  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.
