In this interview, Ukrainian sociologists Viktoriya Sereda and Oksana Mikheieva shed light on the often overlooked power of civil society in times of crisis. Focused on the Russo-Ukrainian war, they highlight the active role of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), challenging popular narratives that often paint them as passive victims. By examining grassroots initiatives and informal networks, the sociologists provide an insider perspective on how Ukrainians are developing their own mechanisms for support and resilience.
Nadiia Chervinska
What were the challenges when you studied internal displacement in Ukraine? Perhaps, they were somehow different from what you encountered in 2014? If so, what has changed?
Oksana Mikheieva
Before 2014, there was no research on internal displacement in Ukraine. So, we were swimming in uncharted waters. As a result, we had to overcome such problems like “What rhetoric do we use with our audience?” We launched our study almost immediately after the Russians invaded back in 2014. Back then we did not have any statistics and we had no idea how to calculate the number of IDPs [internally displaced people] and track their final destination. Initially, we experienced a lack of baseline data, which any sociologist needs to develop the underlying logic of the study, learn how to grow the contact network, and so on. Secondly, it had to do with the overall mood in the country, and how it reflected on the population. Before 2018, the war in Ukraine was called an “antiterrorist operation” inside the country, which caused some serious terminological problems. For example, if we are dealing with an “antiterrorist operation,” it leads us to believe that there are some kind of “terrorists” in the East of Ukraine. This terminology affected the way that the IDPs from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were perceived. Individuals who relocated from Crimea were treated differently compared to those who evacuated from the East of Ukraine, although both populations experienced negative treatment. Certainly, there was a definite amount of fear as the people experienced war for the first time. They tried to stay under the radar and avoided being registered and recorded. Some respondents reported that they consciously avoided official registration.
Nataliia Shuliakova
Was the state providing financial support to IDPs at the time?
Oksana Mikheieva
Initially the state was not financially involved, instead it provided placement in residence centers and summer camps for children. IDPs also received volunteer help that was delivered both regularly and sporadically, as well as on a one-time basis. For example, one-time food catering and donations like household items, clothing, and shoes. The practice first originated in the Maidan, and in time, it was applied to work with the IDPs.
Viktoriya Sereda
Another hurdle that we had to overcome was that the media weren’t ready to discuss the subject; it was completely new for everybody. At first, we regularly participated in workshops for journalists to explain the subject and how to best present it to the public. When someone relocates, they want to blend in as soon as possible but they are continually referred to as a displaced person. For example, when Oxana was displaced, she was continually referred to in the media not as a sociology professor but as a displaced lecturer from Donetsk. It has been five years, and nothing has really changed since.
Oksana Mikheieva
Indeed, I am still an IDP. Naturally, it has been many years and the situation has improved. But for a long period of time, all of my other personas faded into obscurity in comparison to this huge, media-derived public persona of a displaced person.
Viktoriya Sereda
Also, we had some misunderstandings when the reporters focused on a particular IDP case and singled out a particular problem, taking it out of its larger context and without seeing it in respect to other groups of people. When we single someone out, we create a situation where it’s “us” against “them”. Social psychology teaches us that binary oppositions generate stereotypes. It results in stigmatisation of a particular population. So, it is important to analyse a topic in a larger context or construct a field of reference. In peer review articles, we always emphasise that when providing information to the media, we are pressed for time, and the data is abridged. We unwittingly create a situation when only one population comes up for discussion, but it is not so, there are others. All people are different, with different needs, interests, issues and experiences. Respectively, it is not a situation where one size fits all.
Oksana Mikheieva
It is worth discussing the transition from politics to policies which is able to cater to all populations. How we interact with different populations shapes our understanding of the problem and our reactions. It is absolutely vital to understand the differences between different populations. For example, the Crimean Tatars who evacuated from Crimea clearly identified as a single group. But displaced persons from the East of Ukraine came a long way before they learned to recognise themselves as one single population. In part, our efforts as sociologists who participate in public discourse also helped them identify themselves as a single group.
When discussing migration processes, we need to keep in mind that it is a life-changing event — not only for those who are displaced but also for those who welcome the refugees. Take, for example, Svyatohirsk — before the war and forced migration, the town’s population was 4,500 people. In 2014-2015, at the height of migration, the town welcomed 15,000 displaced persons. So, now the discussion is about who is displacing who and who is running the show. Large numbers of people with their own ideas about comfort and the organisation of urban space relocated to Svyatohirsk. As a result, they began re-organising the urban spaces depending upon their needs and expectations about comfortable city living. Naturally, it triggered a negative response from the locals, who were not ready for such changes — they stayed put but their lives radically changed.
Viktoriya Sereda
The Google search results, especially results for images, usually show refugees or IDPs at their most destitute: as they are walking towards their new place of destination with bags of clothes or living under horrid conditions at shelters. It does not matter if the refugees are from Afghanistan, Syria, or Ukraine — the image is universal. There is demand for such images and topics. Some peer review publications include clear references to terms like victim, challenge, and difficulty. This group of people is stigmatised the minute they migrate. That is why they do not want to register as refugees or IDPs in Ukraine- so they can avoid the stigma.
Nonetheless, Ukraine is quite a success story. Not everyone knows this, but almost two million IDPs found employment, the country did not experience any major cultural and social conflict, and it avoided any large humanitarian crisis. We should not prescribe victimhood to the Ukrainian IDPs. They are highly educated professional individuals with great skills and experience.
Oksana Mikheieva
More importantly, during the Russian full-scale invasion, the former IDPs became experts in advising the following waves of migrants on what to do and which agencies to contact. Many set up civil society organisations and created volunteer groups. The former IDPs are well aware of the problems faced by today’s displaced persons and they come up with effective solutions. Their transition to being an active participant is extremely significant.
Viktoriya Sereda
But we do not hear those success stories if we only focus on one case study of a family that has greatly suffered during their forced migration.
Oksana Mikheieva
This is the “one-case problem,” and it is quite common. Mariupol has changed drastically since 2014 as a result of a huge wave of forced migration from the occupied territories. The city has totally transformed, particularly at the grassroots level and how its inhabitants are using urban spaces in their everyday lives. I was lucky enough to take my German students on an excursion to Mariupol before the start of the full-scale invasion. I was very impressed with how the city has improved. The new urban spaces were so much better. That is why the tragedy of Mariupol in 2022 resonates on so many levels — it’s a story of destruction and mass murder of innocent civilians but a wonderful new city with innovative urban trends has also been lost.
Viktoriya Sereda
I would like to add something worth mentioning. As soon as I begin talking to someone from outside of Ukraine, I am immediately asked questions about Ukraine’s east and west and the discrimination of Russian-speaking communities. The topic is ever-present. Our research includes independent modules on the subject of this seeming conflict between Ukraine’s east and west, i.e., reported discrimination. And if yes, what role, if any, does language and culture play in it. We do not register those of the impact of language in reported discrimination. In some cases of discrimination, it mostly has to do with finding employment; lucrative employment opportunities often exist within a close circle of friends and acquaintances. But when you relocate, you sever those grassroots connections.
Oksana Mikheieva
All of the international programmes in Ukraine had an underlying message, stating that IDPs need to be integrated. At first, I was dumbfounded because I was being “integrated back into Ukrainian society.” So, where did I function before that? Why do I need to be integrated back into Ukrainian society if, since the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence in 1991, this is where I have been happily living? Then the rhetoric changed to include the position that IDPs should be integrated into the local community. This raised another set of questions — what does it mean to be integrated? What is the main criterion of successful integration? Do I have to integrate into the entire community of displaced persons or into the entirety of the local community, especially when back home I functioned within a limited group of people, and it never extended to every person in that community? When discussing approaches to integration, where do we draw the line? How do we know that a person is integrated? At what point do good intentions become a violation of liberty and freedom of expression?
Nadiia Chervinska
The situation in 2014 is completely different from what is happening right now because today, all of Ukrainian society has been impacted by war and not just those in the occupied territories like Crimea and Donbas. Has the attitude towards the IDPs changed, especially towards those who evacuated from Kherson, Kharkiv, and other regions most affected by fighting or occupied immediately following the full-scale invasion?
Oksana Mikheieva
Naturally, while the war is still at the top of the social agenda, society has learned to accept some things. Much has changed in respect to the displaced people. For example, before 2014, we had a drawn-out, complicated procedure for the registration of IDPs and their filing for financial support. I vividly remember how I signed documents stating that “I do not belong to any separatist group” and “do not financially support terrorism.” This was just absurd. The red tape burden weighed heavy, first of all emotionally. Now, all of it is easy. A person can just register in the Diya app, and they can avoid any direct contact with a personal representative of the state. However, there is still a chance for someone to contact a state representative. Of course, this representative could be someone who is able and willing to help you, but it could also be someone who is inefficient and guided by stereotypes. When using the Diya app, you avoid personal contact with a state representative. The whole process is much easier now and is devoid of any emotional undertones and fears. Our research has shown that most cases of discrimination occur outside of the communities and in the process of interacting with the institutions.
Nataliia Shuliakova
I take the sore question of integration very personally. I myself had to flee the country after the Russian full-scale invasion. Our family evacuated to Germany because we had no place to go inside the country. We were convinced that we would be back home soon, and as a result, we did not plan to integrate. But we were forced to integrate. I believe that many who evacuated after the full-scale invasion followed the same line of thinking. In 2014, did the IDPs believe that they are going to go back home after everything over? Do they still believe that?
Oksana Mikheieva
We always say that you can go back when the war is over. The more you stay in a community, the more integrated you become, regardless of any previous decisions. You find employment and develop new social connections. After that, going back becomes a new migration. You start a new life. In their interviews, the overwhelming majority of respondents mentioned going back. At the start of the full-scale invasion, everybody wanted to go back but understood that they could not because their hometown had been raised to the ground or the situation back home had radically changed.
Our ordinary, daily lives do not usually motivate us to mobilise the way we did during the war. Conflicts always mobilise the nation. As a result, the evacuees have no idea how they could go back. After 2014, we interviewed those who evacuated and then returned to the occupied regions in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. Usually, those who returned were those who failed at starting a new life after the forced migration. They just went back to living their ordinary lives. There was no discrimination within their peer group. There was a silent social contract, when certain topics were never raised in public. People engage in small talk and discuss the weather, health, and children. That’s it. You are potentially treading on a minefield when raising any of the other topics and it can result in social conflict. This is important to know for establishing future relations with the people in the occupied regions following their liberation. The population in the occupied regions is highly polarised, and many believe that little can be done to change that. But the everyday reality is even more complex than what we have previously thought, and we need to be ready for future dialogue about integration and reintegration.
Viktoriya Sereda
I believe that one needs to be able to spot a media-inspired conflict. There are one-off cases that go viral and create a feeling that stuff like this happens all the time. Such cases immediately attract attention. But they are created by the media, who just love clickbait. Instead, social surveys show that Ukrainian society is very tolerant, also in respect to language. Ukrainians are a tolerant nation. This is exactly what researchers do — they differentiate between the real and imaginary situations in which people live and analyse them.
Oksana Mikheieva
It is extremely important to focus on the trends and not on individual cases and avoid the media hype. If we are talking about one interview, it is a personal story. But if it is about a series of interviews that were properly analysed — it is a whole different ball game. You asked “What has changed?” Our society has grown much more critical of media hype. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine began with a powerful information campaign; Ukrainians have become experts in filtering information spam. Also, our reactions are vocal: the public does not keep quiet and shuts down any attempts at getting more clicks by promoting stereotypes. Ukrainians know how to deal with information. In fact, quantity data on attitudes towards IDPs at the local level demonstrates a clear trend — in communities with a high proportion of IDPs, there is a higher level of contact and the attitude towards them is much improved. This can be compared to the communities with only a few IDPs, in which there is very little direct contact and communication and such interactions are marred by stereotypes.
It is a long and difficult process. We need to engage highly trained interviewers. During an interview, if you do not double check the information and make sure that the respondent is discussing their personal experience, you are left with nothing; all you have is a collection of hearsay mixed with propaganda.
Nataliia Shuliakova
In one of your surveys, you interviewed paramilitaries fighting on the Ukrainian side and the Russian side. How do they see themselves, and what is the difference between them, also in respect to what they are fighting for?
Oksana Mikheieva
One of my projects involved interviews with volunteer fighters for Ukraine and for Russia. The interviews were duly analysed in the framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA), where I identified all of the phrases used by the interviewees when they refer to us vs. them and ours vs. theirs. The analysis has uncovered a group dynamic, e.g., when the Ukrainian volunteer fighters mention them and us, they mean practically everyone, including family or people from their local community – all the way to the whole of Ukrainian society. They feel like they are part of this society and are well aware of who they are here to protect. Also, they have a clear picture of the country they are trying to protect, as defined by the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine after independence. Instead, the Russian volunteer fighters are totally isolated. They refer to others as they. Even when discussing the local population which they claim to protect, the fighters say “they do not want to join us, they do not come into contact with us.” They are approaching everything from a distance as if they have descended from out of space to fight here on Earth. They use negative definitions to identify themselves. They have no idea how to define themselves in positive terms. At the same time, they use phrases like — we are not the ones who “were jumping on the Maidan,” as they repeat old propaganda messages. They lay claim to vast territories without borders and want to expand their rule exponentially. They are ready to fight for those who support their “ideals,” like the “Russian world” and the “world of Slavic nations.”
We are able to generate quotes from every single interview and each group of respondents in order to support any point of view or theory. This is the “one-case problem” mentioned earlier. On the other hand, comprehensive analysis involves good analytics and uses procedures to test the results. When a topic is popular, it attracts much attention; this can be a good thing and it can also be a bad thing. On the one hand, the war on Ukraine, the forced migration, and the occupation of Ukrainian territories should stay at the top of the international agenda. On the other hand, the war creates a lot of research that is taken out of context, which paints a skewed picture of what is going on. Some see it as an opportunity to move up the career ladder in the academic community, so they focus exclusively on the most trending topics.
Nataliia Shuliakova
Do you usually switch to Russian during the interviews?
Oksana Mikheieva
We use any language a respondent is comfortable with. I am bilingual, and I take advantage of that. True, many respondents wanted to speak Ukrainian to us out of principle. They struggled but persevered and continued the interview in Ukrainian. This data is also included in our research because it reflects changes in attitude towards language, its role, as well as the importance of language in daily communication.
Nataliia Shuliakova
So, could you please explain the outsider vs. insider dilemma?
Oksana Mikheieva
For example, I used to live in Donetsk, I am part of that culture. It is much easier for me to distinguish between myth and reality, and get a clear picture of what is really going on, especially when the locals slide into the local slang, use informal topography, and so on. But at the same time, being too involved in that society may lead me to make too many assumptions, and it could reflect on the interviewees. As a result, find it best to work in pairs. Viktoria stops me in time before my imagination runs wild (laughter).
We analyse the interviews independently and interpret the data according to our own understanding, which is followed by a discussion. When our results were the same, it was fine. But when they were different, it got us thinking “why is that?” Is it because I am too engrossed in the local culture or is my colleague unable to interpret the local nuances and situations that I am implying? Such interviews required extra attention, research, and the application of different techniques in order to extract the desired data. It was absolutely vital. I am convinced that one person is unable to collect and analyse all of the necessary information; sociology is a team sport. For me, the final stage of verification is the presentation of the results, and to do that, I go back to the same cohort of people with whom I conducted the research (if possible, of course). We need to come a long way to do that. Giving feedback to the group of people you have just researched is very unnerving, but we have to do it. If you go back to your interviewees and the audience rises in disbelief exclaiming, “Oh, Jesus! What’s that?” — it immediately sobers you up and makes you revise the results. Not many of our researchers give feedback to the interviewees. I always find it emotionally draining, but I still do it. For me, the feedback is absolutely vital. Unfortunately, you can’t always get it. There are situations when it’s just impossible.
Viktoriya Sereda
Also, most importantly, outside researchers are usually financed by international organisations to do the surveys, and they are rarely interested in our expertise and experience. For the most part, our contact with them is limited to: “Give us respondents, we need people”. They engage in some discussions or get a hold of the materials and then leave to analyse the results. But they do not engage local researchers in their analysis and do not base their findings on what has already been published. They act as if they know best, but as you delve deeper into their research, you do not know whether to laugh or cry.
Usually, such reports are published in English and are open domain, so the next Ukrainian researcher interested in IDPs in Ukraine has open access to the reports and is able to make their own conclusions about the situation in the country. However, often these reports are non-representative. As a result, they contribute to a bias.
Nadiia Chervinska
You frequently mention instances when researchers do not include a source of reference or manipulate the data. Sometimes international organisations use data from an unknown source. Should public sociologists like yourself take on the responsibility to bring such cases to light in the academic field and beyond? Do you have to confront these cases? If so, how do you approach the matter?
Oksana Mikheieva
Indeed, this is also part of what we do. Viktoria and I organised training sessions and specialised workshops for journalists. We still keep in touch with some of the journalists, as they continue to approach us for consultations in cases when they want to strengthen their argumentation and include references to published studies. Often, they will ask us the following: “Can you recommend this research and can it be trusted?” Oftentimes, in the middle of a conversation, I have to stop the interview and totally change the line of questioning because they have based their theories on outdated ideas from a hundred years ago. In cases like that, I do not answer the question and explain why the question is not valid. Also, I keep in contact with some of the production editors, and when it comes to my attention that the information has been skewed, I notify them. So far, my experience has been mostly positive because we, together with the journalists, are interested in publishing accurate and trustworthy data. It is always a dialogue. Most importantly, a sociologist’s job description goes beyond generating data. We need to make the data public knowledge. It is part of our responsibility.
Viktoriya Sereda
It is more difficult to deal with these issues outside of Ukraine because we do not have as much access to the media.
Nataliia Shuliakova
You have researched Ukrainian refugees in Germany. What is special about their experience in the country and the EU as a whole compared to other waves of forced migration?
Oksana Mikheieva
A lot depends on the country, like its refugee quota and the number of refugees entering the country. As well as the conditions of stay. For example, Ukrainian refugees in Germany receive a sizable social support package, and in return, the state expects them to integrate into the labour market. If it does not happen, I doubt that the refugees from Ukraine will be allowed to stay in the country. But in any case, it is difficult for Ukrainians to make any decisions now in respect to what the future holds; a lot depends on the country’s success on the battlefield and the duration of the war, as well as their family situation, i.e., which family member has evacuated and who stayed behind. For example, we are unable to provide an accurate estimate and claim that 60% of Ukrainians want to either stay or go back. It is a problem for European states as well because the social support for the Ukrainian refugees could either become a powerful investment into the future labour market or just another charitable project to support the people in need who eventually plan to return to their home country.
Viktoriya Sereda
It is a twofold problem. First of all, our evacuees and those who have long escaped the occupation in the east of Ukraine or Crimea have stayed invisible to the Europeans. At the time, the European community was more concerned with the domestic migration crisis, which coincided with the peak of heavy fighting in the Donbas region. So, academic research began to cover Ukrainian issues much later, and it did not receive a heavy focus. In a sense, Ukraine is a terra incognita. Secondly, many countries have the academic expertise and administrative experience in dealing with the wave of migrants from Syria. As a result, they go into a standard mode of action. So, a standard approach was attempted when Ukrainians began their migration to Europe. But we have always claimed that their model for handling the Syrian refugee crisis was not going to work. The number of people coming from Ukraine is much greater, the speed of migration is different, and the social and demographic make-up is not the same.
Naturally, all of the civil society structures and networks used before to help the Syrian refugees were at work. Europeans had the experience and they banded together, providing all the help they could. Still, some stereotypes did emerge. At the local level, I heard people saying: “Oh, well, they are gonna leave soon.” I responded with a counterargument: “These are women with children, and they are not gonna leave because of that.” Of course, anyone who just recently migrated wants to go back home. But also, there is a matter of practical reality — many have no place to go back to. If previous groups of migrants were mostly young men without children seeking work, now it is women with children who are more concerned with continued education for their kids and childcare, and they are much less interested in finding employment.
Oksana Mikheieva
Another stereotype had to do with a belief that the Ukrainians would be claiming benefits on a massive scale. But Ukrainians are a self-sufficient nation and want to find work. The migration services realised that the Syrian model did not fit the Ukrainian refugees and decided to change tack. This resulted in critical outbursts like — “Ukrainians are the ‘white Europeans,”’ and as a result of that, they get a different kind of treatment. It is almost impossible to try and convince people otherwise and say that it is not about being treated differently but rather about strengthening the response to the migration crisis. Here, you are also caught up in a dangerous game of stereotypes.
Viktoriya Sereda
Also, Ukrainians know how to self-organise. We have mentioned it before — Ukrainians have agency, they are vocal about their needs and know how to fight for their rights. It has a positive impact on the development of migration policies and the development of new models that could be applied to future migrants.
Oksana Mikheieva
It is a melting pot of experiences, and it did not start from scratch. After 2014, we learned how to effectively ration assistance and stayed proactive due to the understanding that we are the ones responsible for our own destiny.
The world was amazed by the swiftness of the Ukrainian response to the full-scale invasion, as it came within hours, not days. The reaction was immediate. But it would have never happened if we had to begin from scratch and did not have any previous experience.
Viktoriya Sereda
We should also discuss another stereotype. Western standards are often used to measure Ukrainian civil society, such as the number of civil society organisations and the proportion of people involved with non-profit agencies. In Ukraine, civil society usually deals with a whole range of problems: different issues like when Ukrainian soldiers at the front suffer from freezing weather conditions and quickly need a generator, or when there is a newly arrived group of refugees who need food, or someone wants to hijack a building and turn it into commercial property. And no one is going to take the time to set up an NGO to deal with just one problem. People mobilise, band together, and act immediately; Ukrainian civil society is working at different levels and different resources are pooled together.
Methodologically, such things fly below the radar, so we can not always detect that IDPs have agency. It occurs at the informal level and can be identified only through in-depth interviews and through the application of other methodologies. But we still lack the methodology and it is unchartered territory for now.
Oksana Mikheieva
Not everyone has a deep understanding of these mechanisms because Ukraine is unique in developing these networks. It is a brilliant learning experience. Just imagine, society has developed its own independent support mechanisms. And these mechanisms are working to our benefit during the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Translated from Ukrainian by Olha Kravchenko