of scholarly excellence. Finally, analyzing peer review panels at sev-
eral funding institutions presents the advantages of being economi-
cal, of facilitating a systematic approach, and of drawing on data col-
lected in roughly comparable sites—although the funding panels
considered distribute research grants as well as dissertation, research,
and scholars-in-residence fellowships; and (2) A historical approach
would largely preclude drawing on interviews with evaluators, as
well as taking unsuccessful proposals into account, since journals
generally discard reviews of rejected manuscripts.
This study is based on a limited number of interviews. Negotiating
access to funding panels required surmounting important obstacles.
I did the best I could given the availability of funding organizations
willing to participate in the study. I can only wish that other scholars
will find here inspiration and will take on related research projects
that will go beyond what I have accomplished.
258 / Appendix