enjoyment motivate academics to add to their already considerable
workload by serving on funding panels. The wonderment of dis-
covering new domains of knowledge by interacting with smart col-
leagues is often palpable as respondents discuss their experiences on
panels. At the same time, their answers frequently emphasize their
colleagues’ interpersonal skills and fundamental character traits.
Program officers, in particular, uniformly stress the importance of
“collegiality” when describing what they look for in a panelist and
acknowledge that they take special care to select personable or like-
minded participants. As the following list of traits or behaviors
needed to qualify as a “good panelist” suggests, the quality of a pan-
elist is defined not only in cognitive terms, but also in terms of “pre-
sentation of self,” as well as moral and emotional characteristics.^12
Show up fully prepared and ready to discuss the proposals. Demon-
strating a strong sense of responsibility and work ethic is clearly key
to being a good panelist. A political scientist describes the best evalu-
ator on his panel as a historian “who always had very thoughtful
commentary on the proposals. He had clearly engaged the proposals
themselves; he did not get swept away by fluff or anything.” A sociol-
ogist explicitly states that she assigns the most weight to the opinions
of co-panelists who are the best prepared and best informed. Pre-
paredness and command of details enhance credibility because they
improve a panelist’s ability to think on his feet when trying to con-
vince other evaluators.
Demonstrate intellectual breadth and expertise. A good panelist dem-
onstrates a command of large literatures within her field, has passive
knowledge of several areas beyond her field, and is able to assess
quickly the strengths and weaknesses of proposals in all these areas.
One panelist recalls two notable colleagues: “I remember being really
impressed by the amount that she [an architectural historian] knew.
Pragmatic Fairness / 113