1) External dimension

The possibility of defining the external dimension of the methodological in this experience allows us to name the ways to approach the extra-university study subjects to produce knowledge. To explain this, we will identify two subdimensions: a) the production of situated knowledge; and, b) the interdisciplinary and intertextual stake. Observing the articulations between the multiplicity of enunciation places, while inter-discipline and intertextuality enables accounting for the negotiations and disputes to broaden academic limits. This classic methodological dimension in academic spaces —which we call external and which in theoretical-empirical research responds to the way of approaching the part of reality under study and the subjects that compose it— allows us to dive into our own study case.

Even if it is classic dimension, the subjective relation established with it in the training spaces is complex. In one of our monthly meetings,¹¹ a space was devoted to interchange between teams (UBACyT and IRP), heeding our early analyses. The answers to the question regarding what the relationship between the members of the project with the research methodology is dealt with experiences in the degree, or in their first drafts.

The graduate thesis was the first experience and I hated it because in reality, I was given no methodology. I can’t even reread that thesis, it’s a shame. I was given no methodological guidance. It was as though jumping out (Lynda’s intervention. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

Over the degree, the methodology I had was ugly… I believe the methodology was also like a monster, something dark, a dark cloud (Intervention by Camila S. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

Methodology is the subject none wants to take, it’s a bad word, it’s an ugly guy (Intervention by Camila R. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

We underscore that in the interventions above the rediscovery of “methodology” from places other than “the ugly”, “hate”, “the subject none wants to take” links with the already referred internal dimension. This is, by “making friends with methodology” (Mercedes’ intervention. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021) there is a change from and in the belonging to a research collective that intentionally fosters its training character and where a group conformation that allows for sharing processes and contribute with all is built. It entails a relocation of the subjects regarding the methodology from places with more agency, hierarchization of the subjectivity of the researcher as a constituent part of the process of knowledge production and to consider collective links nodal, though authorships and drafts shall be individual, following the parameters of the academic canon.

a) Production of situated knowledge: as regards the first aspect —which we may call “situated thinking and knowledge”— we state that it is a transversal element to the critical contemporary epistemological and methodological perspectives of Latin American origin. The situationality gives an account of the search for advancing knowledge production that starts and particularly takes into consideration the concrete geographical, cultural and historic contexts in which it is carried out.¹² In the case of the intervention/research practices of the UBACyT team, the notion of situated knowledge is markedly retaken from ^{Haraway (1991)} , who —from feminist epistemologies— proposes to specify the standpoint from which one starts to approach a portion of reality; standpoint that configures on the basis of context, subjectivity and the shared ethical-political positionings of the one researching. This situated knowledge, as a shared epistemic-methodologic axiom, is noticed in action in its practices where reads and references to these epistemologies are shared, and where the forms of knowledge production are contested from.

On one side, this positioning implies situating the one that researches in the multiple intersections of the working, academic, militant and personal environment of the practice. It is interesting to link this situated thinking to the particular creation of the group, where the trajectories cross with political-partisan and gender militances, and in some cases with works in the State, taken up from places of leading roles and social intervention. On the other side, it entails locating the researchers in the contexts of the subjects of study from a place associated with intervention. In this regard, the director of the project defines the methodology in an interesting way where this dual situationality that entails learning about oneself in the task of learning about the others: “the methodology is the very process of learning in and from life itself, and the transformation people do with the others […] it is to learn about oneself, not only learning about the others” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 7, October 27^th, 2021).

In this regard, the multiple places of enunciation of the people who produce knowledge materialize in questions that intend to make subjective context explicit and the singular standpoint as expressed by ^{Haraway (1991)} . Likewise, it was evinced in the reiteration of the question in the terms: “where are you in this research you’re sharing with us?”. We find several forms of naming themselves by the team members:

Alex, researcher/poet/lesbian; Sergia, militant/researcher/queer; Julieta, social worker/researcher; Micaela, “estatala” (state worker)/researcher. These names give an account of complex enunciation places where the academy connects with professions, militances, and sex-gendered identifications. It shows intersectionality where the canon demands the subjective totalization of the figure of the academician in dissociation with other identities

Far from understanding personal crossings as biases, these are presented intervening in the election of a topic, in the construction of a sensation of lack that is intended to revert, and in the passion that sustains a knowledge process. In some cases, it is recognized that these multiple identity inscriptions enable a link with the subjects of study from more personal places. However, they are also sources of tensions in methodological practices.

In one of the meetings,¹³ in which one of the thesis presentations was in charge of Sergia, the interchange was around the negotiation of strategies proper to both fields (research and militance) when a political-partisan militance space one belongs to is researched. This dual identity was expressed as a generator of personal angsts and, at once, reflections as academicians. In such meeting, Sergia stated:

A research topic that doesn’t make the militance to kick you out, not uncomfortable, and accepted in the degree. These are the pangs of a dual enrollment. Many people avoid this by researching other thing or plainly, do not research. We can’t let it go; it is not something stupid. I don’t feel as comfortable being militant and being exposed [the conflicts around the selected experience]. Do I have to choose between being militant or researcher? (Sergia’s intervention. Meeting 7, September 27^th, 2021).

Indeed, the construction of situated knowledge, from a particular standpoint, is marked by this overlaps and tensions, by these hybrid villages, as one of the team members calls them ^{(Nebra, 2021)} in her doctoral thesis. We identified the thematization of methodological aspects that turn dilemmatic: the care of organizations at the time of communicating the enquired, the construction of complex balances between what is known as a militant and what the subjects stated the formal context of the interviews.

In another meeting,¹⁴ Matías —a member of the State work team— shared his master thesis plan, in which he put forward intervening/researching in his own work space. Group deliveries were around the need to situate in that process and reflect about himself as a researcher in his work place. Some of the questions expressed were the following: “how are you doing the research being yourself an agent of the State?”, “What will be your place as a male coworker thinking the group process of you female coworkers in your work place?”, “What is the task of reflexivity that you will do, even if it is not an anthropologic thesis?”, “what is your role there?” (reconstruction of various interventions in Meeting 5, August 25^th, 2021).

As in the previous case, reflexivity on the situationality of the producers of knowledge also becomes methodological aspects such as the construction of hypotheses that do not seek to corroborate new starting points, but an opening to the amazement before the naturalized, the selection of a sample without the very biases of the affinities in everyday labor relations, the speakable and that which prefers to be omitted when a former colleague is interviewed. These refer to the need of reflexivity to known oneself, and at once, the search for possible objectivity in the construction of the coordinates to approach to an object of enquiry as close.

In parallel, one of the group problematizations that allowed us to continue deepening into the notion of situationality appeared as regards the undertaking of fieldwork from a stance critical to the epistemic extractivism ^{(Grosfoguel, 2016)} , or what a member calls “falling with a parachute and go away for nothing in return” ^{(Nebra, 2021: 41)}; how to summon the actors’ voices without affecting their places of enunciation which, as in the case of those who research, are multiple and complex.

That is to say, how to configure synergies among the complexities of linkings with the subjects of study. The construction of a link with extra-university students bears a foundational mark of TS in UBACyT, the mayor in which the team started and which according to comments in the workshop teaches them to “speak to the others” (Record of workshop observation, May 31^st, 2022). In this regard, intervention/research practices give an account of the confluence and complementation of various sorts of goals (transformation and production of knowledge, respectively), know-hows (territorial, professional, and academic), and of a particular imbrication between practice and theory in the production of situated knowledge.

The doctoral dissertation ^{(Nebra, 2021)} of one of the historic members of the UBACyT team (meeting 2, April 29^th, 2021) allowed us to visualize some of the decisions she made on the terrain, positioning from gender perspective. In the meeting, the member commented that she always prioritized the intervention objectives over those of the research (Observation records of Meeting 2, April 29^th, 2021). In this same line, she points out:

I decided to effectively behave as a social worker […] this I wanted to say, that I always gave priority to the actions linked to ensure social intervention over those that intend to receive specific recognition, though this was against the research (Nebra, 2021: 42).

From framing the research to develop her thesis, she modelled a way to relate to the subjects; that is, build the relation on the basis of near modes, the demands did not match the objectives of knowledge strictly, respectful time management.

In like manner, this framing produces movements in the legitimation of know-hows in conjunction with knowledge production. On one side, it positions the subjects as carriers of valuable knowledge regarding the objects under study. In the workshop we organized jointly with IRP and UBACyT, a series of comments pointed at the need to valorize the “know-hows of the territory” and to avoid hierarchization supported on the mere possession of expert knowledge or what was called “the hierarchies of the title” (Workshop observation registration, May 31^st, 2022). Furthermore, not only does it valorize the expert knowledge associated to the academicians’ identities as such, but also the practical knowledge that responds to other possible family, militant and sex-gendered ascriptions. In the terms of the aforementioned doctoral dissertation shared in the meeting of the team, the existence of this practical knowledge —which made it “native” of the field even before becoming a researcher— worked for the interlocutors as a reassurance that “won’t kill us in a paper” (Nebra, 2021: 37), facing a possible intellectualist bias.

Out of the previously mentioned aspects comes centrality taken by practices in the working ways of UBACyT team. In one of the monthly meetings, a postgraduate student, who had recently incorporated, shared one of her earliest interests and asked the collective for reading recommendations (Intervention by Camila R’s. Meeting 7, October 27^th, 2021). The intervention of the team leader suggested approaching the topic from practices, to transit from an experience linked to interesting contexts: “Instead of thinking of a research problem, do things: voluntarily enroll into the workshop and join groups that go and teach gender in the jail […] Go and start with the practice itself. It seems it is good to experience, to live” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 7, October 27^th, 2021).

Likewise, in another meeting, the person presenting their work located from and in the practices when she stated that “our territory is with the actual partners” (Micaela’s intervention. Meeting 4, July 1^st, 2021). Her thesis puts forward taking territory and public policy to university, and conversely, take academic production to the territory. This positioning tenses a form of research, an academic trajectory, and postgraduate education that is signified by the group as the bearer of theoretical emphasis. It entails developing strategic knowing-doing to “introduce” what they do —their practices, modes of making science— in the academic logics of which they also want to partake.

Indeed, stating loving forms of linking, the legitimation of the know-hows of the territory and the emphasis of intervention and practices enable the production of situated knowledge. The stake and challenges from this point at the fact of not disavowing the intersectionalities crossed by the very subjects of study who conjugate with the people they research, nor to strip them of agency by means of “maternalist /paternalist” looks and approximations.

About this last point, we underscore the case of Micaela, another member of UBACyT team, who shared her ongoing work with heavily subordinated actors such as transvestite and trans-infancies in popular neighborhoods (Meeting 4, July 1^st, 2021). In her representation, she insisted on calling attention to transvestites and trans-partners as regards they do not want to be objects of study of academic projects, but protagonists of their stories and the research processes around them. From this listening to the partners’ desires, whom she knows closely due to her intervention as a worker of the State, the methodological decision of not interviewing those infancies so as not to render them vulnerable and take care of their experiences and displacements. From her dual inscription as a state worker and academician, this team member —who researches, works, and militates in the same context— claims: “I’m not a cis that speaks of or in relation with transvestites, but I talk to them” (Micaela’s intervention. Meeting 4, July 1^st, 2021).

After her exposition, there were interventions that contested such “excess” of care and protection to transvestite and transinfancies. One of the comments was:

I have this doubt on what academic extractivism is and what not. Tell me, with all your militancy and activisms in the State and political stance, is interviewing your trans partners academic extractivism? You goal is your dissertation to become a contribution to all that. If not, I believe we are being fundamentalists: I can’t talk about transvestites because I’m not a transvestite (Yanina’s intervention. Meeting 4, July 1^st, 2021).

Another intervention pointed out that such previous knowledge possessed and which turns them into individuals which “do not come from the outside and are aware of” is key to think other modes of academic work that configure “friendly environments” and “amicable interviews” (Intervention of Julieta V. Meeting 4, July 1^st, 2021). The discussion emphasized the need to inhabit and endure contradictions and discomfort as regards the study of transvestite identities not being so, to research and do not consider themselves an academy due to the strong professional inscription as a social worker, to pursue intervention-transformation goals parallel to knowledge production. Mediated by group interchange, preserving the contradiction was fostered, which may be solved avoiding the dialogue with such infancies, but to turn it into a methodological tool and driver of the thesis, to “research in and from such contradiction”. Indeed, the “fabric” built with transvestites and trans, according to the member, from her role of “state agent”, is fundamental to support the assembly of a loving frame. At once, the existence of this previous relationship legitimizes her being as a researcher with the subjects and territories.

b) The interdisciplinary and intertextual stake: as already pointed out, inter-discipline is part of the foundational mark of the creation of the UBACyT team. Even if the origin is SW, presently, its members come from four of the five undergraduate courses: sociology and SW graduates, gradually students from communication sciences and political science incorporated; adding to the theoretical-methodological of the anthropological discipline and a member from psychology.

Well now, we consider that not only does inter-discipline evoke the dialogue between original academic disciplines, as recognized in the workshop developed, enriched the group practices of intervention/research (observation register, May 31^st, 2022), but it also refers to intertextuality that emerges in the pluralization of knowledge production sources and in the reinvention of communication formats, dissemination and scientific drafting.

As regards the pluralization of sources, in a meeting where Alex presented her ongoing work was thematized around poetry, not only as an object of enquire of the team member, who defines herself as researcher-poet, but also as a source for the intelligibility of the world (meeting 3, May 27^th, 2021). Here, we find the theoretical, epistemological and methodological fingerprint of epistemological feminism that accompanies the search to contest the dominant scientific rationale, which provides reason with centrality in detriment to emotion, sensibility and experience. Somehow, we identified the shared idea that only from a solid methodological justification is it possible for the movements of academic canons to acquire legitimacy. As pointed out by the project leader regarding the presentation, there is a methodological challenge to “makes poetic-literary and social analysis speak in unison” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 3, May 27^th, 2021). In the same intertextual sense, literature was recurrently mentioned as reading recommendations, as input for theses and drafts, as well it integrates bibliography hosted in the shared digital library.

These other records that bear the mark of art (literature, poetry, music) are presented as central for the activation of creativity and passion in those who research. In a number of opportunities these were associated with pleasure and play. The native category of “warm dynamics” (intervention by Camila S. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022), utilized to account for inter-subjective groups links, also applies for the counterpoint we listen to in the interventions between knowledge production considered cold and the warmth of other registers that enable the building of “aesthetics” and “erotica” around knowledge. In this line, the epistemic-methodological and subjective proposal of UBACyT team point at training and participating of the “cold” academic logics from the warmth of pleasure; i.e., integrating and recognizing the inhabiting of two worlds, being “passionate and framed at once” (Carolina’s intervention. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022). To do so, the aforementioned knowing-doing is fundamental for the purposes of meeting the academic demands without giving up aesthetics and erotica.

Additional to the pluralization of sources, we notice the essay of other forms of saying linked to peer communication (in the context of academic events, university lessons, dissertations) and dissemination. Forms of saying in which, as commented in one of the meetings, “the part of desire, and emotion is noticed, to feel the goosebumps” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 3, May 27^th, 2021). Over this line, the possibility of holding a performance, to give a lecture in a congress and the tensions entailed by academic formalities. Both in the workshop and informal between this article’s authors, dissemination strategies were recalled and took place as a team in order to reach a wider audience by means of technology. Among them, distinguishable is the production of spots in 2018, which were uploaded to a YouTube channel after the rejection of a law on the legal termination of pregnancy by the Representative Chamber in Argentina, and a common diagnosis regarding the necessity to broaden interlocutions because “we’ve talking to ourselves” (registration of conversation between the authors of the article, March 16^th, 2021). Once again, in this case, the dissemination seems to be associated to the artistic and cultural field.

Writing also emerges as a space for the inscription of epistemic-methodological disputes. Given their condition of a large part of the team, that is, postgraduate students, the thesis of gender reversion insisted on group discussions. The facilities of UBACyT were propitious to experiment and exercise the creative intervention of formats that would be later assessed in other academic contexts. In the succession of meetings, the references to the thesis of one of the members were reiterated (Nebra, 2021) as an accomplished example of this struggle in the field of writing. It meets the evaluation parameters of a doctoral thesis and, at once, incorporates what she calls “the ludic power of playing as a producer instance capable of giving the words life and movement… and as windows to the knowledge to the world” (Nebra, 2021: 9). To do so, it resorts to a series of resources such as the us e of parenthesis to assembly plays on words, poetry as intertext and the drafting of a “zero chapter”, where their feminist and critical epistemological positioning is described.

From the interpretation of what the research practices of UBACyT team provides us with, not only does inter-discipline relate to the possibility of transcending the limits and constrictions of scientific disciplines, but also aperture —spoken and written— to other cultural-artistic registrations that are the source, content, and communication strategy of the knowledge produced. Here, the knowledge of how to narrate and how to narrate oneself that comprises emotion, beauty and passion concurs.

2) Internal dimension

Interwoven and inseparable from the external dimension, ascertaining the interiority of the methodological enables us to approach —more integrally— the everyday work we collectively give ourselves to produce knowledge. This internal dimension of the methodology linked to the group creation acts as a “laboratory of daily work” (record of the team meeting, March 16^th, 2021), to practice novel forms of academic exercise.

Group dynamics to train researchers seems to be managed, in this study case, by means of democratic forms that contest academic hierarchies and the configuration of this role. The processes of knowledge production also play in the links and decisions of daily tasks. In this way, methodological training does not start and finish, for example, by coursing the subjects corresponding to the curriculum, but also may be taught in continual movement and construction, which is constantly exercised in the link and dialogue with others: with the study subjects, partners, colleagues, tutors. In order to be able to explain how this is produced in UBACyT team, we differentially noticed: a) the management of hierarchies, understood as a way to manage the meeting of people with differences trajectories and roles, but who intend to work together; and, b) the care of links as a part of a positioning that recognizes the academicians’ affectivity and emotions. a) the management of hierarchies: to the extent the links inside the training group space are configured, research practices are modeled. Here underlies an epistemological supposition of the perspective that gathers the UBACyT team: knowledge is built with others. This collective dimension of knowledge is oftentimes eclipsed by the dynamics proper to academic careers and their logics of individual accreditation; however, it is a constitutive aspect of knowledge production such as it comes from the analyzed methodological practices. This translates as the importance acquired by the group as an identity that needs to be recognized and valued according to their readings, productions, councils, contacts and the moments of sociability experience by the members of the research teams. During the meetings of UBACyT teams, this dimension was enacted as a usual way to work and relate between partners, even with different trajectories and roles. An instance of this was the first 2021 meeting, in which sharing patterns and advice to fill in the online SIGEVA format was proposed, understood as necessary strategic knowledge for the individual academic trajectory and also, to visualize group work (meeting 1, March 31^st, 2021).

Over the meetings and mainly after the dialogue between both teams, the director presented her concerns regarding the role and management of group dynamic. The main concern was that certain questions about how to conciliate a logic of horizontal relationship with the academic criteria that acquire direction and coordination in formal and practical terms, as well as the expectations of those who do not hold such roles and have to be guided and advised. Well now, what do hierarchies mean inside an academic work team? Which criteria do they follow? What is implied in building horizontal links? How are differences and/or conflicts managed? How does this influence research practices?

Over the workshop we organized from IRP in order to rethink the systematization of joint work, an interesting change tool place in relation to what hierarchies mean inside a group. One of the members with the least seniority in the team, commented that frequently, in the company of a partner with a master or doctorate, she perceived a hierarchy that did not mean something negative:

People who hold a master or a decorate, who state so, do not have another value, but their words are weighty. I believe all of us belong to the group, but have various degrees and titles, hierarchy in also function of the respect for knowledge the partner has and the value it has (Lucrecia’s intervention. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022).

In a similar sense, another partner stated that recognizing the training of others was stimulating to find out that in the future one might also reach such position (Intervention by Camila R. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022). These interventions produced an intense dialogue on what everyone thought regarding the fact of validating a hierarchical role because of the fact of holding a “degree” and what sort of inequality it shows.

In this regard, successive reflections tended to disassemble the validation of academic hierarchies only because of the title itself inside the group, though not falling into a naïve stance that disavows the advantages of those who have an accreditation of their training in an academic field. One of the members stated:

It is good to think that if we hierarchize people, it is because of knowledge, as there is a comment that expresses hierarchy from academic knowledge; it is right to put it that way and not in more general terms, the way such individual is at a higher position, thinking of those hierarchy pyramids only because that person carried out or leads a research work. If we are thinking of alternative ways to understand knowledge production, it is good to value in the same way the knowledge each one has brought from different places (Intervention by Camila DV. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022).

In this line, the UBACyT project was reflected upon as a space where knowledge is produced in a circular manner from the interchange of know-hows and collective accompaniment of the various roles where one them is. In this way, the structure of the group dynamic is not the academic résumé, but what a partner called “the résumé of action” (Matías’ intervention. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022), which allows receiving feedback from various standpoints and roles.

The fact of going back from certain notions that provide the word accredited by a title inside the group has to concur with the methodological to advance the work, as already mentioned when we referred to the external dimension of the methodology. For example, a partner commented that from a stance that validates everyone’s words is a lesson for the exercise of research understood as a collective practice supported on the link with others.

I usually consider legitimate what people tell me, I research because those who research frequently do so from a very critical place, not constructive and far from reality […]. The fact that in this group we value one another and that made me value others as well, together with other aspects such as my training in social work (Intervention by Julieta N. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022).

Furthermore, in the same meeting, two other aspects that might help understand what hierarchies entail in the group dynamic were mentioned. One of them comes from the “career” within the UBACyT team. In this regard, a member stated that the fact of having spent long time with partners deactivated any unequal logic based on accreditation criteria (Matías’ intervention. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022). Likewise, another aspect referred was the time available to engage in the group project conditioned to receive research grants or part-time professional contracts, which may become inequality inside the group unrelated to each of the members’ training.

All in all, we understand that hierarchies between partners in the context of group work take place in three main areas, even if re-signified according to the logics of critical knowledge production: hierarchies by “title”, “career”, and “commitment”. This re-signification means that hierarchy is not stable and rigid, but changes in function of a dynamic based on dialogue and knowledge interchange. “The one with the word, the one with the title”, as summarized by the director in the context of this exercise in group reflexivity (Marcela’s intervention. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022), referring to the importance of validating the all the members’ voices, beyond their previous careers and/or current position in the academic ladder (recently graduated, students, grant holders, doctor candidates, et cetera).

Well now, this does not mean that the circulation is always fluid or lacks silence, boredom, conflicts, discomfort or discontent, as referred in the workshop (intervention by Camila R. Workshop, May 31^st, 2022). These situations contest other forms of hierarchy almost exclusive to academic training trajectories: the relationship between the directors and the directed. As previously mentioned, the UBACyT project starts from methodological practices that intend to produce horizontal participatory logics of labor, how to carry out group presentations on a day in the field; undertake joint writing, or even, propose a fair and clear allotment of the money available for the project in order to afford fees for congresses or tuition, among other issues.

However, there are certain limits that tension horizontality when these apertures turn neither into answers nor everyone’s active participation; or when there is an expectation that decisions are made by the leaders, and to a certain extent “faces the problems” (Record of a meeting of teams, July 13^th, 2021). This overlaps certain logics of academic work that become unequal roles such as availability to meet deadlines or requirements to apply for project renewals, which cannot be met by everyone at the same extent, since contributions are defined by formal criteria and actual possibilities according to individual academic trajectories.

b) The care of links: in the context of the group workshop, various interventions tried to pinpoint care and trust as the two main forms to manage uneven roles and face the conflicts that may arise from joint labor (Record of the workshop, May 31^st, 2022). No hierarchy was denied in any case, with their already mentioned particularities; thereby, we understand that intending to manage them democratically does not imply a naïve horizontality, but necessarily an explicit reflexivity of the tensions and limits of the UBACyT project’s labor dynamic, which contests the meaning of researching on the academic field from critical standpoints.

During the monthly meetings, we noticed a number of references to the way the links are proposed inside the group. The annual agenda proposed that in each meeting one or two of the members presented their own production and the partners returned ideas, readings and comments to improve the presentations. To a large extent, these interchanges put into play a way to relate signed by nearness and affection: “sharing works of our own is a brave and generous act, in a sphere already known to be kind and a network” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 2, April 29^th, 2021); “reading with commitment is an affectionate act” (Intervention of Julieta N. Meeting 2, April 29^th, 2021); “a lot of information, texts, authors, which are not in the manuals, circulate in this group. Other authors circulate, here we are creating forms of knowledge construction. Always from affection, what is ever present here is love and affection” (Intervention by Camila S. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021). At once, the generous and respectful reception we the members of IRP had as participating observers, together with the dynamics in this regard we noticed in the group interchanges, which concurred with those textual records.

In the same line, by mid-2021, when we had already spent some months of the linking process between IRP and UBACyT project, we held a meeting between both teams’ leaders with a view to conversing and systematizing the earliest joint reflections. Care held a distinguishable place, not only from the intuitions of those involved in the group work, but also from the director’s voice, who underscored the way in which the team received new members, took them in, and almost immediately the interchange of links, texts, advice, contacts, etc. took place (Record of the meeting of the teams, July 13^th, 2021).

In the context of the interchange between partners, accomplishing group intimacy is deemed important intending that inputs and readings among them take place outside the “academic formality” and from the emotion that points at contesting “where are you in this research? What happens to you when you write this?” (Record of the meeting of the teams, July 13^th, 2021). It is then understood that this sort of questions is part of the necessary reflexivity for the production of situated knowledge; and for that to appear, a space lived as loving and kind is necessary, that works as a supportive network to make room for the subjective expressions of research tasks. Likewise, this works in opposition to certain logics sometimes that take place in other academic spaces, where the one who reads “destroys” the work of others without dimensioning the one who writes as someone who put a lot of themselves in their production (meeting 3, April 27^th, 2022).

As regards the proximity of group dynamics, a member commented in one of the meetings:

Observing other people’s processes helps. There are fears of our own, then you meet people in similar stages, with plenty of academic doubts and similar existential experiences, and that helps not to be afraid, that it is something possible, it is the process one has to undergo and it isn’t unendurable (Lynda’s intervention. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

Not only does one learn from recognizing shared fears and uncertainties though, but also the passion to research a certain topic. After the intervention of a partner, who considered herself passionate and personally involved in the work she was presenting, the director encouraged the rest of the group: “for those preparing their topics and research questions, I want you to perceive that passion, to feel thrilled by the research your topics, to feel excited telling the tale. Those initiating listen in order to learn how to choose you topics” (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 3, May 27^th, 2021).

In this way, in this same movement there is, on one side, the transmission of a methodological practice not usually approached in the academic canon (that is to say, how to recognize the emotions of the subjects that research and make them part of the process); and on the other, “desire flows into the academy” (Micaela’s intervention. Meeting 3, May 27^th, 2021), tensioning the usual limits of knowledge production, understood as objective, neutral and devoid of emotional aspects. In this case, the articulation of feminist epistemologies with the positionings and the production of knowledge of UBACyT project.

Moreover, from the role of the director, it is important to recognize the “emotional trajectories” (Record of the meeting of the teams, July 13^th, 2021) of each member of the team; that is to say, not only is it essential to find out the stage where the academic training of the person is, but also the particular moment of their lives: “I’m far, at 10.000 km, and Maky notices right away when I’m wrong” (Intervention by Camila S. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

The accompaniment from the direction in training is in group and individualized at once, since there are collective examples of work, there are other moments that need personalized monitoring in varying intensity, according to the characteristics of each individual: some share aspects of their private lives and are more open, or need more continual presence, or else conversely. This goes hand in hand with positioning as a training director, in which care is understood as an intrinsic part of the relationship established with those directed, of the methodological learning and knowledge production:

Being a director, it is impossible to detach each one’s thesis from their own situation, what happens, and whose is. Because from here one finds out, what happens to each one. Person by person, particular methodologies are set up. A permanent challenge. [Methodology] is beautiful, research is beautiful (Marcela’s intervention. Meeting 6, September 30^th, 2021).

All in all, group training spaces such as the projects funded, possess specific working dynamics that may directly cross the academic trajectories of those who are part of them. That is to say, research is taught and learnt from the methodological tasks in strict sense, and also from the training dynamics that suppose a particular way to experience the links between peers and directors. In the case of UBACyT, the constant search for the construction of a generous and careful framework, signed by politics, ethic, and love, entails not only a way to relate between the members of the team, but also entails a correlate with the individual and collective research practices.

In this context, we witnessed the tension of usually prevailing logics in the production of knowledge such as individual authorships and academic trajectories, the displacement of emotions and affectivity of academic work, the prevalence of an instrumental relationship with university partners, frequently perceived as competitors, and the reproduction of hierarchical and asymmetric relationships in the links between those who direct and the members of the research teams.