How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

(nextflipdebug5) #1

why I thought it was really good” might be interpreted by outsiders
as an example of personal influence violating the norms of fairness.
But evaluators can legitimately use intellectual similarity as a crite-
rion for determining the quality of mind and the level of influence
that they are willing to accord fellow panelists.


The effects of preexisting networks and reputation. It seems intuitive
that panel deliberations would be affected by personal connections
among panelists and by the amount of information they have about
one another prior to the deliberations. Indeed, as the comments of
the panelist just quoted show, extraneous connections may influence
how much weight panelists give to their peers’ opinions.
In most of the cases I studied, however, panelists had no common
personal ties and in fact had very little or no information about each
other prior to the meetings. (Panelists of the Society of Fellows
are an exception, since they all are drawn from a single institution;
and in some other cases, evaluators knew one another from having
served together on panels in previous years.) That all but a few had
no preexisting connections is not surprising, given the size of the
American academic community and that program officers for multi-
disciplinary competitions explicitly aim for diversity, constructing
panels that include scholars from various disciplines, regions, and
types of universities.
Some evaluators were familiar with the reputation or writings of
colleagues in their own or a closely related field before meeting
them; some others were connected indirectly, through mutual friends
or colleagues. Indirect relationships were more frequent amongthose
living in large metropolitan areas that include many colleges and
universities, and among individuals teaching in elite institutions that
often sustain dense cross-institutional networks. In one case, two
panelists were former colleagues and knew each other very well. In
another case, two panelists were involved in overlapping professional


Pragmatic Fairness / 151
Free download pdf