Such conflicts have to be managed with great care, to ensure that col-
laboration remains possible until the collective task of the panel has
been completed. To this end, program officers, panel chairs, and
some panelists engage in “emotion work,” helping their colleagues
save face even after defeat and reintegrating them into the group.
When collegiality is low, the panel is considered “bad” or “pol-
luted,” because tension-ridden interactions among panelists under-
mine the group’s ability to reach consensus regarding the worthiness
of proposals. In describing why his panel did not function well, a his-
torian explains:
[Normally], if people have the outlying score, unless it is on a
point of unbelievably crucial principle, they just sort of back off
after making their case. [But in this case, m]ost of the people re-
ally dug in their heels...itwasstrange that people weren’t
quicker to get out of the way when they were the only person with
a negative opinion...Someofitisprecedent.Ifthefirst five or
six that you discuss happen by accident to be ones where there re-
ally is a matter of principle at stake that the person objects to,
then in a way it forms a model of how you talk about others.
There were people enforcing a strong methodological vision, or a
strong vision of what constituted quality...Sotheyweren’tback-
ing off in a hurry on things.In this context, a muted expression of enthusiasm can signal dis-
approval, and any more damning criticisms may be made allusively.
Frowning, rolling one’s eyes, sighing, blushing, and talking through
clenched teeth are certainly actions that can be as powerful as words.
And objections that are not fully articulated dampen debate because
they are not amenable to contestation. Fortunately, such behaviors
are much more easily controlled in the context of a two-day panel
than they can be in, say, departmental deliberations, which occur
regularly, have a history, and can be shaped by folk stories about
140 / Pragmatic Fairness