A research team including Dr Halyna Mishchuk from Kozminski University (Department of Social Sciences) examined how the war shapes Ukrainian scientists’ migration aspirations and career plans. The data reveal a community determined to continue its scholarly work, alongside growing scepticism about realistic opportunities for appropriately matched employment and professional development outside Ukraine. For universities and funding bodies, the message is clear: in a crisis, support must be designed to enable real work, not only offer short term relief.
Migration during war is often framed as an instinctive, straightforward move: leave to survive. For scientists and academic professionals, the decision is rarely that simple. It is not only about safety, but also about the continuity of a career built over years through publications, projects, teaching, collaborations and professional reputation.
In this article, Dr Halyna Mishchuk and her coauthors capture this dilemma with clarity and restraint, using evidence collected at a pivotal moment, at the end of the first year of the full-scale war. The central tension is striking aspirations often remain intact, while the conditions needed to realize them change radically.
The study at a glance
The authors draw on an empirical survey of 389 respondents conducted between February and March 2023. The questionnaire was administered online, and some responses used a 10-point scale, allowing the researchers to capture not only intentions, but also the intensity of beliefs and concerns. The sample was institutionally broad, covering participants from 75 universities and research organizations. Importantly, the war has dispersed lives and careers geographically. Respondents included those in relatively safer regions of Ukraine, those closer to frontline conditions, and those who had relocated abroad or been evacuated.
Research continues, even when everything else changes
One of the most compelling findings is the level of persistence in maintaining research activity. The authors report a strong inclination to continue research among scientists in relatively safe regions of Ukraine (49%) and among those who relocated abroad (42%). This matters because it challenges a common assumption that extreme disruption inevitably halts scientific work. For many respondents, research appears to function as a source of meaning and agency, a way to preserve continuity when the surrounding world becomes unpredictable.
Safer does not always mean easier
A key contribution of the paper is its nuanced view of location. It is tempting to assume that moving abroad automatically unlocks professional opportunities, while staying in Ukraine closes them. The study suggests a more complex reality. Relocation can improve physical security, yet it can also introduce new barriers: recognition of academic track records, access to infrastructure, grant funding and research teams, and sometimes the need to accept roles below one’s level of expertise. Remaining in Ukraine carries risk and constraints, but it may also provide continuity of academic networks, research agendas and a strong sense of responsibility to sustain institutions under strain. These two contexts are not symmetrical. Both demand adaptation, and both can generate significant professional costs.
Aspirations endure, but the price of sustaining them rises
The authors also test how respondents think about the future if the war continues. A notable result is that the expected duration of the war does not, by itself, significantly reshape career aspirations. This can be read as evidence of resilience. At the same time, age shows a meaningful relationship with professional objectives, with older respondents expressing stronger intentions to pursue educational activities if the conflict persists. In prolonged crisis conditions, stability becomes a strategic asset, and “staying in science” can gradually shift from a growth strategy to a survival strategy.
The hardest question: is there a place for me in science abroad
The most sobering insight emerges when respondents assess their chances of securing a suitable professional position outside Ukraine. The idea of global academia as a frictionless, merit-based space for mobility does not fully align with how respondents perceive their prospects. The likelihood of obtaining employment abroad commensurate with their profession is rated at 4.9 out of 10. The study also reveals readiness to consider painful fallback scenarios if the war becomes protracted, including changing one’s field (5.4/10) or discontinuing research activities (6.5/10). This is not a lack of ambition. It reads more like a realistic appraisal of structural barriers that can eventually overwhelm even strong motivation.
Scholarship in survival mode
For scientists, the findings are both reassuring and unsettling. Reassuring, because they show that research ambition and the desire to develop do not simply disappear under extreme conditions. Unsettling, because determination does not operate in a vacuum. Without access to teams, projects, infrastructure and stable working conditions, academic work can start to resemble solitary endurance rather than genuine progress. Over time, this increases the risk of burnout, exit from academia, or a drift into roles that underuse highly developed expertise acquired through years of training and research.
Institutions under pressure to deliver real support
For universities, research funders and policy makers, the implication is practical: support should not end at hospitality or short-term assistance. If the goal is to protect intellectual capacity and sustain research continuity, the support must enable work. Effective support integrates displaced scientists into the research ecosystem rather than positioning them alongside it. In practice, this means research partnerships, participation in teams and grants, mobility schemes linked to meaningful roles in projects, and pathways that allow scientists to maintain ties with Ukraine. The study suggests that many respondents still anchor their career perspective in Ukraine, even if part of their lives has shifted elsewhere. Protecting intellectual capital therefore requires institutional design and resource decisions, not only goodwill.
Intellectual capital in wartime
This paper is about more than migration. It captures the behaviour of a group that will shape the rebuilding of knowledge, education and innovation when the war ends. The data show strength, because aspirations often persist through chaos, and fragility, because systemic barriers, especially the mismatch between skills and opportunities abroad, can push people out of science even when they want to remain. That is why, in wartime conditions, institutional choices stop being background context and become a decisive factor in the future of research itself.
***
Based on the article:
