天文学中的评价差距——通过理性选择框架解析
The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy -- Explained through a Rational Choice Framework
AI总结：
本研究基于理性选择框架和访谈，揭示天文学家在内在动机与制度规范间的平衡导致评价差距，催生博弈策略并降低研究质量。
摘要：
评价差距的概念捕捉了研究人员对其研究（尤其是研究质量）的重视与指标所衡量内容之间的潜在差异。评价差距的存在引发了关于从事研究的内在动机与外在动机之间关系的疑问，即领域特定的质量观念如何与通过评价指标获得的观念相竞争，以及研究人员如何在内在价值与评价程序的要求之间进行平衡。本研究基于文献综述和对19位国际天文学家的半结构化访谈，从理性选择的视角分析了观测天文学家的评价差距。通过仔细审视制度规范以及资金、发表率和获准的望远镜时间等不同形式的资本在天文学中的作用，可以揭示这一平衡行为的运作方式及其对天文学研究质量的影响。我们发现天文学家经历了一种失范状态；他们既想遵循内在动机去追求科学以推动知识进步，同时又遵循外在动机去遵守制度规范。平衡行为是一门艺术，既要服务于绩效指标以留在学术界，同时又要尽可能少地牺牲研究质量。博弈策略旨在制造合规的表象，而实现良好文献计量记录的制度化手段被创新性地使用，例如切香肠式发表或追求易发表的论文。这导致了研究质量的整体下降。
英文摘要：
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.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
