Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America

Several environmental, political, social and institutional factors have resulted in the heterogeneous and adaptive integration of knowledge, actors and methodologies in Latin America, aiming to address complex regional issues. Despite poor recognition and limited research conditions, projects involving different societal actors have developed across the region, composing a collection of understandings and expertise across integration and implementation processes. In the Latin American context, expertise comprises a plurality of skills and capabilities aimed at engaging with marginalised and vulnerable societal actors. However, such processes have not been fully systematised to serve as input for new research projects. Authors have called for further analysis and contextualisation of strategies to target complex problems and provide useful tools for initiatives in the region, particularly when expertise is “reinvented” each time. The complexity of research and political conditions in Latin America requires awareness of conflicts and contradicting perspectives on knowledge to avoid idealising co-production. Grounding the study in ecologies of knowledges implies a contextual, heterogeneous understanding of knowledge production developed with societal actors seeking solutions to urgent, specific problems. This entails greater participation and higher social responsibility, including ethical and political engagement from all involved. The paper asks: (i) Which practices constitute expertise in Latin American collaborative research settings? and (ii) How can they be systematised to serve future research projects? A critical perspective is applied to build a heuristic framework that comprehends the “situated” and relational dimensions of expertise in the Latin American context. The framework helps actors identify and systematise their expertise and reflect on marginalised perspectives, power imbalances, multiple interests and motivations, re-signifying collaborative practices by considering perspectives and power relations often made invisible. This is presented as the first framework that systematises relevant features of expertise in the region. The framework was tested on five cases from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay, involving territorial planning, gender and knowledge, coastal management and climate services. Cases were compared using the three dimensions—context, actors and methods—and their intersections. Using qualitative methodology and auto-ethnography, the study identifies main features of situated expertise as a grounded term that addresses situated practices and their political dimensions in tracing power imbalances. The paper argues that this situated aspect is relevant for context-sensitive integration and implementation processes and contributes to re-signifying them. Mapping and consolidating practices as expertise supports improved processes, social meaning and accountability. The paper outlines the rationale and concept of expertise from a Latin American perspective, presents the framework and methodology, details results across cases, discusses findings, and concludes with future research directions.

Theoretical background: The paper draws on Latin American intellectual traditions and methodological tools addressing social and productive development problems, including participatory action research, liberation theology and philosophy, popular education, decolonising critiques of modernity, STS and development studies, postcolonial and decolonising studies, feminist epistemologies, and studies of inter- and transdisciplinarity. Despite differences, these share a critical stance toward hegemonic models of scientific knowledge production and propose epistemic and methodological alternatives oriented to improving life quality, especially for marginalised groups. The study is grounded in ecologies of knowledges, emphasising contextual and heterogeneous knowledge co-produced with societal actors. A textual narrative synthesis of expertise literature was conducted to build a multidimensional corpus and identify three analytical dimensions of expertise: (i) context, (ii) actors, and (iii) methods. Context is conceived as an agora and dynamic arena where knowledge is produced and implemented, receptive to multiple knowledges and demands, socially robust, and co-constituted and emergent in practice across temporalities. It can be transformative, enabling co-production and enhancing artistic, oral, and multisensorial dimensions. Actors dimension involves re-defining roles of scientific and societal actors, informed by feminist epistemology highlighting the relation between the knower and the known and questioning patriarchal notions of objectivity. It emphasises horizontal, non-hierarchical processes leading to hybrid knowledges, integrating interests to achieve common goals, taking responsibility toward marginalised groups, and negotiating degrees of participation with reflexive sensitivity to emergence. Situated knowledge (Haraway) underscores relevance of location and features of the knowing subject, enabling epistemic advances from peripheral or bottom-up perspectives, with social movements interacting with academia. Three actor types are identified: public sector, private sector, and civil society. Methods dimension covers choosing and adapting methods for knowledge production and for integrating and implementing co-produced knowledge. Integration is seen as convergence of diverse knowledges and interests toward problems and solutions while allowing diversity and mutual respect. Methods should be malleable and context-driven, employing reflective, critical, non-extractivist approaches based on subject–subject relations, addressing power imbalances, and emphasising attentive, productive listening. Adopting pluralist epistemology requires openness and methodological flexibility, pragmatism, and resilience. Intersections among these three dimensions are integral, shaping situated expertise. The framework articulates three spheres of expertise: know-why (aims, motivations, power relations), know-that (understanding problems’ contextual implications and worldviews), and know-how (recognition and selection of context-appropriate methods and skills to handle conflicts). These spheres align with three areas of integration: for justification (actors–methods), for understanding (context–actors), and for implementation (context–methods).

Approach: comparative case study of five cases in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay, analysing each as a unique social unit. At least one author was directly involved in each case as researcher/practitioner. Selection criteria: completed and ongoing projects; broad involvement of societal actors; participatory methodological and/or theoretical approaches; and varying types of integration and implementation processes. Data collection and analysis: A qualitative methodology was applied, including a textual narrative synthesis of expertise literature. Six researchers assessed 73 scientific articles, then systematised 90 documents (grey literature, internal project documents, and scientific articles) according to the framework’s dimensions and categories. Qualitative content analysis was conducted, combining a self-reflexive, auto-ethnographic approach with grounded theory. The team held weekly meetings over two years for coding and induction, refining categories and guiding questions. Complementary data included 24 semi-structured interviews, 9 focus groups, and 11 participant observations in the case settings. Setting: five cases - Argentina: Multinational research network “Towards usable climate science—Informing sustainable decisions and provision of climate services to the agriculture and water sectors of south-eastern South America” (IAI, 2012–2018). Designed, implemented and disseminated climate services to improve decision-making in agriculture and water sectors; combined climate science with research on communication and integration of climate information with user needs. Established and sustained a WMO Regional Climate Centre (RCC) for southern South America, fostering partnerships among operational, governmental and scientific communities. - Chile: Self-convened constituent councils at Universidad de Chile during the 2019–2020 social uprising, aligned with Unidad Social’s call for a new constitution. Focused on public higher education, knowledge co-creation, and experiences/demands of women and sexual dissidents; included participants from academia, civil society organisations and trade unions. - Colombia: Outreach project “Disincronías Territoriales” (2019–2020) in Santa Elena, a rural area undergoing urban-tourist expansion with limited empirical grounding. Sought transdisciplinary urban planning and knowledge dialogues for community governance; developed participatory tools (e.g., bimodal problem tree) to co-design alternatives with local actors. - Mexico: Ongoing transdisciplinary project “Nómades devorantes” in Xochimilco (Mexico City) examining configurations of space, amphibious land–water connections, and potentials of place under conditions of violence and inequality. Combined teaching, action research and collective artistic creation with community, employing a “Navío anfibio para investigaciones nómadas” to catalyse sensory-perceptual engagement and intergenerational memory. - Uruguay: Centro Interdisciplinario de Manejo Costero Integrado del Cono Sur (since 2002, Universidad de la República) promoting interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary coastal management, co-creating methodologies and tools for decision-making, integrating scientific and traditional-local knowledge, and contributing to public policy and institutionalisation of coastal management; used social cartographies and citizen panels to redefine protected coastal areas.

- Framework validation and core features: Applying the heuristic framework (context, actors, methods; intersecting spheres of know-why, know-that, know-how) across five Latin American cases identified key features of situated expertise: engaging marginalised actors, fostering participation, acknowledging and addressing power imbalances, managing conflicts and dissent, and sustaining ethical–political engagement throughout the research process. - Context dimension: Contexts (Chile, Mexico) shaped by neoliberal reforms, inequality and social unrest; Xochimilco’s lacustrine heritage (chinampas) offers traditional and innovative environmental solutions (e.g., nano-bubbles). Chile’s constitutional crisis and debates created obstacles and opportunities for transdisciplinarity. The Argentinian WMO RCC institutional context enabled iterative workshops and partnerships, enhancing the provision and use of climate services through face-to-face exchanges and collaborative networks. - Actors dimension: Actor roles varied by case: Argentina’s stakeholders included climate researchers, governmental agencies, RCC and NGOs; early-career scholars acted as integrators and communicators. Uruguay built strong ties with public sector and local producers, influencing legal definitions of protected coastal areas. Colombia and Mexico emphasised inhabitants and visitors/tourists as co-constitutive of transformation. Across cases, iterative dialogue mechanisms were crucial to avoid ineffective services and to centre user needs (e.g., consensus to prioritise drought in Argentina). - Methods dimension and integration phases: All cases iterated integration and differentiation through three phases: (i) integration for understanding (e.g., boundary objects such as social cartographies/maps in Uruguay); (ii) integration for justification (co-producing previously unrecognised or undervalued knowledge; assemblies, open councils, advisory groups); and (iii) integration for implementation (context-sensitive use of interviews, focus groups, participant observation, workshops, dialogue methods, literature reviews, problem trees, situational mapping, conflict/actor analyses). Colombia’s “bimodal problem tree” explicitly linked problem identification to solution pathways and anticipated challenges. - Intersections (know-that/know-how/know-why): Know-that required shared definitions/languages to bridge scientific–societal gaps (Argentina, Colombia). Know-how centred on skills to manage conflicts, time, financing, political training, and equitable involvement, producing situated data and sharing responsibility toward marginalised groups. Know-why encompassed aims, motivations, leadership, timing and internal institutional distances; making tensions explicit supported trust-building and shifted power dynamics (Chile), while embracing the principle of incompleteness fostered epistemological debates and complementarity (Argentina). - Outcomes and challenges: The framework helped expose weak integration between academic and operational communities and gaps in multidisciplinary climate knowledge in Argentina. In Uruguay, participatory mapping embedded ethical–political considerations (e.g., small fisheries). In Mexico, participatory teaching, action research and artistic creation questioned traditional research models and empowered indigenous/rural voices. Overall, context-sensitive designs enabled transformative potential, but required sustained iterative dialogue, listening, and non-extractivist methodologies.

The findings address the guiding questions by identifying concrete practices that constitute expertise in Latin American collaborative settings and by offering a systematisation through a heuristic framework. Expertise emerges as situated and relational, enacted through context-sensitive engagement with marginalised actors, reflexive attention to power dynamics, and adaptable, non-extractivist methods. The three dimensions (context, actors, methods) and their intersections (know-why, know-that, know-how) operationalise how teams justify, understand and implement integration processes. Significance: In vulnerable and conflictive contexts marked by historical inequalities and neoliberal reforms, the framework supports co-production of socially robust knowledge and re-signifies collaborative practices ethically and politically. It enables tracing of tensions, dissent and agreements to shift power dynamics, build trust, and align aims and motivations toward actionable outcomes (e.g., institutional partnerships in climate services; participatory redefinition of coastal zones; community-governed urban planning tools; sensory-perceptual devices for heritage and coexistence). By making tacit expertise explicit, the framework strengthens accountability and provides transferable prompts for ex-ante/ex-post reflection in future projects.

The paper proposes and tests a heuristic framework to identify and systematise situated expertise in Latin American projects operating in vulnerable contexts. Across five diverse cases, integration and implementation between scientific and societal actors enabled co-creation of alternative solutions to urgent regional issues. Situated expertise involved: (i) approaching local ontologies and epistemologies; (ii) openness to intercultural and socio-political dimensions, valuing local knowledge; and (iii) ongoing systematisation and translation of traditional knowledge through negotiation. Context gains renewed salience as the arena co-defined and transformed by actor–method intersections. A context-sensitive approach is necessary to promote networking between scientific and societal actors, despite constraints from academic neoliberalism and Global North epistemic models. Greater collaboration benefits problem framing and solution implementation, while the framework makes visible tensions around resources, agendas, authorship, dissemination, and status imbalances (gender, age, ethnicity, ideology). Method choice or invention is crucial for understanding and implementing solutions within socio-political conjunctures. Overall, the framework offers a multidimensional, context-sensitive tool to generate locally valid, socially robust knowledge with transformative potential. Differences between practices and actors can be constructively mobilised to advance research integration and implementation, especially in low-income and intercultural contexts. Identified features of situated expertise—engaging marginalised actors, participation, addressing power imbalances, managing conflicts and contradictions, and ethical–political engagement—are articulated through knowing what (problem/context), how (context-sensitive methods), and why (motivations/justifications). Future work can apply and refine the framework across additional projects and programmes to nuance the concept of expertise in Latin America.

- Scope and generalisability: The analysis is based on five context-specific case studies in Latin America using qualitative, comparative case study methods; findings are situated and may not generalise beyond similar contexts. - Researcher involvement: Authors were directly involved as researchers/practitioners and employed an auto-ethnographic, self-reflexive approach, which, while valuable for depth, may introduce positionality and potential bias. - Data availability: The datasets analysed belong to different institutions and are not currently publicly available; access depends on each funding agency’s regulations and may limit external verification. - Integration challenges observed: Cases revealed weak integration between academic and operational communities and difficulties in multidisciplinary synthesis in climate-related work, which could affect applicability and sustainability of outcomes without sustained institutional support.