There is a lack of objective evaluative standards for academic work. While this has been recognized in studies of how gatekeepers pass judgment on the works of others, little is known about how scholars deal with the uncertainty about how their work will be evaluated by gatekeepers. Building upon 35 interviews with early career academics in political science and history, this paper explores how junior scholars use appraisal devices to navigate this kind of uncertainty. Appraisal devices offer trusted and knowledgeable appraisals through which scholars are informed whether their work and they themselves are good enough to succeed in academia. Investigating how early career academics rely upon appraisals from assessors (i.e., ‘academic mentors’), the study adds to existing literature on uncertainty and worth in academic life by drawing attention to how scholars’ anticipatory practices are informed by trusting the judgment of others. The empirical analysis demonstrates that early career academics are confronted with multiple and conflicting appraisals that they must interpret and differentiate between. However, the institutional conditions for dealing with uncertainty about what counts in future evaluations, as well as which individuals generally come to function as assessors, differ between political science and history. This has an impact on both valuation practices and socialization structures. Focusing on what I call practices of appraisal devices, the paper provides a conceptual understanding of how scholars cope with uncertainties about their future. Furthermore, it expands existing theory by demonstrating how scholars’ self-concept and desired identities are key to the reflexive ways appraisal devices are used in the course of action.

中文翻译：

---

导航不确定性：早期职业学者和评估设备的实践

学术工作缺乏客观的评价标准。虽然在关于看门人如何评判他人作品的研究中已经认识到这一点，但对于学者如何处理看门人如何评价他们的作品的不确定性却知之甚少。本文基于对政治学和历史领域早期职业学者的 35 次采访，探讨了初级学者如何使用评估工具来应对这种不确定性。评估设备提供值得信赖和知识渊博的评估，通过这些评估，学者们可以了解他们的工作和他们自己是否足以在学术界取得成功。调查早期职业学者如何依赖评估者（即“学术导师”）的评估，该研究通过提请注意学者的预期实践如何通过信任他人的判断来了解学术生活中的不确定性和价值，从而增加了现有的关于学术生活中的不确定性和价值的文献。实证分析表明，早期职业学者面临着多重和相互冲突的评估，他们必须对其进行解释和区分。然而，处理未来评估中什么重要的不确定性以及哪些个人通常担任评估员的制度条件在政治科学和历史之间有所不同。这对估值实践和社会化结构都有影响。本文关注我所谓的评估工具实践，从概念上理解学者如何应对他们未来的不确定性。此外，