and David Riesman observed that in the modern university, “claims
of localism, sectarianism, ethnic prejudice and preference, class
background, age, sex, and even occupational plans are largely ig-
nored.”^3 This remains the official credo of American higher educa-
tion. The only sectarianism that is deemed acceptable is that of “high
quality scholarship”—and it is in this context that particularistic
considerations gain a footing. This is why it is crucial to look closely
at how excellence is coded, signaled, and recognized.
In this chapter, I draw on the concept of “scripts” to analyze the
meanings and relative importance panelists assign to the criteria they
use to evaluate excellence.” Borrowing from the sociologist Erving
Goffman’s concept of script, we can posit that individuals do not in-
vent their standards of excellence anew. They draw on their environ-
ment and use shared conventions to make sense of their world.^4 To
show how panel members go about making sense of their role in the
world of evaluation, I begin by discussing the evidence on which
they base their judgments: the proposal, the applicant, and the letters
of recommendation. As we will see, these types of evidence receive
different weight; the proposal, for example, counts much more than
the letters. Next, I turn to how panelists interpret the formal catego-
ries that funding agencies ask them to consider. Again, the literature
on peer review has focused on the weighting of evaluative criteria,
leaving unexplored the meanings that evaluators assign to the crite-
ria they use to assess excellence.^5 Here, I analyze responses provided
by panelists during post-deliberation interviews to gain a better un-
derstanding of such meanings. I start by discussing clarity and “qual-
ity,” the latter being shorthand for craftsmanship, depth, and thor-
oughness. I then turn to the more substantive criteria of originality,
significance (scholarly and social/political), “methods” (which in-
cludes the articulation between theory, method, and data, and the
proper use of theory), and feasibility (the applicant’s readiness and
track record, and the plan of work). Finally, I address the more eva-
160 / Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence