A question about reflexive statement and assumptions

Last week I presented my Chapter 3 to my workshop group. I wanted feedback on growing the logic-of-justification for case study method within a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) approach. To do this  part well, I know I must first clear the CHAT hurdle: does the reader understand what it is and how my use of case study relates to it?

As an evolving theoretical frameworks, CHAT is not widely used in education studies, even less so in the field of literacy studies. Roth and Lee (2007) call it a "best kept secret."

So, the biggest item of feedback I received during workshop last week had nothing to do with the incorporation of case study theory into my research design. It had to do with my explication of the underlying assumptions of my study, namely CHAT. The group wanted to know more about the assumptions of CHAT, which I only allude to in Chapter 3. It is within Chapter 1 that I discuss -- by way of a reflexivity statement -- the underlying assumptions of CHAT, as well as other elements of my frameworks (New Literacies theory and the multiple realities perspective).

My statement of reflexivity, as it currently appears in Chapter 1, outlines who I am as a researcher (background, interests, professional experience, and worldview) and how these aspects of my identity influence my choice of topic, question, frameworks, and methodological approach. Then, I get into the nitty-gritty of the underlying assumptions of my approach. But since these are shared assumptions, assumptions belonging to an entire research tradition/genre, should they not be in the methods section of the study?

My question: does it make sense to split my reflexive section? In other words, should I keep the personal statement of reflexivity where it is, but save the built-in assumptions of my research genre for Chapter 3? 

I would like to submit my Chapter 3 revisions as party of my mid-term project report for EP 659, so feedback on this point will be greatly appreciated.

Additional project update: I read most of Susanne Friese's (2012) book about ATLAS.ti last week, and posted my reading notes.

References:

Roth, W-M., and Lee, J-L. (2007). “‘Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy’: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory.” Review of Educational Research 77(2), 186–232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273.

A question about reflexive statement and assumptions