Higher Education as Battleground: Russian Fulbright Students' War-related Narratives as Transitions to Civic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has significantly impacted Russian international students, particularly those participating in the Fulbright Program in the United States. We explore their narratives to understand how they perceive and navigate their war-related experiences. Using dynamic narrative inquiry, the research analyzes first-person accounts, letters, and fictional third-person stories by students across three cohorts (2021, 2022, and 2023)—Fulbright cohorts at different points in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The dynamic narrative inquiry research design invited first-person accounts, letters, and fictional third-person stories engaging the participants in different author-purpose-audience stances, which is especially relevant in writing about contentious situations. Values analysis of the 1,165 sentences across the 39 narratives, letters, and stories reveals five main value orientations: interpersonal relationships, social and political engagement, coping mechanisms, personal development and growth, and recognizing and validating the challenges. Participants used each genre to express different experiences and knowledge: first-person narratives emphasized emotional processing and civic reflection, letters balanced personal vulnerability with caution toward real or imagined audiences, and third-person fiction enabled safer engagement with politically sensitive issues. Cross-cohort comparisons revealed that pre-war students more openly expressed civic and political concerns, while during-war participants emphasized personal well-being and emotional regulation, reflecting heightened fear and moral fatigue after the invasion. These patterns illustrate how narrative genres functioned as mediational tools through which students balanced safety and civic ambiguity. The findings contribute to research on youth civic development in authoritarian contexts by showing how storytelling becomes a form of cautious civic engagement amid geopolitical rupture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".