From Lab to Life: Research Questions for the Taking
For the last 4+ years, I’ve sat at the intersection of local governments and universities. That time has been used to be a convener, a communicator, and importantly, a student. These two types of institutions are critical to our communities. How do they work together? How can they support each other? How can we think differently about their relationship to one another – moving beyond big employers and land users to thinking about the fruits and labors of what the research community can do for local policy making.
From my personal experience and that of my time at MetroLab, one thing was clear: we need to focus on the demand and supply for research to the local government community. While well intended, much of the research community assumes what local governments need. How can we break these assumptions and understand what the true research needs are for cities and counties across the country?
Inspired by the annual Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, MetroLab envisioned an opportunity for a priority research needs document that is informed by, and in the service of, local governments.
This effort came with ambitious goals. First, it needed to represent local governments across the country. To do this, we knew we had to have a breadth of scale; we needed to talk to folks inside local governments that “live in the weeds.” We knew that it was important to get the perspective of local governments across all geographies with varying priority concerns and varying levels of resources. In-person workshops were a must to meet the community where they are.
Next, it needed to make sense to the research community. Each in-person workshop was hosted on a university campus. Every single research question that resulted from the workshops or the surveys has been reviewed to be presented in a way that can easily shape a research project or program.
We set out to work, hosting workshops and surveys. At our in-person workshops across the country we had a total of 42 universities represented, 12 local governments (with 85 unique departments represented in total). We recovered hundreds of Post-it notes and created a master database of over one thousand research questions or points of feedback.
With gratitude and enthusiasm, we are publishing the results. In total, FAS is publishing nineteen reports, including the overarching findings – The Civic Research Agenda.
Importantly, we learned more than just research questions. We studied how these institutions work together, what are friction points, and how transformative partnerships thrive between the research and local policy making communities.
For example, we asked folks for both institutions, what myth do you want to bust? And this is what we found:
Myths local governments would like to “bust” – in other words, statements they believe university communities believe but are untrue –include the following:
- [21%] that local governments have a lot of money available, are themselves adequately resourced, and have ample time to read large amounts of research
- [20%] that local government staff are uninformed, not smart, or not resourceful
- [16%] that local government staff lack motivation, are lazy or don’t care, and want to preserve bureaucracy
- [13%] that local governments cannot innovate and adapt
- [13%] that local governments are hard to work with, and in particular, they resist academic insight
- [6% ] that local governments are not data-driven
Generally, local governments aimed to position themselves as capable partners, and to correct structural misconceptions.
Myths universities would like to “bust” – in other words, statements they believe local government communities believe but are untrue include the following:.
- [25%] that universities are elite; faculty live in an ivory tower
- [19%] that universities produce research that is impractical, only theoretical, or not client-driven
- [15%] that universities only care about publishability, and faculty/staff do not care about their community
- [11%] that universities are slow, research takes a long time, and they can’t work quickly
- [11%] that universities have a lot of money and funding is not constrained
- [11%] that research only takes into account quantitative data
Almost half of all responses indicate that faculty and staff at a university feel they are perceived as detached, selfish, or difficult partners. University participants wanted to convey to the audience that research is indeed useful, applied work matters, and that research is impact-oriented.
Why does this matter? It’s a foundation on which to build. Bringing two institutions together should include the following considerations: how do you know who to talk to, what are the levels of trust to work together, and how do you consider potential road blocks from the start.
Recommendations
First, the primary goal of this report is to provide to the research community these questions that are in demand by local governments. But that is just the start. They must then get answered, and they have to be produced in a way that optimizes the “supply” of research – will research publications be applied.
Some top findings on how local governments want to ingest research:
One hundred percent of respondents cited that a concise summary of results that is easy to understand is very important or important. No more than one page and no technical jargon.
One hundred percent of respondents also cited that research needs to be as specific to their community as possible.
Local governments almost always want to see a comparison to their peer cities/counties.
As appropriate, research that goes beyond observation and makes recommendations is highly actionable.
I’m going to say this again. ONE PAGE. Executive summary no more than one page. I know. Not the easiest.
What’s Next
I hope these research questions get answered. Imagine the world of what’s possible if these questions are addressed. If these knowledge gaps close. We could have increased housing supply, understand the impacts of our policy interventions, and can do more with less.
The Civic Research Agenda considers civic research as infrastructure. Treating the pipeline as civic infrastructure means making collaboration predictable and durable. It could include elements such as:
- Standardized data systems and clear data sharing agreements
- Dedicated research partnership or translation staff
- Clear public entry points for engagement
- Shared templates for scoping, executive briefs, and implementation planning
- Recurring joint priority-setting aligned with city strategic plans
These are solvable problems. If local governments and universities can commit to creating and maintaining the coordination and collaboration required, we can unlock policy innovation for communities across the country, starting at the state and local levels.
This report is a roadmap that will move further the theory of change that our research ecosystem has a bounty of insights and policy interventions, and when done in partnership with local innovators, catalytic impact is in our grasp.
FAS looks forward to continuing this work, and hopefully, bringing research problem statements and answers to communities across the country.
Feedback from Community Leaders
“As Kansas City’s top research university, the relationship between UMKC and the City of Kansas City is vital,” said MUMKC Chancellor Mauli Agrawal. “When we closely collaborate with the community, we’re able to align UMKC’s advanced innovation capabilities with the city’s needs, ensuring that the solutions we generate have a direct, positive impact on the quality of lives of our residents. It’s important to note that our university’s community partnerships are not just about advancing academic inquiry — they are about building a stronger, more resilient Kansas City.”
“If we want to make positive, lasting progress on the most pressing challenges facing our cities—from gun violence and homelessness to transportation and traffic safety—we must be able to access and understand cutting-edge research and innovation,” said Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas. “MetroLab is working to make it possible for policymakers across the nation to influence the creation and pioneer the implementation of evidence-based solutions and research to help us build more equitable and thriving communities.”
“The City of Lincoln welcomed the opportunity this convening presented to catalyze our research partnership with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Following the workshop, we have continued to collaborate with UNL to develop the City’s Research Agenda.” – Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird, Lincoln, NE
“Research is essential to us. We hosted six university institutions at our workshop and are keen on continuing these conversations. We want to have the data to provide tailored solutions to each of our individual neighborhoods, we want to know what programs get the best outcomes, and we hope to partner with our universities to better our evaluation capabilities so that we know what’s working and what needs to be improved.” – Mayor Matt Tuerk, City of Allentown, PA
“The event was a huge success, not only because it was well-attended and well-run, but because the participants responded with action.” – Dr. Ruth N. López Turley, Director, Kinder Institute for Urban Research
We need to focus on the demand and supply for research to address the needs of local government community.
Report provides research questions and calls to action that bring science
closer to local communities
The Civic Research Agenda is a culmination of several years of study, partnerships, and intelligence gathering that is the first comprehensive reporting on the priority research needs of American cities and counties.
The U.S. does not lack ideas for improving its transportation system. What it needs is a research ecosystem capable of turning those ideas into deployed solutions.