Interactive experiences in social science research in Mexico: networking and knowledge mobilization

ABSTRACT

In the social sciences, a direct relationship with societal actors is an extended practice of conducting research, particularly in fields entailing in-depth empirical fieldwork. This paper analyzes the interactive processes observed in knowledge production in social sciences. The aim is to understand how these relationships are constructed between academic and non-academic actors, which is the goal of researchers in approaching social actors in this way, and the scope of these relationships for generating knowledge and addressing societal problems.

Given the modalities of social science research, two frameworks are essential to analyzing these processes. On the one hand, there is the notion of knowledge networks. On the other, knowledge mobilization concerns understanding these processes and their linearity or non-linearity. In this paper, integrating both frameworks helps explain interactive social research.

Based on recent empirical information about social sciences research in Mexico, this paper analyzes the dimensions of the interactive character of knowledge generation in these disciplines. The purpose of the paper is to document how the interactions between academic and non-academic actors are built during research; the characteristics of such collaborations; how the mobilization of knowledge occurs emphasizing learning processes and trust generation.

RESUMO

Nas ciências sociais, a relação direta com os atores sociais é uma prática estendida de fazer pesquisa, principalmente em campos que exigem um trabalho empírico aprofundado. Este artigo analisa os processos interativos que ocorrem na produção do conhecimento nessas disciplinas. O objetivo é compreender como se constroem essas relações entre os atores acadêmicos e não acadêmicos e o alcance dessas relações na geração de conhecimento e atenção aos problemas da sociedade.

Dois quadros analíticos são essenciais para analisar esses processos. De um lado, a noção de redes de conhecimento para abordar as interações. De outro, a mobilização do conhecimento para compreender esses processos e sua linearidade ou não linearidade. Neste artigo, essas duas estruturas são integradas para ajudar a explicar como ocorre a pesquisa social em interação.

Com base em informações empíricas recentes sobre ciências sociais pesquisa no México, este artigo analisa as dimensões do caráter interativo da geração de conhecimento dessas disciplinas. O objetivo do artigo é documentar como as interações entre atores acadêmicos e não acadêmicos são construídas durante a pesquisa; as características de tais colaborações; como ocorre a mobilização do conhecimento, enfatizando os processos de aprendizado e a geração de confiança.

RESUMEN

En las ciencias sociales, la relación directa con los actores sociales es una práctica extendida de hacer investigación, particularmente en campos que requieren trabajo empírico a profundidad. Este trabajo analiza los procesos interactivos que ocurren en la producción de conocimiento en estas disciplinas. El objetivo es comprender cómo se construyen esas relaciones entre actores académicos y no académicos y el alcance de estas relaciones en la generación de conocimiento y en la atención a problemas de la sociedad.

Dos marcos analíticos son esenciales para analizar esos procesos. Por un lado, la noción de redes de conocimiento para aproximarse a las interacciones. Por el otro, la movilización de conocimiento para entender esos procesos y su linealidad o no linealidad. En este trabajo se integran esos dos marcos para ayudar a explicar como ocurre la investigación social en interacción.

Basándose en información empírica reciente sobre la investigación en ciencias sociales en México, se define un conjunto de dimesiones derivadas de los dos enfoques mecionados. Se analizan las características generales de los investigadores y de los actores sociales, así como los procesos de aprendizaje y la complejidad de la investigación en interacción.

KEYWORDS:

• Interactive social research
• networks
• knowledge mobilization
• social sciences

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:

• Pesquisa social interativa
• redes
• mobilização do conhecimento
• ciências sociais

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Investigación social interactiva
• redes
• movilizacion de conocimiento
• ciencias sociales

1. Introduction

In the social sciences, a direct relationship with societal actors is an extended form of conducting research, particularly in fields entailing in-depth empirical fieldwork. Considering information on the actors, their conditions, and the contexts where they live is an essential input for exploring and explaining social problems. This manner of conducting social research has been given various names over time.

Within the social studies of science, the generation and mobilization of knowledge have long been the focus of attention. This type of analysis has been guided by a range of goals. The “strong” program in the sociology of knowledge establishes science as a social process (Bloor 1994), while the social construction of science emphasizes the situated nature of knowledge (Knorr-Cetina 1981). Moreover, scientific knowledge is characterized by its social nature and collective construction (Jassanoff 2006). Because of these contributions to social science, the idea of social interaction has become central to research in this field, adopting a range of conceptualizations.

Since interactions with societal actors play a central role in social science research, it is essential to show how this process takes place. This paper focuses on analyzing the interactive processes observed in knowledge production in social sciences. The aim is to understand how these relationships are constructed between academic and non-academic actors, which is the goal of researchers in approaching social actors in this way, and the scope of these relationships for generating knowledge and addressing societal problems.

Unlike other sciences, the interactive process of knowledge production is a key feature of social sciences. However, there are other ways of generating knowledge. Different forms of knowledge production are present in these disciplines. This paper focuses on what we call social research in interaction.

Given the modalities of social science research, two frameworks are essential to analyzing these processes. On the one hand, there is the notion of knowledge networks. A knowledge network approach enables one to identify the relationships established between actors from different cultures and the factors that make these interactions possible. It also allows the identification of the exchange and flow of knowledge between the academic environment and other social and economic actors during research activities (Casas 2001). Case studies have already documented the interactive nature of these relationships and the way knowledge is generated, exchanged, and mobilized through knowledge flows (Luna 2003). To date, however, most research in this field has concentrated on the natural sciences and engineering.

On the other hand, knowledge mobilization deals with the understanding of these processes and their linearity or non-linearity. It shares analytical dimensions with the idea of knowledge networks. In this paper, integrating both frameworks helps explain interactive social research.

This paper is divided into the following sections. The first section reviews the concepts used to examine the interactive nature of social science research. It discusses the dimensions of these approaches, exploring the concepts of knowledge networks and knowledge mobilization. The second section explains the analytical approach of this research, as well as the main dimensions selected to document interactive processes. It includes an explanation of the sources of the empirical evidence used and the way it was systematized. The third section analyzes the set of dimensions selected to document interactive processes in social science research, as well as their limitations. The last section discusses the scope of the interactive nature of social science research with societal actors.

2. The origin of the interactive approach in social science knowledge production

Discussion of the ways knowledge is produced in social sciences dates to the debate on the purpose of research in these disciplines and their role in society. A key feature is the close interaction with actors who are research subjects. These interactions are essential to framing and problematizing research problems, obtaining first-hand empirical information, and constructing new theoretical and conceptual approaches to understand social phenomena. They are also used to conduct socially relevant research and influence problem-solving.

These ways of producing knowledge through close interaction with actors have given rise to a range of concepts. They have been used at different times to denominate this type of work in the social sciences.

One of the most widely used concepts has been action research and participatory action research. Pettit (2010) notes that those types of research have developed various traditions, some associated with activism and social movements (Freire 1972; Fals Borda 1993). Others are drawn from organizational learning and management, while still others are related to qualitative methods in the social sciences (Bradbury and Reason 2008). From Fals-Borda’s perspective, the goal is the socialization of knowledge and the democratization of the social relations underlying its production. A theoretical-practical relationship is proposed in terms of transformative praxis at the service of the community where one works. This approach emerged as a criticism of development and modernization theories, as a reaction to traditional social sciences, and as part of the politicization that erupted in the late 1960s (Sanguinetti 1980). The two processes, research and action, are assumed to be integrated. In other words, knowledge generation is not regarded as a linear process (Somekh 1995). Aspects such as working together, social responsibility, reflexive action, collaboration, contributions to social change, symmetrical reciprocity, systematic learning processes, and collective knowledge lie at the center of the research processes in these approaches.

This type of research has elicited criticisms of its methodological weakness; theoretical shortcomings; tensions between theory and practice; aggravated activism and bias; and complex power and participation dynamics. However, as Jethro Pettit (2010) notes, these research approaches have spawned the development of a new mentality in social research emphasizing commitment and social participation; new qualitative methods (such as the narrative interview, validation, biographical research, and social ecology); the idea of ⁣⁣combining quantitative and qualitative methods; and the tradition of interactionism in social research.

Another conceptual framework is interactive social science. Woolgar (2000) defines this as an activity style in which researchers, funding agencies, and user groups interact throughout the research process. These activities include setting the research agenda, selecting and undertaking projects, and implementing research findings. Horizontality and bi-directionality are assumed in the knowledge generation process because multiple types of knowledge are recognized (Caswill and Shove 2016). Another meaning is that social science focusing on practical problems is socially and politically relevant and applicable (Greer 2005; Wollmann 2008). This type of knowledge encompasses five complex dimensions (Caswill and Shove 2016). In epistemological terms, knowledge generation is seen as an interactive process (Maturana and Varela 1987): interaction is the basis for new knowledge for effective problem-solving (Lindblom & Cohen 1979); and new knowledge must be created in the interaction between researchers and their “audiences” (Woolgar 2000). Since effectiveness is another distinctive dimension, interaction with ordinary knowledge is regarded as a critical aspect. Legitimacy is achieved by involving people, and therefore including users is a means of demonstrating relevance. Equity and access are central to these forms of research, providing opportunities for positive discrimination by engaging with a broader set of social groups. Lastly, institutional change is envisaged through a closer relationship with the subjects and beneficiaries of their research.

Among the significant challenges faced by interactive social sciences, Caswill and Shove (2000) mention the following: distance from the subject of study; the fact that a high degree of interaction may be detrimental to the adequate development of theory; and the need for quality control of research and its results. Woolgar (2000) suggests that interactive social science requires careful management. Several of these challenges and limitations have also been attributed to participatory action research. However, the five dimensions in the previous paragraph permit a conceptual, theoretical, and methodological discussion to overcome these limitations.

The past few years have seen the emergence of other concepts to account for new ways of producing knowledge and involving social actors. Concepts such as citizen science are widely used in the literature to describe other research methods in which social actors are actively involved as providers of information and knowledge (Cooper 2016). This concept is used in ecology and environmental sciences for sustainable development (Irwin 1995). Some forms of co-production of knowledge are envisaged through this approach. It is a framework that encourages certain forms of research, which are still being discussed as participatory and interactive. This conceptual framework is more oriented toward science and technology public policies. This paper is therefore based on previously used concepts developed in the social sciences to describe their activities and the purpose of these disciplines.

Given the focus of this paper, the concept of knowledge mobilization is important as a tool for analyzing social research processes in interaction. It has been recently used in social (Levin 2008) and health sciences (Davies, Powell, and Nutley 2016). This approach makes it possible to identify the connection between academic research and organizations, actors, sectors, and governments. These connections involve relationship-building processes that can be initiated by academia or a range of actors. This concept emphasizes multidimensionality, a long-term perspective, and often, the political nature of the process (Davies, Powell, and Nutley 2016, 8–11; Levin 2008; Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2007). The main concern is “how contemporary societies might strengthen the connections between research and evidence, on the one hand, and policy and practice, on the other hand” (Levin 2008, 2). Evidence has shown that these processes “help make academic research accessible to non-academic audiences and support collaboration between academic and non-academic partners such as community organizations” (Phipps et al. 2016, 31). It involves the systematic exchange between academics and non-academics through networks, collaboration, and infrastructure for the creation, mobilization, and exchange of knowledge. In its most advanced form, Phipps et al. (2016, 33) conceive it as a co-production model for impact, in other words, a process that supports action-oriented research and uses novel approaches to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. As Rojas-Rajs and Miguel Natera (2019, 120) note, knowledge mobilization involves “a reciprocal, complementary flow of knowledge based on research, which circulates between researchers, agents, and users of knowledge.”

The idea of knowledge mobilization is essential from the perspective of the social, political, and economic impact of knowledge generated by social research. However, the primary interest of this paper is knowing how these processes occur, the role played by each actor, the type of knowledge exchanged, its effect on the generation of new knowledge, and its influence on the actions and policies of other actors. The aim is also to determine whether these types of research have contributed to the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological progress of social disciplines.

In this respect, knowledge mobilization is closely linked to the idea of knowledge networks used before to explore the study of knowledge generation and sharing. Knowledge networks are conceived as exchange and communication processes between academic and non-academic actors (Casas 2001; Luna 2003; Casas and Luna 2011). These exchanges entail the existence of previous relevant research capacities; extended learning processes between actors with different interests; the changing roles of actors in interactive processes; trust building between actors; a set of informal and formal relationships (bilateral, multilateral, and recursive); tacit and codified knowledge sharing; types of knowledge flows (conventional, cutting-edge or interdisciplinary); geographic and space proximity; and different types of leadership. Knowledge networks are built based on social relations and involve direct interaction between academic and non-academic actors.

These dimensions explaining the interactive processes that give rise to knowledge networks complement the aspects mentioned in the knowledge mobilization approach. The knowledge networks approach has also considered dimensions such as interactiveness, horizontality and bi-directionality, and the exchange of different types of knowledge that encourage interactive social research. The analysis of evidence incorporates the discussion between this set of dimensions.

3. Methodology: analytical approach and information sources

This paper was constructed within the framework of participation in two collective projects in progress on social science research. The first is entitled Research in Social Sciences. Tensions between the Generation and Application of Knowledge (Conacyt, A1 S-37488). It analyzes how knowledge is generated and mobilized in social science research, focusing on specific social science fields. Some of this research, on which this paper is based, has already been published at the time of writing (Casas, Contreras, Hualde, and Puga 2023).¹ The second is the Institutional Seminar on Social Research and its Forms of Interaction with Society, co-organized in 2021.² This was a monthly academic seminar, in which a group of researchers were invited to present and discuss their experiences in social research on interaction with various social actors. From this seminar, I chose a set of ten interaction research experiences analyzed and presented by researchers at the Seminar, based on a script established by the seminar coordinators. From video-recorded presentations of these experiences,³ a set of characteristics of interactive social research was systematized for this paper. It is an exploratory, qualitative study based on empirical evidence of the researchers’ experiences with and reflections on interactive social research.

A set of dimensions were defined for this analysis based on knowledge networks and knowledge mobilization approaches. A first group of dimensions considers general characteristics of researchers and social actors: the disciplinary background of researchers; researchers’ rationality or conceptions about interaction research; the kinds of orientations guiding their research activities; and the type of social actors with whom researchers interact. A second set of dimensions explores the advances in building knowledge networks and the scope of knowledge mobilization: the complexity of learning processes, the importance of trust building, and the type of knowledge shared or mobilized.

A qualitative analysis of previous dimensions was undertaken by identifying each researcher’s experience through a code to preserve their anonymity. The experiences of the ten researchers included in this study encompass different disciplines and research subjects (Table 1).

4. Analyzing interaction research experiences

The analytical dimensions mentioned in the previous section are documented in Tables 1 and 2. Systematized information is complemented with specific references to researchers' experiences as they were referred to during the Seminar.

Table 1. Researchers: disciplines, research subjects, and social actors.

Researcher’s interactive experience code	Discipline	Research subjects	Social actors
IRE1	Sociology	Gender relations.	Professional women.
IRE2	Anthropology	Sustainable development and socio-environmental public policies.	Peasants and rural communities.
IRE3	Engineering and social systems sciences	Resource management for rural development.	Peasants and farmers.
IRE4	Rural sociology	Social actors involved in renewable energy megaprojects.	Local communities, governments, “caciques,” ejido commissioners, priests.
IRE5	Applied social sciences	Social movements as a way of doing politics. Dynamics of collective action.	Social movements and environmental activists
IRE6	Chemical engineering, political science, and human geography	Transnational coalition building by civil society organizations in the three North American countries. Regulatory instruments.	Environmental activist organizations, government institutions, secretariats, and international organizations.
IRE7	Biology, social anthropology	Environmentalists, residents, and researchers in the fight for conservation.	Rural social movements, environmental movements, and researchers.
IRE8	Cultural anthropology	Free School Counseling Program for migrant children and adolescents.	Migrant children.
IRE9	Social sciences, public policies	Institutional model for governance and social coordination.	Local governments, social organizations, communities, companies, and citizens.
IRE10	Human geography	The relationship between agricultural extractivism, territorial inequalities, and migration.	Migrant people.

Source: Data compiled from video-recorded presentations at the Institutional Seminar on Social Research and its Forms of Interaction with Society, 2021 (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query = Seminario + Institucional + Las + investigacion + social + y + sus + formas+).

Table 2. Dimensions of interaction research experiences.

Researcher’s interactive experience code	Learning processes, trust, and knowledge exchange
IRE1	It is based on long-term dialogue with the people or groups under study. Knowledge sharing occurs mainly with academics from other disciplines.
IRE2	Research entails a collective reflection on reality with the subjects under study. Learning is acquired through long-term interactive processes that can last up to fifteen years. Social commitment is more important than objectivity. Interaction research gives rise to knowledge dialogues and a multidiscipline approach.
IRE3	Social research involves the joint negotiation of interests with the subjects under study. It also achieves solutions through thoughtful joint action. Academic, farm workers’, and farmers' knowledge is relevant. Social change is based on the interaction between community knowledge and modern scientific knowledge.
IRE4	Networks are created to be able to conduct research. Academic experience is mediated by everyday experience and negotiations. Difficulties in building trust: when social actors are continuously interviewed or are reluctant to participate as subjects of research. This form of research implies knowledge production and sharing between scholars and communities. The exchange of knowledge involves a large proportion of intangibles that are difficult to document.
IRE5	The learning process sheds light on what others feel and why they oppose or associate with other actors. Building trust with social actors sometimes happens quickly and at others requires a long time. The relationship is maintained in the long term. Knowledge sharing has implications for mutual enrichment: new research results, questions and knowledge, and self-reflection.
IRE6	Building interactions with non-academic actors is fundamental to decolonizing social research. Strong relationships are crucial to undertaking research. Long-term learning is essential. Ethnography requires long-term thinking, through the collective identification of a problem.
IRE7	Close interactions with research subjects are essential to understanding social movements. The behavioral codes of various actors should be considered in social research, together with subjectivities in social research. It is important to understand multiple ontologies, in other words, the different perspectives of actors. Researchers play a range of roles, whether academic, political, or ethical. Ethnography involves a two-fold commitment: to the research itself and to the subjects studied.
IRE8	The aim is to bring research work down to reality and connect with the actors: by generating public opinion and helping solve problems. Once research has been completed and knowledge accumulated, the researcher must encourage participatory actions with the actors under study.
IRE9	It is essential to do the following: Mobilize accumulated research capacities and promote a social dialogue, by creating spaces for academics and non-academics to meet. Trust building can be achieved through workshops and forums. Models of dissemination and socialization of knowledge: these involve training government and social actors and exchanging tacit, codified knowledge.
IRE10	Permanent interaction with non-academic actors: from the identification of problems. Bottom-up construction of social problems and information. Material contributions to non-academic actors. Non-academic actors are considered in academic events within academic spaces. The researcher encourages social actors in the interactive process. Permanent exchange of academic and local knowledge.

Source: Data compiled from video-recorded presentations at the Institutional Seminar on Social Research and its Forms of Interaction with Society, 2021 (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Seminario+Institucional+Las+investigacion+social+y+su+formas+).

4.1. General characteristics of researchers and social actors

4.1.1. Background, rationality, orientations

The ten cases of research experience concern social and cultural anthropology, sociology, social sciences, and applied social sciences. Three of the ten researchers hold bachelor’s degrees in biology, engineering, and chemical engineering, in addition to a doctorate in social sciences. The disciplinary range of these ten researchers is broad and includes social researchers with a multidisciplinary background and a particular focus on anthropology and sociology.

As for the research rationality, participatory action research and applied social research have been explicitly mentioned in combination with other similar or complementary orientations. Although the ten researchers have similar views on the social function of research, they use a range of concepts to express them: “engaged research,” “shared research with societal actors,” “ethical and moral commitment to communities,” “co-production of knowledge,” “bringing research work down to actors” and “collective construction of knowledge.” None of them mentioned the concept of “social impact,” a term of extended use in science and technology policies, although some referred to “social compensation” as a common concern and an unresolved challenge in these types of research.

The research undertaken in these experiences combines academic interests with those of social groups: social action, social change, academic activism, political participation, and the creation of an institutional model seeking to make academic knowledge both useful and transformative. There is concern about ensuring ethical behavior toward research subjects, as well as critical reflections on the methodologies of participatory research. These research orientations and rationalities reveal their proximity to participatory action research approaches, although only two researchers explicitly mentioned this (Table 1: IRE2; IRE10).

These experiences are characterized by the diversity of interactive research forms, as Pettit argues (2010). This evidence confirms the desirability of acknowledging the breadth of approaches when referring to interactive forms of social science research rather than pigeonholing it as a single orientation, such as “impact” or “incidence.”

It is possible to identify at least three different positions or rationalities. The first treats the involvement of researchers with societal actors cautiously, raising the need to maintain a certain distance, avoid political or ideological involvement, and engage in epistemological monitoring. The second envisages the solution of problems, the generation of valuable, relevant knowledge, and capacity building in non-academic actors to provide answers and solutions to improve the quality of life, ranging from understanding to intervention. The third proposes decolonizing thought to understand subjectivities, knowledge, and power relations, eschewing the imposition of an academic perspective on social actors and seeking forms of compensation for the subjects under study.

4.1.2. Types of social actors

Although the researchers participating in the Seminar were not deliberately selected, there is a striking degree of similarity in the type of actors or subjects with whom they interact during their research. There is a predominance of actors located in rural areas, such as farm workers, agrarian communities, rural social movements, environmental social movements, migrants, and migrant organizations (Table 1). This set of IRE has also involved international organizations, local governments, and congressional representatives, albeit to a lesser extent. However, results from the collective research project already mentioned document that interaction research extends to many societal actors such as civil society organizations, as well as local and regional governments (Casas et al. 2023).

4.2. Trends in knowledge networking and mobilization

The ten interaction research experiences (IRE) identified different knowledge generation and mobilization strategies. Each experience is unique, entailing different processes of rapprochement and learning with non-academic actors, and ways of building levels of trust, and exchanging knowledge. These experiences are briefly summarized Table 2, emphasizing their distinctive features.

From this table, it is possible to identify key aspects in the discussion of interactive social research and major challenges. From now on, the discussion will focus on the three dimensions of social interaction research: the learning process, trust-building, and knowledge exchange and mobilization. Other key issues raised by researchers participating in the Seminar have intentionally been excluded from this paper, such as the combination of theory and practice; objectivity vs. social commitment; and the decolonization of social research. These important aspects are discussed in a book currently under review (Casas, Montes de Oca, and Ruiz Coronel 2023).

4.2.1. Learning process

The relevance of formal and informal interactions among researchers and other social actors or “subjects of research,” as many researchers call them, is a key issue in the knowledge networks approach. These processes are constructed at various points in the research and negotiated between competing interests. Some academics agree that interactions with “subjects of research” begin with the collective identification of problems shedding light on what others feel and why they oppose or associate with other actors. These learning processes make it possible to understand behavioral codes and ontologies. Construction of these relationships involves negotiating between the competing interests of the actors involved, as well as the implementation of joint actions to solve practical problems, such as those of farm workers and farmers (IRE3). Within these processes, a collective reflection on reality for action takes place (IRE2), as well as a bottom-up construction of social problems and information (IRE10). Certain methodological strategies, such as ethnography, allow relationship building (IRE5). A shared position on learning processes is that solid relationships are essential to developing research, and that these processes are constructed in the long term, sometimes over a period of more than ten years (IRE6, IRE10).

This has been documented in other scientific fields (Casas 2001; Luna 2003). It is therefore possible to hypothesize that research in interaction with societal actors is a lengthy process. The creation of knowledge networks entails both formal and informal interactions in the long term. This poses a challenge for science and technology policies seeking to promote these interactions through two- or three-year funding.

4.2.2. Trust building

Building trust is crucial to the process of knowledge networking, which involves interpersonal relationships. It is essential for the exchange and flow of knowledge during the research process. Researchers participating in the Seminar pointed to the ongoing dialogue required in interactive social research with other actors and the complexity of building trust with them. Interactions promoted from the side of academia are often regarded as hierarchical by societal actors. Some researchers state that those difficulties arise when social actors are continuously interviewed by different researchers, leading to a reluctance to participate as “subjects of research” (IRE4). Others have found that building trust with social actors sometimes happens quickly and at others requires more time (IRE5). Still others argue that difficulties in building trust lie in “colonial research thinking” or “scientific extractivism” (IRE7), mediated by power relations between academics and research subjects.

Since this constitutes a barrier to knowledge networking, researchers have developed specific strategies as part of research projects. These include organizing workshops and forums with the participation of a range of social actors (IRE9), training courses (IRE9), invitations to non-academic actors to participate in academic events within academic spaces (IRE10), establishing friendly relationships (IRE6), and making material contributions to societal actors (IRE10).

Building trust is crucial to knowledge mobilization, a process linked to social learning between actors over a long period.

4.2.3. Knowledge sharing and mobilization

This dimension of analysis is central to understanding the scope of interactive social research. In previous research, we documented that knowledge exchanges involve various kinds of knowledge (academic and non-academic), major repercussions on the generation of new knowledge for academia, and relevance for the non-academic actors with whom they interact (Casas 2003). The mobilization of knowledge is essential for solving specific problems, and is generally shared by using tacit knowledge through intangibles (Casas 2001).

The evidence gathered from experiences of interaction research in social sciences suggests that knowledge sharing and mobilization occur because of two main characteristics. On the one hand, it is supported by multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge practices (IRE1, IER2), and on the other, it takes place through a continuous dialogue between scientific and local or community knowledge (IRE3, IRE4).

Researchers acknowledge the importance of non-academic knowledge for research and for improving actors’ quality of life (IRE3). Farm workers and farmers have in-depth knowledge of their environment and activities. Moreover, the solution to their problems warrants joint thoughtful action and interaction between community knowledge and modern science. Participatory action-research involves the permanent exchange of academic and local knowledge (IRE10).

As has been observed in other scientific fields, the exchange of knowledge in interactive social research involves a large proportion of intangibles that are difficult to document (IRE4) yet constitute the main means of knowledge mobilization. Knowledge sharing has implications for mutual enrichment: new research results, questions, and knowledge, and self-reflection (IRE5). Knowledge co-construction is possible but requires long-term interactions between academic and non-academic actors (IRE6).

Two positions regarding knowledge mobilization were identified. Most researchers argue that the entire research process is characterized by interaction and knowledge mobilization (permanent dialogue and interaction), from problem formulation to problem solution. However, two other researchers maintain that “once the research is over and knowledge has been accumulated, then the researcher should engage in participatory actions with the actors under study” (IRE8) “mobilizing previously built research capacities” (IRE9). This position has been documented previously (Casas et al. 2022) and implies a linear approach to knowledge mobilization. However, social dialogue is established with societal actors after knowledge capacities have been built, in an attempt to influence social change by creating spaces for academics and non-academics to meet (IRE9).

5. Final remarks

This paper has documented that social sciences research, mainly when it develops in interaction with other social actors, reveals its social nature and collective construction. In these processes interaction is at the center of knowledge generation. The ten research experiences systematized in this paper provide evidence of the interactive nature of social science research with societal actors.

Based on empirical evidence supplied by a body of researchers, it was possible to identify specific characteristics of the complex interactive processes in social research. Due to the widespread rationale of social responsibility among this set of social science researchers, research in close interaction with social actors is not uncommon in Mexico, particularly in disciplines such as anthropology and sociology.

This paper demonstrates that interactive relationships with social actors are built in a range of ways and to varying extents. Some are based on linear trends, while others involve developing horizontal processes with social actors that lead to the equitable mobilization of different types of knowledge, whether academic, traditional, or local. One of the challenges expressed by researchers participating in the Seminar is integrating the explanation and understanding of specific social problems and their solutions into collective learning. There is a shared concern among researchers with overcoming the limitations of these forms of research. These limitations include guaranteeing the quality of research, and maintaining distance from the subjects under study, while at the same time, giving back the knowledge and information obtained to the subjects who have been researched. These are some of the debates and challenges faced by social interaction research.

The purpose of this paper was to contribute to understanding how knowledge is generated and mobilized in the social sciences, and to shed light on the complexity of these processes. The knowledge networks framework provided useful dimensions for extending the analysis of interactive social research. Learning processes, trust building, knowledge sharing, and mobilization are key dimensions for understanding the scope and impact of interaction research. These analytical dimensions were identified in the ten academics' experiences shared in the institutional Seminar in 2021. This framework is relevant for analyzing how knowledge generates in social sciences research. The data collected show that the ten interaction research experiences have yet to solve specific problems.

More empirical work, however, is required if the analytical purpose extends to documenting the actual possibilities of social research to contribute to solving society's problems. Besides, reflective exercises with such social actors on their experiences in social sciences projects are needed to provide objective evidence on the social incidence of research.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, new horizons for academic research have been discussed internationally, and new public policies implemented to encourage the mobilization of social knowledge. They range from responsible research (Vasen 2017) to science for action (ISC 2023), and advocate more robust, effective relationships between science, policy, and society to inform decision-making and steer action towards desired outcomes. However, the results of the analysis in this essay suggest that even if social science researchers look for collaborative actions and contributions to societal actors, problem-solving exceeds their possibilities.

Knowledge produced by social sciences is essential to understanding and explaining social problems. Nevertheless, other processes are also required to allow the social uses of these knowledge capacities. If science and research policies seek to promote incidence in society, they should consider the complexity involved in the generation and mobilization of social sciences knowledge. Science policies face enormous challenges for enabling positive relationships between science, technology, and society. As this paper has shown, interactive social research is a complex social procedure entailing long-term learning and trust building, which depends on multiple factors, among others, the type of societal actors involved as well as the social, economic, and political context.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This paper is a partial result of the research project “Research in Social Sciences. Tensions between the generation and application of knowledge” financed by the Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías (CONACYT, A1 S-37488) in which the author participates.

Notes on contributors

Rosalba Casas

Rosalba Casas Sociologist (UNAM-México); MSc in history and socio politics of Science (Université de Montréal Canada); DPhil in Science and Technology Policy (University of Sussex, UK). National Researcher-III (SNI.México). Regular Member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. Director of the Social Research Institute (UNAM-México) 2005–2013. Research fields: History of science and technology policies; socio economic impacts of new technologies; networks in knowledge generation and mobilization; regional development and social inclusion.

Notes

1 It was collectively conceived and organized with colleagues Cristina Puga (FCPyS/ CEPHCIS-UNAM), Oscar Contreras, and Alfredo Hualde (Colef) in 2018.

2 It was also collectively conceived and organized with colleagues Hubert Carton de Grammont, Laura Montes de Oca, and Ali Ruiz Coronel, researchers at the Social Research Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico (IIS-UNAM).

3 Videos of these monthly seminars in 2021 are available to the public on the IIS-UNAM YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query = Seminario±Institucional±Las±investigacion±social±y±sus±formas+).