The project was initiated in response to the profound transformation of Belarusian historical scholarship following the mass displacement of scholars after 2020. It was conceived as a platform for collective reflection on the future of Belarusian historiography under conditions of prolonged exile.

The project was structured around a series of thematic expert seminars addressing key dimensions of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile. Rather than focusing on individual institutional experiences, the seminars explored broader conceptual and strategic questions concerning the boundaries of the Belarusian scholarly community, the current condition of historians in exile, epistemic inequalities in knowledge production, academic integration, institutional development and the long-term sustainability of Belarusian scholarship.

The discussions brought together Belarusian historians and representatives of academic initiatives from across Europe. Their objective was to identify the principal structural challenges confronting Belarusian historical scholarship and to explore possible approaches to addressing them.

Building on these discussions, this policy paper synthesises the principal conclusions emerging from the seminar series and formulates strategic recommendations for democratic actors, academic and cultural institutions, and international partners supporting Belarusian scholarship in exile.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Union, EU4Belarus, the International Centre for Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity Studies (ICELDS), or the Belarusian Institute in Prague.

Introduction

This policy paper brings together the principal findings of a series of expert seminars organised within the project Belarusian Historical Scholarship in Exile: Current State and Challenges. Rather than documenting individual presentations or reproducing the discussions, it identifies the key structural issues that repeatedly emerged throughout the seminar series and considers their implications for the future development of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile.

The paper follows the logic of the discussions themselves. It begins by addressing the conceptual boundaries of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile and examining the current condition of the Belarusian historical community in the European Union. It then turns to broader structural challenges identified by the participants, including epistemic inequality, the integration of Belarusian historians into European academia, the institutional foundations of Belarusian scholarship in exile and the conditions necessary for ensuring its long-term continuity. Although each section focuses on a distinct aspect of the problem, together they demonstrate that these challenges are closely interconnected and cannot be addressed in isolation.

The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate individual institutions or initiatives, but to identify the structural conditions shaping Belarusian historical scholarship under conditions of prolonged exile. Building on the collective reflections of the seminar participants, the concluding section formulates strategic recommendations intended to support democratic actors, academic and cultural institutions, and international partners in developing more sustainable approaches to preserving and strengthening Belarusian historical scholarship in exile.

What constitutes Belarusian historical scholarship in exile?

Assessing the current state of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile requires clear criteria for addressing two key questions: (1) what makes historical scholarship “Belarusian”; and (2) at what point can a scholar no longer be considered to be in exile? Answering these questions is essential not only for conceptual clarity but also for designing effective support mechanisms for scholars in vulnerable situations aimed at preserving Belarusian scholarly traditions and national cultural identity.[1]

More broadly, this is a question of defining the boundaries of an academic community. As Thomas Gieryn has argued, scientific communities engage in boundary-work by constructing legitimate criteria for inclusion and exclusion.[2] In the present context, such boundaries are not intended to restrict scholars but to provide transparent and well-founded criteria for identifying the target group of support policies.

Accordingly, Belarusian historical scholarship should be understood not in terms of the subject of research or the citizenship of the researcher, but as the result of the interaction of three interconnected factors: academic socialization, professional self-identification, and orientation toward the Belarusian academic community. Together, these criteria provide a suitable framework for analyzing Belarusian historical scholarship in exile and for designing policies to support it.

The first issue concerns the criteria by which a historian can be regarded as part of Belarusian historical scholarship. Discussions held during the project seminars revealed a tendency to avoid precise definitions. However, the absence of clear criteria creates opportunities for arbitrary interpretations and may ultimately undermine the credibility of support programmes. It is also important to distinguish Belarusian historical scholarship from Belarusian Studies. Research on Belarus and Belarusians is not the exclusive domain of Belarusian historians, just as Belarusian historians are by no means limited to studying Belarusian history.

A more meaningful criterion is professional self-identification which is focused on how a scholar identifies themselves and how they are perceived by the academic community.[3] If a researcher does not identify as a Belarusian historian, it is difficult to classify them as belonging to Belarusian historical scholarship. At the same time, self-identification is not always a stable criterion. In some cases, it may change depending on institutional context or access to funding opportunities. Furthermore, as scholars become integrated into the academic life of their host countries, they may gradually adopt a different professional identity. At this stage, it may be more appropriate to refer to them as historians of Belarusian origin rather than representatives of Belarusian historical scholarship.

If the focus shifts from the subject of research to the production of historical knowledge, academic socialization, methodological training, and scholarly tradition become the defining factors.[4] These are acquired through university education, graduate training, and doctoral studies, and they continue to shape research practices even after scholars relocate abroad. For this reason, academic socialization within the Belarusian system of historical education can be regarded as the primary criterion of a historian’s belonging to Belarusian historical scholarship.

This criterion places scholars in exile before a difficult choice. Integration into a new academic environment requires adopting different research traditions, methodologies, professional networks, and, in most cases, a different language of scholarly communication. At the same time, maintaining ties with Belarusian historical scholarship involves contributing to the development of Belarusian historiography, sustaining professional dialogue with fellow Belarusian historians, and addressing a Belarusian scholarly and public audience. Consequently, scholars often face a choice between building an academic career in their host country and remaining actively engaged in the development of Belarusian historical scholarship.[5]

This brings us to the second question: where does exile end? Does it end once a scholar has successfully integrated into a new academic system and secured stable employment, or only when they are able to return safely to Belarus? The European Humanities University provides an illustrative example. Since its closure by the Belarusian authorities in 2004, the university has continued to operate in Vilnius, Lithuania. Should its Belarusian academic staff still be regarded as scholars in exile, or have they become part of the Lithuanian academic system? There is no straightforward answer to this question.

Drawing on the discussions held throughout the project, the following criteria can be proposed for identifying Belarusian historical scholarship in exile:

• academic socialization within the Belarusian system of historical education;
• professional self-identification as a Belarusian historian;
• research and scholarly communication primarily oriented toward the Belarusian academic and public sphere.

Current situation of Belarusian historians in the EU

A comprehensive assessment of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile is significantly constrained by the lack of even approximate data on the number of historians who have been forced to leave Belarus since 2020 and, more importantly, how many of them have been able to continue their academic careers. As a result, it is impossible to assess either the scale of the loss of scholarly capacity or the effectiveness of existing support mechanisms.

During the expert discussions, participants proposed conducting a form of “census of historians” that would provide at least basic information about the Belarusian scholarly diaspora. However, such an initiative appears unlikely to succeed. In addition to considerable organizational challenges, security concerns remain a major obstacle. Some scholars may deliberately avoid participating in such initiatives in order not to disclose information about their whereabouts, professional activities, or institutional affiliations.

Despite the absence of comprehensive quantitative data, the expert discussions identified several defining characteristics of the current state of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile.

First, the Belarusian historical community remains institutionally fragmented. Scholars are dispersed across different countries, universities, research centers, and non-governmental organizations, making it difficult to develop a shared academic space and sustain long-term collaborative research.

Second, most research depends on project-based and grant funding. The short-term nature of most grants encourages the production of rapid outputs while limiting opportunities for large-scale research based on long-term archival work, the identification of previously unexplored sources, and the development of comprehensive research projects. As a consequence, scholars are often unable to take full advantage of the rich archival and library collections relating to the history of Belarus and Belarusians that are available in their host countries.

Third, many historians are compelled to prioritize building sustainable academic careers and securing stable employment in their countries of residence. At the same time, efforts are being made to strengthen institutional cooperation within the Belarusian historical community through the establishment of new organizations and research centers, including the Belarusian Institute in Prague and the Belarusian Institute of Public History.

Fourth, integration into the Western academic environment is increasingly shaped by international systems of research evaluation. This encourages publication in high-ranking international journals, particularly in scholars’ countries of residence. While this increases the international visibility of Belarusian historians, it may also gradually weaken their engagement with Belarusian academic and public audiences.

Taken together, these developments facilitate the integration of Belarusian historians into the national academic systems of their host countries. According to participants in the expert discussions, this process has been particularly successful among archaeologists and scholars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, whose research agendas are already closely integrated into the historiographical traditions of their respective host countries.

The reverse side of this successful integration, however, is the gradual weakening of the mechanisms through which Belarusian historical scholarship reproduces itself as an academic community. The absence of stable Belarusian academic institutions in exile significantly limits opportunities to train a new generation of historians through master’s and doctoral programmes. In the long term, this may undermine the continuity of the Belarusian historical tradition. The successful integration of individual Belarusian historians into international academia should therefore not be equated with the preservation of Belarusian historical scholarship as a scholarly community. Without mechanisms for institutional reproduction, individual academic success may coincide with the gradual erosion of the national historical school itself.

At the same time, this challenge cannot be addressed through simple institutional solutions. The establishment of dedicated master’s or doctoral programmes for Belarusians, even if taught primarily by Belarusian historians in exile, would not in itself guarantee the continuity of the Belarusian historical tradition. First, the relatively small number of scholars makes it difficult to provide sufficient thematic and methodological diversity. Second, the professional incentives facing early-career researchers are likely to encourage integration into the academic systems of their host countries, making full participation in local graduate programmes the more rational strategy for career development. Ensuring the long-term reproduction of Belarusian historical scholarship therefore requires a comprehensive strategy that takes into account both the needs of the Belarusian scholarly community and the realities of international academic mobility.

Epistemic inequality

Integration into the international academic community presents Belarusian historians with an additional challenge: making Belarusian historiography intellectually visible within global historical scholarship. This involves not only publishing research in foreign languages but also bridging differences in national historical narratives, scholarly traditions, and interpretations of key historical events and figures. During the expert discussions, examples included competing interpretations of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as differing assessments of Francysk Skaryna and Nikita Khrushchev.

The most significant challenge identified by the participants is the very limited presence of Belarusian authors in international historiography, particularly in the English-language scholarly literature. As a result, Belarusian scholarship rarely serves as a source of conceptual arguments in international historical debates. Belarus thus remains primarily an object of study rather than a source of new interpretations or theoretical insights. This significantly limits the ability of Belarusian scholars to shape international understandings of their own country’s history.

This imbalance also has structural roots. For many years, the Belarusian state invested little in promoting national historiography internationally, while the development of historical scholarship remained largely oriented towards the Russian-language Soviet academic sphere. Consequently, Belarusian historical scholarship has remained only weakly integrated into global scholarly debates.

Under these circumstances, one of the key priorities is not simply to increase the number of publications in leading international journals and academic presses, but also to develop research agendas that position Belarusian historical material within broader debates in world history. The ability to use the Belarusian experience to illuminate wider historical questions ‒ and not merely to present it as a local case ‒ offers the greatest potential for increasing the international visibility and intellectual influence of Belarusian historiography.

Integration of Belarusian historians into European academia

The discussions demonstrated that the integration of Belarusian historians into European academia has become one of the defining issues shaping the future of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile. While relocation enabled many scholars to continue their academic work after 2020, the discussions repeatedly highlighted that integration into European academic systems represents a far more complex process than securing institutional affiliation or employment. Rather, it involves adaptation to diverse academic environments, changing research conditions and new institutional expectations, all of which influence not only individual academic careers but also the future development of Belarusian scholarship as a whole.

One of the principal observations emerging from the discussions concerns the absence of a common pathway for academic integration. The experiences presented from Ireland, Germany and Poland demonstrated that Belarusian historians encounter substantially different institutional environments, funding opportunities, language requirements and career structures. Integration therefore depends not only on individual qualifications but also on the characteristics of national academic systems. Participants repeatedly emphasised that support mechanisms should take these differences into account rather than assume that the experience of scholars in exile is uniform across Europe.

The discussions also identified the growing precariousness of academic careers as one of the principal structural consequences of exile. Temporary fellowships, project-based employment and fixed-term contracts have enabled many historians to remain academically active. At the same time, participants noted that these arrangements rarely provide the stability necessary for developing long-term research agendas, participating in sustained institutional life or planning academic careers beyond individual projects. As exile becomes prolonged, career uncertainty increasingly affects not only individual researchers but also the broader capacity of Belarusian historical scholarship to develop strategically.

Another issue repeatedly raised during the discussions concerned the limited transfer of practical knowledge necessary for successful participation in European academic systems. Participants observed that integration requires considerably more than disciplinary expertise. It also depends on understanding recruitment procedures, publication practices, grant systems and informal institutional expectations that vary across countries and institutions. Such knowledge is often acquired through professional networks and mentoring rather than formal institutional support. The discussions therefore identified the transmission of this practical academic knowledge as an important, yet largely overlooked, dimension of supporting Belarusian scholars in exile.

Finally, the discussions questioned whether successful academic integration necessarily contributes to the long-term development of Belarusian historical scholarship. As historians become increasingly embedded within the research priorities, funding structures and publication practices of host institutions, maintaining sustained engagement with Belarusian topics may become progressively more difficult. Participants therefore repeatedly returned to a broader question extending beyond individual academic careers: how can Belarusian historians successfully integrate into European academia while preserving the capacity of Belarusian historical scholarship to develop as a distinct field of knowledge?

Taken together, the discussions demonstrated that the integration of Belarusian historians into European academia should be understood not simply as a question of professional adaptation but as a structural challenge with significant implications for the future of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile. Addressing this challenge requires recognising the diversity of European academic systems, reducing structural barriers to academic careers and creating conditions that enable international academic integration without weakening Belarus-oriented research and scholarly cooperation.

Institutionalising Belarusian scholarship in exile

The discussions demonstrated that the question of establishing a Belarusian academic institution in exile extends far beyond the creation of a new university or research centre. Rather, it concerns the institutional foundations necessary for ensuring the long-term continuity of Belarusian scholarship outside the country. Participants repeatedly questioned not only which institutional model would be most appropriate, but also whether the existing political, financial and academic conditions allow such an institution to emerge at all. The discussions therefore shifted from comparing institutional initiatives towards identifying the structural conditions required for institutionalising Belarusian scholarship in exile.

A central issue concerned the very notion of a national academic institution in exile. Participants questioned whether an institution established and operating outside Belarus can legitimately claim to represent Belarusian academia. Unlike national universities functioning within sovereign states, institutions in exile inevitably operate within legal, political and financial frameworks determined by host countries. This raises questions of academic legitimacy, representation and authority. The discussions suggested that recognition by the Belarusian academic community cannot automatically substitute for institutional recognition within national higher education systems, while institutional integration into host countries may simultaneously weaken the institution’s ability to define itself primarily through its Belarusian mission.

Another recurring issue concerned the multiple functions expected from such an institution. Participants repeatedly emphasised that a Belarusian academic institution in exile is expected to fulfil far more than educational functions. It is simultaneously expected to produce knowledge on Belarus, preserve academic traditions, educate future generations of scholars, coordinate research, support public debate and serve as an intellectual centre for the Belarusian academic community. The discussions demonstrated that existing initiatives tend to perform only some of these functions, raising questions about whether any single institution can realistically combine them under current conditions.

The discussions also highlighted tensions between education and research as competing institutional priorities. Participants questioned whether educational institutions necessarily produce strong research environments and, conversely, whether research initiatives possess the institutional capacity to educate future scholars. Existing institutional models illustrate different approaches to this balance, yet none fully resolves the challenge of integrating teaching, research and scholarly community-building within a single institutional framework. As a result, Belarusian academic life remains distributed across multiple organisations that complement one another while simultaneously limiting institutional consolidation.

Financial sustainability emerged as another fundamental concern. Participants repeatedly observed that most existing initiatives remain dependent on project-based funding, external donors or the institutional support of host countries. While these mechanisms have enabled Belarusian scholarship to survive, they also generate uncertainty regarding long-term institutional planning and strategic development. The discussions therefore questioned whether institutions whose existence depends upon temporary external support can simultaneously perform the long-term functions expected from national academic institutions.

Finally, the discussions repeatedly returned to the broader problem of institutional fragmentation. Rather than developing around a recognised academic centre, Belarusian scholarship has evolved through numerous universities, research centres and civic initiatives located across different countries. Although this diversity reflects the resilience of the Belarusian academic community, participants questioned whether fragmentation simultaneously limits the development of common research agendas, stable academic schools and institutional continuity. The absence of a recognised academic hub therefore emerged not as the failure of any particular initiative but as the consequence of broader structural conditions affecting Belarusian scholarship in exile.

Taken together, the discussions suggested that the principal challenge lies not in selecting between existing institutional models but in defining the institutional conditions under which Belarusian scholarship can reproduce itself over the long term. Questions of legitimacy, representation, institutional functions, financial sustainability and academic autonomy emerged as interconnected dimensions of a broader debate concerning the future institutional architecture of Belarusian academia in exile.

Beyond academic survival: reproducing Belarusian scholarship in exile

The discussions demonstrated a significant shift in perspective regarding the future of Belarusian scholarship in exile. While the immediate response to the events of 2020 focused primarily on preserving individual scholars and enabling them to continue their academic work, participants argued that the central challenge has now fundamentally changed. Five years after the beginning of large-scale political displacement, the key question is no longer how to ensure academic survival, but how to create conditions under which Belarusian scholarship can reproduce itself as a sustainable scholarly community. The discussions therefore moved beyond questions of emergency support towards identifying the structural conditions necessary for the long-term continuity of Belarusian academic life.

One of the principal issues emerging from the discussions concerns the transition from emergency support to long-term academic development. Participants acknowledged the important role played by emergency fellowships, relocation programmes and project-based funding in preventing the collapse of Belarusian scholarship after 2020. At the same time, they questioned whether instruments designed for crisis response are capable of supporting long-term academic careers, institutional development and strategic research planning. The discussions therefore highlighted the need to reconsider existing support mechanisms in light of the prolonged nature of exile.

Another recurring issue concerned the distinction between supporting individual scholars and reproducing the scholarly field itself. Participants repeatedly emphasised that successful individual academic careers do not automatically ensure the continuity of Belarusian scholarship. The long-term development of the field depends on its ability to educate new researchers, sustain academic debates, preserve research traditions and create stable mechanisms for transmitting scholarly knowledge across generations. The discussions therefore suggested that future support should focus not only on individual researchers but also on the collective capacity of Belarusian scholarship to reproduce itself.

The discussions also highlighted the importance of transferring institutional and professional knowledge. Participants observed that successful participation in European academia depends upon considerably more than disciplinary expertise. Understanding recruitment procedures, grant systems, publication practices, academic networking and institutional cultures emerged as an essential, yet largely informal, dimension of academic integration. Participants repeatedly noted the absence of systematic mechanisms through which such knowledge could be transferred to younger scholars and researchers entering European academic systems. Strengthening mentoring and intergenerational exchange therefore emerged as one of the important conditions for the future development of Belarusian scholarship.

A further issue concerned the relationship between international integration and the preservation of Belarus-oriented research. Participants recognised that integration into European academia has become indispensable for the professional development of Belarusian scholars. At the same time, they questioned whether increasing adaptation to the priorities of host institutions, international funding schemes and publication requirements may gradually weaken research focused specifically on Belarus. The discussions therefore highlighted the need to develop mechanisms capable of combining international academic integration with sustained engagement in Belarusian scholarship, thereby reducing the risk that successful internationalisation results in the gradual depoliticisation or decontextualisation of Belarusian academic research.

Finally, participants repeatedly returned to the importance of maintaining Belarusian scholarship as an intellectual community rather than simply a collection of individual researchers dispersed across different countries and institutions. Academic continuity was discussed not only in institutional terms but also as the preservation of professional dialogue, scholarly cooperation and common research agendas. The discussions suggested that the long-term resilience of Belarusian scholarship ultimately depends upon its capacity to maintain these forms of intellectual continuity despite the geographical and institutional fragmentation of the academic community.

Taken together, the discussions demonstrated that the principal challenge facing Belarusian scholarship has evolved from ensuring the survival of individual scholars to creating the conditions necessary for reproducing the scholarly community itself. This requires a gradual shift from short-term crisis responses towards long-term strategies supporting academic careers, institutional continuity, intergenerational knowledge transfer and sustained Belarus-oriented research. These issues emerged as the principal strategic priorities for strengthening the resilience of Belarusian scholarship under conditions of prolonged exile.

Strategic Recommendations

The seminar discussions demonstrated that the future of Belarusian scholarship in exile depends not only on the resilience of individual scholars but also on the development of institutional, financial and organisational conditions capable of sustaining Belarusian academic life over the long term. The following recommendations synthesise the principal strategic priorities identified throughout the seminar series.

Recommendations for Belarusian democratic forces

Belarusian democratic actors should recognise scholarship as an essential component of democratic resilience and national continuity rather than solely as a cultural or educational activity. The development of Belarusian scholarship in exile requires a long-term strategic vision that extends beyond emergency responses to political repression.

Particular attention should be devoted to strengthening coordination among existing academic initiatives, encouraging cooperation rather than institutional competition, and supporting mechanisms that facilitate common research agendas and regular dialogue across the dispersed Belarusian academic community.

The discussions also highlighted the need to initiate a broader strategic debate concerning the future institutional architecture of Belarusian scholarship. Rather than focusing exclusively on the creation of a single institution, attention should be directed towards identifying the institutional functions necessary for ensuring the continuity of Belarusian academic life and assessing how these functions can be effectively distributed or integrated under conditions of exile.

Recommendations for Belarusian cultural and academic institutions

Existing academic and cultural institutions should strengthen cooperation through joint research initiatives, shared educational activities and coordinated scholarly communication. Developing complementary rather than competing institutional roles would contribute to reducing fragmentation within the Belarusian academic community.

Participants also highlighted the importance of strengthening mechanisms for intergenerational knowledge transfer. Mentoring programmes, doctoral supervision, collaborative research projects and regular academic exchanges should become integral components of institutional development in order to preserve scholarly traditions and support the emergence of a new generation of Belarus-oriented researchers.

Institutions should further develop mechanisms that enable Belarusian scholarship to remain internationally engaged while preserving sustained attention to Belarusian research agendas. International integration should reinforce rather than gradually replace research focused on Belarus.

Recommendations for international donors and partner institutions

The discussions demonstrated that emergency support programmes have played a crucial role in preserving Belarusian scholarship after 2020. As exile becomes prolonged, support mechanisms should increasingly prioritise long-term institutional development alongside assistance to individual scholars.

Funding instruments should encourage institutional cooperation, long-term research planning and the development of stable academic environments rather than relying predominantly on short-term project funding. Particular attention should be devoted to supporting institutional capacity, professional networking, mentoring initiatives and collaborative research across countries.

Participants also identified the need for dedicated support aimed at preserving Belarus-oriented scholarship. This includes funding research on Belarus, supporting academic publications and conferences, facilitating scholarly exchanges and creating opportunities for younger researchers to pursue Belarus-focused academic careers within international academic environments.

Cross-cutting strategic priorities

Across all seminars, several priorities consistently emerged as fundamental for the future of Belarusian scholarship in exile. These include reducing institutional fragmentation, strengthening cooperation among existing initiatives, supporting long-term academic careers, ensuring the transmission of scholarly knowledge across generations and creating institutional conditions that allow Belarusian scholarship to preserve its intellectual autonomy while remaining fully integrated into the international academic community.

The discussions suggest that the long-term resilience of Belarusian scholarship depends less on individual projects or institutions than on the gradual development of an interconnected academic ecosystem capable of combining research, education, professional cooperation and the reproduction of scholarly communities. Strengthening this ecosystem should therefore become the principal strategic objective for democratic actors, academic institutions and international partners supporting Belarusian scholarship in exile.

References:

[1] Stone D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton & Company.
[2] Gieryn, T.F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science Credibility on the Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[3] Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching And Teacher Education, 20: 107-128. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/11190
[4] Weidman J.C., Twale D.J., & Stein E.L. Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(3). Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457710
[5] Kim, T. (2010). Transnational academic mobility, knowledge, and identity capital. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2010.516939