Michèle Lamont

The actions of panelists are constrained by the mechanics of peer review, with specific procedures (concerning the rules of deliberation, for instance) guiding their work.

Their evaluations are shaped by their respective disciplinary evaluative cultures, and by formal criteria (such as originality, significance, feasibility) provided by the funding competition.

They entail bracketing self-interest, idiosyncratic taste, and disciplinary prejudices, and promoting methodological pluralism and cognitive contextualization (that is, the use of discipline-relevant criteria of evaluation).

Participants’ faith in the system, however, has a tremendous influence on how well it works.

evaluation is a process that is deeply emotional and interactional. It is culturally embedded and influenced by the “social identity” of panelists—that is, their self-concept and how others define them

Reviewers’ very real desire to have their opinion respected by their colleagues also plays an important role in deliberations.

connoisseurship (or ability to discriminate)

homophily (an appreciation for work that most resembles one’s own).

Matthew effect (that is, the tendency for resources to go to those who already have them).

While their understanding of what defines excellence is contingent on the cultural environment in which they are located, when scholars are called on to act as judges, they are encouraged to step out of their normal milieus to assess quality as defined through absolute and decontextualized standards. Indeed, their own identity is often tied to their self-concept as experts who are able to stand above their personal interest.