research topic and the significance of the likely impact of research
findings—on academia as a whole, on one’s discipline, on knowl-
edge—as well as the social and/or political impact of the research.
Table 5.4 shows the distribution of panelists’ references to these cate-
gories as they discussed the proposals during post-deliberation in-
terviews. Significance of impact is mentioned slightly more often
than significance of topic. Overall, panelists are more concerned
with the project’s likely influence on knowledge and on academia
than with the social or political impact of the research. But there are
differences among the panelists by discipline. Predictably, humanists
are most concerned with the intellectual significance of the topic,
while historians and social scientists are slightly more concerned
with the topic’s political and social significance.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, and explained in detail elsewhere,
panelists use one or more of four different epistemological styles as
they evaluate and discuss proposals.^16 These styles—“constructivist,”
“comprehensive,” “positivist,” and “utilitarian”—vary in terms of the
174 / Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence
Table 5.3Frequency of mentions of generic definitions of originality,
by disciplinary cluster
Originality type
Humanities History Social sciences Total
N% N% N % N%
Approach 29 33 26 43 12 18 67 31
Data 19 21 6 10 4 6 29 13
Theory 16 18 11 18 13 19 40 18
Topic 13 15 6 10 13 19 32 15
Method 4 4 5 8 18 27 27 12
Outcome 3 3 4 7 2 3 9 4
Understudied area 5 6 3 5 5 7 13 6
All generic types 89 100 61 100 67 100 217 100
Source:Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004).
Note:A “mention” occurs when a criterion is used during the interview. Some columns
do not sum to 100% due to rounding.