cannot count on others sharing their theoretical or methodological
preferences. In order to be “able to convey” to colleagues “why some-
thing is a good project,” a panelist needs to mount a case using argu-
ments that others will be receptive to—that keep “other people...
listening.” Or, stated more broadly, what academics perceive as be-
ing the key cognitive conventions among all the various disciplines
influences which characteristics of a proposal are accentuated (or
downplayed) during deliberation. Which arguments are made, in
turn, increases the likelihood that some proposals will be eliminated
along the way, depending on the disciplinary make-up of a commit-
tee. A detailed content analysis of panel members’ responses to inter-
view questions shows that in making their proposal evaluations, they
generally draw on one or more of the following epistemological
styles, which my colleagues Grégoire Mallard, Joshua Guetzkow and
I have dubbed constructivist, comprehensive, positivist, and utili-
tarian.^12
The comprehensive style valuesverstehen,attention to details, and
contextual specificity in proposals. As in Max Weber’s comprehen-
sive sociology, this style supports historically and culturally sensitive
social science and humanistic research.^13 It is the most widely used
style, mobilized by humanists (86 percent), historians (78 percent),
and social scientists (71 percent).^14 (Historians are considered a sep-
arate group because of this discipline’s hybrid status between the so-
cial sciences and humanities.) The constructivist style emphasizes
proposals that “give voice” to various groups. It values reflexivity,
that is, consideration of the impact of the researcher’s identity and
commitment on his analysis. It appeals to anti-positivists whose re-
search is politically or socially engaged. It is most popular among
humanists (28 percent) and historians (29 percent); it is favored by
only 14 percent of the social scientists. The positivist style favors
generalizability and hypothesis testing. It is used most often by social
scientists (57 percent) and, to a lesser extent, by historians (23 per-
cent); none of the humanists mobilize this style in their evaluation.
On Disciplinary Cultures / 57