Response to Shared Reading

In this process each participant, except the author, takes an equal amount of time, say, five minutes, to convey how a pre-circulated article intersects with or stimulates their own thinking. The emphasis is on participants teasing out their own thinking, not on digging into the details of what the author has written. The author stays quiet – listening, taking notes, but not responding to what is said. When everyone has spoken, the author then has the opportunity to respond what they have heard.

Discussion can continue for the time available through the turn-taking method of the dialogue process. The author may also speak briefly at the very beginning if needed to position the article in relation to their current project or to provide some pertinent background. Preferably, however, the positioning and background is provided in advance as a cover note to the reading.

The virtues of this form of response to a shared reading are:

  1. the participants learn more about each other, exposing points of potential interactions;
  2. the author gets a chance to see their work through diverse prisms, with the focus moved off the written text and into the realm of wider and less direct influences;
  3. one-to-one exchanges are avoided – when the author joins in the discussion, too many points have been made for the author’s response to attend to each, one at a time. The risk is greatly reduced of the author focusing on a single point of limited interest to the group as a whole – something that happens in regular formats in which the author addresses comments from audience members.

This form is an adaptation of the practice at the Agrarian Studies Colloquium at Yale University, where the author is only allowed to speak after the end of the first of two hours devoted to discussion of their pre-circulated paper. In that colloquium, however, the focus stays on what the author has written and there is no quota of time for each participant to talk. The Colloquium practice derives partly from a feminist session group whose identity is now unknown.

(A possible new entry in a revised edition of Taking Yourself Seriously, http://bit.ly/NNN2012)

Advertisements

About Peter J. Taylor
Peter Taylor is a Professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston where he teaches and directs undergraduate and graduate programs on critical thinking, reflective practice, and science-in-society. His research and writing focuses on the complexity of environmental and health sciences in their social context, incl. Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement (U. Chicago Press, 2005) and Nature-nurture? No (2014, http://bit.ly/NNN2014). On reflective practice, see Taking Yourself Seriously: Processes of Research & Engagement (with J. Szteiter, 2012, http://bit.ly/TYS2012).

One Response to Response to Shared Reading

  1. Teryl Cartwright says:

    I like the ideas here, wondering if the author gets the same amount of time as everyone else. Some variations might include not giving the article’s byline or not giving any verbal notice that the author is one of the participants so that conversation is more open for all. This could allow the author to try out challenging or extending his own work in a safe space.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: