Efficacité de la gouvernance de la recherche au Cameroun ; une analyse de l’effet de ce capital technique et scientifique sur le niveau de vie des populations.

Abstract

There is no doubt that scientific research is a source of focal point for development of all nations. However, there are a number of causes for concern in developing countries; as relayed by an abundance of literature. The works of Diarassouba (1979 b), Zinzou (2009) Bianchini (2004), Makosso (2006) etc. Reflect this in global context of analysis of the crisis of the African University. Cameroon in no exception. Although many efforts have been made by the government to revive the national research system, research is slow to leave the rut. Against this backdrop, the traditional procedures of vertical collective decision – making by government – in other words, research governance – need to evolve. The aim is to provide additional energy for a better structuring of a scientific research. The researcher, anxious to discover the results produced by such a paradigmatic combination, bases his reflection on the postulate that: while the government order is making appreciable effort to build a national research system, it is not useless to say that the factor linked to its governance are not providing scientific research with a satisfactory force its influence. This thesis therefore sets out to assess the effectiveness of governance in Cameroonian university research, by relating its inputs (funding and cooperation) to scientific productivity on the one hand, and its outputs (valorization and exploitation of results) to scientific creativity and innovation on the other. In the first part of our work, we used a quantitative approach. Here, we developed statistical tests and econometric models adapted to each of situations mentioned, then estimated using binomial and probit regression models. In the second part, a qualitative approach based on a sampling technique was adopted, due to the difficulty of capturing certain variable and items contain therein. The choice is made for typical sampling or by reasoned choice, with interpretivism and constructivism as epistemological paradigms, and of course interviewing as a tool.