The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy -- Explained through a Rational Choice Framework

TL;DR

This paper examines the evaluation gap in astronomy, revealing how researchers balance intrinsic motivations with institutional metrics, often leading to compromised research quality due to strategic gaming of evaluation systems.

Contribution

It introduces a rational choice framework to analyze how astronomers navigate evaluation metrics and institutional norms, highlighting the impact on research quality.

Findings

Astronomers experience anomie balancing intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

Institutional norms influence strategic gaming of metrics like salami slicing.

Gaming strategies often decrease overall research quality.

Abstract

The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. The existence of evaluation gaps can give rise to questions about the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to perform research, i.e. how field-specific notions of quality compete with notions captured via evaluation metrics, and consequently how researchers manage the balancing act between intrinsic values and requirements of evaluation procedures. This study analyses the evaluation gap from a rational choice point of view for the case of observational astronomers, based on a literature review and 19 semi-structured interviews with international astronomers. By taking a close look at the role of institutional norms and different forms of capital - such as funding, publication rates and granted telescope time - at play in astronomy, light can be shed on the workings of the balance act and its consequences on research quality in astronomy. We find that astronomers experience an anomie; they want to follow their intrinsic motivation to pursue science in order to push knowledge forward, while at the same time following their extrinsic motivation to comply with institutional norms. The balance act is the art of serving performance indicators in order to stay in academia, while at the same time compromising research quality as little as possible. Gaming strategies shall give the appearance of compliance, while institutionalised means how to achieve a good bibliometric record are used in innovative ways, such as salami slicing or going for easy publications. This leads to an overall decrease in research quality.