Latin America and the Caribbean find themselves once again in the tension between two opposing proposals for the administration of the national State, which have been key to understanding the greater polarization within our societies.

Unevenly and without apparent balance, some states have regained their agency and capacity to intervene in communities through public policies that attempt to undermine the effects of a superficial neoliberalism that has deeply permeated our territories since the 70s. Indeed, Mexico, Chile, Honduras, Brazil, and Colombia are examples of this new dynamism that promotes compensatory social policies and timid echoes of the old welfare states that proliferated in the 40s, 50s, and early 2000s in certain regions and countries of the region.

The political pendulum swinging towards neoliberalism has also shown its inclination and continued relevance. Argentina, Bolivia, and a handful of other countries where neoliberalism and its variants are not in power but are nonetheless significant forces, have demonstrated a capacity for popular legitimacy and for updating their programs in light of the changes that have occurred in the post-pandemic era.

Indeed, during and after the social and humanitarian crisis generated by the coronavirus pandemic, which led to the rapid spread of the virus and prompted state measures on various fronts—health, infrastructure, hygiene, prevention, social isolation, restrictions on the movement of people, and the suspension of productive activities and non-essential services, among others—we have witnessed the necessity of the presence of nation-states as planners of public health and well-being. As has been said, the cruel lesson of the virus (De Sousa Santos, 2020) is less associated with its health consequences—which were and in some places continue to be tragic—but rather with what this phase of capitalism has produced in relation to the role of nation-states and their connection with civil society. Here, it is essential to highlight that, despite the years of populist governments in the region during the first decade of the 2000s, we have witnessed, since the 90s, the demonization of public services; The degradation of social policies dictated by austerity measures under the pretext of the state's financial crisis; the privatization of public services and the underfunding of the remaining ones because they are not in the interest of capital (De Souza Santos, 2020: 68). This dominance of capital over the state, of the public over the private, within the framework of a profoundly unequal world, exposed the difficulties faced by the states of the region in addressing the humanitarian crisis and the centrality of capital in the organization of life for the inhabitants of the world and of our region in particular.

The difficulties of the pandemic and a discourse disseminated through new platforms with new tools during the post-pandemic period generated conflictive situations once again associated with administrative instability and the endemic crisis of our states, a product of their marginal position in the global community of nations. These discourses have taken deep root in some countries, leading to a resurgence of right-wing rhetoric and the inclusion on the agenda of policies of discrimination, marginalization, and social exclusion with a cruelty unprecedented in our continent, one that—in its discourse—reminds us of profoundly traumatic moments in Western history.

What role do we, as social scientists, play in this new tension between fascist neoliberalism and timid welfare states?

In recent years, Latin America and the Caribbean have experienced accelerated transformations linked to the deepening of structural inequalities, the encroachment of transnational corporations on common resources, the increasing pressure from multilateral organizations imposing new financial conditionalities, and the weakening of the role of nation-states in balancing these pressures. These dynamics have reconfigured the relationships between the state, the market, and civil society, straining the region's already fragile democratic institutions. The expansion of neo-developmentalist models based on extractivism—whether mining, agro-industrial, or digital—increases technological and financial dependence while reinforcing a colonial pattern of subordinate insertion into the world-economy (Wallerstein, 1979). In this context, the social sciences of the Global South face the challenge of producing knowledge that not only describes these processes but also allows for the construction of their own analytical categories, rooted in our histories of domination, resistance, and alternatives.

At the same time, territorial disputes are being expressed today with renewed intensity. Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, environmental movements, and feminist organizations have placed the defense of life, territory, and communal forms of social reproduction at the center of the debate. These struggles demonstrate that current tensions cannot be understood solely from a state or partisan perspective, but rather from plural power configurations involving global, local, and transnational actors. For Latin American social sciences, this scenario necessitates a review of their epistemic frameworks, a move away from Eurocentric research approaches, and a shift toward collaborative, dialogical methodologies committed to the subjects who have historically been silenced in the production of knowledge.

It is impossible to understand contemporary Latin America without considering the processes of regional integration—or disintegration—both at the institutional level and in terms of solidarity among social movements. Within this framework, the social sciences are called upon to build South-South research networks, strengthen critical agendas that engage with popular demands, and produce knowledge that contributes to envisioning emancipatory horizons beyond the limits of the nation-state and the logics imposed by hegemonic centers.

In this context, internationalization also becomes a fundamental battleground. While hegemonic organizations promote instrumental internationalization, focused on rankings, individualized mobility, and cooperation conditioned on external funding, other possible forms of transnational articulation are emerging from the Global South. These are processes that seek to decommodify knowledge production, democratize access to science, and build common agendas that respond to the urgent needs of our territories (Perrotta, 2023). These initiatives advocate for a solidarity-based, horizontal, and situated internationalization that prioritizes exchange among public universities, social movements, and research centers committed to social and epistemic justice. For Latin American and Caribbean social sciences, advancing this type of internationalization means strengthening South-South dialogues, challenging the meanings of academic cooperation, and consolidating a scientific field capable of critically intervening in global processes without abandoning its local roots and its transformative vocation.

Finally, in this scenario, the public university emerges as a strategic actor and, at the same time, one under pressure in the struggle for knowledge production in Latin America and the Caribbean. That is why, in this call for proposals, we will consider the university as a producer of knowledge and as a central actor, seeking to explore its social role and its relationship with other actors in the region.

The problem analyzed here acquires central theoretical relevance at a time when Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is undergoing structural transformations that are reconfiguring the relationships between the state, the market, and society. The oscillation between neoliberal projects and state initiatives experimenting with incipient forms of social protection reveals a contested political field that cannot be understood from traditional or Eurocentric conceptual frameworks. In this context, the study of these tensions requires recovering analytical categories rooted in Latin American historical experience, allowing us to identify continuities and ruptures in the modes of state intervention, in the forms of legitimizing power, and in the dominant patterns of accumulation. From a Global South perspective, this research becomes relevant for advancing toward situated knowledge production, capable of critically explaining the current modalities of dependent capitalism, the persistence of structural inequalities, and the new configurations of social conflict.

The social relevance of this topic becomes undeniable given the impact these transformations have on the living conditions of broad sectors of the population. The advance of extractivism, along with the expansion of transnational corporations over common resources, leads to human rights violations, territorial displacement, and environmental degradation, disproportionately affecting Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, peasant communities, women, and youth. In turn, the weakening of public services, the precariousness of labor, and the recurring crises of social protection systems demonstrate the fragility of states in guaranteeing well-being and social justice. Within this framework, investigating these dynamics allows us not only to make visible the contemporary mechanisms of inequality and exclusion but also to recover the resistance, organizational strategies, and community-based alternatives that emerge from below. This research thus contributes to understanding and strengthening the social processes that defend life, territory, and community reproduction.

Finally, the relevance of this topic is amplified by considering that these discussions are taking place within a global context where internationalization has become an arena of strategic struggle. In contrast to hegemonic models based on competition, market logic, and the control of knowledge flows, alternative proposals for situated, solidarity-based internationalization oriented toward epistemic justice are emerging in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Analyzing this process allows us to understand how new South-South cooperation networks are being formed, what meanings are being contested in transnational academic production, and what potential exists for strengthening ties between public universities, social movements, and research centers committed to territorial struggles. From this perspective, studying this topic not only illuminates the region's current dilemmas but also contributes to projecting forms of integration and exchange that transcend traditional frameworks and respond to the urgent needs of our peoples.

In the context of profound political, economic, and cultural transformations sweeping through Latin America and the Caribbean, the notion of mobile social science acquires strategic relevance for understanding and explaining social phenomena from a situated perspective. This perspective stems from the recognition that Latin American reality cannot be grasped through rigid analytical frameworks, nor through categories that reproduce the universalist logic of the Global North. On the contrary, mobile social science proposes a flexible, dynamic research practice capable of shifting—theoretically, methodologically, and territorially—to accompany the complexity of processes that are, by definition, changing and multi-sited. Incorporating movements, displacements, and transitions as constitutive dimensions of research allows us to capture the articulations between local actors, global forces, and political disputes that shape our territories.

Mobility in Latin American social sciences is expressed, on the one hand, in the ability to trace power dynamics beyond national borders, given the increasing influence of transnational corporations, multilateral lending institutions, and digital platforms that organize new forms of governance and social control. But it also involves moving to territories where resistance movements, community knowledge, and experiences of autonomy emerge, reshaping traditional notions of the state, citizenship, and political participation. In this sense, mobile social science promotes research practices that are not limited to institutional or documentary observation, but rather seek to be grounded in concrete spaces where conflicts occur: Indigenous communities defending their territories, feminist movements redefining public space, youth challenging the meaning of democracy, and collectives resisting the advance of extractivism or neoliberalism.

Within this framework, public universities acquire a decisive role as spaces where the mobility of knowledge is produced, contested, and redefined. Far from being neutral institutions, Latin American universities function as territories where political projects, models of internationalization, and understandings of the social function of research are strained. In the context of mobile social science, the university is not only a site of scientific production but also a hub that articulates epistemic, methodological, and geographical shifts: it enables connections with communities, social movements, and transnational networks; it promotes research that transcends disciplinary and territorial boundaries; and it sustains critical agendas that engage with the urgent needs of the region's peoples. However, this role is strained by processes of commodification, standardization, and subordination to global evaluative logics that often limit intellectual autonomy. In response, strengthening public universities means affirming their capacity to produce situated knowledge, to contest meanings in the international circulation of knowledge, and to sustain a critical mobility that does not reproduce global inequalities, but rather amplifies the voices, experiences, and debates specific to Latin America and the Caribbean.

The GT's participation in the Latin American Forum on Scientific Evaluation has been and continues to be fundamental. In this regard, an essential strategy for transforming science is a thorough review of scientific evaluation systems, which today remain anchored in criteria, metrics, and hierarchies associated with Eurocentric and Anglo-Saxon hegemonies. Moving toward situated evaluation models implies recognizing the plurality of ways in which knowledge is produced, valuing contributions that address local problems, and designing instruments that support projects committed to the realities of the region. Only through evaluations that are sensitive to context, engage with social needs, and are open to diverse epistemologies will it be possible to promote a truly transformative science, capable of strengthening cognitive sovereignty and epistemic justice in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Finally, the mobile nature of the social sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean is linked to contemporary debates on internationalization. In contrast to a dominant model that prioritizes the selective, competitive, and hierarchical circulation of knowledge, proposals for critical and solidarity-based mobility are emerging. These proposals understand academic displacement as a political practice aimed at strengthening South-South networks, democratizing access to scientific production, and promoting dialogues that recognize the epistemic plurality of the continent.