Table 1: A Continuum Of Directiveness/ Partnership Arrangements for Faculty and Research Assistants
Kinds Of RA-Faculty Relationship	Faculty Is Highly Directive	Faculty Is Moderately Directive	Partnership Paradigm "Light"	Partnership Paradigm "strong"
General Description Of RA/Faculty Relationship	Faculty directs projects and RA carries out tasks	Faculty learns of RA interests, but faculty interests recieve primary attention	Commitmaent to work more co-equally; address power relations, modify as possible	Interdependent, respected areas of expertise; both have long-term stakes in projects and relationship; mutual influence
Mentoring Component	Generally, no mentoring component in this relationship	Little if any mentoring	Mentoring exists; similar interests; relationship still has structure ofresearch assistantship	Equal encouragement; collegial exchange
Level Of Expertise	RA has no expertise and faculty provides little context for RA's work	Faculty has greater expertise; RA may recieve time to learn background and gain expertise	Faculty has greater expertise; RA has capability to gain expertise; faculty takes time to impart knowledge to RA	Pre-existing equivalence or complementary expertise
Setting Priorities	Faculty sets tasks, priorities, and timelines	Faculty considers RA interests and allows input in setting projects and tasks	Jointly set projects, tasks, prioities, but faculty has more long-term stake in work	Jointly set projects, ongoing consultation, and give-and-take on current and new projects
Level Of Responsibility	Tasks are limited, responsibility is clearly delineated	RA has moderate responsibilty for larger tasks	Joint responsibility, but more at stake for faculty	Joint and roughly equal responsibility
Evaluation	Evaluation is of RA by faculty	Evaluation is of RA by faculty	System of mutual feedback, specific sessions	Feedback of one another and by other colleagues