• Reaction Expanding the Methodological Imagination Michelle Fine Graduate Center, City University of New York This article contains reflections provoked by the articles in this volume of The Counseling Psychologist. As a relative outsider to counseling psychology, the author thoroughly enjoyed immersing herself in these contributions and then extracting a set of thoughts inspired by the writers. When Robert T. Carter, editor of The Counseling Psychologist (TCP), asked me to write an epilogue/reaction to the Qualitative Methods volume of TCP, I hesitated. Immersed in the debates of qualitative inquiry from within psychology, I am a relative outsider to counseling psychology. I was unsure that I would have much to contribute. After reading the contributions to this special issue, however, I was seduced by the rich conversations held in this journal between counseling psychology and qualitative methods. I was most taken by the courage and intellectual stretch evidenced by these writers in their attempt to bridge what Haverkamp and Young (2007 [TCP special issue, Part 3]) called the “taken for granted character of posi- tivist assumptions” in counseling psychology and the “two solitudes” of qualitative and quantitative work. In their own words, most of these contrib- utors have been educated within, and encouraged to pursue, a postpositivist paradigm. As Ponterotto and Grieger (2007 [this issue]) indicate, these authors have learned from their students about the theoretical and empirical possibilities of qualitative methods. Recognizing a serious and important rupture in disciplinary ways of knowing, researching, writing, and making claims, they set out to craft a volume that would educate the field, elders, and newcomers on the range and variation of qualitative methods. Exploring questions of epistemology, design, paradigms, methods, ethics, analysis, and writing within a qualitative framework, they have successfully produced a most satisfying volume that is at once a beginners guide to qualitative meth- ods as well as a sophisticated journey into qualitative inquiry. I want to note my appreciation for the careful feedback provided by both Susan Morrow and Robert Carter. Thanks also to Ruth Hall and Donnie Cook for careful reading and friendship. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Michelle Fine, Graduate Center, City University of New York, Social Personality Psychology, Urban Education and Women’s Studies, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 6304.17, New York, NY 10016; e-mail: mfine@gc.cuny.edu. THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 35 No. 3, May 2007 459-473 DOI: 10.1177/0011000006296172 © 2007 by the Society of Counseling Psychology 459