134. The appropriation and mobilization of knowledge of Science, Technology, and Innovation as an epistemic element and inclusion in the National Health Systems
Xenia Anaid Rueda, UNAM; Juan Carlos García Cruz, Cátedras CONACYT/ UAM Xochimilco
Posted: February 28, 2022 Accepted Languages: English/Inglés/Inglês, Spanish/Español/Espanhol, Portuguese/Portugués
The literature on processes concerning the transfer, mobilization, and appropriation of knowledge produced in universities and public research centers has provided results that allow us to better understand the benefits, obstacles, determinant and knowledge channels of such processes. Within such literature, however, the emphasis has been placed on the differences among researchers, other agents, and institutions instead of attempting to understand the epistemic practices that affect the mobilization of knowledge. Thus, there are still theoretical and empirical lack of knowledge regarding the processes concerning the social appropriation of Science, Technology and Innovation (ST&I), for instance: how artifacts and other technologies can be altered by users with the capacity to promote meaningful changes, or how knowledge may be mobilized within research groups in order to make contributions to the scientific community and society in general. Some questions we can ask are:
What are the prevailing characteristics in the mobilization of knowledge and how do they affect and/or benefit other sectors? What epistemic practices and values prevail in the scientific communities of researchers on health issues? How can the appropriation of science, technology, and innovation help to include more actors in the processes of generation and use of knowledge to solve everyday problems?
Weak appropriation consists of the expansion of the public’s horizon of representations of the world by assimilating scientific and technological representations into the culture of different members of society. Strong appropriation goes beyond assimilating scientific and technological representations into culture, more importantly, it comprehends social practices (e.g. sanitary, productive, educational) in which the activities are guided by technological and scientific representations of the world and, to a certain extent, by standards and values stemming also from science and technology (Olivé, 2011). Such a distinction allows us to situate our work within the conceptual framework of strong appropriation, namely, to understand the epistemic practices of diabetes researchers and their communication with physicians and other healthcare experts. From the perspective of epistemic practices, strong appropriation is a gradual process that, to a great extent, depends on the goals accomplished and set by the agents themselves. To be precise, the axiological system of practice turns out to be correct if such a practice seems appropriate in an acceptable measure for those who evaluate it. Both characteristics of practices and their axiological systems (appropriateness and correction) depend on the standards, values, and cognitive and acting capabilities of the agents and of the environment in which such agents must carry out their activities and which must necessarily transform. Seen from this light, social appropriation of Science, Technology, and Innovation (ST&I) depends on the influence that scientific practices may have and the transformation that may provoke in other practices. Social appropriation ST&I are achieved, according to Olivé (2011: 18), when scientific culture is assimilated into other practices, to the extent that these latter include representations, values, standards, and other procedures from the sciences. In this case, thus, even the inclusion of actors, values, and practices will contribute to consolidating the social appropriation of ST&I.
This panel attempts to tackle such lagoons by analyzing the epistemic practices that mobilize knowledge and reflect on the Development of models and analytical frameworks from the ST&I Social Appropriation based on the identification of epistemic practices and the mobilization of knowledge of researchers and specialists In different contexts and circumstances, it is one of the fundamental objectives of this panel. As well as generate the inclusion of actors that can appropriate the knowledge generated for the resolution of a health problem.
