This proposal is part of an R&D&I project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (EDU 2015-68617-C4-4-R. Director: Teresa Susinos). Its purpose is to study several participatory projects aimed at promoting the social presence of socially vulnerable groups. In this communication we present research work based on a participatory methodology (Aldridge, 2015; Nind, 2014): and carried out by a group of three researchers from the university, a social worker from the prison and six inmates. The collaborative creation of an audiovisual piece (Grupo inclusionLab-CIS, 2018, http://inclusionlab.unican.es/en/espacio-opaco/) was the driving force behind a complex process of investigation into the reality of prison life. The objective of the project defined by the group is to reveal, describe and denounce the nature of face-to-face communication in prison, taking artistic co-creation and media literacy as the central elements of the project. 

The project is committed to the active inclusion of new social actors within the community that have been ignored or excluded and participation is the central concept around which our research is structured, understood as a basic human right that allows people to influence real world and make decisions about the common good (Fielding, 2011; Bragg, 2007; Susinos & Haya, 2014). 

This work is also aligned with social art practice (Montalvo, 2010; Recnatus, 2016; Reestorff, 2015), where artistic activity becomes an instrument of denunciation where the protagonists are also co-producers of the work.

In previous projects (Susinos, Ruiz-López, Saiz-Linares, 2018) we have reflected on the possibilities offered by art as a facilitator of new forms of participation and knowledge accessible to all, viable even in restrictive environments such as prison. In this communication we analyse how the last phase of this project has been designed and carried out (dissemination of results) and its capacity to share the knowledge generated following the principles of knowledge mobilisation (Levin, 2011; Buchanan, 2013; Naidorf, 2014). This communication asks about the conditions necessary for the classic transfer paradigm to be replaced by a knowledge mobilisation model more in line with the participatory research carried out. The research, transformative action and social communication are inseparable parts of a single process that is guided by the participants under a shared decision model (consistent with the participatory methodology) where broad dissemination of the audiovisual work to very different audiences is proposed. 

We designed different dissemination strategies for the audiovisual piece that connect with different groups and, also seek to open up a space that gives us access to their opinions. Thus, the project has sought to achieve a complex combination of different objectives (both training and informative, and academic and aesthetic debate, etc.), aimed at multiple audiences (community, prisons, workers, students...) and following different formats, such as:

• Training: Masters Degree session, training of prison officers.
• Academic: publications, congresses.
• Nearby communities: event in our city, presentation in a cultural centre.
• Distant communities: festival of short films
• Virtual: social media and messaging.

In all these platforms, systems of dialogue have been proposed with the participants in order that the research might constitute the stimulus for the knowledge mobilisation that we were looking for in the audiences.

The research questions include:

• To what extent has the dissemination phase was aligned with the participatory methodology and with the principles of knowledge mobilisation?
• What feedback have we received from the different audiences? What have we learned from it?
• To what extent have the channels/strategies used promoted participation? To what extent has the receiving audience become a prosumer?

What differences can be established in this project between the classical transfer and the knowledge mobilisation model?

Our work follows the tradition of participatory research that assumes a democratic vision of the processes of elaboration of knowledge and aims at the critical transformation of reality (Bourke, 2009; Clark, 2010; Bowne et al., 2012; Nind, 2014). More specifically, it is a participatory case study (Aldridge, 2015) in which all participants design and develop all phases of a research process which has a clear inclusive purpose (Mills, et al., 2010). The participating group consists of six young adult males in a social integration centre with custodial sentences, the social worker at that institution and the team of three researchers from the University of Cantabria. Together, they make up the group of co-investigators. This group has taken its investigation forward following a model of dialogical investigation characterised by the horizontality of the relationships and by the recognition of the diverse pools of knowledge that converge to achieve the common objective. This is in line with a democratic logic in the processes of decision-making and of producing social knowledge (Thompson, 2008; Samuelsson, 2016), according to which all participants are subjects of the research process and their contributions constitute an essential element in a collaborative construction of knowledge. To achieve this epistemological effect which allows us to represent the different views and voices regarding a given phenomenon, we recover the proposal of Ellingson (2011), who proposes to combine various research techniques and ways of representing reality (including other more artistic methods: video, photography, music and poetry). All of this materialises in the development a participatory audiovisual work that synthesises our research. Connected with this commitment to participation, the transfer of knowledge is also a matter of shared deliberation within the group of co-investigators. Together we decide where and how to mobilise knowledge. In addition, our mobilisation strategies seek to open up spaces for participation where the audience can give their opinion and contribute to building knowledge regarding the phenomenon being studied.

● An important result is related to the different strategies and channels of dissemination of the audiovisual work that have been used and their ability to connect the results of an academic research project with very large and heterogeneous groups. In short, we will analyse the value of these strategies to connect with society and improve the impact of the research, and the extent to which they can be regarded as a concrete and real way of addressing the problems of knowledge transfer. ● We also present results related to the opinions and information returned by the different audiences after viewing the audiovisual work: some refer to the audiovisual content itself and others to the joint process of creation based on participatory research, while others offer feedback related to technical and aesthetic aspects. ● The dialogical process with the audience that arises presents us with unexpected results that provide learning opportunities: How to respond to simplistic ideas? How to avoid an individualistic, sensationalist and uncritical approach to the phenomenon analysed? ● The participatory process and the resulting audiovisual product become a ‘choral work’ where multiple perspectives intersect. In other words, the audiovisual experience incorporates the expression of multiple authors, multiple unidentified voices that experiment with the medium of expression and challenge the traditional forms of mobilisation in artistic circles which are generally centred on the unique character of the creator and on their original language. How to increase the audience in this ‘choral’ approach to investigation?

Aldridge, J. (2015). Participatory research: Working with vulnerable groups in research and practice. Bristol: The Policy Press. Bourke, L. (2009). Reflections on doing participatory research in health: participation, method and power. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(5), 457-474. Bowne, M., et al. (2010). Pedagogical documentation and collaborative dialogue as tools of inquiry for pre-service teachers in early childhood education: An exploratory narrative. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 10(2), 48 - 59. Bragg, S. (2007). “It’s Not About Systems, It’s About Relationships”: Building A Listening Culture In A Primary School. In International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School (pp. 659–680). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Buchanan, A. (2013). Impact and knowledge mobilisation: What I have learnt as Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council Evaluation Committee. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 176-190. Clark, A. (2010). Young Children as Protagonists and the Role of Participatory, Visual Methods in Engaging Multiple Perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 115-123. Ellingson, L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In N. K. Den-zin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595–610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fielding, M. (2011). Patterns of Partnership: Student Voice, Intergenerational Learning and Democratic Fellowship. In Rethinking Educational Practice Through Reflexive Inquiry (pp. 61-75). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Grupo inclusionLab-CIS. (2018). Through the gaps of this opaque space. Face to face in prison. [Audiovisual]. Spain Levin, B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15-26. Naidorf, J. (2014). Knowledge Utility: From Social Relevance to Knowledge Mobilization. Education policy analysis archives, 22(89), 1-37. Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? UK: Bloomsbury. Rectanus, M. (2016). Transactivism, the Translocal, Art and Performance. Performance Research,21(5), 123-126. Reestorff, C. (2015). Unruly artivism and the participatory documentary ecology of The Act of Killing. Studies in Documentary Film, 9(1), 10-27. Susinos, T., Saiz-Linares, Á. y Ruiz-López, J. (2018). Researching through collaborative video with young prison inmates in Cantabria (Spain). New paths for inclusion and reeducation in prison. In ECER Bolzano (Italy) Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions.democracy & education, 24(1). Susinos, T., & Haya, I. (2014). Developing student voice and participatory pedagogy: a case study in a Spanish primary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 385-399. Thompson, D. (2008). Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 497-520.