University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez

ISSN: 2309-8333

RNPS: 2411

|14|2026|

This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

Scientific and technological

research article

How to cite:

Ricardo Jiménez, L. S. (2026

Teaching experiences and organizational

factors linked to research productivity at a

university in Montería, Colombia.

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria

, 14,

e9205.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22306395

Received: 17/08/2026

Accepted: 02/09/2026

Published: 22/09/2026

Corresponding author:

stephanyrj09@gmail.com

Conflict of interest:

the authors declare

that they have no conflict of interest,

which may have influenced the results

obtained or the proposed interpretations

Teaching experiences and

organizational factors linked to

research productivity at a university in

Montería, Colombia

Experiencias docentes y factores

organizacionales vinculados con la

productividad investigativa en una

universidad de Montería, Colombia

Experiências docentes e fatores

organizacionais vinculados à

produtividade em pesquisa em uma

universidade de Montería, Colômbia

Abstract

Introduction: university faculty scientific production is

currently a priority topic because institutional trends affecting

this indicator have been observed, which highlights the need

to carry out a study that positively contributes to developing

and making this issue visible. Objective: to explore faculty

experiences and the organizational environment in terms of

research productivity at a university in Montería, Colombia.

Method: a descriptive and comprehensive qualitative study

was conducted using semi‑structured interviews; the

secondary target population consisted of university faculty.

Results: research productivity is not exclusively an individual

outcome nor can it be explained solely by a teacher’s

motivation, training, or professional trajectory. Conclusion:

it is pertinent to continue deepening the study of aspects

directly related to this topic, since it is a priority axis for

written research; given that science is largely built from such

production, promoting organized actions by institutions should

be a fundamental task to ensure a higher degree of scientific

rigor.

Keywords: organizational environment, research

productivity, academic performance, university

Resumen

Introducción: las actividades de producción científica de los

docentes universitarios constituyen actualmente un tema

prioritario, debido a que se han observado tendencias

institucionales que afectan este índice, de ahí la necesidad de

ejecutar un estudio que contribuya de forma positiva a

desarrollar y visualizar esta temática.

Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez

Universidad de Panamá

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-0294

stephanyrj09@gmail.com

Colombia

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria

ISSN

: 2309-8333

RNPS:

2411

| Vol. 14|2026|

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

Objetivo:

explorar las experiencias del profesorado y el entorno organizacional

en términos de productividad investigativa en una universidad de Montería en

Colombia.

Método:

se desarrolló un estudio con enfoque cualitativo descriptivo

y comprensivo, todo ello a través de entrevistas semiestructuradas, cuya

población objetivo-secundaria fueron los docentes universitarios.

Resultados:

productividad investigativa no constituye un resultado exclusivamente individual

ni puede explicarse únicamente por la motivación, la formación o la trayectoria

profesional del docente.

Conclusión:

se considera pertinente continuar

profundizando en aspectos relacionados de manera directa con el presente tema,

ya que constituye un eje prioritario en lo que a investigación escrita se refiere,

todo esto teniendo en cuenta que la ciencia se construye, en gran medida, a

partir de dicha producción, por lo que fomentar acciones organizadas desde las

institucionales debe ser una tarea elemental a seguir para garantizar un mayor

grado de cientificidad.

Palabras clave:

entorno organizacional, productividad investigativa, desempeño

académico universidad

Resumo

Introdução: as atividades de produção científica dos docentes universitários

constituem atualmente um tema prioritário, pois foram observadas tendências

institucionais que afetam esse indicador, o que evidencia a necessidade de realizar

um estudo que contribua positivamente para desenvolver e visibilizar essa

temática. Objetivo: explorar as experiências do corpo docente e o ambiente

organizacional em termos de produtividade investigativa em uma universidade de

Montería, Colômbia. Método: desenvolveu‑se um estudo qualitativo, descritivo e

abrangente, por meio de entrevistas semiestruturadas; a população secundária

alvo foi composta por docentes universitários. Resultados: a produtividade

investigativa não constitui um resultado exclusivamente individual nem pode ser

explicada apenas pela motivação, formação ou trajetória profissional do docente.

Conclusão: considera‑se pertinente aprofundar aspectos diretamente

relacionados ao tema, uma vez que constitui um eixo prioritário no que se refere

à pesquisa escrita; dado que a ciência se constrói, em grande medida, a partir

dessa produção, fomentar ações organizadas pelas instituições deve ser uma

tarefa fundamental para garantir maior grau de rigor científico.

Palavras-chave:

ambiente organizacional, produtividade investigativa,

desempenho académico, universidade

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

Introduction

Scientific output has become a matter of global concern within the research

community, given its substantial bearing on the academic and scientific development

of nations (Astegiano et al., 2019; Bender et al., 2021; Carta et al., 2021; Alqahtani

et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023; Brignardello-Petersen et al., 2024). It is now widely

recognized, internationally, that faculty research performance does more than drive

technological and scientific progress: it also strengthens each country's educational

and cultural fabric. Research, in this view, functions as a complement to the

formative work carried out at universities, and its productivity emerges from the

interplay between the research activities that faculty and university researchers

undertake and the outcomes those activities yield (Duque & Quintero, 2016; Gómez

et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2022; Feng et al., 2024; Christou et al., 2025).

Building on the work of Cujía et al. (2017), Li and Zhang (2022), Manasia et

al. (2022), Kwiek and Roszka (2024), Kwon et al. (2023), Lee et al. (2023), and Haby

et al. (2024), the sweeping changes that have accompanied the knowledge era have

made it essential to develop new tools capable of improving the way these activities

are carried out (Momeni et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022; Nygaard et al., 2022a,

2022b; Meza-Mejía et al., 2023; Varsha et al., 2024; Song et al., 2025; Stupnisky &

Salahuddin, 2025), thereby raising competitiveness, quality, and excellence. This is

indispensable for universities, since knowledge is what allows the teaching,

research, and community-outreach functions to serve national development,

fostering the transfer of knowledge and technology to the business sector and forging

a collective bond between academia and industry (Obando et al., 2020; Rachid et

al., 2021; Puertas et al., 2023; Sá et al., 2023; Sayyed, 2024; Padilla Yaá et al.,

2025; Ramezani et al., 2026).

The situation in Latin America, however, brings its own set of challenges.

Structural barriers are the starting point, such as insufficient funding, limited

infrastructure, and education policies that do not always treat research as a core

component of teaching practice, and together they underscore the need for

strategies tailored to local realities, capable of overcoming these obstacles and

cultivating a more favorable environment for research (Guzmán & Valenzuela, 2017).

Compounding this, teacher training in Colombia has historically been shaped

by a gradual process of social and political recognition. From the colonial period

through independence, the preparation of educators has consistently been marked

by the country's shifting circumstances, and the recognition afforded to their

expertise has moved through several historical stages, from the dissolution of their

role and its subsequent institutionalization, through acknowledgment by the

ecclesiastical establishment, to eventual recognition by the state in matters of

quality of life and working conditions, including remuneration commensurate with

their duties (Calvo et al., 2004).

It is precisely in these working conditions that a certain regression can

sometimes be observed, in Colombia and across Latin America more broadly.

Professors frequently report a lack of institutional support and organizational

constraints that hinder their capacity to conduct quality research, alongside the

other duties they are expected to fulfill (Calvo et al., 2004).

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

Montería provides the territorial setting for this research. The study is not

intended as a case study of the city or of the university selected; rather, it sets out

to explore faculty experiences and the organizational conditions surrounding

research productivity at a university in Montería, Colombia.

Methods and materials

This study was conducted within the interpretive paradigm, seeking to

understand the meanings that faculty members attach to their experiences with

research productivity and to the organizational conditions of the university context.

The paradigm proved appropriate because it recognizes that social and educational

phenomena cannot be grasped through the measurement of variables alone, but

rather through the interpretations that people construct as they live through them

in specific contexts (de Franco & Vera Solórzano, 2020).

From this vantage point, knowledge is built by engaging closely with

participants' experiences, narratives, and expressed meanings. Castillo Rocubert

(2010) notes that the interpretive paradigm aims to understand human action and

social life from the subjective standpoint of the actors themselves, taking into

account their beliefs, motivations, intentions, and particular circumstances.

The method adopted was descriptive phenomenology, drawing on the

Husserlian tradition. It allowed the researchers to approach faculty experiences as

they were lived and articulated, with the aim of understanding the meanings

attached to research productivity and to the organizational conditions under which

participants carried out their work. Phenomenology is concerned with describing

lived experiences, perceptions, and meanings from the standpoint of those who

undergo the phenomenon in question (Leal, 2000).

A qualitative approach was adopted, as it provided access to the

experiences, perceptions, and meanings that faculty construct around their research

productivity and the organizational conditions of the university setting. This

approach is concerned with understanding social phenomena through the voices of

the people involved, taking into account the context, relationships, and

circumstances that shape their experiences (de Franco & Vera Solórzano, 2020).

This approach was likewise appropriate given that the data consisted

primarily of narratives elicited through the interview guide. These narratives shed

light on participants' research trajectories, academic practices, institutional

support, difficulties, motivations, and the meanings they attach to their work within

the university. A qualitative lens, moreover, makes it possible to capture the

complexity and singularity of educational phenomena without reducing them to

numerical expressions alone (Supo, 2002).

Participants were selected through criterion-based purposive sampling,

consistent with qualitative research practice. This procedure made it possible to

include faculty who met characteristics relevant to the study's purpose, without

seeking statistical representativeness of the institution's entire faculty body. The

study was carried out at a private higher-education institution located in the city of

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

Montería, department of Córdoba, Colombia. At the time data collection took place,

the campus had 74 faculty members on staff, six of whom held full-time

appointments with assigned responsibilities or hours dedicated to research activities.

These six faculty members took part voluntarily and authorized the

collection and processing of their information by signing an informed-consent form.

To protect their identities, alphanumeric codes were used throughout the

transcriptions, analysis, and presentation of results, so as to avoid linking data such

as department, education, sex, position, or career trajectory back to any single

individual.

Figure 1

Eligibility criteria

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Results and discussion

What follows is an analysis of the six faculty members' experiences with

research productivity and organizational conditions. The corpus comprised six semi-

structured interviews, each built around 25 open-ended questions, yielding 150

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

response units in total; a synthesis of those most relevant to the object of study is

presented below. To preserve confidentiality, participants are identified by the

codes P01 through P06.

It bears noting that the analysis was not aimed at measuring variables or

establishing causal relationships; its purpose, rather, was to describe how

participants approached research within their broader experience as faculty.

Recurring elements were therefore used to identify convergences rather than as

statistical frequencies, and divergent responses were retained as meaningful

variations in experience. The quoted excerpts preserve the sense of the original

wording and were normalized only where obvious typographical errors would

otherwise hinder readability.

Data were analyzed through a qualitative coding procedure compatible with

the ATLAS.ti working logic: primary documents, quotations, codes, code groups,

analytic memos, and relationships among categories. The procedure followed the

tenets of descriptive phenomenology throughout. In a first phase, each interview

was read in its entirety to grasp the overall sense of the account, while a

phenomenological reduction was maintained at every stage, bracketing any

premature explanations of productivity, performance, or organizational causality.

In a second phase, responses were broken down into units of meaning tied to

the lived experience of conducting research, teaching, publishing, participating, and

navigating the institutional environment. A third phase assigned initial codes closely

tied to participants' own expressions, for instance, insufficient time, unbalanced

workload, self-management, academic networks, undergraduate research groups,

uneven support, personal resources, recognition, autonomy, participation, and

communication. A fourth phase compared these codes and subsequently grouped

them conceptually. The analysis concluded with individual descriptions of the six

participants and an overall structure of the experience, preserving both the

meanings they shared and the cases that diverged from the pattern.

Table 1

Participant coding

Code

Identification

P01

Participating faculty member

P02

Participating faculty member

P03

Participating faculty member

P04

Participating faculty member

P05

Participating faculty member

P06

Participating faculty member

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 2

Codebook and emerging categories

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

Emerging category

Grouped codes

Phenomenological meaning

C1. Research driven

by individual

agency and

networks

Insufficient time; unbalanced

workload; self-management;

personal rigor; funding;

conferences; networks and

dissemination.

The continuity of research

depends largely on faculty

initiative and on relational

support.

C2. Teaching-

research

integration

Undergraduate research

groups; formative research;

PBL; curriculum; classroom

problems; updating; teaching-

research tension.

Teaching can nourish research,

yet teaching load can also

hinder it.

C3. Uneven

organizational

conditions

Collaborative climate;

infrastructure; software;

training; recognition;

autonomy; participation;

communication.

The relational environment is

favorable, yet operational and

managerial support remains

uneven.

C4. Professional

development and

institutional

transformation

Continuous learning;

pedagogical innovation;

responsible use of technology

and AI; protected time;

resources; incentives;

governance.

A research culture requires

institutionalizing forms of

support that currently rest on

individual effort.

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Comparison was carried out on three levels. The first involved within-case

comparison, examining the internal coherence of each account. The second was a

cross-case comparison, aimed at identifying convergent and divergent experiences.

The third linked the emerging categories to the study's research aims and theoretical

framework. Because only one data-collection technique was used, no claim is made

of instrument triangulation; rather, the analysis contrasted participants, categories,

research purposes, and the relevant literature.

All six participants reported experience with projects, publications, or

dissemination activities, yet productivity was not described as a uniform institutional

sequence. For some faculty, publishing stemmed from professional commitment or

the need to sustain a research trajectory; for others, it was shaped by time, funding,

access to laboratories, the cost of dissemination, and the possibility of forming

partnerships.

“Funding for publications has made it difficult” (P01).

“The lack of laboratories has made it difficult to run the

trials, and I've had to rely on contacts at other universities” (P02).

“There's no money to do research, let alone money to

publish” (P05).

These accounts reveal that publishing is experienced as a process that

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

extends well beyond writing the manuscript itself. It involves managing teams,

searching for journals, securing funding, and drawing on external networks. P02

reported having to use other universities' laboratories and purchase certain resources

out of pocket; P04 noted that faculty had to seek out journals and support on their

own in order to publish; and P05 relied on free software or trial versions. Self-

management thus emerges as a compensatory strategy for material and financial

gaps.

Academic events, for their part, were a component shared across the

participants' experiences. Five of the six reported attending once or twice a year,

while one reported a bimonthly frequency. The meaning attached to these spaces

went beyond mere attendance: participants also associated them with staying

current, gaining visibility for their results, and, above all, expanding the networks

capable of sustaining future collaborations.

“You get to know what others are working on, and you can

invite them to collaborate” (P02).

“The impact lies in staying up to date and in building

academic networks” (P03).

Dissemination, in this respect, revealed two distinct experiences. P01 and

P03 considered it accessible, particularly when outputs were open access, whereas

P02, P04, and P05 described a form of dissemination built on free networks, personal

contacts, and self-directed searches for opportunities. P06 linked it instead to the

relevance of academic programs. Accessibility, then, does not hinge solely on

whether knowledge is available, but on having the resources, channels, and support

needed to put it into circulation.

Time was the most pervasive constraint. Five participants stated that the

workload distributed across teaching, research, and outreach was not balanced. In

the most striking accounts, conducting research meant drawing on personal or family

time, bringing work home, and halting projects altogether during the academic

semester.

“When the semester is in full swing, research always comes

to a halt; it's very hard to manage classes, assessments, and lab

sessions all at once” (P02).

“It isn't balanced, because you have to take time out of your

own schedule to get things done” (P05).

“The time available is tied to the workload assigned for

research” (P06).

P03 offered a notable exception, describing her workload as balanced and

her autonomy as sufficient. This divergent account does not invalidate the others;

rather, it shows that conditions can be experienced favorably when responsibilities,

decision-making capacity, and career trajectory are aligned. The shared underlying

structure, then, is not an absolute absence of support but its uneven distribution.

Five participants linked research to teaching through undergraduate

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

research groups, classroom projects, problem- or project-based learning, curriculum

updates, and student participation. Their accounts show that the classroom is not a

space set apart from research: it can serve as a source of questions, a setting for

research training, and a channel for transferring the knowledge produced.

“It comes together through the research-group practicum,

involving the student researchers in projects and subprojects”

(P01).

“I connect formative research with the students to

complement the research work done in the classroom” (P03).

“I'd like ideas to emerge from the classes themselves,

because that's where the problems worth solving show up” (P05).

P04, for his part, explained that working with research groups produced a

kind of reciprocal learning, since students' questions broadened the range of

concerns faculty themselves considered. P06 tied the curriculum to these research

groups, while P01 linked research activity to student projects more generally. Taken

together, these experiences point to an understanding of productivity that reaches

well beyond a simple publication count, encompassing the training of new

researchers, curricular transformation, and the circulation of knowledge within

pedagogical practice.

P02, meanwhile, offered the clearest counterpoint: during the semester,

teaching absorbed all available time, and research simply stopped. Teaching, in

other words, can act as a bridge when planning is genuinely integrated, but it can

just as easily become an obstacle when scheduling, assessments, and in-person

workload crowd out research activity. This helps explain why integration cannot

depend on the individual educator's goodwill alone.

Pedagogical practices, too, showed signs of ongoing change. Notably, every

participant expressed openness to shifts in how they teach, while at the same time

a critical stance emerged toward the unreflective use of technology.

“AI might help, but that's a far cry from letting it do the

analysis and draw the conclusions” (P02).

“One of the challenges is bringing innovation into the

classroom, artificial intelligence being the current one” (P06).

It should be stressed that this divergence does not amount to resistance

toward innovation as such. What comes through instead are several complementary

concerns: making the most of new tools to broaden teaching while safeguarding

independent thought, authorship, and professional judgment. Institutional training,

accordingly, needs to combine technological competencies with both ethical and

methodological criteria.

Organizational climate was the most consistently favorable dimension. All

six participants described the atmosphere as pleasant, good, ordinary but with

adequate relationships, or excellent, highlighting respect, responsibility,

commitment, collaboration, loyalty, and closeness among colleagues. In some

accounts, the work team itself became a direct source of learning and research

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

capacity.

“It's a good, collaborative work environment; everyone

helps each other out” (P02).

“Excellent work environment. My team strengthens my

knowledge” (P05).

This finding makes it possible to distinguish the relational climate from the

underlying support structure. A good working atmosphere did not eliminate the

difficulties tied to workload, funding, infrastructure, autonomy, or participation.

Put differently, trust among colleagues is a valuable foundation, but it cannot

substitute for the policies, resources, and time that research actually requires.

Perceptions of available resources, meanwhile, proved highly uneven. P03

reported having internet access and technological resources, and P01 rated theirs as

adequate, whereas P02 said the tools were only available because they had

purchased them personally. P04, by contrast, pointed to shortcomings in the

facilities; P05 got by using free software; and P06 noted a shortage of simulators and

specialized programs. Needs, in other words, vary by discipline and cannot be met

with a one-size-fits-all allocation.

“I have the tools, but only because I buy them myself” (P02).

“We should have better access to modeling software” (P05).

Support for professional development was likewise experienced unevenly.

Some participants pointed to training pathways, diplomas, courses, mobility

programs, or workshops; while others did not regard these as sufficient support. P01

confirmed that policies existed but went largely unnoticed for want of feedback;

P04 and P06 said they were unaware of any growth plans. This points to a gap

between the formal existence of such activities and their recognition as a coherent

institutional pathway.

“They do exist, but they go unnoticed because there hasn't

been that feedback” (P01).

“It isn't enough; there's always a need for more training to

teach better” (P05).

Recognition, in turn, ranged from formal distinctions, congratulations,

flexibility, involvement in institutional processes, and emotional salary, to

ambivalent responses or the absence of any visible mechanism. P03, for instance,

mentioned merit-based distinctions; P02 emphasized the backing of supervisors and

colleagues; and P06 valued both freedom and time as forms of emotional salary.

Autonomy and participation showed even greater variation. P03 and P05 felt

they had the autonomy to organize their own processes and schedules, whereas P01,

P02, and P04 said they lacked it, and P06 described it as relative. Committees were

the participation mechanism cited by P01, P03, and P04; P05 pointed to self-

assessment; and P02 and P06 maintained that no effective mechanisms existed at

all. Communication was rated as continuous or adequate in some cases, acceptable

for P01, and distant or difficult to assess for P02 and P04.

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

“You decide how to carry out your own research and

academic processes; there's autonomy” (P03).

“The only place I feel we're actually heard is in the

curriculum committees” (P04).

Taken together, the organizational experience emerges as an uneven web:

the institution can feel close-knit in its relationships while remaining restrictive in

terms of time and decision-making authority. This tension is central to understanding

the phenomenon, since it rules out any simple classification of the environment as

either favorable or unfavorable.

Participants' careers ranged from four to thirty years, yet all of them

described transformations in their practice over time. Accumulated experience

manifested as greater humanization, patience, attentiveness to learning styles,

disciplinary updating, use of active methodologies, and openness to technological

resources. Training was understood as an ongoing process, even among those who

already held advanced degrees.

“I've learned to be patient and to understand that there are

different learning styles; not everyone is the same” (P05).

“It has evolved quite a bit, become more humanistic” (P03).

These findings confirm that research productivity cannot be reduced to a

simple publication count. Reyes Cruz and Hernández Méndez (2014) link it instead

to motivation, institutional support, and organizational conditions, while other

researchers such as Serra and Tovar (2011) incorporate both relevance and academic

and social contribution into the concept. The accounts gathered here extend this

line of thinking, showing that productivity is built within a web of time, teaching,

networks, and managerial decisions.

The recurring workload imbalance echoes what authors such as Serrano de

Moreno et al. (2024) have observed, namely, that time devoted to research can prove

insufficient relative to other academic demands. Sarmiento and Ramírez (2023)

similarly argue that time, financial support, and technological provisioning are all

associated with scientific productivity. It is worth noting that these factors appeared

closely interconnected in the interviews: the absence of laboratories, for instance,

activated external networks, while a lack of resources for publishing pushed

participants toward free channels.

Another point worth considering concerns the integration of teaching and

research, an issue that aligns with the work of Rosero et al. (2016), who examine

the tensions and possibilities inherent in this relationship within the university

context. Undergraduate research groups, classroom projects, and curriculum

updates tend to function as integration mechanisms in this setting; yet P02's account

shows that such integration breaks down whenever teaching and research compete

for the same block of time. Educational administrators, accordingly, need to move

beyond merely recommending integration and instead design the conditions that

make it actually happen.

Bastidas (2019), in a study on the basic principles of research training for

faculty, argues that such training must develop specific competencies alongside a

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

broader research culture. The participants here do recognize certain training

pathways and formative experiences, though not all of them regard these as

sufficient or as forming part of a coherent development plan. The finding, then,

points to something beyond simply adding more courses: it calls for differentiated

pathways tailored to experience and need, capable of translating training into

concrete outputs and practices.

With respect to the collaborative climate, these results align with Sandoval

Caraveo (2021), who ties climate to communication, trust, support, and cooperation.

The present findings add a further distinction, however: a positive climate is

necessary but not sufficient. Cordiality among colleagues, in other words, is no

substitute for laboratories, funding, or transparent workload rules.

Finally, the experiences of recognition and autonomy align with Herzberg's

motivation-hygiene theory as discussed by Madero Gómez (2019), as well as with the

self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci (2000). Recognition, autonomy, and the

opportunity to participate can all strengthen commitment, while their absence or

ambiguity can just as easily weaken it. In the accounts gathered here, recognition

carries weight when it takes the form of distinctions and flexibility, but loses force

when no visible mechanism exists or when it fails to translate into the actual

conditions needed to write and to conduct research.

Conclusions

This study concludes that faculty experiences of research productivity carry

diverse meanings, yet share an underlying structure: faculty sustain their research

through personal planning, additional time, resource-seeking, ties to external

networks, and the involvement of students in research groups and projects. When

the institution fails to adequately guarantee the time, resources, and support

required, however, research shifts into the personal domain and comes to depend

more heavily on each faculty member's own capacity for self-management, which

keeps the work going, but at the cost of making it more fragile, uneven, and difficult

to sustain. The study likewise identifies time availability, the distribution of

academic workload, funding, access to laboratories and specialized software,

opportunities for publication and dissemination, academic networks, professional

motivation, and the integration of research with teaching as central elements of this

experience.

References

Alqahtani, M. S., Abbas, M., Muqeet, M. A., & Almohiy, H. M. (2022). Research

productivity in terms of output, impact, and collaboration for university

researchers in Saudi Arabia: SciVal analytics and t-tests statistical based

approach. Sustainability, 14(23), 16079.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316079

Astegiano, J., Sebastián-González, E., & de Toledo Castanho, C. (2019). Unravelling

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. Royal

Society open science, 6(6), 181566. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181566

Bastidas, C. B. (2019). Principios básicos de la formación docente para la

investigación. Revista Iberica De Sistemas e Tecnologias De Informacao,

(E21), IX-X.

https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/PFT/1/yv4KC?_s=sCRjoCM2gmhq

qvNPkMH6LwKRbsE%3D

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers

of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the

ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Brignardello-Petersen, R., Santesso, N., & Guyatt, G. H. (2024). Systematic reviews

of the literature: An introduction to current methods. American Journal of

Epidemiology, 194(2), 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae232

Calvo, G., Rendón Lara, D. B., & Rojas García, L. I. (2004). Un diagnóstico de la

formación docente en Colombia. Revista Colombiana De Educación, (47).

https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.5519

Carta, M. G., Angermeyer, M. C., & Tagliagambe, S. (2021). The trend of scientific

productivity of Chinese, European Union, and United States universities and

private companies: Does the future belong to E-technology companies?

Publications, 9(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020018

Castillo Rocubert, N. (2010). Acerca de los Paradigmas de la investigación educativa.

Mendive. Revista De Educación, 9(1), 16–24.

https://mendive.upr.edu.cu/index.php/MendiveUPR/article/view/353

Christou, E., Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2025). A systematic exploration of scoping

and mapping literature reviews. Universal Access in the Information Society,

24, 941–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01120-3

Cui, R., Ding, H., & Zhu, F. (2022). Gender inequality in research productivity during

the COVID-19 pandemic. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,

24(2), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0991

de Franco, M. F., & Solórzano, J. L. V. (2020). Paradigmas, enfoques y métodos de

investigación: análisis teórico. Mundo recursivo, 3(1), 1-24.

https://atlantic.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/mundor/article/view/38

Feng, R., Xie, Y., & Wu, J. (2024). How is personality related to research

performance? The mediating effect of research engagement. Front. Psychol.

14:1257166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1257166

Gómez, D., Carranza, Y., & Ramos, C. (2017). Revisión documental, una herramienta

para el mejoramiento de las competencias de lectura y escritura en

estudiantes universitarios. Revista Chakiñan de Ciencias Sociales y

Humanidades, (1), 46-56.

https://scielo.senescyt.gob.ec/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2550-

67222017000300046

Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. (2017). Tendencias globales en educación superior y su

impacto en América Latina: Desafíos pendientes. Lenguas Modernas, 50(50),

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

15-32.

https://lenguasmodernas.uchile.cl/index.php/LM/article/view/49248

Haby, M. M., Barreto, J. O. M., Kim, J. Y. H., Peiris, S., Mansilla, C., Torres, M.,

Guerrero-Magaña, D. E., & Reveiz, L. (2024). What are the best methods for

rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and

primary studies. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(1), 2–20.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1664

Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2024). The gendered persistence in research productivity

among university professors: A longitudinal study. Higher Education.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01022-y

Kwon, E., Yun, J., & Kang, J. H. (2023). The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on

gendered research productivity and its correlates. Journal of Informetrics,

17(1), 101380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101380

Leal, N. (2000). El método fenomenológico: principios, momentos y reducciones.

Revista Electrónica de Investigación Científica, Humanística y Tecnológica,

1(5), 51-60.

https://www.academia.edu/download/52192549/lealnestorepistemologia.

pdf

Lee, K. G., Mennerat, A., Lukas, D., Dugdale, H. L., & Culina, A. (2023). The effect

of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity within

academia. elife, 12, e85427. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85427

Li, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Influence of mentorship and the working environment

on English as a foreign language teachers’ research productivity: The

mediation role of research motivation and self-efficacy. Frontiers in

Psychology, 13, 906932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906932

Madero Gómez, S. M. (2019). Factores de la teoría de Herzberg y el impacto de los

incentivos en la satisfacción de los trabajadores. Acta universitaria, 29,

e2153. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2019.2153

Manasia, L., Popa, D., & Ianos, G. (2022). Anatomy of research performance from a

bottom-up approach: Examination of researchers’ perspective.

Sustainability, 14(4), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042254

Meza-Mejia, M. C., Villarreal-García, M. A., & Ortega-Barba, C. F. (2023). Women

and leadership in higher education: A systematic review. Social Sciences,

12(10), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100555

Momeni, F., Karimi, F., Mayr, P., Peters, I., & Dietze, S. (2022). The many facets of

academic mobility and its impact on scholars' careers. Journal of

Informetrics, 16(2), 101280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101280

Nguyen, T. D., Nguyen, D. N., & Dao, K. T. (2022). Management factors influencing

lecturers’ research productivity in Vietnam National University, Hanoi,

Vietnam: A structural equation modeling analysis. Heliyon, 8(10), e10510.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10510

Nygaard, L. P., Aksnes, D. W., & Piro, F. N. (2022a). Identifying gender disparities

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

in research performance: The importance of comparing apples with apples.

Higher Education, 84, 1127–1142.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-

00820-0

Nygaard, L. P., Piro, F. N., & Aksnes, D. W. (2022b). Gendering excellence through

research productivity indicators. Gender and Education, 34(6), 690–704.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2041186

Obando, G., Pontón, T., Parada, S. E., & Villa, J. A. (2020). Research into cognition

and numerical thinking in Colombia. Studies in Psychology, 41(2), 319-347.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2020.1748841

Padilla Yaá, Z. I., & Barrera Rojas, M. A. (2025). Una revisión documental de la

evolución del concepto de brecha digital. Sintaxis, (15), 158-174.

https://doi.org/10.36105/stx.2025n15.10

Puertas, R., Martí, L., & García-Álvarez-Coque, J. M. (2023). Are female researchers

more efficient? An analysis of gender in a Spanish technological university.

Scientometrics, 128(11), 6611–6632.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-

04844-w

Rachid, E., Noureddine, T., Tamim, H., Makki, M., Naalbandian, S., & Al-Haddad, C.

(2021). Gender disparity in research productivity across departments in the

faculty of medicine: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4715–

4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03958-3

Ramezani, S. G., Azizi, N., & Siri, A. (2026). Women's research productivity in

academia: A systematic review of challenges and solutions. Higher

Education. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-

025-01576-z

Reyes Cruz, M. D. R., & Hernández Méndez, E. (2014). Productividad y condiciones

para la investigación: el caso de los profesores de lenguas extranjeras.

Sinéctica, (42), 1-17.

https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1665-

109X2014000100011&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt

Rosero, A., Montenegro, G. y Pinchao, L. (2016). La relación investigación-docencia

en el ámbito universitario. ¿Utopía o realidad? Revista Criterios, 23(1), 181-

19 https://revistas.umariana.edu.co/Criterios/article/view/1793

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). La Teoría de la Autodeterminación y la Facilitación

de la Motivación Intrínseca, el Desarrollo Social, y el Bienestar. American

psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

https://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci

_SpanishAmPsych.pdf

Sá, C., Cowley, S., Shahrin, B., Stevenson, C., & Su, A. (2023). Disciplinary gender

balance, research productivity, and recognition of men and women in

academia. PLOS ONE, 18(12), e0293080.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293080

Sandoval Caraveo, M. del C. (2021). Concepto y dimensiones del clima

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

e9205

organizacional. Hitos De Ciencias Económico Administrativas, 10(27), 83-88.

https://doi.org/10.19136/hitos.a10n27.4402

Sarmiento, M. B., & Ramírez, E. P. (2023). Capacidades institucionales de los

gobiernos subnacionales en periodos de crisis: el caso del departamento de

Santander en Colombia, 2020-2022. Papel Político, 28.

https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/papelpol/article/download/3

7305/30190

Sayyed, M. A. (2024). Research productivity and quality among university faculty

members: Evidence from publication and citation indicators. SAGE Open.

https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241237050

Serra, J. N., & Tovar, J. B. (2011). La productividad investigativa del docente

universitario. Orbis. Revista Científica Ciencias Humanas, 6(18), 116-140.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3633050

Serrano de Moreno, M. S., Castellanos Herrera, S. J., & Andrade, D. J. (2024).

Competencias en investigación del profesorado universitario: Desafíos en la

construcción de la cultura investigativa. Revista De Ciencias Sociales, 30(1),

381-397. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v30i1.41662

Song, Y., Liu, Y., & Wei, J. (2025). Factors influencing university teachers’ research

productivity: Evidence from academic career characteristics and

institutional context. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241264824

Stupnisky, R. H., & Salahuddin, N. (2025). Faculty motivation and research

productivity in higher education: Examining psychological factors influencing

scholarly performance. Higher Education.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-

025-01546-5

Supo, A. (2014). Perspectivas de la evaluación cualitativa en educación.

Investigación Educativa, 7(10), 80-91.

https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/educa/article/vie

w/8155

Varsha, P. S., Chakraborty, A., & Kar, A. K. (2024). How to undertake an impactful

literature review: Understanding review approaches and guidelines for high-

impact systematic literature reviews. Vision: The Journal of Business

Perspective, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/22779779241227654

Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Li, J. (2023). How is personality related to research

performance? The mediating effect of research engagement. Frontiers in

Psychology, 14, 1257166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1257166

| Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez |

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

About the main author

Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez: is a Business Administrator and Economist,

specializing in Human Talent Management and Econometrics Applied to Research,

and holds a Master’s degree in Research and Classroom Pedagogy. She is currently

pursuing a Doctorate in Education with a concentration in Educational Administration

at the University of Panama. She works as a teaching researcher at Corporación

Universitaria Remington, where she integrates teaching, research, and

internationalization.

Declaration of author responsibility

Luly Stephanie Ricardo Jiménez

Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal

Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,

Validation/Verification, Visualization, Writing

/Original Draft, and Writing/

Review &

Editing.

Financing:

Own resources

Special Acknowledgments: