Autistic migrants often get misread at work. I am going to study why.
I'm autistic and a first-generation migrant: moved to the Netherlands from Russia when I was 29. I want to study something I've run into myself: how autistic migrants get read when they apply for a job, and why their skills often don't reach the people who hire.
When you're neurodivergent and also new to a country, two readings land at once: an employer's idea of how a "good" candidate communicates, and a new country's idea of how work is done. Competence gets discounted through both at the same time.
Write to me →For a collaboration, a PhD opening, an advice, or a question.
How the misreading happensconceptual
competencewhat's actually therea reading lens
How to read it: the dashed frame is what a person can actually do. Their experience is read through two filters at once — an unfamiliar culture's and a neurotypical one — and each narrows what gets recognised, so only part reaches the hiring decision on the right. This is how I picture it: the hypothesis, not measured data. The loss is in the reading, not in the person.
The proposal
What I'm proposing to study
My argument, and what stage it's at
The argument. The skills are there. The distortion is in how they get read. My claim is that a cultural reading and a neurotypical reading, together, discount competence before it reaches a hiring decision. I also look at it from the employer's side — the real cost-benefit — using my background in strategic management.
Why it matters. Most equality law protects people once they're hired, not from being filtered out quietly at the entrance. If the mechanism is real, the first step is to name it.
Status. I've written a full proposal and submitted the application for funding (ISRF Independent Scholar Fellowship 2025). Now I'm looking for a PhD position or a collaboration to do this research.
Method
How I work without an institution
I set the direction
Without a supervisor, I read recent work and current papers to find a question that's actually open and that I can do on my own.
I go to the source
First-hand accounts and primary literature, not second-hand summaries. The people who've hit a barrier know its shape best.
I check it twice
I check each step against published methods. I don't have a title or an institution behind me, so the work has to hold up on its own.
I put it in the open
I present where I can and share material people can use, so the work can be checked and used.
A collaboration, a PhD place, advice on neuro-inclusive hiring or communication, or just a question — write a couple of lines and I'll answer plainly. The links below show what I do.