which emphasizes the role of individual rationalist models diffused by West-
ern higher education.
- These evaluative cultures are embedded in epistemic cultures, such as
peer review, which are not simply modes of evaluating work, but also technol-
ogies or mechanisms for producing and determining truth claims. The con-
cept of epistemic culture is borrowed from Knorr-Cetina (1999). - The literature on gender discrimination and evaluation tends to down-
play such variations to emphasize consistencies. See especially Schiebinger
(1999). - On learning by monitoring in organizations, see Helper, MacDuffie,
and Sabel (2000). - Deliberations, rather than abstract formulations, both produce and un-
cover common standards of justice in real situations. More specifically, as
students of jury deliberation put it, “temporary situated recourse, common
sense, lively, and contingent determinations” of justice occur through deliber-
ation, as actors attempt to convince one another. See Maynard and Manzo
(1993, 174). - For instance, theJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
has sponsored a conference on peer review every four years since 1989 to
study it and monitor its reliability. - This preference for face-to-face meetings speaks volumes about the
value that academics place on the role of debate in fostering fairness and re-
ducing bias. Deliberations contrast with more mechanistic techniques of
evaluation, such as quantitative rating, that have built-in protections against
the vagaries of connoisseurship and subjectivity. On the difference made
by quantification, see for instance Porter (1999) and Espeland and Sauder
(2007). Quantification has also been applied to anticipate and avoid insol-
vency and credit failure, and to regularize trust; see Carruthers and Cohen
(2008). On the management of information and uncertainty in organizations,
see Stinchcombe (1990). Many believe that when it comes to grant peer re-
view, instituting rigid, technical decision-making rules of evaluation would
generate only the illusion of objectivity. - The concept of group style is developed by Eliasoph and Lichterman
(2003, 738): “We define group style as recurrent patterns of interaction that
arise from a group’s shared assumptions about what constitutes good or ade-
quate participation in the group setting...Everydayexperience makes the
concept of group style intuitively plausible. When people walk into a group
260 / Notes to Pages 4–7