uators to use different standards. This complex, nonlinear method
speaks to the pragmatic character of evaluation, which is driven by
problem solving and satisficing (settling for the “best possible” out-
come), as opposed to a more rigid cognitive coherence.
When evaluators describe the panelists who in their opinion were
the least impressive, they often mention a lack of methodological
pluralism. A geographer expresses her frustration with a political sci-
entist who refused to use the most appropriate tools for evaluating a
proposal that focused on meaning: “This [proposal] is not about
how many people are actually sick in a population, but rather how
many are saying they’re sick in a population, which is about dis-
course. So it’s not going to fit into nice little number crunching. It’s
about how people use issues to mobilize protests, and he was not
willing to hear that or entertain that, and it made me mad.” Similarly,
a historian criticizes another historian for her lack of disciplinary
flexibility: “She sort of has this one standard...Imean, she al-
ways had this one little test that she seems to be applying to every-
thing. That just seemed to me to be not the most productive way.”
Others stress pluralism when describing the panelists they valued
most. A historian who also appreciates creativity and “solid” work
says, “When I’m trying to judge quality...Iwant to make decisions
... [that allow] for the maximum diversified ecosystem, you know,
the most [different] models of doing work possible.” Another panel-
ist, a political scientist, supports a proposal inspired by rational
choice although he is very critical of the paradigm:
Because I am just a wonderfully secular individual, I evaluate
[proposals] on their own terms...This guy was clearly so smart
that if he wanted to do this, he should be allowed to do it. He
knew what he was trying to do, he was likely to be influential with
folks working in his wing of political science, and it should have
been supported. It just seemed to me crazy, unethical virtually,134 / Pragmatic Fairness