DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.56712/latam.v7i2.5763
The modern
Prometheus in education: a doctoral thesis quest for innovative knowledge
El moderno Prometeo en la
educación: una tesis doctoral en busca de conocimiento innovador
Ángel Téllez Tula
angel12.tellez@gmail.com<=
span
lang=3Des-419 style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Roboto;mso-fareast-font-=
family:
Roboto;mso-bidi-font-family:Roboto'>
https://orcid.org/=
0000-0002-7925-9271
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma =
de
Puebla
México
Benjamín Gutiérrez
Gutiérrez
gutierrezgutierrezbenjamin@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2716-9108
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma =
de
Puebla
México
Norma Elena Mendoza Zaragoza
normaelena.mendoza@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9214-5082
Universidad de Colima
México
=
Laura Herrera Corona
laurahc32@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8572-0383
Universidad Anáhuac Campus Queré=
taro
México
Tutaleni
tasino@andrew.cmu.edu
https://orcid.org/=
0000-0002-9667-8603
México
Artículo
recibido: 23 de diciembre de 2025. Aceptado para publicación: 28 de
abril de 2026.
Conflictos de Interés: Ninguno que decl=
arar.
Abstract
This article reflects on the importance of dissertation writing, dra=
wing
parallels between the writing process and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The
author compares educational systems to Prometheus, suggesting they should
illuminate knowledge for the sake of democracy. The dissertation writing
experience resembles a creative struggle, like the creation of Frankenstein,
emphasizing both the challenges and the rich connections between literature=
and
academia. Despite the pressures that generate stress and emotional exhausti=
on
among doctoral students, the author argues that this struggle is intrinsica=
lly
linked to academic systems in general. Ultimately, the work advocates for t=
he
recognition of the scientific contributions present in classical literature=
as
a means of addressing the demands of research
Keywords: doctoral thesis, academic identity, innovat=
ion,
knowledge, ethics
Resumen
Este artículo reflexiona sobre la importancia de la
redacción de una tesis, estableciendo paralelismos entre el proceso =
de
escritura y Frankenstein de Mary Shelley. El autor compara los sistemas
educativos con Prometeo, sugiriendo que deberían iluminar el
conocimiento para la democracia. La experiencia de escribir una tesis se
asemeja a una lucha creativa, similar a la creación de Frankenstein,
enfatizando tanto los desafíos como las ricas conexiones entre la
literatura y el mundo académico. A pesar de las presiones que generan
estrés y agotamiento emocional entre los estudiantes de doctorado, el
autor argumenta que esta lucha está intrínsecamente ligada a =
los
sistemas académicos en general. En última instancia, el traba=
jo
aboga por el reconocimiento de las aportaciones científicas presente=
s en
la literatura clásica como un medio para afrontar las exigencias de =
la
investigación.
Palabras clave: tesis doctoral, identidad académica, innovación,
conocimiento, ética
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
Todo el contenido de LATAM Revista Latinoamerica=
na
de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, publicado en este sitio está dis=
ponibles
bajo Licencia Creative Commons.=
C=
ómo
citar: Téllez Tula,
Ángel, Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, B., Mendoza Zaragoza, N. E=
.,
Herrera Corona, L., & Asino, T. (2026). The=
modern Prometheus in Educ=
ation. LATAM
Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 7 (2), 1785 R=
11; 1794.
https://doi.org/ 10.56712/lat=
am.v7i2.5763
<= o:p>
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a personal reflection on the
significance of composing a thesis. Throughout my PhD studies and two maste=
r's
theses, I have recognized that several forms of art, including literature,
share commonalities with academic research when viewed from a broader
perspective and analyzed comprehensively. Moreover, I have had the privileg=
e of
collaborating with all the researchers associated with this publication. So=
me
PhD teachers and current colleagues have likened the thesis writing process=
to
constructing Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in a laboratory setting. This prep=
ares
us for the first question. Can the education system of a country not be
perceived as a modern Prometheus? Every educational system should serve as a
Prometheus, responsible for imparting the fire of knowledge to its citizens=
to
enhance democracy. We imply that a specific education system should not be
regarded as a singular component of a puzzle, but rather as the configurati=
on
of multiple puzzles. Moreover, an inquiry is posed for scholars. Why can a
doctoral thesis not be conceptualized in certain ways as the creation of a
Frankenstein due to the arduous procedure it entails in its development? Th=
is
reflective research aims to elucidate the similarities and limitations inhe=
rent
in both processes, despite one being a fictional novel and the other requir=
ing
more analytical reasoning associated with a PhD.
Mary Shelley's seminal work was composed in
1818 by a young woman and has endured as a classic, inspiring adaptations in
theater, film, and literature. The significance of establishing an analogy
between the modern Prometheus and the composition of a doctoral thesis lies=
in
highlighting the parallels shared by literature and science. Ultimately, the
pressures associated with being a PhD student or researcher led us to overl=
ook
the scientific insights present in classic literature. According to Nicholl=
s et
al. (2022), recent studies reveal that PhD students and academic researchers
face considerable stress stemming from employment uncertainty, elevated
performance expectations, competitive research environments, and extended
working hours. These systemic disorders lead to increased stress, emotional
fatigue, and diminished mental well-being. The results indicate that the st=
rain
faced by PhD researchers is not merely personal but is intricately woven in=
to
academic frameworks and expectations.
METHODOLOGY
This study utilizes a qualitative reflective
technique based on interpretive textual analysis to investigate Frankenstein
(Shelley, 1818/2003) as a metaphorical framework for comprehending doctorate
research, academic authorship, and ethical responsibility in knowledge
production. Reflective research was chosen for its capacity to foster criti=
cal
interaction with texts, experiences, and meanings, framing knowledge as
dynamic, contextual, and socially accountable rather than static or merely
technical.
Research Design
The study is positioned within an
interpretivist and reflexive framework, highlighting the researcher’s
participation in meaning-making and seeing academic research as a dynamic
process influenced by intellectual effort, ethical considerations, and pers=
onal
involvement. This methodology corresponds with modern perspectives of resea=
rch
as a dynamic social practice rather than a finished result (Darian-Smith,
2024).
Data Sources
The primary data were meticulous analyses of
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, supplemented by reflective analytical
writing that links the literary themes of creation, responsibility,
imperfection, and autonomy to doctoral research methodologies. Secondary
sources encompassed contemporary scholarship on responsible research, the d=
evelopment
of academic knowledge, and doctorate education.
Data Analysis
Data were examined through reflexive themat=
ic
analysis, according to an iterative process of familiarization, coding, the=
me
development, and critical interpretation. This approach facilitated the
recognition of conceptual similarities between Shelley’s tale and the
experiential realities of doctoral study, acknowledging both coherence and
“living scars” inside academic endeavors (Braun & Clarke,
2021).
Ethical and Scholarly Considerations
This reflective study prioritizes epistemic=
and
academic responsibility over participant ethics, highlighting the
researcher’s accountability in the construction, interpretation, and
dissemination of knowledge within the academic community. This corresponds =
with
modern views on responsible research and innovation, emphasizing conversati=
on,
reflexivity, and societal significance (Ferránd=
ez-Berrueco
et al., 2023).
DEVELOPMENT
Framework
Academia Glory
Victor Frankenstein, the scientist, aspired=
to
attain grandeur by pioneering scientific exploration, delving into the
enigmatic forces of natural philosophy, and encroaching upon a domain
traditionally reserved for the Almighty: creation itself. Victor
Frankenstein’s desire to achieve scientific greatness and uncover the
hidden powers of nature reflects an Enlightenment faith in human mastery ov=
er
the natural world, a pursuit that ultimately collapses under its ethical we=
ight
(Ketterer, 1979). To be specific, PhD students
believe that their doctoral theses will change educational matters in a
360-degree way. Many PhD students hold the conviction that their doctoral
theses will bring about comprehensive, system‑level improvements in
educational theory and practice, reflecting idealized and transformative ex=
pectations
of doctoral research (Diogo et al., 2022).
Furthermore, Victor Frankenstein, the
scientific creator referred to as the “modern Prometheus,” soug=
ht
recognition and glory through his scientific discovery. The scientist pursu=
ed
discovery with the intention of achieving recognition and prestige, reflect=
ing
the Romantic period’s anxiety surrounding ambition and scientific hub=
ris
(Butler, 1979). In the same manner, a PhD student can visualize recognition=
by
their professors, colleagues, and society itself. However, some of these co=
uld
have the possibility of having areas of opportunity for their development;
however, such expectations often coexist with evolving areas of opportunity
that support academic identity formation and professional development throu=
ghout
the doctoral journey (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011).
The process of the creation
The creation of Victor Frankenstein’s
creature commences with the gathering of distinct anatomical components,
meticulously arranged from head to toe. Each component is essential and
irreplaceable, constituting a cohesive entity that ultimately allows the
organism to think, reason, and communicate autonomously. Victor
Frankenstein’s creation is grounded in anatomical assembly, foregroun=
ding
the idea that cognition and agency emerge only through the integration of
indispensable bodily parts into a coherent whole (Rutt=
kay,
2020).
Conversely, developing a doctoral thesis
necessitates the compilation of criteria that define a PhD thesis, including
the title, research questions, objectives, methodology, hypothesis, theoret=
ical
framework, data analysis, discussion, results, and conclusion, among other
components. Nonetheless, there exists the presumption that a thesis must
generate original and novel information with concrete societal implications=
, a
notion that imposes significant pressure and elevated stakes on PhD candida=
tes
under the evaluation of their committees. This reflects a dominant expectat=
ion
in doctoral education that the dissertation must demonstrate originality and
innovation as a meaningful contribution to knowledge, a requirement that pl=
aces
high evaluative stakes on PhD candidates during committee assessment (Ngulube, 2025).
In Pursuit of Knowledge
Victor Frankenstein, a young science student
from Shelley’s novel, was in his twenties when he created the creatur=
e.
Victor was obsessed on entering the realm of the divine. His pursuit develo=
ped
to reveal the most profound mysteries of existence, merging scientific
exploration with divine ambition, reflecting a dangerous conflation of
scientific inquiry with godlike aspiration. Victor’s obsessive desire=
to
uncover the deepest secrets of life reflect a transgressive scientific ambi=
tion
that positions him as a figure who seeks to overstep natural and divine bou=
ndaries
(Cambra‑Badii et al., 2020). A PhD studen=
t is
largely focused on investigating a well-defined research subject, together =
with
ancillary questions, or on evaluating a specific hypothesis. Specifically,
doctoral research is a structured process aimed at addressing a specific
research question, subsidiary questions, or testing a clearly formulated
hypothesis through systematic inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2022).
Developing the literature review in a PhD
dissertation and the cemetery of citations.
Specifically, it is important to state that=
Dr.
Victor Frankenstein did not create life only by its own will. He commenced
direct involvement in the creation process; he started to dig into the
graveyards, charnel houses (vaults for storing dead bodies), dissecting roo=
ms,
and slaughterhouses. His pursuit of life is thus grounded in physical
intervention and transgressive practices, not abstract intention.
Victor’s act of creation is grounded in bodily intervention and
anatomical labor rather than mere intention; his work as a scientist-anatom=
ist
requires engagement with graves, dissecting rooms, and other sites of death=
(Ruttkay, 2020).
Extending this parallel, a PhD student
allocates considerable effort to collecting references from specialists in
particular domains, as well as data and theoretical frameworks sourced from
both modern research and historical texts. The challenge lies in the work of
the novice researcher, who must assemble these existing academic ideas
originating from multiple researchers and thinkers and carefully stitch them
together into a functional, coherent, and original scholarly text. Doctoral
writing requires the careful integration of existing theories, data, and
scholarly perspectives, demanding that novice researchers synthesize multip=
le academic
voices into a coherent and functional text (Swales & Feak, 2022).
The isolation of PhD candidates and the
solitude of Victor Frankenstein
Frankenstein's narrative indicates that Vic=
tor
confines him within his laboratory in Ingolstadt, Germany, for the purpose =
of
study. The young scientist nearly descends into madness to animate his
creature. He isolates himself from his family, friends, and society.
Victor’s obsessive scientific ambition forces him into extreme isolat=
ion,
causing both physical exhaustion and psychological instability during his t=
ime
in Ingolstadt (Mellor, 1988). On the other hand, a young researcher may feel
overwhelmed by the demands of a PhD program, including coursework, multiple
assignments, social expectations, and the continuous advancement of the
dissertation. The extensive time devoted to academic responsibilities can l=
ead
to feelings of isolation, distancing the researcher from friends, family, a=
nd
society itself. It can be stated that, “Doctoral students’ feel=
ings
of loneliness are significantly predicted by ‘fear of missing outR=
17;
(FoMO), which fosters reduced social connectedn=
ess
and heightened exclusion, illustrating how academic pressures and lack of
social integration contribute to isolation (Zhou et al., 2025).”
The defense of the doctoral dissertation and
the creation of the creature
In Mary Shelley’s famous novel
Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein successfully animated his creation on a
tempestuous night in November, following months of solitary labor in his
laboratory beneath a tower. The creature awakens and starts to breathe,
although Victor is instantly appalled by the outcome of his experiment and
flees the laboratory in fear. At this moment, the creature is unable to pro=
duce
any articulated words. However, it is only after several months of observat=
ion
and imitation that the creature gradually learns to speak and understand hu=
man
language (Shin, 2019).
At the conclusion of the official coursework
phase of a PhD program, the doctoral candidate is often afforded several mo=
nths
to prepare for the dissertation defense. Nonetheless, a pivotal concern dur=
ing
this phase is not solely revision or correction, but the endeavor to articu=
late
the idea effectively. Consequently, by the time of the defense, the
dissertation should have undergone significant intellectual development,
enabling it to emerge as a cohesive, meaningful, and compelling scholarly w=
ork.
However, an essential issue during this stage is not merely revising or
correcting the text, but making the thesis speak, as the dissertation gradu=
ally
acquires coherence, authorial voice, and intellectual maturity through the
doctoral writing process (Othman & Lo, 2023).
The ambition of Prometheus and the ambition=
of
a PhD thesis
In Greek mythology, Prometheus transgresses=
the
gods by appropriating fire, the essence of life and knowledge, to serve
humanity. Nonetheless, his endeavor to share divine power surpasses his abi=
lity
to manage its repercussions, resulting in his eventual punishment for the
infraction. Similarly, when PhD candidates commence doctorate programs, they
frequently anticipate effecting significant changes in education or develop=
ing
information that can affect society. Doctoral study is frequently associated
with ideals of innovation, emancipation, and social contribution. Neverthel=
ess,
in practice, and due to multifactorial constraints
such as institutional regulations, epistemological norms, disciplinary
traditions, and power relations within academia, the doctoral thesis often
becomes a stabilized and highly regulated product rather than a transformat=
ive
intervention (Othman & Lo, 2023; Tian & Liu, 2024). As a result, ma=
ny
dissertations come to feel “written in stone,” reflecting proce=
sses
of academic socialization and identity formation that privilege conformity =
and
legitimacy over risk and disruption (Tian & Liu, 2024).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The preceding sections have examined the
parallels between a PhD and the creation of Frankenstein. A doctoral thesis=
is
meticulously developed over several years and comprises the integration of
components such as theories, data, citations, and methodologies. Moreover, =
it
entails solitude, significant time investment, and frequently, obsessions
themselves. Ultimately, it may even seem alien to the inventor themselves.
Doctoral research is widely acknowledged as a prolonged and psychologically
demanding process that involves sustained solitude, emotional investment, a=
nd
the gradual assembly of complex scholarly components, often leading candida=
tes
to feel distanced from their own work (Aitchison & Guerin, 2020). In
comparison, Victor Frankenstein assembles components from various origins,
labors in isolation, and engages in obsessive fervor throughout the endeavo=
r.
Victor Frankenstein’s creative process is characterized by isolation,
obsessive scientific curiosity, and intense emotional investment, which
ultimately leads to ethical and psychological consequences (Oulam,
2023).
In conclusion, when regarded as a psycholog=
ical
metaphor, the analogy between the two processes effectively conveys their
common challenges and intensity. Unlike Victor Frankenstein's creation,
doctorate students do not aim to violate ethical or epistemological boundar=
ies.
PhD students generate conventional and well-organized research rooted in
recognized academic traditions and procedures. This doctoral research direc=
tly
or indirectly benefits society by producing knowledge intended to enhance
fairness, education, and social well-being, so promoting a more informed,
equitable, and peaceful society. Contemporary doctoral education emphasizes=
the
production of rigorous, ethically grounded research that contributes direct=
ly
or indirectly to society by generating knowledge aimed at social improvement
and public benefit (Cardoso et al., 2022).
CONCLUSION
Despite potential similarities and the
researcher's aim to draw an analogy from a classical novel, a thesis is log=
ical
and intentional; it yields a constructive contribution to humanity. A PhD
thesis does not transgress ontological limits; it critically examines the
prevailing knowledge. The young scientist, Victor Frankenstein, transgresses
natural order, and a PhD student bears a moral obligation; the criteria he
selects must be self-evident, thereby binding the creator to accountability=
.
Mary
Shelley's book reminds us that academic innovation is a true act of
responsibility. A PhD thesis is not a cemetery of scholars, but rather a li=
ving
contribution to society, to advance in human condition, and the proof of
research learning. “Responsible research and innovation require
interacting with society, listening to its needs, promoting its development=
and
strengthening its capacity for autonomous progress.” (Ferrández‑Berrueco
et al., 2023, p. 1)
Moreover, a PhD student adheres to a system=
atic
approach to develop his thesis and bears the ethical responsibility for
ensuring that the faculty comprehends the research. Conversely, the young
scientist inadvertently produced the creature and subsequently disregarded =
any
moral responsibilities following its inception. Ultimately, this work aims =
to
remind PhD students and the academic community that research is an art like
writing a novel, a young researcher can trace similarities, learn, and find
gaps in art. The community perceives research as an art form akin to novel
writing, enabling a young researcher to identify parallels, acquire knowled=
ge,
and discover deficiencies in phenomenon. The important concern is to make a
positive contribution to academia, ensuring it influences society, and that=
it
should have an impact in society.
To conclude, it is important
Frankenstein’s book teaches us that a doctoral thesis, as a PhD thesi=
s,
is a perfect assembly of parts, which could later become academic living
research. However, it may have flaws and areas of opportunity, even after
arduous, lonely, and dedicated nights; the creation will have living scars.
Once completed, the PhD thesis is no longer a static document but a living
organism, open to interpretation and critique, and carrying ethical
responsibility beyond its creation (Darian‑Smith, 2024). The PhD thes=
is,
after its arduous work, is now a living organism and has its own creator li=
ke
Mary Shelly's iconic book, it could call Victor Frankenstein, my creator.
LIMITATIONS
Frankenstein's act of creation can be liken=
ed
to the protracted and fragmented nature of PhD research; nevertheless, this
analogy ultimately falls short. A doctoral thesis is a systematic contribut=
ion
situated within established academic traditions, governed by methodological
precision, ethical responsibility, and epistemic caution, rather than an ac=
t of
ontological violation. Ultimately, academic research is produced by altering
existing knowledge, identifying similarities, and uncovering research gaps;=
at
times, a researcher resembles a miner, delving into the profound depths of
intellectual inquiry. As Creswell & Creswell (2022) mention, academic
research advances by refining existing knowledge, tracing theoretical and
conceptual links, and identifying gaps in literature, a process that often
requires researchers to delve deeply into the scholarly terrain.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (2020). Wri=
ting
groups, pedagogy, theory and practice: An introduction. Higher Education
Research & Development, 39(3), 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.=
2019.1692877
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic
analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Butler, M. (1979). Romantics, rebels and
reactionaries: English literature and its background 1760–1830. Oxford
University Press.
Cambra-Badii, I., Guardiola,
E., & Baños, J.-E. (2020). The ethic=
al
interest of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus: A literature review 200
years after its publication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6),
2791–2808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229
Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo,
S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral
education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84(5),
885–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (202=
2).
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Darian-Smith, E. (2024). Knowledge producti=
on
at a crossroads: Rising antidemocracy and diminishing academic freedom. Stu=
dies
in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.=
2024.2347562
Diogo, S.,
Gonçalves, A., Cardoso, S., & Carvalho, T. (2022). Tales of doct=
oral
students: Motivations and expectations on the route to the unknown. Educati=
on
Sciences, 12(4), Article 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040286
Ferránde=
z-Berrueco, R., Moliner, O., Sánchez-Tara=
zaga,
L., & Sales, A. (2023). University responsible research and innovation =
and
society: Dialogue or monologue? Journal of Responsible Innovation, 10(1),
Article 2272331. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.=
2023.2272331
Ketterer=
, D. (1979).
Frankenstein’s creation: The book, the monster, and human reality.
University of Victoria, English Literary Studies.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). Ma=
king
meaning of diverse experiences: Constructing an identity through time. High=
er
Education, 62(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9392-3
Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her lif=
e,
her fiction, her monsters. Routledge.
Ngulube<=
/span>, P. (2025).
Exploring originality in postgraduate education in context: A decade of
academic excellence. Discover Education, 4, Article 573. https://d=
oi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00997-3
Nicholls, H., Nicholls, M., Tekin,
S., Lamb, D., & Billings, J. (2022). The impact of working in academia =
on
researchers’ mental health and well-being: A systematic review and
qualitative metasynthesis. PLOS ONE, 17(5), Article e0268890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268890
Othman, J., & Lo, Y. Y. (2023).
Ruttkay<=
/span>, V. (2020).
Anatomy of tragedy: The skeptical Gothic in Mary Shelley’s Frankenste=
in.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7, Article 35. https://d=
oi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0408-5
Shelley, M. (2003). Frankenstein; or, The
modern Prometheus. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1818)
Shin, H. J. (2019). The monster’s
language acquisition in Frankenstein: Access to community and identity. Mur=
ray
State University Digital Commons. https://d=
igitalcommons.murraystate.edu/scholarsweek/Spring2019/SeniorLiterature/1/
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2022).
Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (4th ed.=
).
University of Michigan Press.
Tian, Y., & Liu, D. (2024). A bibliomet=
ric
study of identity construction in English writing for academic purposes.
Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1499917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499917
Zhou, L., Li, X., & Wang, F. (2025). Fe=
ar
of missing out predicts loneliness through psychological and social pathways
among doctoral students. Scientific Reports, 1=
5, Article 42804. https://d=
oi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27037-2
Todo el contenido de LATAM Revista
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, publicados en este sitio
está disponibles bajo Licencia Creative
Commons ![3D"https://revistacientifica.uamericana.edu.py/public/site/images/aduar=](3D"0438_TellezTula_archivos/image005.jpg")
.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Firstly, I express my gratitude to the Almi=
ghty
for the endowment of my mind. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to my thesis
advisor, Dr. Benjamin Gutiérrez, for his unwavering support througho=
ut
my journey. I also express my appreciation to Dr. Laura Herrera Corona for =
her
intelligence, commitment, and love for academic endeavors. I extend my
gratitude to Dr. Norma Elena Mendoza Zaragoza for her support, skill,
intelligence, enthusiasm, and passion. I extend my gratitude to my esteemed
friend and lifelong mentor, Dr. Tutaleni Iita Asino. I extend my h=
eartfelt
gratitude to my esteemed institution, The Meritorious Autonomous University=
of
Puebla. Finally, I extend my gratitude to Dra. My gratitude to Dulce Cabrera
Hernández for the inspiration derived from your classes, which shaped
this article.
LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias
Sociales y Humanidades, Asunción, Paraguay.
ISSN
en línea: 2789-3855, abril, 2026, Volumen VII, Número 2 p 1774.
![](3D"0438_TellezTula_archivos/image002.jpg")
=