methodological approach they privilege (in a nutshell: reductivism
versusverstehen), and whether they are grounded in “knowledge for
knowledge’s sake” (privileged in the comprehensive and positivist
styles) or “knowledge for the sake of social change” (privileged in the
constructivist and utilitarian styles). In Table 5.5, the main styles
that panelists referred to during our interviews are delineated and
contrasted according to the elements valued and prioritized by each
style. As Table 5.6 shows, three-quarters of the panelists favor the
comprehensive style, which privileges knowledge for knowledge’s sake,
in describing how they evaluated proposals. This style predominates
in all the competitions but one. Overall, it is used by 86 percent of
the humanists, 78 percent of the historians, and 71 percent of the so-
cial scientists. Use of the other three styles is as we would expect—far
more social scientists favor the positivist style than do either histori-
ans or humanists; and considerably more humanists and historians
use the constructivist style than do social scientists. What is of most
Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence / 175Table 5.4Number of panelists mentioning significance criteria, by
disciplinary cluster
Humanities History Social sciences Total
N % N% N % N%
Significance of topic 16 73 16 80 17 85 49 69
Intellectual 15 68* 10 50 9 31 34 48
Political and social 10 45 13 65 17 59 40 56
Significance of impact 16 73 18 90 24 83 58 82
On academia 8 36 9 45 14 48 31 44
On field 8 36 8 40 6 21 22 31
On knowledge 7 32 12 60 14 48 33 46
Political 5 23 2 10 9 31 16 23
Social 5 23 5 25 13 45 23 32
Total 19 86** 19 95 27 93 65 91
Note:A “mention” occurs when a criterion is used during the interview.
*Percentage of all humanists who use “intellectual significance” as a criterion of evalua-
tion.
** Some panelists referred to more than one type of significance.