The story of women immigrants from FSU and their integration into Israeli academia

Abstract

The under-representation of minorities at senior levels in academia has received some research attention in recent years. However, the experience of immigrant women from the former Soviet Union (FSU) in Israeli academia has not been examined. These women are mostly from a generation known as the ‘1.5 generation’ who immigrated to Israel as children. This study focuses on the intersection of immigration and gender that shape the lives and careers of the 1.5 generation women currently employed as senior academics in Israel. Using the theoretical framework of capital, Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural and social capital, as well as Borjas’ ethnic capital, we analyzed twenty in-depth interviews to examine the perception of these women, their life story, and their professional integration into Israeli academia. We identified two focal points that fostered their success – (1) the Soviet heritage- selective adoption of ethnic capital, encompassing cultural and social capital of an ethnic group and (2) role models within and outside the family often based on ethnicity. We discuss the obstacles faced by minorities in attempting integration into selective professional guilds.

Keywords:

• ethnic capital
• minorities
• academia
• immigration

Introduction

Three decades have passed since the start of the largest influx of immigration in Israel’s history, during which around one million Russian-speaking Jews from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) immigrated to Israel (Len 2020). This influx comprised immigrants with enormous ethnic and social heterogeneity and is often referred to as the ‘Russian immigration’ (Leshem 2009). Most immigrants arrived as part of a family: several generations together, including children. Adult immigrants typically arrived already in possession of higher degrees, most typically in STEM (Remennick and Prashizky 2019). These immigrants often sought to pass on their scientific training to their children and strengthen their own knowledge.

Our research centers its attention on a specific group of immigrant children referred to as the ‘1.5 generation.’ This demographic comprises individuals who migrated to Israel in 90^th during their childhood or teenage years, specifically between the ages of 5 and 17 (Amit 2018; Dolberg and Amit 2023; Remennick 2003). Notably, approximately 150,000 Russian children below the age of 17 migrated during this particular period and subsequently became part of the Israeli education system, yet simultaneously some nurtured Russian culture at home (Horowitz 1999), investing considerable effort in nurturing the younger generation – children and adolescents – while dealing with complex economic realities (Israeli 2018). Nowadays, there are part of the so-called post-Soviet generation, ranging from the ages of 25 to 40 (Shevchenko and Lachover 2023). Research shows that this generation has developed a variety of characteristics: they have adopted many of the cultural practices of the Israeli society to form an ethnic, cultural, religious, and national mélange. They speak Hebrew as their native language and have a sense of belonging to Israel yet preserve some facets of their parents’ culture (Dolberg and Amit 2023). They acknowledge the significance of education and have effectively integrated into the Israeli workforce, encompassing academia. Despite overall successful integration, there persist sentiments of marginalization and exclusion across different tiers (Al-Haj 2004; Dolberg and Amit 2023).

Historically, the academic class within Israel was established and dominated by an ‘Ashkenazi’ elite with an ethos of serving the national project. From the establishment of the Israeli state until the end of the 1980s, the academic-university elite managed to operate with the support of the government as a monopoly, controlling and overseeing key resources including teaching, research (funding), faculty appointments, academic training, and awarding of degrees (Cohen 2007). Universities functioned as elitist educational institutions, more accessible to two population groups: those with high social and economic status and those from high-status ethnic groups (Cohen 2007), in particular, ‘Ashkenazi’ men. The ‘academic elite’ was able to drive, or at least participate in, general societal goals, exerting considerable influence economically, politically, and socially. This academic elite offered limited access to marginal populations (immigrants, minorities, or women), especially in highly elitist institutions or certain disciplines. However, in the last thirty years there has been a significant increase in the number, range and geographic diversity of Israeli institutions awarding degrees, and the student mix has broadened. Today, there are more female students than male across all degree levels (first, second, or third). Yet poor levels of female representation among academic faculty members remain widespread, especially at higher levels (associate or full professor), and in disciplines like exact sciences or engineering.

This study documents narratives of female immigrant senior academics who were brought to Israel as children. We present a literature review, our theoretical framework, our methodology, and our findings, before a discussion of our results and a set of conclusions.

Literature review

Theoretical framework

Marx examined capitalist economies to emphasize systemic inequities, leading to the term “capital” from economics and finance (Joas and Knöbl 2011). In contrast, French sociologist Bourdieu (1986) broadened its scope beyond material processes, encompassing non-­material, economic, and symbolic forms of capital. He applied this term in sociology, focusing on the distribution of material, social, cultural, and symbolic resources in different cultures, particularly in power dynamics and multidimensional modes of reproduction (Bourdieu 1986). Despite their disparate research topics, both thinkers believe that the distribution of resources is critical to comprehending social reality. Both, Marx and Bourdieu appear to have an enlightened urge to disclose hidden power structures. Therefore, it seems tempting to conflate the approaches of the two thinkers, and in particular, to explicate Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural, social, and symbolic capital as a fruitful extension of Marx’s concept of capital in the sociology of culture (Joas and Knöbl 2011). Nonetheless, the study strategies of Bourdieu and Marx are clearly distinct (Desan 2013; Mohseni 2022).

The theoretical framework of this study is built upon Bourdieu’s capital theories (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu discussed three types of capital: symbolic capital - the honour, status, or prestige that society attributes to a group perceived as superior to others; social capital – the capital consisting of resources available through social networks; and cultural capital – the capital built on cultural codes and habits typically acquired in childhood in the process of socialization (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu, social and cultural capital are types of capital passed down through generations by family socialization and through education (Bourdieu 1986). Social capital depends, among other things, on the existence of social networks, which are created at a particular stratum within social structure and result from the investment of individuals and groups in the creation and preservation of these networks. For instance, families with high social status can use their social connections to promote their offspring both in education and employment. Social capital refers to the combination of “actual or potential resources associated with stable networks of institutionalized relationships” (Bourdieu 1986, p.248). These networks provide members with support and access to opportunities for making valuable social connections and are based on constant material and symbolic exchanges which help preserve them. Such exchanges within groups deliver benefits to all group members and serve as a basis for solidarity, further bolstering networks and connections.

The ‘habitus’ is at the heart of Bourdieu’s theoretical framework. Bourdieu stated: “habitus is understood as a system of continuous, transferable tendencies, which, combining all past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, evaluations and actions” (Bourdieu 1977, p. 82). According to Bourdieu (1986) habitus is the collection of behaviors, habits, skills, inclinations, and preferences that a person acquires during their life. Hence, an individual’s habitus both guides and limits how they perceive and interpret reality, as well as dictating actions. The systems that shape a person’s habitus are social systems, such as family, school, work, and others. Differences in habitus give individuals different cultural skills, social connections, educational practices, and other cultural resources that translate into different benefits as individuals move out into the world (Bourdieu 1986; Lareau 2003). Dumais (2002) explained that habitus is generated by an individual’s place within a social structure; individuals internalize their relative position and come to determine their possibilities, adjusting their aspirations and expectations according to perceived opportunities. According to Dumais (2002) educational expectations are part of one’s habitus because they illustrate a person’s perception of his place within the social structure and their desirable future achievements.

Migration is an example of a situation in which cultural incompatibility exists (Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport 2008). Bourdieu (1986) defined culture as a system of unwritten guidelines that dictate behavior on different levels of life and in different situations of daily life. Every society is built on cultural codes acquired in childhood, which are of great importance in the processes of the individual’s belonging to a particular society. Often, certain codes are perceived as more valuable than others in a specific context (Reay, Crozier, and Clayton 2010). Such codes are the way by which parents pass different types of capital on to their children, to achieve various educational and social goals (Bourdieu 1986). Immigrant families encounter significant difficulties in cultivating the values and norms that are perceived as important and accepted in a new host society, and as a result profound personal and familial change is sometimes required. Globally, education remains a key path to social and employment mobility. Immigrant parents, such as those from Asian countries in the United States (King et al. 2017) tend to focus strongly on education and achievement since immigrant families often lack economic capital but do have ‘ethnic capital’.

The economist Borjas (1992) examines how ethnic skill differentials are transmitted through generations. In his study, Borjas (1992) introduces the concept of ‘ethnic capital’ and intergenerational mobility. He assumed that ethnicity acts as an externality in the human capital accumulation process. The skills of the next generation depend on parental inputs and on the quality of the ethnic environment in which parents make their investments, or ‘ethnic capital’; in some cases, it facilitates the acquisition of human capital (Borjas 1992). His concept of ‘ethnic capital’ draws attention to the link between educational achievement and ethnic origin and assesses whether ethnic origin is an advantage for the educational outcomes of ethnic minorities (Borjas 1992; Modood 2004). In our study we utilize the concept of ‘ethnic capital’ that was introduced in economics of immigration before it was used in education research. We argue that ethnic capital is about the variety of resources embedded in the networks of the ethnic communities, in other words, ethnic capital encompasses cultural and social capital of a specific ethnic community. Thus, immigrants not only import cultural capital from their country of origin but create new forms in their new host country, leading to new meanings and validity (Erel 2010; Prashizky and Remennick 2015). Rapoport and Lomsky-Feder (2002) examined Bourdieu’s concept of habitus as an analytical tool to reveal how the concept of intelligence undergoes transformation during socialization, in the personal and collective identity of a studied cohort (Russian Jews). Russian Jewish familial culture continued to provide the main cultural capital for their children growing up in Israel. The theoretical framework of our study utilizes the theories of capital, especially Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu 1986), and the concept of ‘ethnic capital’ from Borjas (1992), which are directly relevant to an analysis of the integration in selected social spaces for Israeli female academics from the 1.5 generation. Global changes in HE and in Israel.

Mid-twentieth century’s emergence of neoliberalism constitutes an economic and political ideology that transfers economic risk from institutions to workers. Consequently, this diminishes workers’ rights, contracts’ flexibility, and raises susceptibility to economic insecurity and emotional strain (Drake et al. 2019; Robson 2023). Academic structural challenges, coupled with encroaching neoliberalism, expose scholars to profound instability (Bamberger, Morris, and Yemini 2019). Teaching, research, administration, and social interactions pose challenges for researchers and lecturers. Globally, academic job markets intensify due to government budget reductions, heightened inter-institutional competition, and managerial governance integration (Amsler and Bolsmann 2012). Academics grapple with intricate and shifting regulations, rendering job security a rarity, often favoring high socioeconomic backgrounds (Thorkelson 2016).

Israeli higher education is also impacted by recent neoliberal changes including privatization, budget reductions, commercialization, and the implementation of managerial governance (Courtois and O’Keefe 2015; Teixeira 2017). These changes profoundly impact academia’s operation, individuals within it (lecturers, students), disciplines’ status, research, teaching, and academic experience. Despite its international stature, Israeli academia includes second-tier institutions, academic and private colleges focusing on teaching, particularly in peripheries (De Wit, Yemini, and Martin 2015). The Council of Higher Education governs the system, with a focus on securing external grants and publishing in prestigious journals (Tubin and Lapidot 2008).

Gender inequality in academia

Globally, men have been dominating key positions in academia (Angervall, Gustafsson, and Silfver 2018). Although more women now secure leading academic roles – and women comprise a larger proportion of students’ cohorts at all degree levels – there remains a clear gender imbalance across academia, both in Israel and globally, and progress towards equality remains slow. (Tzameret-Karcher et al. 2017; OECD, 2012; Stoet and Geary 2015). Differences between women and men appear in several contexts: for example, there is a well-known and acknowledged declining trend in the proportion of women with rising academic rank across all subjects – the “scissors phenomenon” (Jensen 2006). It is widely argued that gender inequality in senior positions will decrease only when sufficient numbers of women occur in mid-ranking candidate pools for senior roles. However, this tenet is not universally supported, with some studies showing that increasing numbers of women in candidate pools has not fed through to higher numbers in senior roles (Monroe and Chiu 2010; Etzkowitz and Ranga 2011). The UN has noted that women researchers are largely under-­represented in academia, comprising under one-third (28.8%) of all global academics in 2015 (UNESCO 2018). Numerous studies indicate that there remain entrenched gender patterns that influence research participation and access to resources, including academic, cultural, and social capital, especially as individuals rise through academic ranks (Roos and Gatta 2009; Siemieńska and Zimmer 2007; Ackers 2008; Bird 2011), perhaps because academic work is created and sustained by gender-oriented organizations (Acker 1990).

Women are severely underrepresented in the academic fields of science and technology (Report of the Academic Committee of the Council for the Advancement of Women in Science, 2018), and so in recent years there has been widespread attempts to better integrate women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), both in academia and the global workforce (West and Curtis 2006). For instance, in 2017 just 20% of permanent professors of physics and 15% of engineering were women, although the proportion of female doctoral students in these fields has increased significantly in recent decades (Thébaud and Taylor 2021). The number of women securing STEM graduate degrees has increased in recent years, yet the number of women in STEM faculty positions has remained broadly static. One explanation for the slow shift toward numerical gender equality is the proliferation of negative gender stereotypes that increase professional discrimination and reduce opportunities for women to advance in STEM careers. Moreover, women in STEM have lower social capital, (e.g. support networks), and this limits their opportunities to gain tenure and learn about funding mechanisms or grants (Casad et al. 2021).

Another aspect of gender discrimination in academia that has received attention is the salary gap between male and female researchers. Female academics widely earn less than male faculty members at similar levels of measurable characteristics, such as experience, education, or research productivity (Cama, Jorge, and Peña 2016). Such disparities increase with seniority, too (Curtis 2013). Although exact percentages vary, women usually earn less than their male peers, across all institutions and academic ranks (Barbezat and Hughes 2005). Uhly and her colleagues (2017) found that female academics are less involved in international research collaborations than men. Both men and women benefit from international academic collaborations, but men’s wages are higher; other studies have shown that women tend to publish less, and are cited less, compared to men (Van Arensbergen, Van der Weijden, and Van den Besselaar 2012; Stack 2004).

Mobility, immigration, and gender discrimination in academia

Since academic careers typically require frequent short term moves to new institutions and countries to progress, academic men and women experience wide ranging professional and personal challenges. Such academic mobility is one way to gain resources for an academic career, especially through moves to leading academic institutions (Tubin and Lapidot 2008). Yet offsetting the career opportunities to advance scientifically, immigration to a new country can deprive researchers of economic and social resources (Clark, Glick, and Bures 2009; Israeli 2018). Immigrants often experience alienation, loneliness, or rejection (Morley et al. 2018), in part because immigrants are often perceived as inferior to native scientists. Sometimes immigrants – men and women alike – even experience overt racism (Goyette and Xie 1999; Kidman and Chu 2019; Skachkova 2007). Academically, inevitable periods of cultural adaptation to a new country home can result in initially lower research productivity and publications (Halevi, Moed, and Bar-Ilan 2016). Additionally, Immigrant women experience unique difficulties when they move to a new country to pursue an academic career, often facing professional, domestic, or personal challenges, as well as gender exclusion and discrimination (Roos and Gatta 2009; Skachkova 2007).

Discrimination against female academic immigrants emerges in aspects of tenure and promotion: studies report that foreign faculty members are less likely to be promoted, and are given fewer opportunities for tenure, compared to native male peers and even to native female peers (Goyette, 1999; Winkler 2000). Immigrant women from the FSU in academia have been reported to feel that they do not belong entirely to academia. Michalikova (2018) examined female academics from Eastern Europe in the United States and found that their salaries were much lower than those of men. Frequently, female immigrants are employed less, and struggle to secure promotions, compared to both immigrant male peers and even native female peers (Goyette and Xie 1999; Michalikova 2018). Even though the typical level of education of women in the FSU was slightly higher than that of men, women’s careers hit a glass ceiling in the lower strata of the academic professional pyramid (Remennick 2004). Nevertheless, FSU women – or immigrants from the FSU – often choose STEM based professions as the ultimate goal of education, embodying a need to pursue studies to ensure a future livelihood (Remennick 1999; Remennick and Prashizky 2019).

The status of women in Israeli academia

Israeli academics face a difficult ‘women situation’. The proportion of women employed in senior academic staff is low in comparison to men and remained constant between the years 2015 and 2018: about 29% in universities and 39% in colleges (Council for Higher Education 2015; Report of the Academic Committee of the Council for the Advancement of Women in Science 2022). A gender data analysis of academic staff in most institutions shows that recruitment is characterized by a significant gap between women and men. This gap is noticeable across all fields of study, but due to the limited pool of women, especially in science and technology, the proportion of women recruited to posts in these areas institutions is markedly low (Council for Higher Education 2015). Women progress more slowly through academic ranks compared to men; therefore, most women in academia are in the lower ranks, while men dominate senior ranks (Toren 2009). This trend is persistent, as evidenced by the Gender Index (Tzameret-Karcher et al. 2017), which reports that just 27% of all Israeli professors are women (Report of the Academic Committee of the Council for the Advancement of Women in Science 2022).

In parallel with its actions taken to encourage women to study STEM subjects, the Committee works to increase female representation among academics in Israeli higher education institutions. Key figureheads do exist in Israeli academia: the Committee head and President of the Israeli National Academy of Sciences were both female and drove the establishment of a “Gender Fairness Program”, to raise awareness and support recruitment and advancement of female faculty, especially in STEM subjects (Report of the Academic Committee of the Council for the Advancement of Women in Science 2022).

Discrimination against women in Israeli academia also occurs at entry levels, and stems, among other things, from appointment committee biases: such panels consist of professors and are inevitably male-dominated. However, the lack of female representation in academia can also be related to social constructions, and the procedural and cultural structure of the Israeli labor market (Toren 2009). Toren’s (2009) study highlights discrimination, focusing on the scarcity of North African Jewish female professors in Israeli academia. Her research underscores how factors like ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic background intersect in shaping their academic experiences, revealing diverse paths to higher education and academic careers. The consequences of discrimination can be profound. For instance, in most institutions, women taking maternity leave receive a one-year extension on submission of tenure applications – yet this extension ultimately only serves to further delay their advancement. Another example are gendered responses to awards of overseas postdoctoral fellowships. More doctoral male students uproot their families for a few years, whereas female doctoral students often avoid such upheaval (Zarhovich 2020).

Migration phenomenon

Migration, a historical process, has evolved significantly under the conditions of globalization. A century ago, individuals could easily emigrate, but immigration controls have now become stringent (Mitsilegas 2010). Over the past two decades, virtually all developed countries within the Organization for Economic Development have revised their immigration policies and laws (Suárez-Orozco et al. 2011). The Pew Research Center reported a record 272 million international migrants in 2019, highlighting the growing interconnectedness and global mobility (Pew Research Center 2019). This mass movement of people raises crucial social, economic, and political questions.

Immigration, a complex and challenging event, involves adapting to a new culture, language, and lifestyle (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). For instance, Ayçiçegi-Dinn and Caldwell-Harris (2011) conducted a survey among Turkish immigrants in the United States, and their results align with the notion that immigrants undergo intricate adaptation processes within their new societal context, possibly displaying distinct temperamental characteristics compared to native-born individuals.

Israel holds a prominent position among the conventional immigration destinations, alongside countries like Australia, Canada, the United States, and Western European nations, which also attract significant immigration flows (Reichman 2009). These migration flows changed the national and ethnic composition of the country and shaped the social, economic, cultural, and political structure of society (Lewin-Epstein 1997).

Immigration from the FSU – the ‘1.5 generation’

Jewish immigration to Israel, known as ‘Aliyah,’ aligns with Zionist ideology, granting immediate Israeli citizenship (Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport 2008). Massive immigration from the FSU in the 1990s brought over a million Russian-speaking Israelis with limited means but high education (Remennick 2012). Despite facing discrimination and exclusion, these immigrants adapted, starting anew in mid-life, learning language and culture (Marlowe 2010). They maintained cultural values alongside integrating with Israeli society (Al-Haj 2019).

In the ‘Russian Aliyah’, about 150,000 children under 17 immigrated and were absorbed into the Israeli education system (Horowitz 1999), becoming known as “Generation 1.5” (Remennick 2003). These young adults, today around 25–45 years old, were brought to Israel by their families as children or adolescents, carrying with them the legacies of their early socialization in Russia, Ukraine, and other former-Soviet countries, but came of age in Israeli schools, military units, and colleges (Lerner 2015; Remennick and Prashizky 2019; Shevchenko and Lachover 2023). They are distinct from their parents – the first generation, arriving as adults – and their own – second generation – children, born in Israel (Dolberg and Amit 2023). The integration experience of this 1.5 generation into Israeli society has been even more complex compared to that of their parents. The reasons are numerous. As children and adolescents, they immigrated involuntarily, at a critical age for identity forming (Erikson 1968). Most subsequently grew up in the Israeli periphery, and experienced cultural clashes when exposed to the norms of the socially diverse, receptive society (Idzinski 2014). At times, the norms of the absorbing society clashed with those that the 1.5 generation knew from their FSU culture at home (Al-Haj 2004). Beyond their struggles at school, many of the 1.5 generation witnessed assimilation related stresses and humiliation undergone by their parents and had to guide them in their own assimilation journey. As they tended to absorb a new language and social codes faster than adults, the 1.5 generation had to shoulder many domestic responsibilities, often with little parental support or supervision. In spite of the difficulties their families faced after immigration and the effects it had on their own lives, many consider Israel to be their home (Amit 2018). According to Cohen‐Louck and Shechory‐Bitton (2022) this group has established its status within the Israeli society, became well integrated, and is perceived as contributing to the development of the Israeli society, particularly due to its high educational levels. Prashizky and Remennick (2022) examined 30 stories of 1.5 generation FSU women on Facebook, their narratives showed assimilation challenges and ‘Aliyah’ trauma, depicted as tough but ultimately victorious, following a common plot of immigrants.

Our study aims to raise and address the following questions:

What are the career implications of immigrating at a young age from the individual’s standpoint?

How do academics of the 1.5-generation, who were educated and raised in Israel, perceive their integration into the local academic environment while considering their cultural heritage?

What factors influence the research field choices of 1.5-generation researchers, and how does their cultural background play a role in this decision-making?

How do members of the 1.5 generation define success and perceive the influence of their heritage on career progression?

Methodology

This study was conducted according to conduct the study according to the narrative-focused experience approach (Squire 2008), which emphasizes the story as told by the interviewee Table 1, and from their viewpoint (De Fina 2003). Such an approach is wholly suitable for the study of identity, which is also a subjective and lasting process that gives meaning to an individual’s stories. Analysis of the personal and professional narratives of the research participants permitted the isolation of the factors contributing to the development of the participants’ identities (Dietz and Bozeman 2005). Spector-Mersel (2011) argued that narratives are influenced by a variety of factors, such as social status, gender, ethnicity, or cognitive abilities. Whenever respondents are asked to describe a period in their lives, they choose and filter – consciously and unconsciously – from a vast pool of memories and biographical information. The method is suitable for this study, which revealed in detail the professional and personal experiences of the studied group.

The study population

This study is part of a larger data collection that included 30 interviews with 1.5 generation adults integrated into Israeli academia. This paper is based on interviews with 20 researchers from the FSU who immigrated to Israel in their youth and are currently employed as academics in Israel. Fourteen are senior academic staff members at leading research universities and six have tenure in colleges; 11 of the 20 participants are senior scientists in exact (physical) sciences, six work in humanities, and three in social sciences. Participants immigrated from Russia (9), Ukraine (8), Estonia (1), Moldova (1), or Georgia (1). The female scientists were located by searching for immigrant scientists on university and college websites and contacting them directly via e-mail. Later, further participants were located using the “snowball” method.

Research tools

Data collection comprised in-depth interviews constructed in a way that encouraged a shift from interviewer-interviewee to listener-narrator (Chase 2001). The interview questionnaire allowed for flexibility, aiming for an open discourse to stimulate interviewees to tell their story as they understood it (Chase 2001). To understand their perception in relation to immigration and their academic jobs, interviewees were asked to describe their childhood environment, what education meant to them, and the place that education occupied in their identity. They were asked to describe their perception in relation to their social identity in Israeli society. During each interview, interviewees were asked to describe their life stories in both as broad and as in-depth ways as possible (Munck 2004). The interview atmosphere was intimate, inclusive, and non-judgmental, allowing participants to reveal sensitive and meaningful moments.

Data analysis

Qualitative research analysis is a process through which key themes emerge and change at all stages of research (Charmaz 2014). The approach requires researchers to be flexible and willing to adapt methods to emerging themes or needs. In our study, flexibility addressed the subjective worldviews of the 1.5 generation immigrant academic women. The narrative analysis was biographical and focused on interviewee perceptions of the development of their professional identity throughout transitional career periods (De Fina and Georgakopoulou 2012). In this study, our analysis focused on small stories, to examine the way in which interviewees construct their narratives (Phoenix 2013). To this end, we coded and analyzed interviews according to the thematic analysis approach, emphasizing whole content units (Riessman 2008). Because the study is narrative, it focused on uncovering interviewees’ subjective perspectives and worldviews (Bauer and Gaskell 2000). Interview transcripts were read repeatedly before analysis.

Trustworthiness

The researchers took several measures to increase trustworthiness and credibility of the data analysis. First, the interviewees were located randomly through a search for academic staff on the universities and colleges websites to ensure diverse representation. Second, the researcher ensured a uniform setting for the interviews by using the same introduction and explanations at the beginning and end of the interviews.

Findings and discussion

Two main themes emerged from the interview analysis. We note two sources of strengths that helped our interviewees succeed: a Soviet heritage- selective adoption of ethnic capital which encompasses cultural and social capital of a specific ethnic community and the role models within and outside the family- often on an ethnic basis. We also discuss the obstacles faced by minorities in integration processes in closed and selective professional guilds.

Soviet heritage - selective adoption of ethnic capital

One of the ways for Jews in the Soviet Union to progress socially and economically, and realize their Jewish identity, was to acquire an academic education (Israeli 2018). Lerner (2010) divides the Jewish Russian population into two groups: Jews who lived in small towns, compared to those residents in large cosmopolitan cities like Moscow and St Petersburg, who self-identified as acculturated Jews, and for whom culture became a kind of civic religion in the second half of the 20th. At the same time, governments tended to limit the number of students able to access higher education by targeting the labor force at an early stage, and by blocking opportunities to continue studying (Horowitz 1999). Jews repeatedly encountered antisemitism and discrimination in the Soviet system: among other things, access to academic programs in certain institutions and professions was restricted to Jews (Lerner 2010). Nevertheless, Jews in the FSU were considered one of the most educated ethnic groups in Soviet history (Remennick 2003), and many of them held academic positions in their country of origin. This high educational level was also reflected in the ‘Russian Aliyah’ (Sheps 2016). Many interviewees in our study emigrated with families from major cities in the FSU, bringing with them the strong cultural capital that originated in these cities. We came from Moscow, the most classic elite, the most snobbish there is (Elena). Yanna, too, felt the need to talk about the cultural capital she received in the Soviet education at home. Yes, at home we read a lot of Russian literature, I knew the whole Soviet cultural cannon from home. Sophia refers to and criticizes the cultural capital she absorbed from her family. I think it is a part of our Soviet culture, which is very different from “Israeliness”, devoting so many years to arduous doctoral studies without really knowing what I got out of it, the financial matter here did not interest me, I do not know if it is practical. The cultural capital of former FSU people in academia is also highlighted by Luda. There are many scholars from FSU – I guess it has to do with work ethic, there is more education for hard work, perseverance, not giving up and of course the paramount importance of studies and higher education that is a top virtue at home. These quotes highlight that participants’ capital is rooted in cultural codes and habits acquired during childhood socialization (Bourdieu 1986). The cultural capital of these FSU academics refers to knowledge, abilities, or cultural preferences, as well as academic degrees (Bourdieu 1986). The Jewish heritage of the FSU emphasizes the importance of education, extensive reading, and diligent work, which are regarded as notable qualities. However, these traits could be perceived as downsides as well; the ‘Soviet spirit’ and the impact of the totalitarian and uncompromising education in the Soviet regime, which remain prominent touchstones even decades after Aliyah (Amit 2018). The FSU has always been seen as an entity whose primary goal was to create an ideal society (Yelenevskaya and Pialkova 2005). Even today, “Soviet education” is considered a rigid, disciplined, and highly authoritarian training, bound up in an atmosphere of achievement and excellence (Bodovski 2019).

Many interviewees had clear pride in their own excellence and academic achievement. Everything I achieved was thanks to my efforts and to the education I received from home, striving for excellence and achievement (Polina). Alina deemed it fitting to express gratitude to her supervisor for emphasizing the importance of mastering the Russian language, which has proven advantageous for her academic pursuits. Today from the position I am in, I thank him that I learned Russian. This is how I communicate with researchers when I come to conferences in Post-Soviet Countries, and we have a common language. Yanna also mentioned that the Russian language and culture had helped her, even years after her Aliyah. My interest in the common Russian language and culture has created more closeness and allowed me to find others you can speak to in my language. I think over the years knowledge of the Russian language and culture has helped me a lot. These individuals exemplify how their cultural capital, embodied by their proficiency in the Russian language, developed and grew as a result of socialization processes. This transformation eventually led to the accumulation of economic capital (Bourdieu 1986). Another value that interviewees cited as a value acquired in the Soviet Union is gender equality. No, I did not feel any difficulty during my career because I am a woman, on the contrary, I do not understand it. Maybe because I was raised that way. There in the Soviet Union, they don’t pay attention to gender, so I don’t either. So maybe I encountered difficulty, but I was not aware of it. It has a lot to do with our awareness (Kira). Dana also addressed the issue of gender. I think there were no gender barriers in our immigration. There was no such concept of boys or girls’ profession, the girls also went on to study technical subjects, engineering, and computers (Dana). Thought the Soviet government advocated for the concept of gender equality, Remennick (2001) found that although the educational level of women was marginally superior to that of men, women tended to remain within the lower echelons of the professional hierarchy. The habitus (Bourdieu 1986) of these women, comprising the accumulated behaviors, skills, preferences, and tendencies over their lifetimes, molded and limited their individual understanding, interpretation, and behaviors.

However, they encountered challenges related to gender issues within Israeli society. Alina told how she navigated the maze of Israeli academia alone, battling opposition to women in her engineering department. When I finished the post, I returned to Israel, I was not accepted for a job. It was very unpleasant. Some academics from the department did not want me. At that time my supervisor retired, he used to push me. But the whole department objected, I had to fight alone. I do not think that the fact that I speak Russian was what influenced their decision, I think, that the fact that I was a woman in engineering influenced their decision. They do not like women, period! An engineer woman sounds funny to them, and today when I am in academia, there is the scissors effect, that in the first degree there are more women, fewer in the second degree, then after a third cut, and even fewer lecturers, and a very few who become full professors like me. So, regarding my integration into academia, it greatly bothered me that I was a woman first, and then that I was a Russian speaker. Disparities between females and males manifest in various scenarios. For instance, a recognized and acknowledged pattern of diminishing representation of women as their academic status advances exist across all fields, commonly referred to as the “scissors phenomenon” (Jensen 2006). The reason that the number of women in STEM teaching roles hasn’t changed much is that the shift towards gender equality has been slow. Negative stereotypes about gender create unfair treatment, making it hard for women to advance in STEM careers. Also, women in STEM have fewer helpful connections, which limits their chances to get permanent positions and learn about funding opportunities (Casad et al. 2021).

To conclude, those quotes demonstrate a selective adoption of Soviet heritage ethnic capital which encompasses cultural capital of FSU, 1.5 generation academic women who have participated in the study.

The role models within and outside the family- social capital, often based on an ethnic capital

Migration and integration into a new country are complex processes, characterized by adaptation, change, and many difficulties – psychological, economic, and social (Mirsky, 2009). Many new immigrants to Israel from the ‘Russian Aliyah’ faced hardships and bureaucratic issues, sacrificed their own future career success for that of their children, delayed their professional and personal development, and worked low-paying, low-status jobs to provide for their families. They often resided in economic, social, and geographical peripheral areas (Bodankin and Semyonov 2016) and experienced a decline in their professional status (Raijman and Semyonov 1998). Participants shared some of the difficulties they and their families encountered after migration: Well, the beginning was very difficult, as I assume for any immigrant it is very difficult to adapt, in terms of language, culture, mentality, also economically. Because I was a child, my parents tried not to reveal the difficulty, but it was impossible, the difficult situation was constantly in the air (Sophia). Interviewees also shared the economic and social difficulties they experienced on the road to success. Alexandra said: Throughout the years, I worked as a babysitter and washed stairwells just to buy clothes so that I would have clothes like all Israelis. It was my way of normalizing with the environment.

All participants mentioned their parents as role models, emphasizing their education level, and that many could not find appropriate or meaningful employment in Israel, and were forced to accept blue-collar jobs. My father did less well, he changed a lot of jobs, at the end and he found a job he didn’t like but had no choice and he worked there until retirement (Elena). Yanna’s father also had to compromise his career: He worked as a technician and not as an engineer. My mother was a musician, in Moscow she worked at a music school and here she did not find a job (Sophia). A large proportion of the interviewees were highly motivated to pursue an academic career and saw their parents as role models to follow. Alina said: The question is what I am going to study, my mother is an engineer, father is an engineer, grandfather is an engineer, so there is only one profession I could choose and that is to become an engineer. Maria explained why FSU families tended to choose practical professions. I took the advanced math and physics classes that my parents pushed because they thought it was important, to study only what you can make a living from. I think it has to do with immigrants, and the economic thing, you will not learn something that you will not be able to make a living off later. This widespread choice of practical professions can be interpreted as an expression of the core role education plays in ensuring future livelihoods (Israeli 2018; Remennick and Prashizky 2019). Alina wraps up her narrative by concluding: Rigid Soviet education and the importance of studies and education are still passed on to the next generation. We have a Soviet education at home. Next generation continues this tradition, recent research by Chachashvili-Bolotin, Lissitsa, and Milner-Bolotin (2019) examined second generation immigrant students’ groups with high-skilled parents in Israel and found that the FSU students had the highest STEM enrolment. Young immigrants to Israel were taught by their parents to strive, to not to give up, and to always seek to advance further and succeed academically (Israeli 2018; Lerner 2012). Ensuring children acquire a “good education” is a Jewish cliché (Rapoport and Lomsky-Feder 2002). The saying “‘every Jew must be twice as clever as anyone else to be successful’ was heard by every boy and girl” (Lerner 2012, p. 109). Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) emphasize the family’s crucial role in socialization and as a source of cultural capital. Their main argument regarding higher education is that children of educated parents feel entitled to pursue an education and strive for academic success. Regarding FSU immigrants to Israel, they brought their own cultural capital (Lerner 2012). Israeli (2018) argued that acquiring an education as second-generation immigrants is not merely a way of earning a living and achieving social integration, but a way of fulfilling their role within the immigrant family. Horowitz (1999) noted that the approach to work of FSU immigrants is multidimensional, including discipline, a belief that work is a basic facet of a fulfilling life, and a belief that all work is respectable. All these values were evident in the interviews we conducted.

Participants sometimes also found role models and a good connection based on shared values, culture, and style outside of their families, forming social networks mainly with other immigrants – and not just with fellow academics. Maria said: I was in a kind of accelerated math class, it was good, because it was an environment with people with the same head as me, there I made another good friend who also happens to be from FSU. Alina also had deep social ties with the former FSU immigrants: at university, I was drawn to Russians, suddenly we formed a whole bunch, we studied chemical engineering together; we formed a big group of only Russian speakers.

Some interviewees mentioned that their academic career mentors were often Russian speakers, also direct immigrants from the FSU, or from their parents’ generation. My doctoral supervisor also happened to be Russian, he had many colleagues who spoke Russian. He connected more to people with a Russian background, all his students were Russian speaking, I do not even know if it was done consciously (Maria). Alina also mentioned her supervisor: I started studying. I remember the first course; it was taught by a professor who is a very important figure for me. He also happens to speak Russian, and over time has been my master’s and doctoral supervisor. These are people with whom interviewees formed strong relationships because of similarities in style and perception, or with relatively senior mentors. These examples show the ethnic aspect of social capital – building relationships with others of similar views, many of whom were from the FSU. Similarly, Borjas (1992) suggested that the skills of today’s generation may not just be influenced by their parents’ skills, but also by the average skills of their ethnic group. These quotations substantiate the concept of social capital (Bourdieu 1986), which hinges on the existence of social networks formed within distinct social layers, cultivated through the endeavors of both individuals and collectives. These networks provide assistance and facilitate access to valuable affiliations, upheld through continuous exchanges, both tangible and symbolic. These immigrants cultivated bonds with like-minded individuals, a considerable portion of whom hailed from the FSU.

Mila and Yanna summed up their remarks with reference to their experience in academia, highlighting some of the key characteristics of being immigrant and a woman: We, the members of the Russian Aliyah, are complete outsiders, and it is not just in the field of economic security, I feel it throughout my entire life, for example, my husband, Israeli-born his family knows everyone, I see the connections they have. We arrived without any connections to anyone (Mila). There is no doubt that in academia, getting along with people – and social ability – is hugely important. This story is especially true for women and especially for women who are not from the mainstream (Yanna).

Mila and Yanna, both 1.5-generation individuals, faced challenges while trying to fit into Israeli academia. This happened because their skills, like networking and knowing the academic scene, were not highly appreciated in Israeli culture (Kidman and Chu 2019). These experiences match Bourdieu’s ideas, which emphasize the importance of having connections and understanding the academic world for success in academia (Bourdieu 1986).

Concluding thoughts

Academic women from the 1.5 generation of immigrants are a unique minority in Israel: their main cultural capital comes from education within the immediate family and the FSU, and they also lack both social capital and Israeli cultural capital. Our study focused on the intersection of immigration and gender that has shaped the lives of 1.5 generation women working as senior faculty in Israeli academia. We conducted a narrative analysis of 20 in-depth interviews to examine the perception of participants, their life stories, and their ability to secure professional integration as senior academics in Israeli academia. Immigrant families from the FSU made Aliyah to Israel from different cultures and encountered significant difficulties post-immigration in becoming aligned with the values and norms perceived as important and accepted in Israeli society. However, a belief that education is a key path to social and employment mobility was typically retained. Immigrant parents from FSU continued to educate their children to work hard and achieve academically. Although these families often lacked economic capital, they did have ‘ethnic capital’. Immigrants from the FSU not only imported cultural capital from their original home countries but created their own traditions in their new host countries (Prashizky and Remennick 2015). We documented the ways our interviewees in Israeli academia perceived their career journey, while looking back at their immigration and integration into Israeli society. We identified several focal points that helped them succeed; Soviet heritage- selective adoption of ethnic capital that includes cultural and social capital of their ethnic community. In addition, academic women used social ties to find and maintain a supportive community, with role models inside and outside of their families, social capital that embraces support from the family as well as from society, often on an ethnic basis. In our research, ethnic capital encompasses both cultural and social capital. Thus, the first narrative is the cultural capital of ethnic communities. The second narrative is social capital within and outside ethnic communities. Borjas’s (1992) concept of ‘ethnic capital’ has been utilized in this study to explore the integration experiences of Israeli female academics from the 1.5 generation. The researchers emphasize the importance of ethnic capital, which encompasses cultural and social resources within ethnic communities. We suggest that immigrants not only bring existing cultural capital but also shape new forms of it in their host country. This study underscores the role of ethnic and social capital in shaping academic trajectories, aligning with Borjas’s notion that the skills of a generation are influenced not just by their parents but also by their ethnic group.

These women academics and their families faced many difficulties during their immigration and absorption into Israeli society, not merely economic or social. The experiences shared by the participants resonate with Bourdieu’s framework, as they underscore the role of social capital such as networks and connections, and cultural capital such as knowledge and understanding of the academic field in shaping academic trajectories (Bourdieu 1986). Most encountered barriers to success as minorities in the closed and selective professional guild of Israeli academia, yet they succeeded in advancing and securing impressive academic achievements. The personal stories of these 1.5 generation immigrant women in Israeli academia encapsulate many experiences of Russian Israeli immigrants and other immigrants around the world. Their stories form a collective narrative including trauma, coping, and the overcoming of many obstacles: economic, social, cultural, and personal – to ultimately achieve success in their chosen academic careers.

The study’s contribution in offering valuable insights into the significance of immigrating at a young age and its effects on the development of personal identity and academic careers. Additionally, it explored the paths these researchers took to enter academia and reveal insights into their integration within the Israeli academic landscape. Its distinctiveness lies in uncovering the impact of early-life immigration in constructing a coherent narrative among 1.5 generation members. The research will also delve into the cultural practices adopted by the younger generation within the intricate framework of Israeli society.

This study has the limitation that data was collected from only a single moment of participants’ experiences rather than following the processes over time.

Table 1. Participants’ characteristics_ women _senior academics.

Pseudonyms	Country of birth in FSU	Age of migration	Department
Alina	Russia	13	Humanities
Maria	Russia	6	Exact Sciences
Sophia	Ukraine	13	Exact Sciences
Polina	Russia	8	Exact Sciences
Yanna	Russia	6	Social Sciences
Alexandra	Ukraine	12	Social Sciences
Elena	Russia	8	Exact Sciences
Inna	Moldova	8	Exact Sciences
Mila	Russia	12	Exact Sciences
Bella	Georgia	6	Exact Sciences
Kira	Russia	17	Exact Sciences
Olga	Ukraine	15	Humanities
Ira	Ukraine	12	Exact Sciences
Dana	Estonia	14	Humanities
Dina	Ukraine	17	Humanities
Yula	Ukraine	14	Exact Sciences
Anna	Ukraine	16	Exact Sciences
Ilana	Russia	16	Social Sciences
Dasha	Ukraine	14	Humanities
Luda	Russia	11	Humanities

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to all participants of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).