One example of CIS Project Directors being taken for granted was that CISRC PI waited until two weeks before they were due to solicit letters of support from them for the CISRC renewal application (CISRC conference call, 9/5/96).
Interestingly both the Project Directors and researchers' major summative statements of the CISRC suggest a need to put more emphasis on constantly monitoring the project to insure it was not becoming one-sided (Fleisher et al.
In this sense researchers could act as change agents who would leave CIS members capable of doing what they do on their own, reducing their future dependence on the CISRC.
1995)- some of the CISRC meetings, especially the later ones, when it became clear that practitioner goals were not being met, were like this.
Indeed, the November 1996 CISRC meeting had several lessons-learned sessions in which Project Directors openly expressed many issues they had been articulating in their lessons learned monograph (Fleisher et al.
As we have seen from the preceding analysis, the relationship between researchers and practitioners in the CISRC was characterized by only periodic co-presence, somewhat limited reciprocal attention, a primitive level of mutual responsiveness, surface attempts at creating functional identities, and an increasingly felt need to formalize the shared focus.