Introduction
A large migration wave of academic workers from Russia is underway. My research is focused on the challenges of the relocation process and was based on interviews with representatives of organisations mediating the relocation process. The oral history’s methodology, a planned and structured oral interview where narrators are seen as co-creators rather than objects of analysis, is seen as the most beneficial, in addition, public interviews in media were also used in the research process. Firstly, both the Russian government and academics are not interested in being transparent, therefore all current statistics are only approximate (to see some examples of those one can check this report or this article). Secondly, some academics can continue working in Russia after migration, which is possible, for example, online, and this can be challenging to trace. All this makes the recollection of first-hand experience a vital source of information on the topic.
This study focuses on the adaptation to a new labour market. In most cases, an adaptation of this kind stands for the idea that after some time researchers should be able to navigate a new labour market by themselves and before that they need help. I seek to highlight only some problems inherent in the adaptation process. The focus is on researchers from Russia who migrated recently, since the start of the war in Ukraine. The distinctive features of this wave of migration from the previous ones (after the collapse of the USSR and earlier) are not only extreme work mobility but also the information availability (online) and the creation of online communities, some of which are specifically dedicated to helping academic migrants. Volunteers from these communities were some of the mediators I was fortunate enough to interview during the research process.
People who work for initiatives and organisations that I term “mediators” are understood to include, first of all, employees of formalized structures dedicated to assisting forced academic migrants. These structures consistently support migrants from Russia, among other groups, or primarily target Russian migrants as their main focus. Additionally, “mediators” refer to employees of informal volunteer associations organized around the idea of aiding migrants from Russia and other countries affected by the war in Ukraine. This research is based on the analysis of interviews with individuals who have communicated extensively with this vulnerable group. The decision to select this group of respondents was driven by the observation that most research on this topic focuses on the perspective of the migrants themselves (strong recommendation to those interested in the topic to pay attention to Alexander Kalgin’s work). The questionnaire was constructed around questions about the adaptation process and how one can understand what adaptation includes in itself (emotionally, and professionally).
In this paper, I will first provide an explanation and defence of the theoretical framework used in this study. Subsequently, I will describe the structural problems and three types of “losses” that may result from the locality change. Finally, I will explore some ways in which programs and initiatives designed for researchers at risk counteract the effects of localities.
About locality and adaptation
I have chosen the term “locality” to refer to the changes that occur when one is moving to a new place, and the conceptualisation of adaptation was made primarily through this lens. The term is drawn from space theory, specifically as it has been understood in relation to labour markets. (Cooke, 1990). The term has been criticised strongly as it is frequently used in different senses in research papers without consistency (Dunkan & Savage 1989). We chose it because of its emphasis on the change of spatial location, and its ability to cover multiple features: local working practices, rules, networks of acquaintances. In the research literature, the term “habitus” is more often used to describe a similar phenomenon – the need for a migrant to change and adapt to a new labour market (more critic of usage of the term: Reay, 2004)
In this paper, I use neither “habitus” nor “habitat”, which conceptualise patterns of action “imprinted” in the body (Bourdieu, 1998). Bourdieu’s terms seem inappropriate in the case of researchers at risk, as it condemns research to be blind to changes that may occur. All programmes aimed at researchers at risk are usually short-term (three months to three years). It is practically impossible to change habits that have been formed in a person all his/her life during this period, they would still look like a foreigner and an outsider (e.g. accent). However, it is possible to improve one’s skills in speaking the local language or completing the bureaucratic paperwork required to apply for a position or grant.
Thus, in this study, I use the theoretical term locality to describe the difficulty of adapting when moving from one locality with its practices, customs and structure, to another. What does the use of the term locality in its breadth and emphasis on spatiality give us in this study? Apart from avoiding the pitfalls mentioned earlier, this is a formalisation of intuition from phenomenological experience: when one thing becomes close, another becomes distant. In other words, it helps to reveal the important problem – the question of choice. It also explains why in the context of online work possibilities, the ability to navigate and be accepted in the old or new environments can be reduced.
Locality changing
The interviewees primarily discussed relocation to Western Europe, with some references to Eastern Europe and post-Soviet countries. Consequently, the text inevitably reflects constant comparisons between these constructed localities. There is a divide between what is called the “international academy” and the Russian academic space. It to some extent is very similar to the distinction between the “core-periphery” structure of a network (Borgatti & Everett, 2000) that was used for the analysis of the academic connections’ system (Risse et al., 2022; Kalgin, 2023). It is worth noting that during the interviews the respondents could single out different European countries as being subject to special rules, although for the most part the locality of “international academia” was compared with the “Russian” locality and subsequently looked like a monolithic block.
One of the main semantic nodes in the problem of locality changing is the difference in understanding networks. Although the “networks” appeared to be fundamentally important for adapting, both in Russia and abroad, some interviewees held my attention on how different the understanding of “networks” is. Being a part of a “network” in Russia allows people to build a career despite their level of competence. Whereas outside of Russia, competencies come first.
I would like to comment on this from myself. The respondents’ description of “networks” leaned toward either a display of nepotism or an extension of competencies. However, the line between the two is not always as clear as it seems to be. In both cases, the notion of “network” may be interpreted quite broadly to include journals, and universities, with which you have cooperated in the past and which “say” something about your academic work. Returning to our topic, while changing locality, it is important to show experience working with foreign universities. At the same time, past connections in the Russian academic space getting less valid. Efforts to find and maintain contacts are increasingly directed after relocation towards a new locality. That is why the first type of potential loss – losses in the network. The dividing line between two localities has been created not because of the war, but earlier, although now the division is manifested more widely.
The locality of the labour market manifests itself not only in the fact that a person has to acquire some recognisable markers of the new locality. Another, perhaps the most important problem of adapting to a new locality, is structural discrepancy. The popularity of research objects differs in academic spaces. Therefore, positions for which Russian humanities scholars are likely to apply narrowed down to Russian Studies departments. In most cases, their research is focused on Russia or research subjects specific to Russia. Researchers from technical specialities or natural science disciplines find a position much easier. The transferability of their skills and competencies to foreign labour markets is much higher, i.e. they are not specific to the locality of the Russian labour market.
This issue deserves more attention, especially given that scholars in the humanities are primarily subject to censorship in Russia. For example, research in the humanities often highlights the problems and potential consequences of the war in Ukraine. While natural scientists might also oppose the war and leave the country for this reason, they tend to find employment in their fields more easily through standard competitive processes. In contrast, humanities scholars face greater challenges in securing positions due to the nature of their work and the research market dynamics. To quote Nikita Petrov’s words from the interview he gave about his 2023 study on researchers at risk from Russia:
“Representatives of the social and humanitarian sphere, … for many, leaving was the only opportunity to continue working in their field.”
The whole interview can be found here. Thus, research about social and political issues turns out to be dangerous in Russia and is not in demand beyond its borders. The second and third types of potential loss are specialisation loss and loss of profession. To adapt to the new labour market, beyond researchers at risk programs, academic migrants have to change the topic of their work or to start a new career.
In this context, researchers from Russia do not differ from their colleagues from other countries. A number of interviewees strongly emphasised these kinds of problems as the most important ones. The market for academic vacancies is small, specific specialisations make the choice even smaller. As a direct consequence – the “loophole” of researchers at risk programmes. This refers to the situation when the first grant for researchers at risk is followed by an application for a second grant of the same type, then a third, and so on. The desired “adaptation”, i.e. inclusion in the labour market with the possibility of finding stable employment on a general basis, does not occur. The researcher remains in the same status for many years.
The immediate help to forced academic migrants can come as large financial support programs that would bring more research positions for these groups. As it is a question of state politics and policies and migrants have quite limited agency here, the alternative options are discussed. Not all mediators considered major changes in specialisation or career as an adaptation to the local labour market. Still, for some, this may be the only option. The loophole appears as a price for a refusal to “adapt” to the new locality with its labour market structure.
Researchers at risk programs opposing localities
During the interviews, researchers at risk programs were frequently described as providing special conditions for academics. Forced academic migrants become protected from general competition and its rules. During one of the interviews, the interviewee went even further:
“Such programmes support researchers who have a strong emotional attachment to Russia. We support those in whom we are sure that they will return as soon as there is an opportunity to do so, and that is why we do events and create a local, foreign network of Russian academics, parallel to the international network.”
The point here is obviously not that researchers might be deliberately prevented by someone from adapting to the international network, and to local practices. However, an alternative chain of connections is created to maintain their commitment to the purpose for which they worked in the locality of Russia. Maintaining the commitment to the purpose in the context of discussed structural differences makes them vulnerable to the difficulties of finding a position in a new locality on the basis of general competition. At the same time, the commitment may give a greater sense of meaning to the relocation. As a result, academics who left Russia may find themselves in a “borderline” state, as they should be able to understand the specifics of the local labour market, but at the same time, in the words of one respondent “should not dissolve” in it.
Creating new networks to preserve elements of the old locality is not only stimulated abroad between academics who have left Russia. In the case of initiatives such as Academic Bridges [Academicheskie mosty], networks are also sought to be maintained with those who have stayed in Russia yet trying to participate in academic life beyond its borders. One of the most unusual projects from this initiative is an open call to academics in Russia, in which they offered to anonymously post on their website articles that cannot be printed in Russia at the moment (academic courtesies like anonymous reviews are still going to be implemented for these papers). An attempt to include in the international academic dialogue researchers who have the closest perspective on what is happening in Russia, while simultaneously being unable to talk about it publicly.
In conclusion
My initial research question was centred more on the opposition of humanistic values and the efficiency-driven, very competitive labour market in academia, yet many interviewees expressed that they do not see this as a central issue. Still, I think it may be a fruitful research question in the future.
All the mediators I interviewed are very supportive of the people they help, however, their resources are very limited. To keep academic workers from radical forms of the adaptation process (like drastically changing their work profile), it is necessary to increase budgets and expand assistance programmes not only for researchers from Russia but in general. Unfortunately, at the moment, the number of people who can be helped is very small and it is expected to become even smaller.
Bibliography:
Cooke, P. (1990). Locality, Structure, and Agency: A Theoretical Analysis. Cultural Anthropology, 5: 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1990.5.1.02a00010
Dunkan, S., Savage, M. (1989). Space, Scale and Locality. Antipode, 21: 179-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1989.tb00188.x
Reay, D. (2004). Its all becoming habitus: beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25 (4) https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000236934
Borgatti, S., Everett, M. (2000). Models of Core/Periphery Structures. Social Networks, 21 (4): 375–95.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Stanford University Press https://monoskop.org/images/a/aa/Bourdieu_Pierre_Practical_Reason_On_the_Theory_1998.pdf
Kalgin, A. (2023). Emigration von Wissenschaftler:innen aus Russland:
Kollektive und individuelle Strategien.https://laender-
Nikolai Petrov: “No one departs from the good life”. What is known about scientists leaving Russia [Nikolai Petrov: “Ot horoshei zhizni nikto ne uezzhaet”. Chto izvestno o pokidauishchih Rossiiu uchienyh]. Voice of America [Golos Ameriki] media website, December 28, 2023, access date 11.08.2024. https://www.golosameriki.com/a/nikolay-petrov/7414486.html
Risse, T., Wemheuer-Vogelaar W., Havemann F. (2022). “IR Theory and the Core–Periphery Structure of Global IR: Lessons from Citation Analysis.” International Studies Review 24.3
