A Time and Place for Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Counseling Psychology Research Beth E. Haverkamp University of British Columbia Susan L. Morrow University of Utah Joseph G. Ponterotto Fordham University-Lincoln Center We are pleased to present this special issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) on qualitative and mixed methods research. The major goal of the special issue is to introduce a variety of qualitative and mixed methods approaches to counseling psychologists and to encourage their increased application in re- search. Qualitative and mixed methods have been underutilized in counseling research, as most counseling psychologists were trained in the postpositivist research paradigm and associated quantitative methods (McLeod, 2001; Morrow & Smith, 2000). However, the debate over the credibility of qualitative methods has begun to shift toward greater acceptance of such designs (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003). We welcome these signs of change. Our position as guest editors, and the position of the many authors contributing to this special issue, is that the field of counseling psychology will be enhanced significantly by the increased use of qualitative and mixed methods research designs rooted in diverse philosophical paradigms. Though counseling psychologists have long endorsed the con- cept of methodological pluralism and have made repeated calls for increased openness to qualitative research (e.g., Hoshmand, 1989; Howard, 1983; Kopala & Suzuki, 1999; Polkinghorne, 1984), the field has been slow to expand the research paradigms from which it operates and the research methodologies it uses (McLeod, 2001). At present, only a minority of published research in psychology, including counseling psychology, is qualitative in nature (Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002), and only 10% of U.S.-based counsel- ing psychology training programs require a qualitative research course of its doctoral students (Ponterotto, 2005). Gergen (2001) has expressed concern that our reluctance to engage in a postmod- ern dialogue has resulted in a conception of psychological science that is “historically frozen and is endangered by its isolation from the major intellectual and global transformations of the past half century” (p. 803). McMullen (2002) has also described the lack of dialogue be- tween proponents of quantitative and qualitative methods. She has expressed concern that we are at risk of bifurcation in applied psychological research between researchers conversant with alter- native paradigms and their associated ontological and epistemo- logical bases and those who remain grounded within the traditional methodologies, with little interest in or knowledge of alternative methodologies. The risks of such bifurcation are not insignificant; they involve more than a debate over a defensible choice for one’s own research. As McMullen pointed out, Not having read much, if any, literature on alternative research man- ifests in an inability to speak the language of this research and in a reduced likelihood of learning from those who do. Opportunities for thoughtful conversation and debate are consequently curtailed. (p. 198) Sigmund Koch, the 20th-century psychologist/philosopher, would have recognized this concern. Koch criticized psychologists of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s for valuing science and method above psychology’s human subject matter and human nature (Leary, 2001). He believed, as Smith (2001) noted, that psychological research should investigate “humanly significant problems with methods chosen or devised with intelligent flexibility to fit the problems being pursued” (Smith, 2001, p. 443). As Smith also noted, Koch believed that this approach would result in a fertile profusion of research, with some investigations building on the natural science tradition of psychology and others reflecting the influence of the humanities. Smith summarized Koch’s position that, each intercommunicating cluster of scientists or scholars does best to pursue its own vision of its problems, guided and corrected by feedback from the results of its inquiries and by mutual criticism, though surely with glances over its shoulder at the assumptions, methods and results of adjacent clusters. (p. 443) This special issue of JCP is a call to counseling researchers to increase their dialogue over philosophy of science, research para- digms, and methodological diversity. We believe that expanding our horizon of research paradigms and methodological choices will advance our field and better serve our students and, ultimately, our clients and other constituents (Gergen, 2001). Methodological Beth E. Haverkamp, Department of Education and Counseling and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Susan L. Morrow, Department of Educational Psychol- ogy, University of Utah; Joseph G. Ponterotto, Psychological and Educa- tional Service, Fordham University-Lincoln Center. We thank JCP Editor Jo-Ida C. Hansen for the opportunity to coedit this special issue; we were honored by the confidence she placed in us and by the autonomy she granted us in shaping the issue. We also thank the many authors and reviewers who participated in the issue. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Beth E. Haverkamp, Department of Education and Counseling and Special Educa- tion, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail: beth.haverkamp@ubc.ca Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 52, No. 2, 123–125 0022-0167/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.123 123