The general enthusiasm that governs composition studies is the result of more than 20 years of collective efforts to define central issues in theory and research, and to help refocus national attention on composition literacy. The optimistic vision of future challenge and direction in discourse studies is largely premised on Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Of particular relevance is the application of the notion of "paradigm shift" to the dichotomy between the categories "current-traditional" and "process," as well as the view that Kuhn's metatheory works as well for the humanities and social sciences as it does for the natural sciences. However, problems arise when using the Kuhnian paradigm in composition studies and this paper develops the points that: (1) the concept of paradigm shift as a viable descriptor for what is about to happen, is happening, or has happened in composition studies remains highly questionable; (2) the risks involved in pursuing a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach may well outweigh any advantages; and (3) a more cautious and restrained approach to the uses of analogic terminology in making connections between composition and other disciplines would be in the best, long-range interests of the profession. (Thirty-three references are attached.) (RS)