anthropology is becoming more inward-looking and engaged in dis-
ciplinary boundary work in an effort to distinguish what is worthy
cultural analysis from what is not making the cut. In this context,
epistemological positions, politics, and method are particularly im-
portant. As in English and history, theory can play a divisive role in
limiting disciplinary consensus. Moreover, like English, anthropol-
ogy is a self-reflexive discipline where there is a greater awareness of
the constructed character of excellence.
Political science aspires to the level of consensus found in eco-
nomics, but the new hegemony of rational choice theory has divided
the discipline against itself, as have internal conflicts regarding the
privileging of quantitative over qualitative research. In contrast, phi-
losophy is unambiguously inward-looking. Many philosophers be-
lieve that only they are qualified to evaluate research emanating from
their field, in part because significance and originality have to be
measured using distinct, traditional discipline-specific matrices. The
discipline is perceived by other panelists as too autonomous and in-
creasingly insignificant and obsolete, in part because of its seemingly
elitist stance. Thus some program officers and a number of panelists
define philosophy as a problem discipline.
Given this diversity in disciplinary evaluative cultures and the as-
sociated potential for conflict, how do panelists succeed in reaching
consensus and making awards? As we learned in Chapter 2, the tech-
nology of peer review panels brings scholars into the same room and
creates a context that constrains and channels differences. The rules
and exigencies of reviewing, and the constraints of making funding
decisions within a delimited time frame, push panelists to reach
agreement. So too does the promotion of a culture of pluralism by
program officers. Although academics are contrarians, this culture
helps counterbalance disciplinary differences by fostering a shared
commitment to academic excellence. As I will show in Chapter 4,
members of multidisciplinary peer review panels abide by a set of
On Disciplinary Cultures / 105