Section 2: Quantitative studies of displacement at times of war

Research in migration has traditionally tended towards quantitative methods of gathering information.

Quantitative datasets allow for the exploration of important trends and define causal relations between the phenomena in focus.

Yet standard survey methods are unlikely to be effective when planning such studies during acute displacement or in occupied territories.

Surveying displaced people poses numerous methodological, logistical and ethical challenges. Below, we review the main challenges associated with the use of quantitative methods to study war-affected societies in general and particularly displaced populations.

2.1 What are the safety and ethical considerations?

Scholars conducting research in war-affected societies or among displaced populations are, as a rule, required to address safety and ethical considerations with their institution’s Ethical Boards before beginning fieldwork.

In response to the growing number of studies on war-affected societies and vulnerable groups such as refugees, Ethical Boards across the globe have implemented stricter procedures to prevent ad hoc projects lacking thorough methodological preparation, reflection, or trauma-related training.

This often increases the paperwork burden and potentially delays fieldwork during critical moments (e.g., the early days or months after the arrival of IDPs/refugees).

It also helps less experienced researchers anticipate critical issues and prepare more efficiently for challenging situations.

2.2 What are the main challenges to quantitative studies?

Typically, conflicts cause intensive population movements in search of protection, safety, and humanitarian aid. People are forced to move, find themselves on opposite sides of new lines of demarcation or abroad.

In such situations reliable statistics were not available as to who stayed, who moved, and where they went.

A further challenge brought by military aggression is the time dimension (Howlett & Lazarenko 2023). Under such extreme circumstances, society is extremely fluid in terms of respondents’ localization, opinions, and needs.

This often means that any data obtained will almost immediately be outdated. This places additional pressure on researchers and policymakers to accelerate knowledge production.

This may influence the ability of researchers to follow standard research protocols and have negative consequences on an assessment of its reliability.

2.3 What are the challenges of estimating the target population and sampling?

Subsequent estimates and the maps derived from them are often based solely on individuals who officially register (Map 1 and Map 2).

Research on the internally displaced population in Ukraine indicates that up to one-third did not officially register as IDPs, rendering them ‘invisible’ in official statistics (Mikheieva & Sereda, 2015).

Similar patterns are observed in studies of those displaced abroad.

Since 2014, and especially after February 2022, the number of displaced people or those who find themselves under occupation has constantly changed depending on the battlefield situation. As a result, any statistical data and their visualization in, for example, maps easily and quickly become out of date.

It is impossible to define the general population and, as a result, to specify a sample and sample error because of:

• unregistered displaced persons in Ukraine or other countries;
• intensive movement and multiple relocations of a high share of the population (multiple internal displacements; people fluidly shifting between the status of IDP and refugee; refugees moving between different receiving countries; those who choose to return or immigrate again);
• the manipulative nature of data on forced displacement to the Russian Federation;
• limited access to data in temporarily occupied territories.

2.4 Is it possible to carry out a general population survey?

In the case of an undefined general population, a random or systematic sample would be the best solution.

This, however, has its own challenges. Studying temporarily occupied territories would be virtually impossible given the risk to researchers. Military actions and occupational regimes create conditions of fear and danger for respondents and interviewers and critically limit access to a large proportion of the population.

In the case of IDPs staying in Ukraine or refugees fleeing the country, other limitations apply, especially in the early stages of displacement. The official statistics on the target group are first non-existent and then gradually build up. Often this happens with a significant time lag.

One also needs to account for any politicization of categorization and migration data which may also significantly distort available statistics.

Up-to-date statistics with regard to place of residence, percentage to the rest of the population, age, gender, ethnic composition, level of education might not be available due to data protection or available only on a very aggregated level, without specification at local community level.

It becomes even more difficult to study ethnic, religious or language minorities among the internally or externally displaced. Researchers face challenges of missing data due to the specifics of data collection and protection in different countries (Sereda & Homanyuk, 2024).

The inaccessibility of certain areas and groups of people in war conditions means that statistical data can be difficult to verify, is distorted or restricted, as is the case with the situation of displaced Ukrainians or ethnic minorities in the Russia occupied territories of Ukraine (Kuzemska 2023).

Statistics are also subject to rapid change because data represent people on the move.

All of this greatly complicates sample design and makes many surveys conditionally representative.

A general population survey would also be ineffective, as IDPs and refugees in their new communities make up a small portion of the total population. Many refugees and IDPs live in unstable and often precarious conditions making them inaccessible to general population surveys.

2.5 Do telephone and computer-assisted interviews offer a possible solution?

Another possible technique is offered by telephone interviews based on random sampling.

This type of interview is safer for interviewers. It does not require travel to war-affected territories and allows the capture of respondents on the move.

However, it still endangers the interviewees in occupied territories. Phone calls can be hacked, and voices recorded and matched with sim-card data.

It is difficult to build deeper and more trusting relationships through impersonal telephone calls. It is therefore difficult to expect respondents to be willing to openly express their opinions.

While telephone interviews with IDPs and refugees do not pose immediate physical safety risks, they may still face threats. Family members may remain in occupied territories, or respondents may need to visit these areas in the future for various reasons.

Telephone interviews also significantly limit researchers’ ability to navigate sensitive topics or traumatic experiences of participants without risking re-traumatization.

The proportion of individuals with SIM cards capable of receiving calls from outside temporarily occupied territories—and, in many cases, those who have fled to other countries—is steadily declining.

In occupied territories people might be forced to use local mobile providers, and displaced persons might change providers due to economic or convenience reasons. This further reduces the pool of people who can be contacted and interviewed.

One should also account for possible extensive blackouts due to military activities and destruction of the infrastructure that might create additional barriers for telephone or CATI surveys.

2.6 How representative can samples be?

A general population survey would also be ineffective, as IDPs and refugees in their new communities make up a small portion of the total population. Many refugees and IDPs live in unstable and often precarious conditions making them inaccessible to general population surveys.

When almost one-third of the population is on the move, either as internally displaced persons or as refugees in multiple countries with different political and migration regimes and registrations, it is difficult to have any informed judgement about the representativeness of the sample.

In such acute circumstances scholars also apply other methodologies. Online services, phone applications, and social media platforms are used to collect quantitative data, which often exclude many categories of the population, including those who:

• are untrained;
• reluctant to use these services;
• have no access to the Internet, phones, or computers for economic reasons;
• are prevented by infrastructure reasons such as power outages;
• experiencing regular air raids and missile attacks;
• are displaced;
• are carrying out military service.

The case for using such methods lies in their ability to gather information about a population’s needs and public opinion trends. It is crucial for researchers to openly acknowledge limitations and possible biases of their research.

When triangulated with other similar studies, they can provide insights into settlement patterns and the socio-demographic characteristics of displaced populations. In future these would allow us to build more reliable sampling strategy techniques suitable for small and unevenly dispersed groups.

A typical approach involves incorporating elements of purposeful selection, such as focusing on locations with a higher concentration of resettled individuals or targeting specific groups, like Crimean Tatars, and combining with principles of stratification and randomization. The difficulty is that there might not be localities with a high concentration of target groups.

The gradual transition from the Fordist model of humanitarian aid, characterized by large refugee camps or concentrated settlements, to a model where local civil society and individual actors provide most of the early-stage humanitarian support and housing has made IDPs and refugees even more ‘invisible’ to researchers (especially if they stay with friends or relatives and avoid registration).

Despite the rapidness and the scale of forced migration caused by the Russo-Ukrainian war, the response of receiving societies in most countries prevented the creation of large IDP/refugee camps or concentrated settlements. As a result, the ability to reach the target group may be limited.

This may necessitate the use of alternative sampling methods with limited possibilities of randomization, such as snowball quota sampling. This would involve visiting locations where potential respondents congregate (e.g., religious centers, cultural events) or are required to visit (e.g., government registration points, job centers, language courses).

All this makes it vital that we describe in detail the group under study and the limitations of the study. This will lead to greater caution in our conclusions and interpretations. It will also give the professional reader the necessary information about who and what has been left out of the research.

2.7 What is the role of face-to-face surveys using quota or snowball techniques?

How we conduct face-to-face surveys in occupied territories raises even more questions.

We first need to carry them out through trust networks, following quota or snowball techniques with anonymized questionnaires.

However, this technique might lead to unpredictable bias in the sample. In both methods, respondents might be afraid that they have been contacted not by researchers but by military or secret services to check their loyalty. This might influence their openness, especially regarding sensitive questions.

Scholars involved in field work must know:

• how to conduct research with displaced persons in occupied territories or war zones;
• how to protect data (including digital encryption and protection);
• how to interview people where the ‘spiral of silence’ is at work due to fear and uncertainty.

This does not mean that quantitative studies are not possible in a war zone, but by employing them, one must understand all the limitations, namely:

• with sampling,
• response rate,
• the dangers of fieldwork,
• the limits to which issues can be discussed without putting respondents in a life-threatening situation or causing re-traumatization.

All these issues, usually discussed in academic publications so readers can assess the limitations of the presented data, are often missing in policy reports.

It is important to understand the ethical and methodological challenges that are often present in quantitative research designs and adapt instruments to the given environment. This highlights the need for transparent descriptions of all ethical and methodological challenges that scholars face in obtaining knowledge in conditions of war and displacement.