as measured by, for example, how successfully she is able to cham-
pion a particular proposal—is important to each evaluator’s self-
identity.^38 Not surprisingly, then, when asked how they thought a
meeting went, many panelists spontaneously discuss how much they
believe they influenced others versus how much they were influ-
enced by others. Similarly, when asked their opinion about other
panelists, interviewees often compare degrees of influence. For in-
stance, one woman, describing a co-panelist she thought made in-
consistent judgments, said: “He often seemed to make arguments
that no one else would pick up on, and that often seemed irrelevant.”
One of the prime determinants of influence is institutional affilia-
tion. Ivy Leaguers often are perceived as favoring criteria related to
who studied with whom and where. And some Ivy League faculty
members define themselves, and are defined by others, as undisputed
authorities. A panel member from a southern college recalls the pa-
tronizing tone of a co-panelist from an Ivy League school when he,
the southerner, presented his assessment of a proposal they both
were competent to judge. The southerner remembers being sur-
prised by this tone because he had more detailed empirical knowl-
edge of the proposal’s topic than did his co-panelist. Nevertheless,
rather than challenging this panelist, he decided that the Ivy Leaguer
simply was “used to being an authority.”
A second factor affecting pecking order is personality. In one panel,
an anthropologist was singled out as having a particularly strong ef-
fect on deliberation outcomes. A sociologist explains this panelist’s
influence by noting that “within anthropology anyway, there are so
many different approaches” that “inevitably, these things often come
down to strong characters who have very specific agendas.” Of the
same anthropologist, an art historian says, “In terms of the dynam-
ics, he had a lot of power...Ifhedecided he didn’t like something,
he would just simply say, ‘Well, that work’s all been done,’ and he
would list the literature and then everyone was silent. So he did have
Pragmatic Fairness / 147