Modern northwestern science is a social historical construction, culturally situated, whose definition varies historically. We consider it necessary to analyze how knowledge is produced (its epistemological foundations) and consider it as a process in which some actors, such as researchers, governments, and economic actors, define what knowledge is and how to produce it. These mentioned social actors define how to investigate, what problems to address, and how to interpret their results. The use of diverse methodologies, from critical, decolonial and participatory perspectives, shows us that not all have a unique form to be seen and thought, it denaturalizes the views on the field and promotes situated and valid knowledge, questioning the heteronomous definition of problems that comes from dominant actors that live far from the communities. It is essential to address sociocultural diversity, and to include different social actors in the planning and evaluation processes, from the definition of what is considered problematic, the evaluation of resources, proposals, or redefinitions, to the use of results.

Addressing themes such as health-disease-care processes, as well as stigmatization, medicalization and pathologization in contemporary socio-cultural contexts, cannot be approached from perspectives that exclude the persons involved; they require tools that give rise to diverse voices, knowledge and practices involved. In this sense, we propose sharing contributions and reflections based on situated and participatory practices and experiences in research, evaluation and intervention in and with different groups and experiences.

Reviewing epistemological positions, contexts of emergence, theories and practices is key to understanding the interface health prevention and promotion. Especially in mental health, requires comprehensive, participatory approaches that include a decolonial and human rights-based perspective, working in communities and including diverse forms of culture and art. A critical and reflexive perspective, combined with an ethnographic and evaluative view, is essential to recontextualize problems that articulate from daily life and professional praxis and training, to the management, implementation and evaluation of policies.

Therefore, theoretical and practice production must recognize the involvement with others and promote participatory designs and research that allow capturing the complexity of the realities studied, integrating qualitative and quantitative tools. In the health field, it is necessary to reflect on work strategies and alternatives for insertion in new spaces, reviewing epistemological positions and historical practices.

Addressing the complexity of these processes involves rethinking interdisciplinary, intersectoral and contextualized work. The critical perspective is crucial to avoid a naturalizing and scientistic view, avoid reductionisms and promoting a complex reading and a contextualized evaluation, which are fundamental tools to understand the tensions and challenges in the implementation of policies and practices.