In the context of organizations and their relationship with the increasingly competitive environment, leaders have been pressured to establish control systems in which the differences between employees are exacerbated since, given the lack of job skills, they They are intended to be replaced by acts of loyalty towards the company that lead to violence against those who are considered to be guilty of poor performance, or who are not seen as part of a work group. This is how organizational violence is justified within collaborative teams, as would be the case in Higher Education Institutions, where the phenomenon is exacerbated by the emergence of technologies, devices and electronic networks. The objective of the present work was to review the studies on organizational violence. A documentary, cross-sectional and exploratory study was carried out with a selection of 258 summaries published in national repositories: Clase, Latindex , Redalyc, Conacyt and Scielo. The results show that organizational violence would be made up of eight factors: prejudice, depersonalization, benevolence, harassment, subjugation, objectification, stigma and harassment, which show the limits of the study and guide lines of research concerning equity.

Educational problems are embedded in the financing of professional training ( Cañoles , 2018). Regarding the budget, global vocational training is led by the United States with nearly 140 billion dollars followed by Japan, France and Germany. In the last place, Argentina and Mexico during the period from 1994 to 2007. The investment destined to research shows insignificant differences between Australia, Korea, China, USA, France and Japan. There are significant differences between money from industry and public financing or other investment mechanisms in Germany, Canada, the US, France, Korea, Japan, Mexico, the UK and Sweden.

In the case of business financing, the differences between countries remain, although they remain constant in the period from 1998 to 2007 in Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Korea, China, the US, Spain, France and Japan (Contreras et al., 2022). In the case of Mexico, there is a growing business financing that doubled in the period of analysis included. The use of available financing also remains constant since from 1998 to 2007 higher education institutions and universities used a constant amount that only in the cases of Chile, Korea, Spain and Japan have decreased, but in the cases of Brazil, Canada and the US has increased. In the case of Mexico, a substantial increase is observed in the middle of the period that ends with a significant decrease.

Although funding has remained constant and the use of resources has increased and decreased in some cases, the differences between the number of researchers are substantial between the countries analyzed (García and Guillén, 2018). The US leads the pack with nearly 1.4 million researchers, while China registered the same number of researchers in 2007, but its exponential increase denotes low quality. Japan occupies the third place followed by Germany with 600 thousand and 200 thousand respectively. In the case of Latin America; Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile occupy the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth positions with nearly 100 thousand researchers in the four countries. Despite the fact that until 2007 China and the US had the same number of researchers, in terms of the production of articles there is a difference of 200 thousand between the two countries. Even Germany and Japan match China's production. France, Canada and Italy occupy intermediate positions and Brazil is the Latin country with the highest production. Regarding academic citations, the US sets the standard during the period from 1997 to 2008 with respect to the other countries, while Mexico occupies the last places. However, despite the fact that the US leads each of the specified items, in terms of patents it is notably surpassed by Japan and Latin countries reach 50,000 patents from 1998 to 2007. The increase in scholarships explains the emergence of Mexico in terms of two patents and its null participation in the other items. From 2000 to 2009 the mount has tripled in Mexico.

The educational problems seem to be explained from the budget amount and the financing of research in Mexico with respect to developed countries (Garcia, 2021a). The differences between countries are not only financial, but also organizational, since Japan with 20 billion dollars exceeds the number of patents in the US, which invests 140 billion dollars, although the production of articles and the number of citations justifies such amount of investment, but in terms of technological innovations, Japan is a management model for the emerging countries of Latin America. Indeed, educational, scientific and technological development seems to obey an organizational logic in which the professional training network and organizational training violence are factors that would explain the differences between countries that allocate similar amounts of investment and the similarities between countries that support their production from different budget and financial amounts.

Violence, for the purposes of this paper, consists of the differentiation between two or more actors with respect to a relationship of power and influence that configures a system of insecurity or personal and organizational security. In this way, violence in digital networks is based on prejudice, depersonalization, benevolence, harassment, subjugation, objectification, stigma and harassment through technology or devices in digital information and communication protocols (García, 2021b). Therefore, in the field of organizations, violence in digital networks is part of an asymmetric professional training process in which the differences between leaders and employees overlap into the climate of relations between employees, generating a subsystem of violence in that employees close to the leaders are the beneficiaries of the vicious circle of differentiation.

The present work is part of the discipline of administration, area of institutional studies, but includes concepts related to the psychology of organizations such as entrepreneurship, the sociology of work for the case of human capital and labor economics for the case of knowledge networks.

Therefore, the objective of this work is to review the studies on violence in institutional repositories in order to unveil the research agenda in the literature from 2019 to 2022.

Are there significant differences between the findings reported in the literature from 2019 to 2022 with respect to the evaluations of expert judges in the field?

The premises that guide the present work suggest that the investigative agenda in the literature from 2019 to 2022 will be different from the evaluations of expert judges in the field. In this sense, the axes and topics of discussion centered on economic, emotional, physical, political, internet user, professional, neighborhood or labor violence reported in the consulted literature have a different structure than the evaluations of expert judges. Because the state of the art does not always reflect the local perspective of expert judges, differences are expected, but in the case of violence, the corresponding literature is minimal considering that the pandemic affected the global. Therefore, while the literature reflects a growing and exacerbated asymmetry of the differences between the parties, the judges' evaluations could be guided by the hegemony of a category such as political violence and, based on that prevalence, interpret the impact of the pandemic on the literature from 2019 to 2022.

Theory of Violence

The theoretical frameworks that explain organizational formative violence are: 1) theory of reasoned action, 2) theory of planned behavior, 3) theory of spontaneous processing and 4) theory of knowledge networks.

Reasoned action theory holds that attitudes mediate the effect of beliefs on intentions and behaviors. An increase in beliefs increases dispositions toward specific and deliberate decisions and actions. It is a process that goes from the general, in terms of beliefs, to the particular in terms of intentions and actions. However, the predictive power of general beliefs is limited by the specificity and one-dimensionality of attitudes. Since attitudes transmit the effect of beliefs, they delimit their indicators in dispositions likely to be carried out (Castel & Freundlich, 2010).

Planned behavior theory notes that the effect of beliefs on behavior is mediated by attitudes and perceptions of control. Faced with a contingent situation or event, the perception of control increases its predictive power of intentions and behaviors if and only if it interacts with specific dispositions. To the extent that the perception of control decreases, its relationship with attitudes predicts a minimal effect on decisions. Necessarily, the deliberate and planned process of decision making and strategy implementation requires a perception of control consisting of dispositions towards the object (Castro & Martins, 2010).

The spontaneous processing theory posits attitudes as a consequence of the activation of experiences with the attitudinal object. Attitudes are associations between evaluations of objects. A negative evaluation increases disposition and with it the spontaneity of behavior (Caykoylu et a., 2011).

A network is a set of central and peripheral nodes around which symmetric or asymmetric interaction relationships are established. In the first case, the central nodes are distanced from the peripheral nodes. The informational gap between the nodes is explained by the discontinuous transfer of knowledge. In the second case, the differences between the central and peripheral nodes are reduced to their minimum expression, facilitating the exchange of information (Fuentes & Sánchez, 2010).

The theory of knowledge networks posits that universities and companies are information exchange nodes that become productive relationships through their knowledge exchanges, development of interdisciplinary projects and training flows (Adenike, 2011).

The formative network theory explains the collaborative relationships oriented to the balance between demands and resources in contexts of scarcity, uncertainty, insecurity and risk. The theory anticipates the emergence of factors such as trust, commitment and satisfaction which in turn determine innovation and eventually organizational happiness. Professional training networks are information and communication systems related to the development of educational skills derived from institutional and organizational synergies. They imply information technology systems from which it is possible to build an academic or work identity as long as the nodes form consensus and co-responsibilities around scientific and technological production (Molero, Recio & Cuadrado, 2010).

Professional training networks of relationships between institutions and organizations are exposed to problems inherent to collaborative relationships. In this way, the work environment is the determining factor of agreements, agreements and/or consensuses oriented towards organizational development; industrial, scientific and technological, as well as the innovations of the collaborative groups. That is why they are knowledge and innovation management instruments that allow overcoming the discrepancy between industrial growth and sustainable development (Coronel, 2010) .

The theory of organizational formative violence posits that the differences between production systems that invest similar amounts of money in their processes are the result of the organizational climate ; asymmetrical, violent and conflictive relationships. In this sense, organizations approach the imbalance between demands and resources, but it is inequity and discretion that allow the adjustment of task relations to the diffuse objectives of companies (Díaz, 2013).

Organizational formative violence, unlike RFP, is indicated by asymmetric and inequitable relationships between the members of the knowledge network. In this way, management is replaced by dogmas; freedoms are displaced by discretion; opportunities give way to impositions, capacities are reduced to their minimum expression in the face of kinship and co-responsibilities are inhibited by attributions of guilt (Guillén, Lleó & Perles, 2011).

Organizational formative violence would be the result of the interrelation between relative and simple majorities and minorities that at the moment of innovating increase or decrease their participation in the construction of an organizational climate. This is how professional training networks are groups of power that, by centralizing their decisions, generate a training dissent and with it the discussion for consensus or, the use of violence as a persuasive or dissuasive instrument of knowledge management and technological innovation (Carreon, 2011).

Organizational formative violence warns about the emergence of an organizational climate that materializes in discourses of power in which differences, conflicts and disagreements are symptoms of discretionary management, or else indicate a consensual management, but relative to the influence of the majority over minorities. He anticipates the emergence of conflicts that, in his opinion, would explain the increase in creativity rather than confidence, initiatives and personal efforts rather than trust and group commitment, as well as pragmatism rather than satisfaction aimed at innovation, but also towards innovation. conformity (Tayo & Adeyemi, 2012).

Studies of Violence

Studies of organizational violence have focused their interest on the deliberate, planned, systematic and improvised process of professional training focused on formative violence such as mobbing, bullying, stalking and trolling in electronic networks in which employees of an organization interact. Organizational studies show that the work environment is a preponderant factor in the explanation of collaborative relationships between employees and managers (Molero et al., 2018). In this sense, workplace violence has been identified as a factor adjacent to professional training since it involves interpersonal and task conflicts that inhibit productivity and competitiveness. In the framework of the relationship climate and workplace violence, this study is inserted in the discussion about sexism as an inhibitory factor of productive relationships. (Borjas, 2010) .

Despite the fact that educational institutions and for-profit organizations pursue common goals, the discrepancy between responsible professional training and productivity unrelated to sustainability is predominant in the disagreements and conflicts between academic and business actors (Vargas, 2011).

However, business financing that promotes the specialization of knowledge and technological innovation encourages scientific production towards the optimization of natural resources and thereby disseminates a labor identity contrary to the values of equity, altruism or biospheres. These are asymmetric relationships in which verticalize, sexism or ostracism are indicators of a field of organizational power from which knowledge management, production, quality and innovation are controlled (Cuesta, 2012).

In the educational organizational field, professional training is the process around which it is expected to develop the skills that will allow the student's labor insertion. In this sense, collaboration agreements between universities and companies are aimed at adjusting the skills and knowledge of students to the requirements of the local and global market. This supposes symmetrical relationships between the participants since trust, cooperation, commitment, satisfaction and facility are indicators of entrepreneurial training (Gargallo, 2010).

In contrast, when asymmetric relationships prevail over the members of a network, mistrust, selfishness, dissatisfaction and stress emerge as a limiting paradigm of task and collaborative relationships. The analysis of the meanings around the knowledge network by teachers shows a work environment of asymmetric relationships. Around which the absence of professional entrepreneurship is a factor to consider to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional internship program (Gil, 2010).

The theoretical frameworks that explain the behavior of knowledge networks through information and communication technologies have established evaluative principles, beliefs about information and normative principles of the socialization of the Internet and electronic devices as determining factors. The relationship between these variables with respect to technological behavior has been established based on the assumption that attitudes, perceptions and intentions are mediators of the impact of values, beliefs and norms on the use of a technological device (Long, 2010).

Innovation is an effect of the exchange of information between research and technology projects and the strategic planning of knowledge. In this sense, a knowledge network implies the collaborative participation of specialists and technologists around a productive-technological activity. Therefore, the configuration of a network is carried out from the organizational-collaborative structure between universities and industrial sectors (Borjas, 2010).

In terms of organizational networks, two types of knowledge converge: codified and tacit. The first refers to the productive relationships in which the communication of procedures, recruitment and training are responsible for implementing the mission and vision of the organization among human resources (Cerrón, 2010). The second type of knowledge is articulated from the exchange of procedures not written in a manual, but transferred by the most experienced staff to the new staff. These are beliefs and values around the execution of tasks, the use of technical equipment and production-distribution procedures (Coronel, 2010).

Both knowledges symbolize the construction of an organizational-labor-technical culture around which trust is fundamental. The absent trust factor supposes the configuration of a network could not be carried out since collaborative learning requires a distribution of responsibilities where whoever does not follow the work dynamics or organizational climate is excluded (Cuesta, 2012).

In this sense, knowledge networks require three conditions to survive: horizontal power, redistributed among the members of the network, and the burden of responsibility, aimed at each and every one of the members of the network. The solution to post-network set-up problems lies in the network itself. For this reason, decisions are established through a mechanism of induction rather than selection (Díaz, 2013).

An essential factor of the network are the translators who have skills and knowledge about the needs of the operational staff and the requirements of the administrative staff regarding the strategic planning of the goals. If different languages are considered between the growth needs of a company and basic research, translators are essential since their transdisciplinary training and their theoretical-applied experience are a link between businessmen, administrators and staff (Gil, 2010).

Self-efficacy is a perception and/or a belief motivated by personal or impersonal trials of successes and errors carried out deliberately or discursively. Given that self-efficacy refers to failure, but mainly to success, even despite those failed trials that encourage achievement, the perception and belief of self-efficacy is based on the achievement of expected objectives rather than on competitiveness, recognition or learning. vicar. If self-efficacy is a system of perceptions and beliefs focused on success, then the group to which the self-efficacious agent belongs or wants to belong is related to success. Because groups are diverse, self-efficacy varies as a function of this diversity. A competitive group attributes success to one of its members when he has exceeded the previous achievements, which by the way were set by the group. In this sense, the concept of self-efficacy seems reliably adjusted to the influence of a group on the goals, system and achievements of an individual (Anwar & Norulkamar, 2012).

If self-efficacy is a system of perceptions that encourage achievement by defining effective capabilities, self-efficiency would also be a system of perceptions and beliefs, but unlike self-efficacy, these would be oriented towards the execution of a procedure or technology. The factors that drive self-efficacy would be identical in the case of self-efficacy. If competitiveness, recognition, and vicarious learning drive self-efficacy, then self-efficacy would also have that drive (Arnau a& Montané, 2010).

Attitudinal psychological studies have focused on its conceptualization, formation, activation, accessibility, structure, function, prediction, change, inoculation, identity, and ambivalence. Attitudes have been defined from affective and rational dimensions. Both dimensions are the result of experiences and expectations. This implies its structure: one-dimensional or multidimensional that is configured in exogenous and endogenous factors. That is, when attitudes activate decisions and behaviors, they cause a peripheral, emotional, spontaneous, heuristic and ambivalent process. In contrast, when attitudes transmit the effects of values and beliefs on intentions and actions, they are endogenous mediators of a central, rational, deliberate, planned, and systematic process (Berdecia, González & Carrasquillo, 2012).

Psychological studies have shown significant differences between attitudes towards people and attitudes towards objects. The former refer to stereotypes or attributes and the latter refer to evaluations or dispositions. In both, ambivalence is an indicator of change when beliefs and evaluations interact, forming negative and positive dispositions towards the object. Conflicts are formed within the components formed by beliefs towards the object. Resistance to persuasion is a consequence of attitudinal ambivalence. If the environment threatens the formation and function of attitudes, they will adapt the individual to contingencies. Thus, attitudes have two essential functions: selfish and utilitarian (Cardon et al., 2013).

Attitudinal change refers to emotions and affections consequent to individual acts and for which people feel responsible. It is also about the social influence that teaching groups exert on students. Or, the reception of persuasive messages aimed at central reasoning, or persuasive messages aimed at peripheral emotionality. In general, the attitudinal system is sensitive to the instability of the object and to cognitive variations that affect the consistency, stability, prediction, competence or morality of the individual (Celik, Turunc & Begenirbas, 2011).

The consistent change of attitudes is related to its multidimensional structure resulting from majority pressure. The diversity of dimensions implies a consistent construction of attitudinal change. That is, attitudes assume a function of internalized responses to constant situations framed by the mass media (Chiang, Méndez & Sánchez, 2010).

Attitudinal change is related to the dissuasive principle of inoculation. Before the attack of persuasive messages, the perception of threats, risk and uncertainty is induced. In general, overexposure to persuasive messages induces high elaboration and thus persuasion. The massive broadcast of persuasive messages, motivation and consequent management skills can lead to helplessness. In other words, faced with the wave of information, people reduce their perception of control and tend to believe that events are immeasurable, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Alternatively, individuals form an identity consisting of identifying with an administrative group in reference to a teaching group. In the process of helplessness, the individual builds the change of attitude and its reinforcement of hopelessness. In the identity process, it is the group that influences the attitudinal change of the person. Helplessness is a process of self-validation or self-fulfilling prophecy. In contrast, identity is a convergent validation of group norms (Chinchilla & Cruz, 2010).

The social influence of the teaching group or administrative group refers to the majority norms and the minority principles oriented to attitudinal change. Majority influence fosters individual conformity and minority principles, conflict, and attitudinal change. Recently, the style of the minority has turned out to be the most permanent factor of social influence and attitudinal change. That is, the construction of majority consensus seems to have an ephemeral effect and the construction of dissent seems to offer constant change (Díaz, Hernández & Roldán, 2012).

Studies of attitudes toward behavior have focused on its ambivalence. People try to balance favorable and unfavorable information towards that dispositional object by maintaining ambivalent attitudes. That is, attitudinal objects are part of the environment in which people find themselves and their need to order, predict and control it. Therefore, even if the attitudinal object is consistent with their perceptions, values and beliefs, people must contrast these objects with the behaviors associated with them (Figeiredo et al., 2012).

Education is a system of knowledge networks that make up a teaching-learning cycle. At the beginning of the educational cycle, knowledge networks are just a blueprint. Production strategies are guided by an emerging rather than dominant paradigm. It is about the plausibility of theories because knowledge is hardly supported by ideologies. The second stage of the educational cycle is peer evaluation, which consists of adjusting the projects to the policy of the administrative group. Subsequently, in the third stage, the dissemination of knowledge in institutional academic spaces is observed (Fuentes, Herrero & Gracia, 2010).

Studies on knowledge networks warn that group formation and project planning are as important as trust and identity around an organization, institution or university. The formation of groups has its origin in the social psychological processes of categorization, comparison, representation and social identity around which conflict and change are the foundations of knowledge networks (Galindo & Echavarría, 2011).

Conflict precedes change. These are asymmetric relationships between the members of a group in reference to members of another group considered as alien to the common interests of a group. The conflict emerges when the differences between the groups are evident. The conflict emerges at the moment in which one of the students transgresses the practice regulations, affecting knowledge transfers. Since teacher-researchers are responsible for managing and training students in their insertion into the mission and vision of organizations, they have to ensure compliance with the regulations and punish those who violate the rules of collaboration (Holden & Karsh, 2010).

Another type of conflict, that related to innovation defined as the influence of a persevering minority in their actions with the intention of persuading or dissuading an administrative group. It underlies the interior of the organization or the university, it is the conflict in which the students involved perceive a greater use of their capacities and resources. Consequently, they demand greater management and training to achieve objectives focused on administrative-technological innovation (López & López, 2011).

On the other hand, change is a consequence of conflict. It is a process in which the conversion precedes the persuasion that activated a conflict and a central or peripheral attitude of need for cognition. The attitudinal change around the questioning of convictions alludes to a dissuasive process in which the information can be rationalized or emotional. In the first case, the need for cognition can lead to a dissonance in which information does not match expectations. In the second case, the information fosters emotions that increase expectations towards the informational-attitudinal object (Morales, Ariza, & Muñiz, 2012).

In this sense, change is also synonymous with conversion in which attitudes towards an object lead to a modification of the behavior of the individual before the group (Ríos, Téllez & Ferrer, 2010). In the case of knowledge networks, conflict and change are essential processes to understand the barriers and facilities for knowledge transfer between symmetric and asymmetric groups around the information of an object, process, institution or organization (Rodríguez et al. al., 2011).

Individuals establish categories, comparisons, identities and representations around themselves in relation to members of a group and in reference to other individuals belonging to other groups (Rojas, García & García, 2011). By establishing parameters of comparison, conflicts within an academic group can translate into conflicts between organizational groups. This is the first step in defining identity or belonging to a group ( Shrrof, Denenn & Ng, 2011).

Intra- and inter-group categorization consists of a set of perceptions around the resources, abilities and capabilities within a group in reference to another group. If perception is the biased ordering of objects, groups and their individuals, they bias their appreciations when evaluating their actions and those of others. This is the case of the attribution bias around which individual perceptions attribute their achievements to their abilities and attribute their failures to the abilities of others (Sobrados & Fernández, 2010).

After categorization and comparison, identity underlies. These are membership decisions based on biased attributive judgments. If a student perceives greater possibilities for personal growth in a group to which he does not belong, he will decide to change or convert his ideas to those of the favored group. In this sense, the network of knowledge would be the one most favored by individual judgments and attributions. At this point in the group formation process, two types of reference are constructed: a teaching group and an administrative group (Teh et al., 2010).

The administrative group builds its identity underlying the capabilities of the teaching group. In other words, the constitution of a knowledge network is not only carried out based on the perceptions of capacity of the members of a group, but also on the perceptions of incapacity of the teaching group (Vargas & Arenas, 2012).

To the extent that an administrative group biases its evaluative judgments, it transfers its conflicts to the teaching group. Perceptual bias transforms into attributive bias and ends up as selective bias. By focusing the bias on the teaching group, the individual from the administrative group builds a network of representations around which the capacities, resources and limits of the administrative group are interpreted in reference to the teaching group (Yáñez, Arenas & Ripoll, 2010).

The representation of the teaching group competences supposes an evaluation of their behaviors by the individual and his teaching group. It is a set of emotions and cognitions around the causes of the actions of the teaching group compared to the actions of the administrative group. That is, individuals only want to observe acts that contradict the administrative group and try to minimize their effects on people's decisions (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2013).

To the extent that the individual has contact with the teaching group, they increase their emotions and cognitions around the actions of the teaching group. Precisely, based on these experiences, it is possible to infer attitudinal processes that explain the exclusion of the teaching group because they are attributed different resources and capacities compared to the administrative group (Yuangion, 2011).

In this process of exclusion, underlying the emotional-cognitive-behavioral consistency that explains the differences between the groups. If the administrative group excludes the members of the teaching group, then it will have shown a high consistency that threatens the consistency of the administrative group. Therefore, individuals who belong to an administrative group tend to see significant differences with respect to the teaching group and its members. The consistency of the administrative group is biased when compared to the teaching group since a biased idea can only be a prejudice rather than an argument (Prada, 2013).

In the field of knowledge networks, the consistency of the administrative group and the teaching group is incompatible. For a knowledge network to work, an administrative group is required that can link its knowledge with a teaching group that is inconsistent in its emotions, cognitions and actions, reasons for which the transfer of knowledge from the administrative group would come to justify the synergy of the groups because it corrects the inconsistency of the teaching group. This process can also be observed if the administrative group is inconsistent and the teaching group is consistent (Orantes, 2011).

However, individuals who perceive emotional-cognitive-behavioral inconsistency around the production of knowledge in their administrative group end up migrating to the teaching group since it will allow them greater personal growth. This migration process is of an emotional-cognitive order since the emotions around the teaching group produce aversion to the administrative group, affinity and adherence to the teaching group (Omar, 2010).

Translators, those who have the knowledge, skills and abilities to manage synergies between the administrative group and the teaching group, tend to look for data that corroborates their knowledge management. However, inaccessibility to the teaching group prevents knowledge management, the formation of synergies and the transfer of knowledge. If individuals have restricted access to a teaching group, they can mimic it with the administrative group and fall into the assumption of natural compatibility of the knowledge of both the teaching group and the administrative group. The consequence of this compatibility will be the inhibition of the knowledge network and its transformation into corruption, simulation or nepotism around the production and transfer of knowledge. That is, an increase in inaccessibility to the teaching group increases the chances of failure of organizational, scientific and technological programs between the administrative group and the teaching group (Medina, 2010).

Translators, as knowledge managers, are mediators of relationships between teachers and students. When the organizational climate between the administrative group and the teaching group turns into ambiguity and adversity rather than transparency and loyalty, those involved in the knowledge networks manipulate the information to pursue their interests, the translators must persuade both groups of the unsustainability of their relationship. It is not enough to diagnose group differences, it is also essential to reduce risks and uncertainty by enhancing the benefits of each link and node of the knowledge network (Manning, 2010).

Now, the affective-behavioral consistency between both groups implies creativity which introduces both groups into an innovative dynamic. It is a flexible organizational climate in which ideas around the production and transfer of knowledge are potentiated. Since knowledge networks are diverse, heterogeneity is required for the production and transfer of knowledge at each link or node. To the extent that the organizational climate is soft, it increases trust and identity within both groups (Long, 2013).

Trust and identity are the result of a type of persuasive information known as belief and the organizational environment in which beliefs are spread is known as attitude towards the knowledge network, its members and processes. An increase in information related to the network increases the certainty, production and transfer of knowledge. In contrast, the decrease in information inhibits the group relationship. Therefore, collaborative and innovative relationships have repercussions on productivity, however, stress such as exhaustion, depersonalization or frustration can emerge as a result of the increase in productive demands (Gil, 2010).

However, a part of the professional training process is only explained since there are underlying barriers in organizations that inhibit development (Padial et al., 2012). In this sense, ambivalence and organizational violence are external to professional training. Consequently, knowledge management supposes training networks that innovate in adverse and contingent situations, but also underlie the conflicts and asymmetries inherent in the organizational climate.

In this way, professional training is indicated by conflicts derived from its degrees of organizational discretion. As it intensifies, inequity materializes in monopolistic habitus, but a reduction to its minimum expression generates consensus in senior management. Discretion is the discursive heritage of senior management, persuasion or dissuasion are the product of monopolistic or consensual fields. That is, discretion as a precedent of monopolistic habitus anticipates formative violence since it suppresses innovation and generates conformity and obedience, verticalism, sexism and ostracism (Carreón, 2013).

However, more recent research has shown that the socialization of information in knowledge networks spreads its effect on perceptions of usefulness and risk, as well as on attitudes linked to anxiety and addiction to networks, the main determinants of behavior. In this way, technological behavior is determined by the processing of information around a knowledge network. This effect, being mediated by collaborative decisions, increases the predictive power of beliefs about task and interpersonal relationships in an organization (Adenike, 2011).

On the other hand, collaborative intentions suppose attitudes of trust, perceived capacities and informative beliefs that, when interrelated, determine favorable or unfavorable decision-making for a group of knowledge. However, the knowledge construction process would not be feasible without the formation of attitudes of trust in which collaborative groups disseminate information that will be categorized into learning tools or motivation aimed at achieving objectives and goals (Cerron, 2010).

In parallel, the perceived abilities complement the formation of information categories since it is about skill and knowledge around the construction of a professional training network. However, some studies suggest that professional training and building a network are different processes since they imply selfish values that contradict altruistic values. It is a series of group norms around which individuals are professionally trained, or are emotionally oriented when forging an identity. However, it is the socialization of information that will determine the behavior of an individual in a collaborative group (Gargallo, 2010).

As a review, the state of knowledge has explained the organizational performance of collaborative groups and networks in situations of scarcity, uncertainty, insecurity and risk (Rojas et al., 2019). Individuals and groups develop climates of trust, enhance their work commitment and approach life satisfaction, but also implement creative management and innovative processes in response to contingency.

The model put forward by the state of knowledge, assuming that the socialization of knowledge consists of general information beliefs, assumes general effects in each of the mediating factors of its relationship with behavior (Santos et al., 2020). Therefore, the specification of behavioral dimensions could indicate that there are other intermediate factors with respect to socialization. These are eight indicators of technological behavior which explain the formation of a collaborative group from information processing.

In the case of trust, technological behavior is indicated by collaborative relationships in which the benefits would not be based on costs, but rather derived from an interdependence when carrying out a specific task. In other words, the professional training that involves the intensive use of technologies comes from symmetrical relationships that a group establishes to distribute skills and disseminate knowledge. These are committed relationships since, if a member does not develop job skills, then they will be excluded from a group that has established a culture of high productive quality. In this sense, collaboration is the result of shared goals, while individualism would be an effect of the goal system that rewards personal effort (Manning, 2010).

In the case of cooperation, unlike simple normative collaboration, technological behavior assumes specialized skills and knowledge for the fulfillment of purposes. That is why groups are forced to establish cooperative relationships since the group itself must exchange information, process strategies or implement techniques that involve continuous support among its members (Medina, 2010).

However, another indicator of technological behavior is empathy among its members, since intensive work and the achievement of objectives or the fulfillment of goals implies affective and emotional relationships to reduce personal conflicts to the absence of communication (Omar, 2010).

Regarding solidarity, unlike collaboration or cooperation, it involves professional training based on the dynamics of collaborative teams within the knowledge network. While collaboration and cooperation are determined by social values, solidarity goes beyond the normative or evaluative principles that unite groups, it is an awareness of scarcity and uncertainty that allows anticipating shortage situations by sharing resources (Prayers, 2011).

Consequently, the propensity for the future is the result of solidarity behaviors that anticipate risk scenarios. Indeed, collaborative groups are motivated by prevention and coping strategies in situations that are unfavorable to groups with whom they share objectives and goals (Prada, 2013).

Finally, the quintessential indicator of technological behavior is entrepreneurship or dissident spirit. Indeed, the use of a technology and even more the formation of collaborative networks would not make sense if only short or medium-term gains were pursued. Professional training consists of anticipating scenarios of scarcity, risk and uncertainty for which knowledge groups form networks that are essentially entrepreneurs, dissidents of the situations that are coming or the catastrophes that are expected (Vargas, 2011).

Social violence was indicated by a hostile sexism in which male gender identity inhibited the development of female gender identity. Gender identity seems to be a condition on which benevolent discourses are generated that confine the function of female identity to the care and attention of the work group or work team. The specification of relationships suggests that organizational formative violence is indicated by eight factors related to prejudice, depersonalization, benevolence, harassment, subjugation, objectification, stigma and harassment that make up a climate of relationships and tasks in which discourses that reduce merits emerge. of individuals and enhance the differences between groups (Carreón, 2014).

Modeling of Violence

The theories and findings reviewed in the literature when explaining the phenomenon of formative violence in different contexts, areas and scenarios will account for the institutional and academic situation that prevails in the public university with respect to violence exercised in electronic networks and will even anticipate scenarios of conflict between the actors.

Although the theoretical and empirical frameworks have shown the dependency relationships between the factors that explain organizational violence, the specificity of the interrelationships in digital networks, as well as the context of study, go beyond theoretical and empirical assumptions.

The present study has established benevolence as the preponderant indicator of formative violence. From this reflective relationship, it is inferred that in the study sample a discourse related to the exaltation of self-sacrifice and attention as general attributes of the victims in their professional training process is gestated.

The contribution of this study to the state of knowledge is that the organizational climate, being considered a determining factor in interpersonal relationships and task relationships, could be shaped by formative violence.

However, it is necessary to explore the dimensions of the organizational climate since workplace violence is only one aspect of the relationships that can be established between employees and managers.

It is true that benevolence would explain the absence of hostile sexism in organizations and would anticipate harassment or bullying, but its percentage of variance explained in the work environment would be lower since organizations are focused on responding to labor demands more than to observe equitable and violence-free relationships among their talents.

Organizational violence in general and formative violence in particular, indicated by prejudice, depersonalization, benevolence, harassment, subjugation, objectification, stigma and harassment, supposes a process of differentiation between members of an organization that, in the case of Public Institutions of Higher Education seem to be inherent to its development, since the training of talents would take place along with the training of victims and perpetrators. 

A documentary, cross-sectional, exploratory and retrospective study was carried out with institutional sources: Class, Latindex, Redalyc, Conacyt and Scielo, considering the search by keywords: "violence" and "COVID-19" in the period from 2019 to 2022.

The Agenda Setting Inventory was used, which includes questions related to the relationship between the findings with respect to the axes and topics of discussion of the literature published from 2019 to 2022.

Respondents were informed about the objectives of the study and those responsible for the project. Confidentiality and anonymity of the answers were guaranteed to the respondents in writing. The Helsinki and American Psychological Association protocols on human studies were followed. The inventory was sent to the institutional mail of the respondents. Respondents evaluated the selected findings by assigning a score of –1 to findings that do not relate to violence theory and studies. Findings that were considered to be linked to theory and studies of violence received a rating of +1.

The data was captured in Excel and processed in JASP version 14 considering the coefficients of normal distribution, contingency, centrality, grouping and structure. The null hypothesis of significant differences between the structure of the findings reported in the literature was contrasted with respect to evaluations by expert judges on the subject.

Values close to unity were considered as evidence of a contingent, centralized, grouped, and structured relationship. Values close to zero were assumed as evidence of a spurious null relationship.

Figure 1 shows the values that evidence the centralized relationships between the nodes and the edges. That is, the values suggest that the relationships between the analysis categories are close to each other and configure a centrality structure that reveals a learning of violence between the parties reported in the literature.

Source: Prepared with study data.

Figure 1: Centrality of violence in literature from 2019 to 2022

Figure 2 shows the values that explain the clustering relationships between nodes and edges. There is a grouping between the categories that reveals a structure of relationships oriented to the dual learning of violence. In other words, COVID-19 was mitigated and contained by confinement and distancing policies that redirected violence to the family and residential sphere. The differences and conflicts between the parties were structured in a network of findings where conflicts prevailed.

Source: Prepared with study data

Figure 2: Grouping of violence in literature from 2019 to 2022

Figure 3 shows the structure of relationships between nodes and edges. A learning of the asymmetries between the parties in conflict is observed. The centrality and grouping of findings related to conflicts between the parties suggests an asymmetric structure in the literature from 2019 to 2022.

Source: Prepared with study data

Figure 3: Structure of violence in literature from 2019 to 2022.

In summary, the findings reveal a structure of violence that is sustained in relationships of centrality, except in the categories of family violence and Internet user. That is to say, the literature from 2019 to 2022 reports a learning of violence between the parties that consists of the grouping and centralization of categories in the mentioned period.

The contribution of this work to the state of the question lies in the establishment of a research agenda related to violence in literature from 2019 to 2022. A structure of centralized relationships grouped around categorical nodes is appreciated. The prevalence of physical, psychological, economic, political, Internet, work, family, physical and interpersonal violence. Studies related to violence warn that the pandemic exacerbated the asymmetries between the parties. This issue generated a propensity for family violence that triggered gender and interpersonal violence. In the present work, the review suggests a trend of the eight categories except for family and Internet violence. It means then that the research agenda seems to focus its attention on the asymmetries that promote conflicts outside the family. In other words, the confinement and distancing of people seems to have nullified family relationships and Internet users, but it affected the other types of violence. The possibility of extending the study to family violence before and after the pandemic would reveal the impact of COVID-19 on family dynamics in different contexts of exposure to risks of contagion, disease and death. Such research horizon opens the discussion on the secondary effects of violence such as stress, stigma or resilience. The literature from 2019 to 2022 associates the types of violence with the three categories. Therefore, the hypothesis to be tested in future studies will be about the significant differences between men and women with respect to the degree of stress and violence. In a scenario of family confinement and distance from friends, social support appears as a mediator of stress and violence, but in a virtual mode. In other words, the mediation of social support could be generated in communication devices and technologies, but its effectiveness in regulating stress or violence could decrease if communication is not synchronous and assertive. Therefore, the model to be tested would include the types of violence as external variables influencing stress, stigma and resilience, but mediated by social, family or friendly support. Such a model will make it possible to explain the differences between the parties, as well as guide anti-COVID-19 policies that are based on social support and resilience.

The objective of this work was to establish the research agenda in order to be able to model the asymmetrical relationships between the parties in conflict due to excessive family or neighborhood confinement and labor social distancing. The results warn that family and Internet violence were nullified rather than affected by the pandemic. In this way, the policies of confinement and distancing are based on the relationships between the types of violence, but are legitimized in the relationships between the types of violence with respect to stress, stigma and resilience through social support.