Research partnerships as transformational learning experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common partnership between faculty and students in post-secondary education is that of researcher as a primary investigator (PI) and research assistant (RA). In this reflective essay, we examine an unconventional research partnership between Allison, a PI, and Bailey, an RA. Our experiences as PI and RA prompted us to reflect upon our learning partnership. We asked: In what ways might the role of RA be transformative (Mezirow, 1994) in teacher education for both researcher and student when it is approached through partnership? This partnership is unique because of its relational approach, where the PI and the RA collaborated in making decisions about the direction of the RA work. The RA’s perspective offered a different viewpoint on the research focus through which the researcher aimed to gain insights. This approach altered the dynamics of the research partnership, which evolved along the lines of both partners acting as equal contributors and co-learners through the research process. In this paper, we reflect on our consequential learning. Specifically, we focus on the learning that occurred when Bailey self-directed RA work on the topics of radical imagination, restorative justice, and appreciative inquiry, as well as the insights Allison gained through Bailey’s work. We use “I” in our respective sections and “we” and “our” in our collective writing, and we also refer to ourselves in the third person for clarity when needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".