Individual and Institutional Determinants of the Scientific Production of Academic Staff in Human and Social Sciences in Moroccan Universities

Doukkali Sanaa

doi:10.33422/jarss.v3i2.503

Abstract

This research focuses on the scientific production of academic staff in Human and Social Sciences (HSS) in Moroccan universities. It takes place in a context marked by strong pressures related to scientific research and by changes in the mission of the University that impact the work of the academic at all levels. With regard to HSS, the Moroccan university system appears to be far from being in line with the logic of global competition, and the research activity of the academic staff in HSS is often out of step with institutional policies and the needs of national and international evaluation systems. This can be seen from the publication figures reported in commissioned reports or expert assessments carried out by national or international organizations, or by the scarcity of work that has studied the determinants of the production of academic staff in HSS in Morocco. Hence the objective of this research is to formulate a research model that gathers the potential determinants of the level of scientific production of academic staff and that is adapted to the context of Moroccan universities. Our research therefore aims to fill certain gaps in the knowledge of the social dynamics of knowledge production practices by HSS researchers who are often confused with their colleagues in other scientific fields.

Highlights

The question of the development of scientific research today occupies all academic institutions in the world and concerns all disciplines of knowledge
Individual Factors To explain the variation in scientific production among academic staff, much of the literature focuses on individual variables, such as demographic characteristics, professional characteristics, personal characteristics, or social contingencies
Institutional Factors Starting from the observation that academic staff with individual characteristics do not exist independently of their environment, and that scientific work is carried out in organizations that operate within the framework of organizational practices and policies, that it requires human and material resources, and that it is carried out in work groups characterized by work practices and a work climate, we can suggest that the perceptions that academic staff develop regarding the characteristics of the institutional environment can either facilitate or limit the scientific production of academic staff

Summary

Introduction

The question of the development of scientific research today occupies all academic institutions in the world and concerns all disciplines of knowledge To this end, universities and academics are constantly called upon to improve their position in evaluation systems that attempt to assess research activity, through the scientific production of academic staff. Considered as the most tangible result of their research activity, scientific production is one of the main measures for the calculation of university rankings and an essential indicator for the evaluation of researchers and the structures to which they are attached These predominantly quantitative evaluation systems, initially planned for the natural and technical sciences and based essentially on their publications, and on the ranking of journals, are inspired by the Anglo-Saxon model and by a broader international dynamic, where the HSS, especially local HSS, has difficulty finding its place. Added to this is the growing intervention of international organizations in development policies, which has given a significant number of university researchers the opportunity to become local experts in a "market" for intellectual services (Granier et al, 2018), positioning themselves beyond the field of university scientific research, which leads them to oscillate between two statuses: that of the scientist (subject to the strict rules of scientific production) and that of the expert who must provide a service that corresponds as closely as possible to the expectations of the applicant

Objectives

Methods

Results