Multiplicity of Epistemologies Undergird WC Practices

Murphy quotes from Lunsford extensively on the benefits of social constructivist theory, but instead of just endorcing it, enumerates areas where theory and practice just don't meet. It seems that the main problem with defining composition and the writing center is the multiplicity of epistemologies: "current traditional, cognitive, expressionist, and social-constructionist rhetoric" (Carino 126). Many of us will agree that no one theory can or will be an answer to what is being practiced in either space. Let's face it: students are different; they have different learning styles and different writing styles; therefore, the epistemology that works for one will not work for another. Carino relates that "most recent positions recognize the mulitplicity, variety, and idio-syncrasies of tutorial practice" (135). The mistake that most disciplines make that lead to their demise is to think that they must distinguish themselves from other disciplines in order to validate their existance. Riley concludes "that the power that accompanies a rise in professional status is partly illusory; that both power and status are purchased at great price; and that if those of us devoted to the writing center concept follow the example of other groups, seeking stability in professionalization, we will jeopardize the values that make our work meaningful" (140). The wriitng centers' differentness from mass education will save its life. If both composition and the writing center is undergirded by the same amalgamation, how can the two be differentiated?