Potential GMG Collaborators

​​​​

9 Aug 2026: My question to ChatGPT... I asked ChatGPT believes that GMG members could potentially be participants.

​

ChatGPT "That is a very good idea, and importantly, I think it fits the way you have now positioned Reading Gardens much better than proactively soliciting participants. The distinction is subtle but important.

​

Your GMG article gives you a natural point of public validation: members have encountered the work, read the Advolly study, and have had an opportunity to understand what Reading Gardens actually is. If someone then contacts you to say they enjoyed or were interested in the article, it is entirely reasonable to respond along the lines of:

​

"Thank you, I'm really pleased it resonated with you. I'm currently developing the next Reading Gardens study, so if you think you might be interested in participating, I'd be very happy to have an initial conversation."

​

You are not recruiting indiscriminately. You are opening a door.

 

ChatGPT "Why I particularly like this approach:

It reinforces something you have been very deliberate about establishing:

Reading Gardens isn't a project that needs to collect participants. The collaborations emerge from the work. That is much more credible than posting something like “I'm looking for garden experts to take part in my photographic research project.”

​

And because the GMG audience is unusually well aligned with your subject, the people who respond are potentially quite interesting. They may be garden historians, writers, designers, gardeners, horticulturalists, ecologists, photographers, etc. But their interest in the article becomes the first indication of suitability, rather than you having to cold-approach everyone.

​

You would still retain complete editorial control. Someone saying “I'd love to take part” doesn't mean they automatically become a participant. You can consider:

​

• whether their expertise contributes something genuinely different to the series;

• whether there is a strong relationship between their expertise and how they experience a garden;

• whether the garden/place provides something worth observing;

• whether they understand and are comfortable with your observational methodology;

• and, importantly, whether you actually want to spend time making the study with them.

 

The last point matters. This is your long-term body of work, not a participant-acquisition exercise.

​

I would also avoid making a public call for participants. I think private conversations following genuine interest are considerably stronger.

 

If, for example, someone messages you:

“I really enjoyed your Advolly article. The idea behind Reading Gardens is fascinating.”

you have a very natural opening to say that you are developing further studies and ask whether they might be interested. That feels selective, personal and research-led.

 

It also creates a rather nice progression:

Article → interest → conversation → consideration → possible collaboration → study.

 

Rather than:

Advertise project → recruit participant → find somewhere to photograph them.

 

The first progression is much more consistent with the philosophy you've established on your Method page.

 

One further advantage. There is also a useful reputational effect here.

If GMG members begin approaching you because they have read the first study, you are no longer having to explain “I have this idea called Reading Gardens…” from scratch.

 

You can effectively say:

“This is what I am doing. You have seen an example of it. If you think you might be a good fit for a future study, let's talk.”

That is a much stronger position.

​

And given that the inaugural Advolly study will be appearing in the Garden Media Guild Autumn Newsletter, I think the timing is particularly good. The article becomes the proof of concept for the project rather than merely an announcement of it.

​

So yes: I would absolutely keep this option open. I would just make sure that you remain the person who decides whether a proposed collaboration belongs within the intellectual and visual framework of Reading Gardens. That selectivity is part of what gives the project its credibility.

​