References

• Bloor, David. 1994. “El programa fuerte en sociología del conocimiento.” In La explicación Social del Conocimiento, edited by León Olivé, 93–117. Ciudad de Mexico: UNAM.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, H., and P. Reason eds. 2008. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba, ed. 2001. Formación de REDES de Conocimiento. Una perspectiva regional desde México. Barcelona.: IIS- UNAM / ANTHROPOS.
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba. 2003. “Intercambio de Flujos de Conocimiento en las Redes.” In Itinerarios del conocimiento. Formas, Dinámicas y Contenido. Un enfoque de redes, edited by M. Luna, 306–355. España: IIS-UNAM / Anthropos. https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2022.244.81237
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba, Oscar F. Contreras, Alfredo Hualde, and Cristina Puga. 2022. “Ciencias sociales y pandemia en Mexico: ¿Respuestas convencionales frente a emergencias inéditas?” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 67 (244): 45–77.
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba, Laura Montes de Oca, and Ali Ruíz Coronel. 2023. Investigación en interacción. Tensiones, debates y dilemas. (Under review by the UNAM Editorial Committee).
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba, Oscar F. Contreras, Alfredo Hualde, and Cristina Puga. 2023. Problemas estratégicos y ciencia social. En busca de la movilización del conocimiento. (Under review by the IIS-UNAM Editorial Committee).
   Google Scholar
• Casas, Rosalba, and Matilde Luna. 2011. “De redes y espacios de conocimiento: Significados conceptuales y de política.” In Estudio Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología desde América Latina, Colección Estudios Sociales de Tecnociencia en América Latina, edited by Antonio Arellano Hernández, and Pablo Kreimer, 167–208. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores.
   Google Scholar
• Caswill, Chris, and Elizabeth Shove. 2000. “Introducing Interactive Social Science.” Science and Public Policy 27 (3): 154–157. doi:10.3152/147154300781781968.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, Caren. 2016. Citizen Science. How Ordinary People are Changing the Face of Discovery. New York, NY: The Overlook Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, Huw, Alison Powell, and Sandra Nutley. 2016. “Mobilizing Knowledge in Health Care.” In The Oxford Handbook of Health Care Management, edited by Edward Ferlie, Montgomery Kathleen, and Anne Reff Pedersen, 279–301. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online.
   Google Scholar
• Fals Borda, Orlando. 1993. “Investigación acción participativa.” Revista Documentación Social 92: 92.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P. 1972. Conciencia crítica y liberación. Pedagogía del oprimido. Bogotá, Colombia: América Latina.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, S. 2005. “Basic vs. Applied Social Science Research.” In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, edited by K. Kempf Leonard, 121–129. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• ISC. 2023. “Creation of a Group of Friends on Science for Action in the UN.” International Science Council Newslettter. Accessed May 3, 2023. https://us5.campaign-archive.com/?e=31ecb2a948&u=2e9b648776114e2888e7ea8c5&id=9473be1aad.
   Google Scholar
• Jassanoff, Shiela, ed. 2006. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, Ben. 2008. Thinking About Knowledge Mobilization. A Discussion Paper was Prepared at the Request of the Canadian Council on Learning and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, Charles, David K. Cohen. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem-Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luna, Matilde, ed. 2003. Itinerarios del conocimiento. Formas, Dinámicas y Contenido. Un enfoque de redes. Barcelona: IIS-UNAM / Anthropos.
   Google Scholar
• Maturana, Humberto Francisco J., and F. Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhal.
   Google Scholar
• Nutley, Sandra, Isabel Walter, and Huw Davies. 2007. Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, Jethro. 2010. “Learning to do Action Research for Social Change.” International Journal of Communication 4: 820–827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phipps, David, Joanne Cummings, Debra Pepler, Wendy Craig, and Shelley Cardinal. 2016. “The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes.” Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 9 (1): 31–40.
   Google Scholar
• Rojas-Rajs, Soledad, and José Miguel Natera. 2019. “Movilización del conocimiento: aportes para los estudios sociales de la salud.” Revista Ciencias de la Salud 17 (3): 111–131. doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.8369.
   Google Scholar
• Sanguinetti, V. Yolanda. 1980. La investigación participativa en los procesos de desarrollo de América Latina. Ciudad de México: UNAM Facultad de Psicología.
   Google Scholar
• Somekh, Bridget. 1995. “The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: A Position Paper on Action Research Methodology.” British Educational Research Journal 21 (3): 339–355. doi:10.1080/0141192950210307.
   Google Scholar
• Vasen, Federico. 2017. “Responsible Innovation in Developing Countries: An Enlarged Agenda.” In Responsible Innovation 3. A European Agenda?, edited by L. Asveld, R. van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse, and J. van den Hoven, 299–307. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wollmann, Hellmut. 2008. “Applied Social Sciences. Development and Consequences.” In History of Humanity, Vol. VII, The The Twentieth Century. London: UNESCO / Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar, Steve. 2000. “Social Basis of Interactive Social Science.” Science and Public Policy 27 (3): 165–173. doi:10.3152/147154300781782039.
   Google Scholar