My project concedes, through a careful review of the literature in composition studies, classical rhetoric, and postmodern discourse theory, that there is no clear distinction between observing culture and acting within it between, in effect, knowing and language, epistemology and agency. There is, therefore, no clear way to determine meaning, content, and definition, three key components in the study of writing. And yet, for the sake of research within the field, tentative distinctions are necessary. But herein lies the problem: on the one hand, writers must be in control of their texts meaning (the knowledge they communicate); otherwise agency rhetorical choice in untenable for composition. On the other hand, the meanings of any text are only knowable to readers because meaning is inscribed within historical and social contexts.
The problem with this distinction between epistemology and agency is that composition studies unproductively unites praxis (as commonly understood from Aristotles usage, practical knowledge whose goal is action) with this dualism, thereby reinforcing a distinct and unnecessary theory/practice division. Epistemology and cultural analysis have been aligned with theory, while writing and agency have been aligned with practice. A careful review of composition pedagogy suggests that these associations have been the cause of contention and unproductive scholarly and material rifts within the field. I contend, however, that these dualisms (theory/practice and epistemology/agency), far from hindering our work, may enable productive research in composition studies if they are reframed by scholars as oscillating independently of one another by scholars making tentative, strategic connections for the sake of explaining and theorizing more effectively and thoroughly the teaching of writing, and its (necessarily) indeterminate relationship to knowledge. I propose a praxis that fully engages both theory and practice, enabling research, disciplinary discourse, and pedagogy through full reciprocity.