Résumé
Participatory modeling approaches, particularly those rooted in Companion Modeling (ComMod), are often credited with initiating socio-environmental transformations. Examples from Zimbabwe (Perrotton et al. 2017) and Burkina Faso (Daré et Venot, 2016) illustrate how these methods have facilitated engagement between stakeholders, sometimes leading to institutional changes over extended periods. However, the effectiveness of such approaches is contingent on their alignment with local realities and pressing challenges. The question remains: who holds the compass in these participatory frameworks? Do researchers, institutions and players succeed in abandoning their agenda? A case study from the Lake Guiers region in Senegal highlights the tensions between knowledge production, local agency, and transformative action. After several years of engagement with local communities through participatory workshops, a pivotal moment occurred in different arena : when a doctoral student presented her findings on hazardous chemical pollutants in the lake's water, when allochtone populations spoke out against their refusal to respect fishing restrictions face to face with native fishermen (Delay et al. 2023). Unlike previous discussions on ecosystem management, which were perceived as peripheral to daily survival, this revelation directly impacted livelihoods, exposing communities to immediate and invisible risks. The local response—calls for awareness campaigns and regulatory interventions—raised deeper questions about the adequacy of conventional participatory approaches. How can living lab models move beyond knowledge dissemination towards tangible systemic transformation? How can scientific findings generate experiential urgency rather than passive information? Recent scholarship suggests that for knowledge to trigger action, it must engage stakeholders not just intellectually/abstract, but affectively — a concept referred to as "affective knowing" (Hertz et Bousquet 2025). This perspective challenges traditional scientific detachment and underscores the need for transformative science that actively catalyzes change rather than merely observing it. A more reflexive and adaptive governance model is necessary—one that situates knowledge within local dispositifs (assemblages of discourses, institutions, and power structures). Rather than assuming that participatory models inherently lead to transformation, they must be reconfigured to align with the strategic urgencies of a given territory. This shift demands a reconsideration of the role of scientists in participatory governance: are they facilitators, guides, or interveners? By embedding participatory models within affective and political landscapes, living labs in Senegal and beyond can become true engines of systemic change rather than passive spaces for stakeholder dialogue.