The Making of Knowledge in Composition

I just picked up Stephen North's The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field (1987) and I found a passage that speaks directly to my previous post. In his introduction, North defines a two concepts central to his book. The first is "modes of inquiry," which he defines as "the whole series of steps an inquirer follows in making a contribution to a field of knowledge" (1). He is specifically interested in how these modes of inquiry operate within "methodological communities": "groups of inquirers more or less united by their allegiance to one such mode, to an agreed-upon set of rules for gathering, testing, validating, accumulating and distributing what they regard as knowledge" (1). He clarifies that "modes of inquiry" does not just mean method (or what he calls "technique") and he goes on to stress that their significance and "how these techniques and their results come to mean for any particular investigation--is not inherent in the techniques themselves, but [are] a function of community standards" (2). What I think North is saying here is that research and research methods "make sense" based upon "terministic screens" or common places of a community of researchers (community standards) that often goes under the term "methodology," but North seems to hint that it is much more.

North uses a quote from Paul Diesing to elaborate on these "methodological communities": "Their interaction is facilitated by shared beliefs and values--goals, myths, terminology, self-concepts--which make their work mutually intelligible and valuable" (qtd. in 2). Beneath the efforts to gain various forms of "validity and reliability" in research is this framework of belief and assumptions that may not be founded on "objective and verifiable" truths and "evidence." It is this Toulmin-esque level of unstated assumptions, these warrants or Topoi-commonplaces, that undergird not just what we ask and how we seek answers but how we understand what we "learn" from research that seems very important. This understanding of "research" and how it works to establish belief (and thus practice) seems to explain why the concepts of Britton and Moffett and others who promoted the notion of writing growth and the teaching practice to promote this growth gained such currency. They tapped in to the warrants and commonplaces of teachers in powerful ways.

What will be my "mode of inquiry" and "methodological community" for my research? If I want my research to contribute to the field, how will I frame it so that it enters the field in rhetorically significant ways? These are questions yet to be determined, but I am glad to land on these central concepts for how I will "position" my research.

My research focus has an interesting double-level to it which I will try to elaborate on:
1) The use of "rhetorical reflection" already has gained general "acceptance" in the composition/learning community--most teachers believe reflection is an important step or activity to promote deep learning (even if they don't use it themselves). What, then, are the warrants/assumptions/commonplaces that support this belief? If we look at significant expressions of these beliefs (Yancey, Mezirow, Moon), how do they establish this belief? And where does "research" and appeals to emperical evidence fit in the establishment of this belief?
2) The second level of my research interest involves not just "where/how" did these beliefs get established, but are they "true?" Does what we think reflection "does" actually happen? Can we verify our assumptions/beliefs in emperical research on reflection? And if I am going to inquire into these assumptions/beliefs, what will be my mode of inquiry and who will be my methodological community? Given my chosen methodological community, what then will be my modes of inquiry and my rhetoric to influence the "knowledge" of this community? How much will I need to allow this community to determine my rhetoric and modes of inquiry?

These are my summer questions (that I know will be with me for a long time).