The relationship between process theories and cognitive theories--and methodology

The research tool that Travis and I made really fell into place smoothly once we had a synthesized vision about how we would represent the turn itself, but this latter discussion about representation definitely took some parsing out. 

One discussion we had was questioning what are we turning from in the cognitive turn? We felt that we had two options in representing the cognitive turn: (1) we could focus solely on the emergence of cognitive perspectives without nodding toward a specific point of departure, but mapping out how this turn caused a trajectory; or (2) we do focus on two paradigms (philosophies? axioms?) that are in conversation with one another--this latter idea would then show the antecedents that lead us to a turn toward the cognitive. And we identified with this latter idea as being more effective: we beleive it is, in fact, important to represent the antecedents to know where the turn was headed. As Dr. Yancey might say: we need to look back before we move forward. But again, we needed to know what we were turning away from. 

The syallbus gave a hint toward this: as the title of this weeks readings suggests, "from Process to Cognition", the turn might be seen as between process and cognition. But then a few other questions arise: what is the relationship between process and cognition? If we discuss the cognitive turn as a turn then the metaphor suggests that a new path, approach, trajectory is being charted out--the key word here being "new" or, rather, distinctive. But distinctive in what sense? Does the cognitive turn from a process theory of writing toward non-process theories of writing? Or is the cognitive turn still contained within the overarching idea of process, but is a difference in degree rather than kind. 

Based on this weeks readings, there's evidence that suggests both (though I'm willing to buy one over another:

Flower and Hayes are explicit in their departure from (traditional) process theorists who theorize models in stages: they specifically allude to Rohman's Pre-Write/Write/Re-Write model and Britton et al's Conception/Incubation/Production model. As they explain, the metaphor of stages implies that these are discrete, distinct stages that happen linearly; however, a cognitive model allows for more recursivity via the monitor--each stage bleeds into one another and can be occurring in different orders and simultaneously. Even more (and this next part I'm basing off my memory of the book we sifted through in class) Chris Anson gave us a visual where he put pre-process theories on one end and process theories on the other end. I don't quite know the specifics, but several aspects of pre-process theories that Anson offers might align with the cognitive model. 

But even as I outline these two points, the analysis is problematic: I'm attempting to find evidence about how a cognitive model is not or in opposition to process theories, but that's not necessarily true. In Flower and Hayes departure from Rohman/Britton, they are actually re-defining process rather than departing or turning away from it.

But then this conversation may be missing the point completely: maybe comparing process to cognition is not as productive as a different conversation. I'm still drawn to the idea that the cognitive turn, at it's basis, was a turn in research methodologies. A perceived literacy crisis was being promoted and to respond to criticism that comp theory was based on classroom lore, we borrowed the research methods from a social science to ground our theory in logical, sound methodology. And through the methods we were able to redefine composition and (in turn) process theories. A different methodology can re-define the conversations and I think that's what the cognitive turn was. Not walking away from process, but redefining it through methodology.