## 3 Results
### Main Results  
From the first evaluation in 2018 (Table 8), we can see the average of each competency. Research professors reported having an autonomous level of competence in teaching (X = 2.81; SD = 1.02). This competency is integrated by two factors, the professors' evaluations by students and by their teaching activity. In the institution, evaluation is very important; professors are recognized and provide recognition and economic incentives. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Competence**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Percentage of Variance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Percentage of Variance**} \\  & **Explained by a First Factor** & **Explained by a Second Factor** \\ \hline Transformation of society & 47.01\% & 9.007\% \\ Researcher training & 60.034\% & 11.05\% \\ Originality and innovation & 65.29\% & 20.6\% \\ Teaching & 53.1\% & 29.26 \\ Ethics and citizenship & 50.66\% & 27.91\% \\ Teachers’ digital competence & 59.76\% & 25.18\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Percentages of Variance Explained by First and Second Factors and Factor Loadings. Figure 7: Sedimentation graph of the Teachers’ Digital Competence. Source: Authors. Teachers' Digital Competence was reported at an autonomous level (X = 2.27; SD = 1.01) even though all professors receive training in using technological tools for instruction and for interaction with students. Professors' Originality and Innovation must be given a strong push because this competency was reported at the initial level (X = 0.837) as the lowest performing. The bar graph (Figure 8) illustrates how Teaching rises above both Transformation of Society and Originality and Innovation for both research professors and each school. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Total Variance Explained**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Initial Eigenvalues**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Extraction Sums of**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Rotation Sums of**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Squared Loadings**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Squared Loadings**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Total**} & **\% of** & **Cumulative** & **\%** & **Total** & **\% of** & **Cumulative** & **\%** & **Total** & **\% of** & **Cumulative** \\  & **Variance** & **\%** & **\%** & **Variance** & **\%** & **\%** & **Variance** & **\%** \\ \hline
1 & 11.060 & 33.516 & 33.516 & 11.060 & 33.516 & 33.516 & 7.766 & 23.534 & 23.534 \\
2 & 2.471 & 7.487 & 41.003 & 2.471 & 7.487 & 41.003 & 3.258 & 9.871 & 33.406 \\
3 & 1.781 & 5.398 & 46.401 & 1.781 & 5.398 & 46.401 & 2.515 & 7.622 & 41.028 \\
4 & 1.584 & 4.799 & 51.200 & 1.584 & 4.799 & 51.200 & 2.293 & 6.948 & 47.976 \\
5 & 1.452 & 4.400 & 55.600 & 1.452 & 4.400 & 55.600 & 2.048 & 6.206 & 54.182 \\
6 & 1.244 & 3.768 & 59.368 & 1.244 & 3.768 & 59.368 & 1.711 & 5.186 & 59.368 \\
7 & 0.999 & 3.029 & 62.397 & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Competencies’ Performance Variance as Reported by Research Professors. Figure 8: Teaching, Transformation of Society, and Originality and Innovation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Transformation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Researcher**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Originality**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Teaching**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ethics and**} \\  & **of Society** & & & & \\  & **Training** & & & & \\ \hline Mean & 1.4738 & 1.1256 & 0.8374 & 2.8164 & 2.5925 & 2.2758 \\ Median & 1.3451 & 0.7986 & 0.5556 & 2.8125 & 2.6389 & 2.1667 \\ Std. Deviation & 1.02728 & 1.18743 & 1.03655 & 1.02709 & 1.17684 & 1.05261 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Research Professors’ Self-assessment of Competencies (N = 320). Moreover, statistically significant differences in elements of competencies favor researchers except in Teaching and Ethics and Citizenship. In Table 9, we contrast the level of performance of research professors who are in the SNI and those who do not belong to the SNI.