In this episode, Dr. Klaus Wiehl from Freie Universität Berlin talks about career paths beyond research at universities and his work in the European University Alliance Una Europa. He shares how his transition from a doctorate into a coordinating role came about and what his work looks like in practice. The conversation also covers different career options beyond research, transferable skills from a doctorate, and challenges that can arise when moving into non-research roles

Audio

This interview was conducted in April 2026.

Highlights

„When you’re working as a sort of medium between administration and science, which is the role that I have, you have to talk different languages and you have to interpret what people are saying and find the middle ground in between what people want and do. So you have to use the skills that you have usually as an academic to learn a new language or learn new languages and cultures and try to adapt to these. Because also in my field, you’re not only talking about different academic cultures within one institution, but also about different academic cultures in international settings, which complicate things, obviously.“

„(…) So between administration and science management, there’s always something going on that’s worth looking into.“

– from our interview with Dr. Klaus Wiehl

Links

Find useful links for finishing your doctorate and starting your career here.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’m your host for today’s episode. Today I’m speaking with Dr. Klaus Wiehl from Freie Universität Berlin. He works in a coordinating role in the context of the European University Alliance Una Europa and is responsible for bringing together different projects and activities across the university.

In this episode, we talk about career paths beyond research at universities and what it can look like to move from a doctorate into a non-research role within academia. You will hear, for example, what working in a coordination role at university actually looks like in practice, which career options exist beyond research that many doctoral researchers might not be aware of, which skills from a doctorate are useful in non-research roles, and what challenges can come up when moving from research into a different kind of role. So let’s get started with the interview.

To start, could you briefly introduce yourself? What did you study and what is your current role at Freie Universität Berlin?

Very glad to do so. So I studied German literature and linguistics, English and American literature and linguistics and German as a foreign language. I then did a PhD in German literature and I now work as the institutional coordinator or in the language of Una Europa, senior local lead at Freie Universität Berlin, which means that I oversee all the activities and projects and try to coordinate basically all things Una Europa at Freie Universität.

You just mentioned that you did a doctorate in German literature and then moved into a non-research role at universities. Did you already know when you started your doctorate that you didn’t want to stay in academic research, or how did that transition come about?

It was a bit of a development, to be honest, a process that didn’t start right away, because if I had known from the very beginning, I’m not sure if I would have found the energy to completely finish the PhD. So this transition started more or less, I would say, in the ending phase of my doctorate, where I was lucky enough, shortly before I actually handed in my dissertation, that I was offered a job that was partly science management, partly academic researcher. So a coordination role where I could be a bit of both or be present in both worlds. So in that respect, I had a bit of luck, I must also admit. And it was made a bit easier for me than maybe for someone who would have to search completely for their own, how they would go about this.

And also, as you already said, today you work in the context of European University alliances, like Una Europa. What does your role actually look like in practice? You already told us a little bit about it. Can you go into a bit more detail and maybe let us also know how one of your normal working days looks like?

To start off, there is no normal day. There is a lot of very, very different roles and tasks that have to be fulfilled and lived. But in general, so I am what is called in German a „Referent“, which is basically meaning that I report to the rectorate. So I report directly to the vice president international, to the head of the international affairs division and the president in all things Una Europa, which means I prepare meetings where they participate. I write briefings. That is what a referent usually does. Apart from that, I am a coordinator in the very basic sense of the role that I try to communicate with everyone, at least has a certain role to play in the alliance at Freie Universität, which can be up to 40 to 80 people, regarding on how you count it. So meaning gathering information, trying to support people in the projects that they are pursuing, writing reports, a little bit of administration also, but I have also colleagues who do this. So a normal day is reading a lot of text, and I think we will talk about this later on, and writing a lot of text.

Thanks for sharing the activities you usually do during your working days. Let’s zoom out a bit and look more broadly at careers beyond research at universities. Many doctoral researchers mainly think of the research path when they consider careers at universities. Besides your own job as a „Referent“ you just told us about, what other options are there that people might not be aware of?

I think there’s a plethora of things to do when you consider the specific tasks. But in general, of course, it’s probably not as many. So when people think about university, they only see science and they see administration. But in reality, even there, there’s more things to do. So I come from the literary science or the humanities, where if you’re not completely into research, you could always look for a position that is more teaching oriented. Not that there are so many. And in Germany, the system is still very, I would say, focused on you’re either in the preparation of becoming a professor or you’re a professor. Those are the two options.

But in reality, of course, you can be a person like a lecturer, it’s called in the English speaking sphere, which would then focus more on teaching. But if you really want to do this job, that’s another question, because it is a lot of work. Apart from that, what we usually call the administration there’s very, very different roles. Like for example, you could be a grant manager at the faculty level. So you could help prepare writing grants or keep track of the third party funds that are coming in. You could do the same thing at the central administration level and advise people on how to apply for funding. You can play a lot of roles in where I am based in, the international division. So even at university, I think more and more job opportunities are opening up right now because the role of the university in itself probably has not changed completely, but the way that universities communicate about what they are doing has changed.

So if you have a specific interest in science communication, I’m sure that in the coming years, there will be more jobs than even now opening up in that sphere, for example. So between administration and science management, there’s always something going on that’s worth looking into.

And based on your experience, what makes these roles attractive career options?

I think you can use in these job opportunities a lot what you’ve learned during your academic career. And maybe you have a bit more of a predictability. But I think it’s important to stress that even there, it’s not a given that there is complete stability. Because also there seems to be a misunderstanding in that there is a fundamental difference between administration and research or teaching. So when you change sides, you’re, of course, always in a fixed contract. And that is not the case. So even if you work in science management or administration, there’s a lot of positions that have limited contracts because they are project-based. And with the same thing that is happening in academic positions, be it either in a qualification phase or because things are project-based, same applies to management and administration. There’s roles that are limited.

So it’s not like you’re changing sides because it’s much more easy, but once you have acquired a certain standing or learned a few things, I would say it is easier to predict where the voyage is going.

As you have experience in both fields, what would you say are the biggest differences between working as a researcher and working in a non-research role at university?

I mean, the first thing that comes to mind would be that speaking about my field, you spend much less time in a library, of course, but you don’t necessarily read less and you don’t necessarily communicate less. Of course, I was a teacher. I do not do that anymore. But still, one of my main tasks is to convey information. I just do it in a different way. So in that respect, I would say that having been a teacher at a higher education institution is a very good preparation. But yeah, as I said, it’s a lot about writing. It’s still a lot about interpreting, analyzing, but probably in a different kind of language.

When you look back at your own transition, what was the most challenging adjustment when moving from research into a non-research role for you personally?

Well, all of a sudden, it’s not about your project anymore, and it’s not about your seminar anymore. It’s about so many other things that you have to keep in mind. And even as an academic, there is always a certain part of self-administration or really good coordination that is necessary if you want to be successful. But to do this on a central level and not just for yourself, of course, now a lot of other people are dependent on you all of a sudden. And that is, I wouldn’t say more, but a different kind of responsibility.

And how would you say, can you make that transition easier? Or do you say it’s just something over the years you get used to it and it comes by itself?

I think you can learn this, but I think to a certain degree, this is also a question of personal style. So for me, for example, I felt it was always a bit uneasy to promote myself as an academic, or if you think about networking: to stand up and be the person that wants to draw attention to me as a person, as an individual. I do this right now, but now I do it for the institution. So I try to network for other people. And for me, personally, this feels a bit easier. But as I said, I don’t know if this is something that you can completely learn, but that is also a question of personal style. What you definitely can learn and should learn if you haven’t done so before, is a style of good communication, brief and precise communication. Again, talking about the discipline where I am from, where this is not completely natural all the time.

But you also have to be an extremely good listener if you want to be successful in science management. Because you’re definitely now in a supporting role. It’s not about you come first, you and your project, but it’s trying to advance projects of others.

Do you have any tips on how you can make your style of communication better?

I think you have to, again, start by listening to other people and take a lot of time to think how you want to communicate. Not saying that when you’re doing research and writing a thesis, writing a paper, presenting a poster, you’re not doing this. Of course you’re doing this, but you’re talking to another audience and you’re talking in another language. When you’re working as a sort of medium between administration and science, which is the role that I have, you have to talk different languages and you have to interpret what people are saying and find the middle ground in between what people want and do. So you have to use the skills that you have usually as an academic to learn a new language or learn new languages and cultures and try to adapt to these. Because also in my field, you’re not only talking about different academic cultures within one institution, but also about different academic cultures in international settings, which complicate things, obviously.

Do you want to tell us a bit more about that?

Well, we have completely different academic calendars, obviously, but apart from that, I would really say we have academic cultures that are differently, where you usually would say, oh yes, a chemist from Germany or Belgium are practically the same, whereas a chemist from Germany and a person from political science can’t talk to each other. And this might be true to a certain degree, but in general, the cultural differences come to play, of course, always in an international setting. So I think on more than one level, intercultural competency is something that you have to be aware of and that you should try to acquire in any sort of coordinating role.

You just shared with us the most challenging adjustment. Let’s talk a bit about the flip side. What do you enjoy most about working in a non-research role? It could be more than one thing, obviously, as well.

The most interesting thing to me is that all I do is new every day. So new tasks, new roles, new projects, but that my work is also very, very interdisciplinary. So I’m not doing research in physics and I’m not doing research in chemistry, obviously, but I’m in contact with these people and nonetheless, I can support their projects. So I have a whole new oversight of what is going on in the whole institution.

And in my case, also the partner universities in Una Europa that I work with. And the next thing would be is that I work in such an international setting. Of course, all science, all education and research is and should be international. It doesn’t work any other way today anymore, of course. But me, for example, each week I work with my colleagues from all over Europe and I have meetings with them, sometimes more regular than with the colleagues that are next door to my office. So this is a truly international setting to an intensity which I as a researcher never experienced before.

I imagine a lot of our listeners are intrigued by now by this path and might consider a role beyond research at universities themselves. I would like to talk with you about transferable skills, because I assume that many doctoral researchers wonder what skills from a doctorate are actually useful outside of research. You mentioned a few before. But I would like to know, are there other skills that you would say carry over well? And I guess we might have to distinguish a bit between humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and so on.

Yeah, totally. So I would always say on the one hand, of course you can study something like science management. So there are study programs where you can do this as a master program. But if you’re doing a PhD in any discipline, I think you’re almost there because so many of the skills that you acquire as an early career researcher or as a researcher in early career stages, you can use these things and you should be an expert.

And that is gathering information, analyzing this information, interpreting it, and then using it, maybe translating it, and then giving someone else this information to do something with it, to use it. In this way, you’re an advisor, but information has to go through you before. So you’re a medium in that way. So in my work or in my research in the humanities, of course, we talked about this on a theoretical level, circulation of knowledge, the institutional creation of knowledge or how discourse analysis works. But in the end, everyone in every discipline can do this. So these would be the skills that everyone, I think to a certain degree, already has.

Other things, and those can be learned in continuous education, is the way you talk to people, the way you handle meetings, the way you write precise briefings in a higher education political context. Because no one probably doubts that you can write a 300 to 500 pages dissertation, but that is not necessary here because here it is necessary that you write a one pager where all the necessary information about a certain topic can be found so that someone can make a decision based on the way you present vital information.

And even though our focus today is on careers in academia, but not in research, I think these are skills you just mentioned that can be very helpful also if you want to look at a job outside of university, which is not in research.

Oh, definitely. I think so. This is what is the best qualification about anyone who either studied or did a PhD somewhere, because we are living in a knowledge society, right? So in any kind of way, if you can prove to someone that you’re able to analyze or to move through vast landscapes of knowledge and not get lost there, but to find a certain structure and to work with the structure, and make use of that knowledge in some way or another. That is one of the biggest requirements for any job, I would say, nowadays.

Would you go as far as to recommend doing a doctorate if you know beforehand that you don’t want to stay in research? You already said that you probably wouldn’t have finished your own doctorate if you would have known that your career develops the way it developed. But if people just haven’t started their doctorate yet or are just beginning, and they already feel like, oh, maybe research isn’t really where I want to stay, would you still recommend going on with it or would you say there are other things that are more useful if you want to have a job that is similar to yours?

That is a very difficult question to answer because I don’t think it’s a requirement and I don’t think it should be a hard requirement to have a PhD to be in the position where I am in. Having said that, I think it helps me a lot. And a lot of what I learned during my PhD is helping me every day, because it also guarantees that I have gathered insights into how universities work, into how science and research works. And when you’re talking with academics and you’re trying to support them in research projects, you can always say, I’ve been there, I know what you’re doing, or at least I’ve had a glimpse at what you’re doing. So not trying to overstretch what I did with a PhD. And also, to be honest, it’s a great opportunity to do a PhD. And it’s been a few extremely educating and invigorating years for me. So I wouldn’t want to miss that. But I would not suggest to anyone, if you’re really keen on fulfilling this role as a non-researcher at university, I would ask people to think twice about doing it again. Because maybe that would probably be the wrong way to approach it, I think.

I’m nodding here, you can’t tell, but I definitely agree. Often I think people also want to kind of keep both doors open. Let’s say if someone wants to prepare early for a career beyond research or at least have the opportunity to have good chances to get a job in that field, what would you recommend they focus on during their doctorate?

That’s an extremely good point because if you want to keep both doors open, trying to step into the, I would say, administrative or management side, that is always a good option. That was my first step, to be honest, into the world of science management. I became the academic coordinator of a bi-national PhD program, where I was still a scientific researcher, but I also got the chance to have a first look into how it is to do the administrative work on such a project, how to deal with the money, how to make sure that if people go on a travel, they actually get their money. Stuff like that.

And this is something that is vital knowledge for any researcher, I would also say. Because if you ever want to apply for a big grant, you have to know how these things work. You have to know how to make a budget. You have to know how to write a proposal. And you have to show, if you want to become a professor, that you have acquired third-party funds and know how to handle those. And of course, there will always be members of the administration to support you in that, and that’s their job, and they are there for that.

But still, even if you’re a speaker of a big project or the lead, you should have some fundamental knowledge on how that works. And also, that would be the next thing, maybe if you want to fulfill any political role at the university level, at some point you also have to know how the administration works, because then you will be in direct contact with them all the time in the organizational level, structural and political level of the institution.

If a doctoral researcher is currently unsure whether to stay in academia or leave research, what would you tell them?

Again, a very good question, really depending on the field, because I guess that so many doctoral researchers during their dissertation phase have had hard times. And to a certain degree, I think that’s normal, maybe not healthy, but definitely normal. So I think there is this very problematic phase where we really want to throw everything away and think about just leaving everything behind you. But still, if this becomes a regular thing and if this becomes normal, you should really consider it.

But finishing a PhD probably is never wrong. Staying in a postdoc position, if you’re unsure, too long, that probably can become a problem at some point. So usually in order to answer the question, I would say, really think how hard would it be to finish the PhD? What is the stage that you’re at now?

How much more trouble would it be for you? Because if you have the opportunity, I would probably advise people to still try and finish. Because at least in the German system, even in administration, if you have a PhD, it won’t hurt you. So people won’t look down on you and say, this is the person who didn’t make it in research. But of course, considering the sunk cost fallacy, if it’s too hard, you can give it up. You’re still not a failure.

You just touched on a point that I find very interesting and also important. You said staying in a postdoc position too long might be the bigger problem or might be a problem as to finishing your doctorate, which is giving you usually good opportunities afterwards and it’s not something bad for you. I was wondering, could you define „too long“? How many years, or maybe it’s not even years, would you say you can stay in a postdoc position when you already feel, maybe this is not where I see myself in the long term? In research, I mean.

That’s really not for me to say because I haven’t been there. And this is also really a question about your personal way of life. I just never saw myself in trying to pursue a goal that would lead me into my late forties with all the insecurity that is attached to that. Because I also thought that at some point it would be too late to start another career.

So for me, it was really clear that a decision was due at least at the end of my doctoral phase. But I don’t think I’m in the position to say how long you can be a postdoc and still be on the safe side. That’s probably for everyone on their own to decide. And also, talk to your advisors on a constant way, because they are the ones that have this responsibility for you, of course. But if you don’t have a plan B, it will definitely become a struggle at some point.

I think that’s still very helpful to hear your story and what you thought about when taking the decision. Is there anything we haven’t talked about that you think is important when it comes to careers beyond research at universities?

I think it is important to always keep an open mind about the endless possibilities there are, because it’s not only universities. A lot of people have these very, very high-level academic CVs that read great, but you always have to have a certain look outside academia at some point, which again is a very field distinctive problem, right? Because if you’re from the biochemistry field of research, or if you’re specializing in AI, you can do a PhD as many times as you want. People will definitely be looking for you.

People in the humanities, however, probably should have a more clearer understanding where they could be going anywhere. But the suggestion would be to keep an open mind, be inquisitive about whatever is possible, to mingle with other people, to mingle with other disciplines, but really always take into consideration how many advisors you want for your academic career. And I’m not talking only about professors because they also in the normal way, they have very academic CVs. So I guess you should also find people beyond academia to talk about your academia dreams.

At the end of our interview, I have a few quick questions. Just answer with whatever comes to mind first, one word or a short phrase. Are you ready?

Yes.

One thing you don’t miss about academic research?

The fear of the white paper when I have to start writing a paper.

That’s a good one. One thing you didn’t expect to enjoy in your current role?

Actually preparing briefings for other people.

I thought you might say networking.

Yeah.

What matters more in your job, structure or flexibility?

That is a really good question, but I think I would always go with flexibility.

One task that takes up more of your time than people would expect?

Finding dates for meetings.

One word you would use to describe your current role?

Diplomatic.

And the last question I have for you, the best career advice you’ve ever received?

I think I was once given the advice to find something to do where I would have a good ratio of being in a place where I could be idealistic and work on something that I’m really 100% behind. And I would say that working in any role at a university is always something that is worthwhile and maybe even a privilege. But at the same time see that idealism is not the only driving factor and something that can be used in order to get more out of you than is maybe good for yourself, if that makes any sense.

It definitely does. Thank you so much, Klaus, for your time and for sharing your insights and experiences.

Thank you so much for having me.

That was Dr. Klaus Wiehl talking about his career path beyond research and his current role at Freie Universität Berlin. We talked about different career options within universities, what skills from a doctorate can be transferred to non-research roles, and what it can look like to move from research into a coordinating role. If you’re interested in related topics, you can find more episodes here in the podcast. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt and this is the DRS Podcast by the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Thank you for listening and until next time.

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

In this episode, Dr. Cosima Wagner and Dr. Stefan Cordes from the university library at Freie Universität Berlin talk about the Library Starter Kit for doctoral researchers. They explain how the Starter Kit developed from earlier support offers and how it brings together different services, training courses, and contact points in one place.

The conversation covers how doctoral researchers can use the Starter Kit to get an overview of available resources, how services such as “Book a Librarian” or digitization requests work in practice, and what role training courses play in supporting the doctoral process. In addition, they talk about specific challenges international doctoral researchers may face when using library services and share their experiences with questions and uncertainties around the use of AI in research.

Audio

This interview was conducted in April 2026.

highlights

„So the new starter kit for doctoral candidates was developed […] to make services of the library visible. And it bundles now all library services and can help doctoral candidates successfully complete their doctorate. So as we see on the portal side, we made an online portal for the doctoral candidates, how to use the library, how to get information and organizing on their research. We have information about the training courses and the special workshops only for doctoral candidates.“, Dr. Stefan Cordes

„So we hope that this is the one-stop shop where they can have the first overview of what is here and especially we want to encourage PhD candidates to contact us friendly supporting librarians in the central library or in the faculty libraries. And so we hope this starter kit is good for this overview and also for lowering the barrier to contact us as librarians. “, Dr. Cosima Wagner

links

Find useful links for starting out your doctorate here.

Transcript

Hello and welcome to the DRS podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt and I’m your host for today’s episode. Today I’m speaking with Dr. Cosima Wagner and Dr. Stefan Cordes from the university library at Freie Universität Berlin. Together, they have developed the Library Starter Kit for Doctoral Researchers, an online platform that brings together a wide range of library services, training opportunities, and support in one place, and is designed to help doctoral researchers get an overview and find the right contacts and resources more easily; and what kind of questions and uncertainties doctoral researchers currently have when it comes to using AI in their work. So, let’s get started with the interview.

Before we dive into the topic, I’d like to ask both of you briefly to introduce yourselves. Cosima, would you like to start? Who are you and what is your role at the university library?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Hi, my name is Cosima Wagner. I’m a liaison librarian for East Asian Studies and I’m working in the publishing and research services department of the university library at Freie Universität, concretely in the research data management team. But I’m also the team leader of the subject librarians for East Asian studies in the campus library. And so these are my liaison roles and my special focus areas are digital humanities and research data management for area studies disciplines.

But like Stefan, I’m also engaging and working in working groups in the library. And today, I’m here with my hat as membership in our working group, increasing the visibility of library services, where colleagues from all faculty libraries and the central library work together.

And Stefan, the same question to you. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us what you do at the library?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Yes. Hello. My name is Stefan, Stefan Cordes. I’m the deputy head of teaching and learning services of the department here at the university library. And I’m also coordinating the university library’s professional or further development program trainings for professors and doctoral candidates. And among other things, I’m here with Cosima as a co-coordinating member of our library starter kits, which we are talking about today.

Exactly. The reason we’re speaking today is that you have created a wonderful resource for doctoral researchers, the library starter kit. How did the idea for the starter kit come about, Stefan, and what reoccurring questions from doctoral candidates led to its development?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Well, the start kit concept is actually … has a long tradition. I’m working at the Freie Universität since 20, 21 years. And in 2013, there was a center called Center for Digital Systems at the Freie University, in which I was responsible for e-teaching services and for further professional development programs as well.

And in 2013, there was an idea to build a starter kit, a welcome package for newly appointed professors. This was, by the way, strongly supported by the administration of the university, the chancellor and the president of the FU at this time. And this package was, as I mentioned, explicitly aimed to new professors at Freie Universität Berlin. So, the main focus was helping and supporting e-learning projects and e-research projects for the newly appointed professors as the CEDIS, Center for Digital Systems, was involved in supporting e-learning and e-research initiatives at the Freie Universität.

For example, there was support and advice services related to the use of Blackboard, which is a learning management system at the Freie Universität, as well as offers to record video sessions of seminars and other things and make them available online. So this was a support concept, a welcome package to feel comfortable for new professors at the university. After the center of digital systems, the CEDIS was incorporated into the university library, I think it was around 2020 this previous starter kit was expanded to include many of library services and offerings. And so it was developed much more further than only e-learning projects.

A so-called team starter kit was established. We made some surveys to discuss with our new professors, new appointee professors, but we had more focused on library services than on e-learning services that we had before. And when this starter kit was developed and it was successful, we didn’t sit back and say, so now relax, it’s okay. But we addressed a new audience or a new target group, our doctoral candidates, and in 2024 and 2025, we developed a starter kit for doctoral candidates, which we are talking now about.

Thank you, Stefan, for introducing us to the history of the starter kit. Could you now walk us through the structure of the starter kit and tell us what it includes?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Yes. So, the new starter kit for doctoral candidates was developed by maybe the same working group which we called AG Sichtbarkeit to make services of the library visible. And it bundles now all library services and can help doctoral candidates successfully complete their doctorate. So, as we see on the portal side, we made an online portal for the doctoral candidates, how to use the library, how to get information and organizing on their research.

We have information about the training courses and the special workshops only for doctoral candidates. We have a page and information package for services for the researching. One they made their doctoral work as publishing via what you call Refubium, which is a special software and database software. And especially we have a focus on how to get in contact with our experts at the Freie Universität. And therefore, we built an online platform where the doctoral candidates can get in contact with us.

You already mentioned, Stefan, that you’re offering training courses specifically aimed at doctoral researchers. Can you tell us a bit more about what kind of training courses are offered?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Especially for writing a dissertation, to make a research in our library databases, especially about good scientific practices, about using now, it’s a very new thing for us, how to use AI tools for the dissertation. And so we have more focused on the research and the writing of the dissertation than on e-learning or learning at the university.

I think we’re going to talk about specifically AI later on, because I think that’s a topic our listeners are specifically interested in. But before we talk about that, Cosima, I have one service I would like to ask you about that caught my attention when I was looking at the starter kit website, and that’s the „Book a Librarian“ offer. That sounds very interesting. Could you tell us a bit more about how it works?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Yes. Book a librarian is the idea to get in contact with our colleagues in the central library. You know, our library system, we call ourselves university library, but we have a central library and of course we have faculty libraries. And in all libraries, doctoral candidates can find their specific librarians, whether they are interested, for instance, in subject-specific services.

So, if they are interested in trainings on geosciences and databases or so, they would, of course, contact their faculty librarian, the subject librarian at the geosciences library. But, of course, also in the central library, we have colleagues and they developed this „Book a Librarian“ form and service. Unfortunately, it’s not working for all subject librarians yet, so „Book a Librarian“ is a service for finding colleagues in the central library and they will give consultations, for instance, on databases like, if you would like to know about our libraries discovery system in general and how to use maybe literature management software like Zotero or if you would like to have support about citing sources. So more general topics. So if you would like to know, for instance, about what is a social science citation index and so questions, general questions like that would be included in the „Book a Librarian“ service. In the starter kit platform, we have one button for contacts. And there you will also find the contact to subject librarians, so if you are interested in specific questions on your PhD discipline.

That sounds like a great service. Another service you offer, and one I really wish had existed when I was doing my doctorate, is a digitization service. Cosima, could you tell us a bit more about how it works?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
You can request a digitization of a book or a paper and you can just use the discovery system Primo and if you will find an article which you are interested in and you can find on the website a button which you can press and then ask for digitization. And of course, we cannot digitize whole books, only if these books are out of copyright, so mainly then older books. But for general digitization requests or maybe articles or so, you can just press this button and get digitized text.

Cosima, let’s take a closer look at international doctoral candidates in particular. What specific challenges or support needs do international doctoral candidates have when it comes to using library services?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Yeah, actually, this is a very good question because at the moment we are conducting interviews specifically with doctoral candidates and we expect to expand our starter kit specifically for international doctoral candidates. But what we know so far is that, of course, they will come from a different country with a different library culture. And this is maybe a very basic thing, but that you know that you can just enter the library without showing an identity card or that all our libraries are open to everyone. And to know where can I book a room, maybe a carrel for studying during my time at Freie Universität, how to find things which are maybe differently organized in other libraries in the world.

I think this is one of the things, of course, always cultural adjustments one has to do. And of course, we know that language is an issue and here also we at the university library want to improve ourselves because unfortunately websites are not fully translated yet. And we know that in general also at Freie Universität, for instance, with the VPN, virtual private network, installation, there was no explanation in English for a long time. But these are basic things which you would need to know.

And so we know that this is, of course, a basic problem for international students. And of course, then also in the library, and sometimes doctoral students also maybe are not aware of that they can make acquisition requests that we would buy academic literature for their PhD, or maybe they are used to services which we don’t have. This can also happen, of course. And I think our idea for the starter kit was to bundle and to make our services, which are not only in one place, but in the central library and faculty libraries, and to make this more easily findable for doctoral candidates in general.

But of course, we hope that our English translated starter kit will also be of special use or specifically useful for international students. But as I said, we are just at the moment conducting interviews and we expect to expand the starter kit then for international students as well.

That sounds like a great idea and a great initiative. Your training courses span a wide range of topics such as research data management, good scientific practice, and the use of AI tools in research, as Stefan had mentioned before. As AI is still quite a new topic and highly relevant for many doctoral researchers, I’d like to focus on this a bit more. I’ve noticed that many doctoral researchers feel quite uncertain about if and how they can use AI, not only on a practical level, but also when it comes to legal and ethical aspects.

Cosima, could you tell us more about the main challenges or maybe also concerns doctoral researchers have in this area and how your courses help them use AI in a responsible and also effective way?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Of course, the challenges are not only for doctoral students, but also for us as librarians, because I guess in general, the topic of artificial intelligence and academic practice and especially good academic practice is just being discussed and some guidelines exist already, but not maybe very specific. And there’s a lot of discussion going on about that, and of course also in the library. So how we started, I think, was first of all to hire expert librarians who already have good knowledge about tools, for instance, searching literature and how AI tools in the library could be of use and academic practice. But also then to train ourselves and have train-the-trainer workshops for ourselves to know about what’s going on, what is a large language model, first of all, to begin with, and which tools are out there.

And of course, what we also notice, for instance, publishers are constantly developing AI tools and want to, for instance, if you’re using electronic resources and would be referred from our discovery system to a source, which is on the publisher website, then an AI tool will pop up and you will ask yourself, what am I allowed to do with this? Should I use it? So, this is, I think, a very, for us as well, a topic which we are still working on.

But we, of course, give trainings, first of all, for not only doctoral candidates, but also doctoral candidates, where we introduce tools and where we also raise questions. Where is it particularly useful or maybe where is it not useful? Or do you really need to use this tool to do your academic work? So, I think this is our way of how we approach the topic, but we are also very open.

And for my field of the area studies, of course, we are very concerned because we know that or we see already that the academic publishing market and the basic corpora with which a large language models are trained, especially when it comes to chatbots, but also academic literature. There’s so much, we are highly biased towards anglophone academic literature and all the research publications, for instance, in Japanese, Chinese or Arabic or Hebrew or the many languages or Russian, they are not that much included. And of course, there’s also a bias of which texts are part of the large language models and which stereotypes maybe or content is coming up and so this is not at all helpful for academic research because you will get a biased information and the text maybe will be summarized in a way which does not represent research from other areas of the world.

There, we don’t have courses yet, but of course, when we do, for instance, we have a welcome course for doctoral candidates from the Graduate School of East Asian Studies, where we introduce the library. There, we will include this topic and also discuss with students about their experience already and the topics we see. And we can also explain because in the library, we are, so to say, in the data center for academic metadata so we can see and we know how data is processed and trained. And so for me as an area studies librarian, I’m very critical then of using AI tools when it comes to searching literature and getting text summarized or produced by AI tools.

Thank you, Cosima, for this extensive elaboration and also thank you for mentioning the bias and the limitation. I think that’s a very relevant point. So thanks for bringing that up.

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Maybe I can add something to this point, because as I’m responsible for the training courses, I can add that by far we have the highest number of registrations for our training courses about AI courses, which underscores the great importance of this topic at all.

I’m not surprised by that. Do you know what’s the main issue doctoral researchers usually have and what makes it most likely they’re going to book a course with you or a workshop? Cosima, could you elaborate a bit on that?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
As Stefan said, so we have two colleagues who are experts and have special trainings. and library and AI tools. And of course, I’m also not in their courses, but what I know about is that, of course, doctoral candidates would like to get more information, basic information. How are these tools working?

What can they do? And where are the limitations? And I think high topic is, of course, good academic practice. So where does the use of AI tools violate good academic practice and rules for dissertation manuscripts and how to cite, I know from the trainings with doctoral candidates from the Graduate School of East Asian Studies, questions like, how do I cite these tools or can I use this text in my dissertation at all? Because, of course, there’s a high danger of having plagiarized text because the tools, they are only stochastic parrots. They use the text they are trained on and then reproduce them. And it can be, I think there have been studies now out there that sometimes really parts of articles or works which should be cited correctly are included in the text, even word-by-word, and you just thought, oh, I use this AI tool to summarize this PDF, and then you don’t notice that it’s a word-by-word citation which you should mark. So these, I think, are questions which are especially when you’re writing a PhD and want to publish it, of course, and don’t want to violate a good academic practice, then I think this is very important. These are very important questions which come up now.

Dr. Stefan Cordes
In this context, maybe when it comes to AI tools, they always ask which tool they are allowed to use, because we have one tool at the Freie Universität, an AI tool, and I asked, do I have to use this tool or can I get external tools? And what am I allowed to do with external tools?

And is there an easy answer to that or is it too complex to answer here on the podcast?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Oh, I think there is not an easy answer for me.

Dr. Cosima Wagner
No. But my easy answer at the moment, and I must say I’m very critical of using AI tools in academic work when it comes to the main aim which we have at the university and why I’m writing a PhD. It is about, from my point of view, to learn about a topic, to read, to analyze by yourself and not to outsource this, to cognitively offload this process to a tool. So I would say, and if you think about the energy thing, so I would say, please really think about whether you would need to use an AI tool for your dissertation.

Of course, there are other things I would like to mention, which are really good to use AI for. And for instance, we have colleagues here in our digital interview collection team who have trained an AI on the transcription of qualitative interviews. So for instance, if you are doing an interview, and I think this fieldwork method is done in many disciplines, then not only cultural anthropology, but also political sciences or area studies or sociology and others. So, and even in geosciences, I learned recently.

You could then upload your interview data, the audio, and then our colleagues trained a transcription tool in many languages, and then you would get a text manuscript. And of course, it’s always important to check, is it transcribed correctly? But the transcription and AI tool is located here on a server in our library cellar. And it will not be uploaded to any other internet things.

So it’s highly secure from our perspective. And you could use this then also to, for instance, if you’d like to know, maybe you have … the interviewee mentions names, which should be anonymized. And then this tool also enables you to use named entity recognition to mark all the places where this name came up, then you can anonymize the name.

And of course, in digital humanities and in digital scholarship, I think there’s a lot going on where you could use AI, but specifically for searching literature and for getting texts summarized, I would not recommend to use it. I would say it’s not good academic practice.

Dr. Stefan Cordes
But this is not a new discussion. We had these discussions when we implement in the past old tools like Dropbox or Google docs or other things, a wiki system, external or internal. It is always more safe to use the internal tools than the external tools, but we do not have every time an internal tool. So we have to talk and discuss with the people about using these tools.

Yeah, thanks for mentioning that, both of you. And I think it’s very important to know the dangers of not using internal tools. But then also, I think it’s great that you have the possibility, that you have some tools like the one you mentioned, Cosima, the transcription tool that you can actually use and where you can be sure that your data is protected and will not end up in the worldwide web. We’ve talked about quite a few different elements of the starter kit now.

In your experience, Cosima, when do doctoral researchers typically start using it during their PhD journey? And what are situations where it is especially helpful?

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Maybe first of all, we have to say that the Starter Kit is a fairly new initiative. So we want to evaluate the service. Therefore, I cannot say that I have the feedback already when PhD students told me that they used it and that it was specifically useful. But we will do this of course. After one year, we will check and we also would like to encourage everyone who listens to this podcast and who has a feedback maybe already or maybe also colleagues from the Dahlem Research School or the faculties. Whoever’s listening and has some feedback for us, please contact Stefan Cordes and me.

We would be very interested to hear about it. But we will also start a systematic initiative, of course, as well. But what we hoped for, what we aim for PhD students when they start at Freie Universität and when they want to arrange everything for themselves and have to get to know best the library, how can I use it. So we hope that this is the one-stop shop where they can have the first overview of what is here and especially we want to encourage PhD candidates to contact us friendly supporting librarians in the central library or in the faculty libraries. And so we hope this starter kit is good for this overview and also for lowering the barrier to contact us as librarians.

If someone wants to provide feedback about the starter kit, who would they write to? You personally or is there like a general email address?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
We have a general email address for the starter kit as starter kit for newly appointed professors. And the starter kit for doctoral candidates there is no special email address because much more people than maybe the 40 newly professors in a year, but they can write to startpaket@ub-fu.berlin.de.

We’re definitely going to link to the starter kit and so we can make sure that people are going to find the email address to provide feedback or ask questions as well if there are any questions after the interview.

Dr. Stefan Cordes
And of course, they can write to Cosima and me for ourselves.

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Yeah, and we will start with our systematic review process this year, I think. And then we will, of course, have a button or something, an email address or whatever, a link maybe to a questionnaire on the website as well.

Okay, perfect. Stefan, we’ve talked a lot about the starter kit and the different elements it includes. To zoom out a bit, how does the starter kit fit into the broader landscape of the library services?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Now we have two starter kits and I think they are working very successful. So we’re going to discuss our starter kits once more in a national context or in an international context. We are now in a few weeks on the great German congress called Bibliocon where we will discuss these starter kits. We are on international discussions and contacts with the University of Edinburgh two years ago and last year we were at Helsinki.

So we are providing these informations and what we are hearing is that most university or most libraries does not have such a service. So we are very interested to discuss these services and bring it to the other universities, maybe in the German context, in a national context, but also in international context. And as a next step, Cosima just mentioned, we will develop a new starter kit for international students. So we are on our way.

That sounds like a great initiative, a great new project. Is there anything you would like to mention that we haven’t talked about yet?

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Maybe it’s just a point. With the newly appointed professor, when we went to their offices to talk to them, discuss to them, and also with the doctoral candidates, we feel that they are very comfortable with these services because they haven’t heard about such a service at other universities. So this makes us, Cosima, I think, a little bit proud that we are on the right way with our services and that we could make our services much more visible than in the past time.

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Yeah, but we hope that it will prove true for the PhD candidates as well. Maybe I would like to mention, maybe just again to stress that when you asked how and when doctoral candidates can make best use of the starter kit. So just maybe to mention that, of course, it’s a first overview, but that we would like to draw the attention to ask them to check for their specific subject librarians and the faculty libraries. That they can book study rooms in the libraries, that there’s research support also when it comes to data management questions or digital humanities networking or consultation questions.

Qualitative interviews I already mentioned. Publication support, of course, is maybe a very strong library service, where we have also workshops on publication strategies for PhD candidates in the humanities. But also, of course, we have colleagues who work in the department for publication services. And when it comes to the question, where can I publish my dissertation, or I would like to publish a research paper already, and where can I get open access support. So we hope that PhD candidates find these services very fast and then can already make use of it right from the start of their PhD.

Cosima Wagner, Stefan Cordes, thank you very much for joining us today and for sharing your insights on the starter kit. I’m sure many doctoral researchers will find this a really valuable resource and appreciate how easy it is to access so much relevant information, guidance and support in one place. Thank you so much.

Dr. Stefan Cordes
Thank you for having us.

Dr. Cosima Wagner
Thank you. We are looking forward to meeting PhD candidates.

That was Dr. Cosima Wagner and Dr. Stefan Cordes talking about the library starter kit for doctoral researchers at Freie Universität Berlin. We talked about how the starter kit was developed and how it can support doctoral researchers in navigating the different services and offers available to them.

If you’re interested in related topics, you can find more episodes here in the podcast. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt and this is the DRS Podcast by the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. Thank you for listening and until next time.

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

SEASON 1

Episode 4: Interview with Jonathan Bär from support.points of the Freie Universität Berlin on Imposter syndrome for First-Gen doctoral researchers

SEASON 2

Episode 1: Dr. Marlies Klamt, PhD coach and co-host of our podcast, talks about building and maintaining good supervision-relationships

Episode 4: Sandra Neumann, representative of the organization „Scholar Minds“, discusses mental health during the doctorate

Episode 5: Join us on our talk with Christine Eßmann-Stern, the Women’s Representative and Gender Equality Officer, where we discuss about power relations in academia

Episode 8: Wendy Stollberg, central contact person for cases of sexualized harassment, discrimination, and violence at Freie Universität Berlin, discusses about what to do in cases of harassment of any form during your doctorate

Episode 9: Dr. Elisabeth Zschache discusses the problems of power dynamics in research and how these can influence the way research is conducted

Episode 10: Dr. Elisabeth Zschache offers tips on how to handle power imbalances in a supervisory relationship

Links

• Gender*Equality Team – establishing equal opportunities for people of all genders; counseling is open to all members, associates and guests of Freie Universität Berlin and can be booked here.
  
• No Means No – Freie Universität Berlin
• Make an appointment with Wendy Stollberg (Team geschlechter* gerecht) here.
• Talk on the topic: Mikroaggressionen im Hochschulalltag (in German)

SEASON 2

Episode 2: Listen in to our chat with Dr. Anselm Spindler, writing coach and workshop facilitator, as we talk about academic writing.

Episode 3: Prof. Heberle discusses good scientific practice and his role as the Central Ombudsperson of the Freie Universität Berlin

Episode 6: Stefan Skupien, co-ordinator for Open Science of the Berlin University Alliance, discusses the value of open science and how to research based on its principles from early on in order to make your research accessible both within and outside academia

Links

• Ombuds Office and Central Ombudsperson at the Freie Universität – seeking help for academic misconducts
  
• Berlin University Alliance’s Open-X initiative
• Berlin Science Survey on how researchers think about Open Science
• Berlin-Oxford Summer school on Open and Responsible Research
• Transdisciplinary lab at TU Berlin
• Diamond Open Access Publishing in Berlin – information and counselling

SEASON 1

Episode 4: Interview with Jonathan Bär from support.points of the Freie Universität Berlin on Imposter syndrome for First-Gen doctoral researchers

Episode 5: Interview with Raphaël Létourneau, doctoral researcher at Freie Universität Berlin about the challenges of a First-Gen doctoral candidate as an immigrant

Episode 6: Interview with Alina Franziska Becker, doctoral researcher and member of the organization ArbeiterKind.de, on the topic of financing your doctorate as a First-Gen academic

Episode 7: Does your familial background influence your decision for/against a doctorate?

Episode 8: Changing universities for your doctorate

SEASON 2

Episode 7: Prof. Dr. Martin Lücke, professor for historical education at the Free University of Berlin, talks about the challenges and opportunities for first-generation doctoral researchers

Links

• Support Points at FUB
• Psychological Counseling at FUB
• Mental Wellbeing project
  
• https://arbeiterkind.de/
  
• Information on foundations that offer scholarships for doctoral researchers
• Get help as a first generation academic here.
  
• Workshops at Dahlem Research School – register and start booking here.

SEASON 1

Episode 1: Interview with Dr. Marlies Klamt, co-host of our podcast, discussing whether or not a doctorate is the right path for you

Episode 2: Interview with Kirsten Schmiester from the Welcome Service of Freie Universität Berlin giving tips to doctoral researchers starting their doctorate at the university

Episode 3: Interview with Maren Vogel, representative of the doctoral council at Freie Univesität Berlin

Episode 9: Interview with Dr. Stefan Cordes and Dr. Cosima Wagner discussing the library starter kit at Freie Universität Berlin

Links

• Finding the right supervisor: subject and supervision

• Find the Welcome Service here
• Information on accommodation: Service of the Freie Universität Berlin ,
  StudierendenWERK Berlin on housing for students

• Find out about the Doctoral Council at Freie Universität Berlin
• FAQs on Doctoral Council election

• Find the library starter kit here.

• Workshops at Dahlem Research School – register and start booking here.

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

In this episode, Prof. Dr. Felix Hartmann, professor of civil and labour law at Freie Universität Berlin and winner of the DRS Supervision Award, shares his perspective on what characterises good doctoral supervision. He talks about the importance of choosing the right topic at the beginning of a doctorate and why a certain sense of commitment to the project is essential.

The conversation also explores how supervision changes over the course of a doctorate, what role expectations and continuous exchange play, and why doctoral researchers need to take ownership of their work. In addition, Prof. Hartmann reflects on common challenges, such as losing sight of the bigger picture or getting stuck in details, and explains how different funding situations can influence both the pace of the doctorate and the supervision process.

Audio

This interview was conducted in February 2026.

Highlights

„I always tell people that if, right from the start, you don’t even have that feeling—that “yes, this is my thing, I really want to do this”—then it’s not going to work out. Because it’s like a marriage. If you’re not even in love at the beginning, it probably won’t last. And that feeling—a certain infatuation with the subject, so to speak—should ideally develop.“

“I actually want the people I mentor to make it clear in their books that they stand for something, that they’re genuinely trying to put forward a very specific point of view. And as I said, that doesn’t have to be the view I would take myself, but it does have to be an opinion, a stance, that comes through—one that’s at least worth engaging with.”

-from our interview with Prof. Hartmann

Links

Find useful links on the topic of good supervision as well as information on past DRS supervisor award winners here.

Trasnscript

Intro

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt, and in today’s episode I’m speaking with law professor, Professor Felix Hartmann. He has held the Chair of Civil Law and Labor Law at Freie Universität Berlin for ten years and has won the DRS Supervision Award, a prize given for outstanding supervision of doctoral students. Our conversation focuses on what constitutes good doctoral supervision, what matters most at the very beginning of a doctoral program, and how different institutional frameworks and funding models can influence the day-to-day reality of doctoral studies as well as the supervision process.

Among other things, we discuss what personalized supervision of doctoral candidates means to Professor Hartmann and why he considers the choice of topic at the start of the doctoral program to be so crucial; we also explore the role that the research proposal, ongoing communication, and clear expectations play in his approach to supervision. And last but not least, we discuss how the type of funding and the doctoral candidate’s status can affect the pace of the doctoral studies and the nature of the supervision.

Interview

Professor Hartmann, please introduce yourself briefly to our listeners. Who are you, what field do you work in, and what is your current research focus?

Yes, I’d be happy to. My name is Felix Hartmann. I have been a professor of civil and labor law at the Free University of Berlin (FU Berlin) for nearly ten years and serve as director of the Institute for Labor Law there. My research focuses on civil law and, above all, labor law. In labor law, I primarily deal with issues of collective labor law, such as collective bargaining agreements and strikes, for example. And one of my main areas of focus lately has been work constitution.

Thank you very much. We’re meeting today to talk because you won the DRS Supervision Award. How did you find out that you’d won the award? And do you remember what your first thought was when you heard the news?

Yes, funnily enough, I found out about it on LinkedIn, through a post by the Dahlem Research School. And at first I couldn’t take it seriously at all, because I was completely surprised by this award—one whose existence, to be honest, I didn’t even know about. And I have to say that my first thought was, “Actually, you don’t deserve this.” Maybe many others do, but not you.” But then I was actually very happy about this truly great honor.

That’s very interesting. So you obviously didn’t know about the nomination either. What makes this special is that the nomination comes from the doctoral students themselves. Why do you think they nominated you?

I’ve actually thought about this for a long time, because it’s also tied to the question of whether I actually deserve this award at all. Apparently, I have managed to develop a very, very good working relationship with at least a few doctoral students, one that also includes a nice personal connection. And a few really good projects have come out of that in the past. So apparently, from the doctoral students’ perspective as well, it is, in part, a fruitful working relationship that we have established.

At the same time, however, I must admit that for me, supervising doctoral students is actually one of the most demanding and challenging aspects of my work, and perhaps also the area where I very often feel that I’m not really living up to the standards that should be expected. And that’s precisely why I was particularly surprised by the award, but ultimately very pleased as well.

Yes, that’s very interesting. We’ll be discussing that in detail shortly—what makes for good doctoral supervision and what experience you bring to the table. But I have one last question about the award, since it comes with a prize of 2,000 euros to support doctoral students. Do you already have an idea of how you’ll use that money?

I don’t have a concrete idea yet, but the general direction was clear to me right away. One area where I’ve done far too little so far is fostering better networking among the doctoral students. I have these truly wonderful working relationships with each of my doctoral students individually, but I’ve neglected to facilitate interaction among them, unless it happens naturally, for example, at the institute. So I’m going to come up with some kind of format where we might go away for a retreat and tackle a few fundamental questions about academic work, perhaps with external speakers as well.

That sounds like a very nice idea. What does good doctoral supervision constitute of?

I believe that effective doctoral supervision must, above all, be tailored individually and personally to each doctoral student. In my experience, everyone faces their own unique challenges. Some struggle with research. Others may lack inspiring ideas on how to approach their topic.

And still others may struggle with academic writing. And then there’s the fact that every topic presents its own unique and individual challenges. Tailoring doctoral supervision to address these very specific, individual issues seems to me to be the most essential point. And I believe that doctoral supervision is incredibly important, especially at the beginning of a doctoral project.

The biggest challenge is finding a good topic, because good topics don’t exactly grow on trees. And my impression is that the high dropout rate we sometimes see in doctoral programs is often linked to the choice of topic. Often, the topics seem too broad or too narrow to me. A professor I once worked for said that a dissertation is a journeyman’s piece. And that’s a phrase that keeps coming back to me, even when I’m supervising doctoral students.

You also shouldn’t bite off more than you can chew by choosing a topic that’s far too difficult—one that might be suitable for a postdoctoral thesis but certainly isn’t appropriate for a doctoral dissertation. Conversely, of course, one shouldn’t choose a topic that might be better suited for an essay rather than an entire book. And this search for a topic—this is the first important point—is where the doctoral advisor plays a truly decisive role, because only he or she can really assess the suitability of a topic, at least at the beginning of the doctoral phase. And for me, the research proposal—which I have all my doctoral students write at the beginning of this phase—plays a very important role in doctoral supervision.

This serves a variety of purposes, and I did this myself back when I was a doctoral student—it helped me a great deal, and I get the impression that it’s also very helpful for the students I advise. The purposes are as follows: First, you can ask yourself whether the topic offers enough substance, or conversely, whether it might be far too broad for a dissertation.

So when you write an exposé like this, you’re forced to really dig deep into the topic and think: What exactly am I going to cover? What are the key questions? What hypotheses might I have? And how do I want to approach this topic methodologically? That’s really important. And when you’re writing this proposal, you usually realize right away whether your heart is in it—whether the doctoral candidate is, so to speak, really into it. That’s something you can really tell during this process.

Because I always tell people that if, right from the start, you don’t even have that feeling—yes, this is my topic, I absolutely want to do this—then it won’t work out. Because it’s like a marriage. If you’re not even in love at the beginning, then it probably won’t last. And that feeling of, so to speak, being in love with the topic—that should develop as much as possible.

And then there’s a third aspect for which I believe the exposé is very important, and that is that these 10 to 15 pages—which is usually the length of the exposé—allow you to determine quite clearly whether there are any fundamental issues with the research or with the academic writing. And it’s just much, much easier to identify and discuss these issues based on 10 or 15 pages than it is to go back and address such problems in a much longer text after hundreds of pages have already been written.

So, from what I’ve gathered, you definitely make sure to lay a solid foundation right from the start. I also really liked the comparison between being in love and marriage—it made me smile. Would you bring that up directly? I mean, if you were to say that you sense the spark or the infatuation is missing a bit. Or perhaps there are still some fundamental issues with academic writing, such that the person isn’t yet able to express themselves the way you expect. Is that something you actually address very directly right from the start?

Yes, the foundation of this process is that both parties understand that just because I ask someone to write a research proposal, that doesn’t mean they’ve been accepted as a doctoral candidate, but rather that we’re simply setting out on this path together to see if it’s a good fit—if the topic is a good fit, if we’re a good fit personally, and if the doctoral candidate also gets the impression that they can meet the requirements I set and, in my view, those set by the process itself. And in that sense, it’s really just a certain formalization of a process that I consider very important. I haven’t actually had it happen very often that things end at the proposal stage.

But there have also been two or three cases where either I or the other person said, “No, I don’t think this is going to work out between us. It was an interesting exchange, thank you very much. But I don’t think we’ll be working together.” And that’s perfectly fine.

So it has to work for both of us. And a doctoral student once told me something that made me very happy: during our first conversation, he had the impression that I had applied to him in exactly the same way that he had applied to me. And that made me happy because I actually believe that this mutuality of the whole process, as well as the nature of a shared journey, is reflected quite well. And if I can convey that impression, then I’m actually quite happy with that.

When I asked about good doctoral supervision, the first thing you said was that you prefer to provide individualized, personalized guidance. That’s only possible if you don’t supervise too many students at once. How many doctoral students are you currently supervising, and what would you say is the ideal number for you personally—and why?

Right now, I’m supervising seven doctoral students—one of whom is a member of our department, and the rest are external. That’s a number I can easily manage. There have been times when there were significantly more. That’s because, by chance, a relatively large number of them have all finished at the same time.

I’ve also had well over ten people to supervise at the same time. But I think that if the number were to increase further, you’d eventually reach the limits of what you can handle, especially if you want to have regular, in-depth conversations with them. And I know colleagues who supervise 40 or 50 people at the same time. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could do that properly.

In any case, I wouldn’t see myself as capable of doing that. And with the seven to ten people I have, I’m already fully occupied, and I can’t really imagine taking on any more.

What experiences from your own time as a doctoral student have had a particularly strong influence on how you supervise students today? I’m thinking both of positive experiences that you’d like your doctoral students to have as well, but also of less pleasant ones where you might say, “I want to consciously distance myself from that and act differently.”

During my own doctoral studies, I had very little contact with my advisor after the first third of the project, even though I know him very well. And that was mainly my fault, because at some point I felt that I had already made so many decisions in this project, and I was worried that he might talk me out of one or two of them. So at some point, I decided to just hand him the finished book at the very end, hoping that he would then approve of it as a complete work. And that actually worked out in my case, because he actually liked the book quite a bit.

But I took an incredibly high risk by doing that. And in hindsight, I wouldn’t do it that way again. And I wouldn’t recommend that to the doctoral students I supervise either. Instead, it’s important to really maintain contact throughout the entire duration of the project.

As I just mentioned, I believe that the advisor plays a more important role at the beginning of the project than later on. Because setting up the project—so to speak, driving in the rough stakes to determine where the journey should go, defining the topic a bit, and all those things—embedding it, too, in a broader research discourse that the doctoral student may not yet fully grasp. These are all things that are important at the beginning.

The deeper the doctoral student gets into the research themselves, the more they naturally outpace you in terms of detailed knowledge at some point, and you may then no longer be as important as you were at the beginning. Nevertheless, it is of course important to maintain contact and to continue supervising the project, especially since course corrections may be necessary later on, or completely unexpected obstacles may arise, or new developments that suddenly cast doubt on the project or at least need to be incorporated—all those kinds of things.

And so I do try to maintain a constant and ongoing dialogue with all the doctoral students. It’s that “just grit your teeth and get through it” mentality, so to speak, that I had back then—at least during the final phase of my own doctoral studies—that doesn’t really happen anymore. But this is explicitly not a criticism of my doctoral advisor, whom I hold in very high regard and whom I also greatly appreciated as a supervisor; rather, it’s a criticism I would level at myself as a doctoral student in hindsight.

I definitely agree with you that it’s important to maintain constant communication throughout the course of the dissertation and right up until submission. You mentioned earlier that most of your doctoral candidates are external students. Have you established formal structures to discuss their progress on a regular basis? Or do you feel that this is more the responsibility of the doctoral candidates themselves?

In fact, I tell my doctoral students that it’s primarily their responsibility to reach out to me if any problems arise or if they need to talk. But if I don’t hear from someone for an unusually long time—say, several months—then of course I’ll check in to see how things are going and if any problems have come up. And, of course, I’ve seen time and again that doctoral students face difficulties in their personal lives—personal tragedies, illnesses, family circumstances. Unfortunately, that has led to the end of one or two projects.

And you have to accept that life sometimes doesn’t take such projects into account. But if I get the impression that someone is drifting away a bit, I do try to actively maintain contact. But I tell people quite explicitly that a professor naturally has many balls in the air at the same time, so the initiative should really come from the doctoral candidates. And I emphasize this very strongly, especially in light of my own experiences, that doctoral candidates should also be aware of this.

And I really do try to make it possible whenever I can for us to get together—even if it’s just via video call—at short notice, because often a 20- or 30-minute conversation, which I can easily fit into my schedule almost every day, can already help the doctoral student navigate a difficult situation or make an important decision that’s coming up.

Has your approach to mentoring changed over the course of your career? Do you mentor differently today than you did at the beginning, when you were supervising your very first doctoral students?

Not fundamentally, I’d say. But I’ve noticed that I have my own unique approach with each individual doctoral candidate. There are people I talk to more often. There are people who want to discuss even minor changes to their structure or outline with me.

And then there are those who confidently say, “No, I’ll decide on the bigger questions myself.” And that’s when I realize that their needs are actually quite different, and I try to respond to that and take it into account. I also think it’s legitimate to work more closely with the advisor in some cases and less closely in others. I also tell all the doctoral students I supervise time and time again that, ultimately, it’s their project.

It’s not, so to speak, a commissioned piece of work that I’m just having someone else do because I don’t have the time, but rather a genuine academic achievement of their own that they are expected to produce. And there are different styles for that as well, which I try to adapt to in each case.

For doctoral supervision to work well—and this is something you yourself have emphasized before—it is very important that the expectations of both sides are met, that is, on the part of the doctoral candidates, but also on the part of the supervisors. What do you expect from doctoral candidates, both academically and personally?

So, from a professional standpoint, the crucial point for me is that a dissertation should produce something new. Just as Richard Wagner once wrote to his fellow composer List: “Children create new things, new things, and yet more new things.” I quote this quite often because I truly believe that is the decisive point. There are far too many dissertations on the market that essentially just compile existing material. And that’s just a spanner in the works. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and doesn’t really move the world forward. And this whole plagiarism situation we’re dealing with has, in my view, created the false impression that all that matters is adding the right footnotes to compiled texts. That’s not science; science is innovation. Science is new ideas.

This basic requirement—which, by the way, is usually included in doctoral regulations as well—this basic requirement is what I’m trying to make clear. And this seems particularly important to me for law graduates, because our program is one that, not least, trains people in certain practical skills, so to speak, but perhaps does not make it clear enough how to work scientifically and what, so to speak, the actual goal of scientific work is.

And some doctoral candidates already have a pretty good idea of this right from the start, so to speak, while with others I get the impression that I first have to raise their awareness of it. And I always try to make that very, very clear at the beginning. And from a purely academic standpoint, that’s actually perhaps the only requirement I have: that it has to be interesting in some way and that it has to be something new. That doesn’t mean at all that I’ll ultimately agree with the theses presented in the dissertation.

It might even be the case that I reject all of it, but it has to be such that it challenges me and other readers at least enough that something emerges from engaging with these new theses. On a personal level, I don’t even know if I should expect too much there. I think this is something that’s perhaps hard to put into words. I consider it absolutely essential that there’s harmony between the advisor and the doctoral candidate on a human level as well. At least as far as I’ve been able to tell, I’ve never had a major problem with that.

But if you were to realize that you just don’t really like each other, then I don’t think that’s a good foundation for a working relationship. But I would guess that in such a case, both parties would sense it, and the doctoral candidate might then start looking for another option.

As for what they expect from me in return, I usually don’t even ask. And now that you mention it, I realize that it might actually be a good idea to have them clearly articulate their expectations as well. I think I’ll make a point of doing that in future conversations—if I ever find myself at the start of a project like this again—to ask more specifically about their expectations as well.

I’m glad I was able to inspire you there. I also think it’s very important for doctoral students to have a clear understanding of their own expectations, because these are often very implicit, and you first have to make them clear to yourself. And a question like that naturally challenges you to think about what you actually expect from yourself, because that’s a question that, I would guess, usually isn’t asked otherwise. In what situations do you notice that doctoral students are getting in their own way?

Well, I’m thinking of things like avoidable mistakes, or not asking questions when they’re unsure, imposter syndrome, and so on—that they might not have enough confidence in themselves or speak up enough. Are there any situations you’ve observed?

So, a recurring problem I’ve really observed in a great many candidates is that they’ve become fixated on individual aspects of their topic and lost sight of the broader context of the subject they’re working on. This is something I warn against time and again, but it keeps happening, and I can certainly relate to it, because even in my own research projects, I sometimes run the risk of getting bogged down on a single point. And what I always advise in such cases is to really take a step back at least every few days and, with whatever you’re grappling with, always ask yourself: what is the significance of this specific sub-question I’m currently working on for my entire project? Why do I even want to know this?

And in my opinion, there are far too many dissertations on the market that clearly show that, so to speak, this central thread is essentially missing—that various topics somehow related to the subject are simply thrown together without the research objective ever becoming clear. And that’s how books end up being produced that are essentially completely unreadable and, apart from the people who have to read them, aren’t actually read by anyone. And we really want to spare the world from such works, and we especially want to spare doctoral students from them, so they don’t end up wasting valuable time by getting unnecessarily bogged down in them. So this is a problem I observe very often.

And then, actually, since you mentioned the courage to take a stand and so on—to hold one’s own opinion—that is perhaps something that needs to be particularly encouraged among lawyers. During their training, lawyers are, after all, taught to solve cases according to specific guidelines. Of course, even there, one often has to take a stand for one view or another. But they are often not very accustomed to really taking a stand as themselves, so to speak, when it comes to academic questions.

And yet that is precisely what is necessary in a dissertation—that it is simply not enough to write, “Some say this, and others say that.” That is something that cannot be emphasized enough. I actually want the people I supervise to commit to a position in their books, to stand for something, to really try to put forward a very specific opinion. And as I said, that doesn’t have to be the view I would take myself, but it must be an opinion, a stance, that is evident there—one that is at least worth engaging with.

Yes, and then perhaps also overcoming that fear of making yourself vulnerable when you take a stand. Looking on the bright side, can you recall a specific situation where a doctoral student really impressed you?

Situations like that have come up often. Doctoral students often impress me with the new ideas they come up with through their in-depth engagement with the literature and case law. This often brings to light aspects of topics that I might not have even considered when I first conceived the topic together with the students. So it happens quite frequently that something is unexpectedly brought to light, and you realize that it’s definitely worth having someone delve deeply into this topic.

And then there are people—I’ve supervised doctoral students who have written books—about whom I have to say quite clearly that I wouldn’t have been able to do that, especially at that stage of my training. So these are books that I can truly only admire.

That’s a very nice compliment. A doctoral program takes many years, so it’s normal for disagreements to arise from time to time. How do you handle conflicts with your doctoral students?

When I think back, I actually haven’t had that many clearly identifiable conflicts over the years. There may have been conflicts, but they were always related to the subject matter—for example, when I suggested certain changes that weren’t well-received, or when we perhaps didn’t quite agree on how to frame the topic. And in those conflicts, which never really escalated, but which nevertheless emerged as recognizable differences of opinion, so to speak—in these conflicts, it was always important to me not to assert myself simply because I’m in a position of power, so to speak, because I’m the one who will ultimately evaluate the work, and because I’m the one on whom the doctoral candidate, of course, is in a certain sense also dependent.

Instead, it was important to me, even in such conflict situations, to always emphasize that it is the doctoral candidate’s research project. And the final decision must then actually be made by the doctoral candidate themselves. And, incidentally, it hasn’t been all that rare for doctoral candidates to ignore my urgent advice to structure the book in a certain way at a particular point and to do it differently instead. And that has sometimes even surprised me in specific cases.

But I have always accepted it, and I have always been able to see it in a positive light, insofar as it is an expression of that academic freedom which we always emphasize so strongly—and which we should, after all, also put into practice.

Since you’re also an expert in labor law, I’d like to briefly discuss with you how the labor law situation can affect doctoral studies and doctoral supervision. The reality is that doctoral candidates work under very different conditions—some with a contract as research assistants, some with a scholarship, and some externally, as is the case with many of your doctoral candidates. What differences do you observe in the supervision, and where do you see particular challenges?

n fact, I’m always deeply moved by this and take a keen interest in how my doctoral students support themselves and what their overall lifestyle is like. And I don’t believe that showing an interest in these matters constitutes any kind of overstepping; rather, I actually see it as part of good doctoral supervision—that as a doctoral advisor, one also addresses these issues. And if I get the impression that someone doesn’t really have a viable plan in place, then I’m not willing to supervise them. So that framework really has to be in place.

You just mentioned that there are, of course, various ways to structure this time. In my view, by far the best way to pursue a doctorate is in a research assistant position—ideally with your advisor. Because that naturally ensures, in a very casual way, that you see each other much more frequently and can clarify questions on the fly or at the coffee machine.

This ensures that you gain a much deeper insight into your advisor’s academic way of thinking. And that is why this is undoubtedly by far the best approach. However, especially in Berlin, we simply don’t have that many positions for research assistants. And some people view even these positions as precarious.

There have been repeated attempts to increase the workload for these positions. But if funding remains the same, the result is, of course, that even fewer people will be able to pursue a doctorate in this way. And that’s why, in my opinion, we need to explore other options. I have colleagues who now flatly refuse to take on external doctoral students and only supervise their own.

I handle it differently, and I do so deliberately. But, as you already hinted at in your question, there are certain risks associated with external doctorates. In the legal field, a very common way to pursue an external doctorate is to work one or two days a week at a law firm as a research assistant, earning just enough to barely make ends meet, so to speak. And while this model is widespread, I’m actually reluctant to recommend it.

This is because those two days often turn into two and a half, and you constantly have to get back into your dissertation project after taking a break of several days. In my experience, this really does end up extending the time it takes to complete the work. And ultimately, even though I can only speak from anecdotal evidence, the failure rate is certainly higher. However, I have also supervised external doctoral candidates who have managed this very well—who were disciplined enough to juggle these different demands and produce truly excellent work within a reasonable timeframe, despite this dual burden.

So it really comes down to the individual. And when I get to know people, I actually always try to figure out whether they’re capable of handling it if they decide to go down this path. It’s also the case that you’ve often known the people doing their doctorates with you for quite some time. You often know them from their time as undergraduates, and that gives you an impression of how they work, what their strengths are, and especially how organized they are.

And if I get the impression that someone has the discipline and is organized enough to handle the demands of a part-time doctoral program, then I’m happy to share the risk. But the risk is there, and you have to be aware of that.

What rights and responsibilities do you think doctoral students should definitely be aware of? And where do you see the most common misunderstandings?

For several years now, our department has been using a supervision agreement that sets out the mutual rights and obligations in considerable detail. It mentions regular meetings. Conversely, the doctoral candidate commits to working continuously on the project. Of course, these are rights and obligations that very rarely become legally enforceable; rather, I believe this serves to simply make everyone aware of this reciprocal relationship.

I believe it is important for doctoral candidates to have places to turn to if conflicts do arise. We handle this by always having a second advisor, who could typically—though not necessarily—later become the second examiner. And if serious conflicts or even rifts do arise, then one should not hesitate to turn to this second advisor, for example, who might be able to mediate. And there are other points of contact as well. There are ombudspersons whom one can turn to. These are all options that doctoral candidates may not be sufficiently aware of.

Fortunately, that has never been necessary in my case or among the people I know. But I don’t want to rule out the possibility that I might face such difficulties someday. And if that happens, it would be important to me that the people I support know there are places they can turn to.

Since, unfortunately, as you just mentioned yourself, not all supervisory relationships are positive—even if you haven’t been affected by this yet—I have another question for you. In your view, what is needed at the institutional level to promote good care on the one hand, but also to prevent problematic situations such as strong dependencies, abuse of power, and perhaps even structural overload on supervisors, resulting in a lack of supervision or no supervision at all?

This is a topic that’s currently the subject of much debate, and there’s also discussion about whether the entire structural framework should perhaps be redesigned—for example, whether supervision and evaluation of the dissertation should be separated to prevent abuse, or whether the whole process should, so to speak, be made more like a school system, transformed into structured doctoral programs, as is more common in the U.S. than here. I have to say that, perhaps based on my very positive experiences so far, I don’t actually think much of these proposals. In my view, separating supervision from evaluation is difficult in practice because, for some topics, you first have to find people who can evaluate them competently.

And the institutionalization of the whole process is, in my view, questionable insofar as the freedom and individuality—both of which I emphasized earlier—could all too easily fall by the wayside in such structured programs. If you want to do something institutionally, then I think it’s simply important to make doctoral students even more aware of the existing support services that are already available—so they know they’re not alone when problems arise. They aren’t alone now, of course. And then, basically, you can only encourage people to actually make use of these services when they encounter problems.

Perhaps I’m viewing it all too positively based on my own experiences, but I also get the impression that certain problems—such as the exploitation of power imbalances and the like—are actually becoming somewhat less prevalent, because the glory days of the past, when senior professors held all the power, are largely over anyway, and in some cases perhaps rightly so. And I actually have the impression that the younger generation of professors—to whom I certainly no longer count myself—that this younger generation is actually much more attentive to such issues, has much greater awareness. And that certainly doesn’t eliminate all problems, but I do believe that overall, things are moving in the right direction.

And that is why I would caution against overly radical reforms of the framework, because science and academic freedom must remain at the center.

Perhaps I should also take this opportunity to remind everyone listening to this interview that there are many episodes in this podcast that deal specifically with the topic of abuse of power and what you can do about it as a victim. There are interviews with ombudspersons and so on. So anyone who might be in a situation where they want to learn more can also use this podcast—and the other episodes available here—as a first point of reference. Professor Hartmann, we’re slowly coming to the end of our conversation.

Is there any other aspect of doctoral supervision that you consider important but that we haven’t addressed yet?

One important point we haven’t touched on yet, but which might be quite significant for a lawyer, is that different disciplines have different doctoral cultures. For example, in law, a great many practitioners actually pursue doctoral degrees, and this leads to a very vibrant exchange between legal practice and legal scholarship—something that simply doesn’t exist in other countries. And of course, this also shapes the way doctoral studies are conducted and how dissertations are supervised.

For example, these external doctoral programs we discussed earlier make sense from this perspective because they keep the dialogue between academia and practice very much alive and can foster it. And that is another reason—to come back to your previous question—why I actually have reservations about forcing doctoral programs in various disciplines into structures that simply cannot do justice to these very subject-specific characteristics. That is an aspect that just occurred to me and that is always important to me when it comes to the topic of doctoral studies, especially in discussions with representatives of other disciplines.

Thank you very much for that addition. I’ve brought a few quick-fire questions to wrap things up, and it’s really simple. I’ll ask you a question, and you’ll answer with just one word or a few words—just go with your gut and say the first thing that comes to mind. Ready?

I will do my best.

When you think back to your own time as a doctoral candidate, which characteristics of your supervisor did you most appreciate?

His incredible intuition, always knowing immediately and instinctively what the right thing to do is.

In your view, who bears primary responsibility for securing funding? Supervisors or doctoral candidates?

The doctoral candidates, but as I said, I believe there is shared responsibility; however, it is their life and they are the ones who must plan for it.

What should you definitely clarify early on in a mentoring relationship?

The overall goals, the objectives and aspirations of the entire project, and perhaps also why you’re actually doing all of this.

In your experience, what is the most common reason why doctoral studies stall and take longer than expected?

Choosing the wrong topic from the start.

What would you have liked to have known sooner when you were a doctoral student?

That I was on the right track.

Which is more important, brilliance or perseverance?

Both are necessary.

The most important quality for successfully completing a doctoral degree?

Probably perseverance, after all.

Dear Professor Hartmann, I would like to thank you very, very much for your time, for your openness, and for sharing your experiences regarding doctoral supervision and beyond. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That was a pleasure.

Outro

That was Professor Felix Hartmann, winner of the 2025 Supervisor Award, discussing doctoral supervision here on the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universität Berlin. If you’d like to listen to more episodes of the DRS Podcast, you’ll find discussions, for example, on how to build a good relationship with your advisor and how power structures influence the supervisory relationship. You’ll also find other interviews worth listening to with past Supervisor Award winners in the podcast. I’m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I’d like to thank you very much for listening. Until next time here on the DRS Podcast.

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

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

This interview was conducted in November 2025.

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

This interview was conducted in November 2025.

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

This interview was conducted in September 2025.

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