selket

I am at best a wanna-be writer, but only so far as personal enjoyment and expression. I will never write well enough to go beyond that, and that's just fine with me.

I'm posting in this forum for another reason that has me in a panic and I am hoping a kind soul or two can straighten me out. (my apologies for such a long post, a bad habit I haven't been able to overcome).

I've applied for an assistant researcher position with a columnist and to get the job, I was given a "test assignment". I applied because I *thought* I had pretty strong research skills, but now I'm completely confused and embarrassed, and, I'm afraid, stunningly out of my league.

But I'm not quite prepared to give up or rely on my own assumptions. So I thought I'd ask a couple of questions here first:

1. Are there any standards that I could review, such as specific methods of presenting my material or other such logistical tasks?

2. Is it normal practice for a researcher to be asked to go beyond the research process itself, and be asked to offer personal interpretations, evaluations or conclusions? I am being asked to present my own "alternative perspectives", and to determine what possible deeper meaning may lie beneath the surface of the material at face value. Is this the sort of thing research assistants are commonly expected to provide? If so, then I'm definitely under-qualified. I assumed that the actual writer would be the one who comes up with the ideas! <g> But I'd like to avoid complete embarrassment by saying as much to the writer. I'll embarrass myself here first instead. <g>

Just writing all this out, I think I've basically answered my own question, and I'm afraid there is not much I can do to complete this job, but maybe someone here has a suggestion or two

Thanks in advance,
selket

PS: Yes, I've "researched" these questions, to no avail. How painfully ironic. Good grief.