{"id":1295,"date":"2026-03-26T11:23:19","date_gmt":"2026-03-26T10:23:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/?p=1295"},"modified":"2026-08-05T13:42:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:42:41","slug":"you-need-to-fall-in-love-with-your-topic-at-the-beginning-an-interview-with-professor-hartmann","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/2026\/03\/26\/you-need-to-fall-in-love-with-your-topic-at-the-beginning-an-interview-with-professor-hartmann\/","title":{"rendered":"You Need to Fall in Love with your Topic at the Beginning \u2013 an Interview with Prof. Hartmann"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This interview was conducted in German. An English transcript is available at the bottom of this page. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this episode, Prof. Dr. Felix Hartmann<\/a>, professor of civil and labour law at Freie Universit\u00e4t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audio <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Highlights<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n

„I always tell people that if, right from the start, you don\u2019t even have that feeling\u2014that \u201cyes, this is my thing, I really want to do this\u201d\u2014then it\u2019s not going to work out. Because it\u2019s like a marriage. If you\u2019re not even in love at the beginning, it probably won\u2019t last. And that feeling\u2014a certain infatuation with the subject, so to speak\u2014should ideally develop.“<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI actually want the people I mentor to make it clear in their books that they stand for something, that they\u2019re genuinely trying to put forward a very specific point of view. And as I said, that doesn\u2019t have to be the view I would take myself, but it does have to be an opinion, a stance, that comes through\u2014one that\u2019s at least worth engaging with.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

-from our interview with Prof. Hartmann<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Trasnscript <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Intro<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Welcome to the DRS Podcast, the podcast of the Dahlem Research School at Freie Universit\u00e4t Berlin. My name is Dr. Marlies Klamt, and in today\u2019s episode I\u2019m speaking with law professor, Professor Felix Hartmann. He has held the Chair of Civil Law and Labor Law at Freie Universit\u00e4t 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s status can affect the pace of the doctoral studies and the nature of the supervision. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interview<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I\u2019d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you very much. We\u2019re meeting today to talk because you won the DRS Supervision Award. How did you find out that you\u2019d won the award? And do you remember what your first thought was when you heard the news?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, funnily enough, I found out about it on LinkedIn, through a post by the Dahlem Research School. And at first I couldn\u2019t take it seriously at all, because I was completely surprised by this award\u2014one whose existence, to be honest, I didn\u2019t even know about. And I have to say that my first thought was, \u201cActually, you don\u2019t deserve this.\u201d Maybe many others do, but not you.\u201d But then I was actually very happy about this truly great honor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s very interesting. So you obviously didn\u2019t 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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve actually thought about this for a long time, because it\u2019s 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\u2019 perspective as well, it is, in part, a fruitful working relationship that we have established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019m not really living up to the standards that should be expected. And that\u2019s precisely why I was particularly surprised by the award, but ultimately very pleased as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, that\u2019s very interesting. We\u2019ll be discussing that in detail shortly\u2014what 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\u2019ll use that money?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t have a concrete idea yet, but the general direction was clear to me right away. One area where I\u2019ve 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\u2019ve neglected to facilitate interaction among them, unless it happens naturally, for example, at the institute. So I\u2019m 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That sounds like a very nice idea. What does good doctoral supervision constitute of?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And still others may struggle with academic writing. And then there\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest challenge is finding a good topic, because good topics don\u2019t 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\u2019s piece. And that\u2019s a phrase that keeps coming back to me, even when I\u2019m supervising doctoral students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You also shouldn\u2019t bite off more than you can chew by choosing a topic that\u2019s far too difficult\u2014one that might be suitable for a postdoctoral thesis but certainly isn\u2019t appropriate for a doctoral dissertation. Conversely, of course, one shouldn\u2019t choose a topic that might be better suited for an essay rather than an entire book. And this search for a topic\u2014this is the first important point\u2014is 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\u2014which I have all my doctoral students write at the beginning of this phase\u2014plays a very important role in doctoral supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This serves a variety of purposes, and I did this myself back when I was a doctoral student\u2014it helped me a great deal, and I get the impression that it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So when you write an expos\u00e9 like this, you\u2019re 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\u2019s really important. And when you\u2019re writing this proposal, you usually realize right away whether your heart is in it\u2014whether the doctoral candidate is, so to speak, really into it. That\u2019s something you can really tell during this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because I always tell people that if, right from the start, you don\u2019t even have that feeling\u2014yes, this is my topic, I absolutely want to do this\u2014then it won\u2019t work out. Because it\u2019s like a marriage. If you\u2019re not even in love at the beginning, then it probably won\u2019t last. And that feeling of, so to speak, being in love with the topic\u2014that should develop as much as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there\u2019s a third aspect for which I believe the expos\u00e9 is very important, and that is that these 10 to 15 pages\u2014which is usually the length of the expos\u00e9\u2014allow you to determine quite clearly whether there are any fundamental issues with the research or with the academic writing. And it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, from what I\u2019ve 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\u2014it 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.<\/em> Or perhaps there are still some fundamental issues with academic writing, such that the person isn\u2019t yet able to express themselves the way you expect. Is that something you actually address very directly right from the start?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, the foundation of this process is that both parties understand that just because I ask someone to write a research proposal, that doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019ve been accepted as a doctoral candidate, but rather that we\u2019re simply setting out on this path together to see if it\u2019s a good fit\u2014if the topic is a good fit, if we\u2019re 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\u2019s really just a certain formalization of a process that I consider very important. I haven\u2019t actually had it happen very often that things end at the proposal stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there have also been two or three cases where either I or the other person said, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t think this is going to work out between us. It was an interesting exchange, thank you very much. But I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll be working together.\u201d And that\u2019s perfectly fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019m actually quite happy with that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I asked about good doctoral supervision, the first thing you said was that you prefer to provide individualized, personalized guidance. That\u2019s only possible if you don\u2019t 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\u2014and why?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right now, I\u2019m supervising seven doctoral students\u2014one of whom is a member of our department, and the rest are external. That\u2019s a number I can easily manage. There have been times when there were significantly more. That\u2019s because, by chance, a relatively large number of them have all finished at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve also had well over ten people to supervise at the same time. But I think that if the number were to increase further, you\u2019d 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\u2019t know how anyone could do that properly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, I wouldn\u2019t see myself as capable of doing that. And with the seven to ten people I have, I\u2019m already fully occupied, and I can\u2019t really imagine taking on any more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What experiences from your own time as a doctoral student have had a particularly strong influence on how you supervise students today? I\u2019m thinking both of positive experiences that you\u2019d like your doctoral students to have as well, but also of less pleasant ones where you might say, \u201cI want to consciously distance myself from that and act differently.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I took an incredibly high risk by doing that. And in hindsight, I wouldn\u2019t do it that way again. And I wouldn\u2019t recommend that to the doctoral students I supervise either. Instead, it\u2019s important to really maintain contact throughout the entire duration of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014so to speak, driving in the rough stakes to determine where the journey should go, defining the topic a bit, and all those things\u2014embedding 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014all those kinds of things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so I do try to maintain a constant and ongoing dialogue with all the doctoral students. It\u2019s that \u201cjust grit your teeth and get through it\u201d mentality, so to speak, that I had back then\u2014at least during the final phase of my own doctoral studies\u2014that doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s a criticism I would level at myself as a doctoral student in hindsight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I definitely agree with you that it\u2019s 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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, I tell my doctoral students that it\u2019s primarily their responsibility to reach out to me if any problems arise or if they need to talk. But if I don\u2019t hear from someone for an unusually long time\u2014say, several months\u2014then of course I\u2019ll check in to see how things are going and if any problems have come up. And, of course, I\u2019ve seen time and again that doctoral students face difficulties in their personal lives\u2014personal tragedies, illnesses, family circumstances. Unfortunately, that has led to the end of one or two projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And you have to accept that life sometimes doesn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I really do try to make it possible whenever I can for us to get together\u2014even if it\u2019s just via video call\u2014at 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\u2019s coming up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not fundamentally, I\u2019d say. But I\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there are those who confidently say, \u201cNo, I\u2019ll decide on the bigger questions myself.\u201d And that\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s their project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not, so to speak, a commissioned piece of work that I\u2019m just having someone else do because I don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For doctoral supervision to work well\u2014and this is something you yourself have emphasized before\u2014it 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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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: \u201cChildren create new things, new things, and yet more new things.\u201d 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\u2019s just a spanner in the works. It\u2019s a waste of everyone\u2019s time and doesn\u2019t really move the world forward. And this whole plagiarism situation we\u2019re dealing with has, in my view, created the false impression that all that matters is adding the right footnotes to compiled texts. That\u2019s not science; science is innovation. Science is new ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This basic requirement\u2014which, by the way, is usually included in doctoral regulations as well\u2014this basic requirement is what I\u2019m 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019t mean at all that I\u2019ll ultimately agree with the theses presented in the dissertation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t even know if I should expect too much there. I think this is something that\u2019s perhaps hard to put into words. I consider it absolutely essential that there\u2019s harmony between the advisor and the doctoral candidate on a human level as well. At least as far as I\u2019ve been able to tell, I\u2019ve never had a major problem with that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if you were to realize that you just don\u2019t really like each other, then I don\u2019t think that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for what they expect from me in return, I usually don\u2019t 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\u2019ll make a point of doing that in future conversations\u2014if I ever find myself at the start of a project like this again\u2014to ask more specifically about their expectations as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m glad I was able to inspire you there. I also think it\u2019s 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\u2019s a question that, I would guess, usually isn\u2019t asked otherwise. In what situations do you notice that doctoral students are getting in their own way?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, I\u2019m thinking of things like avoidable mistakes, or not asking questions when they\u2019re unsure, imposter syndrome, and so on\u2014that they might not have enough confidence in themselves or speak up enough. Are there any situations you\u2019ve observed?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, a recurring problem I\u2019ve really observed in a great many candidates is that they\u2019ve become fixated on individual aspects of their topic and lost sight of the broader context of the subject they\u2019re 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\u2019re grappling with, always ask yourself: what is the significance of this specific sub-question I\u2019m currently working on for my entire project? Why do I even want to know this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014that various topics somehow related to the subject are simply thrown together without the research objective ever becoming clear. And that\u2019s how books end up being produced that are essentially completely unreadable and, apart from the people who have to read them, aren\u2019t 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\u2019t end up wasting valuable time by getting unnecessarily bogged down in them. So this is a problem I observe very often.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then, actually, since you mentioned the courage to take a stand and so on\u2014to hold one\u2019s own opinion\u2014that 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet that is precisely what is necessary in a dissertation\u2014that it is simply not enough to write, \u201cSome say this, and others say that.\u201d 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\u2019t have to be the view I would take myself, but it must be an opinion, a stance, that is evident there\u2014one that is at least worth engaging with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s definitely worth having someone delve deeply into this topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there are people\u2014I\u2019ve supervised doctoral students who have written books\u2014about whom I have to say quite clearly that I wouldn\u2019t have been able to do that, especially at that stage of my training. So these are books that I can truly only admire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s a very nice compliment. A doctoral program takes many years, so it\u2019s normal for disagreements to arise from time to time. How do you handle conflicts with your doctoral students?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I think back, I actually haven\u2019t had that many clearly identifiable conflicts over the years. There may have been conflicts, but they were always related to the subject matter\u2014for example, when I suggested certain changes that weren\u2019t well-received, or when we perhaps didn\u2019t 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\u2014in these conflicts, it was always important to me not to assert myself simply because I\u2019m in a position of power, so to speak, because I\u2019m the one who will ultimately evaluate the work, and because I\u2019m the one on whom the doctoral candidate, of course, is in a certain sense also dependent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, it was important to me, even in such conflict situations, to always emphasize that it is the doctoral candidate\u2019s research project. And the final decision must then actually be made by the doctoral candidate themselves. And, incidentally, it hasn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014and which we should, after all, also put into practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since you\u2019re also an expert in labor law, I\u2019d 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\u2014some 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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

n fact, I\u2019m 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\u2019t believe that showing an interest in these matters constitutes any kind of overstepping; rather, I actually see it as part of good doctoral supervision\u2014that as a doctoral advisor, one also addresses these issues. And if I get the impression that someone doesn\u2019t really have a viable plan in place, then I\u2019m not willing to supervise them. So that framework really has to be in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014ideally 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ensures that you gain a much deeper insight into your advisor\u2019s academic way of thinking. And that is why this is undoubtedly by far the best approach. However, especially in Berlin, we simply don\u2019t have that many positions for research assistants. And some people view even these positions as precarious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019m actually reluctant to recommend it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014who were disciplined enough to juggle these different demands and produce truly excellent work within a reasonable timeframe, despite this dual burden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it really comes down to the individual. And when I get to know people, I actually always try to figure out whether they\u2019re capable of handling it if they decide to go down this path. It\u2019s also the case that you\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019m happy to share the risk. But the risk is there, and you have to be aware of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What rights and responsibilities do you think doctoral students should definitely be aware of? And where do you see the most common misunderstandings?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014though not necessarily\u2014later 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, that has never been necessary in my case or among the people I know. But I don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since, unfortunately, as you just mentioned yourself, not all supervisory relationships are positive\u2014even if you haven\u2019t been affected by this yet\u2014I 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?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a topic that\u2019s currently the subject of much debate, and there\u2019s also discussion about whether the entire structural framework should perhaps be redesigned\u2014for 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the institutionalization of the whole process is, in my view, questionable insofar as the freedom and individuality\u2014both of which I emphasized earlier\u2014could all too easily fall by the wayside in such structured programs. If you want to do something institutionally, then I think it\u2019s simply important to make doctoral students even more aware of the existing support services that are already available\u2014so they know they\u2019re not alone when problems arise. They aren\u2019t alone now, of course. And then, basically, you can only encourage people to actually make use of these services when they encounter problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps I\u2019m viewing it all too positively based on my own experiences, but I also get the impression that certain problems\u2014such as the exploitation of power imbalances and the like\u2014are 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\u2014to whom I certainly no longer count myself\u2014that this younger generation is actually much more attentive to such issues, has much greater awareness. And that certainly doesn\u2019t eliminate all problems, but I do believe that overall, things are moving in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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\u2014and the other episodes available here\u2014as a first point of reference. Professor Hartmann, we\u2019re slowly coming to the end of our conversation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is there any other aspect of doctoral supervision that you consider important but that we haven\u2019t addressed yet?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One important point we haven\u2019t 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\u2014something that simply doesn\u2019t exist in other countries. And of course, this also shapes the way doctoral studies are conducted and how dissertations are supervised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014to come back to your previous question\u2014why 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you very much for that addition. I\u2019ve brought a few quick-fire questions to wrap things up, and it\u2019s really simple. I\u2019ll ask you a question, and you\u2019ll answer with just one word or a few words\u2014just go with your gut and say the first thing that comes to mind. Ready?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will do my best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you think back to your own time as a doctoral candidate, which characteristics of your supervisor did you most appreciate?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

His incredible intuition, always knowing immediately and instinctively what the right thing to do is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In your view, who bears primary responsibility for securing funding? Supervisors or doctoral candidates?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should you definitely clarify early on in a mentoring relationship?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The overall goals, the objectives and aspirations of the entire project, and perhaps also why you\u2019re actually doing all of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In your experience, what is the most common reason why doctoral studies stall and take longer than expected?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Choosing the wrong topic from the start.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What would you have liked to have known sooner when you were a doctoral student?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That I was on the right track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which is more important, brilliance or perseverance?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both are necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most important quality for successfully completing a doctoral degree?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Probably perseverance, after all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you very much. That was a pleasure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outro <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

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 Universit\u00e4t Berlin. If you\u2019d like to listen to more episodes of the DRS Podcast, you\u2019ll find discussions, for example, on how to build a good relationship with your advisor and how power structures influence the supervisory relationship. You\u2019ll also find other interviews worth listening to with past Supervisor Award winners in the podcast. I\u2019m Dr. Marlies Klamt, and I\u2019d like to thank you very much for listening. Until next time here on the DRS Podcast.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This interview was conducted by our trainer and co-host of our podcast Dr. Marlies Klamt. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 Universit\u00e4t Berlin and winner of the DRS Supervision Award, shares his perspective on what characterises good doctoral supervision. He talks about the importance … \u201eYou Need to Fall in Love with your Topic at the Beginning \u2013 an Interview with Prof. Hartmann\u201c<\/span> weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8307,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8307"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1295"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1725,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295\/revisions\/1725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.fu-berlin.de\/drs_podcast\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}