# Characterization of Knowledge Transactions in Design-Based Research Workshops

Elsa Paukovics

► To cite this version:

Elsa Paukovics. Characterization of Knowledge Transactions in Design-Based Research Workshops. IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE), Aug 2022, Hiroshima, Japan. pp.149-159, 10.1007/978-3-031-43393-1_15. hal-05533303

HAL Id: hal-05533303

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05533303v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Characterization of Knowledge Transactions in Design-Based Research Workshops

Elsa Paukovics(✉)

University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

elsa.paukovics@unige.ch

**Abstract.** PLAY is a design-based research project which gathers different communities of experts in collaborative workshops. Those latter are designed to create an educational game (Geome) to guide classroom visits to the Museum of Nature at Sion in Switzerland. Theoretical models in the sciences of education are tested through design, experimentation and evaluation of the game. In this paper, we investigate knowledge sharing during collaborative workshops. More specifically, processes of knowledge translation in verbal interactions are under our scope. We analyze the game Geome as a boundary object. We characterize uni- or multilateral transactions according to how reciprocally the meaning of knowledge is negotiated. We also note the explicitness dimension of translations. These transactions are finally addressed in the light (i) of the development of skills among actors and (ii) the creation of scientific knowledge.

**Keywords:** Knowledge Translation · Collaboration · Design-Based Research · Knowledge Co-Production · Boundary Object

## 1 Introduction

The implementation of a digital learning environment relies on the collaboration between different communities of experts. In particular, it lies at the intersection of computer science, design, and pedagogical skills. Bryk [1] reports on the need to develop the improvement paradigm in education. It involves recognizing “the complexity of the work of education and the wide variability in outcomes that our systems currently produce” [1, p. 467]. In this sense, design-based research is a method of conducting research aimed at the collaborative development of learning environments which integrate technologies as solutions to meet a practical need [1]. The solutions developed provide an opportunity to test theoretical models based on knowledge from educational practices and theories in educational sciences. Users and designers of the solution (teachers, learners, and other professionals in the educational field) are thus involved in the development and research activities with educational scientists. They participate together in meetings, design thinking workshops, research seminars, experimentation of prototypes, etc. It raises the issue of collaboration in the creation of knowledge. How do different professionals understand each other? What and how is the knowledge produced? Through which process? How does the involvement of different experts affect the creation of this knowledge?
Given that design-based research is in full expansion [2], this paper discusses the epistemic and methodological issues of this approach which supports the development of learning environments integrating technologies. Specifically, a case study is conducted about a particular design-based research (called PLAY) aimed at the design, experimentation and evaluation of a learning game. The collaboration and sharing of knowledge between professionals from different fields are studied. We aim at understanding the process of knowledge creation in the specific context.

## 2 Theoretical Framework: Knowledge Sharing Process in Design-Based Research

The nature, source, management, and ownership of knowledge are a non-exhaustive list of topics studied in a number of sectors of activity (economics, law, anthropology, educa-tion, etc.). Didactics theories define knowledge as “what allows us to train a capability” in a more or less conscious way [3, p. 61] in terms of “power to act in a situation”. We raise these questions in regard to the framework of *meta-didactical transposition* [4]. This framework treats knowledge as a social construction which takes place in interac-tions. We study the construction of knowledge in design-based research where profes-sionals with various skills are collaborating to develop technology-enhanced learning environments [5]. Knowledge co-construction requires the establishment of a shared interpretative space [6], in other words, a common background between researchers and practitioners which is built up as the collaboration evolves [6, 7].

Indeed, knowledge co-construction involves knowledge sharing. This sharing can be analyzed in exchanges during collaborative workshops [7–10]. Some knowledge, specific to the different communities involved in the collaboration, is shared and negoti-ated during the workshops [11, 12]. Knowledge from educational practices, knowledge from scientific educational theories, and computer knowledge are notably articulated in collaboration processes [13]. However, this knowledge should not be considered in a dichotomous way. Each actor, regardless of his or her field of activity, is mobilizing both practical and theoretical knowledge. Sanchez et al. [14] analyze the praxeologies, i.e., the theoretical arguments mobilized by actors to justify practices, of actors engaged in the collaboration of a design-based research. The co-construction of knowledge is based on the sharing of praxeologies, which means the establishment of common understandings regarding theories about professional practices [14].

### 2.1 Boundary Objects to Share Knowledge

Another way to study knowledge sharing consists in the analysis of boundary objects. The boundary object [15, 16] is a theoretical concept invoked to analyze collaboration between several communities working together, particularly in the field of education [12]. These are objects which can be abstract and/or concrete. These are both embedded in action, subject to reflection, located in a situation and in a temporality [12]. A boundary object embodies common and generic knowledge acquired by all professionals. How-ever, the boundary object is also composed of specific knowledge, which is not shared by all, but remains specific to certain actors according to their expertise. The object's
development relies on this knowledge both specifically and generically. Consider the
example of an online educational platform: the platform can be studied as a boundary
object (Fig. 1).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Representation of boundary object shared by teachers, researchers and computer scientists</figcaption></figure>

Computer scientists, teachers and educational researchers collaborate to develop this platform. Each actor has his own representation of this platform according to his field of expertise. The computer scientists may conceive the platform as a web interface with different functionalities, while the teachers will represent the platform as a learning environment based on the didactization of learning objectives. Since the platform is at the center of the collaboration, developers' work is interdependent with teachers' work.

**2.2 Knowledge Transactions**

Boundary objects are mobilized with the framework of *meta-didactical transposition*
[4] to study the interactions between teachers and researchers involved in design-based
research. The boundary object also allows the sharing of representations and knowledge
between teachers and researchers. Carlile [17, 18] distinguishes three levels of knowledge
sharing according to the degree of novelty of knowledge. By degree of novelty, it is
implied: how familiar an actor is with the knowledge being shared, or in other words, to
what degree knowledge is shared between two or more individuals. These three levels
of knowledge sharing are represented in the Fig. 1. The bottom of the triangle represents
the knowledge already known by both actors while the top shows what is not yet known
(Fig. 2).

Carlile [17] thus identifies three levels of knowledge sharing: the syntactic level, the
semantic level and the pragmatic level. The syntactic level assumes that the knowledge
is known and shared by the individuals. It is then simply a matter of agreeing on the
vocabulary which is used. There is no negotiation of meaning but only an agreement
on the syntax. The semantic level involves a negotiation of the meaning of knowledge:
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** An integrated Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries, taken from Carlile [17, p. 558]</figcaption></figure>

"A semantic approach recognizes that even if a common syntax or language is present, interpretations are often different which makes communication and collaboration difficult." [17, p. 444]. The negotiation process at this semantic level is called translation. The third level is the pragmatic level: At this level, the question is not the vocabulary or the meaning of knowledge anymore but the interest in this knowledge. At the pragmatic level, there is a lack of common interest in knowledge. A transformation of the representations of the knowledge in question as specific knowledge to be shared is necessary. In the context of R&D, the transformation can be facilitated by the setup of workshops aiming at understanding the objectives of the project and creating common interests [19].

On the basis of these theoretical insights, this paper focuses on shared knowledge through boundary objects. More specifically, it raises questions about knowledge transaction processes [17] between the different professionals involved in the design of technology-enhanced learning environments.

## 3 Case Study of the PLAY Project

To address these questions, we conduct a comprehensive case study. The case study is a methodological approach that allows us to consider a multitude of variables in order to study a phenomenon in a complex and contextual manner [20]. This approach is inductive, in the sense that our object of study is specified as the research progresses [21]. Our study is in line with the constructivist paradigm conceptualized by Guba and Lincoln, considering that there is no single reality but that reality is socially constructed, multiple and relative [22]. Therefore, our study aims at building a comprehensive model of the observed phenomenon [23].

Our case of study is a research project supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) which runs for over four years. This project is led by a researcher specialized in educational technologies and learning games. This project intends to develop an educational game (named Geome) in mixed reality (both digital and tangible) to be used in the context of school visits in a museum of nature. The main research
purpose is to study the epistemic development of students through the game experience with Geome at the museum. The project was initiated following the expression of a specific need of the museum's director. Indeed, his wish was to sensitize and familiarize the students to the concept of the Anthropocene in a playful way during the classroom visits to the museum. The game is designed, tested and evaluated in a collaborative way by two graduate researchers, two PhD students, the museum director, three to four museum staff, one to two computer developers, three teachers and, one teacher trainer. Some actors come and others leave as the project progresses. Some professionals are also invited to intervene on an ad hoc basis (e.g., a graphic designer, researchers in computer science, etc.).

Researcher1 (Res1) is the lead researcher for the PLAY project. He oversees the creation of Geome and all research activities. Other researchers (e.g. PhD students) are involved in the research activities and in the design of the game-based learning situation. The computer developers are working mainly on the computer development of Geome (tablet application), its implementation in the museum, and the data collection and storage. The museum employees (e.g. Mus3) explain the learning needs of the museum related to the concept of the Anthropocene and the natural sciences. Teachers (e.g. Teacher2) bring their students to the museum to test Geome. All these actors participate in several workshops concerning Geome as a learning game. They are all involved in the development of this digital learning environment based on their own professional expertise and their field of activity. Workshops are organized to work collaboratively on the design, experimentation and evaluation of the game. These activities aim at testing and developing theoretical scientific models of what a game actually is, of gamification and of epistemic development.

We attend these collaborative workshops with the purpose of collecting data through participant observation. The data collected are (i) general project documentation and (ii) video recordings of the collaborative workshops. In total, 19 excerpts from 7 meetings were subjected to discourse analysis and thematic analysis, based on a shared object analysis model [9]. The workshops gather from 6 to 16 participants. Most of the time about 10 professionals are present. We thus identify shared objects with the characteristics of the boundary object and analyze the knowledge transactions [17].

# 4 Analyses

## 4.1 The Learning Game Geome as a Boundary Object

Our analysis leads us to identify the game Geome as a boundary object established through workshops along the project. Geome is the design-based research's product in the sense that it is the technology-enhanced learning solution which needs to be developed and tested. It is an object that is both concrete and abstract, anchored in time, in action and in reflection. The actors collaborate to design this product from their different expertise and competences.

The educational game Geome assumes the role of a boundary object as a product of design-based research. Geome is made up of several components more or less shared by the actors. Its components are based on different types of knowledge. The actors exchange some of this knowledge in order to contribute to Geome development. The
"metaphor of the game" has been identified as one component of the boundary object (Geome) [9]. We define game metaphors as the symbols, images or stories used to gamify learning objectives [24]. The metaphor must ensure consistency between the mechanics of the game and, the meaning of the knowledge constructed by the students. The concept of metaphor [24] thus is an element of the gamification model. Several researchers participating in the workshop are simultaneously working to develop this model [24]. In that sense, the notion of metaphor is a scientific knowledge being conceptualized.

## 4.2 Verbatim Analyses

Based on the 19 excerpts analyzed (from 7 workshops), we have identified processes of translation as a negotiation of meaning [17] regarding some of the knowledge which constitute the game Geome. One of these translations relates to the metaphor of the game. Indeed, the word "metaphor" is mobilized by the actors to characterize and discuss the design choices of the game. The researcher (Res1) does not mention that the metaphor is a scientific notion that he is currently working on. Furthermore, no definition of the term is clearly formulated. In a first workshop (about 180 min with nine participants), the researcher (Res1) qualifies the proposals twice to one of the museum collaborators (Mus3) with the term "metaphor":

> "We could imagine that we have, for example, a possibility of capture and a possibility of (animal) domestication, and if we decide to domesticate the animal, it is a bit like those old Tamagotchi with which you decide to care, to feed, etc." (...)(Mus3)

> (...). "Yes that would indeed be a more interesting metaphor." (Res1)

However, Res1 does not define the notion "metaphor" or make the meaning given to it explicit. Nor does he specify that metaphor is a theoretical concept in the process of being conceptualized. He simply mobilizes the term to qualify Mus3 remarks. In a next workshop (about 120 min with eight participants), Mus3 expresses his concern about the design choices of the game by using the term "metaphor":

> "I'm ultimately coming to this metaphor of the Tree of Life (element of the game) which is actually a relationship, I mean a metaphor for our relationship to nature. But in fact, students will take this metaphor at face value " (...) (Mus3)

> "I think, in terms of the game, you shouldn't try to explain everything through the game, you know." (...) "Because if we try to make a game in which we will finally metaphorize things well, well, we won't succeed. Because the metaphor is always a bias (...)" (Res1)

Res1 answers Mus3 by explaining the meaning he gives to the term metaphor in order to counter-argument Mus3's remarks. He thus gives his point of view on what a game's metaphor is. He does not refer to literature, but uses the term metaphor in a decontextualized way. He describes a general characteristic of game's metaphor without relying directly on Geome: "metaphor is always a bias" (Res1). In this sense, the process of translation relates to the disambiguation of a knowledge that is worked out in a common way.
## 4.3 Towards Multilateral and Explicit Translation Processes

Our analysis allows us to identify many knowledge transactions processes concerning the notion of metaphor during the 7 workshops spread over a year. The same knowledge is thus translated several times as the work session progresses.

It leads us to characterize the translation process as more or less explicit/implicit and unilateral/multilateral. These are not distinct and watertight categories of translation, but gradients of explicitness and reciprocity that makes translation possible. The table below describes and illustrates these characteristics in four sharing configurations: (i) implicit unilateral, (ii) explicit unilateral, (iii) implicit multilateral and (iv) explicit multilateral (Table 1).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Process leading to translation</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Implicit</th><th>Explicit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Unilateral</th><td>A single actor expresses the meaning he/she gives to knowledge without an explicit request being made. He/she does not formalize his/her statement as knowledge sharing e.g., "In this part of the game, I guess an interesting metaphor for the impact of domestication." (Res1)</td><td>A single actor expresses the meaning he/she gives to knowledge explicitly (e.g., following a request). He/she formalizes his/her statement as a knowledge sharing e.g., "what do you mean by breaking down the metaphor" (Teacher2), "breaking down the metaphor is (...)" (Res1), "okay" (Teacher2)</td></tr><tr><th>Multilateral</th><td>Two (or more) actors express themselves on different meanings they give to the same knowledge without it being explained e.g., "it is the metaphor of our relationship with nature" (...) (Mus3), (...) "Metaphor is always a bias" (Res1), "in the metaphor of nature, it is not only mammals" (...) (Mus)</td><td>Two (or more) actors express themselves explicitly on different meanings they give to the same knowledge e.g., "what do you mean by breaking down the metaphor" (Teacher2), "breaking down the metaphor is (...) and you how did you understand it?" (Res1) "In this case breaking down the metaphor would be (...) " (Teacher2)</td></tr></tbody></table>

We postulate that the more multilateral and explicit a transaction is, the stronger the translation process will be. By strong, we mean that the translation relates a clear and sustainable sharing of meaning. The multilateral dimension would be necessary to co-construct a shared meaning since it means that each actor has access to the representations of the other. Indeed, a unilateral transaction means that the sharing of a meaning is only in one direction. The sharing is not reciprocal as only one person expresses himself.

On this basis, translation could be instrumentalized in workshops with tools or activities which promote the clarification of meanings. For example, a summary tool could be set up. This would be a document on which the main concepts would be reported. The workshop's participants would be asked to express themselves on these concepts during
a round table discussion at the end or beginning of the meeting. We could also imagine assigning the role of translation facilitators to one or more actors. Their role would be to encourage the clarification of ideas during the exchanges. They would encourage the multilateral exchange of meaning. For example, they would occasionally take the floor to reformulate or question the participants, e.g., by saying: “and you, how do you understand that?”, “is that what you meant”, etc. These techniques to support the translation process can be compared to brokering actions [12]. Indeed, brokering actions aim at facilitating the sharing between different professional cultures in a design-based research context [4, 12]. These actions may seem time-consuming, however, in the long term, it could assist the development of a shared interpretative space [6] and thus foster the co-production of knowledge.

Although [17] presents three levels of knowledge transaction, we essentially identify processes which are close to translation in the verbal exchanges of collaborative workshops. The transformation level is marked by a lack of common interest [17]. At this level, the actors negotiate their interest in knowledge [17, 19]. In the case studied, educational researchers and practitioners begin to settle common interests in a first phase of co-problematization in design-based research. This phase consists of negotiating a need for a field to be studied with regard to scientific questions. In the framework of the PLAY project, the first common interest is the design of a game to meet an educational need (raising awareness of the Anthropocene issue). The common interest is to create a metaphor to gamify the knowledge intended to be learned. The process of transforming the interests concerning the metaphor of the game would have been undertaken at the very beginning of the project, before the design workshops are analyzed in this contribution. This could be a reason why the transformations are not visible in our analysis. It is also possible that our analysis model [9] and the data collected do not allow to access the transformations. Specifically, it is possible that transformation processes occur e.g., in email exchanges or conversations outside of workshops. We plan to conduct interviews with project actors to query them about their representations and interests regarding the issue of the game metaphor.

# 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we examined the processes of knowledge transactions [18] between different professionals during 7 workshops of the PLAY project. Considering the educational game to be conceived as a boundary object, we identified processes of translation of the notion of metaphor which is a theoretical concept under development. We characterized these processes more or less explicit/implicit and uni-/multilateral. Considering the educational game conceived as a boundary object [15], we identify the “game metaphor” as an element that composes this boundary object. The metaphor is a theoretical concept which is currently being conceptualized by researchers. Nevertheless, this notion is not presented as a theoretical concept by one of the researchers (Res1) who, on several occasions, shares the meaning he gives it. Res1 does not refer to the scientific community. The term metaphor is mobilized in a common language. We identify the negotiation of the game’s metaphor alongside the evolution of the meaning given to the term “metaphor”. These negotiations can be observed as the actors interact with each other. Thus, the skill
of “metaphorizing a game” is articulated with the theoretical concept of metaphor. We postulate that the actors develop skills related to the act of “metaphorizing the game”.

Although the main objective of the design-based research is to produce scientific knowledge [25]. We emphasize that the collaboration seems to improve the professional skills of the actors involved, whether they are teachers, computer developers or educa-tional researchers. Our research framework does not directly aim at investigating the professional development of the actors. However, the analysis of the transactions of knowledge which shapes the boundary object, leads us to postulate the acquisition of: (i) new theoretical knowledge (e.g., “what is a metaphor”), (ii) new skills related to the design of educational games (e.g., “how to construct and deconstruct a metaphor”) and (iii) new collaborative skills related to the very capacity to share knowledge (e.g., “what information do I give to be understood and heard while expressing my point of view”). It is true that the collaboration between different actors, in view on the co-construction of knowledge, is not self-evident [26]. Transaction processes must be encouraged and instrumentalized. We therefore emphasize the need to study the instru-mentation of design-based research, in particular to foster knowledge sharing and the emergence of co-constructed knowledge.

To continue this research, we are currently conducting a case study in another design-based research context by capitalizing on the same analysis model. We are collecting and analyzing data in the framework of the project. This second case study will allow us to bring the results presented in this paper in a different context.

## References

1. Bryk, A.S.: 2014 AERA distinguished lecture: accelerating how we learn to improve. Educ. Res. **44**(9), 467–477 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15621543

2. Cividatti, L.N., Moralles, V.A., Bego, A.M.: Incidence of design-based research methodology in science education articles: a bibliometric analysis. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, e25369, 1–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2021u657678

3. Sensevy, G.: Le sens du savoir. Eléments pour une théorie de l'action conjointe en didactique. De Boeck, Belgium (2011)

4. Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Sabena, C., Cusi, A., Garuti, R., Malara, N., Martignone, F.: Meta-didactical transposition: a theoretical model for teacher education programmes. In: Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., Sinclair (eds.) The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era, pp. 347–372. Springer, Dordrecht (2014)

5. Wang, F., Hannafin, M.J.: Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educ. Tech. Research Dev. **53**(4), 5–23 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682

6. Bednarz, N.: Recherche collaborative et pratique enseignante (Regarder ensemble autrement). L'Harmattan, Paris (2013)

7. Ligozat, F., Marlot, C.: Un espace interprétatif partagé entre l'enseignant et le didacticien est-il possible? Développement de séquences d'enseignement scientifique à Genève et en France. In: Müller, A. (ed.) Le partage de savoirs dans les processus de recherche en éducation, pp. 143–163. De Boeck, Belgium (2016)
8. Paukovics, E.: Éléments de la TACD pour comprendre le rapport aux savoirs co-construits dans une Ingénierie didactique coopérative. In: Goujon, C. (ed.) Actes du congrès: La TACD en question, questions à la didactique, vol. 5, pp. 207–217. CREAD, Rennes (2019). https://tacd-2019.sciencesconf.org/data/ACTES Session5 Congres TACD Rennes 2019.pdf

9. Paukovics, E.: Comprendre la co-construction des savoirs en analysant les objets-frontière et objets bifaces dans une séance de travail de recherche orientée par la conception. Actes Du Congrès TACD. Nantes 4, 144–155 (2021). https://tacd-2021.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/TACD_2021Actes volume 4 final.pdf

10. Aldon, G., Monod-Ansaldi, R., Nizet, I., Prieur, M., Vincent, C.: Modéliser les processus de collaboration entre acteurs de l'éducation et de la recherche pour la construction de savoirs. Nouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation 22(3), 89 (2020). https://doi.org/10.7202/1081289ar

11. Marlot, C., Toullec-Théry, M., Daguzon, M.: Processus de co-construction et rôle de l'objet biface en recherche collaborative. Phronesis 6(1–2), 21–34 (2017). https://www.cairn.info/revue-phronesis-2017-1-2-page-21.htm

12. Monod-Ansaldi, R., Vincent, C., Aldon, G.: Objets frontières et brokering dans les négocia- tions en recherche orientée par la conception. Educ. Didactique 13(2), 61–84, (2019). https://www.cairn.info/revue-education-et-didactique-2019-2-page-61.htm

13. Lapointe, P., Morrissette, J.: La conciliation des intérêts et enjeux entre chercheurs et profes- sionnels lors de la phase initiale de recherches participatives en éducation. Phronesis 6(1–2), 8–20 (2017). https://www.cairn.info/revue-phronesis-2017-1-page-8.htm

14. Sanchez, E., Monod Ansaldi, R., Vincent, C., Safadi-Katouzian, S.: A praxeological perspec- tive for the design and implementation of a digital role-play game. Educ. Inf. Technol. 22(6), 2805–2824 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9624-z

15. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

16. Leigh Star, S.: Ceci n’est pas un objet-frontière !: Réflexions sur l’origine d’un concept. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 4(1), 18 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.009.0018

17. Carlile, P.R.: A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4), 442–455 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953

18. Carlile, P.R.: Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for man- aging knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5), 555–568 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

19. Canik, Y., Fain, N., Bohemia, E., Telalbasic, I., Tewes, V.: Intefrating individual knowledge into innovation process of R&D alliances 1805–1814 (2018). https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0238

20. Albarello, L.: Choisir l’étude de cas comme méthode de recherche. De Boeck, Belgium (2011)

21. Hlady Rispal, M.: La méthode des cas: Application à la recherche en gestion. De Boeck, Belgium (2002)

22. Dumez, H.: Faire une revue de littérature: Pourquoi et comment ? Le Libellio d'Aegis, 7(2), 15-27 (2011). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00657381

23. Avenier, M.: Les paradigmes épistémologiques constructivistes: post-modernisme ou prag- matisme? Manag. Avenir 43(3), 372 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3917/mav.043.0372

24. Bonnat, C., Sanchez, E., Paukovics, E., Kramar, N.: Didactic transposition and learning game design. Proposal of a model integrating ludicization, and test in a school visit context in a museum. In: Ligozat, F., Klette, K., Almqvist, J. (eds.) Didactics in a Changing World: European Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum (Springer International Publishing AG). Springer (2023)
25. Monod Ansaldi, R., et al.: Un exemple de recherche collaborative orientée par la conception analysée au regard de la Théorie anthropologique du didactique. Atelier Méthodologies de Conception Collaborative Des EIAH: Vers Des Approches Pluridisciplinaires (2015). http://atief.fr/sitesConf/eiah2015/uploads/Atelier5_Monod-Ansaldi%20et%20al.pdf

26. Audoux, C., Gillet, A.: Recherche partenariale et co-construction de savoirs entre chercheurs et acteurs: L'épreuve de la traduction. Revue Interventions Économiques 43, 1-8 (2011)