2025 : A Look Back at 33 Years of Co-Constructing Participatory Research
After three years spent in 2022, 2023, and 2024 selecting participatory research projects on behalf of the French National Research Agency (ANR)—including two years as co‑chair of the evaluation committee—for the SAPS RP call for projects, I attended the conference “Citizen Engagement in Science” organized by the Senate and the ANR on October 17, 2025, at the Palais du Luxembourg in Paris.
This one‑day event, devoted to reviewing the “Science With and For Society (SAPS)” program through which we allocated €14 million to 123 Action Research / Participatory Research projects, is today for me an opportunity to look back over thirty‑three years devoted to the creation and development of Participatory Research, from its first experiments to its current institutional recognition.
33 years of a pioneering trajectory
I take advantage of this in‑depth article to retrace the milestones that have marked these 33 years spent developing Participatory Research.
1992 – Launch of the first scientific investigations conceived, scaled, and carried out by adolescents, without initial intervention by researchers, in close partnership with academic research (the INRAE laboratory in Thonon‑les‑Bains): a native, citizen approach to research designed and led by 17‑year‑olds, which marked the birth of Participatory Research by and for youth.
1998 – The French Embassy in Japan commissioned me to export French expertise in science education to Japan.
2000 – Following that project, the French Ambassador in Japan issued a very explicit challenge: make the field of science education by practice economically viable, convert volunteers into sustainable jobs, and transform subsidized projects into autonomous programs. At that time, we were still before the emergence of degrees in the fields of culture and scientific mediation, and the CCSTI concept was still in its infancy, with its first circulars being drafted.
2001–2004 – Challenge met: in a few years, a wholly original and specific model emerged, capable of financing participatory research through citizen engagement itself, combining science education, socio‑cultural animation, travel, and popular education, around real research undertaken by non‑scientists with scientific supervision. Scientists were no longer demonstrators; we were no longer in communication and dissemination—rather they became guides who build capacity among children, adolescents, and non‑scientist adults, enabling them to learn Research by doing Research, from the age of 7.
2005 – Pivotal year: Objectif Sciences International (OSI) deployed at large scale the real research concept within scientific residencies, the famous pilot year, disrupting the academic landscape. Given the scale of the experiment, the Ministry of Research inquired about the length of runway nearest the residence center so that the Minister might visit it in person… before retracting, so disruptive was the model to the usual research frameworks. What followed were several years of evolution in the legitimacy and recognition of the idea.
2015–2016 – Ten years later, OSI actively participated in drafting the French Charter of Citizen Science following the Houiller Report, insisting in particular on the importance of the terms “sciences participatives” and “recherche participative” across different levels of involvement within Citizen Science—marking a major semantic and political advance. The Charter was signed in 2016. In that respect, after my 3 years serving on the ANR selection committee for the Participatory Research call, I published on the OSI NGO website this clarification and guidance page on what distinguishes Citizen Science, Participatory Science, and Participatory Research.
2021–2024 – A further ten years on, the ANR for the first time dedicates a national funding program specifically for Participatory Research through the SAPS – Science With and For Society call, symbolically closing a thirty‑year cycle of evolution—from citizen experimentation to public institutionalization. At the same time in Switzerland, we drafted the Swiss Charter for Citizen Science, and I had the pleasure of seeing other forms of implementation and epistemological values, much more bottom-up—but that is for another article…
2025 – Organization of 2 official side events within the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, on Participatory Sciences for the Ocean: Review of the Hackathon on Participatory Sciences for the Ocean.
To go straight to the heart of the matter, this morning I focused on these key aspects of Participatory Science.
Social and Democratic Value
Participatory research today embodies a major cultural transformation: that of a science which no longer isolates itself, but opens, listens, anchors, and addresses society in all its diversity. Not to be accepted in principle, but through real mutual understanding.
It restores the collective dimension to knowledge and a social purpose to research. Where science sometimes sheltered behind institutions, it becomes again a common good—accessible, shared, and co‑produced.
By enabling citizens, associations, territories, users, and economic and social actors to co‑build research questions, this approach reconnects knowledge with lived reality.
It legitimizes research in the eyes of the public, strengthens democratic dialogue, and allows scientific effort to better orient itself toward concrete societal needs.
Production of Useful and Actionable Knowledge
Truly living science does not limit itself to producing results, but to the transformation it causes.
Participatory research offers a concrete path to bring the lab closer to the field, the usage model closer to experience, abstraction closer to reality.
Problems emerge from actors themselves—communities, citizens, teachers, farmers, engineers, residents—and the results that follow are more operational, better understood, more rooted in reality.
This approach pursues a simple intuition: co‑constructed research is more likely to be useful—and hence sustainable.
It redefines the relation between knowledge production and meaning production, between experimentation and appropriation.
Strengthening Citizen Engagement and Trust
At a time when distrust threatens the link between science and society, citizen participation acts as an antidote.
By sharing protocols, explaining methods, and involving the public in decision processes, participatory research restores trust and transparency.
It shows that science is not power, but shared responsibility—that it does not only seek understanding, but also to serve.
This mode of knowledge production values academic freedom while reinforcing the social responsibility of research. It helps rebuild a trusted community around truth in a world saturated with fragmented information and competing beliefs.
Enriching Perspectives and Knowledge
Opening to non‑researchers enriches research with a diversity of viewpoints and experiences.
Local knowledge, professional practices, daily observations complement the researcher’s analytical logic.
Far from weakening scientific rigor, this hybridization strengthens it: it multiplies vantage points, tests hypotheses, refines models.
For scientists from industrial, academic, or public backgrounds, this citizen approach added to these historical dimensions of research can embody a form of collective intelligence: one that makes disciplines, cultures, and generations converse to produce genuinely transformative knowledge.
Territorialization, Inclusion, and Reducing Inequalities
Participatory research is not only a scientific tool; it is also a lever for territorial justice.
It gives voice to peripheral spaces, to communities often invisible in research policies, and allows their realities to be integrated into knowledge production.
Thus, science ceases to be an institutional monopoly and becomes a network of shared experiences, where each territory contributes to global knowledge.
This approach encourages inclusion, context diversity, and recognition of knowledges long considered marginal. It helps reduce inequalities between territories, sectors, and populations by giving everyone the opportunity to become an actor in research.
Initial Challenges and Realized Transformations
Participatory research had to face several challenges to take hold: scientific rigor, cost, governance, scale, impact measurement, academic recognition.
But each of these obstacles paved the way for innovative solutions—often more robust than classical models, or highly complementary to them.
Scientific Rigor and Methodological Requirements
For a long time, citizen participation was suspected of introducing noise in data, compromising rigor or reproducibility.
However, many studies now show that data generated through participation are often of quality equal to, or even superior to, conventional data.
Citizens tend to over-check their measurements, self‑censor when uncertain, and adhere carefully to protocols—especially when led by scientifically trained facilitators.
Consortia like Terra Forma in citizen metrology now develop shared protocols and open-source calibration tools allowing citizen data to be integrated into scientific publications and public decision models.
Researchers themselves now train in “data trust management,” ushering in a new era in which rigor and participation coexist.
Cost, Logistics, Time, and Resources
Implementing a participatory project requires time, coordination, training, mediators, and adapted infrastructure.
But these investments have gradually been rationalized.
Shared platforms, hybrid financing devices tapping into domains that already have funding sources, and co-valorization logics (public-private-citizen) today make these models viable.
Objectif Sciences International (OSI) was a pioneer of this economic viability.
As early as the 2000s, the organization showed it was possible to finance research via participatory experience—transforming scientific pedagogy into a self-sustaining socio-economic model, creating lasting jobs and capable of supporting long-term Participatory Science Programs.
Governance, Power, and Responsibilities
Involving society also means rethinking the governance of research.
Who defines the scientific question? Who owns the data? Who publishes, who decides, who benefits?
These issues, once seen as obstacles, are now framed by proven solutions and varied models.
Co-construction charters of research define rights and duties for each actor.
Mixed consortia—researchers, associations, local entities—operate under equitable partnership contracts.
Open platforms (Open Science Data) ensure traceability, transparency, and reciprocity of contributions.
Thus, participatory research does not dilute scientific responsibility—it redistributes it consciously and transparently.
Scale and Mass Effects
Moving from local project to national or European policy long seemed out of reach.
Today, thanks to the gradual structuring of the field, scaling up becomes possible.
Networks like EU‑Citizen‑Science, national platforms, and programs like the ANR’s SAPS show that it is possible to articulate local and global without losing the participatory spirit.
Pooling tools, standardizing protocols, and training researchers in co‑design now make it possible to scale while preserving authenticity.
Impact Measurement and Valorization
The value of participatory research is not measured solely by publications, but also by social, ecological, and economic transformations.
Yet evaluation frameworks are evolving: social impact indicators, institutional recognition, participation and public dissemination criteria.
This year, the Annual International Conference on Citizen and Participatory Sciences for Peace and Sustainable Development, organized as part of the 17ᵗʰ Geneva Forum at the UN, is dedicating its work precisely to this question:
“How to evaluate the real, detailed, immediate or systemic impact of citizen contribution to global scientific production” and thereby help its recognition in research policy. Answers are gradually emerging, outlining the contours of a new knowledge economy—more inclusive and measurable.
Risk of Dilution or Drift
Every opening comes with a risk of dispersion.
But accumulated experience shows that it is possible to channel this diversity without constraining it.
Participatory prioritization frameworks, mixed juries, and scientific debate platforms allow topic hierarchy while respecting free expression, involving people and therefore building capacity.
Far from weakening fundamental research, citizen participation feeds it with new, often unexpected hypotheses, and helps expand the field of discovery.
Support Structures and Institutional Framework
Institutionalization of participatory research is now well underway.
Dedicated funding tools, such as SAPS or Horizon Europe – SwafS calls, support co-construction of science.
Training programs introduce researchers and field actors to participatory methodologies.
National and regional networks share tools, frameworks, experiences and resources to strengthen the coherence of the movement.
Academic Recognition
Institutional recognition is progressing.
More and more doctoral schools integrate participatory methods into their curricula.
Scientific journals now accept publications stemming from co‑constructed approaches. The NGO Objectif Sciences International has even initiated several papers where children, adolescents, or non‑scientist adults are authors in peer‑reviewed specialist journals (whether for discovering species presence, naming craters on Mars, or monitoring the Snow Leopard).
Researchers are encouraged to highlight citizen participation in their evaluations, CVs, projects, and international collaborations.
A new kind of excellence is taking shape: that of shared science.
Guarantees of Rigor and Ethics
Trust is earned by rigor.
Participatory research protocols are now accompanied by precise ethical rules: informed consent, data transparency, cross-validation, co‑evaluation by involved actors, manual verification of procedures, co-definition and updating of protocols and research questions...
These guarantees ensure scientific quality while respecting the human dimension of the process.
Mixing Fundamental and Applied Research
Participatory research does not replace fundamental research—it complements it.
In fields like ecology, public health, archaeology, heritage, social sciences, or climatology, it opens new horizons of collection and interpretation.
In more theoretical or highly technical domains, it offers a mediation and dissemination lever, while cutting-edge experiments can involve non‑scientist publics of all ages.
It is the complementarity between pioneering research and field research that strengthens the scientific system today.
Territorial Policy and Inclusion
Participatory devices are powerful levers of inclusion.
They ensure that rural territories, remote regions, and underrepresented populations gain access to the same knowledge opportunities.
They encourage locally anchored projects linked to national and international dynamics.
Participation becomes a universal scientific right.
Dialogue and Consultation
Finally, the future of participatory research depends on concertation.
It is no longer enough to listen to society; we must invite it to participate in defining research priorities.
Citizens are no longer mere beneficiaries: they become partners, co-authors, co‑decision‑makers.
When dialogue is sincere and well supported, it elevates both science and democracy.
A Constructive and Complementary Vision
In the end, all things considered, participatory research does not oppose fundamental research.
It complements it, extends it, and grounds it.
In domains where technicality makes direct participation difficult, it opens other paths: mediation, popularization, contributive observation, weak signal collection.
Far from cannibalizing funds, it attracts new resources by diversifying economic circuits and increasing research’s social legitimacy.
Thus this is not a shift in the scientific center of gravity, but an expansion of the knowledge sphere.
A science that remains demanding, yet becomes shared.
A science that no longer confines itself to describing the world, but helps transform it together with those who live in it.