We try to make sure that our selection panels are composed of
distinguished scholars, tough-minded but also broad-minded and
prepared to learn from the work of others as well as to judge it.
We believe that panelists’ careful reading of applications, followed
by a full day’s discussion of proposals with their colleagues here at
ACLS, enlarges panelists’ own understanding of the scholarly Hu-
manities, and widens their vision. And we believe that the consen-
sus that panelists reach at the end of their discussion helps to es-
tablish national standards of quality. Our aim is to ensure that the
ACLS Fellowship is regarded across the country as the result of
a process that is at once rigorous, well-informed, venturesome,
and fair.^15This description emphasizes the dispositions of the panelists
(“tough-minded but also broad-minded”) and the moral quality of
the process (“venturesome and fair”).^16 It plays up the role of fund-
ing panels in setting standards of quality nationwide. In all cases,
the status of individuals who serve on panels is presented as an im-
portant (if not exclusive) guarantor of the legitimacy of the evalua-
tion. The reputation of the funding organization also contributes to
overall legitimacy, as does a tradition of funding significant work.
Thus funding organizations often make the names of panelists pub-
lic when announcing the outcome of a competition. It is the job of
program officers to identify evaluators of sufficient caliber and com-
mitment to ensure the ongoing legitimacy of the award programs. At
the very least, these evaluators have to believe in the legitimacy of
this system. That they have themselves often won fellowships and
awards facilitates strong identification with a culture of excellence
that is centered on the technology of peer review. After all, their
awards are proof that they have submitted themselves repeatedly to
this mode of evaluation.
Program officers, who typically cultivate relationships with a wide
How Panels Work / 31