In a recent work on the similarities among Latin American universities, Martín Unzué concludes that the resemblances lie not in the institutional models (which are, in fact, quite diverse) but in the “common missions” they have assumed—that is, their ways of responding to demands and positioning themselves in relation to society and the state. He highlights that one of the characteristics acquired by the Latin American university in the 20th century is the early development of a politicized student movement, concerned not only with its place within the university but also with the university's role in society. From this starting point, and considering the significance of the 1918 University Reform for the entire continent, he identifies the politicization, democratic character, and mandates of secularization and social commitment as defining features of the Latin American university (Unzué, 2018). In this sense, throughout the history of the university in our region, the strategies for crystallizing what is generically termed “university social commitment” have been varied and distinct. However, as Agustín Cano argues, it is primarily university extension that has condensed and expressed the different ways in which the university organizes, in different historical and social contexts, its commitment to the social, cultural, economic, and political processes of the context (Cano, 2014). Polysemous and heterogeneous, extension is a distinctive function of Latin American universities, and currently, nowhere else in the world is there a level of integration and development equivalent to that found in Latin America and the Caribbean (Tünnermann, 2000). 

The characteristics, implications, and assumptions of the link between the university and social actors have been the subject of passionate theoretical, political, and methodological debates ever since the very term "extension," originating in 19th-century Europe, was linked to the idea of ​​an intellectual center from which science, technology, and art radiate outward. Early on, the social movements that energized the university/society relationship challenged this paternalistic notion of the university and contested the direction of that relationship. It is worth mentioning the expressions in this regard by the nascent student movement at the Congresses of Montevideo (1908) and Buenos Aires (1910), later ratified in the process of the 1918 University Reform. But it was Paulo Freire who, in the early 1970s, wrote a key text for the debate: "Extension or Communication? Conscientization in Rural Areas" (1971). There, the Brazilian educator makes a profound critique of the model of technological transfer to rural communities and, along with it, a devastating critique of the type of link traditionally proposed between university and community, as well as its pedagogical implications. 

“…the theory implicit in the act of extending, in extension, is an anti-dialogical theory. As such, it is incompatible with authentic education.” (Freire, 2013: 43-44).

Before and after Freire, numerous Latin American thinkers also reflected on the meanings and directions of the relationship between universities and social movements: José Carlos Mariátegui; Juan Antonio Mella; Leopoldo Zea; Aníbal Quijano; Augusto Salazar Bondy; Isabel Larguía; Darcy Ribeiro; Heleieth Saffioti; Enrique Dussel; Eva Giberti; Orlando Fals Borda; Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui; Rodolfo Stavenhagen; Agustín Cueva; Pablo González Casanova; Arturo Roig; Elizabeth Jelin, among others. From this reflection, always accompanied by dynamic social and political praxis, various theoretical and methodological paradigms emerged to give meaning to this link: Popular Education; Participatory Action Research; Philosophy for Liberation; Education for Liberation; Popular Communication; among others. After a relatively short period, but one of great intensity in its territorial deployment and conceptual development, the long night of military dictatorships on the continent will cause the retreat of the different formats of work between university and popular sectors. 

Already in the 1990s, in contrast to the optimistic diagnosis of the university and its role in national development and some democratic transitions, universities were marked by a new era characterized by a focus on the regulatory effects of the market and the conviction that, like other state institutions, the university required profound transformation. Thus, evaluation, quality, effectiveness/efficiency, objective guidelines for resource allocation, and accountability became the guiding principles of a discourse that gained consensus among educational policymakers who viewed the university as an ossified institution with serious quality deficits, lacking evaluation mechanisms, employing irrational budget allocation criteria, and disconnected from the country's relevant problems (Erreguerena, 2017). This context of neoliberal globalization, the fall of the Soviet bloc, the territorial retreat of the popular classes, and the emergence of new actors in collective action (Svampa, 2008; Merklen, 2005) brought with it revisions and updates to the theoretical frameworks of the 1970s. University extension became involved in the dynamics of providing additional funding, fragmenting previous forms of social engagement and, in many cases, being replaced by technological collaboration and the sale of services. A new generation of authors, spurred by the social and political dynamics, promoted the theoretical and methodological renewal of classic conceptual frameworks. These include, among others, Carlos Rodríguez Brandao; Oscar Jara; Alfredo Ghiso; Claudia Korol; Alfonso Torres Carrillo; Roberto Elisalde; Norma Michi; Bernardo Manzano Fernández; María Teresa Sirvent; Hugo Zemelman; and Marco Raúl Mejía. José Luis Rebellato, including Freire's own self-critical reflection and relevant contributions from other latitudes, especially the epistemological proposal of Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 

In this context, with a strong Freirean educational foundation and advocating for participatory research methodologies (especially Fals Borda's proposal), the current known as "Critical Extension" ("Extensão Popular" in its Brazilian version) emerged, specifically within the university field and as a response to the extension model focused on technology transfer and the sale of services. While in the technology transfer model the extension agent acts as a mediator in the relationship between scientific advances and individuals/companies/clients, in the critical extension model the extension agent is a conscious participant in the historical and social tensions and contradictions that overdetermine this relationship, as well as in the impossibility of remaining neutral with respect to them (Tommasino and Cano, 2016). In this sense, critical extension maintains a common core of theoretical, political, and methodological agreements for working with social movements, actors, and organizations, among others:

A critical reading of the current social order in Latin America and the Caribbean, questioning the integrating and reproductive role that education in general, and university education in particular, has played in it.

ü A goal of contributing to the strengthening and emancipation of the dominated sectors as historical subjects and protagonists of social change; strengthening the autonomy of their organizations and democratizing power towards the social base. 

Working in the field with social movements, actors, and organizations as a transformative educational process where there are no stereotypical roles of educator and learner (everyone can learn and teach). This process contributes to the production of new knowledge and critically links academic knowledge with popular knowledge.

ü An interdisciplinary approach and joint work between movement/actors and social organizations, in each and every stage: problem definition, planning, execution and evaluation (TOMMASINO et al, 2006).  

It is on this Latin American and Caribbean tradition of university extension, its diverse theoretical, political, pedagogical and methodological approaches, that the present Working Group proposes to deepen, update and recover experiences and content. 

University extension, as a defining characteristic of Latin American universities, currently boasts a strong tradition expressed in numerous activities, programs, and projects, as well as in various continental events on the subject. However, this practice has not always been accompanied by the necessary theoretical and methodological systematization, essential complements for adding intelligibility and vigor to proposals for transforming the university and its relationship with society. Although, as mentioned earlier, its development in Latin America and the Caribbean is unparalleled in other parts of the world, it has not been a focus of interest for educational research in general, resulting in a scarcity of research and reflection on the topic. Furthermore, the knowledge developed within this framework has circulated outside the circuits of academic publication and beyond the scope of established criteria. mainstream (or mainstream) that dominate the circulation of scientific production. Agustín Cano (2014) identifies two main circumstances to explain an asymmetry that exists between teaching and research and that impacts the marginalization of extension: 

a) the fragmented and uneven development that the main university functions have historically had, causing research and teaching to generally take place without solid connections with extension, leaving the latter relegated to a logic of "practical" work that distances it from the devices of systematic academic research and writing.  

b) an unequal distribution of university prestige, expressed in the aforementioned division of labor and in salary and institutional incentive policies linked to productivity valued by funding agencies and which, therefore, mostly benefit those who are dedicated to research and teaching. 

Despite the aforementioned circumstances, a growing interest in outreach can be observed in a significant number of universities in the region, along with numerous regional and continental events and forums dedicated to the topic, and, above all, the presence of a vigorous and active critical mass that, through diverse formats and traditions, embodies the multifaceted social commitment of universities. Within this framework, the problematization of the very concept of “university extension” This has been a recurring theme, especially since the publication in 1971 of Paulo Freire's text mentioned in the previous point. The term "extension," far from being banished, has persisted in many universities as a result of intense collective debates that occur within the very process of extension activities, in reflection workshops, and at conferences. As Rosa Buenfil states, notions are not only defined by their etymology or literal semantics, but also by their historicity and contexts of enunciation (Buenfil, 1994). Furthermore, given the term's strong and persistent hold, even the most critical perspectives have opted to redefine it rather than abandon its use and thereby accept the resulting disadvantages in the daily struggle over the meaning and significance of the university/society relationship. Let us remember that outreach remains one of the traditionally accepted functions of the university, and its significance has allowed for the articulation of political-academic projects capable of challenging hegemonic ways of doing university work, seeking to link teaching processes with major national problems and the needs of the popular sectors of society. In the sense of De Sousa Santos's proposal “dialogue and ecology of knowledge”Diego Tatián proposes the notion of “university intention”, as a complementary process to extension, emphasizing the importance of incorporating into universities and their research agendas, a set of problems, themes and knowledge from social movements, processes that redefine university autonomy, which goes from being a purely defensive autonomy to a “heterogeneous”, positive and proactive autonomy (Tatián, 2013). 

Alongside the controversial nature of the notion of extension, as these conceptual and terminological discussions reveal, it is also necessary to consider its heterogeneity. Multiple activities coexist under the label of “extension.” Thus, the activities that universities call “extension” have different characteristics depending on whether they involve cultural dissemination, scientific dissemination, collaboration with other subsystems of the education system and/or with the productive sector, pre-professional internships, popular education activities carried out voluntarily by student organizations, territorial decentralization of academic programs, summer courses or conferences open to the public, sales of services, or technology transfer in different areas of knowledge, etc. (Cano 2014). These two aspects we observe—the conceptual and nominative controversy and the enormous heterogeneity of activities named in the same way—make it clear that university extension is a contested space. As Laclau and Mouffe (2011) have pointed out, processes of signification are processes of hegemony, and in this sense, the signifier “extension,” in its constitutive polysemy and ambiguity, can be understood as a concept whose meaning varies according to different discursive articulations that seek to provisionally fix its significance, in accordance with the tensions and conflicts of the hegemonic process in the university and social field. Thus, “social responsibility,” “social commitment,” “technology transfer,” “articulation,” “linkage,” “extension-intension,” “critical extension,” etc., are discursive articulations that strive to give meaning to the university-society link based on certain interests, conceptions, purposes, and implications (Tommasino and Cano, 2016). This is a dispute that cannot be settled administratively, and which instead is worth maintaining, highlighting the political implications of the ways in which university-society linkage processes are conceived and organized.

In the current socio-political context of the region, marked by the erosion of progress in expanding rights policies over the last few decades and the return of neoliberal agendas, sometimes accompanied by authoritarian and anti-democratic practices, there has been a systematic attack on state-run universities and public science institutions. These institutions are being subjected to financial strangulation and media discrediting within a process of increasing commodification that threatens to undermine the university's social commitment. In this context, we propose this working group to coordinate these resistance efforts within a necessary discussion aimed at systematizing and deepening the theoretical, political, pedagogical, and methodological content of the approach to... Latin American and Caribbean critical extension, with the conviction that the way in which knowledge is produced and democratized affects the feasibility, meaning and directionality of the processes of transformation of society.