Conference Program

This contribution contributes to the reflection on the conditions under which educational research is practised when solicited through public commission. It examines two dynamics in particular: research as a legitimation device, whereby academic expertise validates political choices and produces governance frameworks (1), and the structural effects of commissioned research on research objects and critical perspectives (3). Through a reflexive account of a study conducted within a "Cité éducative", framed as "research-based support" (Prieur, 2020; Vinot, 2011), the paper analyses how the researchers navigated between institutional expectations, political legitimation logics, and the preservation of a critical stance (de Bernardy & Boisgontier, 1990).

The contribution is structured around five phases. The first (2019–2022) is one of informal presence on the territory, without a clearly defined status in relation to the "Cité éducative". The second (2022–2023) marks the formalisation of a research proposal: meetings with the Troïka immediately reveal how the research is mobilised as a legitimation device — the researchers "auditioned", their expertise solicited to validate prevailing institutional injunctions, particularly around civic participation, elevated at that moment to a political criterion (Fouquet & Perriault, 2010). The third phase (2023) is one of ongoing adjustment of the scientific brief to the multiple and contradictory expectations of the commissioners, illustrating how political agendas shape research objects. The fourth (from January 2024), marked by integration into operational governance spaces, opens up forms of resistance: facilitating a technical committee shifts the evaluative logic towards reflexive co-elaboration, creating a space where divergent conceptions of participation can surface. The fifth phase, that of the current reporting modalities, closes this space: findings are delivered as an institutional written report, without co-elaboration, at a remove from the territory, embodying the expert-researcher dilemma inherent in commissioned research (Draetta & Labarthe, 2011) and risking the silencing of local dynamics within a document intented to the governance.

In methodological terms, the research draws on observation of all steering bodies (project team, steering committee, technical committee) and collective assemblies since 2019, co-facilitated reflection workshops with professionals, and interviews conducted across actors in the territory. This sustained immersion built a relationship of proximity with key informants, raising persistent ethical questions that will be discussed. Comparisons with other "Cités éducatives", also monitored as part of the research support program, will be provided.

By combining an analysis of the research's genesis with a reflexive account of its conditions of practice, this contribution interrogates the mechanisms of instrumentalisation at work, as well as the forms of resistance the researchers were able to build: reframings, methodological choices, and commitment to spaces of shared reflexivity with professionals in the territory.

Public policy instruments are often presented as technical, neutral, and depoliticized tools. However, following the sociology of policy instruments (Halpern et al., 2014; Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2004; Lascoumes & Simard, 2011), this paper argues that they carry political rationalities that orient public action. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in Marseille between 2020 and 2024, it examines how three educational instruments—the school catchment system, “elite linguistic sections,” and the educational component of the Marseille en Grand plan—contribute to the construction of territorial attractiveness. These instruments are embedded in a neoliberal framework that promotes performance, competitiveness, and inter-territorial competition (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Harvey, 1989).

The analysis shows, however, that the effects of these instruments are neither mechanical nor homogeneous. Their scope depends on how local actors use them, in connection with power relations and territorial strategies. Some instruments, such as the school catchment system, particularly illustrate this plasticity. Introduced in 1963 as a rational tool for managing student flows (Van Zanten & Obin, 2010), it has gradually become, in the context of the territorialization of educational action (Frandji, 2017), a political instrument mobilized differently depending on local contexts: at times a lever for combating segregation, at other times a tool serving the production of social and school homogeneity. The analysis of two different catchment boundaries adopted for the same school—first in 2019 and then in 2021 by two different municipal majorities—highlights the political dimension of this instrument (Gervais & Audren, 2022). This dimension lies not only in the intentions behind its initial design but also in the situated practices that shape its uses (Francou & Mavrot, 2020).

This paper thus aims to shed light on the political dimension of educational policy instruments through an empirical approach. It will also outline a reflection on the engaged dimension of such a research posture, questioning the position of the researcher when studying instruments that contribute to the production of educational inequalities.

The methodology relies on a qualitative approach combining several elements: semi-structured interviews (n=74) with a wide range of local educational actors; analysis of grey literature and administrative documents; field observations; and cartographic analysis of the instruments studied. This diversity of materials makes it possible to capture the logics embedded in the instruments, their conditions of implementation, and the variability of their uses. Rooted in the geography of education, this research adopts an interdisciplinary perspective and draws on tools and concepts from the sociology of public action.

At least three processes are currently pushing social science researchers to become involved in the evaluation and support of public action in education. The first two are closely linked to contemporary public management. On the one hand, they refer to results-based management and to the growing expectation that public policy should be guided by measurable objectives, which research is expected to help assess. On the other hand, the academic world itself is increasingly required to produce “results,” a requirement that translates into budgetary constraints on research and into the expectation that researchers secure their own funding through competitive calls for projects. These calls are supposed to foster more “efficient” research, better aligned with social needs.

A third process is also likely at work, one that is more specific to the academic world and to sociological research. In its effort to establish its legitimacy as a science, sociology has long emphasized a distanced stance vis-à-vis action (Durkheim, 1895). Having already demonstrated its scientific validity, it now increasingly allows itself to become an “engaged” form of research (Burawoy, 2021)—one that seeks to associate with public action or even to take part in it, as is the case with participatory research and action research.

What are the stakes of research work that becomes an additional partner in partnership-based public policies? What are the possibilities for such “engaged” research to become a genuine tool of reflexivity for practitioners in the field? What are the risks of instrumentalization and of losing the rigor required for the production of knowledge within a specific scientific field?

We have been confronted with these questions (and continue to be), as we are involved in the evaluation processes of six Cités éducatives. The Cités éducatives (CE), implemented experimentally in 2019 and significantly expanded in 2022 and again in 2025, are a French national policy label targeting disadvantaged urban areas. They are structured around three strategic objectives: strengthening the role of schools; promoting educational continuity; and expanding horizons and opportunities. These objectives are translated into territorial goals and then into annual action plans targeting children and young people aged 0 to 25.

At the heart of this initiative lies the imperative to opening schools to external partners and foster connections among all local educational stakeholders. The tripartite governance structure (communal authorities, national education system, and State) is a representative example of this imperative. As academic evaluators, we are thus one partner among others, expected to contribute to shaping local public policy.

In this paper, we propose a reflexive account of the research-evaluation process. After briefly presenting the Cités éducatives label and our methodological approach, we analyze two concrete fieldwork experiences. The first concerns attempts to exert control over data, analyses, and publications. The second examines a feedback process aimed at deconstructing practices, which ultimately ends up standardizing action. These two cases allow us to highlight the risks inherent in such partnerships, while also reflecting on the potential contributions of engaged research.

Since the 1980s, the demand for expertise in school policy has grown significantly (Poupeau, 2003), contributing to the shaping of sociological research questions in line with administrative evaluation requirements. In seeking to legitimize implemented measures through “ever faster evaluations,” the contemporary mode of policy-making described by Xavier Pons (2024) as “fast politics” has reinforced this trend. Through their control over funding and, to some extent, access to the field, institutional sponsors participate in constructing research topics in order to identify “good practices” (Pons, 2024). Research is thus expected to be useful, but "asking sociology to serve a purpose is always a way of asking it to serve power. Whereas its scientific function is to understand the social world, starting with the powers that be” (Bourdieu, 1980). Furthermore, legitimizing sociology as a tool for public action in education may simultaneously delegitimize it as an “autonomous” scientific practice – one in which problems are determined and addressed without outside interference " (Saint-Martin, 2023).

At the same time, in a context marked by increasing precariousness in social science research (Harari-Kermadec, Sargeac, and Noûs, 2020), laboratory teams cannot afford to stay away from the financial opportunities provided by evaluation contracts – as they fund PhD and post-doctoral researches, research engineers etc. In this presentation, we will reflect on a position we adopted over ten years of studying educational policy measures in France: we are both experts responding to the immediate questions of institutions and sociologists, basing our work on the production of knowledge specific to scientific research. We will draw in particular on our research experience on two programs (Barrère, 2013): Cordées de la réussite and Parcours d'excellence, which we investigated between 2008 and 2019. We will explain how this dual role led us to differentiate our modes of expression according to context: using simplified language and fewer scientific references during interactions with institutional actors and in evaluation reports; using the data collected for research purposes within our laboratory and in scientific publications. We also shared our research findings with other types of stakeholders - trade unions, elected officials, and community activists. In these contexts, our research contributed to revealing “the reality of asymmetries, inequalities, relationships of domination and exploitation, the exercise of power, and processes of stigmatization” (Lahire, 2016).

Adult education (AE) in Kosovo is a topic that is continuously addressed within the research activities of the Kosovo Pedagogical Institute (KPI). There are seven research reports published, either as separate publications or as part of the annual journal ‘Kërkime Pedagogjike’. Based on the findings, specific recommendations have been provided, referring to the role and responsibilities of stakeholders.

The aim of the research was to identify whether the recommendations arising from the studies conducted by the KPI on AE have been considered for the advancement of AE policies and practices in Kosovo.

A qualitative research approach was used for this study, based on the descriptive model, with analysis of policy documents, evidence of practices, and legislation on AE. The content was supplemented with narrative analysis –semi-structured individual interviews conducted with nine representatives of the responsible institutions. A Checklist, Content Analysis Protocol and Interview Protocol were use for data collection, analysis and interpretation. The collection, analysis and documentation of data was on the model presented by Philipp Mayring (2014).

The results showed that there is both implementation and alignment of the recommendations from KPI studies on AE with policy priorities for advancing this component. However, a challenge remains the lack of explicit referencing to the findings and recommendations of the respective studies. Positive perceptions among key actors regarding the importance of KPI’s recommendations for the advancement of AE along with their concrete guidance on how these recommendations can be better and more successfully implemented in future AE policies and practices, represent an important and encouraging indicator for progress.

There is still much to be done in building a culture and sense of responsibility for the demonstrated implementation of recommendations in policymaking and in improving AE practices. A research–practitioner partnership approach in studies could help align needs and enable more effective implementation of recommendations in the policies and practices related to this component.