1 Introduction

In Brazil, research has a strong connection with universities and the graduate system, assuming an important role in the training of researchers and the production of knowledge and technologies. Thus, the development of graduate programs (GP) in higher education institutions is essential to enhance national and regional scientific and technological competencies (^{ALVES; MARICATO; MARTINS, 2015}).

According to ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)}, there are two main reasons that led to the creation of graduate education in Brazil. The first is based on the recognition of a lack of highly qualified personnel at that time to manage projects for the country's development, and the second is related to the expansion of higher education, which generated the need to enhance the teaching staff. This process materialized between 1930 and 1960, with the creation of the University of São Paulo in 1934 and the University of Brasília in 1961 (^{BALBACHEVSKY, 2005}). During the same period, Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) was established.

In 1965, institutionalization of this process occurred when Opinion Sucupira 977, approved by the National Council of Education, recognized graduate education as a level of instruction (^{Nobre; Freitas, 2017}). In this context, in the mid-1970s, graduate education began to occupy a privileged place in scientific and technological development with financial support from the Financier of Studies and Projects (Finep), the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FNCT), and the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) (^{BALBACHEVSKY, 2005}).

During this period, resources were allocated directly to professors to overcome the bureaucratic difficulties of university administration, resulting in asymmetry in the distribution of this funding (^{BALBACHEVSKY, 2005}). Researchers have begun to assume a prominent role, especially in those who have access to research resources.

In 1975, the National Graduate Plan (PNPG) was created with the goal of structuring research systems and establishing connections with the productive sector and public sphere. These plans are reviewed every four years to gradually establish evaluation criteria that shape quality standards and academic careers. This process was formalized in 1976 when Capes was restructured and started to use more transparent evaluation criteria with a strong quantitative tendency, referencing international standards (^{HOSTINS, 2006}).

In 1998, ^{Capes (2020)} created Qualis, which established the evaluation criteria and scoring for academic production by stratifying journals, thereby feeding the data collection system. Additionally, they developed an application called Coleta Capes¹ (^{SCHERER et al., 2012, p. 57}), which became a reference point for evaluating programs and affiliated faculty members (^{BALBACHEVSKY, 2005}). In 1998, the Lattes Platform was created and launched on August 6, 1999, becoming the standard for recording the academic activities of researchers in the country (^{NOBRE; FREITAS 2017}). Therefore, this period was marked by the institutionalization of the evaluation process for graduate education (stricto sensu) in Brazil, with faculty members affiliated with programs having their activities guided by these directives.

The role of faculty members in higher education extends beyond that of the graduate system. According to ^{Correa and Lourenço (2015)}, their roles encompass various aspects such as research, extension, education and training, event participation and organization, publications, evaluation of scientific work, and administrative positions. The Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (LDB) establishes that the minimum workload for faculty members in higher education is eight hours of teaching per week. The remaining hours are used to complete the necessary work hours according to the established work regimen for research, extension, and guidance (^{BRASIL, 1996}). Furthermore, the progression processes in the teaching career, especially in public universities, according to Law No. 12.772/2012, are related to teaching, research, extension, and administrative activities (^{BRASIL, 2012}).

The evaluation methods of ^{Capes (2020)} have favored the quantitative assessment criteria that ^{Vosgerau, Orlando, and Meyer (2017)} refer to as academic productivity. ^{Sguissardi and Silva Júnior (2009)} added that this logic imposed on academic work deconstructs the concept of inseparability, as it prioritizes research and places extension activities in the background, which in turn receive less funding. The competency of university members should be associated with the complexity of the university's mission, meaning that there should be no detachment between teaching, research, and extension; rather, there should be dynamic dialogue among them in which students are engaged (^{SIQUEIRA et al., 2012}). The hierarchy established among teaching, research, and extension fragments the work, but the demand for inseparability remains in the demands of this profession, even in the 1988 Constitution.

^{Sguissardi and Silva Júnior (2009)} highlighted that the effects of academic productivity lead to the intensification and precariousness of university researchers’ work in Brazilian postgraduate programs. The authors found evidence that the precarious working conditions of university members in graduate programs led them to prioritize research over teaching and extension, showing a separation between research and teaching. Another aspect highlighted by ^{Godoi and Xavier (2012)} is the competition among university members in programs at higher education institutions, extending to students, intensifying internal disputes, and creating a stressful work environment.

^{Nunes and Torga (2020)} align with this perspective on the precariousness of university work, affirming that while engagement in graduate programs provides prestige/status to university members and the potential to contribute to solving societal problems, it is also accompanied by demands for productivity, competition among university members, and, at times, even moral harassment involving students.

In this context, considering the complexity of university work and psychosocial risks resulting from evaluation methods and overlapping activities, several studies on this topic have been highlighted.

^{Nyquist, Hitchcock, and Teherani (2000)}, emphasizing the complexity of university work, conducted a study with medical school professors in the United States, considering their importance in improving quality of life and longevity. The authors described university members' activities and addressed the factors affecting their satisfaction. They found that university members educate and train doctors, conduct research, develop technologies and procedures, and care for patients, often those who are poor or seriously ill. The authors presented a comprehensive analytical model to illustrate university members' satisfaction factors, based on the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) (^{GERRITY et al., 1997}) and the Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) faculty work model.

^{Blackburn and Lawrence’s (1995)} model was based on a study of university characteristics and their work. The data revealed that self-awareness and social awareness can affect behavior and productivity in such activities. Self-awareness includes self-efficacy, interest, effort, training, and personal ambitions. Social awareness is composed of institutional support and the efforts that university members believe in their institution desires. For the authors, the model seeks to illustrate how self-awareness and job satisfaction are influenced by organizational, professional, and personal factors, which are crucial for the productivity and retention of professionals in their activities. Thus, this professional’s profile involves perceiving their capacity to articulate the envisaged inseparability, including within the legal instruments of education.

^{Moro et al. (2013)} conducted a study to identify motivational (intrinsic) and hygiene (extrinsic) factors considered relevant from the viewpoint of students and professors in a public educational institution, where individuals' productivity is crucial for the development and survival of graduate programs. Regarding hygiene factors that prevent dissatisfaction, aspects related to work, such as salary and benefits, relationships, and working conditions were considered. In both groups, the results highlighted important motivational aspects, such as personal and professional growth and accomplishment, emphasizing enjoyment of their work. Faculty members considered hygiene factors, such as financial support and relationships with colleagues and students, important.

^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)} investigated the factors that lead researchers to affiliate (or not) with programs of this nature. They found that almost all surveyed researchers were interested in participating, but limitations arose due to organizational factors, although some favorable factors combined were related to work, organization, and personal factors.

These studies have revealed that involvement in graduate activities is almost always connected to contradictory scenarios. While this type of engagement provides access to resources (both objective and subjective), it also brings about an increased workload, contributing to the precariousness of work.

The scenario that emerged with the institutionalization of graduate education as a privileged location for research within educational institutions, coupled with the commercialization of relationships between public and private universities that respond to market interests, has resulted in the intensification of university work (GUIMARAES; CHAVES, 2015).

In this context, university staff members do not have a formal obligation to participate in graduate programs. Given the nature and complexity of their professional activity, making such a decision while considering productivity and the precariousness of work associated with engagement in these activities raises the question: what factors influence professionals' decisions to affiliate and what factors would lead them to disaffiliate from graduate programs? The goal was to identify the perception of doctoral employees in relation to their involvement in graduate programs and the factors that motivate them, both personal and organizational.

This research distinguishes itself from ^{Moro et al. (2013)}, as it focuses on doctoral faculty members, unlike the cited study, which included university and students. Compared to the study by ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)}, this research incorporates motivational and organizational factors, expanding variables including some from ^{Moro et al. (2013)}. Furthermore, it seeks to understand the personal factors that could influence the decision to disaffiliate from a program. This aspect is relevant given that the research was conducted before the pandemic and amidst a scenario of cuts in public education funding and financial crisis in the country. Thus, this study may shed light on factors related to the decision of university members to disaffiliate from programs.

The results of this study could contribute to higher education institutions developing policies to ensure the stability of their university members involved in graduate programs, thereby promoting the teaching, research, and extension dimensions.

2 Materials and methods

This descriptive study utilizes documents related to postgraduate regulations sourced from the websites of the PPGs (Graduate Programs) of the researched federal public institutions, research institutes such as the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (Inep), and government-affiliated foundations such as Capes. A questionnaire was also administered to active university members with doctoral degrees from an institution working in the GPs. To preserve the institution's and respondents' identities, non-identification was selected.

Research data were collected based on factors presented in the studies of ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)} and ^{Moro et al. (2013)}, supplemented by others. The questionnaire was developed based on the indicated factors and pre-tested with three university members outside the surveyed university. After making the necessary adjustments, the questionnaire was hosted using Google Forms.

The Human Resources Office provided a list of 483 active employees at an institution holding doctoral degrees. Some university members were missing from the list and were sought from the GP websites of universities and publications, 502 institutional and personal email addresses. The instrument was sent four times from April 1st to May 7, 2019, to the identified email addresses, explaining the research, and inviting them to participate.

University members active in stricto sensu Graduate Programs received an email explaining the research with a questionnaire link. Upon opening the link, an Informed Consent Form was presented, allowing participants to declare their acceptance or refusal to participate in the research. The form then presented four questions, two of which were about the influence of motivational and organizational factors on university members’ intention to continue in the stricto sensu Graduate Program(s), and two about personal and organizational factors and the level of influence they would have on a potential disaffiliation from the stricto sensu Graduate Program(s) (Table 1).

The questions provided reasons, and respondents indicated the level of influence according to a Likert-type scale: (1) no influence (NI), (2) little influence (LI), (3) neutral (N), (4) significant influence (SI), and (5) complete influence (CI).

University members' experience in Graduate Programs, both internal and external to the university, the participation category in the programs, and the location of the program(s) with which the university member is involved were also queried. Additional questions about profile, teaching experience, and teaching experience in graduate education prior to joining the university were included. The statistical software R (^{R CORE TEAM, 2020}) was used for data analysis and graph generation.

Table 1 lists the categories of analysis (motivational, personal, and organizational factors) and the questions associated with them. The numerical notation at the end of each question refers to the source of the research instrument from which it was taken: In this case, the number (1) refers to ^{Moro et al. (2013)} and (2) to ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)}.

^{Moro et al. (2013)}, following the discussions proposed by Herzberg, Bergamini, and Broxado, define motivational factors as those that occur within the intrinsic dimension, as they give meaning to actions and promote satisfaction. ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)} define organizational factors as the resources provided by the organization to perform the intrinsic work activities. In this sense, both the presence and absence of resources can positively or negatively affect employee motivation. Therefore, organizational factors should create a motivating and challenging environment conducive to individual satisfaction. Personal factors concern the relationship between the dynamics of everyday life and the demands of the world of work (^{ALVES; MARICATO; MARTINS, 2015}).

3 Results and discussion

At the institution surveyed, it was not possible to determine the exact number of faculty members with doctorates who are involved in stricto sensu graduate programs within or outside the institution. In a preliminary survey conducted by one of the college's vice rectorships, it was determined that approximately 50% were involved in graduate activities. Of the total 502 university members with doctorates, 113 (45%) of the respondents indicated that they were involved in graduate programs.

Among the respondents, men predominated at 61.9%, while women accounted for 38.1%. In terms of their role in the program(s), 77% of respondents were permanent, 12.4% were collaborators, and 10.6% held both permanent and collaborator positions. Regarding the programs, 79.6% stated that they participate in program(s) within the university, within the same faculty where they are based; 10.6% indicated their participation in program(s) within the university, but in a different faculty; 4.4% reported their involvement in program(s) outside the university, and 5.3% mentioned participating in program(s) both within and outside the university. These data reveal that faculty members have an organic connection with the programs, as 77% are permanent professors and 79.6% participate in internal programs, indicating their institutional commitment. In other words, engagement in postgraduate activities was integrated into daily work routines.

When asked about their intention to remain in the stricto sensu graduate program, 57.5% stated that they intended to stay until retirement, 41.6% intended to continue for some more time, and 0.9% indicated that they did not intend to stay. Therefore, although working conditions influenced by academic productivity (^{GUIMARÃES; CHAVES, 2015}; ^{SGUISSARDI; SILVA, 2009}; ^{VOSGERAU; ORLANDO; MEYER, 2017}) might be factors affecting faculty motivation, there is still a strong inclination towards program continuation.

Graph 1 presents the results concerning the level of influence of motivational factors on the decision to remain in stricto sensu graduate programs (s). The Likert scale followed the levels, and the following abbreviations were adopted: (1) no influence (NI), (2) little influence (LI), (3) neutral (N), (4) significant influence (SI), and (5) complete influence (CI).

Source: Own elaboration.

Graph 1 Level of influence of motivational factors on the decision to remain in the program(s). 

After analyzing the results from Graph 1, it can be observed that the most important motivational factor is "enjoy what I do," with 73% of the respondents indicating complete influence and 20% indicating significant influence. These findings confirm those of ^{Moro et al. (2013)}, as the majority considered enjoying their work to be an important factor for motivation. ^{Souto et al. (2017)} obtained similar results in a qualitative study of the perspectives of graduate university members regarding feelings of pleasure and suffering in their work. They identified "pleasure" as arising from identification with teaching practices related to vocation. This aligns with discussion in this article as "enjoy what I do." ^{Souto et al. (2017)} also identified "recognition" as a contributing factor to work-related pleasure, noting that faculty members feel a sense of prestige in society. This result also supports the findings of this study, with 50% of the professionals identifying recognition outside the graduate program as a factor of significant or complete influence. Thus, while university members are organically linked to the program, projecting a positive image on those outside this activity remains relevant.

It was also noted that 22.7% of the respondents considered that all the motivational factors presented in Graph 1 had a moderate influence. It can also be observed that none of the listed factors were considered to have little or no influence on over 30% of the sample. These data help us understand why professors initially stated their intention to continue their involvement in graduate programs.

Graph 2 presents the results concerning the level of influence of organizational factors on the decision to remain in stricto sensu graduate program(s).

Source: Own elaboration.

Graph 2 Level of Influence of Organizational Factors in the Decision to Remain in PG 

In Graph 2, it is noteworthy that the relationship with students is the most influential factor for the respondents, with 39% stating total influence and 30% stating significant influence. These findings align with those of ^{Davoglio, Spagnolo, and Santos (2017)}, who, when ranking the top ten factors motivating faculty members to stay in their careers, listed the student relationship as the first. Further emphasizing the value of the relationship between advisor and student in graduate programs, Modkovski and Ferraz (2012) concluded that when this relationship is positive, it contributes to students' self-efficacy and consequently enhances the quality of knowledge produced by the program. This reinforces the findings of this study regarding the significance of the student relationship.

Financial support, physical facilities, working hours, necessary materials, and required equipment are factors that the majority expressed as having little or no influence on the decision to remain, contrasting with the findings of ^{Alves, Maricato, and Martins (2015)}. These data align with the study conducted by ^{Colares et al. (2019)}, which identified that university staff in accounting graduate programs value prestige more than financial benefits.

When asked about motivations for leaving the program, Graph 3 presents the results concerning the personal factors that would lead the participating faculty member to discontinue their involvement in the stricto sensu graduate program(s).

Source: Own elaboration.

Graph 3 Level of Influence of Personal Factors that Would Lead to Ceasing Participation in the PG 

Regarding the personal factors that contributed the most to disengagement from graduate programs (s), "low personal fulfillment" and "health-related difficulties" were identified. Personal fulfillment holds significant importance in the role of the university member, as it represents the form of reward they receive for their dedication. It is noteworthy that health can be related to work and not necessarily isolated personal factors. ^{Forattini and Lucena (2015)}, ^{Moura (2019)}, and ^{Penteado and Souza (2019)} have discussed the illness of university members in relation to the precariousness of working conditions. Thus, health-related issues can be directly linked to work, rather than solely to the personal dimension, making this an area that could be further explored in future studies.

The factor with the most pronounced "no influence" response was "low professional recognition," contrasting with the research conducted by ^{Colares et al. (2019)}, who identified professional recognition as a relevant factor. Graph 4 presents the results concerning the level of influence of organizational factors on the decision to no longer participate in the GP.

Source: Own elaboration.

Graph 4 Level of Influence of Organizational Factors that Would Lead to Ceasing Participation in the PG 

The organizational factors that would influence the decision to disengage from the stricto sensu Graduate Program(s) are "problems related to personal relationships," "absence of incentive policies at the university," "absence of research lines of interest," and "current work overload," considered by over 50% of the respondents as having much or total influence. The factor "lack of additional compensation" was considered by 57% of the sample as having little or no influence. The workload burden for graduate teachers is highlighted by several authors discussing the issue of academic productivity (^{GUIMARÃES; CHAVES, 2015}; ^{SGUISSARDI; SILVA, 2009}; ^{VOSGERAU; ORLANDO; MEYER, 2017}), and it somehow encompasses the absence of policies and incentives. What appears to be an uncommonly indicated factor in other studies pertains to personal relationship problems.

The synthesis of the results in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 presents the factors influencing the decision to remain in stricto sensu Graduate Program(s) with a level of influence greater than 50%.

On the other hand, Table 3 presents the factors that influence the decision to cease involvement in the graduate program with a level of influence greater than 50%.

Table 2 shows that the factors with the greatest influence on the decision to remain in the program are those related to personal satisfaction, that is, motivational aspects. This perspective aligns with the study by ^{Pizzio and Klein (2015)}, which indicates that even under unfavorable structural conditions, when a teacher's life project aligned with their study, the quality of work life is higher. This result might explain the significant participation in these programs (^{NUNES; TORGA, 2020}). In this research, approximately 90% of the active teaching staff expressed their intention to stay in graduate courses, even under unfavorable working conditions, as indicated in Table 3.

These findings also indicate that addressing the precariousness of teaching work faces challenges to overcome. As pleasure derived from the activity outweighs working conditions, the pursuit of structural improvements may be hindered, resembling what ^{La Boétie (2020)} referred to as voluntary servitude. This topic should be further explored in future studies.

4 Final remarks

This study aimed to identify the perceptions of doctoral staff regarding their involvement in graduate programs, considering motivational, personal, and organizational factors. The literature discussed draws attention to the precariousness of work, which has significantly influenced educators’ health issues. Even though engagement in graduate education brings forth new work demands, externally monitored by governmental and funding institutions, and internally overseen by program coordinations and committees, for those who choose this activity, the data reveal the emotional dimensions driving their intention. In the motivational field, "liking what they do," and in the organizational context, "relationship with students," were the most highlighted factors by respondents.

Despite the majority stating their intention to remain in the program for some time or until retirement, when asked about the potential reasons for disengagement, once again, individual aspects came to the forefront. Respondents mentioned a lack of personal fulfillment in the activity, and personal or familial health issues. Structural concerns were indicated, although not as prominent as those related to the subjects' daily lives.

The results seem to indicate that structural conditions are not decisive factors for educators to remain in graduate activities. Instead, the connection that is established lies in the realm of emotions and career goals; both seek personal fulfillment. This strong bond between teaching motivation and personal and motivational factors explains why these professionals still choose to remain in this activity, even in adverse conditions that are potentially related to other aspects.

The findings of this study raise several questions.

The limitations of this study are related to its scope, as it was conducted in a relatively young institution. Therefore, graduate programs and their faculty composition are still in the process of consolidation, which may contribute to the understanding of the strong commitment observed.

Future research should analyze the relationship between work precariousness and the pleasure of teaching as well as explore potential aspects of voluntary servitude within this context. Another recommendation pertains to understanding recurring health issues among educational professionals and their connections to work precariousness.

Responsible for the English version:

Thais Cremon

E-mail: thaiscremon@ufgd.edu.br