process, panelists are expected to work hard to keep their personal
connections and idiosyncratic preferences from affecting their fund-
ing decisions. But these rules are not always abided by and they re-
main ideals shaping the understanding of how panelists believe a
successful panel should conduct itself. There are obvious tensions
between, for instance, the ideal of methodological pluralism and the
commitment that panelists have to their own disciplinary evaluative
culture.
This chapter looks closely at how panelists struggle to identify and
agree on criteria for academic excellence. The analysis reveals that
making judgments about excellence is a deeply interactional and
emotional undertaking, rather than a strictly cognitive one.
What Makes a Good Panelist
The legitimacy of panels rests mainly on impersonal rules (what
Weber described as “rational-legal” grounds), but elements associ-
ated with traditional authority, where obedience is due to the person
who occupies the position of authority, are present as well.^10 The au-
thority of panelists is determined by their formal technical training
(as PhD holders) and by their reputation, and is thus attached di-
rectly to their person. This means that although in principle all pan-
elists have the same degree of legitimacy, their individual credibility
and relative authority within panels are determined in important
ways by their behavior. With this in mind, I asked panelists, program
officers, and panel chairs to describe what in their view makes a pan-
elist “good” or “bad.” I also questioned them concerning the person
who impressed them most and least on their respective panels, and
how they perceived themselves to be similar to or different from
other panelists.^11
The interviewees often expressed enthusiasm when describing
“good” colleagues, confirming that sheer pleasure and intellectual
112 / Pragmatic Fairness