������Ƶ

Jane Macnaughton (RJM): Despite not having much communication before partnering, very early on we started to realise the amount of great connections there were between our institutions, and so how many opportunities we could pursue. Markian was key and, as a Ukrainian with a focus on Eastern European history, had an obvious passion and expertise to develop this. Other connections became apparent that made things easier – colleagues like Dr Hannah Ruszczyk in Geography who, for example, helped us connect with the Ukrainian diaspora in Durham.

While initially well-stocked on supporting teaching at ZNU, we noticed there was a slight gap in provision for research partnerships. When this grant opportunity came up, we thought it was a brilliant opportunity to change this.

Olena Tupakhina (OT): Alongside well-suited people, we have well-suited regions too. [Zaporizhzhia and Durham] have industrial and mining legacies in our communities that are ingrained in both of our identities. The cooperation flourished when we had these connections to compare and mutually benefit from.

There was vast potential work – not only the military challenges, but the ecological and psychological challenges facing all of us here. Durham listened to our challenges and provided lots of help and support. It worked out naturally - and that’s why it’s been so fruitful.

Markian Prokopovych (MP): The work we did on the  series was also important – it meant when the grant scheme came round, we were – alongside the other things Jane and Olena have mentioned – already experienced with working together. As part of the Series, we held lots of sessions with Ukrainian and UK experts on many topics; religion, spirituality, biology, history and so on. It was great to see the  in Durham filled with people who before had not necessarily interacted with discussions on Ukraine.

RJM: It was clear to me early on just how much of an interest there was in Durham for collaborating with our colleagues in Zaporizhzhia. We put out an expression of interest call and got so many responses. Working with so many colleagues, we tried to work out how to badge all of these different collaborations, and felt our overarching title ‘Building Research Capacity and Resilience with Partners during Conflict’ worked well.

OT: For us, it was more than collaboration. It was a structural project – we need support for internationalisation, we need our departments to get a taste of the world. This might have been for many people [at Zaporizhzhia] their first experience of an international cooperation. This meant it was a great opportunity, working across so many projects and disciplines, to develop a research and internationalisation culture.

MP: Durham colleagues have also commented on how much they have learned. Many initially wanted to do something but thought ‘my expertise isn’t applicable’ – but our collaborations and ZNU were so open that they could. This is one of the best examples of a truly interactive, interdisciplinary project I have seen in my career and our Ukrainian partners brought the local expertise essential to this way of working.

MP: It falls within the wider discussions we have within British universities about decolonising knowledge, bringing in marginalised voices and original expertise. We are keenly aware of championing the experiences of a country that has been, until recently, marginalised in the debates happening in the region.

OT: One of our projects focussed on capturing the oral histories of people on the move in conflict zones, and is a topic we have been working on for twenty years. Now our partnership with Durham and the new context adds to this – for example, we have been using tech provided as part of the partnership to use virtual reality to create virtual tours through villages and towns impacted by war, adding in interviews and voices from people impacted in these areas.

RJM: We wanted this to be a partnership of equals. We could never replicate the expertise of Ukrainian counterparts in the local context, but we could bring the expertise in tech to merge these into an effective, interdisciplinary, equal partnership.

RJM: We worked with ZNU experts on soil analysis as part of one of the projects. Durham’s Biosciences experts have a particular interest in how we deal with crops during climate change. Ukraine is the bread and grain basket of the world, and so you can really see the fantastic potential for wider applicability and benefits of this learning.

OT: Also, the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam is not only having impacts now in the local climate, but it will have consequences for the whole of Europe. We wanted to bring together an interdisciplinary team together again here, and use digital technologies to look at how water impacts the soil structure. Colleagues at Durham then help us analyse this – the collaboration is again key.

OT: When I visited Durham last year, I was so happy to meet people face to face after so much collaboration - in fact, we came to the conclusion that this is no longer a partnership, it is a friendship!

I can’t remember just how many people I met, but it was a lot. I was so fascinated with the way people treated the topic of Ukraine; everybody was ready to contribute. It’s things like this that make the visits all worthwhile.

RJM: There is a huge willingness and commitment from Durham to continue its relationship and partnership with ZNU. There is ongoing and potential work happening. The twinning scheme funding was crucial to help us forge this relationship, and we will continue to work together and explore funding sources to support our important collaborative work into the future.

MP: There is lots more diverse knowledge that it would be a shame not to capitalise on. As a result of the funding of this and other grants, it has allowed so much to happen, clearly the issue going forward is funding. Also, a sustainable ways of coordinating these different works in different fields, such as a Centre for Ukrainian Studies –– would be brilliant.

RJM: I was deeply moved by the joy our visitors had coming to Durham. The weather wasn’t as good, but they loved the beauty of the city, but also that they had a place they knew was safe – they could focus on their work, be the academics they know they can be, and it was so moving and such a privilege for us to offer that opportunity.

MP: Those visits were almost like a more ‘classic’ academic retreat. It was simply helpful to have a distance from your immediate research area, and talk to people whose work might be very different. You still establish connections and work differently, and the benefits remain even without the important context we were operating in.

OT: Over 80% of those we selected to travel to Durham were internally displaced, so those students were really impacted by the war and this was a huge opportunity to feel safe and focus on their studies. They wanted to experience real student life; for a short while, they could do so. I was deeply touched by the way they were accepted and treated in Durham. I remember the Dean of Stephenson College in particular and the way he talked about our students; I was amazed by how deeply he got to know them.

That was a really emotional, personal way of treating us, and I was deeply thankful for everyone at Durham.