Latin America's integration and implementation processes are heterogeneous and adaptive due to environmental, political, social, and institutional factors. Despite limited recognition and research resources, projects involving diverse societal actors have emerged, creating a wealth of unsystematized experience. This paper addresses the lack of systematization by exploring how expertise is defined and enacted within these collaborative settings. The central questions are: (i) What practices constitute expertise in Latin American collaborative research? and (ii) How can these practices be systematized for future projects? The study employs a critical perspective and develops a heuristic framework encompassing the situated and relational dimensions of expertise to address these questions. This framework is tested through the analysis of five case studies representing diverse contexts and addressing complex issues in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay.

The paper draws upon several theoretical frameworks to analyze the complexities of knowledge production and expertise in Latin America, including participatory action research, liberation theology, popular education, decolonizing critiques of modernity, science, technology, and development studies, postcolonial and decolonizing studies, feminist epistemologies, and studies of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. These diverse perspectives share a common ground in their critical approach to the hegemonic structures shaping knowledge production in the region. The concept of 'ecologies of knowledges' is adopted to acknowledge the contextual, heterogeneous nature of knowledge production in collaboration with societal actors addressing specific problems. A textual narrative synthesis of expertise literature informs the development of a three-dimensional analytical framework (context, actors, methods) to characterize knowledge production and expertise.

The study uses a comparative case study approach, analyzing five cases from different Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay. The cases involved completed and ongoing projects with diverse societal actors, participatory methodologies, and varying integration and implementation processes. A qualitative methodology was employed, including textual narrative synthesis of expertise literature, analysis of grey literature and project documents, and qualitative content analysis. Data collection included a review of 73 scientific articles and 90 documents from the case studies. Semi-structured interviews (24), focus groups (9), and participant observations (11) supplemented the document analysis. An iterative process of coding and induction, combined with an auto-ethnographic approach and grounded theory, was used to identify features of situated expertise. The researchers, having diverse backgrounds and experiences in the selected case studies, facilitated a two-year process of analysis that incorporated self-reflection and collaborative learning to refine the analytical categories and framework.

The analysis revealed key features of situated expertise in Latin America across three dimensions and their intersections: **Context:** The case studies highlighted the influence of historical and contemporary conditions, particularly neoliberal policies and social unrest, on knowledge production. The Chilean and Mexican cases showed how social movements and crises created both challenges and opportunities for transformative collaboration. The Argentinian case emphasized the role of the institutional-political context, particularly the establishment of a World Meteorological Organization Regional Climate Centre (WMO RCC) in fostering collaboration. **Actors:** The different case studies demonstrated varying configurations of actors, reflecting the specific contexts and project stages. The analysis highlighted the importance of recognizing and managing power imbalances among actors from the public, private, and civil sectors, and marginalized communities. The Argentinian case showcased the challenges and successes of integrating diverse actors with varying expertise and goals, illustrating the need for mediating institutions. **Methods:** The cases illustrated the use of reflexive and critical methods adaptable to contextual needs, showcasing the iterative process between integration and differentiation. Three phases were identified in the integration process: integration for understanding, integration for justification, and integration for implementation. The use of boundary objects (e.g., maps in the Uruguayan case) facilitated integration. Methods employed included interviews, focus groups, participant observation, workshops, social mapping, and problem trees, tailored to specific contexts and objectives. The importance of ‘integration for understanding,’ ‘integration for justification’ and ‘integration for implementation’ is stressed. **Intersections (Know-that, Know-how, Know-why):** The intersections of the three dimensions highlighted the interplay of knowing-that (understanding context and implications), knowing-how (selecting and adapting methods), and knowing-why (motivations and commitments). The Colombian case exemplified the challenges of engaging previously disenfranchised communities, emphasizing the need for trust-building and participatory processes. The Argentinian case illustrated the importance of understanding diverse perspectives and finding common ground to make informed decisions.

The findings demonstrate the relevance of a situated approach to expertise in addressing complex problems in Latin America. The heuristic framework helps identify and systematize expertise developed in these vulnerable contexts, recognizing marginalized perspectives, and managing power imbalances. The framework aids in making implicit knowledge explicit and addresses tensions related to knowing-that, knowing-why, and knowing-how. Context-sensitive methodological designs and iterative processes of integration and differentiation are key to successful knowledge co-production. The study's findings contribute to a broader understanding of expertise in diverse and challenging contexts, informing future research and practice.

This paper introduces a heuristic framework for understanding and systematizing situated expertise within Latin American integration and implementation processes. The analysis of five case studies highlights the importance of engaging marginalized actors, fostering participation, and acknowledging power dynamics. This 'situated expertise' requires context-sensitive approaches that address ethical and political dimensions. The framework presented here can be a valuable tool for future research and practice in similar contexts, promoting more equitable and effective knowledge co-production.

While the study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be noted. The case studies, though diverse, may not fully represent the breadth of integration and implementation practices across Latin America. The researchers' involvement in some cases could have influenced data collection and interpretation. The availability of data was constrained by the regulations of different funding agencies and research institutions, limiting the scope of analysis. Future research could explore a wider range of cases and employ more rigorous methods to enhance generalizability.