In Kuhn's description of scientific history observations are interpreted through a prism of a priori presuppositions collected into "paradigms". Once discrepancies with expectations ("anomalies") accumulate paradigms are questioned and/or modified, and eventually discarded when a new paradigm emerges.
This is similar to how individual mind works on a smaller scale. A problem is first approached mechanically based on a priori (pre-learned) procedures. If unsuccessful these procedures are reflected upon and objectified, themselves made the focus of attention. As such they can be questioned or modified, and the problem revisited. Failing success the original approach may have to be discarded completely. In this case a new approach has to be learned or developed anew. As such it first appears as an object of study, and then has to be de-objectified and turned into a new operational a priori, internalized.
Kant, Husserl and other "transcendental" philosophers write a lot about the first half of the cycle, how to identify "natural attitude" ("a priori"), how to suspend it ("bracket out"), Kant even lists a priori he considers universal. But then we are supposed to arrive at some purified realm of "apodictic certainty" and "constitute" the things themselves. That's not how it works. Kuhn, on the other hand, describes how new paradigms emerge and are adopted in some detail.
One would think that there is the other half to the cycle on the mental side as well. I imagine it would involve speculation rather than contemplation, and then something like phenomenological augmentation instead of phenomenological reduction, bracketing in instead of bracketing out. Saccheri, Lambert, Bolyai, Gauss and Lobachevsky developed non-Euclidean intuition somehow, before any explicit models became available, because they had to grasp multiple parallels intuitively to get as far as they did.
Are there transcendental philosophy type studies of formation of new mental a priori (in the process of learning or inquiry), and of their incorporation into working intuition, not just of how they are identified and discarded? This would be parallel to new theory formation, testing, interpretation and reconciliation with other theories in science development.