circles. As one panelist, a historian, explains, such familiarity can be
welcome:
The person that I felt closest to was the person I knew in advance,
someone whom I didn’t have to become acquainted with. I can’t
at all claim that we [are] close friends, but we’ve had an occa-
sional dinner and we’ve been at a couple of conferences together,
and I knew coming in that it would be relatively easy for us to dis-
cuss these issues.Few evaluators took time to gather information on others prior to
the meeting, even though the Internet makes data-gathering easy.
For instance, a historian says: “In most cases, I knew the name by
reputation. I had never met the anthropologist before last year, but I
knew his work. And I think both years I didn’t know the economist,
and I didn’t research. Interestingly, both of them were locals.” This
paucity of information about academic achievements or personal
reputation makes it more likely that candidates will rely on precon-
ceived notions about disciplinary differences as they prepare argu-
ments for and against proposals in response to anticipated objec-
tions. The English professor quoted earlier, for example, shaped her
defense of a psychoanalysis-inflected proposal based on what she as-
sumed would be her co-panelists’ negative reactions to the appli-
cant’s “mannered,” nonacademic, and potentially “annoying” prose
style, based solely on their academic disciplines. The dearth of in-
formation on others may also push panelists to be conservative in
criticizing what they consider the foibles of other disciplines. Under
conditions of uncertainty, it may be safer to err on the side of pru-
dence and excessive collegiality, in order to avoid antagonizing the
allies one might need later to label a proposal as a contender (or
noncontender).
152 / Pragmatic Fairness