Conclusion
Scholars engaged in grant peer review claim to pursue and honor ex-
cellence, and indeed excellence is what holds the academic enterprise
together, if not consistently then at least some of the time. The sense
of fairness in the pursuit of this objective is maintained by the tech-
nology of peer review and by the customary rules described here.
Following the rules, which are sometimes revealed most fully when
breached, discourages corruption and thus helps ensure that the best
proposals are identified.
This chapter has focused on the conventional (that is, widely agreed
on) supra-individual rules. Following these rules influences the likely
success of arguments—how they will be heard—at least as much as
their content (the focus of Chapter 5). The world I described is not
one where elites from different evaluative regimes mutually bless
one another, nor is it one where narrow social networks coordinate
their efforts to engage in opportunity hoarding.^42 I do not deny
that such logics of action are present in academia, but my analysis
has revealed that it is not all there is—and it may not be the main
thing there is. Breaching some of these rules (the rule about bracket-
ing self-interest, for instance) offends panelists’ sense of how things
are and should be. Other rules have more to do with the emotional
management of panels and are oriented toward ensuring that the
process works and that the self-concept of panelists is not violated
(the rule about respecting disciplinary sovereignty is one example).
These mandates influence the overall feeling that emanates from
panels and help generate an emotional energy that makes the enter-
prise of peer grant review more “sacred” and legitimate.^43
The picture that emerges from this review of the customary rules
is that of an imperfect but satisfactory system. Strategic voting, horse-
trading, self-interest, and idiosyncratic and inconsistent criteria all
are unavoidable parts of the equation. Equally important, panelists’
156 / Pragmatic Fairness