Collective learning in research-creation processes: co-design of territorial memory devices based on communities of dialogue

Abstract

This study explores the collective learning experiences of university students, researchers, and community leaders during three research-creation processes aimed at designing territorial memory devices in the neighborhood of Moravia in Medellín, Colombia. A methodological itinerary was designed based on a service-learning approach to creative disciplines to conduct a community-based diagnostic process and identify needs related to memory processes in the area. An emphasis was placed on the need to transform the neighborhood's urban imaginary. This has long been marked by violence and spatial segregation, as part of the area was previously used as a municipal landfill site. The project sought to contribute to alternative representations of Moravia, a territory with a rich diversity of cultures and community initiatives. The results reveal the shared learning experiences of the participants, expressed collectively within the co-creation workshops and individually in field journals, theses, and other reports documenting the experiences. Preliminary findings highlighted the importance of cultivating a “community of dialogue” within the context of the research-creation process. The research outcomes were associated with have been categorized into four distinct groups based on their thematic relevance: the recognition of the process of collective creation both as a pedagogical and research process, and as a dialectic and relational one, through which sociocultural diversity serves as a driving force towards artistic production; the importance of the redefinition of roles through horizontal processes and the fostering of an active relationship academia-territory, valuing the neighborhood's collective memories and artistic expressions.

1 Introduction

The creative disciplines currently face a fundamental tension that cannot be resolved solely within classrooms or traditional epistemological frameworks. A tension between training- oriented towards the production of objects, images, and spaces- and practice- committed to communities, territories, and the memories they hold. This tension is not merely pedagogical; it is also political and epistemological, as it questions the standpoint from which knowledge is produced through design and by whom this is produced. The question of how to build horizontal research processes of collective knowledge among students, academics, and community leaders increasingly arises in response to hegemonic knowledge. This article positions itself precisely at this intersection, proposing that processes of research-creation, when coupled with a Service-Learning (Catibiela et al., 2018; García and Lalueza, 2019) approach, offer a viable path to navigate this tension in a productive and ethically engaged manner. Although the present research is situated within the creative disciplines, the pedagogical and epistemological problem it addresses is not exclusive to these fields of knowledge. The question of how the university may work with communities without reproducing hierarchical relationships of knowledge has been examined in fields related to socio-educational intervention. We highlight the contributions of transdisciplinary research in co-production of knowledge (Kminek et al., 2026; Ludwig and El Hani, 2025; Merçon, 2022), as it focuses on real-world challenges, enables a variety of scientific contributions and social actors, and demands self-reflection.

This research is driven by a dual challenge: an academic and a territorial one. On the academic level, the traditional educational models in the creative disciplines tend to separate research from creation, failing to recognize that the creative process can itself serve as a rigorous inquiry method capable of generating situated knowledge. Additionally, the legitimacy of creative practices in using methods from the sciences, arts, and design to produce new knowledge still needs to be established within research methods (Montoya, 2018). Research-creation is recognized as the production of new knowledge embedded in a plastic or sensory artifact that makes a significant contribution to the creative disciplines or contexts it originates from (Beltrán and Villaneda, 2020). Thus, a hybrid context of activity emerges (Lalueza et al., 2024), where the practice is not an illustrative result but rather the core of the research process itself (Stévance and Lacasse, 2018). Within this framework, the production of prototypes, narratives, or experiences allows students, academics and communities to explore problems and generate situated knowledge, provided that the process is rigorously systematized (Navarro-Moral, 2023; Pino-Posada and Jaramillo-Appleby, 2022). Achieving this objective requires a shift toward participatory and transdisciplinary action research models (Merçon, 2022; Vélez-Cardona et al., 2018) that promote the collective generation of knowledge through integration and collaboration, rather than reproducing the asymmetry of hegemonic knowledge-production.

From a territorial perspective, the research is developed in the neighborhood of Moravia, located in the center of Medellin, Colombia; which is recognized for its more than six decades of community-built development, organization and collective creation. Part of the neighborhood is situated on the site of the city's former open-air landfill, which operated between 1977 and 1983, shaping the external image of the neighborhood for decades. This image, associated with violence, spatial segregation and precariousness, has persisted in the media and land-use planning policies, which have tended to overlook the diversity of cultures, artistic expressions and community-led initiatives in defense of the territory. Among these initiatives was the construction of the Cultural Development Center of Moravia (CDCM) in 2008, known to its inhabitants as “La casa de Todos”. Since then, art and social relationships have emerged as central elements in collective and individual memories of the neighborhood (Toursoglou-Papalexandridou, 2023). Nevertheless, these steps toward institutional recognition coexist with a persistent tension: in 2018, Moravia's classification within the city's spatial plan was modified from “Integrated Improvement Plan” to “Urban Renewal Plan,”. Under this new scheme, most residents are expected to be relocated, while land use and building classifications are being redefined.

This problem of representation and territorial pressure is compounded by a paradox that local leaders themselves identify clearly: Moravia is an over-researched territory. The depth of territorial knowledge and the richness of its collective processes have, for decades, attracted researchers from diverse disciplines from Colombian and international universities. However, many of these studies have been conducted without any real connection to the territory's needs, extracting knowledge without returning tangible benefits to the community that produced it. In response to this asymmetrical accumulation of knowledge, local stakeholders now demand to write their own history; one that is shaped through the participation of residents and directly benefits the community itself. This revindication informs the ethical starting point of the processes presented here: academics arrive to Moravia following an invitation from local leaders; in order to support, co-create, and learn from the knowledge of those who inhabit the territory.

In response to this dual challenge, this article presents the collective learnings deriving from three research-creation processes among residents, collectives, and organizations in the neighborhood of Moravia, that include the co-design of devices of territorialized memory (Nates Cruz et al., 2018). Within this framework, memory is not a mere repository of the past but a living collective practice (Halbwachs, 2004; Jelin, 2002, 2020). The territory- inhabited, defended, and imbued with meaning supports and triggers this shared memory (De Certeau, 2000; Lefebvre, 2013). These three co-creation processes are part of a journey that has linked academia with the local community for nearly a decade. They are based on the principles of dialectic pedagogy (Freire, 2000) and praxis grounded in bonds of trust and ongoing interactions. In our research, we refer to this praxis as “community of dialogue” (Toursoglou-Papalexandridou, 2023; Toursoglou Papalexandridou, 2024; Toursoglou-Papalexandridou and Ortiz-Núñez, 2024).

2 Methodology

The methodological design integrates the principles of research-creation (Beltrán and Villaneda, 2020) with the fundamentals of service-learning adapted to the creative disciplines (Catibiela et al., 2018). The method that was implemented was co-design, which is based on the direct participation of various actors in the creative process and, to this end, makes use of diverse techniques and tools (Robertson and Simonsen, 2012). Consequently, three co-design processes were developed to create three memory devices: 1. “Map Weave of Weaves”; 2. “Moon Times: A Guide for Planting” and 3. “Joyful Memories Device – Me-Moriando”. The initial process occurred between April 2022 and March 2023, while the subsequent two processes were carried out concurrently from March to October 2025.

They were designed following a methodological itinerary of service-learning (Catibiela et al., 2018). This itinerary was adapted to the creative disciplines structured into four stages and three cross-cutting processes. The first stage focused on motivating participants and collectively assessing the community's needs. The second stage was the planning phase, during which educational and social objectives were aligned. The third stage consisted of carrying out the creative and community-based processes. The fourth stage was the closing phase, during which the final creations were presented to the community for validation, followed by a celebration with all participants. The cross-cutting processes included reflection, documentation, and evaluation of learnings at each stage. This article focuses on presenting the results of these cross-cutting processes from a qualitative interpretative perspective, as it prioritizes personal experience and seeks to understand participants’ experiences, through their own narratives (Kennedy et al., 2026). Furthermore, it employs a historical-cultural perspective of activity theory (Engeström, 2001) to understand the learning processes that emerge in activity systems developed through university-community collaboration.

2.1 Participants and co-creation processes

A total of 71 participants were involved in the three co-creation processes (Table 1), who were considered as co-researchers and co-creators. The academic sector was represented by students and faculty researchers in the fields of architecture, industrial design, graphic design, philosophy, and theology. These researchers integrated their work into the research courses as part of the curriculum. Representatives from the institutional sector included three coordinators from different areas of the CDCM, while those from the community level included community leaders from various initiatives. All participants received previous information about the research-creation processes and provided written informed consent. The study was developed according to ethical principles established by the Ethics Committee of the Unit of Social Appropriation of Knowledge of Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB).

2.1.1 Process 1: “Map Weave of Weaves” of Moravia

The “Map Weave of Weaves” emerged from a collective dialogue among all participants with the objective of creating a representation of processes of collective memory developed among the academic community and the community of Moravia. The map also expresses the diversity of the territory (Figure 1). The academic participants included three professors, students of industrial design (n = 5), and architecture (n = 4). The community representation was constituted by residents of the neighborhood (n = 19) of diverse ages, representing a range of community initiatives and the CDCM's weaving group “Costurero”. Representing the institutional sector was the leader of the CDCM's Community and Territorial Management Division. A variety of creative techniques were employed, including embroidery, painting, collage, and the use of Miyuki beads. As part of the research process, each participant was asked to record a brief audio narration describing the meanings they had gained during the process. This material was curated into an exhibition, with the “Map Weave of Weaves” serving as the centerpiece, accompanied by 20 panels that showcased the faces and narratives of the individuals responsible for each textile.

Figure 1

2.1.2 Process 2: calendar “Moon Times: A Planting Guide”

A calendar titled “Moon Times: A Planting Guide” was co-designed as a way to highlight the knowledge of Moravia's residents around the use of plants, and to give new meaning to ancestral knowledge and memory. It was developed through a dialogue of knowledge among the participants, which led to the creation of a lunar planting calendar featuring information on the medicinal uses of plants and 42 co-designed illustrations (Figure 2). Participants included 10 individuals from academia (students n = 7 and faculty-researchers n = 3); women from the environmental group “Flores de Antaño” (n = 14); and the leader of the CDCM's Environmental Management Division. The creative process involved co-design workshops towards the development of the sketches and final artwork. The research method was participant observation, and the instrument was a field journal.

Figure 2

2.1.3 Process 3: joyful memories device, “Me-moriando”

The work was grounded in a critical dialogue that facilitated the development of a common language around three key concepts: devices, memories, and social appropriation. The result was a board game designed to stimulate memory and record joyful memories through question-and-answer activities (Figure 3). The study involved a total of fourteen participants, including students (n = 5), faculty members/researchers (n = 4), young people from the Tricilab Collective (n = 4), and the leader of the CDCM's Neighborhood Memory Area. The creative techniques employed in this study involved the organization of workshops intended for the development of preliminary sketches and the subsequent creation of a final prototype. The research method employed was participant observation, with the field journal serving as the research tool.

Figure 3

2.2 Materials and methods

The materials that derived from the systematization of each process were classified into three groups according to the level of reflexivity on the learning in relation to the actions and meanings conferred by the participants: a) field diaries (n = 16) collected the subjective perceptions and personal reflections on self-knowledge and changes in the students’ professional identities; b) the minutes of each co-creation workshop (n = 15) and video and audio recordings: these data made it possible to identify the tensions, contradictions, negotiations and agreements during the co-creation processes between university-community; c) a doctoral thesis and undergraduate theses (n = 5), presentations at events (n = 5) and the material of an exhibition (texts, audios and photographs) offered data on the three co-creation processes in a more objective and structured way.

3 Results

The collective learnings underscore the “community of dialogue” (Toursoglou-Papalexandridou, 2023; Toursoglou Papalexandridou, 2024; Toursoglou-Papalexandridou and Ortiz-Núñez, 2024) as their initial finding. This emerged as a pivotal category in the analysis of the first co-creation process and became increasingly established in the subsequent two, not only as a methodological principle but also as an analytical concept. It is noteworthy that this concept is in the process of theoretical framing and replication. In the preliminary meetings, the terms “dialogue roundtable” and “dialogue of knowledge” were employed as methodologies characteristic of participatory action research and dialectic pedagogies, which incorporate elements of commons-based processes (Toursoglou-Papalexandridou, 2023) to build and sustain a praxis between academia and the community. Following several months of this praxis, participants observed an enhancement in interpersonal relationships of trust and commitment, attributable to the authenticity of the contributions shared among community leaders, residents, students, and faculty. Consequently, the concept of a “community of dialogue” was developed, conceptualized as a system of activity that fosters continuous feedback loops in knowledge production, with ongoing refinement of shared actions and their situational context. The following thematic categories were used in conjunction with the aforementioned central category, “community of dialogue,” to guide the analytical procedure.

3.1 Recognition of the process of collective creation as a pedagogical, research and relational process

Collective creation serves as the foundational element of a community of dialogue, facilitating meaningful interactions between academia and community. This dynamic process not only enhances pedagogical methods but also enriches existing local practices, thereby transcending the boundaries of artistic production. In this context, sociocultural diversity and individual differences become a driving force that fosters the generation of ideas, narratives, and visual proposals. These proposals, in turn, give rise to knowledge that is situated within a specific context and reality, responding to a need. One student highlights that “Design can act as a mediating tool to recognize and communicate local knowledge” (Pérez-Castro, 2025, p. 43). The collaboration among diverse actors also involves tensions and discrepancies regarding forms of participation. However, these were transformed into opportunities to expand the creative field. For the students, “the design process contributed to the redefinition of Moravia's identity as a fertile ground for creativity, ecological awareness, and collective action” (Yandar-Santacruz and García-Ávila, 2025, p. 32).

3.2 Redefinition of roles from a horizontal leadership perspective

Horizontality is the second component for the replicability of the processes of “Communities of Dialogue”, serving as the foundation for promoting a “praxis” in which action-research defines the process itself and its objectives, breaking with the tendency of processes led solely by academia. This approach allowed for the recognition of individual and collective capacities. One student reported that he had gone to Moravia prepared to speak but learned that he had to prepare to listen instead (personal communication, January, 2023). Likewise, other students highlighted how “spaces for exchange” were established “where women could express their knowledge based on experience, while the design team adopted a more empathetic and reflective stance regarding its role” (2025, p. 43). So, their profession “became a collective bridge that, through listening, observation, and dialogue, confirmed that design comes to life when one stops designing for others and begins to design with others” (Pérez-Llanes and Orrego-Trujillo, 2025, p. 27). However, during the process of creating the “Device of Joyful Memories, there were moments of conflict among some participants until agreements could be negotiated and roles and responsibilities were established. To facilitate the advancement of the device's conception, a division of tasks was conducted among teams: Graphic design students were responsible for the graphic art of the game prototype, architecture students designed its physical structure, and the Tricilab Collective defined the game's narrative, setting, and rules.

3.3 Active engagement with the territory and community

The third component is the active engagement with the territory and the community, creating processes that address research questions in academia and are connected to local needs, pre-existing ties, and population groups, seeking answers collectively. In this case, the concept of territory is understood not only as a physical space but also as a network of social, cultural, and symbolic relationships. In a territory such as Moravia, establishing access and maintaining a sustained presence is challenging without first cultivating relationships that enable researchers to explore and study the region in collaboration with and under the guidance of local community leaders. The research team has collaborated with numerous leaders for approximately ten years and has established partnerships with the CDCM. These partnerships have facilitated the ongoing implementation of collaborative creation processes. The academic projects were reevaluated in light of the social relationships that were cultivated by living in close proximity to the territory. Pérez-Castro (2025) asserts, “the need to continue strengthening the ties between community and design. It recognizes that local knowledge is a living seed of wisdom that deserves to be cultivated and disseminated” (p. 43).

3.4 Recognizing the value of collective memories and local artistic expressions

The fourth component that shapes the “Communities of Dialogue” is the value of collective memories. The participants also recognized and valued the significance of artistic and cultural expressions, along with local knowledge, in the formation of identity and community cohesion. The students acknowledged that “co-creation facilitated the revelation of ancestral knowledge concerning flora, underscoring its role in interweaving memory and identity while fostering coexistence within the territory” (Pérez-Llanes and Orrego-Trujillo, 2025, p. 27). The experience of the women who are part of the group “Flores de Antaño” exemplifies the assertion that knowledge is not confined to institutions or experts, but rather, it is dispersed among the people who cultivate, care for, and resist through simple means (Pérez-Llanes and Orrego-Trujillo, 2025, p. 27).

With regard to collective memories linked to the territory, a transformation has been observed in the content of the narratives and in the intent behind the projects, due primarily to a generational shift that influences the perception and reinterpretation of Moravia. In the context of the “Map Weave of Weaves”, the narratives of the adult participants revealed memories associated with the anguish of losing loved ones to violence in the neighborhood. For instance, one participant stated, “It makes me very sad to think of my neighbors who are no longer here” (Moravia resident, 2023). In contrast, the narratives of young participants highlighted a contrasting perception of the neighborhood, characterized by its vibrancy and vitality. A student articulated this sentiment by associating the neighborhood's colorfulness with multiculturalism and the transformative spirit of the people of Moravia (Personal communication, January 2023). For a CDCM leader, the “Map Weave of Weaves” facilitates a novel comprehension of the neighborhood of Moravia, as it “reflects the fusion of techniques, colors, and places representative of the neighborhood” (Personal communication, January 2023). Additionally, there has been a shift in the purpose of memory-based initiatives. For the young people of Tricilab, the objective of the memory device is to encourage people to recall and share joyful memories experienced in the neighborhood; consequently, the design of the “Joyful Memories–Memoriando” prototype is intended to establish a “bank of joyful memories of Moravia.”

4 Discussion

The main finding of this study is the “Community of Dialogue” a specific form of social organization of learning that emerged as a central category in the first co-creation process and was consolidated in the following two. We discuss four issues here: what distinguishes it from other forms of communities, what mechanisms sustain it, what conditions allow it to be replicated in other processes and with other participants, and what it produces in terms of the collective memory of the territory.

The “Community of Dialogue” shares characteristics with the community of practice (Wenger, 2001). In both, learning transcends the individual cognitive process to become a form of social participation, and are organized around mutual commitment, joint initiative, and a shared repertoire. In our case, this repertoire became visible from the initial dialogue of knowledge to the concepts of devices, memory, and social appropriation agreed upon in the processes. And above all, the co-designed devices determined what aspects of the neighborhood's past deserve to be remembered and with what means to narrate them. However, our processes differ in two aspects that we consider constitutive. First, the initiative arose from an invitation extended by community leaders to academia, which reverses the usual direction of the relationship and functions as an ethical condition for entering an over-researched territory. Second, what sustains the activity is productive conflict (Lafuente and Lara, 2013); that is, the friction between memories, times, and expectations operates as the driving force of the process.

The “Community of Dialogue” is best understood through activity theory and expansive learning (Engeström, 2001), as it operates as an activity system with a multiplicity of voices and interests, historically configured over almost a decade of engagement with the territory, in which contradictions constitute the source of change. The specific mechanism we observe is the emergence of hybrid roles; by participating simultaneously in several activity contexts, participants must articulate distinct systems of meaning, institutional objectives and forms of knowledge. This hybrid condition fosters the construction of third learning spaces (Gutiérrez, 2008; Lalueza et al., 2024; Macías-Gómez-Estern and Lalueza, 2024). Our data show this reorientation. For example, students initially entered the field guided by a curricular objective: passing a course, writing a thesis, or, as one student put it, arriving “prepared to speak”. This objective was reconfigured into a shared one: contributing to the community's collective memory. That integration, however, did not occur without friction. This sequence coincides with the observations of Correa and Parga (2025), who point out that moments of greatest creativity tend to follow episodes of tension and confrontation in dialogue.

Two conditions define the scope of the “Community of Dialogue”. The first is what we call the seed; Even if the students and some of the teaching staff change, the presence of a community leader, a researcher, and a representative from the CDCM is enough to reactivate the project and initiate a new co-creation process. What sustains this continuity is the shared memory of having previously co-created solutions to needs expressed by the community, which reduces dependence on the permanence of an entire team. The second point refers to the content of the memories produced. The co-design of these projects thus intervenes in the struggle over the meaning of the past, contributing to displacing the urban imaginary that has reduced the neighborhood to its condition of vulnerability.

These learnings show how research-creation has shifted from a curricular competency to a research training strategy with a service-learning approach, moving the educational emphasis from “how to do” to “how to be” together. A people-centered model recovers the ethical dimension of professional practice (García-Gutiérrez et al., 2020; García-Romero et al., 2021; Martínez-Sanz and Durántez, 2020) and is articulated within a design that responds to specificities of the local context (Arango Marín, 2021; Irwin, 2020). Although the study is situated within the creative disciplines, its findings are transferable to other fields of socio-educational intervention, where sustained interaction between academia and community generates expansive learning and transformative agency (Sannino et al., 2016; Van Karnenbeek et al., 2022). What creative disciplines contribute to this field is the centrality of the co-designed artifact, which in this case, as a memory device, operates as a threshold object mediating between academic activity and the community. This allows different forms of knowledge, usually excluded (such as community narratives, cultural practices, and oral traditions) to be recognized as legitimate.

The study has limitations: especially the small size of the groups limits generalization, thus favoring a contextualized understanding; and horizontal leadership implies that knowledge is produced from the experience and position of the participants, which departs from the criteria of objectivity usually used to evaluate research. Rather than weaknesses, we understand that this underlies an invitation to rethink the criteria of validity, recognizing the legitimacy of knowledge constructed from experience, memory, and situated interaction. In light of all that has been presented, we identify three lines of possible future study. The first is the relationship between dialectic processes and the capacity of the process to produce socially impactful knowledge in the territory (Connerton, 1989; Haraway, 1988); the effects of sustained participation in community contexts on the ethical orientation of students (Mayor Paredes, 2020; Tapia, 2006) and the role of long-term research-creation in the intergenerational transmission of community narratives (Assmann, 2008).

References

• 1

  Arango MarínM. (2021). Diseño para las transiciones: una ruta formativa desde las identidades y los saberes artesanales. RChD Creac. Pensam.6 (10), 1–17. 10.5354/0719-837X.2021.60871

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AssmannJ. (2008). Religión y Memoria cultural: Diez estudios. Buenos Aires: Lilmod.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BeltránE. M.Villaneda VásquezA. (2020). La investigación-creación como producción de nuevo conocimiento: perspectivas, debates y definiciones. Index Rev. Arte Contemp.10, 247–267. 10.26807/cav.vi10.339

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qual. Psychol.9 (1), 3–26. 10.1037/qup0000196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  CatibielaA.TapiaM. N.BujanP. D. (2018). Aprendizaje-servicio Solidario en las Artes. Buenos Aires: Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario (CLAYSS).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  ConnertonP. (1989). How Societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  Correa FuentesB. J.Parga HerreraM. H. (2025). Autoethnography and artistic creation: an introspective look at the creative process in musical ensembles. Front. Educ.10, 1619873. 10.3389/feduc.2025.1619873

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  De CerteauM. (2000). La Invención de lo Cotidiano. 1. Artes de Hacer, Transl. A. Pescador. México: Universidad Iberoamericana.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work.14 (1), 133–156. 10.1080/13639080020028747

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edn. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  García-GutiérrezJ.Ruiz CorbellaM.Del PozoA. (2020). Innovación y aprendizaje-servicio virtual: elementos para una reflexión basada en la experiencia. RIDAS Rev. Iberoam. Aprendiz. Serv.9, 62–80. 10.1344/RIDAS2020.9.4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  García-RomeroD.LaluezaJ. L. (2019). Procesos de aprendizaje en aprendizaje-servicio universitario: una revisión teórica. Educ. XX1.22 (2), 273–291. 10.5944/educxx1.22716

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  García-RomeroD.LaluezaJ. L.Blanch GelabertS. (2021). Análisis de un proceso de institucionalización del aprendizaje-servicio universitario. Athenea Digit.21 (3), e2934. 10.5565/rev/athenea.2934

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  GutiérrezK. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Read. Res. Q.43 (2), 148–164. 10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  HalbwachsM. (2004). La Memoria colectiva. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud14 (3), 575–599. 10.2307/3178066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  IrwinT. (2020). The emerging transition design approach. Cuad. Cent. Estud. Diseño Comun. (87), 27–54. 10.18682/cdc.vi87.3762

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  JelinE. (2002). Los Trabajos de la Memoria. Madrid: Siglo XXI Editores.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  JelinE. (2020). “¿De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de memoria?,” in Elizabeth Jelin. Antología Esencial. Las tramas del tiempo. Familia, género, memorias, derechos y movimientos sociales, eds. Da Silva CatelaL.CerrutiM.PereyraS. (Buenos Aires: CLACSO), 419–440.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  KennedyM.AlteratorS.MorseM.RudnerJ.HodgeB. (2026). Co-creative pedagogies: learning through uncertainty in higher education. High. Educ.91, 805–824. 10.1007/s10734-025-01444-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  KminekH.Böhning-GaeseK.FriedrichT.HollertH.KrammJ.SchlottmannA.et al (2026). About transformation in transdisciplinary approaches. Environ. Sci. Eur.38, 118. 10.1186/s12302-026-01402-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  LafuenteA.LaraT. (2013). Aprendizajes situados y prácticas procomunales. Rev. Sociol. Educ. RASE.6 (2), 168–177. 10.7203/RASE.6.2.8352. Available online at: https://turia.uv.es/index.php/RASE/es/article/view/8352/7945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  LaluezaJ. L.Martínez-LozanoV.Macías-Gómez-EsternB. (2024). “University-community partnerships as ‘hybrid contexts of activity': learnings from two projects with roma children in Spain,” in University-community Partnerships for Transformative education, eds. Welsh MahmoodM.ElaineM.CanoJ. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 265–282. 10.1007/978-3-031-60583-3_13

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  LefebvreH. (2013). La Producción del Espacio, Transl. E. Martínez Gutiérrez. Madrid: Capitán Swing.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  LudwigD.El-HaniC. N. (2025). Transformative Transdisciplinarity: An Introduction to Community-based philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/9780197815281.001.0001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  Macías-Gómez-EsternB.LaluezaJ. L. (2024). Navigating I-positionings in higher education service learning as hybrid scenarios: a case study. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact.45, 100805. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2024.100805

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  Martínez-SanzR.Durántez StolleP. (2020). Comunicación corporativa y educación en valores en el aula universitaria. Un proyecto de aprendizaje-servicio (APS). Rev. OBETS.15 (2), 563–588. 10.14198/OBETS2020.15.2.07

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  Mayor ParedesD. (2020). Aprendizaje-servicio como estrategia metodológica para impulsar procesos de educación expandida. Multidiscip. J. Educ. Res.10 (1), 47–74. 10.17583/remie.2020.4562

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  MerçonJ. (2022). Investigación transdisciplinaria e investigación-acción participativa en clave decolonial. Utop. Prax. Latinoam.27 (98), 1–19. 10.5281/zenodo.6614174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  MontoyaS. (2018). Introducción a los Procesos de Investigación, Creación e Innovación en las Artes. Medellín: Universidad de Antioquia.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  Nates CruzB.Velásquez LópezP. A.García AlonsoM. (2018). La Territorialización de la Memoria en Escenarios de Posconflicto. Caldas 1990-2015. Manizales: COLCIENCIAS, CNMH, Universidad de Caldas, RETEC.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  Navarro-MoralC. (2023). Investigación en creación artística: principios metodológicos y criterios de validez. Arte Investig23, e095. 10.24215/24691488e095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  Pérez-CastroA. S. (2025). Codiseño Como impulso del Cambio para Visibilizar el Conocimiento sobre la Siembra en el Barrio Moravia [dissertation/master’s Thesis]. Medellín (Colombia): Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  Pérez-LlanesI.Orrego-TrujilloA. (2025). Diseño Gráfico para Fortalecer proyectos Comunitarios. Siembra de Plantas semillero Flores de Antaño en Moravia [dissertation/master’s Thesis].Medellín (Colombia): Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  Pino-PosadaJ. P.Jaramillo-ApplebyV. (2022). Recepción creativa de obras literarias: un modelo de investigación-creación a partir de la cuentística de alice munro. Íkala Rev. Leng. Cult.27 (2), 432–450. 10.17533/udea.ikala.v27n2a08

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  RobertsonT.SimonsenJ. (2012). Challenges and opportunities in contemporary participatory design. Des. Issues28 (3), 3–9. 10.1162/DESI_a_00157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  SanninoA.EngeströmY.LemosM. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. J. Learn. Sci.25 (4), 599–633. 10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  StévanceS.LacasseS. (2018). Research-creation in Music and the Arts: Towards a Collaborative interdiscipline. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  TapiaM. N. (2006). Aprendizaje y Servicio solidario en el Sistema educativo y las Organizaciones juveniles. Buenos Aires: Ciudad Nueva.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Toursoglou-PapalexandridouD. (2023). Dialogues among Commons and Resilience: Analysing community Participation and its Results in Diverse global Cities [dissertation]. Thessaloniki (Greece): Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 10.12681/eadd/55456

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Toursoglou PapalexandridouD. (2024). “De los bienes comunes a la transformación urbana: el desplazamiento de zonas rurales como fuerza de transformación y defensa del territorio urbano,” in La Descommunal: Revista Iberoamericana de Patrimonio y Comunidad, eds. WalidS.PulidoJ.VázquezA., 74–89. Available online at: https://ladescommunal.net/ficheros/archivos/2024_12/descommunal-actas-sopa22-completa-def.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Toursoglou-PapalexandridouD.Ortiz-NúñezS. (2024). “Saberes de un proceso en común: las ‘comunidades de diálogo’ como itinerario a múltiples voces,” in XVII Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Escuelas de Urbanismo y Planificación (ALEUP) (Medellín), 23-25 October 2024.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Van KarnenbeekL. J.Janssen-JansenL.PeelD. (2022). Conceptualising co-creative planning pedagogies: the community knowledge triangle. Plan. Pract. Res.37 (4), 446–463. 10.1080/02697459.2020.1856501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Vélez-CardonaW.Durán-LandazábalG. M.López-CorreaA. Y. (2018). ¿Qué hace que una investigación deba ser considerada transdisciplinaria?Praxis.14 (2), 243–252. 10.21676/23897856.2764

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  WengerE. (2001). Comunidades de Práctica: Aprendizaje, Significado e Identidad, Transl. G. Sánchez Barberán. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Yandar-SantacruzS. V.García-ÁvilaS. (2025). Moravia un Barrio que Siembra futuro, Comunicación visual Para visibilizar los Saberes sobre Plantas medicinales [dissertation/master’s Thesis]. Medellín (Colombia): Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana.

  • Google Scholar