A The meaning of life is the purpose that defines a person’s existence based on a set of fundamental objectives that give meaning to life or not. Furthermore, not all individuals have a meaning in life, and it may be absent at some point or stage of life. Objective: To analyze Peruvian older adults’ socioeconomic factors and the meaning of life. Method: A descriptive, comparative, quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted. One thousand older adults were intentionally selected through quotas of 100 older adults in 10 localities in Arequipa, Peru. They were administered a survey validated with high levels of reliability on the meaning of life and socioeconomic factors. Results: A moderate level of meaning in life was found. Most older adults believe that increasing age decreases the purpose of living, and existential emptiness grows. Conclusions: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between the meaning of life and the following socioeconomic factors: retirement, religion, educational level, cohabitation, marital status, income, and occupation. It is understood that older adults who scored higher on these factors indicate having meaning in life because they still fulfill the role of providers for the family economy, being util to their families compared to the majority who scored low, which indicates an absence of meaning of life leading to an increase existential void.

This study analyzes in a comparative way the psychological meanings that social science and basic science researchers assign to the term “research”. Using the Natural Semantic Networks technique with 127 participants from a Colombian public university, we sought to unravel the distinctive epistemological and methodological positions between these disciplines. The findings reveal that, although both groups closely associate research with knowledge, they differ in the lexical network and associated terms, reflecting their different epistemological approaches. Basic science researchers emphasize terms such as “innovation” and “experimentation,” while social science researchers lean toward “solving” and “learning.” Despite the variability in the associated words, “knowledge” remains the common core, suggesting a shared basis in the perception of research. These results show the importance of considering disciplinary differences in research training and knowledge generation. The study concludes that research contributes significantly to both the advancement of individual disciplines and social welfare, urging future research to explore these dynamics in broader contexts to enrich interdisciplinary understanding and foster cooperation in knowledge generation.