consistently respectful tone toward one another, and not only as a
nod to a long-gone era when academia was the private domain of
honorable men of independent means. Collegiality has a concrete ef-
fect on panel discussions and their outcome; it is the oil that keeps
the wheels of deliberation turning when panelists otherwise might
not be willing to accommodate one another. Even if it at times limits
the extent to which panelists engage in vigorous discussion as they
compare proposals, collegiality is considered indicative of a “well-
functioning” panel. A panel is described as “good” when panelists lis-
ten carefully to and are influenced by one another. This kind of re-
spectful interaction diffuses the potential for frictions and tensions
that could hinder decision making, and helps create an amicable en-
vironment. Indeed, many panelists mention being surprised at how
friendly panels are, given the level of conflict that is customary in
their respective departments. “I thought we were all listening to each
other,” a person who served on a women’s studies panel says, adding,
“[I] felt respected when I was speaking to something in my field.”
Alliances, Strategic Voting, and Horse-Trading
Beneath the panelists’ acceptance of the deliberation process as fair
lies a second belief: that consistent and universalistic standards of
evaluation are applied, which means that without regard to inessen-
tial differences, all proposals have an equal chance of being funded.^18
This belief constrains how panelists think about alliance formation,
strategic voting, and horse-trading. Although these activities poten-
tially skew deliberations, panelists frame them as compatible with
universalism and the “natural” rising of the cream.
Alliances. Many interviewees report aligning themselves with dif-
ferent panelists at different times, and noticing that others seem to
do the same. They did not witness strong alliances among their
120 / Pragmatic Fairness