Beyond publish-or-perish: Policy ambiguity and the paradox of “de-quantification” in faculty

Purpose: This study examines the paradox of de-quantification in faculty evaluation by exploring how policy ambiguity impacts evaluation uncertainty, shadow quantification, and faculty behavioral adaptation in higher education institutions. Design/Methodology/Approach: A conceptual framework was developed based on Institutional Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory, incorporating the constructs of Policy Ambiguity, Evaluation Transparency, Evaluation Uncertainty, Shadow Quantification, and Faculty Behavioral Adaptation. The proposed framework provides evidence-based insights into policy reform pathways that improves the quality assurance by improving transparency, reducing evaluation uncertainty, and supporting equitable faculty evaluation practices in higher education. Findings: SEM results reveal that Policy Ambiguity significantly increases Evaluation Uncertainty (β = 0.600, p < 0.001), whereas Evaluation Transparency significantly reduces it (β = −0.424, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The findings suggest that unclear evaluation policies heighten faculty perceptions of uncertainty, prompting reliance on informal metrics (shadow quantification) and shaping adaptive behaviors. Conversely, transparent evaluation practices mitigate uncertainty and potentially reduce unintended metric-driven behaviors. Clinical Trial Registration: Not applicable.