in an Ivy League university. This figure is particularly high in part
because the Society of Fellows is located in such a university. All the
panelists were tenured and the vast majority had previous experi-
ence serving on funding panels. They were not offered an honorar-
ium for the service they provided, except in the case of one funding
competition.
Interviewing
This research builds directly on my past work in cultural sociology,
in particular, the study of evaluation criteria. Drawing on classics
such as Robert Weiss’sLearning from Strangers,I used a similar open-
ended and inductive interviewing technique here to identify and ex-
plore the taken-for-granted criteria that panel members rely on to draw
boundaries between deserving and undeserving research projects.^3
Interviews generally lasted around ninety minutes. I decided to
forgo face-to-face interviews in most cases because I was eager to
collect insights from the panelists shortly after they had completed
their deliberations. Thus the majority of the interviews were con-
ducted over the phone a few hours or a few days following the panel-
ists’ meeting. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with panelists
located within driving distance of my university. We typically met in
a café or in the respondent’s office. I read a large sample of proposals
prior to the interviews and was able to ask specific questions about
the arguments made in favor and against funding them.
Observing
I was able to observe three panels. The panelists had been informed
of my presence ahead of time and had agreed to it. I was able to dis-
cuss my project with them prior to the deliberations. I also socialized
with panelists during coffee breaks and at lunch, so as to attempt to
blur the boundary between them and myself. In all cases, I believe I
Appendix / 253