interest here is not the detail of these distributions but the variety
and range of panel members’ understandings of what constitutes sig-
nificance. How do these various understandings shape the way in
which these panelists make distinctions regarding scholarly versus
social significance?
InOf the Standard of Taste,the philosopher David Hume suggests
that the appreciation of beauty is “best construed as an idealized,
counterfactual ruling, or as the combined opinion of near-ideal crit-
ics,” that is, “true judges” and experts.^17 Similarly, judgments about
scholarly significance can be made only by those who have great
176 / Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence
Table 5.5Most important epistemological styles, as indicated by
panelists’ interview responses
Epistemological
style
Positive evaluation
Theoretical style Methodological style
Constructivist When the proposal presents
personal, political, and social
elements as relevant to
research
When the proposal shows
attention to details and to
the complexity of the
empirical object
Comprehensive When the proposal
emphasizes a substantially
informed rationale for
research and a theoretically
informed agenda
When the proposal shows
attention to details and to
the complexity of the
empirical objectPositivist When the proposal aims to
generalize empirical findings,
disprovetheories, and solve a
theoretical puzzle
When the proposal seeks to
test alternative hypotheses
using a formal model
enclosing the world in a
defined set of variables
Utilitarian When the proposal seeks to
generalize findings, disprove
theories, and solve puzzles
related to “real world”
problems
When the proposal seeks to
test alternative hypotheses
using a formal model with a
defined set of variables