Lunsford and Hobson almost bedfellows

While Lunsford and Hobson use different names for writing centers, they agree about the different underlying epistemological assumptions and functions of writing centers. Lunsford delineates the differences between “The Center as Storehouse,” “The Center as Garret,” and “Burkean Parlors” The Storehouse Centers are based on positivistic principles and focus on the instructor who has knowledge in the form of skills and strategies to dispense. The Garret Centers are based on Platonic or absolutist ideas and focus on the individual who has knowledge but needs the tutor to bring that knowledge forth. Burkean Parlors are based on socially constructed knowledge where “power and control [are] constantly negotiated and shared” (97) and focus on collaboration. Lunsford sees a need for change in pedagogy and method because society functions this way. Hobson also describes writing centers as remediation centers (positivist), centers for individual instruction (expressionist), or centers as “[models] for the social production of knowledge” (rhetoric/social construction) (101). Hobson extends Lundford’s discussion by defining the problems with each assumption: Positivism “creates a system of thought that is too rigid . . . and ignores the contextual nature of discourse and the malleability of language” (103); Expressionism ignores that individuals are products of society, that not all beliefs are equal, and that the institution and academic community demand a certain degree of competency; I’m not really sure what he is trying to say about social constructivism – its “inability to explain the many interrelated systems that create the writing center environment” (105). Here he departs from Lunsford: he purports that all three of these epistemological assumptions are at work in writing centers, not just one of them.