nescent qualities that are valued by panelists, most of which pertain
more to the applicant than to the project. These evanescent qualities
include which proposals and applicants generate “excitement” and
which are “elegant” and “intelligent.” Informal standards also in-
clude the proper display of “cultural capital” and perceptions of the
moral quality of the applicant, particularly in relation to the authen-
ticity of her intellectual commitment.
For seasoned evaluators, the ground covered in this chapter will
be familiar; for more junior scholars and others still attempting to
find the magic formula for winning fellowships, the discussion will
provide a (sometimes surprising) picture of what defines a good
proposal. We will see not only how frequently panelists mention
the formal and informal criteria just noted, and which criteria they
weight most heavily, but also the breadth of meanings attached to
specific criteria. In the case of originality, for instance, the range of
meanings used by panelists is much wider than has been posited by
the positivist tradition. And with respect to evanescent qualities, we
will see that more than half of the panelists accord these criteria siz-
able significance. I argue that moral considerations and class signals
(namely, “elegance” and “cultural capital”), although they are some-
what antithetical to a merit-based award system, are intrinsic to the
process of evaluation in academia.
Elements of the Proposal
As we saw in Chapter 2, the evidence on which screeners and panel-
ists base their judgments normally includes information concerning
the research project (project description, including bibliography and
timetable), information about the applicant (biographical sketch,
personal statement, curriculum vitae, publications/portfolio, grade
transcript, teaching experience and interest, and statement of com-
mitment to the goals of the program), supporting material (letters of
Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence / 161