• 2015 - 2018: PhD at the MPI for Dynamics and Self-Organisation.
• During my PhD: PhD representative, 2018 spokesperson of the Max Planck PhDnet.
• In 2018: Two high-profile cases in the Max Planck Society (Garching & Leipzig). A lot of media attention, many conversations with victims of power abuse, leading to white paper "Power Abuse and Conflict Resolution".
• In 2021: Foundation of the Network Against Abuse of Power in Science where I am currently board member.

• Power abuse in "the wild".
• Power differentials and power abuse as systemic problems in academia.
• Why existing mechanism for conflict resolution do not work adequately.
• Serious consequences: mental health, scientific integrity and hiring problems.
• Potential solutions: what can we do to prevent and deal with power abuse?

The following cases have been described to me by the victims. Details have been changed to ensure the anonymity of the affected people.

"While working at your institute, have you ever been subjected to harassment by a superior?"

Contract: Oftentimes PIs singlehandedly decide about contract durations and extensions. For people from non-EU countries, visa depend on the working contract.

Assessment: in Germany and oftentimes also Austria, PIs are responsible both for supervision as well as for the assessment of the PhD project.

Reputation: Reputation is the foundation of an academic career. Reputation is codified in the letter of recommendation by the PI.

Institutional knowledge: The fluctuation of non-tenured researchers is high, due to the systematically intended high mobility. As a result, they often know less about their institution and their rights than their supervisors.

DFG rules of good scientific practice
Guideline 4: Responsibility of the heads of research work units

"[...] The leadership role includes ensuring adequate individual supervision of early career researchers, integrated in the overall institutional policy, as well as career development for researchers and research support staff. Suitable organisational measures are in place at the level of the individual unit and of the leadership of the institution to prevent the abuse of power and exploitation of dependent relationships."

→ Ombudspersons are responsible for handling cases of power abuse!

Every research institution has to have an Ombudsperson.

Ombudspersons are bound to confidentiality.

• Every workplace with at least 5 employees is entitled to a works council (German: Betriebsrat / Personalrat). Works councils are elected every four years.
• They represent the interests of staff within the scope of their employment relationship and workplace.
• Example cases where the works council can help:
• A superior forces you to work without an active contract.
• Your contract has a shorter duration than your degree programme.
• Your workplace is not safe or adequately equipped.
• Members of the works council are bound to confidentiality.

• Every workplace with at least 100 employees has to have an Equal Opportunity officer, elected from all female employees.
• By law, EO officers are only concerned with women's rights. Some offices extend their responsibility to other dimensions of diversity and discrimination.
• Example cases where EO officers can help:
• A superior threatens to fire you because you are pregnant.
• You are discriminated because you are nursing your child at work.
• You are passed over for a promotion because you are a women.
• EO officers are bound to confidentiality.

• Some research institutions now have dedicated conflict management units.
• Sometimes they are a one-stop-shop and will connect you to other units (like EO officers and works councils) if helpful.
• They are concerned with moderating and mediating conflicts in general
• Example cases where Conflict Management Units:
• You are experiencing a conflict at work and are unsure how to deal with it.
• You need a third party to mediate a difficult meeting with your soperior.
• Conflict Management Units are only bound to confidentiality if they operate according to Mediation Law.

• Graduate school coordinators.
• Your superior's superior (deans, directors, presidents, ...).
• These people can provide useful advice but are generally not bound to confidentiality!
• Network Against Abuse of Power in Science
• Institution-independent counselling for victims of power abuse.
• No legal or psychological advice.
• kontakt@netzwerk-mawi.de

Have you reported misconduct that you experienced or witnessed?

Did you feel supported by the institution to which you reported the misconduct?

Are you satisfied with the results of the report?

Are you aware of the rules on good scientific practice by the Max Planck Society?

Is there a neutral person to turn to in case you observe severe misconduct (ombudsperson)?

What happens if misconduct is reported?

What happens if misconduct is reported?

Very few cases are reported: only 20 – 25% of experienced or witnessed harassment and 10 – 15% of scientific misconduct are reported. Why?

There is a significant chance of facing negative consequences for the reporting person (1 out of 10). People reporting misconduct experience lacking institutional support.

The satisfaction with the outcome of reports is very low: only 10 – 20% are "mostly" or "completely" satisfied with the outcome.

There is a diffusion of responsibilities between different offices, people are not aware of available options or are unsure where to go.

Offices in smaller institutions and elected officers tend to be owerwhelmed by complicated cases due to a lack of professionalisation or independence.

The prevalence of anxiety (17%) and depression (24%) among doctoral researchers is about twice as high as in a comparable non-academic cohort (Satinsky et al. 2021).

Were you ever involved in or observed ...

Reports of bad scientific practice experienced or observed at work.

Mental health issues are rampant among academics.

There are many indicators showing that the (bad) relationship between supervisors and early career researchers plays an important role for mental health issues.

The working conditions in academia increasingly cause people to consider leaving academia.

Bad scientific practice, especially conflicts over authorship and sloppy work, emerge in the context of abuse of power.

If power differentials are reduced, there are less opportunities to abuse them.

Power in itself is not problematic, only its concentration in a single person is.

Supervision and assessment of dissertation projects should be separated.

Doctoral researchers should be supervised by thesis committees including people independent of the primary supervisor.

Duration of working contracts should equal the duration of a PhD. Positions after the PhD should be tenured as the rule rather than the exception.

Victims of power abuse are currently mostly left to fend for themselves.

Institutional emergency mechanisms need to be specified and widely communicated.

Mechanisms need to be established to change supervisor.

Access to data and devices required to complete a project as well as authorship of publications need to be secured.

Access to independent and free counselling and legal advice needs to be ensured.

Contact points responsible for handling cases of power abuse are currently little known, often don't feel responsible, and lack resources and power to act effectively.

Contact points need to be easy to reach and able to act independently. Best practice: one-stop-shop that cooperates with other mechanisms.

Process steps need to be communicated transparently towards affected people. Binding deadlines need to be established and followed.

Documentation & quality control processes need to be established for contact points.

As long as there are incentives for unethical leadership behaviour, it will ocurr.

Assessment criteria beyond papers & grants need to be established for recruitment & promotion.

Establishing a robust feedback culture & exit interviews allows leaders & institutions to learn.

Good leadership can be learned, mandatory leadership trainings need to be established.

In case of bad leadership: serious consequences need to be imposed.

Make sure you are safe: Recognise you are in an extreme situation that threatens your mental and pyhsical health. It is OK to ask for help.

Secure the evidence: Timely, detailed, written documentation of experiences. Ask witnesses to join meetings.

Know your rights: employment law, sexual self-determination, whistleblower protection, copyright, general equal treatment law (AGG). Get insurance before something happens.

Seek information about internal resources: Ombudsperson, Equal Opportunities officer, works council, mediation, psychosocial counselling.

Act strategically Reflect your dependencies and develop a strategy to deal with them.