given the screener’s written comments, that a particular type of proj-
ect had been judged excessively harshly. Consequently, the panel
elected to revisit all the eliminated proposals. Attributing such prob-
lems to a lack of experience among screeners, a historian explains:
There were questions of both style and standard. Some people
just are reluctant to give out high [ranks], and in a competition
where a median figure might be enough to eliminate you, that
could be a deadly...Othersseemtohavestandards that we
didn’t agree with, where they reacted very strongly to a particular
proposal. We looked at it and said, “Wait a minute. That’s not a
reason to eliminate this proposal.” And one of those standards
seemed...fairly arbitrary, [a] decision about the lack of a specific
time schedule for the research. [This should not be] an absolute
standard for making or breaking a proposal.The Work of Panelists
Panelists are responsible for evaluating the applications of those in
the pool of finalists. Typically, they assign a ranking to each, based
on a scale of one to five (or A to E); build cases in favor of or against
candidates; discuss these evaluations with other members of the
panel; and make final recommendations concerning recipients. As
suggested earlier, this job requires multiple types of expertise, the
foremost of which are familiarity with several literatures and the
ability to compare and assess a wide range of materials (the panel-
ists I interviewed each had been asked to evaluate and rank any-
where from eighteen to eighty proposals). They usually have a
month or so to study the applications and accompanying material
and come up with rankings. In most cases, this reading and evaluat-
ing is “squeezed” into a schedule already overpacked with teaching;
communicating formally and informally with colleagues; meeting
How Panels Work / 39