Evaluating a detector: Technical review in a High-Energy Physics coll...

Peer review is the most prevalent form of academic evaluation, which has the function of “gatekeeping, filtering, and legitimating knowledge” (Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011, 209). While much is known about practices associated with the evaluation of research proposals and research outcomes in mono-, multi-, and interdisciplinary review panels and boards, less is known about its technical counterpart, where panels and boards – in the form of electronic hardware components – are the object of review. This contribution focuses on the practices and functions associated with internal technical review of particle detector components in the course of a particle detector upgrade. Upgrading as a collaborative practice centered around a communal research instrument needs to carefully balance the maintenance of the existing infrastructure with innovation for upgraded performance. How is different expertise integrated in technical reviews, and what are the reviews’ objectives and functions?

This talk is based on qualitative interviews with physicists and engineers involved in reviews of the upgrade projects at the ATLAS detector at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC). I show how technical reviews temporally structure the upgrade, assuring that the groups responsible for particular deliverables are attentive to schedules and multiple constraints and requirements of the upgrade. I argue that technical review in ATLAS ambiguates between different functions, such as that of a monitoring tool, evaluation tool, and a governance tool that enables management to “steer” otherwise autonomous groups towards envisaged common goals.