the first step to do so?

Ideally, you would click on our website, which is fu-berlin.de/mentalwellbeing. There you would find all the locations and opening hours. And then you can either book yourself an appointment or just drop by during open consultation hours at any support point of your choice. And psychological counselling there is free of charge and confidential. I encourage everyone who has a need or a wish for psychological counselling to drop by.

And if I understand correctly, there are no long waiting hours. You would usually either go to one of the open hours in the same week or you would get an appointment in the very near future. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Great. Before we come to an end of this interview, I would love to hear another encouraging message for our listeners. If a PhD student listening right now feels like an imposter, what would you recommend as their very first step towards building more confidence in themselves and their work?

Wow, what would I recommend? I would recommend, first of all, giving space to also these negative thoughts or these very self-critical thoughts and acknowledging that they are there, acknowledging their presence. And then in a second step, try to see what do I actually need in this moment of feeling like that? And how can I confront these feelings? And what is helpful for me in this moment?

And maybe sometimes it can be helpful to also think about what have I already achieved in my life, where am I standing here right now, and to get a sense of I’ve come pretty far already despite many obstacles. And yeah, I think it also requires a certain courage to also see these obstacles and find moments of self-compassion where you acknowledge that you really had to go through many obstacles in order to come to this point. In general, maybe to try to find an inner position of self-compassion.

That sounds like a great recommendation. Before we finish this interview, is there anything else we didn’t talk about yet which might be important, something that you still want to mention?

Yes, I would like to mention that so far these exchange meetings for first-generation students are taking place in German language. And should there be people who would wish for these exchange meetings in English, feel free to write me an email. You can find my contact data on this Mental Wellbeing website. And then we can see if we can make it happen, like to organize a meeting in English for first-generation students, including first-generation PhD students.

Thank you so much for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us. I really enjoyed our conversation. Have a great time, Jonathan.

Thank you.

You’ve just listened to my interview with psychologist Jonathan Bär on imposter syndrome and the first-gen experience. I found it especially valuable how many practical tips and examples he shared, from everyday strategies for dealing with self-doubt to resources and support structures here at Freie Universität Berlin. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t miss our other DRS podcast interviews. You’ll also find more conversations on the topic of first-gen academics.

My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt and this was the DRS Podcast, the podcast of Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Thanks for listening and I hope you’ll join us again for the next episode.

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

Raphaël Létourneau, doctoral researcher in political sociology at Freie Universität Berlin, talks about his path as both a First-Gen academic and an immigrant. In this interview, he reflects on the challenges of navigating academia without a family background in higher education, while also building a research career in a new country. He shares personal experiences, highlights common hurdles, and discusses the importance of networks and institutional support for First-Gen and international doctoral researchers.

Audio

Highlights

“Having people that you trust, that you can exchange and having the support, I think it’s the priority number one. And second I would say to ask as many questions as you want because we all feel … I mean many people feel kind of this imposter syndrome, a lot of people in academia it’s a bit like “you fake it till you make it”. They seem to know what are doing and where they’re going but most of the time it’s just confusing for a lot of people. And then having the acceptance that we don’t know everything and just go ahead and ask questions to people will bring a long way, I would say.”

Raphaël Létourneau, First-Gen doctoral researcher

LINKS

Starting a doctorate? Find useful links to help you get going here.

transcript

Intro

Welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast for doctoral researchers at Freie Universität Berlin, brought to you by Dahlem Research School. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I’ll be your host for today’s episode, where we take a closer look at what it means to do a PhD while also building a life in a new country without a strong academic tradition at home. What challenges arise when you’re both an immigrant and one of the first in your family to enter academia at this level? My guest, Raphaël Létourneau, is a doctoral researcher in political sociology at the Cluster of Excellence, SCRIPTS.

Originally from Quebec, Canada, he talks about finding his path into academic life, adjusting to a new system, and the importance of community, not just professional networks. We also talk about how values and activism can shape your approach to research, and how friendships, peer support, and shared experiences have helped to navigate both academic life and living in a new country. If you’re working on your PhD far from home, and you’re the first in your family to take this path, this conversation might resonate.

Interview

Raphaël, to start with, could you briefly introduce yourself, who you are and what your work as a PhD researcher at Freie Universität Berlin looks like?

I’m Raphaël Letourneau. I’m originally from Canada, Quebec, the French part of Canada. I’m 33 years old. I’ve been here in Germany since six years and a half, I would say. And I’m currently doing my PhD at SCRIPTS, which is an excellence cluster, the contestation of the liberal script is the name, which is connected to many universities in Berlin, but mostly to Freie Universität. They have a doctoral school called the Berlin Global Transnational School, something like that. So I’m doing like this PhD that is like basically my own topic while doing this program of having some classes and some credits to do.

What I would like to know is, you said that you’re originally from Canada, could you tell us what brought you to Germany and why you chose to do your doctorate here in Berlin?

Well, this was not directly connected, I would say. I moved here because of a relationship back then. And I kind of got this moment of finishing some job in Canada, starting this love story with someone that was from Poland. So we moved together here and it was kind of a starting from scratch.

So really this kind of immigrant experience of like, I was not coming for a specific job or for studies. And my skills or my experience I had was not worth much when I arrived here. So I was doing little jobs, not connected to my whole university background. And I progressively went back to studies because of COVID.

So I went to do a Master in Sociology, also at Freie Universität. And I thought that would be it, but people encouraged me to go on and to apply for a PhD. So I did. And a year later, I finally got this one at SCRIPTS and decided to go on this adventure.

Congratulations. Love is not the worst reason to move, and you seem to like it if you stayed on in Germany. What has it been like to do your doctorate as an immigrant in Germany? What have been the biggest hurdles so far? You said you’re about a year into it. Have you had any hurdles so far or is everything running smoothly up to now?

I mean, the challenges that are mostly connected to being an immigrant, I feel they started before the PhD. So when I was doing my master, maybe. Of course, not being very fluent in the language is always a barrier to connect also with people and like also networking, I guess, in the field, in the academic field. There’s always quite a few events that you cannot take part of.

There’s a whole also cultural, I guess, aspect of, I got to know how things were running at university in Canada, like in North America, but like how things are made here. You have to learn it and you have to learn it by asking questions a lot because people assume that you all came from the same academic culture, which is not always the case. People know each other. I mean, know some people already, or if you just arrived here, like you have to build also a network in general, like friends and all this informal part. It can be a challenge, I would say.

You’ve already mentioned that there are differences in the academic systems in North America and Germany, and I’m curious, as you also studied at both countries, in Canada and in Germany, how does studying and working in Germany compare to your earlier experience you’ve had in Canada?

I would say that in Canada there is, and I can talk only for kind of my field, I’m doing, I’m in sociology and I did my bachelor in sociology also in Canada. There’s a way of being like kind of informal and some would call friendly, let’s say, that is a different way in Canada. The contact we have with the professors are like a bit different. There was also, at least in sociology, something that like people were very politically active and outspoken about it, I would say, in a way that in Germany, I feel there’s a lot more this approach of we’re doing science and we’re like objective and we’re like taking a distance from like politics and things like that. Sometimes it feels like trying to have a safe distance about certain things. Or the fear that it can affect their professional life. But in Canada, I felt the sociology field was way more involved in the political struggle around them.

That’s an interesting observation and something I wasn’t aware of myself. Thank you very much for sharing that. I would like to talk a bit more about your background. You’re the first in your family to enter academia, which makes you a so-called first-gen academic. In your own words, what does that mean in practice and what kinds of challenges come with it?

In my family, it’s … I would say a challenge is to have people understand what I’m doing is always a challenge. I mean, I had different kinds of reactions. Like there’s a side of my family that is so far from, like nobody went to university, like not talking about a PhD. It was seen a bit as something pretentious to do, I think. Like it was not celebrated, it was more like, why doing all of this?

While on the other side of my family there was more support, like there’s someone that is the master in my family, not a PhD but still knowing a bit what it is like and putting value also on this. But social sciences, sociology is not something that people pick up on what it is already, even when I was doing a bachelor. So like making people understand what it is to do a PhD, which is already complex in itself.

And myself, I’m lost in explaining it sometimes. Like I’m still learning what it is in my first year of doing it. So there is that. Communicating clearly to people around me or like what it is I’m doing in like simple terms. It’s a challenge.

I can imagine. How important is it that your family understands what you’re doing and that they support you also emotionally or that they kind of understand what you’re doing and maybe not like it, but at least give you their support in their way.

Having the support is important, especially in the context of being in another country as well. It’s already hard to have a distance between us, but if it seems that what I’m doing here could appear pointless for them, it would be even harder to justify, I guess, this distance. I mean, it’s … After multiple years being away from Canada and having done different things other than the PhD here, I have enough confidence, I think, to do what I want without needing necessarily the approval. But it’s not the approval so much than the connection that I wish to have. That they understand what I’m doing, since I’m passionate about it, since it’s also connected to my values, what I’m doing. Being able to talk about this is a way to connect in general.

I understand. Now we talked about the reactions of your family. Looking back at your academic path, were there moments when you felt this first-gen background most strongly during your studies or during your PhD?

I think when I just started university at the bachelor level, that’s when I felt it the most. Because that’s when there was a part of my family that was not necessarily trying to understand. It was not like a huge struggle because those that were already supporting me in studies before kept on doing it at every step of the way. But the further I went into it the hardest it was to have this connection and understanding with people that didn’t go through this path.

I feel like starting university was the moment that this connection was more clear and then I guess everybody got used to it that I’m doing something that is quite different and yeah it feels like it is respected now more than it was at the start.

So you’re navigating academia with two perspectives at once, being first-gen, at least at the PhD part, and also an immigrant. Where do you see the biggest challenges that come specifically from this combination, being both first-gen and an immigrant PhD researcher? Or maybe they’re none, that could also be the case.

I think that the challenge is mostly seen with other colleagues here at university in Germany. There’s a lot of people around me at SCRIPTS or connected to it. The majority are German, born in Germany, did all their studies here sometimes, even in Berlin or in a city nearby. They’re very, let’s say, fluent in the academic language and knowing where to go and how to address people.

And the challenge is the challenge that the studies are in themselves. But I have to face all this difficulty that a PhD is for everyone because it’s never simple. But on top of that, I have to deal with the migrant aspect, which is to, like I said earlier, not knowing exactly how things work and having to know the language and integrate progressively. Which, by the way, I should have said that earlier, but I just got my citizenship here a few months ago.

But this was the process of like years of living here. When I had the break between my studies, I did like five months intensive German class, five days a week, three, four hours, homework the next day. So this is something that people that were always here, they don’t have to take their free time to do this step, to have similar chances to the others.

Thank you for sharing that. I think many of our listeners who are immigrants themselves will really recognize themselves in what you just said. What has helped you most to feel more integrated? Was it the language or maybe something else you might want to share with our listeners who are in a similar situation?

There are many things. When I decided to start the Master, that really helped. Even though it was like an English-speaking Master with people from all around the world, I felt, oh, okay, now I’m doing something that I want to do, that is in my field, and I met also Germans here, but I met more people. I started to have more friends through that.

I had some friends and I had little jobs and things like that before, but it really felt like it was a bit just surviving. You get the salary, and you get some company, but either the people or my occupations felt a bit disconnected from who I am and at least my ambitions or where I want to be. So when I started the studies, it felt like I found my world again. So it helped to feel more integrated in the society in general but also later on making more groups of friends and even people not in academia but also and not even like Germans necessarily but like just having more of a steady group of friends that feel like a chosen family really helped to feel at home and to not rely on just the relationships that I have in Canada, which is not super satisfying to have little contact here and there and like on the phone and visiting once a year or maybe less. Having like a more rich social life really helped me to feel integrated and at home.

So besides your chosen family, I really like this term, are there networks, mentors or peer groups that you find particularly valuable?

In the context of a PhD?

Of being an immigrant and being first-gen PhD or both.

The people that I have, like the friends I made from the master and also the other PhD researchers that are at SCRIPTS with me, these exchanges with those people are like very valuable. Especially my friends that I have since the master because I have … I think of one person for example that we started together the master and then now we got to the PhD and we’re both first-gen and we’re like going through this together. We have not only the common PhD experience, but we have also the friendship since a few years, and it really helps not to feel too lost.

When I’m saying a chosen family, I have a group of friends that are … a lot of people come from France, actually, in this group. At least we have this common language, or native language, but also we all have this experience of being migrants here, and even if we’re working in all sorts of different fields, joining together and exchanging is like very helpful to my whole migrant experience to not just feel straight up integrated like in a society but still having this migrant identity and the exchange about this experience and like having the language and all of this.

Looking at universities, from your perspective, are the existing offers and support structures at universities sufficient for first-gen and immigrant doctoral candidates, or do you think there’s still room for improvement?

I would say that I feel there’s a lot that is offered. There is a lot. At least from my perspective of what’s accessible from me at SCRIPTS and the doctoral school. And I’m also having my supervisor that is part of the WZB, the Berlin Social Science Center. So there’s like this whole network and services that are there too that are available for me.

So I feel there’s constantly events or things that I could go at to get support. The thing is … having so many things going on all the time everywhere feels like there’s nothing sometimes because it’s like being lost into all of this and there’s nobody really there to guide you like hey what’s your situation now and the things you should prioritize like events you should go or people you should talk to. And sometimes it’s a lot of work to just understand what all those things are, where they are, how you can participate and what would be valuable or what would be a bit a waste of time. So sometimes I feel the confusion or the lack of support is not that the support doesn’t exist, it’s just to find your way in this labyrinth of possibilities.

Do you think there could be a structure, an institution, a person who could give you that kind of advice? Or do you think, well, it’s something you have to find out yourself, you have to go to an event in order to see or to a support group to see if that actually helps you and works for you or not?

That’s kind of funny because I feel they do exist, like the Dahlem Research School has these kinds of things, I feel. And even right there at my doctoral school, there’s people that can guide somehow. But that’s a tricky question because I don’t have clear recommendation because it’s not that I feel it’s not there or I don’t even know they’re there. It’s the fact that there’s so much and it’s hard to learn how to split time between your work on your thesis or you try to get to know the other researchers in the field. You want to get feedback from them. You want to be part of events. You want to be seen out there. At the same time, you still want to work on your project.

And okay, there’s maybe other formation that help you do that. But it’s a whole time management and … so much as possible but you have to set yourself clear goals of what you expect from the PhD experience too, because it could be so much that you’d never have time to sit in front of it.

Yeah, definitely. I completely understand that time is a limited resource. And also in my experience, it’s one of the hardest thing you have to learn to do during your PhD to make room for it. And at the same time, to decide what you’re going to prioritize and what will not be part of the plan, at least for now.

I was just about to add a little thing. I got also this year in a situation that I couldn’t work for multiple months. I was helping out someone for medical reasons. And this brought this question even more at the forefront of how to use my time and what to prioritize during the time of the PhD.

Because I got a bit late on certain things. It was kind of shown that over those three years or maybe more, you can put your thesis aside a bit, you can go sample a bit of everything. And now that I didn’t have time to be easy and simple a bit of everything, I have to catch up on things. But catching up on things also means that I have to be even more clear about my goals and so that it has a layer of complexity I would say.

At least that’s a good learning, I guess, you took out of this not-so-nice reason of having to pause for several months due to medical reasons. Before we close, I’d like to briefly touch on how your academic work and your activism connect to these experiences of being first-gen and an immigrant. You’ve worked on social inequalities in your research, and you’ve also been active in addressing inequalities in higher education. In your academic work, you focus on political sociology, on inequalities and discrimination and social movements. Do you see links between these research perspectives and your own experience as a first-gen immigrant in academia?

I guess so, indirectly, because as you pointed out, my work and the research I’ve done in academia or even as research assistant with different professors before, work in NGOs, but I also was quite a part of the student movement in Canada as well. All those things for me are connected because like I always said that it’s like I’m either an activist on the street or in the books, but either like I’m researching or I’m directly acting to fight inequalities, but this is always connected. And of course, fighting inequality in the large sense also means to have better opportunities, more equality for everyone. If people are having struggles as migrants or as being new in the academic world, I wish everyone can have the same opportunities and the support they need to not be behind everyone else. So yeah, I would say this is somehow connected on the larger perspective.

That’s a really important point. Thanks for highlighting it. I can understand that everything is connected in the end. When we look at the activism part, because I’ve done some research on you and I’ve seen that you’ve also been outspoken in the past about inequalities in higher education. How does that shape maybe not only how you approach your PhD project, but also how you act within the German academic system right now?

You found some articles about the university speech?

I found a video, yes, and fortunately also a written transcript which I could translate.

It’s nice that you mentioned that because it was kind of something that happened that put a lot of light on me back then when I did that, in the academic world, but also outside. It really boosted my activism, too. And it felt kind of weird somehow to arrive in Germany and not having all this network of activists that this brought to me. And I felt I want to keep having the same level of impact in my surrounding and in the institutions, I’m working in or society in general, but now I’m nobody here. I cannot just do something similar.

I would say I don’t have an approach that is very career-driven. So this is probably what differentiates me from many other colleagues that I really care for the research I do and the contribution and the message we get out there, like the collective impact of my work and our work, more than these individual opportunities it will bring for me for work in the future. So this surely changes a lot the way I’m interacting with people and there’s certain parts of academia that can be hard for me like the whole networking and a bit selling yourself to the crowd to the others and like this is something I’m not that comfortable in because this is very individual. And for me, being a researcher is not an end in itself. So it’s a mean that I have right now to have an impact, and this is what I’m putting forward the most.

Raphaël, is there any important point that I have missed in our interview, anything we haven’t talked about today, where you said, oh, I definitely want to talk about this topic? Or do you think the most interesting points are covered?

I mean, we touched a lot of different things. Maybe for sure, when we talk about being a migrant and first-gen … Something I’d like to point out is also that my experience is kind of difficult, but coming from quite of a privileged background at the same time, you know, like I’m from Canada, I’m white, there’s a lot of things that are probably a lot more complicated for people coming from other backgrounds. And it’s not to diminish people that have a similar one to me. It shows how much we need to, I guess, improve for everyone and also, like, adapt to very different situations. I guess it’s the statement I would make.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I think it’s very important to highlight that different immigrant experiences can be very different, and some come with more privileges than others. Let’s finish with some advice and encouragement for those who might be in a similar situation as you are. If a first-gen or immigrant doctoral student listening right now is struggling, what would you recommend as maybe a first step towards building more confidence, more belonging in academia, to feeling more integrated maybe as well?

I would really put the priority on connecting with people. This is mostly like making friends. I’m not saying contact in the sense of just networking, but I mean like having genuine friendship and connection with people, because this is going to be like an emotional journey. It’s probably a lot of challenge from just the migrant background.

And we’re going to feel lost in this whole institutions of university and research. So having people that you trust, that you can exchange and having the support, I think it’s the priority number one. And second I would say to ask as many questions as you want because we all feel … I mean many people feel kind of this imposter syndrome, a lot of people in academia it’s a bit like “you fake it till you make it”. They seem to know what are doing and where they’re going but most of the time it’s just confusing for a lot of people. And then having the acceptance that we don’t know everything and just go ahead and ask questions to people will bring a long way, I would say.

I think asking questions is a great thing to do. I think it’s a very empowering advice. Thank you, Raphaël. Thank you also very much for sharing your journey and your perspectives with us today. I found it really valuable to hear how you combine the first-gen and the immigrant experience in your own story. And I’m sure many listeners will take inspiration from that.

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to exchange with you.

Outro

You’ve been listening to an interview with Raphaël Létourneau, a thoughtful and personal reflection on doing a PhD while living in a new country and entering academia without much family experience to fall back on. What stayed with me was how clearly Raphael described the invisible work that comes with this path, figuring out how things work, building trust, and creating your own sense of belonging, both socially and academically. His story is a reminder that the PhD journey isn’t just about research. It’s also about orientation, connection, and the courage to ask questions, even when everyone else seems to already know the rules.

If you’d like to hear more stories and perspectives on doing a doctorate under different circumstances, visit the DRS Podcast website for more episodes. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt for the DRS Podcast. Thanks for listening and until next time.

This interview was conducted from our trainer and co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt.

On this episode we interviewed Prof. Dr. Harald Wenzel, supervisor award winner for the year 2024. We discussed with him what a good supervision relationship consists of and what advice he has for aspiring or current doctoral students.

Audio

Highlights

 „…good supervision has to be based on something like responsiveness.“

„[you] could really immerse yourself much deeper in what the doctoral student is doing if you just had more time for it“

“ So you have to see that as a doctoral student, you can be very much alone. And this is really a challenge. And it’s not only a scientific challenge, it’s also a personal challenge“

Prof. Dr. Harald Wenzel

Intro

Welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast for doctoral researchers at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’ll be your host for today’s episode. Let’s be honest, supervision can be a dream or a disaster. Today we’re talking about what makes it work.

My guest is Professor Dr. Harald Wenzel, a seasoned academic who was recently awarded the DRS Supervision Award for Outstanding Doctoral Supervision. What makes this award special? It’s nominated by PhD researchers themselves. In our conversation, we talk about the three principles that make for good supervision and what doesn’t. We touch on how to build a strong and supportive working relationship, why responsiveness and enthusiasm matter, and what challenges often come up in the supervision process.

Professor Wenzel also shows what he’s learned from supervising over the years and what structural changes he believes could better support both candidates and supervisors. So whether you’re doing a PhD, supervising doctoral researchers yourself, or whether you’re just curious about the inner workings of academic life, there’s a lot to take away from this episode.

Transcript

A very warm welcome to the DRS podcast, Professor Wenzel. For those who don’t know you, could you briefly introduce yourself and your academic background?

Yes, I came to the Freie Universität Berlin as a professor for the sociology of North America. I have studied at least some time in the United States at the University of Philadelphia. I have later become a John F. Kennedy Fellow at Harvard University. And so the United States and Canada have become my special field of research. On the other hand, I must say, originally I’m a theorist in sociology, so my dissertation, since we will be talking about dissertations a lot today, has been about an American sociological theorist, Talcott Parsons, but I have also written books about pragmatism, symbolic interactionism. Although I’m a theorist, I have endeavored into new fields that are much more empirical in type, and this is also the area in which I supervised quite a number of doctoral students.

Thanks for this introduction. It sounds very interesting, your research. And you already mentioned the supervision. That’s what we’re going to talk about today. You’ve recently received an award for outstanding supervision. Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

What does this recognition mean to you personally?

Well, personally, I’ve really been surprised by that prize being awarded to me. I am already retired and therefore it’s kind of a climax, type of climax of my career as a supervisor in sociology, and not only, of course, doctoral students, but also all kinds of other students. The place where I’ve been working, or I’m still working, is the John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies, and there are bachelor programs, master programs, and PhD program, and I’ve done a lot of supervision in all three.

And during your career, you’ve clearly had a positive impact on your PhD candidates. So let’s start by talking about what good supervision actually looks like. In your opinion, what makes someone a good PhD supervisor?

Well, that’s really a difficult question. I’d say the first principle which I try to follow is that a good supervision has to be based on something like responsiveness. And responsiveness can look very much different depending on what kind of candidate you have. There are candidates who really want a lot of contribution by their supervisor. But there are also candidates that find that disturbing or distracting. So you have to find the right balance. And this is,  the relationship, the supervision relationship is certainly something personal. It’s not private. It’s not intimate. It’s a personal relationship which has to be built up or which can, in a sense, rely on further experience with a student because that same student has already be supervised for his or her master thesis.

So I would say the first principle I would follow is be responsive, and that means try to balance, the kind of traffic that you will be building in that kind of relationship. That kind of traffic, that kind of back and forth is something which is … Well, you need a kind of sensibility to see what’s right and what is working.

And are there any more principles you find important?

Yeah, of course. There are quite a number of them. I’ve never, so to say, explicitly thought about that, I must admit. There is certainly something which I personally find very important, and this is enthusiasm.

And you would usually think about enthusiasm in terms of, well, of course, the doctoral student has to be enthusiastic about the topic he or she is working on. But I think it’s also very much necessary that the supervisor is enthusiastic about the research project. And if there’s something which I have been very lucky with the doctoral students that I’ve been supervising, it is that I would say in 95% of all supervisions, I was really very much enthusiastic about the topic. In a sense of, well, this is a topic I would like to do the research myself if I would have been younger, if I would have had the opportunity.

This is so interesting. I’m so curious about this kind of field of research that I would like to do it myself. This is kind of a way to develop kind of an attitude towards the work of the doctoral student. So as a supervisor, if you can be enthusiastic about, so to say, the research topic and about the work that the student is doing on it, of course, this is kind of giving a lot of oxygen to the supervision project, giving energy to it.

I think that kind of energetic relationship that’s building up with the doctoral student is very important. And, well, I can only say I have been very lucky that, so to say, 95 percent, I would say, of the research that the doctoral students have been doing under my supervision had been projects that I really would have liked to do myself.

That’s a really interesting perspective. I haven’t thought about that myself. Thank you for sharing that. Did you want to add something or shall we leave it like that?

What is good supervision? I think there’s maybe a third point I would like to make. Having pursued an academic career, of course, you already have, of course, a lot of experience from the perspective of someone who has already written a dissertation or a second one, as it’s in Germany called a habilitation thesis. Yes, you have ample experience about how is this done.

Of course, time changes and technical opportunities change, so we no longer buy books. Now we buy e-books and we have e-book readers instead of looking at pieces of paper. So there’s a lot of change going on, but at the end there are some basic, I’d say, recipes that one has used in his or her academic life, which I have used in my academic life, and which turned out to be fertile. And that’s something I would also try to make my knowledge available to the doctoral students in the sense of what are certain, practical recipes that are helpful.

To give you an example, something like a working diary is something which can be really helpful, particularly in the writing process. Because if you start the next day in the morning with the writing of your thesis again, very often you have to think what you have already done and to the whole process of tracing back the argument you have already built just takes time, yes. And before you really can continue writing an hour passes or even more passes, just, to rebuild, to reconstruct the argument you have already been slowly, gradually building up.

A diary will help you in that at the end of the day you do write down what you have done this day and where the argument at the moment, what kind of point it has reached. And instead of, so to say, reconstructing the whole process of building your argument the next day when you continue writing, you will just look at your diary and read what you have written at the evening before, and this can help enormously to accelerate your writing. So you can begin earlier the whole process of where I am now, what has to be said, what’s the next argument, the next step in the argument that has to be taken. This is much easier then.

This is just an example of one practical recipe. There are lots of others. And you have to talk to a doctoral student who is open for, who is confronted with all kinds of practical difficulties, yes. You have to have, of course, an open ear of the doctoral students to listen to such practical recipes.

This also is a little bit about the balancing out of the relationship. And in some sense, your responsiveness shouldn’t be too far reaching. Yes. And this is very much depending on what’s really needed by the doctoral student and what you can give in that moment.

Thanks for sharing also for sharing this idea about a research diary. I’m sure that will also help other PhD candidates who are listening who don’t use one yet. Thanks for sharing also the three principles. And I think they’re great. And it’s a good ideal to strive for. But of course, as you know, not all supervision goes smoothly. Let’s take a look at the other side of the coin. What kind of mistakes do you think supervisors should avoid?

That’s really a very difficult question because it presupposes that you have already made a lot of mistakes and in science, of course, we don’t make mistakes usually. I haven’t seen any journals where mistakes are published. Well, there are exceptions, of course, particularly in medicine. So what are the risks of failing?

One of the problems that we, of course, are always confronted with. This is a very long period of time in which the doctoral student has to continuously achieve something, step by step. There have been really quite a number of cases in which I felt not really having the right expertise to help people, in particular, if there are any, so to say, problems of motivation, psychic problems, problems to go on. Yes, there might be, there are all kinds of circumstances which can play into this.

If they don’t write the dissertation, for example, on the basis of having a stipend, if they have a job to earn money just to be able to earn a doctoral degree, in my original studies, I studied psychology, but sometimes I think the supervisors should be in a sense supervised, in particular with problems that come up that are psychical problems, problems of motivation, problems that are related to confrontation with your individuality, problems of self-confidence or lacking self-confidence, of course. I have an expertise in sociology. I don’t have an expertise in, so to say, providing kind of therapeutical solutions for crisis in which doctoral students can be.

So, if there is a real risk of failure for supervisors, I think it’s probably in a field in which they lack expertise. And this is … The whole process of writing a dissertation is much more than just a scientific enterprise. It’s so much more on a personal level. It’s involving your individuality. It’s involving you in crisis, in feeling alone or even lonesome. Because you have to see very often the topic you are working on as a doctoral student is so exotic. There’s always the question to explain to other people what you are doing. So you have to see that as a doctoral student, you can be very much alone. And this is really a challenge. And it’s not only a scientific challenge, it’s also a personal challenge. It’s a challenge of your individuality and how you cope with that kind of crisis that might come up, particularly if you are stuck in building the argument. Well, so I think that’s really the biggest risk to fail for a supervisor. And I would very much like to have, so to say, someone supervising me in my supervision.

Is there anything you would recommend in order to help your PhD students maintain their mental and emotional well-being? Because I agree, it’s definitely a really tough time, the PhD journey during your life and a very demanding time.

Of course, there is all kinds of outside help that you could turn to. On the other hand, I would say, yeah, of course, there are again, standard practical recipes. Well, it’s difficult, because on the one hand, you would recommend limit the time you work on the dissertation, so many hours per day, and do something else. In a sense, think about a rewarding scheme or whatever there is outside of this kind of academic project and just think about other things, just do other things, whatever this is.

On the other hand, particularly in the process where you are writing up, it’s very important, in my opinion, that you develop something like a flow experience. And to get into a flow experience, in the sense of Csikszentmihalyi, I think is his name, you have to spend as much time as possible. There is nothing else that really should interfere. So to strike the right balance here in phases where your work is very intense and there shouldn’t be any distractions on the one hand, and on the other hand, that there are phases in which you really need some distraction.

This is a project which you have, well, really, of course, you have written a master’s thesis usually, but I would say over the length of time, more than two years, this is something you have no experience with. So this is a first for you. I think that’s really, really, really tricky for you as a doctoral student to come to terms with that kind of challenges.

So maybe, this is something like referring back to the experiences you had with writing your bachelor’s thesis or your master’s thesis. This might be helpful because in retrospect, you might be able to see what you did well and what you did wrong in those prior phases of intense academic work. But I think there are no easy answers to that.

If you have a PhD candidate and you see that person is clearly struggling, is that something you would actively talk about? Would you offer support? Would you say this is overstepping, the PhD student has to come to me and ask for help if they need support?

Well, if I see that someone is clearly struggling, depending on this kind of description, I’d say, of course, I would try to intervene. But of course, any intervention would be coming with a disclaimer in the sense of, I really don’t want to interfere if you do not want me to say anything, do anything about the particular personal problems that you have at this moment. I would be very reluctant, really come too close to that person. But this is again a problem of balancing.

And at the moment, this person answers and you might already learn whether your help is something that is welcomed or not. So, of course, if there are such situations, such crises, I, of course, would like to help. And the experience I had with my dissertation, for example, is, of course, you are in very often, you are very much alone with your topic, because we like to think about writing a dissertation as at least embedded in a team of other people, of other doctoral students, and they have similar challenges, similar experiences. But the real help for advancing with your study usually doesn’t come from the team. It would have been necessary to have a team that is on par with the kind of discussions and problems you are just at this moment grappling with in your writing up or in your doing research, in your empirical study. And this is, I would say, extremely improbable because, well, you have similar projects in a team, but at the end you are very much alone.

And coming to terms with that kind of individuality of challenge, is very important. And here the crises are born in a larger process. There is, I would say, a very important smaller network of, let me call them, academic friends. Not people that are necessarily also doctoral students, but friends, just people you can talk to about what you are just doing, and who are responsive because they are able to understand what you are grappling with.

So I’d say that’s very important again and again to find the opportunity to talk about what’s going on in your head and what’s creating the crisis. This is something that the supervisor alone cannot shoulder.

Yeah, but maybe they can also help to frame those crises as a possibility to grow personally and as a researcher as well.

Of course. They should always help to provide a positive interpretation of the situation. Of course, I would try to emphasize the normalcy of crisis, and help and show the doctoral student, well, this is something which you will pass through and you will look back on it as something that has provided you with an additional layer of experience, which is enormously helpful for your further academic career.

So, it’s always that kind of positive view of what’s happening that you have to provide. Although I must say, a lot of academic achievement is not accomplished by striving for excellence. I’d say there’s a large part which is accomplished by avoiding failure. And if you look into motivational theories, you might know that avoidance of failure is a very, very strong factor.

It’s a very interesting point, and I also liked very much what you said about the normality of crisis, because in my experience, just the fact to know that it’s not me, but it’s just a normal thing that happens during a PhD, that there will be hard times, there will be crisis, can be very relieving in itself. I would like to come back to something you said earlier on which I found very interesting as well, about the necessity of enthusiasm on the supervisor side. Now, if you’re going to look at the other side as well, what do you look for or what did you look for when you decided whether to take on a new PhD candidate and were there also maybe specific reasons or red flags that would make you decide not to supervise someone?

Well, that’s a difficult question. I have been lucky in the sense that most doctoral candidates came to me, well, not in the physical space meaning of that, but there was kind of an elective affinity between the student and me in the sense of that we shared the interest in a particular field of research. Very often, for example, in my case, it’s been, American religion. So, if the interest is already shared, you feel that someone who would really would come up with an interesting dissertation, and this is someone who is interested in doing research and in coming up with some new insights, there’s a natural curiosity and whatever. You just sense that. If you’re not able to sense that, if people are coming to you and telling you, I’m not sure what topic to write on, if you feel that there’s a lack of maturity of the topic, if it’s really very much inmature, this might really be kind of a red flag for me, yes.

But I must say, I rarely have experienced that. It’s rather a theoretical construct for me than a practical, real experience. Another problem which would also raise the red flag for me is that people from the beginning, so to say, seem to be, to me, sorry, I’m not an expert in this, psychically unstable. I had a lot of experience with that because I have been for, I think, 12 years Dean of Studies, and I have encountered a lot of students, not doctoral students, who really didn’t want to leave the university. I had a student, I think he was in the 52nd semester, and one of my so to say achievements was to guide her to the final exam. And so she unfortunately, in her perspective, had to leave the university successfully. Yes, so I have a lot of experience with people who really have been in trouble with finishing their studies, with writing the thesis and whatever.

So I’ve been chair of the committee that advises the Berlin program for 15 years, which is for American PhD students coming over. So I’ve been confronted with kind of a lot of episodes and crisis, episodes of crisis, of course, so that I’m able to see the red flag. But I fortunately, I must say, this is something very, very rarely really happened.

Thanks for sharing those red flags. I want to come back to another thing you said before, that the supervisor should be supervised. And I would like to zoom out now a little bit and look at the academic system around supervision. Do you feel the academic system as it currently functions supports good PhD supervision, or do you think it rather creates obstacles?

Well, I wouldn’t say that it creates obstacles. That would be a very black and white vision of what’s happening. It’s neither a very good system for supervision now, nor is it really bad. We are in the grey zone, of course. And in the grey zone, it’s always important to find some contrast. And I would say what has really been kind of a success model for supervision have been the graduate schools that have been launched in the excellence competition in Germany. That set up a new thinking about to create successful PhD programs, structured PhD programs in contrast to the individual promotion to PhD.

So, that created larger groups, interdisciplinary groups. This created a minimum of, well, other voices that a doctoral student can hear in addition to something like the first or the second supervisor, yes. There had been a larger team of supervisors. I know this from the John F. Kennedy Institute where we have the graduate school. We were successful in the first phase of the excellence competition and got the graduate school and we had our supervising teams of minimum three academic supervisors. So there is always that kind of interdisciplinary approach in that you can also talk, so to say, as a doctoral student in history to someone in sociology or political science. So that’s really something that in that grey zone, looking for contrasts, I’d say that’s really something that really stands out. This is kind of a salient model.

And I would say something like the individual promotion to PhD, it can be very questionable. I don’t want to delve into the whole topic of plagiarism of PhDs that have been earned with kind of, well, this is in murky waters. Yes, I don’t want to comment on that. But there’s really a broad rang.

And I’d say we have other systems like the Anglo-Saxon American system where reviewership and supervision is separate. And one can think about this. I think in the German system, this is would be almost impossible to achieve because of the critical mass. You need quite a large faculty to create a good model of separate reviewership and supervision.

So there might be better models. At the end, we have to see that one of the really crucial restrictions that are working against good supervision in the German system is the enormous load of teaching for professors. There is no system in which, for example, supervision is in a sense … can be counted against your duties for teaching. Which is, of course, in other systems, quite usual.

So that would free time. If you, for example, for every three supervisions you get, so to say, a reduction of two teaching hours, that would free time really, because each teaching hour has to be prepared.

There’s a lot of more time going into that. That would free time for better, I would say, supervision for more contact, for more contact that’s really fruitful, could really immerse yourself much deeper in what the doctoral student is doing if you just had more time for it.

Yeah, that’s an interesting idea. Thanks for sharing that. You’ve worked with PhD candidates over several decades. In your opinion, how has PhD supervision changed over the course of your career?

Wow. That’s a good question. Yeah, I think the sociologists would call the process which has happened in this field professionalization. And professionalization means that there are new forms to be filled out, that there are new principles, new rules laid down for providing a recipe to achieve excellence. So you are trying to put in much more control, more feedback, more management. If I compare that to the time when I wrote my dissertation, I would say, well, you had to have a good relationship to your doctoral father or doctoral mother.

And they were absolutely instrumental in helping you and also helping you, in a sense, making the first crucial step in your academic career. The problem is that this creates, from a sociological point of view, something like tribal relationships in the sense, if you look at how academic career worked 20 years ago, still, whereas today we have a much more anonymous and more controlled, more professional type of career building. And for the doctoral student, I’d say what has changed is that now you have to have more, much more emphasis on networking.

You cannot rely on those tribal relationships, on good relationships to your doctoral father, to other supervisors, to a certain relatively small field, we are in Germany and not in the United States where this is much bigger, in a small field where you are becoming an expert. So today this is much more, well, cooler. It is in a sense also much more difficult because what’s missing in all the challenges you have to create a network to publish and the most important journals and you have to choose these journals very wisely and all this stuff this has become much more so say kind of a multiple challenge.

This kind of multiplicity of single individual challenges, which you all have successfully to master, this hasn’t been the scenario, say, 20 or 30 years ago. 20 years ago, the whole kind of academic career, it was as risky as it is today, I would say. There’s no difference. Because really, if you take the academic path, there is no certainty that you can get a professorship.

But on the other hand, I would say it’s also today very difficult. I get the feeling that young scientists are kind of a neglected group in the policies of the Bundesländer [=federal states], but also of the Bund [=state], and to create a much better set of opportunities for young scientists, for younger academic careers. This is something I see personally as really, really lacking today.

There has to be much more done. And, well, this is a whole different problem, I’d say, and it’s a policy problem very much, and I’m not really an expert on that. I just get the feeling in seeing how certain careers evolve or develop or do not develop, and I sometimes think, well, something is going wrong.

Thanks for these insights. To finish off, I have a few quickfire questions prepared for you. Just say whatever comes to mind, short and spontaneous. I know you’re retired now, but maybe you can answer the next question. Imagine you were still an active professor. In an ideal world, how many doctoral candidates would you like to supervise at the same time?

No more than two.

When you’re facing a deadline, how early do you like to have things finished?

I like them to be finished at least a week before, but I never achieve that.

What do or what did you enjoy most about supervising PhD candidates?

I enjoy most, really, I have to be repeating myself, the enthusiasm. This is something I would, if I’m able to share that with a doctoral student, I’m really happy.

And when you look back, what are you personally most proud of in your role as a supervisor?

Well, I’m most proud of that quite a number of my PhD students got a professorship and still some of them staying in contact. And this is really a rewarding experience.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, for sharing your experiences. It was a real pleasure talking to you.

Thank you very much. And of course, you’re welcome.

Outro

That was such a thoughtful conversation with Professor Dr. Harald Wenzel. I hope you found it as interesting and inspiring as I did. We covered a lot, from the core principles of good supervision to common challenges to the role that energy and care play in building strong working relationships. And one thing really stood out.

A successful PhD supervisor relationship is built on mutual understanding, adaptability and shared enthusiasm for research. If you’d like to learn more about the DRS Supervision Award or hear from other inspiring supervisors, check out the DRS Podcast website. And if you enjoyed this episode, feel free to listen to some of our other interviews and conversations around the PhD journey. This was Dr. Marlies Klamt for the DRS Podcast. Thanks for tuning in today and until next time.

This interview was conducted by our trainer and podcast host Dr. Marlies Klamt