Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilnumérosVolume 13Presence-absence of urban studies...

Presence-absence of urban studies in France: Challenges and Perspectives


Texte intégral

1The spread of the urban phenomenon is now a mainstay, alongside the urbanization of social questions. On that basis, a vast body of research, usually grouped together under the name of “urban studies,” investigates the spatial enigmas of life in society. The situation in France is relatively singular in that regard, since Urban Studies are marginal. This is the situation that we will discuss here.

2For about ten years, a dual movement has indeed been observed, with, on the one hand, the affirmation of a field of studies revolving around the urban phenomenon – already established as urban studies in the English-speaking world – and, on the other hand, a return to the challenge of disciplinary perimeters – that we can observe during the recruitment of professors-researchers for example, and which alleviates the scope of attempts to overcome or reconnect the disciplinary borders. Several reflections on the status and the meaning of Urban Studies can be mentioned, whether it is in the United States or in France. Therefore, in their article “What is Urban Studies?”, William Bowen, Ronnie Dunn and David Kasdan (2010) question the definition of Urban Studies in the United States, while reminding the readers that it is a study field that does not seem to coincide with the criteria of a traditional field. Years later, the Métropolitique journal published an article with the following question: “Are there French Urban Studies?” (Collet and Simay, 2013). From both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, Urban Studies are indeed characterized by an uncertain positioning within social sciences, with a blurry definition.

3The degree of institutionalisation of the urban studies field is no stranger to the fragility of its foundation. However, the context in which they appear plays a role that is not to be ignored, as Christian Topalov points out: “This discipline hasn’t known a process of collection of knowledge within a stable institutionalisation, but rather as a discontinued series of local emergences, followed by eclipses. The object definition has changed often, sometimes in a radical way. The reason for this is that each definition is connected to the specific historical configuration of the time and country considered – despite episodes of partial internationalisation.” (2013, p. 1). The fact remains that the city as an object for analysis, and more broadly societies’ space, cannot be seized by any discipline (Ramadier, 2004), and we often gain from associating the well-identified analytical fields to those that are first and foremost expressive and narrative, such as literature, cinema, poetry and music. Many prizes (“la ville à lire”, “écrire la ville”…) as well as many thematic exhibitions prove this point.

4How to read the connections between the disciplines that are at the centre of Urban Studies? Some favour the discipline from where the studies appeared (Huxley and McLoughin, 1985). Moreover, the same fields are often mentioned, and some people attribute the birth of Urban Studies to one specific discipline. Therefore, Jacques Brun (2008) believes that, in France, Geographer Pierre George can be considered as one precursor in Urban Studies. The same acknowledgment comes from Paul Mercier, in the African context (1973). For others, the works undertaken by the Chicago School started Urban Studies (Legates, 2003, p. 13). The same authors sometimes create connections with the evolution of the urban and social landscape and the birth of some schools of thought (Frey and Zimmer, 2001; Kwok, 1983; Scherrer, 2010; Van Damme, 2005; Zukin, 1980; Gottdiener and Feagin, 1988).

5Other authors focus more specifically on the challenge of interdisciplinarity. If it often represents a banner, its practice is in fact much more discreet and does not specifically achieve academic recognition. Moreover, its scientific basis is demanding and foreign to the lazy version that consists in juxtaposing knowledge, and another, barely more satisfactory, that consists in an integrated knowledge to equip urban actions and decisions. Therefore, Gabriel Dupuy and Lucien Gilles Benguigui (2015) warn about the different forms of practice in terms of disciplinary junction to discuss the idea of an offensive interdisciplinarity, mostly carried out by hard sciences, and facing urbanism with its blurriness and its “pseudo-scientific” aspects (that lack requirements as to be validated empirically), that could be fatal to it. This is valid both for the questioning of key concepts, such as space or scale, and for the highlighting of the virtues of self-organisation, facing urbanistic knowledge, or with what big data is promising without the urbanists. Often positivistic, this critic is about urban planning itself and not so much about Urban Studies, but the critic on interdisciplinarity can also be found there. Such a disruptive interdisciplinarity deserves at least some monitoring, since it happens in a rich context that explores the promises of data mining (Devisme, Guérin-Pace, Voiron, 2019). In the American context, Urban Studies are institutionalised and hold some legitimacy, as proven by many university curricula in this field, or by the Urban Affairs Association. It is thus relatively easy to explain what Urban Studies are – both in terms of research and teaching – even despite the limits mentioned earlier. However, what about countries that, just like France, have a weaker institutionalisation of the field (Van Damme, 2005)? More specifically, how can we undertake urban studies when they are not institutionalised into the academic field?

6This paper aims 1) at introducing a reflection on the Urban Studies field in contemporary France, 2) at providing markers on a relevant exploratory approach whose outcome remains partial and 3) at presenting the contribution of this journal’s thematic issue.

1. The lessons from editorial adventures and exploratory interviews

7To answer the question of the Urban Studies practice in France, two entry points can be considered interesting. The first one revisits publications that discuss, more or less directly, this field of study. The second relies on interviews with researchers, asking them explicitly the question.

8The French-speaking publications that focused, for lack of proper field delimitation, at least on a culture of the stakes, are useful. The number of sources considered as primary in this context is a sign that it is difficult to engage both accumulation and internal critic.

9Penser la ville (Ansay and Schoonbrodt, 1989) provided philosophical texts, of which we can remember the identification of four types of discourse on the city, whether they are the expression of an original experience, the production of objective knowledge, the participation to a challenge or the “right to the city” in itself. Desseins de villes, art urbain et urbanisme (Gaudin, 1991) established a social-historical reflection on the intentional transformations of built spaces from a corpus composed of texts from a 20th century intermediary technical field that switches between aesthetic and functional considerations. Villes et civilisation urbaine. XVIIIe – XXe siècle is an anthology as well, the result of a collaboration between Roncayolo and Paquot (1992). If it is part of the composition of a field (science of cities), its thematic choices regulating the chapters are very broad, and the reading is not organised around one specific grid: they discuss the design of the city (doctrines and utopias), specific geo-types, but also wide cultural regions (USSR, United States, “Third World” – as it was specifically identified). This anthology aimed at thinking the city of today, and insisted on the generalised urbanisation and the end of the duality between city and countryside. It highlighted the challenge of a mobility/rooting dialectic and strived for “de-provincializing” urban thinking. It was based on three pre-conditions: firstly, urbanisation changes in nature with industrialisation; secondly, the change of scale expresses the emergence of urban civilisation; finally, the relationship to nature is transformed by the urbanisation of the world. This book aimed at distinguishing founding texts, articles that are references and did not focus on contemporary articles.

10La ville et l’urbain. L’état des savoirs (Paquot, Lussault and Body-Gendrot, 2000) is explicitly included in a collection aiming for referential stabilisation. In addition, it starts from an enigma that we rediscover, more or less the same, 15 years later: in France, the city is not the object of a specific area of knowledge. The six chapters try to establish this, calling for short contributions from French urban researchers. A year later, the release of La ville des sciences sociales (2001) as a tribute to Bernard Lepetit, was the confirmation of this challenge, echoing the seminar of the same name by Bernard Lepetit and Christian Topalov. In a historicist and reflexive perspective, some authors relied on a narrower reading of several texts that are not necessarily staples in the field, and its analysis could show how the city is both the object of knowledge and the object of practice and intentional transformations. We can see a converging project, albeit more prospective, with La ville et l’urbain. Des savoirs émergents (Da Cuhna and Matthey, 2007), a blend collected by Jean-Bernard Racine and organised around emerging fields: in this case, around complexity, sustainability and identity. Similarly, the Traité sur la ville (Stébé and Marchal, 2009) is a collection that seems to be pioneering in the variety of collected approaches, within the paradigm of global urban condition. Recently, Transformations des horizons urbains (de Coninck and Deroubaix, 2012) convenes approaches from developers, architects, environmentalists to qualify the expertise about the city, the effects of urban policies, representations of the city and changes in scale, in a way that reminds us of the older, collective work L’urbain dans tous ses états, Faire, dire, vivre la ville (Haumont dir., 1998).

11Moreover, Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine (Bassand, Kaufmann and Joye, 2007 [2001]) appears indeed under interdisciplinary conditions, but it refers to an instructive partition, with each chapter referring to metropolitan dynamics, mobilities and fluidity, to urban fragmentations and the action on the urban. Lastly, Les faiseurs de villes (Paquot, 2010) is a collection of texts assembled to bring visibility to 26 urban manufacturers; it can be read as a continuation of Conversations sur la ville et l’urbain (Paquot, 2008), which integrates 79 biographies of social sciences scholars who question the urban phenomenon. Those two books gather publications from the Urbanisme journal and allow to give a continuation on the debate, in the French-speaking world, about the critical scope of Urban Studies (Gintrac and Giroud, 2014).

12Without being complete, this French-speaking review shows that the urban question torments more than a single scientific community, but that it does not appear as one structuring or restructuring pole for disciplinary affiliations. Despite auspicious institutional creations, in our case the Paris Institute of Urban Planning (from the merger of IUP and IFU), the Paris Sciences Po Urban School or the Lyon Urban School, the field struggles to structure itself. The exploratory interviews for the constitution of this thematic issue mention more willingly the concept of epiphenomena, of shooting stars: conjunctures rather than structures.

13Several interviews – conducted with researchers selected for their publications or their specific background – allowed us to test some hypotheses, with a grid that discusses both the researchers’ trajectory and questions on the role of actors’ requests, of students’ requests, of the structure of the editorial field and potential tutelary figures (without trying to find heroes). We can provide a brief overview of those discussions.

14One of our respondents, trained in both sociology and geography, has been a research officer for the Paris Urban Planning Workshop for 10 years and is now a professor in social sciences in architecture school. He considers urban sociology as a construction site, an area of freedom that discusses more directly the experience of students than the sociology of work or education. He also insists on the challenge of being able to express himself both in French and in English, and to be potentially recruited both in sociology and in geography. The founders’ side is characterised by Georg Simmel, as well as Jean Rémy and Jean-Paul Lévy. His considerations demonstrate the desire to operate regulated borrowings, without poaching. According to him, the Urban Studies field exists only because it has resources, even modest ones. It is indeed a small field of research, influenced by urban preoccupations, but which is facing a professional demand at the University. Lastly, it is a field that encounters a rather specific question: the relation between the local level (and its environment) and the international level.

  • 1 The Conseil National des Universités is a University body that involves qualification and career ma (...)
  • 2 Launched in 2005 and nowadays led by the interministerial research and experimentation program PUCA (...)

15Another respondent underlines that, according to him, “Recherche urbaine” (urban research) would be clearer in France than Urban Studies. If he considers himself more in connection with the fields of history where the closure of the academic field is regularly highlighted, he explains that there is generally an editorial field as such, with journals and collections of publishing houses, let alone the institutionalisations represented by a section of the CNU (24th) and the CNRS (39th)1. He also mentions what the role of Thesis awards about the city2 can represent about the existence of a field (this award receives about 50 propositions every year) – N° 107 (December 2012) of the Annales de la recherche urbaine thus highlights the awarded theses. It still does not prevent pointing out a lack of self-reflection on the field.

16Another researcher, trained in philosophy, states that his disciplinary origin allows him to go back to the challenges of the practical turn of philosophy (its “landing”, which leads an increasing number of philosophers to be recruited to dialogue with professional communities, like doctors for example). There exists a dual risk of marginalisation when one teaches in an architecture school (about the project fields and about their own discipline) but the plasticity of the position can allow a lot of freedom to the researcher. Moreover, the practice of answering calls for research also leads to distancing oneself from disciplines’ strict codes: “when we are working on the interface or the articulation of disciplines, we become aware of their limits very quickly, and that is good!” If students usually come to higher education with expectations relative to objects, the researchers’ work is to translate, and not to strictly choose an approach by discipline or by object. To the always-delicate question of founding father, Georg Simmel’s name always comes back, at the crossroads between philosophy and sociology.

17Another respondent is a geographer. If the beginning of his university career took place in the Urban Studies department at the University of Lyon 2, it now seems to him that Urban Studies could display themselves as the heart of the social sciences offered in French urban planning institutes. However, it appears clear that the academic workings hold the perimeters in France, and this fact does not support the recast for the expected profiles. We can thus hypothesise about a commutative field that is not yet completely constituted. According to his statement, it would be beneficial to explore how a doctorate in sciences of territories is initiated at the University of Grenoble, and with what expectations. Another member of our small sample notes that what always interested him was to understand how “the city could, in the end, be a mission territory”. He also reminds us that Urban Studies designated, in the 1960s, the practical knowledge of research offices, and was thus distinguished from research and the “epistemological cuts”.

18Lastly, the last interviewee’s professional map highlights this field, but she admits that the field is not structured as such, contrary to urban planning. Naturally, we can find major actors, but none of them is a prime example; we can thus talk about an Urban Studies tradition de facto. More specifically, as a professor from the University of Nanterre, she sees there a fertile ground (eg. Lefebvre) and stresses the importance of the American influence in the implementation of an Urban Studies curriculum via a critical anchoring. What about a collection of urban theories in France?

19Those researchers do not agree on the questions asked by the hypothetical Urban Studies field, but they are sensitive to it, and it is because most of their paths are that of secant outsiders. Two contrasting sides appear: one consists in not regretting the lack of field and in doubting the merits of Urban Studies proliferation; the other, more activist, argues for the structuration of this field, considering it a way to denationalise the French urban research. All of them point at a reduced visibility and at the absence of a collection on urban theories in France (the American-centred aspect of the collection is obvious).

2. Promises of an extended investigation

  • 3 Reminder: it started from a transatlantic questioning, especially between Québec, the English-speak (...)

20Both the bibliographic research and the interviews were at the origin of a research project3 and of the construction of a corpus of texts left in midstream. Nowadays, its deliverable is the special issue of a journal at the border of the studied field.

  • 4 From 40 researchers selected and contacted, 14 “played the game” of sending us 15 major texts publi (...)
  • 5 Cf. the Champ libre ? L’aménagement et l’urbanisme à l’épreuve des cadres théoriques symposium, Jan (...)

21During our interviews, the thoughtful answers to one of our questions motivated the extension of the investigation: “What studies, texts or researchers do you instantly think about when you think about Urban Studies in France?” The feedback4 confirms a wide spectrum of affiliations: sociology, urban planning, philosophy, geography, political science. The texts are either essays or case studies with a tendency to generality. They are sometimes “un-disciplinary” approaches of social sciences (which echoes the editorial line of the journal), but they mostly have a strong empirical content, with a more or less assumed critical scope. The place for theory is not easy to distinguish, which also motivates movement in the university world of urban planning that aims at testing the theoretical frameworks about their field, and their universalising tendencies5.

22Beyond the panorama supported by this initial project (the list of selected texts is available in the annex), such a study also questions the organisation and the scope of knowledge that is specifically about Urban Studies. Firstly, the question of cultural and linguistic area arises. Several researchers told us that they (almost) do not read or write in French anymore: it questions the evolution of internationalisation within academic fields, and the validity of questioning an issue in the French-speaking area. Secondly, Urban Studies are notoriously involved with professional universes (of the urban transformation), and it is likely that they win a lot from structuring spaces for debate, discussions, cross-reflections with territorialised public policies and from empowering themselves within the academic field. Urban theories are thus as much theories of urban action, and cannot be left away from the actors working on urban public issues. They should explore the conditions for research in partnership and the concept of action-research. Lastly, the critical situation of urban research on France is precisely an interesting moment for its future, initiated by CNRS between 2015 and 2016 (6 study days took place, a thematic school was set up and a collective publication will conclude this work which started by a manifesto).

23Simultaneously, we can question the way some debates that structure the American scene nowadays are transferable in France. The criticism from Michael Storper and Allen Scott (2016) about theses on planetary urbanisation, postcolonial issues or the scope of the theories on actor-network in urban questions can lead to believe that we are at the right time for the examination and the expression of Urban Studies. Those are expectations for the concluding book of the Prospective Nationale de Recherche Urbaine (french forecast exercise for urban research), from the special 10th anniversary edition of the Métropoles journal, or an upcoming issue of the Annales de la recherche urbaine (2019).

3. Scope and limits of a thematic issue

  • 6 The purpose of this text is not to reflect on that aspect, but the question of time managing the pr (...)

24The joint publication originally envisioned was divided into two parts. The first one was focusing on the themes within the main publications in the field since the 2000s. The second part highlighted the future perspectives, as well as the commitment from different researchers in contemporary social debates. The vicissitudes of a joint research project by itself and without specific funding6 led to the selection of a rather smaller, more prospective ensemble of texts.

25If in most countries urban planning and Urban Studies are clearly identified, the case of France is different, and most Urban Studies promoters work within the field of urban planning, or very close to it. This represented the challenge of having a text questioning urban planning. To this end, Juliette Maulat and Mathieu Gimat question research and teaching in this field and study the difference between “knowledge to” (guide, facilitate action) and “knowledge about” urban planning, which is much more analytical. As young researchers, they offer a direct questioning of what it means to belong to a discipline and clearly advocate for a more discursive interdisciplinarity, where transfers and appropriations are discussed to avoid abusive and restrictive blending. Therefore, they propose more pronounced research agendas and research programs.

26The elements for a history of Urban Studies presented by Yankel Fijalkow (in collaboration with Amélie Nicolas) highlight the effects of having agendas that bring forward types of sites shaping public action and directing the researchers’ eye. The news from the 1950s, with popular communities-neighbourhoods, are compared to that of the 1980s with the city centres’ old neighbourhoods, to the 1990s with their pedestrian neighbourhoods commemorated as part of heritage, and the 2000s with enclaves from the French suburbs and the peri-urban pavilion areas used by middle and working classes. It represents a punctuation of French Urban Studies from the study of keywords such as “neighbourhood”, “street” and “public spaces”: a contextualisation that does not exclude other terms, while still facilitating ways to formulate questions within Urban Studies.

27Beyond a very exhaustive French bibliography and a text with a tree structure about many typologies, Clément Boisseuil proposes a disciplinary constitution for Urban Studies with the example of potential convergence through a program to study implementations. The focus is the urban renewal of French working-class areas. Therefore, this approach involves different study types (analysis of the city policies in France, objectives for the reduction of territorial inequalities, analysis of projects governance) and proposes, with a specific theoretical framework, to overcome discipline-related grids and read perspectives of association.

28In this issue, the most prospective contribution provides a way to build up many relations between philosophical and anthropological challenges. Through the emergence of new frameworks in terms of sensitivity, Jean-Paul Thibaud explores the way in which the ambiance is what makes the world sensitive and how it could be a keyword for Urban Studies. “We could thus ask ourselves how an ambiance can animate (to breathe life into something), condition (to influence conducts), air-condition (to control conditions), create atmospheres (to pervade spaces) and attune (to compose affects) an urban environment. A generative grammar should be developed, and it could describe the different modalities of sensitivity about inhabited spaces.” The fields suggested by Thibaud appear to us, in a way. They indeed condition the contemporary world, and thus are able by nature to orientate the prisms for Urban Studies: aestheticisation, increasingly refined preparations (by different operators) of ambiances; increasing digitalisation (risk of anaesthesia and amnesia); deployment of ecological sensitivity.

29The relevance of a thematic issue in an online journal is more about being a potential than a fixed unit. It should help updating Urban Studies.

Haut de page


Ansay, P. et Schoonbrodt, R. (1989). Penser la ville. Choix de textes philosophiques. Bruxelles : Archives d'Architecture Moderne.

Bassand, M., Kaufmann, V. et Joye, D. (2007 [2001]). Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine. Lausanne : Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Bowen, W., Dunn, R. et Kasdan, D. O. (2010). What is 'Urban Studies'? Context, internal Structure and Content. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(2), 199-227.

Breux, S., Collin, J-P., Cloutier, G., Poitras, C. (2015). Les études urbaines et l’urbanisme au Québec : deux compagnons de route indissociables, indépendants et qui s’ignorent. RIURBA route-indissociables-independants-et-qui-signorent/.

Brun, J. (2008). Pierre George, un précurseur dans les études urbaines ? Cahiers de géographie du Québec, 52(146), 277-285.

Choay, F. (1965). L'urbanisme en question. In F. Choay (Ed.), L'urbanisme, utopies et réalités. Une anthologie. (pp. 7-53). Paris : Seuil.

Collet, A. et Simay, P. (2013). Y-a-t-il des “'urban studies” à la française ? Métropolitiques. URL :

Da Cuhna, A. et Matthey, L. (2007). La ville et l'urbain. Des savoirs émergents. Lausanne : Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

De Coninck, F. et Deroubaix, J.-F. (2012). Transformations des horizons urbains - Savoirs, imaginaires, usages et conflits. Paris : L'oeil d'or.

DeLanda, M. (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London : Continuum.

Devisme, L., Guérin-Pace, F., Voiron, C. (2018), « Big cities, smart data ? Les conséquences épistémologiques et pratiques de la généralisation des univers numériques dans la recherche urbaine », Prospective Nationale de Recherche Urbaine (S. Barles, N. Blanc, O. Coutard dir.), à paraître.

Dupuy, G. et Benguigui, L. G. (2015). Sciences urbaines : interdisciplinarités passive, naïve, transitive, offensive. Métropoles. URL :

Frey, W. H. et Zimmer, Z. (2001). “Defining the City” Handbook of Urban Studies (pp. 1431). London/Thousand Oaks/New-Dehli: Sage Publications.

Gaudin, J.-P. (1991). Desseins de villes, Art urbain et urbanisme, Anthologie. Paris : Éditions L'Harmattan.

Gintrac, C. et Giroud, M. (2014). Villes contestées. Pour une géographie critique de l'urbain. Paris : Les Prairies ordinaires.

Gottdiener, M. et Feagin, J. R. (1988) The paradigm shift in urban sociology. Urban Affairs Quaterly, 24 (2), 163-187.

Haumont, N. dir. (1998). L’urbain dans tous ses états. Faire, vivre, dire la ville, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Huxley, M. et McLoughin, J. B. (1985). The New urban Studies Literature: A Review with Special Reference to Australia. Progress in Planning, 24, 161-246.

Kwok, R. Y. (1983). A synoptic examination of Urban Studies and Urban Planning. Habitat international, 7(5-6), 79-95.

Lassave, P. (1997). Les sociologues et la recherche urbaine dans la France contemporaine, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Legates, R. (2003). « How to Study Cities ». In R. Legates & F. Stout (Eds.), The city reader (pp. 10-18). London and New-York: Routlegde.

Lepetit, B., et Topalov, C. (2001). La ville des sciences sociales. Paris : Belin.

Mercier, P. (1973). Quelques remarques sur le développement des études urbaines. Cahiers d'Études Africaines, 13(51), 397-404.

Paquot, T. (2008). Conversation sur la ville et l'urbain. Paris : Infolio. Paquot, T. (2010). Les faiseurs de ville. Paris : Infolio.

Paquot, T., Lussault, M. et Body-Gendrot, S. (2000). La ville et l'urbain : l'état des savoirs Paris : La Découverte.

Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinary and its challenges: the case of urban studies. Futures, 36, 423439.

Roncayolo, M. et Paquot, T. (1992). Villes et civilisations urbaine, XVIIIe-XXe siècle. Paris : Larousse.

Scherrer, F. (2010). Le contrepoint des études urbaines et de l'urbanisme : ou comment se détacher de l'évidence de leur utilité sociale. Tracés, 10, 187-195.

Stébé, J.-M. et Marchal, H. (2009). Traité sur la ville. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.

Storper, M. et Scott, A.J. (2016) Current debates in urban theory: A critical assessment. Urban Studies, published online before print March 3, 2016, doi: 10.1177/0042098016634002

Topalov, C. (2013). Trente ans de sociologie urbaine. Métropolitiques. URL :http://

Van Damme, S. (2005). Les sciences humaines à l'épreuve de la ville : les enjeux d'une archéologie des savoirs urbains (XVIIeXXe siècles). Revue d'Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 12, 315.

Zukin, S. (1980) A Decade of the New Urban Sociology. Theory and Society, 9 (4), 575601.

Haut de page


Appendix – Cumulative bibliography from researchers on French Urban Studies. Compiled from 14 contributions by researchers working in the field, after requesting “15 inevitable articles according to you, published since 2000, exclusive of books”. This indicative bibliography demonstrates some dispersion among authors, with some recurring ones (14 appear at least twice). The following themes are identified: gentrification, neighbourhood, suburb-segregation, mobility, governance-participation.

Adly, H. (2013). Fonctionnaires internationaux à Genève. Le poids du privilège. Espaces et sociétés (154), 71-85.

Agier, M. (1999). Communautés inventées : les uns sans les autres L’invention de la ville : Banlieues, townships, invasions et favelas (pp. 57-90). Amsterdam : Éditions des archives contemporaines.

Arab, N. (2007). À quoi sert l’expérience des autres ? « Bonnes pratiques » et innovation dans l’aménagement urbain Espaces et sociétés (131), 33-47.

Ascher, F. (2000). Quelle civilisation urbaine à l’échelle planétaire ? In T. Paquot, M. Lussault et S. BodyGendrot (Eds.), La ville et l’urbain : l’état des savoirs (pp. 392-403). Paris : La Découverte.

Ascher, F. (2010). La ville hypermoderne. In A. Masboungi (Ed.), Organiser la ville hypermoderne (pp. 114-130). Paris : Parenthèses.

Authier, J.-Y. (2008). Les citadins et leur quartier. Enquêtes auprès d’habitants des quartiers anciens centraux en France. L’Année sociologique, 58 (1), 21-46.

Authier, J-Y. (2006). La question des effets de quartier en France. Variations contextuelles et processus de socialisation. In J-Y. Authier, M-H. Bacqué, F.Guérin-Pace (eds.), Le Quartier. Enjeux scientifiques, actions politiques et pratiques sociales (pp. 206-216), Paris, La Découverte.

Avenel, C. (2007). Les quartiers dits sensibles entre logique de ghettoïsation et dynamique d’intégration. In M.Bassand, V.Kaufmann, D. Joye (eds.), Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine (pp. 223-248), Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Bacqué, M.-H., Gauthier, Mario. (2011). Participation, Urbanisme et études urbaines. Quatre décennies de débats et d'expériences depuis « A ladder of citizen participation » de S. R. Arnstein. Participations, 1(1), 36-66.

Bacqué, M.-H., Biewener, Carole. (2013). L’empowerment, un nouveau vocabulaire pour parler de participation ? Idées économiques et sociales, 3 (173), 25-32.

Bacqué, M.-H., et Fol, S. (2006). Effets de quartier : enjeux scientifiques et politiques de l’importation d’une controverse In J.-Y. Authier, M.-H. Bacqué et F. Guérin-Pace (Eds.), Le Quartier. Enjeux scientifiques, actions politiques et pratiques sociales (pp. 181-193), Paris, La Découverte.

Bacqué, M-H., Lévy, J-P. (2009). Ségrégation. In J-M. Stébé et H.Marchal (eds),Traité sur la ville (pp. 303-352), Paris, PUF.

Bacqué, M.-H., et Fol, S. (2007). L'inégalité face à la mobilité : du constat à l'injonction. Revue suisse de sociologie (33), 89-104.

Bacqué, M.-H., et Sintomer, Y. (2001). Peut-on encore parler de quartiers populaires ? Espaces et sociétés (108-109), 29-46.

Bacqué, Sintomer, Y. (2010). « Comment nous sommes devenus HLM ». Les opérations de mixité sociale à Paris dans les années 2000. Espaces et sociétés (140-141), 93109.

Barthel, P.-A. et Verdeil, É. (2008). Experts embarqués dans le tournant financier. Des grands projets urbains au sud de la Méditerranée Les Annales de la recherche urbaine (104), 38-48.

Bautès, N., Saglio-Yatzimirsky, M.-C. et Boissinot, É. (2011). Ressources foncières et pression immobilière à Mumbaï. Revue Tiers Monde(206), 55-74.

Béal, V. et Pinson, G. (2009). Du petit chose au « 5th best mayor in the world ». Un maire urbain entre stratégies de légitimation et recherche de ressources pour l’action Pôle Sud, 1(30), 7-29.

Beaud, S. (2002). « Le quartier, entre attachement et rejet In S. Beaud (Ed.), 80 % au bac... et après ? Les enfants de la démocratisation scolaire (pp. 102-135). Paris : La Découverte.

Bégout, B. (2002). La profusion du semblable. In B. Bégout (Ed.), Zeropolis, L'expérience de Las Vegas (pp. 124) : Allia.

Bégout, B. (2002). Urbanités psychotropes In B. Bégout (Ed.), Zeropolis, L'expérience de Las Vegas (pp. 124) : Allia.

Blanc, M.(2007). Gouvernement local et contrôle démocratique.In M.Bassand, V. Kaufmann, D.Joye (eds), Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine (pp. 317-336), Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Bonneval, L. (2014). Les tiers dans le choix du logement : comment les agents immobiliers contribuent à l’élaboration des projets résidentiels Espaces et sociétés(156-157), 145-159.

Bordeuil, J.-S. (2000). La ville desserrée In T. Paquot, M. Lussault et S. Body-Gendrot (Eds.), La ville et l’urbain : l’état des savoirs (pp. 169-182). Paris: La Découverte.

Bordeuil, J.-S. (2004). Cultures, attentions visuelles et orchestration des mobilités. In S. Allemand, F. Ascher et J. Lévy (Eds.), Les sens du mouvement (pp. 207-215). Paris: Belin.

Brennetot, A. (2006). Métropoles idéales pour cadres internationaux. Classement international et réalités sociales Annales de la recherche urbaine(101), 109-118.

Brès, A. et Vanier, M. (2014). Adhérence des réseaux de circulation au « tiers-espace » des régions urbaines: les figures d’une riveraineté des bords de route. Flux(95), 56-64.

Carrel, M., Neveu, Ion, J. (2009). Les intermittences de la démocratie. Formes d’action et visibilités citoyennes dans la ville. In M. Carrel, C. Neveu et J. Ion (Eds.), Les intermittences de la démocratie. Formes d’action et visibilités citoyennes dans la ville (pp. 7-18). Paris: Éditions L'Harmattan.

Cefaï, D. et Lafaye, C. (2002). Le cadrage d’un conflit urbain. Les répertoires d’argumentation et de motivation dans l’action collective In D. Cefaï et I. Joseph (Eds.), L’héritage du pragmatisme, conflits d’urbanité et épreuves de civisme (pp. 371-394). La Tour d'Aigues: Éditions de l'Aube.

Charmes, É. (2005). Le retour à la rue comme support de gentrification. Espaces et sociétés (122).

Charmes, É. (2007). Carte scolaire et clubbisation des petites communes périurbaines Sociétés contemporaines(67), 67-94.

Choplin, A. (2014). Nouakchott: ériger des tours et éradiquer les bidonvilles, ou comment faire rentrer dans la compétition les périphéries du monde. In A. Le Blanc, J.-L. Piermay, P. Gervais-Lambony, M. Giroud, C. Pierdet et S. Rufat (Eds.), Métropoles en débat. (dé)constructions de la ville compétitive (pp. 255-272). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest.

Coëffe, V. (2011). Le tourisme, fabrique d’urbanité. Matériaux pour une théorie de l’urbain. Mondes du tourisme (2), 13 pages.

Collet, A. (2012). Le loft: habitat atypique et innovation sociale pour deux générations de « nouvelles classes moyennes ». Espaces et sociétés (148-149), 37-52.

Cusin, F. (2014). Les dynamiques urbaines au prisme des mobilités résidentielles longues In S. Fol, Y. Miot et C. Vignal (Eds.), Mobilités résidentielles, territoires et politiques publiques (pp. 65-95). Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Damon, J. (2008). Inégalités et pauvretés urbaines. Évolutions mondiales et perspective transnationale. In J. Damon (Ed.), Vivre en ville (pp. 183-208). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

De Maillard, J. (2000). Les chefs de projet et les recompositions de l’action publique Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, 88, 7-17.

Deboulet, A. (2009). De l’épreuve à l’enjeu urbain: gestion du risque et mobilisations collectives autour de la démolition. In M. Carrel, C. Neveu et J. Ion (Eds.), Les intermittences de la démocratie, formes d’action et visibilités citoyennes dans la ville (pp. 101-120). Paris: Éditions l'Harmattan.

Desage, F. (2012). La ségrégation par omission?. Géographie, économie, société, 14(2), 197-226.

Devisme, L., Dumont, M., et Roy, É. (2007). Le jeu des « bonnes pratiques » dans les opérations urbaines, entre normes et fabrique locale. Espaces et sociétés(131), 15-31.

Doidy, É. (2007). Le logement décent et l’épreuve de la réquisition. A propos de la “précarité” des mobilisations de précaires In M. Boumaza et P. Hamman (Eds.), Sociologie des mouvements de précaires. Espaces mobilisés et répertoires d’action (pp. 79-104). Paris: Éditions l'Harmattan.

Donzelot, J. (2004). La ville à trois vitesses: relégation, périurbanisation, gentrification Esprit(303), 14-39.

Dormois, R. (2006). Structurer une capacité politique à l’échelle urbaine. Les dynamiques de planification à Nantes et à Rennes (1977-2001) Revue française de science politique, 56 (5), 837-867.

Duhau, Giglia, A. (2012). De la ville moderne aux micro-ordres de la ville insulaire. Espaces et sociétés(150), 15-30.

Dupont, V. (2010). Création de nomades urbains et appauvrissement. Impact des politiques d’éradication des camps de squatters à Delhi. Revue Tiers Monde(201), 25-45.

Emelianoff, C. (2007). L’hypothèse d’un tournant urbanistique en Europe. L'Information géographique, 71(3), 48-65.

Fourchard, L. (2007). Les rues de Lagos: espaces disputés/espaces partagés. Flux (66-67), 6272.

Fromonot, F. (2012). Manières de classer l’urbanisme Criticat, 8.

Garnier, J.-P. (2010). Une violence éminemment contemporaine. Essais sur la ville, la petite bourgeoisie intellectuelle et l’effacement des classes populaires. Marseille: Agone.

Garnier, J.-P. (2011). Voies et moyens pour le retour d’une pensée critique « radicale » de l’urbain. Paper presented at the Les journées de la Fondation de recherches madrilènes: Ville et reproduction sociale: comment en sortir?, Madrid.

Gilbert, P. (2011). “Ghetto”, “relégation”, “effets de quartier”. Critique d’une représentation des cités. Métropolitiques.

Girard, V. (2014). « Un peuplement au-dessus de tout soupçon? » Le périurbain des classes populaires blanches. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 204(4), 46-69.

Ghorra-Gobin, C. (2004), « L’étalement de la ville américaine. Quelles réponses politiques? », Esprit, n° 303, p. 145-159.

Grafmeyer, Y. (2006). Le quartier des sociologues In J.-Y. Authier, M.-H. Bacqué et F. Guérin-Pace (Eds.), Le Quartier. Enjeux scientifiques, actions politiques et pratiques sociales (pp. 21-31). Paris: La Découverte.

Grafmeyer, Y. (2012). La sociologie urbaine dans le contexte français SociologieS. http://

Gwiazdzinski, L. (2007). Redistribution de cartes dans la ville malléable. Espace populations sociétés, 2-3, 397-410.

Gwiazdzinski, L. (2012). Un possible manifeste. Éloge de l'errance et de la désorientation. In G. Désanges et H. Guenin (Eds.), Erre. Variations labyrinthiques. Catalogue de l'exposition (pp. 52-56). Metz: Éditions Le Centre Pompidou-Metz.

Hamel, P. (2014). Leçons de démocratie urbaine, Questions de communication, n° 25, 6180.

Hamman, P. (2014). Repenser la ville à l’heure des injonctions du développement durable, Questions de communication, n° 25, 81-102.

Hancock, C. (2011). Genre, Identités sexuelles et Justice Spatiale Justice spatiale/Spatial Justice, 3.

Jaillet, M.-C. (2004). Le périurbain: un univers pour les classes moyennes. Esprit, 303 (Mars-avril), 40-61.

Joas, H. (2002). Pragmatisme et sciences sociales. L’héritage de l’école de Chicago. In D. Cefaï et I. Joseph (Eds.), L'héritage du pragmatisme. Conflits d’urbanité et épreuves de civisme: Éditions de l'Aube.

Joseph, I. (1997). Prises, réserves, épreuves, Communications, no 65 (pp. 131-142).

Joseph, I. (2004). Goffman et l’écologie urbaine Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, 95, 130-133.

Jouve, B. (2004). Chapitre introductif « Les nouveaux enjeux de la métropolisation ». In B. Jouve et C. Lefèvre (Eds.), Horizons métropolitains. Lausanne: Éditions Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires romandes.

Kaufmann, V. (2005). Mobilités et réversibilités: vers des sociétés plus fluides?. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 118(1), 119-135.

Kaufmann, V., Marchal, Stébé, J.-M. (2009). Théories. In J.-M. Stébé et H. Marchal (Eds.), Traité sur la ville (pp. 625-667). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Kaufmann, V. (2007) La motilité: une notion clé pour revisiter l’urbain? In M.Bassand, V.Kaufmann, D.Joye (eds) Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine (pp. 171-188), Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Kirszbaum, T. (2015). La politique de la ville ou les infortunes de l’égalité républicaine In T. Kirszbaum (Ed.), En finir avec les banlieues? Le désenchantement de la politique de la ville (pp. 7-32). La Tour d'Aigues: Les éditions de l'Aube.

Launay, L. (2014). Les classes populaires racisées face à la domination dans les beaux quartiers de Paris. Espaces et sociétés (156-157), 37-52.

Le Galès, P. (1995). Du gouvernement des villes à la gouvernance urbaine Revue française de science politique, 45(1), 57-95.

Le Galès, P. (2003). Villes et capitalisme. Les villes européennes sont-elles solubles dans les réseaux du capitalisme? In P. Le Galès (Ed.), Le retour des villes européennes: Sociétés urbaines, mondialisation, gouvernement et gouvernance: Les Presses de Sciences Po.

Lehman-Frisch, S. (2009). La ségrégation: une injustice spatiale? Questions de recherche. Annales de géographie, 665-666, 94-115.

Lelévrier, C. (2010). La mixité dans la rénovation urbaine: dispersion ou reconcentration? Espaces et sociétés (140-141), 59-74.

Lévy, J. (1999). Penser la ville In J. Lévy (Ed.), Le tournant géographique. Penser l’espace pour lire le monde (pp. chapitre « Penser la ville » 2003). Paris: Éditions Belin.

Lévy, J. (2009). Mondialisation des villes In J.-M. Stébé et H. Marchal (Eds.), Traité sur la ville (pp. 667-721). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Lévy, J. (2013). Les sciences sociales, contre, avec et pour la technique In F. Le Bot (Ed.), L'ENS Cachan. Le siècle d'une grande école pour les sciences, les techniques, la société (pp. 113-129). Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Lussault, M. (2009). Urbain mondialisé. In J-M. Stébé, H.Marchal (eds.), Traité sur la ville (pp. 723-711), Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Lussault, M. (2007). Une nouvelle approche des réalités urbaines In M. Lussault (Ed.), L’homme spatial: La construction sociale de l'espace humain: Éditions du Seuil.

Magri, S. (2008). Le pavillon stigmatisé, L’Année sociologique, n° 1, vol. 58, 171-202.

Matthey, L. (2013). Les faiseurs de paysage. Ethnographie d’un projet urbain L'Information géographique, 77(1), 6-24.

Mattina, C. (2007). La transformation des politiques clientélaires de redistribution. Nouvelle gestion urbaine et pratiques politiques à Marseille et à Naples Politiques et management public, 25(1), 1-18.

Missaoui, Tarrius, A. (2006). Villes et migrants, du lieu-monde au lieu-passage Revue européenne des migrations internationales, 22, 43-65.

Mohammed, Marwan « Les voies de la colère: « violences urbaines » ou révolte d’ordre « politique »? L’exemple des Hautes-Noues à Villierssurmarne », Sociologos [En ligne], 2 | 2007, mis en ligne le 18 juin 2007, consulté le 03 septembre 2018. URL: http://

Monnet, J. (2000). Les dimensions symboliques de la centralité Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, 44(123), 399-418.

Nez, H. (2011) « Nature et légitimités des savoirs citoyens dans l'urbanisme participatif. Une enquête ethnographique à Paris », Sociologie 2011/4 (Vol. 2), p. 387-404.

Oblet, T. (2005). Le gouvernement de la ville, la République et la démocratie. In T. Oblet (Ed.), Gouverner la ville. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France.

Paquot, T. (2013). Urbanisme, Urbanologie, études urbaines: l'improbable classification. Hermès, La Revue, 67, (3), 95-100.

Petrescu, D., Querrien, A. et Petcou, C. (2007). Agir urbain. Multitudes(31), 11-15.

Pinson, D. (2000). L’usager de la ville In T. Paquot, M. Lussault et S. Body-Gendrot (Eds.), La ville et l’urbain: l’état des savoirs (pp. 233-243). Paris: La Découverte.

Pinson, G. (2005). Le projet urbain comme instrument d’action publique In P. Lascoumes et P. Le Galès (Eds.), Gouverner par les instruments (pp. 199-233). Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.

Preteceille, E. (2006). La ségrégation contre la cohésion sociale: la métropole parisienne. In H.Lagrange (ed.), L’Épreuve des inégalités (195-247), Paris, Presses universitaires de France.

Préteceille, E. (2006). La ségrégation sociale a-t-elle augmenté? La métropole parisienne entre polarisation et mixité. Sociétés contemporaines(62), 69-93.

Préteceille, E. (2009). La ségrégation ethno-raciale atelle augmenté dans la métropole parisienne? Revue française de sociologie, 50(3), 489-519.

Ramadier, T. (2002). Rapport au quartier, représentation de l’espace et mobilité quotidienne. Espaces et sociétés (108-109), 111-132.

Rousseau, M. (2008) La ville comme machine à mobilité. Capitalisme, urbanisme et gouvernement des corps Métropoles (3), en ligne,​2562

Sassen, S. (2009). La ville globale, retrouver les lieux et les pratiques sociales In S. Sassen (Ed.), La globalisation, une sociologie. Paris: Gallimard.

Scherrer, F. (2010). Le contrepoint des études urbaines et de l’urbanisme: ou comment se détacher de l’évidence de leur utilité sociale Tracés. Revue de sciences humaines, 10. Horssérie, 187-195.

Schmid, C. (2005). Théorie. In R. Diener, J. Herzog, M. Meili, P. De Meuron et C. Schmid (Eds.), La Suisse, un portrait urbain. Bâle: Birkhauser.

Simon, P. (1997). Les usages sociaux de la rue dans un quartier cosmopolite. Espaces et sociétés(90), 43-68.

Smith, N. (2003). La gentrification généralisée: d’une anomalie locale à la “regénération’ urbaine comme stratégie urbaine globale In C. Bidou-Zachariasen (Ed.), Retours en ville (pp. 47-72): Descartes et Cie.

Soares Gonçalves, R. (2013). Une discipline olympique? Le retour des politiques d’éradication des favelas à Rio de Janeiro. Mouvements(74), 24-32.

Söderström, O. (2010). Observer. Urbanisme(370).

Stadnicki, R. (2013). De l’activisme urbain en Egypte: émergence et stratégies depuis la révolution de 2011. EchoGéo(25).

Staszack, J.-F. (2000). Prophéties autoréalisatrices et géographie L’espace géographique (2), 105-119.

Tarrius, A. (2007). Nouvelles formes migratoires, nouveaux cosmopolitismes In
M. Bassand, V. Kaufmann et D. Joye (Eds.), Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine (pp. 135-160). Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Tarrius, A. (2008). Migrations en réseaux et cohabitations urbaines aux bordures de l’Europe L’Année sociologique, 58(1), 71-93.

Thibaud, J.-P. (2010). La ville à l’épreuve des sens In O. Coutard et J.-P. Lévy (Eds.), Ecologies Urbaines (pp. 198-213). Paris: Économica-Anthropos.

Tissot, S. (2010). Quand la mixité sociale mobilise des gentrifieurs. Enquête sur un mot d’ordre militant à Boston Espaces et sociétés(140-141), 127-142.

Tonnelat, S. (2012). La dimension sensible des problèmes publics. La plateforme d’observation du bayou et la viabilité d’un quartier de la Nouvelle Orléans In D. Cefaï et C. Terzi (Eds.), L’expérience des problèmes publics (pp. 163-190). Paris: Éditions EHESS.

Toussaint, J.-Y. (2009). Usages et techniques In J.-M. Stébé et H. Marchal (Eds.), Traité sur la ville (pp. 461-512). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Trom, D. (2007). Le paysage comme représentation et comme volonté. Autour d’un problème public. In O. Fillieule, P. Favre et F. Jobard (Eds.), L’atelier du politiste (pp. 331346). Paris: La Découverte.

Vermeersch, S. (2011). Bien vivre au-delà du « périph »: les compromis des classes moyennes. Sociétés contemporaines(83), 131-154.

Wacquant, L. (2005). Les deux visages du ghetto Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales (160), 4-21.

Haut de page


1 The Conseil National des Universités is a University body that involves qualification and career management for professors-researchers, organised in disciplinary sections. The 24th section is called “space development, urban planning”. The research organization that is CNRS is also composed of sections, managed by institutes. Within the Social Sciences Institute, the 39th section is called “Spaces, Territories and Societies”.

2 Launched in 2005 and nowadays led by the interministerial research and experimentation program PUCA (Plan Urbanisme Construction Architecture), the international APERAU (Association for the Promotion of teaching and research in development – urban planning) and the Institute for the Research of the Caisse des Dépôts group.

3 Reminder: it started from a transatlantic questioning, especially between Québec, the English-speaking part of Canada and France. About the Québec situation, cf. Breux, Collin, Cloutier, Poitras, 2015.

4 From 40 researchers selected and contacted, 14 “played the game” of sending us 15 major texts published since 2000, according to them. The others have either expressed their interest for the adventure or declined for different reasons.

5 Cf. the Champ libre ? L’aménagement et l’urbanisme à l’épreuve des cadres théoriques symposium, January 14-15, 2016, and more specifically in this issue, Juliette Maulat and Mathieu Gimat’s contribution.

6 The purpose of this text is not to reflect on that aspect, but the question of time managing the production of the articles was challenging.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

LAURENT DEVISME et SANDRA BREUX, « Presence-absence of urban studies in France: Challenges and Perspectives »Environnement Urbain / Urban Environment [En ligne], Volume 13 | 2018, mis en ligne le 06 novembre 2018, consulté le 03 décembre 2023. URL :

Haut de page



ENSA-NANTES, UMR AAU. Professor of human sciences at the Graduate Schools of Architecture in France, Laurent Devisme teaches Urban Studies at ENSA Nantes. His research mainly represents an ethnographic approach of urban planning and the analysis of the distributions of the urban fabric within territorial contexts with contested urbanity degrees. The challenges of action theories, of practical meaning for urban planning is also in his research program. He recently conducted, in collaboration with Claud Cohen, L’Architecture et l’urbanisme au miroir des formations (Ed. la. Villette, 2018).

Articles du même auteur


INRS-UCS, Montréal. Professor-researcher at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Urbanisation Culture Society. Director of the Urban Environment journal – this editorial is the opportunity for her to end her mandate as such. To this end, the France/Québec collaboration initiating this issue reflects the directions taken within the journal these past years.

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search