For a couple of proposals, I had to “explicate” a research strategy
that wasn’t fully explained. [My historical expertise] on the whole
had a lot of weight. Sometimes I almost felt uncomfortable about
the deference that was given to my responses as a historian...
There was a lot of credibility given to the way I responded to his-
torical questions in particular. And I, of course, returned the def-
erence to people in the other fields.This willingness to recognize and defer to expertise can have draw-
backs. An English professor’s description of her tentative (and failed)
attempt to save a proposal from being labeled “dilettantish” illus-
trates the way in which deference can limit rather than promote dis-
cussion:
I work in twentieth century, but I’m not an expert in post-war,
post-modern literature [the applicant’s field]. I think I know
enough. I didn’t find [the proposal] dilettantish. So I was inter-
ested that so many people did, and I was sort of willing to defer. I
[should have] pushed it a little further, even just to sort of clarify:
Why is it dilettantish in this area? How much of this really is dis-
ciplinary intimidation? Are you willing to go to bat for this per-
son? I would, if I think I knew a little bit more about the field...
I think they thought there was too much theory, that there was an
element of sort of name dropping, where I wondered whether a
lot of this was a kind of inexperienced way of indicating what the
critical literature might be...Ijustdidn’t know enough to coun-
ter. If there was just another voice that was a little more enthusias-
tic, I would have, could have.Maintaining collegiality. In combination, the rules of deference to
expertise and respect of disciplinary sovereignty lead to a third im-
portant customary rule: collegiality. Panelists are expected to adopt a
Pragmatic Fairness / 119