It is no wonder that researchers disagree on the level of pluralism in composition research. Kirsch’s call for self-critique among researchers is a recurring theme in these texts. Yet, here it is for greater epistemic clarity that Kirsch advocates such reflection. When discussing the nature of knowledge in the context of composition studies, are we asking, what is the nature of knowledge that drives the methodology, or what is the nature of knowledge that is produced by particular methodologies?
The reason I ask is the obvious role academic background plays in the choice of methodology, as seen in the first of Kirsch’s examples. Bereiter and Scardamalia, with their background in psychology, argue for a linear relationship between methodologies, but are obviously biased towards more quantitative methods, due to their background. However, the purpose of their studies may deem it necessary to use such methods. Kirsch sites that Bereiter and Scardamalia’s framework of methodology suggests that they believe a “right process model” can be achieved. This seems to indicate a problem/solution dichotomy in their thinking process. As Ray and I talked about in our presentation, this type of thinking appeases cultural expectations of a more comfortable and quantifiable answer as to why humans behave the way they do. Bereiter and Scarmadalia seem to be engaged in research that seeks to identify the cognitive processes involved in composition, to be extremely short? Therefore, how much does the purpose or question of a researcher’s project drive the methodology used?
On the other hand, Kirsch points out the background in humanities of Irmscher, a proponent of humanistic, naturalistic methodologies. Irmscher, a past director of composition at Washington U., is focused on teacher professionalism and teaching composition. His being concerned that the methodology used in composition research be inclusive of context for writer and researcher is understandable from his perspective and academic background. And so, perspective of the researcher is again needed to be taken into consideration when understanding what research methodologies are chosen. Consequently, researchers must be honest and inclusive about their backgrounds and assumptions when presenting their research.
Can researchers see past their academic and cultural backgrounds to relinquish epistemic biases? Or, is the answer to just admit biases and allow others of different epistemological stripe to research opposing theories using parallel methodologies?