Inclusion in Ukrainian universities from an inside perspective

Abstract

This study investigates the state of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities, focusing on the perceptions of university staff amid the country's ongoing sociopolitical transformations. Here we report on the perceptions of 820 staff members from various professional roles, including academic, management, and support positions, this research explored inclusivity through diverse lenses, encompassing work experience, interactions with students with disabilities, and self-identification with vulnerable groups. Most respondents assessed a moderate to high level of inclusivity, indicating a positive overall outlook on inclusive practices within these institutions. Notably, perceptions of inclusivity vary slightly across different professional roles, with academic staff expressing a marginally lower level of perceived inclusivity than their counterparts. However, these variations are not statistically significant, suggesting a uniform perception across staff categories. Furthermore, the study revealed that personal experience in working with students with disabilities does not substantially alter staff perceptions of inclusivity. Similarly, self-identification with vulnerable groups only marginally influences these perceptions. This suggests that while individual experiences and identities are factors in inclusivity perceptions, their impact is not profoundly different. This research contributes to understanding inclusivity in higher education, particularly within environments undergoing significant social and political changes.

Introduction

In recent years, inclusion in education has become an essential topic in educational discourse worldwide. Researchers consider various aspects of policy and strategic directions for developing inclusive education. They emphasize the importance of providing quality and affordable education, which allows each person to realize their right to a whole, economically independent life through education and profession¹, defining the essence of inclusive education^2,3, and limiting pedagogical practice⁴. Additionally, they offer an index of inclusion – a tool for assessing and promoting the achievement of inclusiveness in educational institutions, revealing the social, political, economic, and cultural contexts that determine the possibility of implementing inclusive education in different regions and countries of the world^5–7, and pointing to the need to ensure social and digital equality in higher educational institutions (HEIs)^8,9.

The policy of guaranteeing the availability of education based on diversity, justice, and inclusiveness was also reflected in higher education. Some scientific publications highlight specific proposals for the introduction and implementation of inclusive education in HEIs^10,11, methodological aspects of building an inclusive HEI environment based on the principles of universal design^12–14, focusing on the role of management and teachers in creating an inclusive environment in HEIs^15,16, and on increasing the level of professional competence of future teachers to work with representatives of vulnerable groups, and effective ways of professional training^17–19.

Implementing inclusive practices in higher education is especially important for countries experiencing social and political transformations due to military conflicts^6,20. This topic is also relevant to Ukraine^5,6. The impact of war on education is difficult to overestimate. It leads to significant human losses^21–23, student outflow^24,25, displacement^20–22,26, and increased diversity in HEIs^27,28. Under such circumstances, among the priority areas of activity of HEIs is the inclusivity of a university environment where everyone feels included and valued, including representatives of vulnerable groups (persons with disabilities^29,30; participants in armed conflicts^31,32; refugees and internally displaced persons^20,33,34; people with learning disabilities^35,36; minority students^37,38; and underrepresented groups³⁹). This creates the necessary conditions for them to obtain high-quality higher education.

The above discussion highlights the difficulty of creating inclusivity as an environment for HEIs where everyone feels included and valued. This issue was particularly acute before the war in Ukraine, which is in the process of active reforms and adaptation to modern challenges, particularly the ongoing war and its consequences. The study aims to investigate the level of inclusivity within universities in Ukraine during wartime from the perception and assessment of university staff. Additionally, the study seeks to understand whether it is influenced by certain factors, such as the professional role of the staff, their experience working in universities, their experience working with students with disabilities, and their identification with representatives of vulnerable groups.

Results

A total of 820 university staff members participated (Table 1). The study involved a diverse group of Ukrainian university staff with a range of professional roles and experiences. Most participants were academic staff, comprising 76.8% of the group. Management and support staff were also represented, accounting for 9.1% and 14.0% of the sample, contributing to a comprehensive view of the university workforce.

Table 1.

Diversity and professional characteristics of survey participants.

Variable	Subcategory	N	%
Professional role	Management staff	75	9.1
	Academic staff	630	76.8
	Support staff	115	14.0
Academic position	Professor	113	13.8
	Associate Professor	344	42
	Senior Lecturer	126	15.4
	Assistant	45	5.5
	Other staff	192	23.4
Identification with representatives of a vulnerable group (multiple answers are possible)	Person with disabilities	35	4.3
	Ethnic minorities representative	8	1.0
	Person with low socioeconomic status	19	2.3
	Gender nonconforming person (transgender, nonbinary, etc.)	1	0.1
	Person with war or victim experience	26	3.2
	Person with traumatic events or disasters experience	88	10.7
	Refugee	30	3.7
	Internally displaced person	191	23.3
	Person hailing from diverse geographic areas (e.g., rural youth)	21	2.6
	Member of sexual minorities (LGBTQ +)	7	0.9
	Older adult embraces lifelong learning	9	1.1
	Person resuming professional activity after a prolonged break	12	1.5
	Person from unprotected groups (minimal or no family support, mental health issues, pregnancy, inability to allocate sufficient time due to the necessity of earning a livelihood through work or providing care for someone)	15	1.8
	With none	448	54.6
Work experience in universities	0–5 years	179	21.8
	6–10 years	70	8.5
	11–20 years	213	26.0
	21–25 years	142	17.3
	26–30 years	77	9.4
	over 30 years	139	17.0
Experience working with students with disability	I have	323	39.4
	I don’t have	497	60.6

In terms of academic positions, the group included a mix of professors, associate professors, senior lecturers, assistants, and other staff, with associate professors being the most prevalent at 42%. This distribution suggests a significant representation of mid-career academic professionals in Ukrainian HEIs. Table 1 shows the diverse backgrounds of the participants, with notable representation from various vulnerable groups. The notable categories included internally displaced persons (23.3%) and persons with traumatic events or disaster experiences (10.7%), reflecting the current sociopolitical context in Ukraine. However, some groups, such as gender nonconforming person, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities, have deficient representation (0.1%, 1% and 0.9%, respectively).

Additionally, a significant number of respondents did not identify with any listed group (46.7%). Work experience in HEIs among the survey participants varied widely, from those with less than five years of experience to those with more than three decades of experience, reflecting a blend of emerging perspectives and seasoned expertise in the HEIs. A noteworthy aspect of the study was the varying levels of experience working with students with disabilities. Most of the staff (60.6%) do not have such experience, which could highlight a potential area for development in terms of inclusive education and support.

Table 2 summarizes the assessment of the level of inclusivity of Ukrainian universities by staff (e.g., management, academic, and support staff). According to a statistical analysis, a high level of inclusivity was the most prevalent among all staff, with 47.8% of the total responses falling into this level. Approximately 46.3% of the staff members reported a moderate level of inclusivity. Only a small fraction of the staff, approximately 5.9%, perceive minimum level of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities.

Table 2.

Comprehensive assessment of the level of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities.

Level of inclusivity in HEIs	Staff of HEIs, all groups
	N	%
Minimum	48	5.9
Moderate	380	46.3
High	392	47.8
Total	820	100.0

Although the general assessment of inclusivity among the staff at Ukrainian universities appears positive – the majority reporting moderate to high levels of inclusivity – disparities emerge when dissecting the data by professional role. As delineated in Fig. 1, 49.3% of the management staff and 47.0% of the academic staff categorized the level of inclusivity as moderate. A significant deviation is observed among support staff, where a substantial majority (56.5%) perceive the level of inclusivity to be high.

Figure 1.

Assessment of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities by staff depending on professional role.

Academic staff who are integrally involved in the direct educational process and research activities, report a lower level of inclusivity perception (6.8%) compared to their colleagues from other professional groups (2.7% among management and 2.6% among support staff).

The assessment of inclusivity levels at Ukrainian universities may be influenced by factors such as staff members’ work experience at universities (Table 2). Figure 2 shows that the highest proportion of staff members who perceived inclusivity at a high level was among those with the least work experience (0–5 years), suggesting that newer staff may perceive the university environment as more inclusive. As the years of experience increase, there is a notable shift toward a moderate assessment of inclusivity, peaking with those having 11–20 years of experience. Staff with 26–30 years and more than 30 years of experience had a greater tendency to assess inclusivity at a high level than those with 6–25 years of experience. The percentage of staff assessment of inclusivity at the minimum level is relatively stable across all experience levels, with no significant increases or decreases.

Figure 2.

Assessment of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities by staff depending on work experience.

In conclusion, while the assessment of inclusivity varies somewhat by the number of years of experience working in universities, there is no clear linear trend across the categories. Most notably, staff with the least (0–5 years) and the most (over 26 years) experience tend to perceive a greater level of inclusivity than those with midrange experience (6–25 years). This could imply that both new entrants and highly experienced staff view their universities as more inclusive than those in the middle of their careers.

In addition, the study predicted that staff's experience working with specific groups of diverse students, such as those with disabilities, may also be a factor influencing the assessment of the level of inclusivity at universities. Among the survey respondents, 60.1% reported no experience working with these diverse student groups, while 39.9% had relevant experience. Figure 3 illustrates that the percentage of staff members who assessed inclusivity at a high level was comparable regardless of their experience with students with disabilities (46.7% with experience vs. 48.5% without). Staff with experience are slightly more likely to assess inclusivity as moderate (47.1%) than are those without experience (45.9%). Notably, a marginally more significant percentage of experienced staff assessed inclusivity as a minimal level (6.2%) than their inexperienced counterparts (5.6%).

Figure 3.

Assessment of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities by staff based on experience working with students with disabilities.

In conclusion, having experience working with students with disabilities does not significantly change the assessment of the level of inclusivity among staff. Both groups – those with and without experience – have a similar distribution of perceptions across the minimum, moderate, and high categories, with a slightly greater inclination toward a moderate and high assessment of inclusivity.

Also, it was investigated how staff members’ self-identification with a vulnerable group affects their assessment of the level of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities, anticipating that this factor could significantly influence their overall perception of inclusivity. Figure 4 shows a slightly greater percentage of staff not identifying with a vulnerable group who perceive the level of inclusivity as minimal (6.5%) than those who do identify (5.1%). The percentages of staff members who assessed inclusivity at a moderate level were similar for both groups (46.0% for those who identified with a vulnerable group and 46.7% for those who did not). A slightly greater percentage of staff who identify with a vulnerable group perceive the level of inclusivity as high (48.9%) than those who do not identify with a vulnerable group (46.9%).

Figure 4.

Assessment of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities by staff based on identification with a vulnerable group.

Overall, the differences in the assessment of inclusivity between staff who identify with a vulnerable group and those who do not are relatively small. However, staff members identifying with a vulnerable group are slightly more likely to assess inclusivity at a high level. Conversely, staff who do not identify with such groups are marginally more inclined to perceive the minimum level of inclusivity. These findings suggest that personal identification with a vulnerable group influences the assessment of inclusivity, with those who identify with such groups possibly feeling more included or being more aware of inclusivity measures. However, the differences are not stark, which indicates a relatively uniform perception of inclusivity across both groups.

For a more in-depth analysis of the dependence of the assessment of the level of inclusivity in Ukrainian universities by staff according to self-identification with a certain diverse group, combinational grouping was used (Table 3). The data indicated that individuals within vulnerable groups’ specific experiences and identities have varying impacts on how they assess inclusivity within the university setting. These groups include elderly individuals, individuals with low socioeconomic status, migrants, people from various geographical regions, and those who have experienced war or victims. Among these categories, a greater proportion of staff rate of inclusivity as minimal.

Table 3.

Associations between inclusivity and self-identification in diverse groups.

Variable	Subcategory	Level of inclusivity, %
		Minimal	Moderate	High
Identification with representatives of a vulnerable group (multiple answers are possible)	Person with disabilities	2.9	42.9	54.3
	Ethnic minorities representative	0.0	50.0	50.0
	Person with low socioeconomic status	10.5	47.4	42,1
	Gender nonconforming person (transgender, nonbinary, etc.)	0.0	0.0	100.0
	Person with war or victim experience	7.7	65.4	26,9
	Person with traumatic events or disasters experience	4.5	51.1	44.3
	Refugee	10.0	56.7	33.3
	Internally displaced person	3.7	42.4	53.9
	Person hailing from diverse geographic areas (e.g., rural youth)	9.5	47.6	42.9
	Member of sexual minorities (LGBTQ +)	0.0	57.1	42.9
	Older adult	22.2	33.3	44.4
	Person resuming professional activity after a prolonged break	0.0	50.0	50.0
	Person from unprotected groups	0.0	80.0	20.0
	With none	6.5	46.7	46.9

The chi-square test results were used to examine the relationship between variable factors and assessment of the level of inclusivity at Ukrainian universities (Table 4).

Table 4.

Association between the assessment of inclusivity and staff characteristics.

Factors	Chi-square tests
	Methods	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig
Professional role	Pearson chi-square	7.502*	4	0.112
	Likelihood ratio	8.260	4	0.083
	Linear-by-linear Association	1.854	1	0.173
Work experience in universities	Pearson chi-square	6.924**	10	0.733
	Likelihood ratio	7.030	10	0.723
	Linear-by-linear Association	0.085	1	0.771
Experience working with students with disability	Pearson chi-Square	0.288***	2	0.866
	Likelihood ratio	0.287	2	0.866
	Linear-by-linear Association	0.287	1	0.592
Identification with representatives of a vulnerable group	Pearson chi-Square	0.847 ****	2	0.655
	Likelihood ratio	0.853	2	0.653
	Linear-by-linear Association	0.657	1	0.418

* 1 cell (11.1%) has an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.39.

** 2 cells (11.1%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.10.

*** 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.91.

**** 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.78.

*****0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.79.

For the factors (professional role, work experience at universities, experience working with students with disabilities, and identification with representatives of a vulnerable group), none of the chi-square tests show a statistically significant association with the assessment of inclusivity at Ukrainian universities. Based on these tests, these factors do not significantly influence how universities assess inclusivity.

Discussion

Based on data collected from a representative sample of higher education representatives in Ukraine, this research revealed a high level of assessment of inclusivity in universities from management to academic and support staff. It is particularly significant in the context of relatively recent initiatives to integrate inclusive practices into the country's higher education system and the ongoing war. The results underscore the effectiveness of various approaches to policy and practice to enhance overall inclusivity levels in universities^40,41 and the importance of comprehensive university strategies for preparing faculty to work in inclusive environments^42,43.

Interestingly, the results of this study contrast with the experiences of other countries where significant integration challenges exist despite the long-standing implementation of inclusive practices⁴¹. Differences in the perceptions and implementations of inclusive policies may be attributed to variations in countries’ historical, cultural, and political contexts. In the context of Ukraine, particularly against the ongoing war, there is an increasing need for more flexible and inclusive programs to meet the diverse needs of student groups⁴⁴. Furthermore, the increasing number of vulnerable groups of students requires the adaptation of curriculums to cater to their needs. This underscores the growing demand for inclusive education tailored to diverse student needs in different contexts⁴⁵ and highlights the need for further analysis and the development of effective strategies to implement inclusive practices that accommodate the needs of various student and staff groups in universities.

In the context of the current situation in Ukraine, the research results established that factors such as professional role, experience working in universities, experience working with students with disabilities, and identification with representatives of a vulnerable group do not significantly impact the assessment of the inclusivity of the university environment during wartime.

First, the findings obtained differ from those of the studies, which indicate differences in the perception of inclusivity based on professional roles^41,46. Usually, this is attributed to the fact that academic staff who interact closely with students, are more familiar with the challenges and barriers students face and, as a result, may critically evaluate inclusive measures. Faculty members expressed concerns about their preparedness for working in diverse environments and raised practical concerns^43,47. Within the framework of this research, we identified some differences in the perception of inclusivity depending on the professional roles of university staff. Academic staff mainly the level of inclusivity lower than management or support staff representatives. However, this factor was not statistically significant.

Secondly, the results also indicate that direct experience working with students with disabilities does not always change the overall assessment of inclusivity. This fact may point to the complexity of the interaction between experience and the perception of inclusivity⁴⁸. As mentors and advisors, academic staff may encounter specific challenges with students with special educational needs, increasing their awareness of inclusion issues. However, this can also lead to acknowledging existing barriers and shortcomings in the system, which, in turn, may contribute to a perception of lower inclusivity^49,50.

Thirdly, the experience of working at a university also does not significantly affect the assessment of the inclusivity of the university environment. However, according to other research, staff's attitudes towards students from vulnerable groups correlate with teaching experience and frequency of communication with a specified category of persons^15,42. The researchers' findings prove that teaching experience affects the understanding of inclusiveness more than age¹⁵. They emphasize that commitment to inclusion is more common among professors developing their professional careers (with experience between 6 and 15 years)¹⁵.

This research also enhances the understanding of the relationship between identity and inclusivity. For instance, individuals with disabilities and gender nonconforming individuals perceive inclusivity more positively in Ukrainian universities than in other groups. These findings suggest that these directions work better in the practice of Ukrainian universities and demonstrate that different experiences and identities influence the perception of inclusive practices. These findings complement the discourse on identity and inclusivity, as explored in the works Museus and Griffin⁵¹, who analyzed the intersection of personal and professional identities. But in fact, this factor was not statistically significant.

Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize that, despite these slight differences, the overall assessment of inclusivity remains relatively consistent among various staff groups regardless of such factors as professional role, experience working in universities, experience working with students with disabilities, and identification with representatives of a vulnerable group. Such unexpected research results may be a consequence of the transformative processes in the higher education system due to the ongoing war in Ukraine^5,21,52. Given the challenges universities face, ensuring an inclusive environment is one of the effective approaches to ensuring the continuity of the higher education system. The issue of educational losses and maintaining the student body deserves special attention^53,54. The war has led to the mass evacuation of students due to the inability to continue full-fledged education due to combat actions or missile attacks⁵⁴. This has created additional burdens on displaced students. Many of them were forced to earn a living while continuing their education. Due to the war, as noted in the research by Novomlynets et al., Ukrainian HEIs have lost a portion of potential applicants, and there is a high likelihood that a significant portion of forced migrants may choose to continue their studies abroad in foreign HEIs⁵⁴. According to Khaniukov et al., educational losses are also caused by security issues during the educational process, the emotional state of students, instability/lack of internet connection, power blackouts, and being in different time zones⁵³.

The wartime made university staff members change a lot their culture, politics, and practices: widen the methods of distance learning, differentiate the individual studying, use different methods to avoid panic attacks during air alarms, often blackouts in almost all regions of Ukraine, provide online studying to supply educational service even in the war time to save the university structure, the working positions, to prevent scientific potential being destroyed⁵⁵. In this aspect, an inclusive approach supported equal higher education access in the crisis period, addressing both immediate needs and long-term prospects for Ukraine's recovery and development.

A notable limitation of this study is the potential for selection bias in the sample. Since the survey was distributed via email and participation was voluntary, it is possible that those who chose to respond may not represent the broader population of Ukrainian university staff. This self-selection could mean that the respondents have a particular interest in or awareness of issues related to inclusion, which might skew the results. Moreover, self-reports and retrospective data collection methods cannot exclude possible social desirability response errors. Additionally, the inability to determine the study's response rate due to the unknown number of people who viewed the online invitation further complicates the assessment of the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation of this study is the exclusion of students' perspectives. Since this research focused explicitly on HEI workers, it does not capture the views of students, who represent a significant demographic in higher education institutions. Future research should aim to include students to provide a more comprehensive understanding of inclusivity within higher education.

Overall, this research underscores the critical role of inclusivity in higher education, especially in contexts marked by social and political challenges and transformation. The insights gained from this study contribute valuable knowledge to the ongoing discourse on educational inclusivity and provide actionable guidance for policymakers and educators. As HEIs worldwide continue to grapple with the challenges of creating truly inclusive environments, the lessons learned from the Ukrainian context offer a unique perspective on resilience and adaptability in the face of adversity.

Methods

Study design and data collection

This study is cross-sectional analytical research. The data were collected through an online survey. Before the main study, 15 university staff members were engaged in a pilot test to check for clarity in the questions and to ensure that the survey could be completed within an estimated 22 min. The study was carried out between November and December 2023. For data collection, a questionnaire was distributed to staff members of Ukrainian universities via email via Google Forms.

Participation was anonymous and voluntary throughout the study period. Before their involvement, participants received information regarding the objectives and nature of the research, and their informed consent was obtained. However, we could not assess the number of people who viewed the online invitation; therefore, we could not determine the study's response rate.

The inclusion criterion was staff working at Ukrainian universities. Any questionnaires that were not fully completed were excluded from the study, as was the data from the pilot test. This exclusion criterion ensured the analysis was based on complete and relevant data.

In carrying out this study, all methods and procedures were rigorously aligned with pertinent guidelines and regulations. We confirmed that the study was performed in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. The compliance and ethical integrity of the study were verified and approved by the Ethics Committee of Berdyansk State Pedagogical University, as reflected in their approval under protocol number 8, dated October 10, 2023. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Measures

The online survey was a questionnaire that took 20 to 25 min to complete. The survey comprised two sections: (a) diversity and professional characteristics and (b) measurements.

The first section collected data on the participants' professional backgrounds. This encompassed factors such as professional roles, academic positions, diversity identification, work experience, and experience with persons with disabilities among HEI staff. These data are valuable for understanding the composition and experiences of those working in HEIs with diverse groups of students.

The second section included a questionnaire for university staff about inclusivity in HEIs as a process associated with the participation of all persons in creating a comfortable, safe, barrier-free, friendly, inclusive environment that considers the needs of diverse student groups, including vulnerable individuals. The Inclusion Index of Booth and Ainscow was taken as a foundation for the questionnaire^56–58. It was modified and adapted according to the specifics of higher education and Ukrainian realities.

The questionnaire comprises 56 items and measures the expected inclusive culture, policies, and practices in HEIs based on the seven areas of the Index. The statements for assessment in the study were categorised into three sections. The “Inclusive Culture” dimension included statements related to building a community (8 items) and promoting inclusive values (7 items). The “Inclusive Policies” dimension included statements focusing on the openness of the university to everyone (10 items) and support for diversity (14 items). Finally, the “Inclusive Practices” dimension included statements about the adaptation of curricula and courses (5 items), engagement in learning (8 items), and availability of resources (5 items). To gauge the responses to these items, a six-point Likert scale was utilized, ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (6). According to this scale, based on the sum of points the threshold values were set for three levels: “Minimum” level: sum of points from 0 to 125 points; “Moderate” level: sum of points from 126 to 209 points; and “High” level: sum of points from 280 to 336 points.

Statistical analysis

The data generated through Google Forms was downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet and imported into the SPSS® software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for analysis. Before loading into SPSS, a logical control of the empirical base was carried out. According to the data control results, one respondent's answers were removed. Data control consisted of comparing the answers to one of the key research questions: “Do you identify yourself with the representatives of a certain (vulnerable) group?”. The respondent had the opportunity to choose several answer options for belonging to vulnerable groups or to indicate that he does not belong to such groups. In one observation (No. 211), all the proposed options were specified, giving grounds for removing them from further statistical analysis.

The statistical analysis of the relationship between variable factors and assessment of the level of inclusivity at Ukrainian universities was carried out using non-parametric analysis methods, particularly Chi-square tests (Pearson chi-square), which do not require a normal data distribution. The strength of a statistically significant relationship was assessed using Cramer's V coefficients.

We conducted separate analyses to determine whether professional roles, identification with representatives of a vulnerable group, work experience, and experience working with students with disabilities in HEIs influence the assessment of the level of inclusivity at Ukrainian universities.

The assumptions required for performing the Chi-square test were checked: the independent variables consisted of two or more categorical groups, including “Professional roles” (divided into three groups: management, academic staff, and support staff); “Work experience” (divided into six groups: 0–5 years; 6–10 years; 11–20 years; 21–25 years; 26–30 years; over 30 years); “Experience working with students with disability” (divided into two groups: yes, no); “Identification with representatives of a vulnerable group” (divided into two groups: yes, no). The dependent variables were measured at low, moderate, and high assessments of the inclusivity levels at Ukrainian universities. There was no relationship between observations within or between the groups, indicating that the samples were independent.

Hypothesis H0 was accepted, indicating that the independent variables "Professional roles," "Work experience," "Experience working with students with disability," and "Identification with representatives of a vulnerable group" do not influence the assessment of the level of inclusivity at Ukrainian universities.

Author contributions

The conceptualization was made by N.T. and Y.S. The methodology was developed by A.P. and H.L. The data were curated by N.T., O.H. and O.H. The original draft was written by N.T., H.M. and A.P. The writing, review and editing were performed by Y.S. and H.L. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

The data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available at 10.5281/zenodo.12806416.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.