1. Congratulations on receiving this year’s Supervisory Award! This prize has been awarded by the TUM Graduate Council upon nomination by your doctoral candidates. What do you think were the aspects of your supervision that were most appreciated?
I believe a central component that my doctoral candidates appreciate is my availability and approachability. In my mostly bi-weekly face-to-face one-on-one meetings, I typically ask the doctoral candidates to prepare the agenda and bring any topic they care about, with the intention of giving them room to discuss whatever is on their mind. However, I guide the meetings in a way that initially centers on defining (sub) goals and timelines connected to the research question, and providing background information on methods and hypotheses (almost like one-on-one teaching). This typically shifts to discussing feedback on results, publication strategy, and other topics, such as conference attendance. Outside of these meetings, everyone is welcome to stop by my office at any time, as long as the door is open (which is always the case when I am not in a meeting). In addition, if someone requires a longer meeting outside the regular schedule, I have a booking system in place that allows my doctoral candidates to “book” slots on dedicated days/hours with priority over other meetings.
2. What does “good supervision” mean to you? Is there something like a guiding principle that shapes your approach?
My guiding principle is to be approachable at any time (e.g., an open-door policy) for any problems or issues a person may have (scientific, group dynamics, personal, etc.). This is because I think ‘good supervision’ requires a person-dependent approach, and there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for every doctoral candidate. Because doing a doctorate is a multi-year process, with many ups and downs across all dimensions of life, I think it is important to be aware of what is going on in a person’s life to adjust expectations and demands and to prepare a path for them. This particularly includes personal issues or challenges a person may have which requires offering the space and trust to talk about this. I also intentionally try to push the boundaries of a person in relation to what I think the person can deliver, given his/her circumstances (professionally and personally). I do this by giving doctoral candidates responsibilities for which they are accountable, freedom to explore their own ideas, and trust to perform any task.
3. What do you personally value most in your research and teaching with regard to the training of the next generation of scientists? How does your supervision style reflect these values?
What I value most in my research and teaching is independence, curiosity, rigor, and confidence. I believe that training the next generation of scientists goes beyond teaching technical skills and involves cultivating critical thinking, resilience, and a strong sense of scientific integrity. These values significantly influence my supervisory style. I aim to create a supportive and intellectually open research environment. Everyone, whether students, PhDs, or PostDocs, should feel encouraged to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and, most importantly, learn from their failures. Depending on the scientist's progress, I place emphasis on different aspects. Initially, I provide structured guidance and clear expectations. I then progressively encourage greater independence, involving them in hypothesis generation and project planning. Regular one-on-one meetings and constructive feedback are central to my mentoring approach, allowing me to tailor guidance to individual learning styles and career goals.
Looking back at your own journey …
4. How would you describe your own relationship with your doctoral supervisor? What did you appreciate the most about your own former doctoral supervisor, and what are you doing differently?
The relationship with my doctoral supervisor changed drastically over time. While initially I viewed him as my boss, over time, he became a good friend.
However, for most of my doctoral journey, I viewed him as a mentor and, more importantly, a sparring partner – somebody to bounce ideas off, discuss results, and pick next steps, all with the feeling of talking to somebody at eye level. I assume this is also because Bernhard is a first-generation academic.
At the start of my PhD, his role as a mentor was more important, providing hints and guidance on what direction my research should take. Over time, I was given more freedom to explore new directions myself on my own accord and was given trust to even make crucial decisions myself. This trust gave me an incredible amount of confidence and made me grow into the person I am today.
5. In hindsight, and being a doctoral supervisor yourself, is there anything you wish to tell your former doctoral supervisor?
“Thank you for not making a big deal out of what I said during/after my laudatio!” – For background, I do not (at all) like being placed in the center of attention and interrupted Bernhard during his laudation during my doctoral defense party rudely.
Looking back on your work over the past years …
6. What have been the most rewarding moments or greatest achievements?
First, performing my master's thesis project in Boston in English was a substantial challenge for me because I had to retake a class in school due to an F (6) in English. Second, finishing my doctorate, because I do not like writing text (to this day). Third, having built such a great team over the last 5 years that they believe I deserve the supervisory award. I draw a lot of energy from seeing others grow.
7. What has been the greatest challenge in your role as a supervisor – and how did you overcome it?
I do not like hierarchies and tend to approach everyone at eye level. I am still working on understanding that my role now requires me to be and act with more authority sometimes.
8. Did you always plan to pursue a career in science and become a university professor? Was there a formative experience and/or a person, e.g., a mentor, during your own academic journey that influenced your career decision? If yes, how so?
I do not recall “always planning to pursue this;” however, my mother told me once that shortly after starting my bachelor’s degree, I mentioned to her that being a professor could be a goal of mine. During my studies in Bielefeld, I realized that I enjoy teaching a lot, and my interactions with Prof. Jens Stoye via the student council gave me a lot of insights into the academic system in general. Lastly, when I was close to finishing my doctorate under the supervision of Prof. Bernhard Küster, I realized that I would really like to stay in academia.
9. You are a First-Generation Academic – does this personal experience shape your role as a scientist and supervisor? Does it influence how you support your doctoral candidates, especially regarding issues such as access to networks, self-confidence, career planning, or navigating the academic system?
I think being a first-generation academic shapes my role as a supervisor in a major way. I pay little attention to the prior career paths of applicants and am happy to give everyone who shows motivation and enthusiasm a chance, irrespective of their grades. As for support for doctoral candidates, I believe my openness with my own past – I had to redo a class in school and was somewhat of a punk, partially due to heavy bullying in school - and the lack of self-confidence because of this shows that most people, irrespective of position and “success”, struggle with similar things. I am very transparent with respect to any processes in the background, i.e., finances, funding, and decision-making, and I believe this provides good insight into the inner workings of the academic system.