RWTH Aachen University

What we did in the project

At RWTH Aachen University, we conducted interviews with PhD students, Postdocs and Professors. Issues addressed concerned the daily work environment and the perception of excellence and, partly addressed, the issue of PhD supervision. Relevant passages on PhD supervision had been found in interviews with five PhD students (four female and one male), in two interviews with Postdocs (one female and one male) and in one interview with a male professor.

The first concept of study circles followed the concept of peer-to-peer learning. The plan was to do about six sessions. We had been able to cooperate with a trainer with gender expertise, who was about to give a training course with exactly the same concept at RWTH Aachen University. Shortly after the peer-to-peer learning started, the trainer shifted and a new approach had to be developed.

Learning from this experience we now designed a training course where FESTA was an integral part from the beginning on and where a member of the FESTA team was one of the trainers. We cooperated with another trainer with gender expertise and developed a workshop which took place one afternoon. The five female and five male participants came from different faculties and consisted of both PostDocs and professors. The training dealt with gender and diversity in PhD supervision, the reflection of the supervisors’ roles in the organization and discussion about cases supervisors are dealing with.

What we learned in the project

Working on the (gendered) interaction within a PhD showed the complexity of the PhD phase for both supervisors and students. For PhD students it is a phase of qualification with great emotional needs as well as the starting point of a career in academia or industry. For PhD supervisors, supervision is a part of their job for which they are oftentimes not especially qualified. Many of them are in a sandwich position between the student and the professor for whom they are working and who has the formal responsibility of supervision. This leads to complex roles and expectations. The variety of differently designed PhD phases between different faculties and institutes makes it difficult to develop trainings that apply to the different situations.

PhD students describe how important it is to feel welcome, specified for example in colleagues with whom you feel comfortable with, team meetings where successes are acknowledged, and a cooperative culture. Regular meetings with the supervisor are perceived as important for supervision. Gender dimension is relevant here but also within the 24/7 working culture.

The international partners gave insights in how differently PhD processes are designed in other countries. In particular the Swedish PhD with obligatory personnel development trainings for supervisors and legally acquired meetings at least once a year is an example of how a system was developed that applies to the importance of a sound PhD process.