IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01203-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Bianca Vienni-Baptista

    (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Universitätstrasse 16-CHN K76.28092)

  • María Goñi Mazzitelli

    (Universidad de la República)

  • María Haydeé García Bravo

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

  • Inta Rivas Fauré

    (Universidad de Chile)

  • Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Cecilia Hidalgo

    (Universidad de Buenos Aires)

Abstract

Several environmental, political, social and institutional factors have resulted in the heterogeneous and adaptive integration of knowledge, actors and methodologies in Latin America. Despite poor recognition and even a lack of research conditions, experiences involving different societal actors and types of collaboration have developed across the region. These experiences form a collection of integration and implementation processes not yet fully systematised in a way that serves other cases. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of how expertise is defined in integration and implementation processes in Latin America. To re-signify collaborative practices in the region, a critical perspective is applied, and a heuristic framework is built that comprehends the ‘situated’ and relational dimensions of expertise. This framework is tested to study five cases from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay related to territorial planning, gender and knowledge, coastal management and the provision of climate services. These concepts are compared on the basis of the three dimensions comprising the framework—context, actors and methods —and the intersections among them. Applying a qualitative methodology and auto-ethnography, we identified the main features of situated expertise in Latin America, that is, engaging marginalised societal actors, fostering greater participation, acknowledging power imbalances, managing conflicts and contradicting perspectives, and directing an ethical-political engagement in the research process. As a result, situated expertise encompasses not only the situatedness of practices and processes, but also their political (and potentially transformative) dimensions in tracing power imbalances. This paper then argues that this situated aspect of expertise is relevant for conducting more context-sensitive integration and implementation processes in Latin America, thus contributing to the ethical-political dimension on how expertise is defined, embodied and enacted in vulnerable contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianca Vienni-Baptista & María Goñi Mazzitelli & María Haydeé García Bravo & Inta Rivas Fauré & Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas & Cecilia Hidalgo, 2022. "Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01203-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01203-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01203-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01203-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    2. Diana Mitlin & Jhono Bennett & Philipp Horn & Sophie King & Jack Makau & George Masimba Nyama, 2020. "Knowledge Matters: The Potential Contribution of the Coproduction of Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(3), pages 544-559, July.
    3. Gabriele Bammer & Michael O’Rourke & Deborah O’Connell & Linda Neuhauser & Gerald Midgley & Julie Thompson Klein & Nicola J. Grigg & Howard Gadlin & Ian R. Elsum & Marcel Bursztyn & Elizabeth A. Fulto, 2020. "Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. David Budtz Pedersen, 2016. "Integrating social sciences and humanities in interdisciplinary research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-7, December.
    5. Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bradley, David & Pohl, Christian & Rist, Stephan & Wiesmann, Urs, 2006. "Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 119-128, November.
    6. Bammer, Gabriele, 2008. "Enhancing research collaborations: Three key management challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 875-887, June.
    7. Hoffmann, Sabine & Pohl, Christian & Hering, Janet G., 2017. "Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 678-692.
    8. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Loreta Tauginienė & Eglė Butkevičienė & Katrin Vohland & Barbara Heinisch & Maria Daskolia & Monika Suškevičs & Manuel Portela & Bálint Balázs & Baiba Prūse, 2020. "Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. I. Díaz-Reviriego & E. Turnhout & S. Beck, 2019. "Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 457-464, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & Isabel Fletcher & Catherine Lyall & Christian Pohl, 2022. "Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity [Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 865-877.
    2. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Justus Henke, 2022. "Can Citizen Science in the Humanities and Social Sciences Deliver on the Sustainability Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Cian O’Donovan & Aleksandra (Ola) Michalec & Joshua R Moon, 2022. "Capabilities for transdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 145-158.
    5. Hoffmann, Sabine & Pohl, Christian & Hering, Janet G., 2017. "Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 678-692.
    6. Siebenhüner, Bernd, 2018. "Conflicts in Transdisciplinary Research: Reviewing Literature and Analysing a Case of Climate Adaptation in Northwestern Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 117-127.
    7. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Flurina Schneider & Zarina Patel & Katsia Paulavets & Tobias Buser & Jacqueline Kado & Stefanie Burkhart, 2023. "Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Isabelle Bonhoure & Anna Cigarini & Julián Vicens & Bàrbara Mitats & Josep Perelló, 2023. "Reformulating computational social science with citizen social science: the case of a community-based mental health care research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Davies, Andrew & Manning, Stephan & Söderlund, Jonas, 2018. "When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and project management research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 965-979.
    11. Gabriela Tejada & Marina Cracco & Clémence Ranquet Bouleau & Jean-Claude Bolay & Silvia Hostettler, 2019. "Testing Analytical Frameworks in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Livia Fritz & Ulli Vilsmaier & Garance Clément & Laurie Daffe & Anna Pagani & Melissa Pang & Daniel Gatica-Perez & Vincent Kaufmann & Marie Santiago Delefosse & Claudia R. Binder, 2022. "Explore, engage, empower: methodological insights into a transformative mixed methods study tackling the COVID-19 lockdown," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    14. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    15. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    16. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    17. Sarah C. White, 0. "A Space for Unlearning? A Relational Perspective on North–South Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    18. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    19. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    20. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01203-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.