lenses that one privileges. This too is influenced by personal taste.
For many social scientists, “to go beyond the anecdotal,” to “general-
ize,” are elements of a shared script of excellence. To wit, an econo-
mist estimates significance by “theoretical contribution,” defined
in terms of generalization. “Fundamental theory should apply [ev-
erywhere],” he says. When evaluating the significance of a project, he
inquires, “Is [the project asking] a detailed question or is it a ques-
tion that really covers multiple countries and multiple constituencies
in multiple countries? If it’s an issue that looks at specific aspects
relevant for other countries, I would define it as having a broader rel-
evance.” A political scientist, though, is skeptical of generalization
and law-like statements, “because you can’t do it. And, in fact, most
people now understand that they can’t do it, but there are things
about the discipline that reward it anyway.” The alternative to gener-
alization is to demonstrate scholarly significance by discussing the
theoretical implications of particular studies (in line with the com-
prehensive epistemological style). This is the approach valued by a
panelist who describes himself as a “micro-level social historian.” He
explains that “it is possible to do detailed studies and place them in a
broader comparative framework that brings out its significance for
broader things” (such as identity, globalization, inequality, aesthetics,
meaning, race, or gender). This approach contrasts with that of a
“narrow proposal” that will not be of interest to other scholars. A po-
litical scientist justifies the rejection of a “superb proposal for re-
search on a very narrow period” in French history because there was
no “knowledge of potential interest outside the specialization of that
particular scholar.” In all these examples, panelists express taste pref-
erences that are informed by expertise.
Socially and/or politically significant research usually is equated
with producing instrumental knowledge and “giving voice” to under-
represented groups. These approaches correspond to the utilitarian
and constructivist epistemological styles. The concern with instru-
178 / Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence