The SEALS Works-in-Progress Series is designed to provide intermediate and senior scholars (those who are further along in their scholarship and development than “new” scholars) opportunities to garner feedback from, and to network with, other experienced, well-informed people in their field. It brings together small groups of scholars in specialized areas to discuss their drafts, works in progress, and developing ideas. Presentations are organized by field of study to promote more sophisticated dialogue, when possible. In order to facilitate discussion, participants are asked to provide a short (roughly 10-page) written summary of their article before the conference. At the conference, participants may provide a brief summary of their ideas, which will be followed by an intensive discussion session with the other group members, all of whom are expected to read and offer feedback on each submission in their session. For those newer scholars who seek more extensive feedback, the Series Committee will seek to match individual participants with expert “commentators” in their field.
Ad Hoc Works-in-Progress Committee Members
- Louis Virelli (Stetson) (chair) lvirelli@law.Stetson.edu
- David Levine (Elon)
- Seema Mohapatra (Barry)
- Chris Odinet (Southern U.)
Papers for 2016 Conference
Private Law Session
Public Law Session
Business Law Session
Civil Procedure Session
Criminal Law Session
2016 Annual Report
We are happy to report a successful first year of the Works-in-Progress Committee as a stand-alone committee. We are excited about the prospect of bringing scholars together to talk about work that is still in varying stages of development and look forward to some enlightening and dynamic discussions at the 2016 Annual Meeting.
We have put in place a process for soliciting contributions and matching presenters with other scholars in their general area of expertise that worked well. Matching participants by subject area was challenging, especially in light of our commitment to allow authors to submit on any topic they wish, but the end result came together rather nicely. Getting commitments from participants several months in advance of the Annual Meeting, along with an abstract of their submission, helped in that process and has seemed to limit the number of late cancellations. In order to further protect against the cancellation problem, we kept a waiting list of potentially interested participants who, for whatever reason, were unable to meet the initial submission deadline. That waiting list has helped fill the few late openings we have experienced. Finally, the provision of individualized commentators to those panelists who requested them has been a popular and, in our view, hugely beneficial feature of the Series.
We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to everyone who agreed to serve as moderators and commentators in the Works-in-Progress Series, as well Ben Barton, Kathy Cerminara and the entire Mentor Committee for their help in finding commentators, Jancy Hoeffel and the Moderator and Coordination Committee for help in identify replacement moderators, and Missy Lonegrass and the New Scholars Committee for offering great advice and a prime example of how a program like ours should be run.