Universities in Kharkiv: Working Conditions on the Front Line

Three years after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, universities in Ukraine have adapted unevenly. In some regions, hybrid working with some in-person teaching is possible, while in other regions, staff work exclusively remotely. Overall, about a third of university employees in the country were working remotely in 2024. At the same time, the numbers of researchers and teaching staff in Ukraine are on a downward trend.

Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, is located 30 kilometres from the border with Russia and is under constant shelling. As a result, most teaching there is still online. The ability to teach from anywhere in the world not only simplifies the lives of the staff but also detaches them from their colleagues. From an organisational point of view, having teams dispersed around the world increases fragmentation and requires flexibility from the universities; but at the same time, it can help to preserve human capital.

To find out how universities and research institutes in frontline areas preserve human capital, I conducted a series of interviews with academic staff from V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University in spring 2025. The study is part of the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS. The conversations revealed which motivates researchers and teachers not to leave them and continue to work despite the difficult circumstances.

One team, many contexts

Staff at Kharkiv’s universities are spread across many different locations, each with its own challenges, whose common denominator is war. For those who live abroad, it is about adapting to the host country while maintaining ties with Ukraine, where the university and a few remaining relatives may be the only direct points of contact. For those who live in other cities in Ukraine, it is about constantly seeking their identity, often without the kind of support that is available abroad. For those who are still in Kharkiv, it is about dealing with direct, often continuous threats to life.

Different locations correlate with different causes of stress, expectations, and senses of belonging. Those who live far from Kharkiv may feel detached from the other members of their team. Although not all staff who live in Kharkiv attend their university in person regularly, just having this opportunity makes them feel closer than those who are scattered around the world. Researchers living abroad often report higher levels of anxiety and a stronger sense of isolation and uncertainty compared to those who have remained in Ukraine.

Air-raid sirens in Kharkiv can last for hours and the air-defence system often does not have time to shoot down missiles from Russia because of the city’s proximity to the border, so those who live there are under constant stress. Some academics who remained in Kharkiv showed a lack of understanding for the predicament of their colleagues working from abroad. This suggests a disconnect in how working conditions are experienced and understood. These experiences require a new kind of empathy within teams, as no one’s suffering is more or less valid than anyone else’s.

Gender inequalities

The full-scale war in Ukraine has highlighted structural imbalances when it comes to academic mobility, primarily related to gender. Because Ukrainian men are subject to restrictions on travelling abroad, those who remain in the country have limited access to international academic resources, such as internships or conferences.

By contrast, women abroad often face institutional marginalisation: temporary contracts, an uncertain status, and a lack of access to academic advancement. In addition, women bear the brunt of childcare and the pressures of adapting to a new country, which reduces their academic productivity. Those who stay in Ukraine retain their access to domestic networks but are increasingly excluded from international collaboration. Those who leave, meanwhile, are no longer included in Ukraine’s domestic academic agenda. This division of opportunities has led to asymmetric career trajectories.

Back to the classroom?

Three years of remote working has changed the structure of everyday life for university staff. For universities in frontline zones, such as Kharkiv, the prospect of returning to in-person education is becoming not only a logistical question but also an ethical, personal, and motivational challenge. The transition back to class-based teaching is perceived as a necessity, but it is also a traumatic threshold that many staff may not be ready to cross.

For some, in-person teaching is part of getting back to normal: restoring direct communication and strengthening the university’s identity as a real space, not a virtual one. For others, it is a threat, as it means giving up a safe environment and new ways of working, either elsewhere in Ukraine or abroad.

A pragmatic return to in-person teaching

Before talking about how staff might return home, it is necessary to understand what motivates people to remain in the Ukrainian higher-education system at a frontline university. For some, the motivation is civic duty: working at a university is perceived as a form of support. For others, the motivation is professional inertia or a lack of alternatives. Some see their university as their only identity in a life that has fallen apart.

Other factors include fatigue, burnout, and mistrust of university policies that are seen as overly formal or repressive. In such conditions, a university’s key task is not to encourage return at any cost but to create conditions in which return is possible and desirable as a conscious choice. This requires a recognition that staff have different life trajectories and vulnerabilities and calls for the development of flexible employment options, including transitional pathways back to in-person learning and hybrid teaching.

Dr Daria Yashkina is a Senior Lecturer at the V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University in Kharkiv and a fellow at the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS.