In subordinating personal preferences to more neutral standards,
this scholar protects the legitimacy of the process, but he also recog-
nizes the role of individual subjectivities in evaluation. Similarly, a
political scientist establishes a clear distinction between evaluating
the choice of topic, which is not “objective,” and the quality of the
proposal, which is “amenable to the canons of academic excellence.”
A different panelist dismisses a colleague’s assessments, noting, “He
seemed to value some proposals for very odd reasons that were more
like personal taste than any kind of other criteria.”
Panelists’ concern over the influence of idiosyncratic tastes is tied
to a desire to aim for the most universalistic standard possible. A his-
torian of China makes this point when she states that she works hard
to be a good panelist because
some would just say “Well, I don’t like this kind of thing, I don’t
like that kind of thing.”... Professions are only a set of codes and
standards, so if everything is going to be completely spontaneous
and just according to your own whims, there isn’t going to be a
profession. Plus, I just think the people out here submitting pro-
posals to us should be able to understand what they’re aiming for.Likewise, an economist values attempts to bracket “subjectivity”
and instead make “objective” evaluations as often as possible. He
praises another panelist because “he had the whole game in mind. I
mean he was viewing the whole set of proposals and trying to be
consistent.” An art historian is even more explicitly opposed to the
use of idiosyncratic preferences in evaluation:
Everyone brings their own baggage. Certain people would say,
“Well, I think this should be funded in part because it’s something
that interests me, because it relates to my research, because it’s
something I would like to see published, because it deals with the
period prior to the period I’m [working on]...andthat says aPragmatic Fairness / 129