“What might an ‘ecology’ of work-in-progress reading groups look like?”

In the following guest post, Georgi Gardiner (Tulane), who has spent some time thinking about novel forms of academic get-togethers (for example), explores the idea of “non-circular work in progress groups”.

You can check out some of her other thoughts on the art of academic gatherings here.

This is part of a series of guest posts by different authors at Daily Nous this summer.

An Ecology of Feedback: On Non-Circular Work-in-Progress Groups
by Georgi Gardiner

My research has benefitted enormously from various ‘work in progress’ (WIP) research circles over the years. These groups have always had a reciprocal circle structure: We read each other’s drafts, or hear each other’s embryonic ideas, in turn.

These various WIP gatherings have been either weekly or monthly, comprising between four and nine people, depending on the group. Some are in-person, others online. Ernie Sosa’s student group is a well-known and long-running example. It has spanned decades.

I have organized many of these research circles. I recently wondered whether my assumption that work-in-progress groups should be a circle (i.e., reciprocal) is mistaken and limiting. Colloquia attendance is not a circle. We do not organize philosophy talks on the expectation that all talk attendees will, at some point, hear each other’s talks. Instead, talk attendance occurs within a broader research ecology: We all, at some point, have opportunities to hear talks and give talks. No direct reciprocity is expected.

Can read-ahead sessions and embryonic idea-airing groups also work this way?

That is, what would happen if people held read-ahead WIPs, or idea-airing WIPs, outside of an established research circle or department? (‘Embryonic idea airing’, or ‘popcorn talks’ are a very short—10 to 15 min—informal sketch of a new idea, followed by discussion. Well-developed ideas or polished talked are discouraged.)

Would people attend and benefit? I think they would: People could attend topics they are most interested in or want to learn about. Many researchers love reading groups and discussing ideas, and would happily do so without expecting that the author being workshopped will ‘return the favour’ directly.

And even if people viewed attending as ‘work’ or donating their time, they might still attend. We all give time and energy to produce referee reports, even if we categorise it as ‘work’ or service to the profession. Perhaps researchers would categorise attending WIPs similarly.

Visualization of “ecology structure” versus “circle structure” by Georgi Gardiner.

My thinking is influenced by initiatives like city-wide mutual aid organisations. Mutual aid doesn’t rely on direct reciprocity, but instead assumes that people can be happy to volunteer time and resources to help others.

In many cases, people want to be helpful, and they have energy and skills to invest. And others would benefit from that help. But social structures haven’t arisen for that helping to happen. The internet offers ways to create those social structures.

What might an ‘ecology’ of WIP reading groups look like? Here is a vision: Multiple online pre-read WIP events would spring up. Individual researchers could advertise their own standalone zoom-based WIP sessions, using philosophy mailing lists like Philos-L. Individuals or groups could host series of WIPs, featuring different writers. Existing organisations like the APA or Social Epistemology Network host online WIPs, with drafts selected by invitation or CFP. This ecology creates opportunities to read each other’s drafts, and discuss them in small online groups. The Inquiry Network offers an excellent model, although they are not read-ahead sessions. Some non-circle (that is, non-closed) WIP groups already exist, but they are uncommon and are usually not publicly advertised. They arose early in the pandemic, but they have since died down. A larger, flourishing ecology of research WIPs means hosting and attending more of these.

Scheduling is an obstacle, of course. People are busy. But I think many researchers crave more social research time: Time that is both research, but also talking.

What do people think? Would non-circular, ecologically structured reading groups work? What groups already exist? What innovative session structures would be most useful for WIPs?

There is a need. I have heard people say they submit essays to journals to get feedback. This speaks to the dearth of other options for feedback on drafts.

To fill this need, the 2025 Eastern APA is experimenting with ‘Papers in Progress’ Workshop Groups’. In their new initiative, groups of 8 to 12 participants commit to workshopping each other’s ideas during the conference. But this structure assumes that reciprocity is required for the initiative to work: Everyone attends every session in their group. It’s a circle.

It is wonderful that the APA is innovating session types and creating opportunities for earlier feedback on research. But the ‘circle’ format requires all participants commit to attending 8 to 12 sessions. They will meet every day of the conference, for two hours each day. This requirement will likely reduce participation. The ‘buy in’ is high, especially for people with ample APA conference commitments—such as meeting with publishers, friends, or former students—or those who can attend APAs only briefly, owing to cost or family commitments.

Given the need for feedback, the helpfulness of human spirit, and the love of talking about research, cultivating a broad ecology of online WIP reading groups is worth trying.