How Professors Think

these can be viewed as “myths and ceremonies” that play a crucial role in legitimating the process—for instance, by making the criteria of selection available to the public on websites or by prefacing deliberations with an official introduction concerning the importance of the work of the panel and its rules.

This technology defines and constrains possibilities.

Drawing on the work of Karin Knorr-Cetina, I understand these aspects of panels as a machinery or technology of evaluation around which evaluative cultures are intertwined

The institutional framework of evaluation that structures funding decisions

the organizational logic that leads people to “satisfice” (to make “good enough,” as opposed to optimal, decisions) given the constraints within which decisions have to be made.

whereas much of the available literature is concerned with fairness, I examine what is perceived as fair and what panelists do to enact and sustain fairness.

how people think conflicts should be expressed and conducted, so as not to betray the notion of meritocracy and fair play

to locate respondents’ framing of excellence within their broader conception of their own scholarly selves

coproduction of the social and the academic

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.