Social work students and teachers responding to internally displaced persons’ need of shelter in Ukraine in spring 2022: Service learning and recognition

Abstract

In the spring of 2022, in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, social work teachers and students in Lviv provided shelter support to internally displaced people. This article explores the challenges faced as well as adapting pedagogy to the crisis. An online transnational collaboration and retrospective analysis approach was employed to gather information from the teachers and students. Through a descriptive analysis, informed by Honneth’s theory of recognition and service-learning model pedagogy, the results highlight the complex challenges inherent in humanitarian assistance. This article contributes to a heightened understanding of the role social work plays in armed conflicts.

Introduction

The invasion of Russia into Ukraine on 24 February 2022 caused a significant flight for safety in the country’s westernmost regions (Howlett, 2023). Already on 14 March, the internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine amounted to nearly 6.5 million only to peak at over 8 million in early May of the same year (IOM, 2023). In this situation, unprecedented levels of civic engagement were sparked to alleviate immediate needs among those in the quest for safety (Boichak and McKernan, 2024) both by providing essential items, advice and care along the borders (Truell, 2022) and for those seeking refuge within the country (IOM, 2023). In this article, our interest is centred on the latter, responding to IDPs in a short-term perspective. In this case, the response is organized by students and educators in social work. As outlined by the UN, the objectives of such responses are grounded in protection and humanitarian assistance (UN, 2004).

In Ukraine, there are recent experiences of civic response to IDPs stemming from 2014 when mass-scale violence and armed conflict began (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a). Local voluntary organizations were found to lead the way for the short-term responses to the immediate humanitarian needs such as food and clothes, but also financial, housing, and medical needs (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a). Various public and private facilities not purposed as living spaces served as such when properties such as warehouses, storage facilities, students’ dormitories and summer camps were re-purposed into shelters (Dean, 2017). Information services were set up by regional public bodies in the form of helplines, road and location maps and lists of significant phone numbers of public services and organizations (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a). However, regardless of intentions, there might be potential drawbacks of humanitarian aid, such as dependency, a paternalistic legacy and insufficient participation that should be observed (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a).

Appraised in hindsight, the Ukrainian experiences in 2014 provide important insights into the complex challenges inherent in the role of social work in an ongoing war that is highly relevant for shelter provision. The experiences are reminders of human vulnerability, and they bear witness to the needs of those fleeing. To begin with, societies’ social fabric is ruptured, everyday practices and social services are upset, and the impacts are further compounded by people’s displacement to new contexts (Dominelli, 2012). Interrupted support services and social networks might hinder families’ and caregivers’ protective capacities which potentially contributes to adverse long-term intergenerational effects (Betancourt and Khan, 2008). The high burden of internal displacement in Ukraine has been reflected more generally in mental health concerns, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety (Roberts et al., 2019). A high prevalence of mental health concerns in combination with a treatment gap has been found, in this case during the second year of displacement (Roberts et al., 2019). An increase in anxiety, depression and hazardous drinking has recently been found among parents in Ukraine (Hyland et al., 2023). Taken together, such experiences imply a need for response to be trauma-informed (Hyland et al., 2023).

The Ukrainian experiences from 2014 remind us of the challenges any country would face in terms of responding comprehensively to short-term needs while also having long-term strategies for management and caring for IDPs, either in resettlement or returned (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a). There is a general challenge to hold short- and long-term interventions together: that is, manage to provide timely humanitarian assistance and, at the same time, draw on community-based approaches aiming at empowerment, inclusion and justice (Semigina and Gusak, 2015b). For example, difficulties with the reintegration of IDPs into the labour market and housing sphere are pressing long-term implications of internal displacement (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a). In those regards, community-based approaches involving community service and differentiated economic activities are proven to be fruitful (Kuts et al., 2020).

Other Ukrainian experiences stem from the implementation of a law outlining certain social guarantees for IDPs involving the rights of registered IDPs as regards employment, pensions and compulsory state social insurance (Havrysh, 2020). It involves hitches associated with legislation and assistance mechanisms and hurdles stemming from bureaucracy detrimental to efficiency, associated with a sense of isolation among the IDPs (Semigina and Gusak, 2015b). That is, holistic and empowering approaches to address the long-term issues (Havrysh, 2020) must be highlighted without losing sight of the individuals’ needs traditionally covered in a therapeutic paradigm of social work aiming at eliminating individual and societal consequences (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a) associated with a short-term humanitarian response.

This article focuses on the response in terms of providing shelter for IDPs in their initial displacement during spring 2022. More specifically, we focus on the setting up and provision of shelter in the facilities at the Ukraine Catholic University (UCU) in Lviv, organized particularly by the Department of Social Work, teachers and students. The shelter was integrated into the curricula to be able to keep up with students’ learning and credits. In that sense, the educators made use of a service-learning model (Billig, 2000) though not articulating the process in these terms; rather these connections were made during the reflection.

A shelter is ‘a habitable covered living space’ that is provided during a period in times of conflicts or disasters (DFID UN and OCHA Shelter Centre, 2010: 323). The setting up of shelter stood strong in a long tradition of humanitarian assistance within social work (Monico et al., 2014) and in its orientation towards human security, and the well-being and protection of the population.

The aim of this article is, underpinned by a wish to understand practical experiences, to explore the challenges faced by educators and students (cf. Окаєвич, 2022) in setting up and providing shelter for IDPs, as well as adapting pedagogy to support this effort in meeting real community needs.

We expect the study to add to the disciplinary knowledge of the complexities inherent in the role of social work in armed conflicts with a focus on the roles of educators and students (cf. Strassman et al., 2022; cf. Окаєвич, 2022).

Educators and students during times of war and disasters

Academic interest in the interface between social work policy, practice and education in the context of political conflicts has developed recently (Duffy et al., 2021). An emerging theme in research covers the need to prepare students and practitioners for their role in situations of political conflicts. ‘The pedagogy of discomfort’, as proposed by Duffy et al. (2021) with reference to Boler, encourages educators to step outside their comfort zones. This approach enables them to engage effectively with challenging topics, such as conflicts. Educators need to carefully design programmes that create safe spaces and explore ways to improve field supervision, particularly in contexts where ongoing conflicts affect students’ identities and fears (Duffy et al., 2021).

Educators have responded in times of disaster to the needs of the community while also using it as opportunities for students’ learning and training, for example, to provide humanitarian aid (Vickers and Dominelli, 2015). Educators have adapted real-life situations to education by applying a service-learning model to good effect (e.g. Salam et al., 2019; Steiner and Sands, 2000). Sescon and Tuano (2012) showed the positive impact of service learning as a response to disasters in the Philippines. O’Steen and Perry (2012) account for the adaptation of a high school curriculum to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2010 and 2011, while COVID-19 was used as an opportunity to trial new methods of working, including field education (Morley and Clarke, 2020). Butler (2007) offers an example that relates to war when outlining a model of service-learning for students in a placement where home-based, needs-led service to refugee families and unaccompanied young people was developed. The students were found to be largely positive about the experience despite challenges related to the lack of on-site supervision.

To our knowledge, the service-learning model has not been applied in, shelter as being integrated or discussed or referenced during an ongoing armed conflict occurring in a midterm educational context involving social work students and academics.

Analytical perspective – A three-facet lens

The theorizing of social work in the context of armed conflict has been limited (Duffy et al., 2021; Semigina and Gusak, 2015b). Therefore, there is no clear theoretical precedent to follow. Our analytical lens consists of three perspectives. First, the principles of protection and humanitarian standards applicable to IDP and shelter provision provide perspectives using human rights as a critical corrective, in other words human rights are a benchmark of standards (Skarstad, 2024).

Second, we turn to Alex Honneth’s theory of recognition enabling us to hold together our understanding of the practical experiences and connect those to social work practice. It has previously been used in various social work contexts such as in-service users’ interactions with social work services (Almqvist and Lassinantti, 2022; Niemi, 2020) and with child migration (Eide, 2007) and allows for the placement of empowerment values at the core of social work (Houston, 2008). Houston (2008) argued that recognition theory emphasizes four interrelated dimensions of social work practice: (1) social work as symbolic interaction, (2) social work as care, (3) social work as respect, and (4) social work as validation. This positions intersubjectivity and a relational ontology as core values of social work practice.

Third, the model of service learning (Billig, 2000) provides for approaching the day-to-day social experiences of the shelter as being integrated into the curricula, as it offers an understanding of the pedagogical adaption in hindsight.

The UN’s (2004) guiding principles on internal displacement provide a base outlining the right to get protection and humanitarian assistance from the authorities (principle 3). SPHERE handbook, The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (2018) (hereon SPHERE, 2018), unpacks what this means in practice. In alignment with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, SPHERE formulates principles and standards based on the right to life and dignity, to receive humanitarian assistance and protection and security. SPHERE supports practice by outlining (four) principles of protection, (nine) humanitarian standards underpinning quality and performance, plus (four) technical standards covering life-saving assistance in humanitarian responses. This provides an integrated and people-centred approach to humanitarian work combining the purpose, process and concrete activities of humanitarian response.

Honneth argued that there are three forms of recognition: love, rights and solidarity (Honneth, 1995). Each corresponds to the realms of social and self-relations. The first form concerns the individual with particular needs (such as shelter) that are imperative to respond to (Honneth, 1995). Although Honneth theoretically links this first form to direct relationships, such as parent–child interactions, as sites of complex emotional exchanges fostering self-assertion, it is also transferable to supportive relationships (e.g. social workers/teacher/student) that require strong emotional bonds, trust and engagement (Björngren Cuadra, 2015). The second form is characterized by universal equality in rights and treatments; it recognizes a person as a moral subject and equal to others in that respect, providing the ground for self-respect (Honneth, 1995). This can be achieved by granting and upholding individuals or groups’ legal rights. The third form, solidarity, involves appreciating the person as an individual with abilities valued within a community, representing a particular form of life (Honneth, 1995). Solidarity arises from the reciprocity of recognition within social networks, the social validation of talents and contributions to a community and provides the ground for a person’s self-esteem.

All three forms of Honneth’s theory are relevant due to the precarious situations faced by IDPs, characterized by unmet and non-upheld rights. In addition, the communal nature of shelters, coupled with the diverse representation of communities and identities within them, underscores their significance. We also note that Honneth’s (1995) theory on recognition considers when the opposite of recognition, misrecognition, can occur, such as neglect and abuse, denial of rights and participation.

Service learning implies that the service is designed to meet the needs of students’ local community and is meant to develop students’ civic responsibility (Billig, 2000). It is coordinated with an academic institution and integrated into the curricula. Five stages are identified in the service-learning process: (1) The investigation, (2) Preparation, (3) Action, (4) Reflection and (5) Demonstrate (Billig, 2000).

By integrating the three perspectives – UN’s guiding principles, Honneth’s theory on recognition, and Service Learning – we can describe and conceptualize the efforts of educators and students.

Method

The methods assume an a posteriori position and make a retrospective analysis through an international collaborative framework. A transnational collaboration between the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU), Lviv, the Malmö University (MAU) and a researcher from Finland was established in early March 2022 to provide academic support to social work educator colleagues in Ukraine. The collaboration arose from their desire to enter a reflective phase to understand their experiences during their shelter provision.

The partners used Zoom to frame the collaboration and design the study. To facilitate discussions, understand actions taken and promote reflection on the purpose, process and specific activities of the humanitarian response, it was decided to adopt the standards detailed in the SPHERE handbook. Some aspects, however, were not included, given that the context was not a camp-type shelter. With this backdrop, a questionnaire with tick-box answers and open text boxes was constructed by the MAU researchers to compile information and reflections on the experiences of setting up and delivering shelter provisions.

The questionnaire consisted of two sections: the first covered background information about the people who have stayed in the shelter and their basic needs. The second asked questions built on the SPHERE handbook consequently covering (a) Principles of protection involving safety, dignity, access to assistance without discrimination according to needs, assistance to recover and to claim rights; (b) Humanitarian standards underpinning quality and performance involving for example appropriateness, timeliness, participation, complaint mechanisms, feedback and improvements; and (c) Technical standards involving life-saving assistance in humanitarian responses such as shelter, sanitation and hygiene, food and health.

The participants including both teachers and students were self-selected and recruited from within the department. Several online meetings were conducted. These meetings typically involved an average of five students and five educators from Ukraine. As for data collection, educators and students from the UCU completed the questionnaire and provided their responses via email. UCU members also compiled collectively a document listing identified challenges. Further online meetings were held to discuss the answers and complement the questionnaire where details could be fleshed out and additional questions asked regarding the shelter provision. This line of enquiry was significant for developing insight into the planning and delivery of the shelter.

The empirical material consists of the filled-in questionnaire, notes from the Zoom meetings and the listed challenges besides some written material giving basic information on UCU. The material outlined the situation, what actions were taken and what the contingent challenges looked like. The data in this research pertain to a period of shelter provision from 9 March to 31 May 2022.

The analysis was made by the (country) partners in three steps. First, a descriptive analysis involved sorting the data based on the SPHERE themes. Second, a reading based on the theory of recognition lifting out fundamental core principles connected the already described hands-on actions with everyday social work routine (cf. Juul, 2009) and professionals’ commitment to ethical practices (Houston, 2008). Third, a reading in keeping with the timewise steps of the service-learning model was used to describe the experience of the educators and students of the pedagogical integration.

The citations presented below are copied from the material. Ethical approval, as outlined in participating countries’ guidelines, was not required as the study did not involve participants under 18 or sensitive data such as health, politics, religion or ethnicity. It is important to state that ethical principles involving participants’ self-determination and informed consent were adhered to.

One of the authors was employed as a social work academic at the location of the shelters, which was crucial for ensuring that ethical practices were maintained. While all participants spoke English, it was not their first language. Therefore, this author’s role was vital in ensuring the purpose and process of the collaboration were understood by all participants.

The background and aim of the dialogues were stated in English, aligning with the educators’ wish to evaluate their shelter efforts, understand practical experiences, and explore the challenges educators and students encountered when providing shelter. The focus was on their professional roles, not on self-disclosure or sensitive data. Consent to participate in meetings was given verbally on 6 May 2022, and for filling in the questionnaire, consent was implied by the act of completing it. This procedure was agreed upon by the researchers beforehand, ensuring that the invitation to participate was appropriately phrased in Ukrainian when approaching students and educators/colleagues.

Participants were not incentivized, and the expectations for students and teachers involved several online Zoom meetings. Given the stressful circumstances of the war, the dialogues were structured to avoid self-disclosure, and the researchers had a plan in place to follow up (at the department at UCU) if any issues arose during the meetings, which did not occur. The students and teachers were enthusiastic about discussing their experiences.

Again, it is important to reiterate that this process was initiated by our Ukrainian colleagues and every step was conducted in collaboration where possible, given the restrictions of wartime conditions.

Shelter set-up: Social work intervention and the guests

When the migration from east to west in Ukraine peaked, the number of IDPs was approximately 270,000 at any point in time in the greater region of Lviv (IOM, 2024). In response, the UCU initiated a shelter set-up and to cover the main costs. The Social Work Programme volunteered to carry out the overall coordination and organized a workshop with different faculties, focusing on their possible contribution. There was no ‘room for taking part in theoretical knowledge discussions’ (educator) at this point and, in the words of another teacher, ‘we had to learn from our own experiences as well as from others’. Some key elements, such as formulating rules, were inspired by the organizers of another shelter in the city a few weeks beforehand. Finally, after gathering the necessary items, such as mattresses and beds, a shelter was opened in the classrooms at UCU on 9 March 2022.

The shelter was initially staffed by 4 educators and 16 students (hereon referred to as the shelter team, team members), a handful of volunteers, and cooking and cleaning staff. The schedule was flexible, with 4-hour shifts giving room to choose convenient hours. The work was equally distributed among all the team members. The educators also upheld their ordinary teaching duties in supervising the students, thus spending their free time supporting the shelter.

The IDPs were called guests as it was considered the most respectful. In total, 348 people were given shelter during the period the shelter was open. At any given time, the number of guests was 30–60 people. The guests were mainly the elderly, children, and persons with illnesses and physical or cognitive disabilities, mirroring statistics found elsewhere (see IOM, 2024) as the groups generally worst off when fleeing from conflict zones (ICRC, 2023). Women were in the majority, while children comprised a fourth of the guests. The shelter had a rule that people could stay for a maximum of 14 days but on average the guests stayed 1–4 days before leaving Ukraine or finding somewhere else to live in the western parts of the country.

Providing shelter as love and care

The members of the shelter team recall that they greeted consciously every guest compassionately when welcoming everyone upon their arrival. This gesture, underpinned by a sensitivity to the imperative quality of each and everyone’s needs for protection and psychosocial support, stands out in our reading and can be viewed as expressions of recognition in the form of love and care (Honneth, 1995) or, as someone wrote, the shelter intended ‘to be a safe place for our guests’ and a ‘home-from-home’. For many guests, the journey to Lviv was traumatic, making active listening and validating stories even more vital in creating a caring environment. The well-documented risk that guests had experienced forms of abuse (IFRC, 2023), all of which are threats to physical and emotional integrity, motivated to ensure that IDPs were not exposed to harmful experiences or misrecognition, the opposite of recognition (Honneth, 1995), during their stay in the shelter. Even though people’s stay was limited in time, the supportive relationships aimed at assisting people to recover from experiences here summarized as ‘physical and psychological effects of threatened or actual violence, coercion or deliberate deprivation’ (SPHERE, 2018: 36).

Besides being a caring environment, and in the words of a team member, a place ‘which was very helpful for getting better’, the shelter team ‘provided contacts of information to institutions where to get help or concrete information’. This adheres to a common social work practice in times of disaster (Rapeli, 2017). For some guests less help was sufficient; ‘all they needed was free WIFI’.

The shelter staff also testified to the value of being supportive when describing how much of their work focused on assisting with practical questions related to passports and social welfare entitlements as well as contacting other organizations involving resettlement options and family reunifications. Using their local policy and welfare knowledge, the staff could signpost guests: ‘we [. . .] informed people where they can apply for help in Lviv or online’. Guests’ queries regarding claiming benefits and procedures of an asylum application needed to involve law students and faculty.

Providing emotional care through supportive relationships has been underlined as fundamental when encountering lived experiences of forced migration (i.e. Turtiainen, 2018). It can, in keeping with Honneth (1995), lead to enhanced resilience and self-confidence (Houston, 2008). This means that support also when provided in a short-term response can be expected to be influential for the long-term experiences of the hardships of IDPs and can form a bridge between the immediate humanitarian response and long-term interventions.

Shelter as a right

The setting up and provision of shelter protected the guests’ human rights to shelter and security (see SPHERE) and recognized in that sense each guest as a moral subject (Honneth, 1995). Delivering the rights of shelter and security meant that the classrooms had to be converted into dormitories, furnished with beds to offer shelter and security in the form of a 24-7 guard at the entrance. The shelter team acknowledged that the dormitory set-up made privacy a challenge (cf. George, 2023). What privacy meant for the guests cannot be assumed. The rights of the IDPs were also extended to provide clothes and financial support. The WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) provisions were already established in the buildings, and some showers were available. The routines for cleaning could be upheld, as well as waste management, which was connected to the city’s system. As regards food, the general humanitarian requirements could be met, in terms of quality and quantity, including food for children and people with specific allergies. Meals were served in a dining room/canteen, prepared by staff and the university kitchen staff. The space of the shelter was considered both from an individual level with planned living space for each guest and the community of IDPs. SPHERE recommendations of a certain number of square metres per person were thus adhered to in the dormitories and collective spaces.

While caring for the basic needs in the short term was a priority, it is important to note that providing more comprehensive health care was never part of the objectives of the shelter. However, cooperation was initiated with local health clinics, but ‘in more severe cases an ambulance was called for’. It did occur a couple of times, for example, in situations where guests had more severe injuries upon arrival. Upholding the right to health care requires considering not only individuals but also the wider group, as in the case of infectious diseases. In one instance, the team turned to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on isolating infected people for a recommended period, testing everyone and monitoring the status continually when a guest with COVID-19 infected a handful of others.

Some guests asked for facilities to pray and were provided with ‘opportunities to perform their worship service the way they asked for’. Thus, a non-discriminative approach was practised concerning religious beliefs. However, while the team saw special needs groups such as people with disabilities, children and the elderly, it was also clear that the shelter was not initially equipped. As a team member remarked, ‘we could not host people with disabilities without support, but in some cases, we did so because there was no other option’. Thus, challenges recognizing rights were met to a certain extent; for instance, showers were made available for people with disabilities during the second week and a person with hearing difficulties was helped using a volunteer sign interpreter. We can thus see some obstacles impeding the equity in rights and treatment in spite of intention of full inclusion of special needs groups.

A Honnethian lens also bring forth ethical dilemmas connected to the rules and legal frameworks representing particular challenges, for instance, when guests wanted to stay longer than the shelter’s rules allowed for. Ethical challenges also emerged at times close to arrival. Everybody had to register at the shelter and the city council at least 2 days after arrival to get social welfare entitlements. This refers to the Ukrainian law (20.10.2014 No 1673-VII.) on certain social guarantees for registered IDPs, for example, employment, pensions and compulsory state social insurance (Havrysh, 2020).

The ethical challenge for the shelter team involved individuals, or more specifically, men obliged to do military service and who were possibly trying to avoid that task. In those situations, the person was informed about the law and time frame and given extra time before being asked to leave. This procedure, also ‘used when guests did not want to leave’, was agreed upon in the staff’s collective deliberations when working through the dilemma, recognizing a person’s human rights to life and dignity, humanitarian aid and protection while not breaking the national law or compromising the shelter rules. At the same time, it confirms the complicated position of social work between the state and civil society (Duffy et al., 2021) in this case, leaning towards the state (cf. Semigina and Gusak, 2015a).

Solidarity and being as one in the shelter

In the questionnaire and online conversations, team members commented on a ‘sense of being as one’, an experience understood as vital in helping the guests to cope, despite Ukraine being a multi-ethnic and multireligious country and that different nationalities and cultural backgrounds were represented among the guests. The team also looked to increase the guests’ feelings of solidarity among themselves. Common spaces in the facilities could give the guests room for socializing as a community proving the importance of connections on a group level (i.e. Houston, 2008). This was found ‘very helpful for guests to support each other’ and as previously has been found, using empathy ‘where shared concern, interests or values are at play’ could promote a sense of solidarity (Marthinsen and Skefstad, 2011).

In this context, the significance of solidarity, which involves the social validation of the individual guest’s interests, and contributions to the community (Honneth, 1995), within the shelter setting becomes apparent. The team didn’t perceive themselves as external to the IDP community; instead, they considered themselves part of it, despite not being in a state of forced migration. Team members expressed a sense of kinship with the guests, viewing the shelter intervention as their contribution to the civil protection of their fellow citizens. Possibly, a shared purpose to cope with the situation and find a way forward contributed to that ‘new, important social bonds developed, fostering fewer gaps and an enhanced sense of mutual recognition’ (Heule et al., 2017: 396).

Both teachers and students reported that the ethical dilemmas faced by social workers, as documented in previous studies regarding assistance to IDPs aligned with different fractions in armed conflicts (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a), were not encountered in this instance. The challenges rather encapsulated classical social work dilemmas within a power-dependency framework, entailing the delicate balance of providing support while also exercising authority and control (Hasenfeld, 1987). An illustration of this complexity arises when participants articulated the necessity to address what they perceived as ‘inappropriate behavior among certain guests’. In hindsight, these challenges, coupled with contemplating the ‘boundaries of our responsibility’ and navigating a fine-tuned rapport with the guests, were addressed in accordance with the specific circumstances and timing.

The ongoing war affected the team members personally; however, they said their ‘motivation did not waver’ as a group. One student commented during an online discussion that, ‘some of us feel better being with people in need than staying at home following the news’. The same student added, ‘it was emotionally hard to live in the ongoing war’. This mirrors what has previously been observed, that experiences encompassing both positive and negative outcomes regarding the well-being of voluntary efforts in a wartime setting serve as motivating factors (Karhina et al., 2017).

Pedagogical adaptation and negotiating challenges

The educators and students faced pedagogical and learning challenges. As indicated, these were met through pedagogical adaptations. While lectures went online, as previously during COVID-19, students’ placements were more challenging to organize. However, by making use of a service-learning model giving students key roles and responsibilities, the educators managed the requirements of internships so that studies could continue.

Beginning with the stage of investigation, students could only briefly, given the immediacy of the situation, investigate the anticipated needs of IDPs in written reports beyond what they already were knowledgeable of and got confirmed in the preparatory workshops and contact. The hardships of the IDPs were clear, for example, in terms of humanitarian needs (Semigina and Gusak, 2015b) and high rates of mental health concerns (cf. IFRC, 2023; Roberts et al., 2019).

From this first phase, the preparation for receiving guests began, rules were formulated and cooperation was established and students acted to get the premises ready. Many tasks were performed, such as ‘mattresses were given for repairs to the university’s maintenance department’. Searching for providers and applying for resources started. This remained a constant task to cover expenses such as medicine and taxis, besides maintenance, to simple things such as ensuring that ‘broken teapots were replaced’, changing sheets and arranging food. When the IDPs arrived, actions were intensified, involving all those tasks connected to the psychosocial, emotional and spiritual support, fulfilling basic needs, and creating a social context, that is in keeping with Honneth (1995) actions enacting all forms of recognition.

As regards the fourth step, reflection, a vital component was that teachers constantly accompanied the students while working side by side in the shelter. The students were supported throughout and supervised in ongoing informal conversations and recorded their reflections in a placement report and group reflections also went some way. The students constantly reflected, albeit primarily informally, throughout the process instead of upon a completed service experience. Formal individual supervision was considered but could not be prioritized. The fifth stage, focused on demonstrating, is evident in the team’s participation in this article and an international pedagogical prize later the same year.

Educators and students at times felt exhausted by their efforts to combine volunteer work in the shelter with work and studies but felt always supported emotionally and practically by the university. They were also satisfied with their performance as the guests assessed them positively in oral feedback. The emotional complexity students and educators encountered was caught as ‘it was difficult for us to deal with [the guests’] stories and the situation; we talked and emotionally unloaded each other. That is what helped; it is what helped us’. The team also explained that all experiences were discussed collectively.

Considering collective experiences in the training of social work students, it has been proposed that the concept of ‘shared traumatic reality’ could encapsulate the phenomenon of sharing elements of ongoing violence with clients, while simultaneously operating as a social work professional in training alongside them. It has further been found that social work education needs to prepare students for experiences that bear the potential to lead to a deepened sense of professional purpose while being mindful of the potential risks associated with particular areas of practice (Tosone, 2021). We also note that educators’ self-disclosure to students, especially when both are exposed to the same community-based disaster or war situation (e.g. Tosone), has been found to be helpful.

Discussion

By exploring the shelter team’s experiences in coping with daily challenges and demands, as well as their pedagogical adaptations, we aim to contribute to disciplinary knowledge and offer valuable insights for humanitarian practitioners regarding the provision of unplanned shelters in urban settings. The exploration enlightens the complexities inherent in the role of social work in armed conflicts here focusing on the role of educators and students. Concerning pedagogical adaptation, the model of service-learning aiming at developing students’ civic responsibility (Billig, 2000) proved to be a valuable method. It responded to the community’s needs of protection while upholding the students’ interests.

The practical experiences of encountering challenges, framed in the context of critical international human rights discourse and social work ethics and values, were held together when seen as involving recognition (Honneth, 1995). The experiences shared by the shelter team support the importance of recognition in all its forms concerning those on the receiving end which is well rehearsed in social work research. However, the experiences also bear witness to social work’s dependence on cooperation, practical, emotional, and voluntary support, auxiliary staff, available facilities and societal infrastructure.

Regarding the responses to the needs of the IDPs, the experiences bear witness to the challenges inherent in humanitarian assistance from a critical human rights perspective (Skarstad, 2024) especially at the very beginning of any crisis. It was for example challenging to, at very short notice, adhere to the humanitarian principle of being non-discriminative and of involving the persons in need of assistance. Meeting their needs implied balancing a thin line between compassionate care, not degrading the person’s dignity and self-esteem (cf. Havrysh, 2020) and traditional paternalistic rabbit holes when participatory approaches are impeded, or facilities are maladjusted.

The ongoing war was a constant reminder of the circumstances our colleagues lived and worked under making our communication at times intermittent, and the empirical data limited. A balance had to be struck between gathering sufficient information and not burdening colleagues in Ukraine. The article covers the experiences of some of the students and teachers, not all, and of one shelter in the many shelters around Ukraine (e.g. Truell, 2022). Yet, it provides some insight into how social work educators and students can respond to immediate needs of protection.

In this regard, the article addresses the need for social work education in Ukraine to acknowledge the role and function of social work during times of war, including targeted social support for service members and internally displaced persons (Окаєвич, 2022). Consequently, we believe this call, which specifically emphasizes the necessity for additional research to support curriculum development, is applicable in an international social work context.

Concluding comments

This article supports the argument that shelter is best understood as a process and better seen as a verb (George et al., 2023). It raises questions as regards possibilities, and willingness to re-purpose the academy’s functions to respond to sudden lifesaving community needs. This has implications for understanding how social work can adapt during times of war. In such circumstances, the traditional boundaries between social work education and practice can blur, and theory seamlessly integrates with practice. Social work educators transition into the role of practitioners, and the complex ways in which the participants experience can be traumatic and yet, prove to be a learning opportunity.

The terms set by social policy and social security systems are intriguing. In our empirical case, much effort was used to navigate legislation and address hurdles stemming from bureaucracy (e.g. Havrysh, 2020). This points to the importance of scrutinizing the adequacy of current social security systems in the case of situations with displacements, regardless of cause. Issues raised on social solidarity and tolerance, social values, and the nature of welfare policy and social services (Semigina and Gusak, 2015b) are also generally relevant. Likewise, the extent to which comprehensive systems with flexible structures are established and suitable for providing both short-term and long-term assistance (i.e. Havrysh, 2020). The long-term effects of war, only touched upon briefly in this article, add to the topics and in this regard ex-combatants appear as a group to address in terms of their needs of social services and reintegration back into communities (Semigina et al., 2021).

Humanitarian disasters push social workers to go beyond the lines, leave ‘zones of comfort’ and transition to a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ (Semigina and Gusak, 2015a: 19). This is a strong implication for social work education curricula to including war and political conflicts in education to prepare students to be able to practise in violent contexts and possibly in shared traumatogenic environments, a concept that has its roots in the London Blitz bombing in 1940 (Tosone, 2021). The pedagogical development of supervision in conflict zones (Baum, 2013) is identified as missing elements of social work pedagogy in general (Tosone, 2021). It may be worthwhile to consider here the suitability of Fook’s (2022) model of critical reflection as a potential supervision framework, which emphasizes a process of deconstruction followed by reconstruction. The knowledge generated by students and teachers through this supervision process could contribute to developing our understanding of the role of social work in conflict and war contexts, as well as helping students orientate social work in a geo-political context.

It is also important to comment that while service-learning offers numerous opportunities, it also presents certain challenges. For instance, as highlighted by Sescon and Tuano (2012), there are potential safety and security risks involved. Service-learning requires resources, especially in crisis and conflict situations where priorities may shift away from student learning. Balancing the needs of the community with those of the students can also be challenging. It is important to recognize that students are still learning their profession, and expectations may need to be adjusted accordingly, which can be difficult under pressure. This can also raise ethical questions regarding student involvement in such pedagogical approaches. It is important to consider if students have the opportunity, like they did in Lviv, to decline participation in the service-learning approach. Furthermore, we can ask about the ethical responsibilities and duties of delivering education during wartime. Finally, the role of reflection and supervision is crucial, yet students may not always have access to these supports due to the intensity of the situation at hand. While these ethical dilemmas were not specifically examined in this study, they warrant further exploration in future research.

Our final remark emphasizes that despite the constraints of this study, the pivotal role of social workers in directly addressing wartime conditions is evident. They stand as anti-war agents, opposing efforts that aim to maximize insecurity for certain populations (Butler, 2016). Their focus on human security, prioritizing the well-being and protection of people, highlights their proactive stance.