I work in formal philosophy. Specifically, I work in two general areas: formal metaphysics and metamathematics. In both areas, much of my work is inspired by Kit Fine's work on arbitrary objects and on the semantics of quantified relevance logics.
So I guess that means I'm a relevance logician. Having said that, I need to address something: there is a stereotype of the relevance logician that one may encounter in philosophical communities. This stereotyped curmudgeon bangs their fist on tables and grumbles/hollers/otherwise-antagonistically says things like "silly classical/intuitionistic logicians! Only relevance logics are real logics." I am not that person. I think we can use relevance logics to do interesting things and to build models that capture things that are otherwise hard to capture. I think the same is true of classical logics and intuitionistic logics.
All of that to say that I hope you want to chat about my research, and that if you do, I'll probably want to hear about yours, even if you don't do relevant-y things.
At the moment, I am coordinating a reading group at the University of Minnesota. We are working through Bob Hale's Necessary Beings. Feel free to contact me if you're interested in joining, either in person or via Skype!