Knowledge metropolises: Roles and functions of two university alliances (BUA & PSL) in Germany’s and France’s capital cities

The growth of research into global university alliances such as the ones within the EUI (Gunn 2020; Lambrechts et al. 2024) suggests that the international dimension of university collaboration is now self-evident, at least in Europe. However, the recent creation of local university alliances seems to be redundant, if not run counter to this idea (Powell and Dusdal 2017). In our paper, we would like to focus on the roles and functions of university alliances located in metropolises (Berlin University Alliance – BUA in Berlin and Paris Sciences et Lettres – PSL in Paris) as objects of both national and international policymaking. As examples of the development of strategic partnerships between HEI in Germany’s and France’s capitals and despite being very different in their purposes, these two alliances aimed at designing a collaborative advantage for their member universities (Gunn and Mintrom 2013). To what extent do these recalibrations and concentrations of differentiation work at a capital city’s level? Based on the principle that institutional theories are solid in explaining the shaping and continuity of HE forms (Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000; Maassen et al. 2023), we emphasize a historical (Thelen 2003) and discursive (Schmidt 2008) approach to institutional variations and changes to address these two university alliances. Against this framework, we approach BUA and PSL as heterarchies (Stark 2009) characterized by willy-nilly interdependencies, between complex collaboration and competing principles of performance and growth, at both national and European levels – thus making it necessary to interrogate the locations of universities within cities, regions, and nation-states (Geipel 1968; Musburger 1998). In the same way that capitals are expected to perform specific functions for their nation-states (Daum 2010), such alliances within Berlin and Paris may be a sign of "wannabe global city regionalism" (Cochrane 2018). To do this, we will rely on official websites, annual reports, strategic plans, mission statements, statutory and procedural documents, and secondary sources. A set of highly descriptive criteria will first be added to the list of policy characteristics of university alliances drawn up by Vukasovic and Stensaker (2016). A discursive analysis of the documents will then enable us to compare the collaboration types and motivations (De Wit 2001) displayed by the key players, but also functions and features defined as being critical for the success of such alliances: are the different entities different yet similar in terms of quality requirements? Are they compatible and complementary, e.g. in terms of disciplinary coverage and inherited prestige? How are they viewed in their respective capitals in the light of their recent historic and current programmatic? We expect that returning to the local scale will enable us to better consider the inclusion of universities as place-based institutions in transnational networks by integrating a multi-level perspective. We believe that there may be synergies with existing research, particularly concerning networks of universities based in major European capitals or cities (such as UNICA or Circle U.), and the difference that this may represent in terms of the relationship to power centers and terms of governance.