MSCA Global Fellowship: The Cost of Mobility and the Hope of Escaping Precarious Employment

A Fellowship Balancing Autonomy and Prospects for Stability

The Marie Skłodowska-Curie (MSCA) Global Fellowship is one of the European funding programs dedicated to international mobility and the development of scientific careers. It enables researchers who have earned their doctorate no more than eight years ago to carry out an independent research project by spending one or two years at a research institution in an eligible third country. In addition, fellows spend one year returning to their European host institution.
The fellowship provides funding for research, training, and international mobility. Above all, it enables fellows to develop their own research program, strengthen collaborations, and build a more independent research profile.
However, in the Italian context, its value takes on another dimension. The three-year fellowships can, in fact, pave the way to a fixed-term research position through direct recruitment by university departments. This possibility depends on the evaluations and decisions of individual universities and, as of now, does not constitute an automatic guarantee of employment.
Unlike the MSCA European Postdoctoral Fellowship, the Global Fellowship allows researchers to maintain a contractual relationship with the Italian institution hosting the project. During the outgoing phase, researchers remain employed by the European university, to which they return for the final year.
The connection to one’s home research system—and, in a sense, to one’s own country—is not severed; it simply becomes a long-distance relationship.
For those who have built professional networks, relationships, and emotional ties in Italy, this is by no means a minor detail.
After years of precarious employment, the Global Fellowship can therefore represent more than just prestigious funding: it’s an opportunity to regain scientific autonomy while also glimpsing greater professional continuity.
A small glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

From My Perspective

My name is Rebecca Paraciani; I’m 35 years old and have been living in Montréal since July 2026. I moved from Italy for the outgoing phase of my MSCA Global Fellowship.
I completed my Ph.D. almost seven years ago and have a career as a precarious researcher behind me: long and interesting, but at the same time exhausting.
I arrived on the other side of the world with my husband and son. And as I embarked on this experience, along with this blog, I’ve asked myself many times what drives precarious researchers to embark on a similar path.
What does it mean to choose a Global Fellowship after years of job insecurity? How important is the opportunity to build one’s own scientific identity? And what personal and financial costs does the decision to relocate entail?
To try to answer these questions, I interviewed two female researchers who are nearing the end of their MSCA Global Fellowship. Their experiences do not constitute a representative sample, but they offer a close-up look at dynamics that are more broadly present throughout the Italian academic system.
There is an important difference between their stories and mine. For them, receiving the fellowship also meant professional stability and—despite some drawbacks—a real chance to leave precarious employment behind.
In my case, however, the road ahead is still an uphill climb: recent reforms to the pre-tenure track at universities have changed the contractual terms and the pathways to an academic career. I therefore do not have a tenure-track research contract, but rather a postdoctoral position limited to the three-year duration of the project. This does not diminish my gratitude for an extraordinary opportunity that allows for scientific autonomy, professional growth, and the building of new collaborations. At the same time, however, it highlights how even such a prestigious recognition is no longer accompanied by prospects for stability.
It is also this difference that motivates me to share their experiences. Because while the MSCA Global Fellowship can represent a turning point, not everyone arrives at it under the same conditions. And above all, not everyone emerges from it with the same prospects.

An Oasis in the Desert

For those who have been navigating the precarious world of Italian academia for years, the MSCA Global Fellowship can seem like an oasis of fresh water in the middle of the desert.
It offers a valuable research budget, scientific autonomy, and time to devote to one’s own project—thanks in part to the exemption from teaching duties during the fellowship. It thus allows researchers to invest in their own ideas and, in some cases, opens a fast track to a more stable position.
In short, it offers the chance to regain control of one’s career path.
But it offers—and requires—the ability to leave. Or rather, the obligation to do so.
In an academic system that demands constant flexibility, adaptation to new environments, and a willingness to change research topics, being able to develop an independent project takes on special significance.
It means better defining one’s scientific profile, building and strengthening international networks, and taking responsibility for one’s research choices. It means managing a budget, developing collaborations, and experimenting with different ways of communicating results—in my case, through this blog.
Having the time and resources to do so profoundly changes not only what one can accomplish, but also the quality and spirit with which one approaches scholarly work.
However, recognition does not necessarily equate to job security.
Contractual prospects continue to depend on university decisions, departmental support, and circumstances that are not always within one’s control. As one of the interviews reveals, timing, institutional conditions, and even a certain amount of luck matter: the chance that every piece of the puzzle falls into place at the right moment.
A fellowship can therefore offer a way out of precarious employment. But it does not guarantee that this path is actually viable.

The Human Cost of Research

International mobility is one of the fundamental principles of the MSCA. Moving allows researchers to access new scientific contexts, build collaborations, and broaden their research horizons.
But leaving is not always a decision to be taken lightly.
The experiences gathered reveal a tension between the desire to have an international experience and the need to accept a new relocation in order to continue working in research.
One of the researchers interviewed describes this contradiction in particularly meaningful terms:

When it becomes an obligation—because the only way to move forward or to stay within a system is to keep moving and uprooting yourself, to be shuffled around as if we were objects, without considering that we are people with emotional ties, and with a desire, like so many others, to put down roots—it risks becoming madness.

The issue is not merely about an individual’s willingness to relocate. It concerns the concrete conditions under which that choice is made.
Emotional relationships, a partner’s job, children, caregiving responsibilities, and the desire to put down roots inevitably factor into the decision. And they can make mobility a very different experience from what is imagined on paper.
The two accounts depict different situations, but they share the difficulty of balancing scientific work and private life.
In the case of a female researcher who is also a mother, relocating the entire family required her partner to give up his job and a complex reorganization of caregiving responsibilities.
In the other case, the inability to relocate with her partner led to a long-distance relationship, difficult times, and the postponement of family plans.
These experiences bring to light a dimension that is often overlooked in discussions of academic mobility: its personal cost.
A cost that is particularly significant when those leaving are no longer young researchers at the start of their careers, but people who have already endured several years of precarious employment and have, at least in part, built their lives.
Mobility, then, does not merely mean exploring new horizons. It can also mean temporarily leaving behind what one has painstakingly managed to build.

How much is left for mobility?

Alongside personal difficulties, the interviews reveal a very concrete problem: the gap between the European funding allocated for the fellowship and the income actually available to those leaving Italy.
This is an issue that directly concerns my own experience.
Although I do not have a tenure-track research contract, I hold a postdoctoral position which, as is the case for other colleagues in the same situation, corresponds to an employment position at the host Italian university.
The European funding is therefore translated into an employment relationship governed by the Italian contractual and tax system.
And it is precisely in this transition that some of the most significant challenges arise.
One of the researchers interviewed recalls receiving her first paycheck as a moment of profound disappointment. The gap between the expected budget and the amount actually received was very wide, especially considering the cost of living at her chosen destination—particularly housing costs.
In the other case as well, disposable income proved insufficient to comfortably support the family’s relocation, especially given the very high costs of private childcare services.
The problem lies in how the various components of the funding are eroded by taxes, social security contributions, and costs associated with the type of contract.
The most glaring issue concerns the mobility allowance, which is specifically designed to cover the additional expenses associated with international relocation.
Under the Italian contractual arrangements considered, this allowance is added to income and subject to progressive IRPEF taxation. Consequently, a significant portion of the resources intended to make mobility possible is reduced precisely by the tax system of the country of origin—in this case, Italy.
This creates a paradox: the financial package acknowledges the cost of the relocation, but the resources actually available prove insufficient to cover it.

Family Allowance: Support That Is Not Enough

A separate issue concerns the allowance intended for families, the so-called family allowance.
This is a tax-exempt lump-sum payment designed to support those who undertake international mobility along with their family members.
However, the amount does not vary based on the number of children or the actual expenses incurred for their care. It is not enough to cover the cost of daycare and does not take into account the number of dependents accompanying the researcher.
Above all, it does not account for the economic consequences that the relocation can have on the entire family structure.
When a partner gives up their job to care for the family and manage the day-to-day care of the children, the cost of mobility is no longer limited to rent, transportation, or childcare services.
It also includes the loss of income.
The testimonies gathered show just how closely these factors are intertwined. The ability to relocate together, continue working, care for children, and cover daily expenses depends on family dynamics that the intended financial contribution can only partially offset.
A tool designed to help balance mobility with family life thus ends up placing a considerable portion of the cost directly on families’ shoulders.
Paradoxically, only a small slice of the pie remains.

Conducting Research on the Other Side of the World

The financial difficulties that emerged in the two interviews seem to point to a common thread linked to the way fellowships are managed in Italy.
Rent, travel, care services, and the potential loss of a second income must all be covered by the actual net salary available.
In some cases, the result is that the monthly stipend covers only the rent and little else.
One might imagine using other items in the fellowship budget to supplement financial support, but in practice, it’s not that simple. It requires coordination with university departments, which don’t always have clear procedures or the practical ability to intervene.
The risk is that a tool designed to facilitate international mobility ends up, in the words of one of the researchers interviewed, meaning “going hungry on the other side of the world.”
It’s a contradiction that’s hard to ignore.
On the one hand, there’s the opportunity to secure competitive funding, strengthen one’s scientific profile, and, in some cases, gain access to a more stable career path.
On the other hand, there’s the need to undertake international mobility with financial resources that may not guarantee adequate living conditions.
The prestige of the funding and the day-to-day sustainability of the experience do not necessarily go hand in hand.

The privilege of returning

There is also one aspect of the Global Fellowship that takes on special significance only after departure: the distance from home.
Unlike an MSCA European Fellowship, spending one or two years on the other side of the world means that any return to Italy requires considerable time and financial resources.
If a personal emergency arises, or simply if you want to return for a few days, the cost of an intercontinental flight can become difficult to afford.
As one of the interviewees notes:

You certainly can’t just hop on a Ryanair flight: an intercontinental flight requires time and resources.

With a net income already absorbed by daily expenses, a temporary return risks becoming a luxury.
And the distance—which, on paper, is part of the international experience—also becomes a practical obstacle to being present when it matters most.
It is one of the least visible contradictions of academic mobility: leaving to expand one’s professional opportunities can mean giving up, at least temporarily, the ability to choose when and how to return.
The stories collected here are not tales of failure. On the contrary, they convey enthusiasm for scientific work, professional recognition, autonomy, and new opportunities.
The MSCA Global Fellowship emerges as a significant career boost, capable of offering resources and opportunities that would be difficult to access under other circumstances.
But scientific recognition coexists with economic pressure, loneliness, distance from loved ones, and the need to reorganize family life.
These dimensions are not mutually exclusive. They are part of the same experience.
Viewing the Global Fellowship from the perspective of Italian researchers allows us to grasp a fundamental point: the decision to relocate does not occur in a vacuum, but within a system of often limited professional opportunities.
Leaving is a genuine desire, an intellectual challenge, and a significant investment in one’s future. But it can also be a choice made because alternatives are few, at a stage in life when relocating has increasingly significant personal consequences.
It is precisely this ambivalence that deserves to be told, without reducing the experience to an individual success story or ignoring its scientific value.

What Makes a Global Fellowship Sustainable?

Discussing MSCA Global Fellowships means examining not only the opportunities they offer but also the conditions that allow researchers to fully realize them.
Clear and realistic financial information is needed before departure, along with greater transparency regarding the relationship between European funding and actual compensation, concrete support for relocation, and broader attention to caregiving responsibilities.
Clear prospects for returning home and for professional continuity are also needed, so that mobility does not simply become yet another period of uncertainty.
A fellowship can give researchers something extremely valuable: the time, resources, and freedom to develop their own ideas and establish their scientific identity.
But the cost of that space is not the same for everyone.
It depends on one’s initial financial resources, personal relationships, family responsibilities, and the practical ability to sustain a life elsewhere.
The question is not how much a Global Fellowship can change a career. It is what conditions must be in place so that this opportunity does not require disproportionate personal and financial sacrifices.
Because international mobility should expand the possibilities for researchers and not become yet another condition they must endure in order to continue their work.