Extraneous Influences on Panel Outcomes
An array of other factors not directly related to the content of pro-
posals can influence funding decisions. These extraneous factors may
be categorized broadly as involving uneven personal influence and
power dynamics among panel members (including the effects of ra-
cial identity, seniority, and gender); preexisting networks and reputa-
tion; and chance. All potentially affect the fairness and legitimacy of
a panel’s decisions, as well as the credibility that panelists vest in in-
dividual panel members.
The effects of uneven personalinfluence and power dynamics. Beyond
the influence of race, seniority, and gender (discussed later), individ-
ual panelists’ perceived levels of authority can influence outcomes. A
pecking order emerges within the group during the process of delib-
erating. Although this hierarchy remains implicit, it manifests itself
concretely. Panelists listen to some members more frequently than
others and are swayed more by the opinions of certain members.
Many of the conflicts that surround expectations about deference
are triggered by perceived slights or challenges to positions in a peck-
ing order. The questions a historian poses as a way to assess panel
dynamics capture many of the ways in which personal influence can
shape group evaluations: “Did anybody dominate the [delibera-
tions]? Did everyone have a chance to express [themselves]? Was
there any scholarly point of view that really didn’t get a hearing?
Were there times when people felt that their own academic field or
standards or values were being challenged indirectly? Directly?” As
these questions suggest, differences in degrees of influence across
panel members and the power dynamics associated with these differ-
ences can affect whether a proposal receives a full hearing.
Panels provide academics with a context for measuring them-
selves against colleagues. Thus, an individual’s panel performance—
146 / Pragmatic Fairness