By Alexis Midol-Monnet, élu d’Orsay, Olivier Palluault, Ellyx, Stéphane Vincent, la 27e Région (*)
Collaborations between the research community and the public sector have been on the rise for a number of years. An increasing number of local authorities, in particular, are forging ties with researchers or academic laboratories to address issues such as the ecological transition, social inclusion, and digital transformation. Significant progress has been made in fostering this cooperation through mechanisms like the CIFRE scheme (Industrial Agreements for Training through Research).
However, this remains a fragile dynamic. A scientific culture is not the norm within local authorities; both staff and elected officials tend to turn more readily to consultants. As for academics, many view local authorities primarily as sources of funding. These are two very different worlds: researchers are not recognized or evaluated based on their level of interaction with local stakeholders, but rather on their scientific standing and international visibility. Similarly, elected officials and local government staff are not rewarded for participating in research initiatives-it is not part of their job description. Yet, they share one thing in common: the crisis of confidence affecting the public sector just as much as the scientific community.
Let's face it: many collaborative efforts have proven frustrating for both sides, often due to a lack of mutual understanding and the mistaken belief that cooperation simply means working side-by-side. In reality, cooperation requires a paradigm shift for both parties, particularly regarding how research and knowledge production are approached.
How can we overcome these obstacles and build a relationship that benefits everyone? This was the question we explored during a workshop at the "Research and Territories" gathering organized by the AVUF (Association of French University Cities) last October. In this first post, we address local authorities interested in engaging in research activities and propose a series of fundamental questions to help them conduct a self-assessment.
1. Have you, as a local government, decided the meaning you attribute to research activity?
"Research" remains a poorly understood activity, often viewed with apprehension or even negativity. Because it emphasizes the process of work and reflection rather than the final result, it generates less interest in a climate that prioritizes tangible, short-term solutions achieved with minimal resource allocation. Yet, the defining characteristics of research are the creation of knowledge and the consolidation of shared understanding. Various public policies can help improve collective knowledge regarding the value-or lack thereof-of support or funding mechanisms and the conditions for their success, as well as regarding approaches to addressing social needs led by local socio-economic actors. Conversely, the absence of a research-based approach contributes to the repetition of past failures, a failure to capitalize on existing initiatives, and the pursuit of paths that have already proven unsuccessful elsewhere.
A local authority's stance on research can thus be categorized into three main strategies. The first, rooted in an administrative role, involves supporting the research programs of local laboratories regardless of their specific content. Here, the focus is on backing the research strategies of laboratories or academic institutions without requiring a direct return for the local area. The second strategy aims to support scientific endeavors that align with the authority's policy goals-such as local development, support for local agroecology, or the restoration of local biodiversity. The objective is to inform territorial policy using knowledge generated within laboratories. The third strategy seeks to position knowledge creation in support of societal initiatives undertaken by a diverse range of local socio-economic actors, extending beyond the strict confines of local public policy.
A Research & Development department has been established within the Lille Metropolis, tasked with informing and supporting major metropolitan projects. This department is distinct from the unit specifically responsible for managing partnerships with academic institutions, particularly regarding funding..
2. What do you expect, in concrete terms, from research activity?
Many research collaborations with local authorities have fizzled out because the expected types of impact were not defined at the outset. Research conducted with local authorities cannot be exempt from the principles of evaluation and results-based outcomes that govern public policymaking. Ultimately, what do the key stakeholders expect? Do they want results that will inform a future master plan or administrative strategy? Will the findings be published during the current term of office or the next? What practical purpose will the work serve? The research process must be structured around expected outcomes and aligned with the timeline of the current or upcoming term.
For this reason, these questions must be addressed and decided upon collectively from the very beginning. Success indicators need to be established, with the flexibility to adjust them as the research progresses. However, adopting an evaluative mindset is not enough; experience has shown that insufficient attention is often paid to the phases of knowledge consolidation and learning-even though these are the very stages that allow research findings to be linked to the relevant public policies. These phases must be integrated into the research program and factored into budget planning.
As part of the "Rebonds" action-research program focused on future economic development policies, discussions were initiated early on with the ten partner economic development teams regarding expected outcomes. These discussions centered on questions such as: Is this research arriving at the right time to inform the new regional economic strategy? Beyond a mere presentation to elected officials, what would increase the likelihood of the findings being acted upon? Who absolutely needs to benefit from these insights if real change is to be achieved?
3. Have you clearly defined your research topic ?
The research topics to be addressed within the framework of cooperation between the local authority and university laboratories depend on the territory's scientific strategy. A goal of "social innovation"-as defined by the 2014 law-favors (or at least assigns significant importance to) research directly addressing social, ecological, economic, and territorial needs. Whether involving basic research, applied research, or experimental development, such programs aim to generate knowledge of public interest that transcends the sometimes narrow confines of market-driven innovation.
An increasing number of local authorities are piloting social initiatives-such as the food social security scheme in Gironde, the universal basic income project in Grande-Synthe, or inclusive housing models. Research plays a role at both stages: upstream, by shedding light on the issues at stake and refining the concepts to be tested; and downstream, by establishing a framework to evaluate the implemented experiments.
4. Are you confident in the quality of the political and administrative backing?
A sole agreement between a research team and a local elected official does not amount to genuine institutional backing. If the research is truly impactful, it will inevitably spark controversy and require protection against various forms of pressure. This is why the selection of priority research themes must be the result of a deliberative process conducted beforehand, with the outcomes subsequently published in the local authority's administrative plan or strategic documents. The terms of the research must be transparent, resources must be allocated, and timelines clearly defined. These topics need to enter the public debate and become subjects of conversation with local residents. The local authority must be prepared to confront the reality of the experiment, acknowledge the need to retreat if results prove inconclusive, and accept that the findings may not necessarily align with what was hoped for when the project was first conceived.
Few public institutions officially pursue a research strategy. ADEME is one such institution; it devotes a significant portion of its budget to this area and publishes a six-year research roadmap (external link).
5. Is your local government ready to adopt a truly experimental approach?
The experimental approach lies at the heart of the research activity that local authorities aim to develop. A theory known as "experimental governance" has demonstrated that public problems can be solved when stakeholders are encouraged to test various solutions based on collectively defined objectives-objectives that are regularly revised in light of lessons learned. However, this requires the local authority to embrace such a theory and accept that a failed test does not constitute a failure, provided that lessons are drawn from the experience. Achieving this entails shifting the "New Public Management" culture-still prevalent within local authorities-toward a more experimental culture grounded in learning-oriented processes..
Within the "(Dé)formations (external link)" action-research program-which focused on training elected officials on transition-related issues-some trials yielded conclusive results (such as peer-to-peer formats among officials), while others contradicted our hypotheses (such as the "unconference" format for elected officials). Several years later, we see peer-to-peer approaches flourishing across various sectors (at ADEME, within local elected official networks, etc.).
6. Do public agents and elected representatives participate in the research?
Some research initiatives conducted with public authorities fail because public sector staff are not assigned a clear role; this increases the risk of them becoming mere "adjustment variables" in a research process from which they feel excluded, even though the research takes place within their own work environment. It is important for research activities to be empowering for the staff involved-in other words, they must be directly engaged in the process. Senior management should encourage this participation, issue formal mission letters to the staff involved, and make arrangements to ensure that team operations are not disrupted. Staff need to be trained in the fundamentals of conducting inquiries and the scientific method. This participatory dimension is key if the research is expected to drive organizational transformation.
As part of the "La Transfo (external link)" action-research program, 20 volunteer staff members were invited to join the multidisciplinary team of facilitators for an 18-month period, based on a balanced mix: gender parity, a balance between management and non-management staff, and representation from both support functions and public policy departments.
7. Are you prepared to cooperate with other stakeholders?
Addressing territorial issues requires the inclusion of local stakeholders-particularly those directly affected, whether they are private entities, commercial businesses, non-profits, or individual residents and citizens. For instance, initiatives aimed at creating more inclusive territories for people with disabilities or the elderly cannot achieve true sustainability or impact without the contribution of the institutions and associations that work with these groups on a daily basis. This collaborative effort must be grounded in strategic alignment between public and private actors, rather than a top-down mandate imposed by the former on the latter-whose independence must be fully safeguarded. An approach based on dialogue and incentives serves as a mechanism to align perspectives and identify synergies regarding both the actions undertaken and the resources mobilized. Ultimately, high-quality local dialogue should foster a long-term culture of resilience and innovation, enabling concerted action through tangible, relevant initiatives.
New mechanisms are currently being designed and piloted to support territorial cooperation and move away from overly rigid frameworks or top-down mandates. Calls for "commons" initiatives launched by ADEME, Cerema, or the City of Rennes stem from this new philosophy of public action.
As a conclusion, this list of recommendations is neither perfect nor exhaustive; one could also consider the local authority's capacity to facilitate engagement between researchers and non-researchers, the issue of funding for research activities, and so on. However, it will enable local authorities to clarify their own expectations, ensure they have the necessary in-house prerequisites, and negotiate more effectively with research teams.
(*) Alexis Midol-Monnet is an elected official in Orsay and a board member of the Association of University Cities of France (Association des Villes Universitaires de France). Olivier Palluault is a co-founder of Ellyx, a cooperative that practices and promotes social R&D. Stéphane Vincent is the Executive Director of La 27e Région, an organization that designs and leads participatory action-research programs with around forty member local authorities.
Image: The "Vasymoll'eau" initiative led by the R&D unit of the European Metropolis of Lille.