The Diversity and Inclusiveness Beat is running a two-part mini-series titled “Building Online Community and Mutual Mentorship.” This mini-series is co-authored by Cheryl Frazier (College of Southern Maryland), Jeremy Fried (College of Southern Maryland), Stephanie Holt (Wofford College), Sherri Irvin (University of Oklahoma), Babak M. Khoshroo (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville), and Camilla Palazzolo (University of Genoa), all of whom belong to a work-in-progress group that has been running successfully for eight years. All have research interests in various aspects of aesthetics, including bodily beauty, aesthetic agency and incarceration, philosophy of music, AI and creativity, contemporary art, pop culture and intellectual property, and the connection between aesthetics and justice. This post is the first installment.
Finding consistent, productive, and enjoyable ways to get feedback on works in progress, particularly in primarily online spaces, can be difficult. As seen with the recent cancellation of the APA’s pilot virtual meetings, reduction in hybrid/online conferences, and (anecdotally) the general vibe whenever there’s an online event, people seem averse to adding any more looking-at-people-in-boxes-on-a-screen into their lives.
Yet, there are real virtues to meeting in digital spaces rather than in person: the environmental impacts of travel, travel dangers due to identity or national origin, and lack of institutional support to cover high travel costs. Virtual meeting spaces are a great way to get feedback from people who work on related topics but aren’t in your own department or region.
Given the benefits of virtual meetings and the evidence that they often don’t succeed, we want to offer our own successful online work-in-progress group as a model.
We have an incredible group that has been meeting for eight years; everyone in the original group who is still in academia is still participating. Our members have completed dissertations despite geographic distance from their home institution, secured academic employment, published articles and book chapters, and weathered many challenging life events along the way. We went through the misery of Zoom fatigue, but we are still together finding value in these meetings, making research progress and supporting each other.
Our activities center on the exchange and discussion of works in progress, with members regularly sharing drafts and receiving feedback across multiple stages of development. We review referee reports and external feedback, using meetings to brainstorm responses and refine revisions. We sometimes read and discuss relevant work by other scholars, particularly when it can inform ongoing projects. Beyond research, the group incorporates practices aimed at sustaining motivation and accountability, as well as discussions of professional development topics like publishing, teaching, and the academic job market. Finally, an important part of our activity consists in maintaining a space for mutual support, with time dedicated to checking in, sharing experiences, and fostering a sense of continuity and collaboration within the group. (For a detailed discussion of the group’s experiences and activities and the shared values that sustain us, see our companion post, “Pushing the Peanut Forward: Why Our Supportive Work-in-Progress Group Is Still Going after Eight Years.”)
There are advantages to an online work-in-progress group. Unlike a conference, our group provides immediate feedback, eliminating long lag times where the version you submitted 6 months ago no longer resembles your current research. There’s none of the pressure of a work-in-progress group within your own department, where (e.g.) senior faculty are reading your rough drafts but also evaluating you. And the fact that this group is just for making progress on research prevents us from getting caught up in conversation about other professional areas, like a committee we’re serving on together.
We hope more people can implement practices like this and help create mutually supportive philosophical spaces. If you are interested in starting your own mutual mentoring group, here are some recommendations to get you started:
1. Meet consistently, but leave room for flexibility in how meeting time is spent.
Maintain a commitment to meet regularly, but tailor activities to group member needs. A group member may share a reading they want to discuss together for a current or future project, instead of sharing a draft. This flexibility keeps individual and collective momentum going, even when there is no new writing to share. This also supports the value of prioritizing progress over perfection: “pushing the peanut forward,” as we like to say, maintaining slow and steady progress rather than canceling a meeting.
2. Be present during meeting times. Keep your camera on, and remove distractions (social media, cell phone use, email, etc.) to the extent possible.
Virtual gatherings can make multitasking tempting, but participating with the same level of attention and engagement that you would offer one another sitting at a round table face to face is important for translating the experience of an in-person group meeting into the virtual space.
3. Use time effectively.
We recommend a one-hour meeting, which strikes the right balance of being short enough to stay focused but long enough to get the work done. Start by checking in with one another, but quickly get to work so that the writer gets the feedback they need. Assign someone to take the lead on noticing the time and keeping the discussion on track. Other roles may emerge: a person who takes charge of sending out the scheduling poll and setting up the virtual meeting links, for example. These roles are compatible with a non-hierarchal structure: the person who organizes meetings or keeps discussion on task does not need to be regarded as the “leader” of the group.
When the writer sends their draft to the group a week before the meeting, they should share what they would like to get out of the discussion. Readers should arrive prepared, having done the reading and prioritized 1-2 pieces of feedback that help develop the work with the writer’s stated goals in mind. If you have more to share than time allows for, send a follow-up email to avoid dominating the discussion. This leaves space for other group members to speak and ensures that everyone’s feedback is heard.
4. Keep the group to a manageable size.
We have found 5-6 people works well for a productive conversation, since it avoids having too many contributors or making feedback overwhelming. Keeping the group small contributes to the sense of shared responsibility; when one person is absent they are missed. It works well with a one-hour meeting time, giving everyone an opportunity to participate, and keeping everyone on task to be fully present and contributing to discussion. Larger group size diffuses responsibility and motivation to prepare, show up, and participate in each meeting.
5. Promote and celebrate progress and success.
Give feedback that is affirming and constructive, designed to support the writer in identifying and expressing their distinctive intellectual contribution. Be generous in brainstorming about how to fill gaps or move the project forward. Celebrate progress, even where there is more work to be done. (There always is!)
For more on the power of a work-in-progress group to keep research moving through good times and bad, to provide mutual mentorship and support, and to promote an expansive understanding of what philosophical work can and should be, see our companion post, “Pushing the Peanut Forward: Why Our Supportive Work-in-Progress Group Is Still Going after Eight Years.”
Cheryl Frazier
Cheryl Frazier is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the College of Southern Maryland. Her research focuses on aesthetics, applied ethics, and feminist philosophy, as well as Fat Studies. She is especially interested in norms surrounding beauty and appearance, and expanding appreciation of marginalized groups in art and our aesthetic lives. Recent work includes a chapter in An Introduction to Contemporary Aesthetics: Art, Community, and Experience (2026), and a chapter (co-authored with Jeremy Fried) in Bridgerton and Philosophy: Dukes, Debutantes and Deep Questions (2026). When she is not doing philosophy, Cheryl enjoys spending time with her cats and making linocut prints.
Jeremy Fried
Jeremy Fried is an adjunct professor at the College of Southern Maryland. His research focuses on aesthetics, philosophy of law, philosophy of race, and their intersections with popular culture. Recent work includes a chapter with Cheryl Frazier in Bridgerton and Philosophy: Dukes, Debutantes and Deep Questions (2026) and a chapter in College Sport Ethics: Challenges, Questions, and Opportunities (2025). He enjoys spending his free time with his cats and trying new foods.
Stephanie Holt
Stephanie Holt is an assistant professor of philosophy at Wofford College. Her research focuses on aesthetics, political philosophy, and applied ethics with an emphasis on issues related to incarceration.
Sherri Irvin
Sherri Irvin is Presidential Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oklahoma. Her research focuses on aesthetics and feminist philosophy. She is the author of Immaterial: Rules in Contemporary Art (2022) and editor of Body Aesthetics (2016). She is interested in the intersection of aesthetics and justice, both in art and in everyday life.
Babak M. Khoshroo
Babak M. Khoshroo is an instructor in the Department of Philosophy at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. His research focuses on aesthetics and the philosophy and ethics of artificial intelligence, especially questions about creativity and artistic practice. Drawing on his background in computer and data science and Persian traditional music, he examines the normative and aesthetic dimensions of AI.
Camilla Palazzolo
Camilla Palazzolo is a PhD student at the University of Genoa. Her research focuses on contemporary art, with particular attention to the relationship between its ontological and phenomenological aspects, as well as to the philosophical issues of restoration, conservation, and the accessibility of cultural heritage.
