In the emergence of the SARS CoV-2 coronavirus and Covid-19, this work set out to investigate university governance as an effect of the pandemic and as a scientific response through the formation of a panel of experts or advice on risk management, communication and management. A documentary, systematic and retrospective study was carried out with a selection of sources indexed to international repositories, considering the period from 2019 to 2021. Three categories of discussion were found that were qualified by expert judges, establishing patrimonialism as the guiding axis of doe extracts of findings selected for meta-analysis. It is suggested to orient the research towards the incidence of the panel of experts in the decisions of governments as health policies in the face of the health and economic crisis.

Until March 2021, the pandemic has killed three million in the world and 500 in Mexico, considering deaths from atypical pneumonia and excess mortality (WHO, 2021). In this scenario of health crisis, the educational system has been debated between the traditional governance of Higher Education Institutions has advanced towards autonomy of the quality of their processes and products, but in the opposite direction it has moved towards the synchronization of their departments around political provisions of confinement or denomination distancing and social proximity, depending on the interests of the government or the opposition in turn (Ullah et al., 2021: p. 86).

The objective of this work was to specify the axes, trajectories and relationships of a model for the study of governance, understood as a system of management, production and transfer of knowledge based on external demands and internal resources, as well as differences between actors, consensus and correspondence between the parties involved.What are the axes, trajectories and relationships between the variables that reflect and predict governance with respect to the management, transfer and production of knowledge? The premise that guides this study warns that the asymmetries between academic, student and administrative actors translate into observable conflicts in the evaluation, accreditation and certification of the quality of processes and products. In this scenario of challenges and challenges, negotiation positions will emerge that will lead to agreements and co-responsibilities whenever the parties in conflict perceive high profits from large risks rather than minimal benefits from low risks (Bahadur, 2021: p. 41).

The contribution of this work lies in the systematic review of governance in its process of management, production and transfer of knowledge, as well as in the discussion of the evaluation, accreditation and certification of the quality of processes and products. For this purpose, the theoretical, conceptual and empirical frameworks that highlight the axes of discussion, the trajectories of analysis and the relationships to be demonstrated are exposed. The decisions of the study are based, the findings are shown and compared with the structures consulted in the state of the art, guiding proposals for the virtual classroom.

Governance theory of Covid-19

Quality of life and governance in the Covid-19 era represent two axes of discussion, agreements and joint responsibility between authorities and citizens. The quality of life being the result of a public administration oriented towards conflict resolution concerns governance (Quiceno & Vinaccia, 2013: p. 590). It is a series of factors that converge in the management of the pandemic; control, management and communication of risks in infections, diseases and deaths. Such relationship is not always present in the design of public policies, since the strategies and programs are oriented towards factors that determine the quality of life, but do not reflect it. That is, the policies of subsidies and forgiveness in the face of the economic and health crisis determine the quality of life of sectors that require these services or products, but do not indicate their degree of satisfaction and willingness to evaluate governors.

The quality of life, understood as an indicator of human development in the areas of health, education and employment has been approached from two preponderant dimensions that refer to objective records of evaluation, accreditation and certification against subjective assessments of well-being, as is the case of satisfaction (Sanchez et al., 2018: p. 223).

However, establishing relationships with organizational determinants variables such as trust, commitment, entrepreneurship and innovation is as predict low intensity to the quality of life in any of both dimensions. In organizational scenarios, mainly corporate, the quality of life has been taken for granted. It is assumed that an increase in standards and values reflects at least the well-being of the climate of relationships, supports, tasks and innovations (Perez et al., 2018: p. 26). Corporate reputation as a determinant of subjective well-being refers to a set of relationships that allow the transfer of knowledge between leaders and followers but inhibits production by requiring a limited well-being that can be improved. In such situations, knowledge management has the objective of balancing demands and resources, as well as between contingent capacities and requirements of the environment (Fierro et al., 2018: p. 49). Therefore, the creation of knowledge, management, production and transfer is linked to the quality of life through the formation of intellectual capital. It is a process in which the construction of the phenomenon does not imply a dichotomy between external and inherent indicators of subjectivity.
The classical theory of quality of life states that health, education and employment policies oriented by international standards will generate the intellectual capital required to carry out the transformation of social and subjective well-being to such an extent that organizational environments should only seek to safeguard a deliberate, planned and systematic chain of trust, commitment, entrepreneurship, innovation and satisfaction (Azhar & Aulia, 2020: p. 240). In some cases, the culture of success and good corporate governance will be the basis for the management, production and transfer of knowledge required to increase the volume of satisfiers from which levels of well-being are inferred before and after the formation of intellectual capital. (Garcia, 2017: p. 137). Corporate reputation has been established as a direct determinant of intellectual training and subjective well-being, even if the environment of quality of life was inferior.

The classical theory of quality of life assumed that an external base would allow training and with it the creation of knowledge without considering that management as production are concomitant (Dermastuti et al., 2020: p. 145). That is, the quality of life was observed as the result of satisfiers and emotions of security and identity, but not as part of the creation of knowledge and meanings around the phenomenon. The new theory of quality of life identifies levels of satisfaction according to degrees of knowledge. In knowledge-creating organizations and in strategic alliance with training institutions, the quality of life is synonymous with scientific and technological progress, but the level of well-being remains a pending subject when considered as part of a formative subjectivity.

The quality of knowledge, unlike the quality of life indicated by satisfactory or positive experiences, implies a continuous learning of knowledge, skills and emotions inherent in training. This is how the quality of knowledge is related to self-care and adherence to treatment in healthcare settings. It is an emerging process to risks and contingencies of the environment (Sanchez et al., 2017: p. 69). Therefore, a review of studies on the quality of life will identify the differences that the new theory proposes for the study of knowledge, but not as a formative process but as an indicator of the quality of life now understood as a management scenario, production and transfer of knowledge, skills and emotions.

Quality of life involves dimensions that reflect it such as subjective well-being, satisfaction or happiness that the government does not incorporate into its management structure that is jointly responsible between the parties involved (Garcia, 2013: p. 17). Rather, quality of life has been used as an indicator of governance. In the case of Covid-19, quality indicators do not appear to be part of risk management and communication policies.

Governance studies of Covid-19

Studies regarding the quality of life additional property on significant gender differences regarding transportation, employment and recreation (Baldi & Garcia, 2010: p. 17). As í myself, when is it ponders as a perceptual system resources around the individual and in reference to the parent group, it is considered a style of personal well - being that is geared towards social integration (Barranco et al., 2010: p. 102). Therefore, the quality of life is a framework of expectations that start from a figurative nucleus to influence resource distribution decisions. Quality of life were correlated with anxiety and depression in situations of medical uncertainty and deteriorating health. The individual undergoing a, health, family or interpersonal economic situation often estimated that their quality of life has significantly changed (Sadeghzadeh, 2012: p. 394). In mediated aesthetic, emotional and rational expectations that are activated drive actions that are directed to generating opportunities and update capabilities subject to the group to which it belongs or wants to belong (Derya, 2012: p. 195). A low level of life satisfaction is enough to activate the process of social dissent, but a high level of life satisfaction does not create links. The quality of life in its perceptual phase generates emotions of distrust towards the authorities that lead to dissenting citizen actions (Carreon & Garcia, 2013: p. 16). Rather, the perception of quality of life, in terms of the notion of social justice, is linked to conventional development styles that the individual has learned since childhood and now in his adult stage translates as reliability or trust, but when given realize that the link with their authorities is asymmetric or, then mobilizes the necessary resources for civil disobedience. 

However, low levels of life satisfaction, which suggest minimum standards of quality of life, favor the formation of support networks. In the case of the new social movement’s environmentalists, who when to form self - help groups cause greater perceived abundance of resource s (Carreon et al., 2013: p. 32). As the quality of life is specific and delimited to psychological factors, expectations of nonconformity, indignation and civil disobedience increase, but social skills such as creativity and innovation of minority groups face the ideological or pragmatic imposition of majorities (Abolfotouh et al., 2013: p. 1360). The quality of life in economic, political, social, health, educational, labor and technological terms is a multidimensional construct. 

Grimaldo (2010: p. 18) found eight dimensions alluding to the quality of life. It is about economic well-being, interpersonal relationship, family situation, neighborhood context, social capital and health status. That is, the quality of life is the result of the perception of scarcity of resources rather than of the hopes generated from personal abilities. The perception of risks, mainly the scarcity of resources to face the pandemic, would be an indicator of governance, but it supposes a government information system and a competition between the media in order to make transparent the agenda of priorities and the resources destined to sectors in pandemic vulnerability function. 

Machado et al. (2010: p. 35) in which the relationship of dependence between anxiety and low perceived quality of life was demonstrated, the availability of perceived resources indirectly correlates to life satisfaction through context norms. That is, the quality of life is antecedent to the formation of a group identity and sense of belonging anchored to freedom of choice, expectations of justice and collective mobilization. The link between quality of life, indicated by the expectations of justice, with respect to governance is close. The hearings can build a public agenda based on the State's mistreatment of a civil sector, or else, based on the priority of problems that citizens appreciate as distant from their needs. Governance enters a phase of conflict due to this discrepancy between the leadership of the State and civil participation on different issues or disagreements on common problems.

Tariq (2012: p. 139) notes that the quality of life in its dimension of life satisfaction, requires a set of indicators to guide not s or the perception of the subject, but also collective action. A model for the study of the phenomenon was specified, although the design of the research limits the proposal to the research scenario, suggesting the inclusion of variables related to subjective well-being. A little-explored dimension of quality of life is satisfaction as a positive experience of public services or in the face of perceived government action. A high degree of satisfaction supposes a governance prone to co-responsibility, but regimes focused on the demand and supply of satisfiers suppose that governance must be the result of a balance between risks and management or handling capacities. From a perspective of positive experience, governance is reflected by trust between the rulers and the ruled.

Garcia et al., (2018: p. 459) suggest that between the satisfaction and knowledge is the lucidity of the leader in organizational environments. It is a bidirectional and multilateral knowledge management, horizontal and direct negotiation between the interested parties, but without considering an association since, the leader who does not generate new and positive experiences would be indisposed in the management of knowledge and skills, as well as in the process of equilibrium before the contingencies of the environment and the requirements of the local market. Derived from the geopolitical perspective, the lucidity of the leader is an analytical factor of the relationships between rulers with respect to the preservation of their territories, culture or native population. In this responsibility framework, the quality of life should indicate the degree of patrimonialism, uses and customs that were modified by the distancing or confinement of people as mitigation strategies for the pandemic.

Garcia (2018: p. 285) proposes to review the link between satisfaction and knowledge to investigate its determinants and to establish routes of explanation and prediction in order to explore both variables as indicative of the quality of life in an environment of management, production and transfer of knowledge. In its most evaluative dimension, governance requires the participation of panels of experts on the problems and solutions that affect the pandemic. In this way, the quality of life indicated by the degree of management, production and transfer of knowledge that the health policy and the risk communication strategy determine, is an evaluative instrument of the governance of Covid-19.

Hernandez et al., (2018: p. 235) suggest that the basis of the relationship between knowledge and satisfaction is cyberculture, understood as an environment for information transfer, data management and content production, although limited by the contingencies of the environment already that these redirect the formative capacities towards the computational skills. Within the framework of the communication of risks derived from the pandemic and the mitigation strategy, focused on the distancing and confinement of people, the information dimension of governance and quality of life emerges. Access to technologies, devices and networks predicts the need for information and data processing with respect to Covid-19. This is how governance enters its negating phase when the public agenda of conflicts between the parties is already defined and public discussion emerges on social networks.

The studies of the governance of Covid-19 highlight the conflict between political actors, economic agents and civil sectors regarding the demands for detection tests, treatments and vaccines in order to be able to mitigate and contain, via distancing, confinement and use of devices such as the mask, to the pandemic. In this panorama of demands from the environment to prevent infections, diseases and deaths, there are resources such as entrepreneurship, optimization and innovation of processes from civil society. Faced with this scenario, the State has reduced itself to managing devices to prevent contagion and death catastrophes, injecting support into the civil sectors, although governments have become trapped in the dilemma of recession in the face of the reactivation of the economy. deregulated or regulated by social distancing, confinement, overcrowding or some technology.

Modeling the governance of Covid-19

The literature consulted warns that satisfaction is the result of the combination of elements such as trust, commitment, entrepreneurship and innovation. In knowledge-creating organizations, satisfaction is the result of the optimization of resources and the innovation of processes that will guide the discussion towards balancing the external and contingent demands of the environment with respect to organizational capacities (Lung & Ro, 2020: p. 119). This is how a quality of life is indicated by positive experiences or satisfactions of those who make up an organization in the face of the challenges and opportunities of its environment, but still considering its resources and capabilities. In this context, the quality of life focuses on the achievement of objectives and the achievement of goals based on the management, production and transfer of knowledge.

If an organization only develops the management or negotiation between the interested parties, it will reach climates of relations, support and goals according to internal capacities, but will be vulnerable to the demands of the environment (Garcia et al., 2014: p. 107). The production of knowledge is not by itself enough in a scenario of scarcity of resources and capacities since management is more necessary than the optimization of resources and innovation of processes. Similarly, strategic alliances between institutions and organizations is also not enough to achieve the standards of quality and well-being that are established through management and through production are obtained. This is how the deliberate, planned and systematic process of trust, commitment, entrepreneurship, innovation and satisfaction is linked to organizations that are structured around the management of their resources and capabilities, the production of their innovations and the transfer of their abilities.

A model assumed as the representation of the relationships between variables related to a subject, as well as the explanatory trajectories of its determinants, is relevant in the study of a phenomenon since it is based on emerging hypotheses of the literature consulted (Garcia et al., 2018: p. 459). The synthesis of the findings allows the investigation of explanatory and predictive routes of what the literature considers as quality of life. In this way, the quality of life can be limited to satisfaction as a central indicator of the studies consulted. As an objective of explanation and prediction, satisfaction implies positive experiences about an object, process or dimension.

From the classical theory and the new theory of the quality of life a model is proposed for its study, considering the findings that the literature reports, although the design of the search for information in repositories such as Academia, Copernicus, Dialnet, Ebsco, Latindex, Publindex, Redalyc, Scielo, Scopus, WoS, Zenodo & Zotero, as well as the period from 2019 to 2021 and the keywords limit the scope of the model (see Table 1)

Descriptive sample

Source: Elaborated with date study 

Expert judges on the subject qualified selected extracts, considering: Patrimonialism = -1 for conflicts between the actors, Isomorphism = 0 for the absence of conflicts and agreements and Institutionalism = +1 for consensus between teachers, administrators and students regarding the evaluation, accreditation and certification of the quality of the processes and products derived from the management, production and transfer of knowledge.

The data were processed in the statistical analysis package version 20.0 considering the requirements of linearity, and normality, as well as the contingent relationships between the categories of analysis subtracted from the review of the literature as excerpts that the judges previously rated.
The values were interpreted based on the distribution ranging from -1 to +1, if values close to the negative or positive unit were considered as evidence of collinear or multicollinear relationships, as well as values close to zero were assumed as evidence. spurious relationship. Thus, the threshold ranging from .30 to .90 was appreciated as evidence of a relationship between the categories analyzed.
The statistics of normal distribution, as well as of contingent relationships, were used to observe the meta-analytic structure and the parameters of confidence interval and the probability proportion.

Table 2 shows the distribution values and contingent relationships that show a probability ratio structure in order to be able to observe the homogeneous random effects of university governance. In other words, the studies consulted seem to agree that the categories of institutionalism, isomorphism and patrimonialism are not only consistent as determinants of university governance, but also are configured around decision probabilities in contingent situations. Table 2

Descriptive of instruments

Source: Elaborated with data study; E = Extract, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, C = Category, C1 = Institutionalism, C2 = Isomorphism, C3 = Patrimonialism; * p < ,05

The distribution structure of the qualifications of expert judges with respect to the excerpts selected by repository shows a prevalence of the category related to patrimonialism. In other words, the literature shows that university governance emerges from conflicts associated with considering the institution as a personal asset rather than a collective asset. In order to observe the relationship between this category of patrimonialism with the categories of institutionalism and isomorphism, the probability proportions were estimated to establish risk thresholds that anticipate conflicts and agreements between the parties involved (see Table 3).

Odds ratio between categories

Source: Elaborated with data study; Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, C = Category, C1 = Institutionalism, C2 = Isomorphism, C3 = Patrimonialism

The probability ratio structure shows decision thresholds on tolerable risks. In other words, the literature consulted registers values related to patrimonialism, isomorphism and institutionalism that show levels of tolerance between the parties involved for university governance. This finding allowed us to estimate a model to notice the axes, trajectories and relationships between the categories and the extracts taken from the literature consulted and rated by expert judges on the three themes of patrimonialism, isomorphism and institutionalism (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. 

Structural equation modelling

Source: Elaborated with data study; C = Category, C1 = Institutionalism, C2 = Isomorphism, C3 = Patrimonialism

The structure of axes, trajectories and relationships shows an exploratory configuration that reflects university governance in the three patrimonial, isomorphic and institutional categories, as well as these three dimensions indicated by twelve extracts that allude to the threshold of decisions between conflicts and agreements. Consequently, the adjustment and residual values ⌠χ2 = 24,32 (14 df) p > ,05; GFI = ,997; CFI = ,990; RMSEA = ,007⌡suggest the non-rejection of the null hypothesis regarding the significant differences between the categories stated in the theoretical, conceptual and empirical review with respect to the meta-analysis established in the present work. This is so because university governance is not only consistent around its challenges and challenges but also in terms of the power relations between its stakeholders.

Discussion 

The contribution of this work to the state of the question lies in the establishment of categories based on extracts selected and qualified by judges in the literature stolen from repositories from 2019 to 2021. A structure of three axes, trajectories and relationships that suggest the no rejection of the null hypothesis. Rajan et al., (2020: p. 8) carried out a review on the health governance of Covid-19 in reference to university governance, considered as experts in the mitigation or containment of the pandemic, they found that countries structured their panel and experts based on the conflict with social sectors such as migrants. In the present work, three axes of categories were established, which highlights patrimonialism. It is the prevalence of a panel based on the conservation of biosafety assumed as part of the State. Souza et al., (2020: p. 13) demonstrated 10 governance axes around the management, control and handling of the pandemic, focused on the governance of a panel and academic experts from universities in northern Brazil. In the present work there are only three category axes that explain governance at the isomorphic and patrimonial institutional level about the government's public policies in the face of pandemic. Unlike the north of Brazil, the literature in Mexico seems to warn that university governance was disrupted as an expert actor and reduced to a panel of academics with no specific weight other than in the legitimation of public health as the patrimony of the Mexican State.

Barris & Pelizz (2020: p. 216) they assumed governance as an information system that in countries with high levels of governance will take less time to report the situation of the disease than in countries with low levels of governance. In the present work, patrimonialism is highlighted as a guiding axis and a category of analysis that allows anticipating conflict scenarios between the parties involved. Lines concerning the establishment of a less patrimonial governance where health reflects the 

consensus between social and political sectors will reveal the bias that public health has when attributed to the State.

The contribution of this work to the state of the matter lies in the discussion and specification of a model for the study of the quality of life, considering it as part of a training process of management, production and transfer of knowledge in organizational environments and in alliances strategic with knowledge-creating institutions, although the design of documentary research limits the scope of the proposal, suggesting the search in repositories of greater impact such as Journal Citation Report.
This paper insists that the quality of life is a process inherent in the formation of intellectual capital since, if knowledge is an instrument of management, production and transfer, then the importance of quality of life lies in the fact that it can be established from the development of skills, knowledge and emotions. Well, this work would be considered lucidity as part of knowledge management, innovation production and capacity transfer. This is an added value to structured intellectual capital formation process, although the model proposed or focuses on the student or practitioner rather than the educator or professional.

In this paper, cyberculture is an inherent part of information quality. It is a scenario of content and data that determine decision making, but do not redirect satisfaction or positive experiences with the environment or organizational climate. The inclusion of cyberculture and lucidity will allow to delimit the proposed model, although it is necessary to test the proposed relationships in order to be able to specify the determining trajectories between the organizational variables with respect to satisfaction.