Research assistant as partner: Collective leadership to facilitate co-production


  • Joshua Timothy Hill University of Calgary
  • Christy Thomas University of Calgary
  • Barbara Brown University of Calgary



staff-student partnership, students as partners, design-based research, collective leadership, scholarship of teaching and learning


In this article, we chronicle our experience of student-faculty partnership within a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning design-based research study. We present our experience of partnership in relation to the student-faculty partnership, collective leadership, adult learning and knowledge building literatures. Key characteristics of our student-faculty partnership are recognizingand using intellectual and experiential resources; practicing principles of knowledge building; and differentiating top-down and lateral decision making. We find the affordances of our partnership to be increased productivity, learning from each other and diversity of ideas and perspectives and limitations to be substantial time commitment, underlying beliefs about students’ capabilities and student-faculty ratio to limitations. We conclude by exploring the impact of our partnership on students, faculty and the university.


Download data is not yet available.


Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2017). Slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Brown, B., Hartwell, A., & Thomas, C. (2018). Interdisciplinary design teams of pre-service and in-service teachers: Issues with collaboration. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 19(1), 3-21.
Brown, B., & Jacobsen, M. (2016). Principals’ technology leadership: How a conceptual framework shaped a mixed methods study. Journal of School Leadership, 26(5), 811-836.
Brown, B., Thomas, C., Hill, J., Alonso-Yanez, G. (2019). Fostering collaborative learning in an undergraduate interdisciplinary education course. Teaching and Teacher Education, Division K – Section 5, American Educational Research Association (AERA), April 5-9, 2019, Toronto, ON.
Cliffe, A., Cook-Sather, A., Healey, M., Healey, R., Marquis, E., Matthews, K. E., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Ntem, A., Puri, V., & Woolmer, C. (2017). Launching a journal about and through Students as Partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1) 1-9.
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186-198.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Distributed leadership. In Improving Schools through Teacher Leadership (pp. 27-¬36). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Healey, M. (2018). Students as partners and change agents in learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from
Hill, J.T., Thomas, C., & Brown, B. (2018) Hacking for collaboration towards redesigning group work. University of Calgary Conference on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, May 1-2, Calgary, AB
Kennedy, A., Deuel, A., Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2011). Requiring collaboration or distributing leadership? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 20-24.
McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student-university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171-183.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of Students as Partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1). 1-23.
Merriam, S. B. (2008). Third update on adult learning theory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neary, M., & Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: reinventing the student experience in higher education. In: The future of higher education: policy, pedagogy and the student experience. (pp. 192-210). London: Continuum
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269- 272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, C. (2016). Exploring the impact of professional development partnerships on teaching and learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Thomas, C., Brown, B., & Hill, J. (2019) Technology for pre-service teacher collaboration. Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE), June 2-5, University of British Columbia, BC.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.




How to Cite

Hill, J. T., Thomas, C., & Brown, B. (2019). Research assistant as partner: Collective leadership to facilitate co-production. International Journal for Students As Partners, 3(2), 129–138.



Case Studies