Interaction turns in knowledge production: actors, problems and methodologies

As dynamic and situated phenomena, scientific practices and contents are in constant transformation. The complexity of the world we live in, with issues related to health, environment, food, and energy, together with intersectional inequalities, highlight the limitations of knowledge production organized within rigid disciplinary structures and traditional systems of valuation. These aspects have been analyzed by numerous authors (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Gibbons et al. 1994; Hoffmann, Thompson Klein, and Pohl 2019; Jasanoff 2004; Lemos and Morehouse 2005; Nowotny 2001; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2008; Vessuri 2004).

The complexity of several contemporary problems is addressed by some knowledge production which aims at their transformation and, in some cases, their solution. Indeed, the focus of this Cluster of articles is to analyze and share experiences that challenge hegemonic processes of knowledge production. Specifically, these are based on the idea that knowledge production is autonomous and that the appropriate domain for knowledge production is the scientific or academic space. However, in recent decades, various shifts have taken place, such as the participatory turn (Jasanoff 2003; Nowotny 2001), which questions such principles.

Thus, the participation of various social actors from different fields, such as public policies, social organizations, the productive structure or those directly affected by a problem, are presented as subjects of knowledge that introduce a richer and more meaningful representation of the problems and their possible solutions. The involvement of new and diverse actors acknowledges the partiality, fallibility, and ubiquity of knowledge (Haraway 1988; Harding 1992; Jasanoff 2003; Nowotny 2001; Vessuri 2004), in contrast to the universal claim of academic knowledge. The different trajectories and experiences of these actors enable two movements: the incorporation of varied local knowledge, and the reconfiguration of their traditional roles. They become legitimate interlocutors capable of influencing epistemic and methodological definitions (Fals Borda 1979; Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008, 2010; Jasanoff 2003; Nowotny 2001).

However, the participation of new actors challenges academic disciplines because it encourages them to broaden their perspectives and the issues they address. The integration of different forms and practices of knowledge, both disciplinary and experiential, can be understood as the convergence and synthesis of diverse interests, conflicts, and approaches around a problem and its possible solutions. This dynamic and exchange allows diversity and the promotion of mutual respect and accessibility to knowledge (Pohl et al. 2021). To promote the integration of knowledge and experiences of societal and academic actors in interaction, methodologies are reconfigured or designed to allow different pathways. This leads to the creation of various methods based on contextualized needs for knowledge production (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Nowotny 2001). Thus, the development and application of diverse methods aim to conduct research associatively with social actors as co-producers, promoting co-discovery.

The inclusion of varied actors in knowledge production processes and the promotion of a perspective that transcends disciplinary boundaries can respond to three interconnected concerns. Firstly, there is a democratic concern that questions who has the right to participate in defining problems and developing their solutions through knowledge production. Secondly, there is an epistemic concern that refers to the appropriate combination of knowledge and experience to identify and address complex social issues. Lastly, there is a concern about revising the standards of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality, which requires taking into account other systems of knowledge (Felt et al. 2016; Harding 1992; Vessuri 2004). As suggested by Tengö et al. (2014), cross-fertilization between different knowledge systems can provide new evidence and enhance the capacity to interpret conditions, changes, and responses to problems. This integration, along with its tensions, varies depending on the questions posed, the combination of experiences, the degree of coordination and communication, time, trust, and responsibilities of different actors (Hoffmann, Pohl, and Hering 2017; Thompson Klein 2012).

This trend is reflected in a prolific literature within Science and Technology Studies (STS) and inter and transdisciplinary studies (ITS), among other fields (Bunders, et al., 2010; Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Gibbons et al. 1994; Hessels and van Lente 2008; Nowotny 2001; Regeer 2009; Sutz et al. 2019; Vessuri, Bocco, and Burgos 2012; Vienni Baptista 2016, among others). This combined body of literature has sought to systematize and analyze how these processes develop, who participates, what types of questions and problems are addressed, what methods are put into practice and what results emerge.

The theoretical and methodological contributions of both fields – STS and ITS –, although arising in different contexts and at different times, address the tensions and demands faced by the production of knowledge when problematizing complex social problems. In this way, they shape epistemic and methodological alternatives aimed at improving knowledge production processes and aligning them with the specific demands of their contexts and emerging problems, with the goal of transformation. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on ensuring that the knowledge produced is used, mobilized, and circulated among the actors involved in its creation. Mobilization of knowledge serves to understand its practical application through reciprocal and complementary flows, which in turn enhances the category of social utility of knowledge (Alonso et al. 2021; Naidorf 2014; Naidorf and Perrota 2015).

This Thematic Cluster aims to contribute to the recognition of the diverse practices that emerge with different characteristics, depending on the context in which they arise, the problems they address, and the characteristics of the actors involved, among other aspects. These practices enrich the diversity of forms that knowledge production in interaction processes can take. The goal of these practices is not only to co-construct more robust knowledge but also to mobilize it among the different interacting actors, aiming at problem transformation or solution. The idea of this Cluster emerged from our own practices and experiences as researchers and collaborators in the design of university research policies. We are concerned with the interaction among different actors in processes of knowledge production and the construction of situated knowledge agendas for transformation processes (Goñi Mazzitelli, Zeballos Lereté, and Bianco Bozzo 2021).

The questions proposed to guide the contributions to the Cluster were: How are practices and methods transformed throughout processes of knowledge production in interaction? How are the relationships among actors established? What problems do they jointly address? How are different types of knowledge recognized and integrated in an interactive process? What are the roles played by diverse societal actors in processes of knowledge production? What kind of skills do researchers need to develop to face interacting knowledge production processes? How do interaction processes foster symmetrical relationships between actors and their knowledge? What learning processes and conflicts characterize knowledge production in interaction? What type of policies and policy instruments are suitable for the promotion of knowledge production processes in interaction among multiple actors? What can we learn from policy initiatives? How is a new heuristic for knowledge production considered on the part of academic evaluation practices?

To guide authors and proposals, we defined three initial axes to organize the articles: actors, problems, and methodologies. Nonetheless, the complexity of the topics and situations addressed by the contributions surpassed the discrete classification in three groups. In essence, this reflects the heterogeneity of the STS field and the fact that the central theme of this Cluster integrates various layers and can be approached from heterogeneous and complementary visions.

Our Cluster

From different places of enunciation, with diverse objects of study, and analytical perspectives, the articles in this Cluster address multidimensional problems which portray a variety of interactive modes of knowledge production. We received a total of 21 article proposals, selected 13 of them, and finally published 10 articles after a peer review process involving more than 30 reviewers to whom we are grateful. In summary, this Cluster offers 10 articles from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay portraying a colorful picture of knowledge production processes in interaction.

The article by Valentina Pereyra Ceretta and Juan Martin Dabezies, “‘Keep trying and you will keep finding.’ Social knowledge production regarding the use of medicinal plants in rural communities from Uruguay,” analyzes the social production of knowledge of medicinal plants in three groups of rural women who gather and commercialize plants in Uruguay. Their article shows the idea of thinking of the domestic space not as a place of monotonous and repetitive work, but as a place where cognitive processes of creation, modification, and adaptation of knowledge and practices actually take place. The participants of this research, while passing through this “bridge space among women,” have been (re)building connections among themselves, have recovered collective memories about health and care, and have also recovered or reconnected with that marginalized knowledge.

Matthieu Hubert’s contribution – “Imagining futures within the constraints of the present. The coproduction of anticipatory knowledge in an energy scenarios platform in Argentina” – analyzes a participatory process for the coproduction of anticipatory knowledge among multiple actors concerned with the energy matrix in Argentina. The possibility to choose and negotiate possible futures regarding energy emerges as the tangible result of scenario building exercises involving public administrators, academia, civil society, and investors. The participatory method studied in this article builds anticipatory knowledge in an exercise that legitimizes and builds consensus through the participatory process and the use of technical expertise as a way of locking-in the future.

In “The spatial dimension in university-social environment interactions. A proposal for the Argentine case,” Pablo Sánchez Macchioli, Mariana Eva Di Bello, and Fernanda Andrea Soca analyze how the spatial dimension is incorporated in interactions between universities and their environments based on three ideal-types of interaction: scientific-technological poles, the establishment of networks, and the university as a locale. A characteristic spatial arrangement of university-social environment interactions is the conformation of the Scientific and Technological Pole (STP), a place or site wherein the university – either via research institutes, the participation of scientific personnel, or the use of equipment for research, knowledge, and development, connects with other scientific and/or productive organizations. In this article, the authors challenge readers to think of space in university–social environment interactions as a product of the different situations of interaction that are contingent and enable or restrict the possibilities of generating lasting impacts.

From a phenomenological approach of three different experiences, in “Knowing from conflict: interculturality as a space of interaction for the production of knowledges,” Adela Parra-Romero problematizes the interaction between diverse actors for knowledge production. In this text, it is interesting to emphasize that all interaction, and more so between diverse actors, is already a space of conflict. She argues that the concept of interculturality and the practice of knowledge production based on it, will allow more symmetrical processes, with better knowledge, with a greater empowerment of non-academic communities, and with a more inclusive knowledge production on the part of academic communities. Interculturality can help to produce an interaction that incorporates conflict as an expression of ontological difference, which enhances its transformative character by recognizing asymmetries, establishing meeting points, and rethinking the methods used in interaction.

In “Understanding mechanisms of knowledge co-production in peace research projects supported by international cooperation,” Carlos Mauricio Nupia and Laura Valencia analyze the Colombian experience to understand the interaction between local and scientific knowledge in research projects on peace and peacebuilding, and reflect on what types of problems emerge when local and scientific knowledge interact within the context of international cooperation projects. Knowledge co-production takes place when the conceptual approaches of academia and local knowledge interact and give up their original conceptual claims to shape innovative concepts that bring a new perspective on how peacebuilding occurs.

Rosalba Casas, in “Interactive experiences in social science research in Mexico: networking and knowledge mobilization,” offers a characterization of different interactive styles of social science research based on a set of analytical dimensions considered in the literature. These identify the stage of the knowledge production process in which interactivity is generated, distinguishing epistemological processes, field work, the benefits of knowledge, and institutional and social change. Subsequently, she analyzed the modalities in the mobilization of knowledge to determine the degree of progress toward interactive processes, the different types of knowledge recognized, and the symmetrical relationships: linear, relational, and systemic. Her analysis suggests that even if social science researchers look for collaborative actions and contributions to societal actors, problem-solving exceeds their possibilities, and other processes are required to allow the social uses of these knowledge capacities.

The contribution from Spain by Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro and Alejandra Boni, “Enlarging the knowledge transfer realm through engagement with research stakeholders: a conversation attempt with action research,” analyzes the suitability of introducing action research in knowledge transfer studies by conducting interviews with some of the most influential researchers in the field. Action research builds communicative spaces to increase engagement with research stakeholders, fosters interpretation of research results outside universities in order to meet current demands to achieve higher societal impact. Engagement is highlighted as a source of key concepts and improved interpretation of results in knowledge transfer studies.

In “Epistemic activism and the production of spatial knowledge in Argentina,” Oscar Vallejos, Norma Levrand, and Gabriel Matharan analyze the existence of spatial activism, as part of what is called “epistemic activism.” Spatial knowledge construction is part of a collective activity that the authors analyzed for the case of an activist group in the city of Santa Fe. Based on the contributions made by Science, Technology and Social Studies, the contents of the maps presented in this article are studied in the dynamics of their production, their social forms of legitimation, and how they entered the ecology of spatial knowledge, being differentiated from knowledge or maps that are produced by academic, state or company experts.

In “Knowledge mobilization in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) researchers: an approach to the Mexican national health system,” Juan Carlos García-Cruz and J. Alexandre Oliveira Vera-Cruz present the mobilization of knowledge regarding a pressing health problem in Mexico involving researchers in public institutions, health practitioners, and patients. Their contribution integrates a horizontal model of knowledge mobilization within the innovation system acknowledging the interdependence among mediating factors, mobilizing agents, and channels focused on a healthcare agenda.

Finally, in “One alternative health device! A methodological proposal to analyze research projects' orientation toward national health problems,” José Miguel Natera and Soledad Rojas-Rajs address research evaluation systems and develop an assessment tool to improve research project consideration in evaluation processes, particularly in developing countries. Evidently, research evaluation influences knowledge production and the way researchers design and conduct their inquiries. This article focuses on health-related research projects to propose and operationalize a resourceful device combining the consideration of use, the search of fundamental knowledge, and societal participation. In so doing the authors claim that interactions between science projects and societal groups can increase knowledge application aimed at peoples’ wellbeing.

All the articles and contributions that make up this Cluster, as well as the work of editing and proofreading, tended to analyze as well as to make explicit the turns and changes that occur when different actors are integrated into knowledge production processes. Thus, as presented in the different articles, working within an interactive knowledge production process is not something that occurs automatically, nor is there a single path that leads to success.

We would especially like to thank the authors who faced the writing process with responsibility and critical thinking. Undoubtedly, their intellectual contributions transcend the written pages. We also thank the reviewers. To them we send our recognition for assuming the task of evaluating with commitment. Finally, we extend our affection and thanks to the editorial team of Tapuya. Their support throughout the process was substantive and enriching. For those of us who proposed this Cluster, the set of articles published offers a rich toolbox. Each of them, in its own way, is necessary and useful to problematize the state of knowledge production in general and in interaction in particular. We invite you to read them critically. Our expectation is to encourage the emergence of more questions than answers.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

María Goñi Mazzitelli

María Goñi Mazzitelli: Bachelor in Sociology, Master's in Science, Technology and Society and Doctor in Social Sciences (University of Buenos Aires, Argentina). Her research agenda is focused on the analysis of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge production among various academic and non-academic actors. Her other line of research focuses on gender and intersectional inequalities in academia. She has participated in national and international research projects.

Camila Zeballos

Camila Zeballos: Bachelor in Political Science, Master's in Human Sciences (Universidad de la República, Uruguay), and PhD candidate in History (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella). Her research agenda is focused on the analysis of the relationship between different actors in society (politicians, scientists, military, international bureaucrats) in the development of scientific-technological sectors. Her other line of research focuses on the analysis and evaluation of public policies and capacities for development. She has participated in national and international research projects.

Mariela Bianco Bozzo

Mariela Bianco Bozzo: Professor at the Social Science Department in the de Agronomía – Universidad de la República, Uruguay. She holds a PhD and a MSc in Rural Sociology from Pennsylvania State University. She has been associated with the Universidad de la República for more than two decades, where she teaches courses at undergraduate and graduate levels and conducts research in both STS studies and rural sociology. She is a member of the National System of Researchers in Uruguay.