iprocity applies, as does an overall orientation toward producing
consensual decisions and realizing the common good. Moreover,
panelists are expected to convince one another with the force of rea-
son. The requirement that panels make specific, informed decisions
necessitates that each participant be given full liberty to express her
opinion without any reprisal, and that each be provided opportunity
for full and equal voice. The meeting is deliberative to the extent that
this full, equal, and free exchange of opinion is sustained. Although
the panels are conducted in secrecy, evaluators are accountable to the
funding organization, as well as morally accountable to the wider ac-
ademic community.
There are limitations on these ideal conditions of equality, how-
ever. Panel members vary in age, race, and gender, and they represent
institutions of uneven prestige (characteristics discussed in more de-
tail later). More importantly, each of the panelists also claims exper-
tise on a specific subset of topics covered by the proposals.^16 Thus
their opinion is given more or less weight depending on the subject
of discussion.
Deferring to expertise and observing disciplinary sovereignty. For many
proposals, alternative framings are possible. Is a proposal well-
written or glib? Is it broad and daring or dilettantish? Is it current or
trendy? Painstakingly focused or disappointingly obscure? Panelists
formulate interpretive frames and attempt to convince one another
that theirs is most apt. It is this context that gives rise to “deferring to
expertise,” a foundational rule for sustaining collective belief in the
fairness of peer review. When panelists want to advocate a position
regarding a proposal, they invest energy in staking their rightful
claim to evaluate it based on their past research or teaching. That is,
they mark their territory.^17 In other cases, they draw on previously
established proofs of competence; in still others, they remain silent.
A historian uses himself as an example as he explains how a panelist
might openly claim authority. During a discussion of a proposal on
Pragmatic Fairness / 117