This peer-reviewed interdisciplinary study examines the phenomenon of professional displacement that occurs when armed conflicts disrupt the institutional environments supporting professional activity. The research analyzes how forced migration affects not only demographic patterns but also professional trajectories, as displaced individuals often lose access to universities, licensing systems, professional associations, and labor market networks that previously validated their qualifications. Drawing on approaches from migration studies, labor economics, and institutional analysis, the article explores the structural barriers that prevent displaced professionals from reintegrating into host-country labor markets. These barriers include difficulties in recognizing foreign qualifications, complex licensing procedures, loss of documentation, language constraints, and limited access to professional networks. As a result, many migrants experience occupational downgrading and prolonged periods of employment below their level of training. The study also analyzes institutional responses designed to address professional displacement, including accelerated recognition procedures, professional bridging programs, mentorship initiatives, and emerging digital credential infrastructures. These mechanisms aim to facilitate the reconstruction of professional identity and improve labor market integration for migrants affected by armed conflict. The findings suggest that professional identity governance in contexts of forced migration increasingly operates within a multi-layered institutional ecosystem combining state licensing systems, supranational qualification frameworks, professional networks, and digital documentation tools. The article argues that effective migration governance must address not only humanitarian protection but also the institutional reconstruction of professional recognition systems for displaced professionals. The version deposited in Zenodo corresponds to the peer-reviewed scholarly publication and reflects the authors’ original research without substantive modification.
Savchuk et al. (Fri,) studied this question.