of those who produce the knowledge, it is impossible to eliminate
the effect of interpersonal relationships, including clientelism, on the
evaluation process. Nevertheless, discussions proceed as though pan-
elists were free of these influences. Their individual preferences are
usually construed in universalistic terms, despite the particularistic
aspects introduced by real-world considerations. Evaluations of pro-
posals are framed at least in part by what panelists believe are impor-
tant topics, judgments that are tied to their personal view of the ap-
propriate directions for a particular field. They are also shaped by
letters of support that are more or less trusted, with the level of trust
reflecting network connections.^21 Furthermore, as we will now see,
some panelists view idiosyncratic preferences as an acceptable com-
ponent of evaluations.
Beyond Idiosyncratic Taste and Self-Reproduction
Rational legitimacy, Weber reminds us, comes from applying imper-
sonal and consistent rules. Thus by trying to bracket their idiosyn-
cratic tastes, panel members help sustain a collective belief in the de-
liberations’ fairness. An English professor advocates distinguishing
between one’s personal preferences and criteria of competence, and
privileging the latter when the two are in conflict. Referring to “a
completely chaotic proposal,” he comments:
The art historian and I both liked the kind of effervescence of the
thing and thought it was probably worth thinking about, but I
think others felt he was just too chaotic. What I found with these
things, you need to use two sets of criteria. One is...yourbest
professional judgment in as neutral a way as you can manage it,
independent of your taste. And the other one is allowing for your
tastes, if they don’t get in the way of each other. I think one
should always give up the personal one, if the arguments of other
people seem sound, and not give up the other one.128 / Pragmatic Fairness