Quantitative analysis explores predictors of research participation in administrative staff, suggesting strategies for inclusive policies.
The integration of administrative staff into research processes within higher education institutions (HEIs) remains underexplored, particularly in Latin American contexts. This study aimed to examine the perceptions, motivations, and structural barriers experienced by administrative personnel regarding their involvement in institutional research at the Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi (UPEC), Ecuador. A quantitative, cross-sectional design was employed using a validated Likert-type instrument. Data were collected from 70 administrative employees and analyzed through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), revealing seven latent factors: personal motivation, structural barriers, regulatory knowledge, institutional recognition, contribution to efficiency, training and participation, and institutional vision. The EFA yielded a cumulative explained variance of 54.5%, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.64 to 0.94 across factors, indicating strong internal consistency. Correlation analysis demonstrated moderate to strong associations between motivation and participation (r = 0.65), and between regulatory knowledge and institutional recognition (r = 0.50). Multiple regression analysis revealed that only the institutional recognition factor significantly predicted research participation among administrative staff (β = 0.41, p = 0.004), while other predictors—including motivation and structural barriers—did not reach statistical significance. These findings underscore the need to design inclusive research policies that strategically engage administrative personnel. The study contributes to expanding the discourse on research ecosystems by highlighting the overlooked potential of non-academic actors in institutional scientific output.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burbano-Pulles et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: