Volume 2, Number 1, Oct 2001

A Partnership Paradigm:
A Case Study in Research Assistant
and Faculty Interaction*

by Meredith Miller and John B. Stephens, 1998

*Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Staff,

Professional and Organization Development
(http://www.newforums.com/) , Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 111-119

Student research assistants (RAs) often encounter a game of

"Russian roulette" when working with faculty members. Sometimes
professors ask students to undertake the brainless job of
photocopying; others give substantive research projects to RAs that
stretch their skills and understanding But almost always the RA can
count on a subordinate working relationship with the faculty member.
In this article, we offer a case study of our intentional effort to change
the typical power relationship between most RAs and faculty members.
We believe this approach, which we call the partnership paradigm,
provides an opportunity for effective and mutually enriching
experiences for both faculty and students serving as research
assistants.

We will describe the partnership experiment we undertook as

professor and student in a professional degree program at a state
research university. We developed a partnership paradigm that
includes aspects of mentoring and a power structure characterized by
exchange rather than authority. After reflecting on our work
relationship, we came to understand that this model exists on a
continuum. TABLE 1 (http://www.campus-
adr.org/CMHER/ReportImages/table1.html) depicts four models of
potential RA-faculty work arrangement. We classify our effort as
"partnership light." We judge that structural factors prevented a
working partnership evolved over the span of stronger partnership
arrangement. Table 1 summarizes the issues that affected how we
consciously restructured our relationship into more of a partnership.

In this article, we describe the challenges we faced, delineated

limitations for creating a truly equal working relationship, and offer
recommendations for others who want to apply all or part of this
paradigm to their working relationships.

Background
I n August 1996, we were assigned to work together through the
Master of Public Administration (MPA) program at the University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill. John is a faculty member at UNC's Institute
of Government, and Meredith was a graduate student in the Master of
Public Administration (MPA) program. MPA students regularly are
placed as research assistants with faculty of the Institute of
Government. The idea of a working partnership evolved over the span
of Meredith's assistantship with John (August 1996- May 1997). During
our first meeting we discussed working styles and determined that we
were both interested in a more collaborative and less hierarchical work
relationship. Over time, we realized that the structure of our working
relationship was different from the traditional research assistantship.

John's desire for a more collaborative working relationship arose from

two factors: the value he places on mutual learning and his discomfort
with hierarchy. His interest in structuring mutual learning relationships
was heightened by a workshop on facilitation and organizational
development he took from Institute of Government colleagues shortly
before meeting Meredith. He was exposed to Chris Argyris' research on
executive decision-making and the distinction between unilateral
control and a mutual learning model of management. Specifically, the
workshop instructors challenged participants to apply mutual learning
principles in their work and personal decision-making.

John realized that revising the relationship between him and a

research assistant was risky, and could be time consuming. However,
he pursued the project with Meredith for three reasons. First, the
faculty-RA relationship was a good setting to apply a mutual learning,
more equal decision-making model. The projects open for collaboration
with Meredith were under John's control, and offered a way to test how
he would work with future research assistants from the MPA program.
Second, a partnership approach was consistent with John's values and
expertise in cooperative forms of conflict resolution, i.e. seeking
common interests and integrative solutions among people who have
different needs and interests. Third, designing as equal and collegial a
relationship as possible with Meredith would recognize her experience,
knowledge and ability to make significant intellectual contributions to
joint projects. A final benefit, recognized in hind sight, is that a
partnership approach to RA faculty work is consistent with changes in
the structure of workplace relationships to more team-based,
cooperative models of decision making. Even if the effort took more
time and effort, it posed a useful intellectual challenge and a learning
opportunity that could be applied across John's academic career.

Meredith was interested in a partnership approach to her research

assistantship be cause of her previous positive experiences with
supervisors who worked collaboratively and allowed a high level of
participation in decision-making. As a student in the MPA program, she
also had an interest in applying aspects of her classroom learning to
the assistantship. In a fall 1996 semester course, she read an article
by Chris Argyris and was exposed too the theorists and researchers on
more collaborative, less-hierarchical forms of group interaction and
employee management. Her RA assignment with John (8 hours per
week on average) became an ideal Situation to put such management
and leadership theory into practice.

Mentoring

M entoring is an important aspect of the Partnership paradigm.

"Mentoring constitutes a unique and personal relationship between two
people: one who has achieved a certain level of experience and one
who is aspiring to a higher level. In what is defined as a classical
mentoring relationship, the mentor provides opportunity for the
protégé and is rewarded by his or her achievements. The type of
mentoring we suggest for the partnership paradigm, however, is more
personal, broad and informal. We use some elements of mentoring,
but the initial assignment of students to professors in the MPA
program (made by the Program Director based on needs and interests
of faculty students) precluded us from seeking each other out based
on mutual interests.

Bruce Berger, in his article, Mentoring Graduate Students, describes

some ways to create what he calls a "dynamic reciprocal relationship.
"First, expectations must be discussed, and the student must be
treated as a valued colleague. Then both must work together to create
a context or environment for growth. In order to create this context
for growth, the mentor and protÈgÈ must develop a collegial
relationship in which there is shared responsibility. The dynamic
reciprocal relationship involves a balance between personal and
professional issues. Discussing non-work related issues and spending
time together on a social basis helps to develop a more personal
relationship. Our social interaction outside the office included having
lunch and dinner together occasionally, introducing each other to our
friends and colleagues, and participating in an MPA-sponsored team
building exercise on a ropes course. We found that expanding the
relationship beyond the professional realm helped us to create mutual
trust, another important component of the dynamic reciprocal
relationship. By creating trust, Berger suggests that" people can be
confronted about problems they are avoiding or not attempting to
solve.' Confronting problems and engaging in self-examination are
difficult in general, but are almost impossible to do effectively without
a commitment to build mutual trust.

Shared interest in a specialized area of study in another component of

mentoring. In typical mentoring relationships the professor has an
expertise in a particular area and the student desires to specialize in
that subfield. At UNC, the MPA Program Director matches students and
professors according to interests, but very few pairs can be perfectly
matched. Meredith had some interest in John's field (public dispute
resolution), but it was not her primary interest in public
administration. The shared interest was high enough, however, to be
compatible with the tasks of the assistantship. The absence of initial
choice in our relationship and level of interest are two key differences
between what the literature describes as mentoring and our working
relationship.

Another aspect of the mentoring relationship we examined was a

concern about gender factors in mentor-mentee relations. The very
characteristics that make the mentoring relationship effective involve a
degree of vulnerability and informality. Some people may avoid a
mentoring relationship with someone of the opposite sex in order to
avoid potential misunderstandings or problems, ranging from
unfounded rumors of romantic interest to sexual harassment. We
argue that if the relationship has open communication and mutual
respect, issues can be raised and handled in a professional manner.
For instance, we both receive humorous e-mail messages from friends
and wanted to pass them on to each other. Since some of the humor
could be considered unprofessional, we discussed whether either of us
would feel uncomfortable receiving "racy" e-mail messages. By being
conscious of the appropriateness of how we interacted, we have been
successful in creating a working relationship that was comfortable for
both of us.

Creating a Partnership

In creating our partnership, we addressed issues of power,

expectations, decision-making, evaluations, and other aspects of
working relationships. Although there are some aspects of mentoring
in our relationship, the research assistantship's predetermined
structure, including a focus on money and required hours of work, is a
clear distinction from traditional mentoring. We found this structure
both challenging and freeing for our work to conceive, develop and
evaluate a partnership paradigm. Whereas mentoring is focused on the
development of the junior person (student or faculty), our model is
focused on mutual development.

Most research assistantships have a clearly hierarchical structure. If

any evaluation occurs, it is an evaluation of the student's work by the
professor. John- was interested in changing this power structure,
believing that mutual feedback would be more effective. Our
partnership might not have happened without John initiating the idea
of creating a structure different than that of a typical faculty-directed
relationship. This effort was not difficult for John because he was a
new faculty member with many potential projects for Meredith, and
many possible projects were not governed by short-term deadlines.

In order to create a partnership, John had to empower Meredith with

the right to contribute to decision-making, raise problems or issues,
state her interests, and question John's judgment. To shift away from
a hierarchical structure, we attempted to create an environment where
communication and coordination were more reciprocal and more equal.
This resulted in a structure with an exchange of power. An exchange
can only happen when both parties are getting things that they need.
In our case, John was getting help with research and writing work and
gaining experience that was both collaborative and social in nature.
Meredith was learning about mediation, improving her writing skills,
and experimenting with a partnership management situation while
being paid.

Initial Discussion of Expectations

Having an initial discussion of each person's expectations of the

working relation ship decreases misunderstanding and is an important
element of the partnership paradigm. In our first few meetings, we
discussed goals, interests, modes of communication, priorities of the
job, and our level of flexibility in the hours and the locations for
carrying out the work. These initial discussions to set mutual
expectations were important in establishing an open working
environment and setting the tone for shared decision-making. We
should also note that the MPA Program Director told us about the
strong accomplishments of one another before we met. Therefore, we
had high expectations for the relationship from the outset.

In addition to discussing expectations, it is also important for both the

faculty member and the RA to understand each other's expertise and
capabilities. At the first meeting, as part of John's interest in providing
background reading to Meredith on public dispute resolution, he asked
Meredith to summarize an article. John wanted some way to gauge
Meredith's analytic and comprehension skills, and her level of writing.
It was important for John to determine the level of Meredith's ability
for appropriate projects and responsibilities. In retrospect, neither of
us could recall if John shared all his reasons for this Assignment. In a
partnership/mutual learning model, John would have shared all of his
interests, and said that the request was not a make-or-break test, but
one way of learning more about Meredith's knowledge, skills and
abilities.

Mutual Evaluations

One major way we attempted to change the power structure towards

a partnership model was to have mutual evaluations rather than just
the required formal evaluation of the student by the professor at the
end of each semester. This process allowed us to express our opinions
about our own work, each other's work, and our joint work. We
decided on several elements for the evaluations: (1) we would each
determine the criteria by which we would be evaluated; (2) specific
times would be set aside for evaluations; (3) evaluations would occur
several times throughout the semester; and (4) the evaluations would
be conducted through a dialogue rather than a written document.

Rather than evaluating each other using the same criteria, we decided
to each draft our own lists of skills and competencies by which we
wanted to be evaluated. We each had different things that we wanted
to work on that were specific to our role in the partnership. Together,
we created the criteria for judging our joint work.

We scheduled distinct sessions for our mutual evaluations. When we

encountered special difficulties or successes, we noted them at the
time they occurred. Even though we had a comfortable relationship
and provided informal feedback regularly, a planned meeting with
specific preparation was an important guide to our work. It was also a
deliberate part of enacting the partnership paradigm. A designated
occasion for feedback encourages reflection on overall progress o'
projects and the working relationship. Perhaps most importantly, a
scheduled feedback session sets a point for both the student and the
faculty member to inform each other how they could alter their
expectations or behavior to make the relationship more effective.
Ongoing informal feedback tends to focus on short-term, content-
specific information, whereas a specific time for mutual feedback is
more conducive to analyzing patterns and processes of work for long-
term improvements in effectiveness.

Rather than having just one formal evaluation at the end of the
assistantship period, we scheduled several informal evaluations each
semester. For August-December 1996, we set three dates for
evaluation sessions. We found the first one, approximately six weeks
after the start of our work together, was very helpful. The subsequent
two were less helpful. We attributed the difference to less contact and
fewer observations of behavior and work products on which to alter
our first assessment. The second and third evaluations explicitly
addressed how to mutually evaluate our joint work. As a result of our
learning, we scheduled only two feedback sessions during January-
April, 1997, both of which were useful.

We determined that feedback from outside our working relationship-

faculty colleagues reviewing drafts of case studies, for example would
be helpful. Unfortunately, we had few opportunities to pursue outside
perspectives on our joint work. We did have positive informal feedback
from both students and professors after a seminar we presented on
the partnership paradigm. Most seemed intrigued by our ideas and by
the steps we had taken to achieve a partnership.

Finally, our mutual evaluations were conducted through discussions

rather than formal written documentation. We have found that a
discussion allows us to be more thorough while at the same time
remaining informal. A brief written evaluation was, however,
completed by John at the end of the first and second semester as
required by the MPA program.

Structure

Some other specific ways that we achieved a more equal power

structure included: dividing up leadership responsibilities for work
tasks (such as conducting research for a case study); rotating the
responsibility of forming our meeting agendas and maintaining our
project task list; occasionally meeting outside John’s office in a more
neutral setting (such as the library, a lounge, or outside); and
assigning each other background reading material for a monthly
discussion about public disputes, conflict resolution and mediation. On
the lighter side, we occasionally switched chairs in John's office so that
Meredith was behind the desk. The reaction of surprise and curiosity
from people walking by John's office was illuminating.

Challenges of the Partnership Paradigm

Power Imbalance
Inherent in any faculty-research assistant working relationship is the
difference in each person’s expertise and in the long-term stake in the
faculty member's work. For these reasons, it is often appropriate for
the faculty member to be more directive. This structural difference can
easily result in a power imbalance. It is a challenge for a student to
take the initiative with a professor, due to strategic reasons grounded
in acculturation to be deferential in a student-faculty relationship. If a
research assistant comes across as pushy or unbending, such an
impression could have negative consequences if he/she takes a course
from the faculty member or if the negative impression is shared with
other teachers. It is important for the faculty member to understand
that a student may have limits on his/her time and other professional
development priorities. In a partnership, these limitations must be
both recognized and respected. Mutual respect is an important way to
create a balance in power.

We deliberately worked on this power issue. John's faculty position

allowed him to learn of and begin developing new projects in public
dispute resolution before talking with Meredith. These new efforts
necessitated joint discussion on whether to shift resources (research
time and writing) from one project to another, or to work outside of
the RA-faculty arrangement (i.e., by John alone or by John and other
colleagues). Although we mate these changes openly, the imbalance of
John's greater background information and his responsibility for the
long-term development of research, teaching ant writing limited the
mutuality of our partnership work. This left John feeling at several
points that he was being more directive in the relationship and
undercutting partnership paradigm values. While Meredith felt this was
not a barrier, it is important to be aware of the structural limits of a
partnership approach to RA-faculty work.

A colleague noted that a difference of perception could complicate a

power imbalance. For instance, if a RA-faculty pair commits to work
more in partnership, and the faculty member believes it is being
accomplished but the RA does not share that impression, the RA is in a
doubly difficult position. Thus, one of our recommendations relates to
how RAs have opportunities to share their impressions of their work
arrangements.

Another fruitful question from a RA colleague was "What's in it for

faculty?" Her observation was that it seemed while there was great
benefit to the student RA (increased power, learning and challenge),
the benefit to the professor would be moderate at best. Indeed, if a
faculty person is concerned about sharing/giving up power and is more
interested in gaining limited assistance on particular projects, a
partnership paradigm is not worthwhile. For John, his interest was to
express principles of work relationships in general, to try a new
arrangement in a low risk setting, and to educate himself.

Time Investment

The creation of the partnership took significant time. Once the faculty-
driven model is abandoned, many large and small decisions are open
for discussion. True joint decision making is time consuming We kept
an openness to revise priorities, handle new information, and decide
who took the lead on a particular task or project. While some of the
time for joint decision-making could have been telescoped (e.g.,
making larger decisions earlier on so that fewer procedural questions
needed to be decided later), we did not consider making hard
definitions of roles early on.

We found that our flexibility made us more productive, but we both

sometimes felt pressed to set clear deadlines for specific tasks and
work products for each other's review. The central challenge for John
was how best to balance the exploration of and learning about a
partnership paradigm with the specific short-term demands for
teaching, research, writing and program development required by his
department. Meredith initially had to spend more time learning about
John's area of expertise so she could feel confident writing and making
decisions in a new subject area.

One benefit we think we can offer is our experience (above) and

recommendations (below) to reduce the planning time needed for
other faculty-RA pairs. For instance, in a seminar at UNC-CH before
our colleagues, they confirmed our sense of being "trailblazers" and we
sensed that offering some guidelines from our experience would make
it easier for others to apply and adapt our model.

Limitations

As much as we think we have made our RA-faculty relationship more

equal, there were several structural factors which limited a truly equal
partnership. Some have been mentioned above: the faculty member
having greater expertise; faculty having more time and more
responsibility in the long run; and the RA's needs for academic
development. John's larger array of interests and needs were not all
brought into the partnership. For instance, while John informed
Meredith of his teaching schedule, and encouraged her to observe and
give feedback, there were no teaching elements brought into the
partnership.

Similar Social Backgrounds

Heterogeneity of personal backgrounds and attributes could be a

challenge for enacting a partnership approach to RA-faculty work. We
believe our relatively similar backgrounds and personal characteristics
made our experiment easier. We share the same racial and
socioeconomic class background, and both of us had experience
working in government positions in Washington, DC. We are very
culturally similar, which may be an important factor in the ease of
initiating a partnership paradigm for RA-faculty work. While Meredith
did not see public dispute resolution as being of special interest for her
degree and career development, she saw it as complementary to her
substantive interests in education and youth. Specifically, she already
had a positive regard for John's substantive area through a friend who
worked in the dispute resolution field.

Recommendations

Our experiment in a partnership paradigm was formally completed in

April, 1997 when Meredith’s research assistantship ended. However,
we agreed to continue to prepare this article, and have conducted
presentations on this topic both to the MPA program, and to a
University-wide audience. Despite our modest experience, we will
boldly offer recommendations for other RA-faculty pairs interested in a
partnership working relationship. We offer our recommendations in a
general form to make them applicable across a range of academic
disciplines and professional studies. Specific steps are summarized in
Table 2.

Table 2

Steps in Making a RA-Faculty Partnership Work

1) Determine if a more equal working relationship is important for
academic and professional development.

2) Establish a policy of voluntary RA-faculty assignments.

3) Hold an orientation/ exploration session on effective RA-faculty

working relationships with an option of working in a partnership
arrangement.

4) Individual RA-faculty pairs determine their procedural and content

goals for a working relationship.

5) In a partnership relationship, each RA-faculty pair should hold

periodic feedback sessions on the effectiveness of their working
relationship separate from the content of their work. We recommend
such sessions twice a semester.

6) At least once a year, assess the experiences of all RA-faculty pairs

working in a partnership arrangement and share the assessment with
all faculty and students.

Determining Whether to Create a Partnership: Will it

Achieve Pedagogical and Professional Goals?
The potential benefit of a partnership paradigm fits neatly with many
professional graduate programs in general and changes in the
workplace in particular. Because the UNC-CH MPA program combines
classroom teaching, formal and informal seminars with practitioners,
internships and a major research project, a partnership paradigm
enhances the student's educational and professional development.
Since more workplaces are less hierarchical and more team oriented,
experience in a partnership paradigm enacts collaborative values and
offers experience relevant to career-long needs. Similarly, a more
collegial working relationship is realistic for MPA careers involving
cross-function coordination; problem-solving involving public servants,
citizens and private interests; and multi-agency cooperation to address
interrelated needs or problems. The paradigm also challenges faculty
to embody the values of cooperation or CO-management that are now
dominant in management and organizational development today.

Other graduate and professional programs may have different goals

and more traditional postgraduate work environments. Thus the
relevance of a partnership paradigm for RA-faculty work depends on
the goals and values of the graduate or professional degree program.

Setting the Stage for a Partnership: Assuring Free,

Informed Choice

The core of the partnership paradigm for RA-faculty work is joint

decision-making. Greater equity in decision-making extends to
whether a partnership approach is appropriate for a particular faculty
member and research assistant. In short, it should be easy for the RA,
in a traditionally less powerful position, to say "no" to a faculty
invitation of a partnership working relationship without negative
repercussions.

The first step for setting the stage rests in how RAs and faculty
members are assigned. Following our presentation of the partnership
motel to fellow MPA faculty and students, the assignment process for
1997-98 was revised. Faculty projects and interests were posted, and
RAs contacted the faculty members with whom they wanted to work.
The MPA Director made the formal arrangements, but followed the
negotiated interests of RAs and faculty almost without exception. RAs
and faculty are now more actively involved in the selection process,
and therefore can more consciously choose to work with one another
based on their interests and working styles.

Second, both as part of the potential assignments, and definitely once

an RA-faculty pairing is set, there must be a discussion about the
overall working relationship, separated as much as possible from the
content of the work. Communication styles, RA background and skills,
and kinds of tasks on work projects envisioned by the faculty member,
need to be explored to clarify interests and capabilities by the RA and
faculty member to enact a partnership work relationship. There should
also be a clear discussion of alternative working relationships, i.e.,
traditional hierarchical vs. more of a partnership (see Table 1) It is
important to understand at this early stage that a partnership
paradigm depends on the interest and ability of a RA to take more
responsibility in conjunction with faculty flexibility and commitment to
alter a traditional faculty-RA power relationship.

There is a conundrum from the beginning: who raises the idea of

working in a partnership arrangement? If the faculty member does so,
the whole effort could begin with the RA deferring to him/her in order
not to raise the skepticism or discomfort of the faculty member at the
very beginning of the work relationship. For instance, even if the
faculty member is open to a partnership, the RA may not be interested
(due to different interest in substantive areas of the field, a heavy
course schedule, or limited compatibility with the faculty member) and
may prefer a more traditional work relationship. However, it is
counter-cultural for a RA to come in and suggest a particular way of
working, especially when the whole structure is for the student to
assist the faculty member. Therefore, the culture of the department or
professional program must be safe and positive for a RA and his/her
faculty member to discuss their desired working styles and then to
make an informed choice about how they will work together.

Conduct Mutual Feedback Sessions on the Work

Relationship

What we found most valuable in our experiment in a partnership

work relationship was to set aside specific occasions to assess our
working relationship. We conducted these sessions separate from our
regular meetings on projects. It was important to us to have a
designated session devoted to work process, instead of content. We
heartily recommend the same for others enacting a partnership model.
Finally, we believe as more RA-faculty pairs intentionally work in a
partnership manner, that sharing their struggles and successes will
enhance learning.

Conclusion

We offer our experience and reflection about working in a partnership

paradigm because it was exciting, challenging and sometimes
frustrating. Moreover, our thinking points to areas of research on
mentoring which need to expand to RA-faculty relationships. As noted
above, most mentoring literature looks at junior faculty-senior faculty
relations, or faculty-student relationships where there is not a pre-
structured exchange relationship. Our experience indicates ways
mentoring can be included in a RA-faculty relationship, but also how
the structure of the exchange-relationship limits "pure mentoring." We
call for mentoring advocates and evaluators to test their theories by
examining RA-faculty relationships.

Finally, we believe our experience is transferable. First, it is

transferable within the university, to other professional and graduates
degree programs utilizing research assistants. Second, we judge our
experience is transferable outside the university, where most students
completing their professional or graduate degrees apply their
knowledge. In this way, we hope this case study inspired others to
reexamine and reform how the working relationships within academia
prepare or hinder people in their professional development.

Note

We wish to thank the Journal's two anonymous reviewers and our

colleagues who reviewed an earlier version of this article: Peg Carlson,
Kimberly Cartron, Anne Davidson, Ed Neal, Gordon Whitaker, and
Michelle Woster. We appreciated the discussion with the 15
participants from the UNCCH MPA program at a February 25, 1997
seminar on the Partnership Paradigm.

Meredith Miller received her Master's of Public Administration degree

from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in May, 1998. Her
specialty is education policy and program implementation. John B.
Stephens is an Assistant Professor of Public Management and
Government at the Institute of Government, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. His specialty is public dispute resolution.