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