not to support this proposal, even though you don’t agree with it
methodologically.Finally, comparing two years of service on a panel, another histo-
rian lauds an “appreciative form of generosity towards what is good
work in multiple traditions” among his colleagues the second year.
That group embraced “more a kind of imaginative projection into
work that is in a very different tradition than your own, you know,
that is good work in its own terms. And it seemed to me everybody
was to varying degrees committed to doing that.” These quotes illus-
trate clearly how methodological pluralism is essential to the smooth
functioning of funding panels.
Setting Aside Disciplinary Prejudices
The customary rules of methodological pluralism, disciplinary sov-
ereignty, and respect for others’ expertise and sentiments lead panel-
ists to try to keep their disciplinary prejudices in check. A historian
who chaired a panel describes the effort to manage disciplinary prej-
udices this way: “I think people try to be polite to other disciplines
... You’re not going to say things that other people might find offen-
sive because you’re not going to win any points by doing that. And
most of the people who are on the committee are the type of intel-
lectuals who realize that almost every tradition, almost every genre,
has poor and excellent practitioners.” A sociologist, summarizing the
“give and take” that characterizes discussions, makes the point that
feelings of proximity to or distance from other disciplines and types
of scholarship are deliberately muted:
Say it’s an identity proposal, and I give it a low score because it
doesn’t stand up to the sort of criteria that I’ve laid out, but
somebody else gives it a high score...Thetypical pattern in thesePragmatic Fairness / 135