Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (2020)

Sohmer, O.R. (2020). Addressing persistent challenges in transpersonal psychology: Cooperative inquiry as an innovative response. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 52(2), 78-112.

Abstract

This article juxtaposes a synthesis of prominent critiques arising within contemporary transpersonal psychology with an exploration of Cooperative Inquiry (CI) (Heron, 1996)—an experiential, participatory approach to human research and learning—as one avenue to address them. Specifically, repeated calls have been made for more diversity, inclusivity, social engagement, and research from general as well as participatory, feminist, and multicultural transpersonal perspectives. These critiques are balanced with concrete examples of contemporary CIs that have addressed related concerns and suggestions for future applications. Strengths of CI, such as its intrinsically collaborative and transformative dimensions, are discussed along with its limitations in the context of transpersonal validity standards. Through a creative combination of contemporary discourse in transpersonal psychology and a review of relevant CIs in practice, this article aims to inspire innovative thinking and practical responses to some of the most enduring challenges facing the field.

Addressing Persistent Challenges in Transpersonal Psychology: Cooperative Inquiry as an Innovative Response

After half a century of theory building, research, and practice, transpersonal psychology is poised for a reflective pause in which the advances and challenges of the field can be contemplated in light of the present context. As transpersonal scholars have acknowledged (e.g., Cunningham, 2015; Hartelius, Harrahy et al., 2017), the social climate that forged the field has changed considerably since the late 1960s, when the early pioneers charted a radical redirection from the prevailing psychological orientations of the times by advocating for the spiritual [i] dimension of human experience (e.g., Grof, 1975; Maslow, 1969; Sutich, 1968). Today, the fundamental concerns that once made transpersonal psychology unique have been integrated into the mainstream (e.g., Anderson & Lancaster, 2017; Hartelius, Krippner, & Thouin-Savard, 2017). Yoga, for example, is now taught to children in public schools with recognized benefits (e.g., Hagen & Nayar, 2014; Khalsa & Butzer, 2016; Khalsa et al., 2012), mindfulness is being integrated into mainstream psychotherapy approaches (e.g., Davis & Hayes, 2011; Sanders, 2010), and spiritual development is increasingly recognized as an important vector of higher education (e.g., Dalton et al., 2006; Duerr et al., 2003; Palmer & Zajonc, 2010). This transformed climate at once lends broader social recognition to the longstanding interests of transpersonal psychology, while calling into question the relevance and vitality of the field as a distinct discipline (Cunningham, 2007, 2015; Hartelius, Friedman, & Pappas, 2013; Wade, 2019). Arguably, the task ahead is no longer to map and legitimize the spiritual and expanded dimensions of human life, but to cultivate these potentials for the sake of human and environmental flourishing (Hocoy, 2016; Rothberg & Coder, 2013). In other words, the focus has shifted from establishing the psychological import and overall validity of spirituality to more skillfully cultivating spiritually informed responses to the current social and environmental crises.[ii]

Transpersonal psychology, thus, faces the challenge and opportunity of evolving its ethos and praxis in light of this evolved context. Important efforts have been made in this regard to invigorate and redefine the field from contemporary vantage points (e.g., Friedman & Hartelius, 2013; Hartelius, Harrahy et al., 2017; Kaklauskas et al., 2016a, 2016b; McMullin et al., 2017). While nurturing a renewed vision of transpersonal psychology as a discipline committed to encouraging the frontiers of human potential in intimate relation with the greater web of life, systematic reviews (Caplan et al., 2003; Hartelius et al., 2007; Hartelius, Rothe, & Roy, 2013) and theoretical critiques (e.g., Brooks et al., 2013; Clements et al., 2016; Ferrer, 2002, 2017; Louchakova & Lucas, 2007) have illuminated persistent challenges.

This article synthesizes some of the most salient critiques elaborated by transpersonal scholars in the last twenty years. Called by some the second era or wave of transpersonal psychology (Hartelius, Harrahy et al., 2017; Lahood, 2007a, 2010a; Tarnas, 2001), this period has been marked by the emergence of the participatory turn (Ferrer, 2002; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008) or the “relational turn” (Lahood, 2010a, b, in press) in the field. In this context, important critiques have emerged from both general as well as participatory (e.g., Heron, 1996, 2018; Ferrer, 2002, 2017), feminist (e.g., Brooks, 2010; Brooks et al., 2013), and multicultural perspectives (e.g., Hartelius et al., 2018; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016). Specifically, repeated calls have been made for more diversity, inclusivity, social engagement, and empirical research. These calls offer an important self-reflective opportunity for transpersonal psychology to face if the discipline is to become a thriving contributor in contemporary psychology, scholarship, and society-at-large.

Juxtaposed with these critiques, this article explores Cooperative Inquiry (CI) (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 1997, 2006)—an experiential, participatory approach to human research and learning—as one avenue to address them. That is, each critique is balanced with concrete examples of contemporary CIs that have addressed related concerns. Then, the strengths of CI, such as its intrinsically collaborative and transformative dimensions, are discussed along with its limitations in the context of transpersonal validity standards (Anderson & Braud, 2011; Braud, 1998; Heron, 1996; Lincoln & Guba, 2011). Finally, opportunities for future applications of CI addressing the prominent critiques are suggested.

This exploration is offered with a constructive spirit to spark both innovative thinking and practical responses to the enduring challenges facing transpersonal psychology. CI is, of course, neither the only nor a complete answer to these multifaceted challenges. Yet, the participatory methodology and values of CI—as evidenced in exemplar studies in related disciplines addressing some of the most pervasive challenges highlighted in the literature—offer a meaningful lens. At the same time, this discussion bears relevance beyond CI to other transpersonal research methods, participatory and action methods, transpersonal psychology praxis more broadly, and the overall self-awareness of the field. Ultimately, this exploration aims to stimulate creative approaches to promote greater consciousness, diversity, inclusivity, social engagement, and research in transpersonal psychology—not only to ensure the continued relevance of transpersonal psychology in the contemporary world, but also to help fulfil the discipline’s commitment to social, environmental, and spiritual flourishing.

Cooperative Inquiry: History and Methodology in a Transpersonal Context

            A brief overview of the CI methodology, its origins, and historic connections with transpersonal psychology, provides an important foundation for a deeper analysis of contemporary challenges facing the field and the suitability of CI as a response. CI is an experiential, participatory approach to research and learning about any aspect of human experience (Heron, 1996). In its full form,[iii] CI is participatory at all levels—from the selection of inquiry focus, to research design, and meaning making. The method has been described by its founder John Heron and his collaborator Peter Reason as research with people rather than on or about them (e.g., Heron & Reason, 1986, 1997, 2006, 2008). In this approach, a small group of co-inquirers engage in repeated cycles of action and reflection (typically 5-8 cycles) to elucidate a particular inquiry domain or question. Beyond the basic cycling of collaboratively determined actions, reflection on those actions, planning for the next action cycle, and so on, the methodology is open to all human faculties (e.g., mental intellect, emotional intelligence, intuition, embodied knowing) and inquiry tools (e.g., contemplative, interpersonal, creative-expressive practices) during the action phases. An extended epistemology (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 1997, 2008) is recognized and employed, including conceptual/propositional (statements about the nature of reality), imaginal/presentational (creative expression), and practical (skills and abilities) knowledge, grounded in experiential (direct personal experience) knowledge. Because of the highly participatory nature of CI design and implementation, it is difficult to generalize the inquiry process, which is best understood by looking to examples like the ones discussed below.[iv] This being said, CI typically progresses through three phases: (a) initiation, (b) action-reflection cycling, and (c) overarching meaning making—with attention to the inquiry validity throughout (see Table 1). Under optimal conditions, CI in any domain engages the interplay of autonomy and cooperation, thus fostering the capacity for authentic relationship among individuals united by a shared concern. Importantly, the ultimate goal of CI is not to provide informational outcomes alone, but to facilitate transformational outcomes that support human flourishing in an interconnected, living Cosmos (Heron, 1996).

The foundational seeds of the method emerged concurrently with the origins of transpersonal psychology in the late 1960s (Heron, 1970, 1971, 1996). Both CI and transpersonal psychology affirmed an expanded vision of human nature that includes spirituality and the larger systems in which humanity is a part (e.g., Heron, 1996; Maslow, 1969; Sutich, 1968). The first formal cooperative inquiries took place within groups of co-counselors (Heron & Reason, 1981, 1982)

Table 1   Cooperative Inquiry Process Outline
Phases	Main Tasks
1. Initiation	Establish the inquiry group (typically 6-12 people) Introduce co-inquirers to the method—led by initiating co-inquirer(s)      educated about or experienced with the method  Determine group guidelines (e.g., confidentiality, openness, mutual care) Refine inquiry purpose/question Plan for collaborative decision making Reflection phase 1 on the inquiry domain and to determine first action
2. Action-Reflection Cycling	Conduct actions to gather experience and insight into the inquiry domain Reflect on action phases and integrate learning into subsequent actions Immerse in the inquiry Periodically, attend to the quality of the inquiry, collaboration, and     emotional/interpersonal dimensions Collect data in the form(s) optimal for inquiry purpose (e.g., audio recording,        reflective writing, notes, art) Repeat for a minimum of 5-8 cycles or until a satisfactory outcome is reached
3. Overarching Meaning Making	Collaborative reflection on the inquiry process and outcomes Address informative/conceptual as well as transformative outcomes Engage in validity procedures (e.g., employ a Devil’s advocate to challenge      accepted claims) Conduct further data analysis and reporting (i.e., optionally engaged by      initiating and/or self-selecting co-inquirers) Invite feedback from all co-inquirers and integrate into the final written report

(synthesized from descriptions in Heron, 1996)

and among doctors exploring “whole person medicine” (Heron & Reason, 1984, 1985). After this, CI gained momentum in two directions: following John Heron into an independent research career predominantly focused on psychospiritual inquiry and with Peter Reason—as director of the Center for Action Research at the University of Bath—into various domains of professional practice (Heron, 1996). Beyond these founding applications of CI in transpersonal studies and professional practice, the method has been applied in a variety of disciplines including medicine (e.g., Jenkins, 2007; Trollvik et al., 2013), education (e.g., Kasl & Yorks, 2002; Ospina et al., 2008), social change (e.g., Paxton, 2003; Scher, 2007; Tuazon-McCheyne, 2010), psychology (e.g., Van Lith, 2014), and spirituality (e.g., Heron & Lahood, 2008; Rubinart et al., 2016). However, given the founding emphasis on psychospiritual domains, application of CI in transpersonal psychology has been relatively limited, with no published inquiries in the main journals of transpersonal psychology to date.[v]Notably, this absence is due to change with a forthcoming monograph of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies focused on participatory research methods (Sohmer, in press).

In parallel, transpersonal psychology has grown and evolved with some scholars (Dale, 2014; Daniels, 2005; Lahood, 2007a, 2010a; Tarnas, 2001) drawing attention to the participatory turn (Ferrer, 2002, 2008, 2017; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008; Hartelius & Ferrer, 2013)—which shares fundamental values with the participatory ethos of CI (Heron, 1996)—as a significant shift in the field. Although it may be premature to determine whether the participatory turn in fact constitutes a paradigm shift in transpersonal psychology or is more accurately an increasingly popular orientationor network of perspectives (Ferrer, 2017), the distinctions identified between these proposed eras are informative (see Hartelius, Harrahy et al. [2017] for a discussion of “second wave transpersonalism”). Briefly, the first era emphasized expanded human experiences from a predominantly neo-perennialist lens (i.e., drawing on perennial philosophy [e.g., Huxley, 1945] and assuming a universal spiritual Truth variously expressed by the worlds wisdom traditions; e.g., Cortright, 1997; Grof, 1998; Wilber, 1975, 1980). Meanwhile, the second era has been characterized by increasing recognition of the cocreative—or participatory—nature of reality, empowering the premise of ontological pluralism (i.e., the potential coexistence of multiple divergent spiritual realities; Ferrer, 2002, 2017), as well as emphasizing radical relatedness (i.e., inextricability of parts and whole in a living system and the intersubjective domain that arises between individuals and groups; Hartelius, 2016; Lahood, 2010a, b). Allied in some ways with feminist and multicultural perspectives, the participatory perspective recognizes the importance of the larger contexts—sociohistorical, political, environmental, spiritual—in which individuals are embedded and emphasizes the transformative dimension of research and scholarship. Concerns with the macro-level group, societal, planetary or cosmic contexts beyond the individual were intrinsic to the founding transpersonal vision (e.g., Boucouvalas, 1980, 1981, 1995, 1999) and are, thus, common to both eras. However, discourse and application in these domains has, arguably, gained momentum since the participatory turn within the transpersonal as well as broader cultural milieu. Furthermore, although the participatory perspective has been lucidly elaborated in theory (e.g., Ferrer, 2002; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008; Hartelius & Ferrer, 2013; Heron, 2006; Heron & Reason, 1997; Tarnas, 1991, 2006) and has brought important perceived limitations in dominant transpersonal projects into view, it has, arguably, not been fully actualized in practice (see Lahood [in press] for a practical exception). CI and participatory action methods, thus, could play an important role in enacting the participatory ethos that is becoming increasingly prominent the field.

In this context, some of the main features of CI that are especially relevant for transpersonal psychology after the participatory turn came into focus include the experiential, holistic, relational, and transformative nature of the method.[vi] First, CI is experiential in the sense that the method unfolds through repeated cycles of action and reflection in which all co-inquirers participate. Data collection and design of subsequent action-reflection cycles are based on the direct experience of co-inquirers engaged in actions that are collaboratively determined to generate relevant insight and transformation regarding the inquiry focus and purpose. It is important to note, however, that unlike the experientialist focus of the first era of transpersonal psychology (Ferrer, 2002), in which experience was held as a purely subjective human phenomenon, a participatory perspective recognizes the larger spheres of life in and with which human experience is enacted beyond the Cartesian subjective-objective split (Ferrer, 2002; Hartelius & Ferrer, 2013).

The second important feature for this discussion is the holistic nature of CI. That is, CI is holistic because the method acknowledges and cultivates multiple ways of knowing through the aforementioned expanded epistemology (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 1997, 2008), making room for contemplative, imaginal, and embodied knowledge. Also, CI recognizes and leverages state-specific knowledge (Cunningham, 2015; Ferrer, 2014, 2017; Tart, 2009)—knowledge that is accessible only through intentionally cultivated faculties, such as meditation or interpersonal practices. Because a CI can employ introspective, creative expressive, and relational practices as inquiry tools during action phases, the methodology is well equipped to grant access to, and generate knowledge within, a variety of states of consciousness. Multiple ways of knowing can be further emphasized in the context of CI if directly intended, such as in Ferrer’s (2017) method of Embodied Spiritual Inquiry (Anderson, 2018a; Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017; Sohmer, 2018).  

Third, CI is relational, or intersubjective, in that knowledge is generated through collaboration in action-reflection cycles, research design, and meaning-making. Importantly, this feature adds a dimension of validity beyond individual subjective research because confirmation between co-inquirers can provide a foundation to substantiate participatory knowledge claims (although not universal claims; see below). Finally, CI is transformative in that the inquiry experience in itself is intended to meaningfully transform co-inquirers and their worlds (e.g., Heron, 1996, 1998; Heron & Sohmer, in press). These features are elucidated further through concrete examples and a discussion of the CI method in the context of transpersonal validity standards (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Braud, 1998).

Persistent Critiques in Transpersonal Psychology

            Surveying the self-reflexive literature in contemporary transpersonal psychology, key challenges and limitations stand out. Although this discussion cannot cover the whole range of critiques, it focuses on themes that have been especially prominent and raised from both general and specialized perspectives.[vii] Specifically, I organize these critiques into three interrelated but distinct categories: cultural bias, social engagement, and research.

Cultural Bias

            As is true of any discipline, transpersonal psychology has been envisioned through the eyes of its founders and successors—eyes that are situated in particular sociohistorical contexts and culturally embedded bodies. Self-proclaimed to be the “fourth force in psychology,” the transpersonal vision sought to extend humanistic psychology to include spiritual and cosmological perspectives beyond solely human interests (e.g., Grof, 1975; Maslow, 1968; Sutich, 1968). Spirituality, thus, has been and remains the heart of the transpersonal project—defined broadly for the present purposes as the force and sensibility that connects humanity to the greater web of life. Stated otherwise, as Anderson and Lancaster (2017) articulated, “the critical feature that makes research, scholarship, and practice transpersonal is engagement with the Sacred, the sacred other that lives both within and beyond us as individuals and unique cultures” (p. xi; also see Anderson, 2018b). While the centrality of spirituality or the sacred has remained a constant, the ways in which transpersonal scholars have related to this dimension of human experience have evolved over time. Arguably, this evolution can be attributed to the gradual incorporation of diverse, often marginalized, perspectives into the main corpus of the transpersonal project.

This critical reflection—offered primarily from feminist (e.g., Brooks, 2010; Brooks et al., 2013; Louchakova & Lucas, 2007), participatory (e.g., Ferrer, 2002, 2017; Heron, 1996, 1998, 2006; Lahood, 2016), and multicultural perspectives (e.g., Gregory & Kellaway, 2016; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016)—has brought attention to the position that the founding theoretical basis of transpersonal psychology is imbued with a Western, patriarchal bias.[viii] As Hocoy (2016) pointed out, “Western academic transpersonal theory derives from a specific historical context and set of values and constructions that are distinctly Euro-American in origin. As such, they implicitly favor and perpetuate a Western worldview in their articulation” (p. 33). More specifically, the dominant theoretical perspectives in the early transpersonal field carry assumptions that privilege mainstream Western epistemologies (Cunningham, 2015; Ferrer, 2014); “masculine”[ix] and rational approaches, an idealization of nondual—predominantly patriarchal (Heron, 1998)—Eastern traditions (i.e., xenophilia; Friedman, 2009); and a corresponding subtle demotion of perspectives outside of this norm. Individualistic, authoritarian, transcendence-privileging, and “culturally blind” (Hocoy, 2016, p. 35) tendencies are concomitant with this stance. For example, attempts to organize the cosmologies and values of diverse spiritual traditions within hierarchical schemas that assume a universal truth (e.g., Cortright, 1997; Grof, 1998; Wilber, 1975)—without recognizing that such maps originate from within a culturally situated perspective—are empowered by this position. So too are the seemingly polar but inextricable propensities toward traditional authoritarian and New Age individualistic spiritual approaches in their less mature forms—providing dogmatic spiritual training on the one hand (Heron, 1998, 2006; Heron & Lahood, 2008) and promoting isolated, at times narcissistic, spiritual hybridization on the other (Lahood, 2008a, 2010a, 2010b).[x] 

Although this bias has been exposed, it remains in the collective shadow of the field, insidiously shaping the scope of the transpersonal project. As Clements et al. (2016) wrote, “Although transpersonal psychology has historically maintained values consistent with embracing a multicultural perspective, it has struggled to actualize these values” (p. 20). Increased awareness, thus, has not been sufficient to transmute the purported Western, patriarchal bias of founding transpersonal theory into more conscious, culturally sound praxis. Unpacking some of the persistent challenges to this effort paves the way toward its resolution. With interest in the prospective value of participatory research modalities, the present discussion focuses on the themes of culture and selfhood, diversity, and epistemic diversity as manifestations of cultural bias in the transpersonal field.  

Culture and Self  

Transpersonal psychology has been critiqued for tendencies toward “cultural blindness” (Hocoy, 2016, p. 35) or addressing people as “decontextualized individuals” (Brooks, 2010, p. 35). This tendency is most evident in the little attention paid to social positionality or the impact of power, privilege, oppression, and cultural influence on individuals and communities in the context of transpersonal research and practice (Brooks et al., 2013). Brooks and her colleagues warned against this tendency: “the socially constructed assumptions of a psychospiritual event rest in the knowledge, culture, gender, race/ethnicity, and society in which it is situated, rendering attempts to divorce it from its context ill-advised” (p. 619). Relatedly, Louchakova and Lucas (2007) argued that transpersonal psychology has been the only psychological discipline to avoid developing a theory, or theories, of a diversity-aware self. Despite notable exceptions (e.g., Daniels, 2005; Heron, 1992; MacDonald, 2009; Washburn, 1988), theory and research from a transpersonal perspective regarding the culturally situated self and personhood remain important areas for further development.

These entwined tendencies to avoid culture and culturally embedded personhood stem, quite understandably, from the founding mission of transpersonal psychology to legitimize human spirituality and the expanded, unitive states of consciousness that seemingly lie beyond manifest social conditions. Coupled with a perennialist lens (e.g., Huxley, 1945) and an emphasis on the transcendent beyond or ascending vector of spirituality (Daniels, 2013), the logic extends: if there is a transcendent reality that is ontologically primary—more fundamentally “real”—than the material world, then there is little reason to focus on the particularities of social identity and cultural context (e.g., Hocoy, 2016; Louchakova & Lucas, 2007). It is indisputable, however, that cultural influences and social positionality shape the way that individuals perceive and participate with the transcendent and imminent world (e.g., Brooks, 2010; Brooks et al., 2013; Hocoy, 2016; Louchakova & Lucas, 2007). Unresolved, this tension leaves transpersonal psychology in a bind: while arguably nonexistent without multicultural influences (Gregory & Kellaway, 2016), dominant transpersonal psychology has been driven by the ontological assumption that the transpersonal resides, somehow, beyond culture[xi] (Lahood, 2008a).   

This ontologically troubling stance suggests that transpersonal psychology as a field may possibly have been afflicted by a form of spiritual bypassing (Masters, 2010; Welwood, 1984) at the level of culture. That is, while spiritual bypass has been typically used to describe an individual’s tendency to avoid personal psychological or developmental challenges using spiritual practices or perspectives, a clear parallel can be drawn to the way the transpersonal field has tended to overlook culture, social positionality, and selfhood in theory and practice. Paradoxically, this move likely originates in the respectable aims of ego-transcendence (e.g., Daniels, 2013) or self-expansiveness (e.g., Friedman, 2013) that are central to the transpersonal mission. Nevertheless, the impetus to transcend self—and by extension culture—may be premature. Rather than fostering genuine growth along the dynamic vectors of ego-transcendence (Daniels, 2013), this approach is prone to the pitfalls of spiritual materialism that Trungpa (1973) warned against on the spiritual path—at times empowering a “spiritualized ego” that assimilates spiritual gains for its own sense of importance (see Ferrer, 2002; Walach, 2008). The common transpersonal axiom that “you have to have a self to transcend the self,”[xii] thus, can be applied equally to individuals on the spiritual path as to evolution of transpersonal psychology as a whole. Or perhaps, as Wright (1995) pointed out in an early feminist critique of Wilberian transpersonal psychology, this axiom could be reshaped to include both self and other—self and self-transcendence. After all—as Tarnas (as cited in Caplan et al., 2003) importantly reminded—in addition to beyond,“trans” also connotes through and by way of the personal. This more holistic impetus of the transpersonal project returns us to the intimate immediacy of culturally situated personhood.

Diversity

As both source and outcome of cultural blindness, there has also been a persistent lack of diversity in the transpersonal field (e.g., Gregory & Kellaway, 2016; Hartelius et al., 2007; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016). Specifically, there has been a lower than representative participation of women, people of color, and nondominant countries in the transpersonal literature (vs. participation in the field as a whole). The case of gender inclusion has been studied the most, likely stemming from the advocacy of early feminist critiques of dominant transpersonal discourse (e.g., Wright, 1995) and the relative ease of obtaining demographic data along gender lines. Hartelius, Rothe, & Roy (2013) pointed out the improvement of women’s authorship in this journal—the field’s main scholarly publication: up to 33% in the 2000s from 14% in the 1970s. However, 33% is likely still representatively low considering that women make up the majority in transpersonal psychology classrooms (60-80%) and receive approximately 75% of transpersonal psychology graduate degrees.[xiii] Relatedly, in a recent survey on the most influential transpersonal thinkers (Shewmaker et al., 2018) only two women appear on the list along with 15 men (i.e., 12%).[xiv] It is clear that the assessment made by Hartelius et al. (2007) in their meta-analysis of the field remains true and still under-actualized today:

There is no way one can have a fully informed understanding of the feminine that is within and around human culture without the strong participation of women. Nor can Western society represent human psychology without joining forces with the rest of the world. If transpersonal psychology is to stand for human wholeness and transformation, it needs to embody what it teaches: there can be no lasting human transformation without inclusiveness, nor holism without diversity. (p. 19)

Of course, the transpersonal field is embedded in larger academic, professional, and social contexts imbued with a variety of sociocultural factors that influence access and participation. Thus, it would be overly simplistic to suggest that transpersonal psychology could or should mandate representatively equal participation along social identity lines. Yet, without falling into superficial diversity imperatives, I support efforts to cultivate attention to and greater understanding of the causes and implications of this issue.   

Moreover, if left unaddressed, lack of diversity becomes a negative feedback loop that inhibits inclusivity in the transpersonal field. That is, perspectives in transpersonal psychology that denigrate marginalized voices as coming from a “lower stage of development” (e.g. Wilber, 1975, 1981; Wilber et al., 1986) or essentialize the feminine as “irrational” (as in Jungian theory; e.g., Jung, 1921/1971, 1928/1972), perpetuate Western ethnocentric and patriarchal prejudices (Brooks, 2010; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016). While discourse in contemporary transpersonal psychology has become more conscious of these assumptions, they remain intrinsic to many seminal transpersonal theories. For example, teaching the Jungian theory of the anima/us—the premise that the Soul presents in dreams and active imagination via contra-sexual figures imbued with gendered qualities—without exposing its gender-laden bias on the basis of Jung’s historical context is insufficient. Instead, it is more responsible—albeit more time intensive—to pay proactive attention to ways that scholars have lived this theory forward (e.g., Rowland, 2002) and continue to update Jungian theory to optimize benefit and minimize potential harm for contemporary students and clients (Hocoy, 2016). Brooks, Ford, and Huffman (2013) brought attention to other forms of sexism implicit in transpersonal theory such as the “generalized conflation of the feminine with the body” (p. 620) and the ways in which theory can reify the gender binaries that feminist, queer, and multicultural psychologies have thoroughly deconstructed. Lahood (2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009) offered related critiques regarding the notable lack of discourse on the transpersonal dimensions of childbearing and childbirth. While elaboration of the underlying historical and contemporary ramifications of Western, patriarchal bias in transpersonal psychology extends beyond the scope of this discussion, it will suffice to say that ample examples have been offered that warrant further attention. Although a parallel exploration of diversity along other lines of social identity such as race or socioeconomic status is not engaged here due to space limitations, this conversation calls for continued reflection, consciousness raising, and activism.[xv]  

The issue of diversity in transpersonal psychology is, thus, a critical wound—and, hence,a fertile site for healing—that must be engaged if the field is to remain viable in the contemporary world. Hoffman (2016) offered some important suggestions for transpersonal psychology to remediate issues of cultural blindness, diversity, and inclusivity. Specifically, he suggested that the field should question “unacknowledged biases within its theories, research, methodologies, and practice… identify aspects of its theory that are biased toward particular religious or spiritual traditions, particularly Eastern religions” (p. 228), and seek “out dialogues with multicultural psychology, peace psychology, and activist/advocacy groups” (p. 229). Reinvigorating early transpersonal efforts in these realms these tasks could be fruitfully approached using CI, as discussed below.

Epistemic Diversity

 Finally, concern with limited epistemic diversity and the application of multiple ways of knowing in transpersonal research has been raised (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Ferrer, 2017; Ferrer et al., 2005)—a challenge suggested by some scholars to be influenced by cultural bias (e.g., Ferrer, 2002, 2014, 2017; Heron, 1998, 2006).[xvi] Which ways of knowing are accepted as valid and employed in the construction of knowledge? Is there room for intuition, creative expression, and embodied wisdom in transpersonal learning and research? To be clear, I am not simply talking about the theoretical endorsement of the cognitive value of different ways of knowing (e.g., Wilber, 2001), but about the systematic incorporation of such epistemic sources in transpersonal methodologies and scholarship. In other words, while the value of multiple ways of knowing has been asserted by the founders of transpersonal psychology and contemporary scholars alike (e.g., Grof, 1975, 1985; Tart, 2009; Wilber, 2001, 2006), applications in transpersonal research remain limited in practice (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Sohmer, 2018). Experiential and participatory methods that employ multiple ways of knowing in learning and research may offer a key to enact transpersonal values in this domain as intimated by CI examples.

Action, Real-World Relevance, and Social Engagement

            A related but distinct critique of transpersonal psychology concerns the adequacy of social engagement and the applied, real-life value the field provides. Contemporary scholars have drawn attention to this disciplinary weakness, which stands in contrast to the prominence of personal and social transformation in the transpersonal mission (e.g., Brooks et al., 2013; Daniels, 2013; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016; Rothberg, 1999; Rothberg & Coder, 2013). Transpersonal researchers and educators have corroborated this point by emphasizing the importance of transformative outcomes in research and learning beyond purely conceptual or informative outcomes (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Braud & Anderson, 1998; Ferrer, 2017; Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017; Heron, 1996; Rowe & Braud, 2013). After all, if the transpersonal project intends to cultivate human flourishing in the contexts that contain the person—community, environment, and Cosmos—then action and social engagement remain critical dimensions of the work.

This critique has been articulated along two interrelated lines: limited action and real-world relevance in general, as well as social engagement and activism specifically. On a fundamental level, transpersonal psychology has been critiqued for placing greater emphasis on theorizing about transpersonal states and values than actualizing them (e.g., Daniels, 2013; Hocoy, 2016; Rothberg, 1999; Tart, 2016). Although the broad network of scholars and practitioners that make up the field are not all represented by academic publications alone on which such a critique is based, it is a widespread perspective—especially outside of transpersonal circles—that challenges the heart of the transpersonal project. Contemporary definitions of transpersonal psychology (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Hartelius, Krippner, & Thouin-Savard, 2017; Hartelius, Rothe, & Roy, 2013) all emphasize transformation and balanced attention to study and practice. Consider, for example, Anderson and Braud’s (2011) definition: “Transpersonal psychology is the study and cultivation of [italics added] the highest and most transformative human values and potentials—individual, communal, and global—that reflect the mystery and interconnectedness of life, including our human journey within the cosmos” (p. 9). To live up to such a definition, the vitality of the applied, practical, and transformative dimensions of transpersonal psychology become crucial markers of the health of the field as a whole.[xvii]

Within the broader critique regarding the applied value of transpersonal psychology, the adequacy of social engagement and activism in the transpersonal community has also been questioned. Numerous scholars have argued that transpersonal psychology has been underutilized—yet may be poised to play an important role in addressing—the social and environmental crises facing us today (e.g., Daniels, 2013; Ferrer, 2011, 2017; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016; Rothberg, 1999; Rothberg & Coder, 2013). Again, with a commitment to personal and collective transformation, transpersonal psychology is arguably incomplete unless social impact is realized. Thus, the persistent gap between the transpersonal mission and tangible contributions to it has become a growing tension.

While seemingly paradoxical, these weaknesses can be seen as extensions of the ideological biases explored in the previous section. As Daniels (2013) suggested regarding the contrast between the transpersonal commitment “human betterment” (p. 38) and persistent critiques regarding the real-world relevance of the field: “To a large extent this lack of social and political relevance may reflect the ascending-individualistic-narcissistic agenda that has dominated transpersonal psychology for so long” (p. 38). That is, factors common to a Western-patriarchal framework—such as attempts to divorce individuals and theoretical constructs from broader sociocultural contexts and placing focus mainly on individual spiritual attainment—may promote reluctance to assume an active role in social and environmental change movements. It is important to note, however, that overly individualistic, transcendence-privileging, or narcissistic trends by no means characterize the transpersonal movement on the whole with its much broader reach. In addition, these potential concerns have been recognized by both early and contemporary reflections on the field (e.g., Ferrer, 2002; Lahood, 2010a, 2010b; Walach, 2008). Accordingly, these potential disciplinary pitfalls remain important to track and continue to consciously counteract today. In addition, lack of clarity around the ways that transpersonal psychology can—and does—contribute to collective transformation may perpetuate the problem. Global transpersonal conferences, for example, have consistently included themes addressing social and ecological concerns.[xviii] Exploring the impact of these events, along with clarifying the means and intended outcomes of transpersonal social engagement efforts, would support the discipline to realize its original vision and potential future social impact.

In this spirit, clear challenges to limited social responsibility and engagement have gained momentum in the transpersonal community. From Rothberg’s (1992, 1993, 1999; Rothberg & Coder, 2013) propositions regarding social engagement from a Buddhist perspective, to feminist (Brooks, 2010; Brooks et al., 2013) and participatory arguments (Ferrer, 2002, 2008, 2017; Heron, 1998) to multicultural voices (Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016), among others—concern with the contribution transpersonal psychology could make to our global crises has become palpable. In their presentation of transpersonal social engagement, Rothberg and Coder (2013) articulated the necessity of bridging transpersonal psychology and collective transformation, positioning TSE as an “emergent” branch of the field (p. 626). Thus, with growing discourse elucidating the historical blind spot of social engagement in transpersonal psychology, the reality that the field will remain under-actualized if it does not grow along this the extending vector of ego transcendence (cf. Daniels, 2013) is now unavoidable.

Furthermore, beyond articulating the tension between the ideal mission and actuality of transpersonal praxis, scholars have proposed that the field is uniquely positioned to contribute to contemporary social and environmental crises (e.g., Daniels, 2013; Ferrer, 2002, 2008, 2017; Hocoy, 2016; Rothberg & Coder, 2013). As Rothberg and Coder (2013) argued:

[Transpersonal Social Engagement] is…arguably one of the most powerful resources that might help us as humans respond with depth to the main global practical concerns and crises of our times…such as ecological crisis…a high level of violent conflict; the increasing gap between rich and poor in the midst of globalization…the weak state of global government and the need for further development of global justice and global civil society. (p. 628)

Similarly, Daniels (2013) suggested:

Transpersonal psychology may yet have a significant role to play in helping to promote inter-faith dialogue, religious tolerance, and mutual understanding, as well as in seeking to tackle the wider social problems such as alienation, “moral decline,” rampant materialism, and ecological destruction. (p. 38-39)

Together, these voices affirm that the holistic perspectives and approaches of transpersonal psychology have much to contribute to addressing the global crises of modernity.

            While concern for the whole in which transpersonal psychology is a part should be motivation enough, it is worth acknowledging that renewed commitment to social engagement and activism would be beneficial for the field beyond altruistic aims. Finding optimal avenues for engagement will not only enable transpersonal psychology to contribute more effectively to world at large in line with the discipline’s mission but will also foster growth within the field. Namely, cultivating concern beyond the individual would ameliorate the narcissistic tendencies (i.e., expressed as hyper-individualism, pathological ego-inflation or deflation, or privileging of one’s own spiritual path over others) that have been substantiated by scholars in transpersonal psychology in particular (Ferrer, 2002, 2008, 2017; Heron, 1998; Lahood, 2010a, 2010b, 2013, 2016; Schipke, 2017; Walach, 2008)[xix] and Western psychology and spirituality in general (e.g., Caplan, 2009; Gleig, 2010; Rothberg & Coder, 2013). Reiterating fundamental transpersonal values regarding relationality and interconnection, as well as the complementarity of personal and societal transformation (e.g., Boucouvalas, 1980; Washburn, 1988; Welwood, 1984), Hoffman (2016) reflected:

The personal and the social are necessarily intertwined. Similarly, in transpersonal psychology, healthy development should not be focused solely on the individual, which can promote an egocentric or narcissistic approach to the world. Rather, the development of the self should lead naturally to a concern for others. (p. 227)

Of course, the reverse is also true: concern for others—mutually supportive collaboration with others—is the path to healing ourselves. Human core wounds originate in relationship, after all, and thus their healing must be relationally contained (Lahood, 2010b, in press). With Rothberg and Coder (2013) among others (e.g., Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016; Washburn, 1988; Welwood, 1984, 1990), I affirm the mutually enhancing relationship between social engagement and transpersonal psychology. Rather than chastising the field for standing idle when the rest world “out there” degenerates and deferring to moral obligation to inspire social engagement, it seems more viable to recall the inextricable connection between “inner” and “outer” in our all of our efforts. In this light, developing the social engagement branch of transpersonal practice can be seen as equally necessary for the wellbeing of the discipline as to the greater wholes—social and ecological—to which transpersonalists aspire to contribute.

Adequacy of Research and Scientific Status

            Concerns regarding the scientific status of transpersonal psychology and adequacy of research has also been a persistent critique facing the field. Scholars representing diverse orientations—from empiricist to participatory to clinical—have brought attention to the pervasive scarcity of research. Hartelius, Harrahy et al. (2017), for example, acknowledged, “In the first 40 years of transpersonal psychology, its two longest-lived journals published fewer than 100 empirical papers, which is not nearly an adequate foundation for a thriving subfield of psychology” (p. iv). Limited research efforts, however, apply not only to strictly quantitative empirical studies but also to all applied research modalities (e.g., Cunningham, 2007, 2015; Daniels, 2013; Kaklauskas & Randol, 2016).

The broader discourse regarding the scientific status of transpersonal psychology provides important context for the notable lack of research. As a holistic discipline interested in the frontiers of human potential, transpersonal psychology has struggled to establish legitimacy as a scientific discipline (e.g., MacDonald, 2013). Running parallel with concerns about the scientific status of psychology in general, the challenge is amplified by the way transpersonal interests often extend beyond the reach of Western empirical methods. Furthermore, internal tension between what Cunningham (2015) called the two cultures in transpersonal psychology—empirical rationalism and transpersonal empiricism (see also Cunningham, 2019a, 2019b)—has, arguably, diverted attention away from developing optimal transpersonal research strategies to an, at times, divisive debate regarding what constitutes transpersonal science.

In this context, certain transpersonalists have critiqued the field for lacking a       scientific basis, advocating for adherence to conventional empirical (especially quantitative) research standard. At the extreme, Friedman (2002, 2013) argued that transpersonal psychology should be established as a “purely scientific” discipline, relegating “nonscientific” matters to the broader field of transpersonal studies. While speaking to the undeniable paucity of applied research efforts, this perspective betrays epistemological and ontological assumptions that privilege Western empirical rationalism at the expense of other cultural and expanded epistemic modes (Ferrer, 2014, 2017). Reifying the classic science-humanities split, this stance undermines the natural bridge between spirituality and science that transpersonal psychology provides (e.g., Anderson & Lancaster, 2017; Cunningham, 2015; Hartelius, Friedman et al., 2013; Hartelius, Rothe et al., 2013; Ferrer, 2014, 2017; Tart, 2009, 2016). In addition, by placing greater restrictions on acceptable research methods, this approach would drastically limit the field’s scope to that which can be studied through empirical, preferably quantitative, means alone. Ultimately, such an attempt to restrict the scope of transpersonal psychology to strictly quantitative empirical methods would oppose efforts toward inclusion, social diversity, and epistemic diversity—all of which are being recognized as essential for contemporary transpersonal psychology to address (e.g., Hartelius, 2014; Hartelius, Harrahy et al., 2017; Hartelius, Krippner et al., 2017).

More inclusive and holistic frameworks to advance the quality of research in transpersonal psychology have been proposed as well. Ferrer’s (2014, 2017) liberal or open naturalism and Cunningham’s (2015) transpersonal empiricism, for example, both included possible subtle or supernatural dimensions in transpersonal inquiry and uphold the value of intuitive, imaginal, affective, and personal subjective knowledge, while simultaneously supporting the import of conventional empirical (quantitative and qualitative) research. Moreover, the growing body of transpersonal research methods (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Rowe & Braud, 2013) affirms that the path toward rigor may call for embracing not only established approaches, but also novel means to address uniquely transpersonal concerns. Without negating the value of empirical research about transpersonal phenomena, I hold open the possibility that transpersonal research methods may grant deeper access to the vast, multidimensional terrain of the field. Thus, I maintain that continuing to cultivate these methods will enliven transpersonal research efforts and ultimately enhance the rigor of the discipline while expanding the parameters of legitimate transpersonal science.

The attitudes and motivations that drive research efforts, however, may be even more important than the methodologies employed. As Hartelius, Rothe et al. (2013) reminded:

Whatever the research strategy, what holds transpersonal psychology together is a shared vision of the world as a vibrant, alive, and intelligent community. Whether it is the insights of the unconscious mind, the wisdom of the body, the cultural repositories built up within human culture, or the adaptive capacities of the ecosystem, a transpersonal approach understands that it needs to engage in inquiry with respect and humility if it is to win a deeper knowledge of the living processes that ripple through the world. (p. 18)

In this sense, the transpersonal research paradigm calls for congruence between transpersonal values—such as holism, interconnection, respect, and transformation—and the ways in which research is conducted. Attaining such congruence necessarily entails careful attention to the inherited ontological and epistemological assumptions of our research methods. As an agent of social transformation, transpersonal psychology has a unique responsibility to actively engage the assumptions regarding the nature of reality and valid knowledge implicit in our methods of inquiry. With this acknowledgement, I bracket further discussion of the optimal scientific status of field to delve deeper into the practical dilemma of bolstering high quality research within the transpersonal research paradigm.

At this juncture, it is useful to briefly recall that validity in the transpersonal research context expands the criteria typically upheld by conventional, positivist science (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Braud, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 1994; Heron, 1996; Lincoln & Guba, 2011; Reason & Rowan, 1981). Rather than being predominantly concerned with generating replicable, objective truth-claims, transpersonal research often deals with contextual, participatory knowledge—knowledge that is enactedwithin the relationship between researchers and their domain of inquiry (Ferrer, 2000, 2002, 2008, 2017; Hartelius & Ferrer, 2013; Malkemus, 2012).[xx] Further, beyond producing conceptual information (i.e., informational outcomes), transpersonal research aims to facilitate meaningful transformation, healing, and growth (i.e., transformative outcomes) among researchers, participants, and the research audience. In other words, transpersonal validity involves two interrelated dimensions: informative validity concerning the soundness or quality of produced knowledge, as well as transformative validity concerning the effects of the research on all involved. Keeping these two vectors of validity in mind returns focus to the transformative heart of the transpersonal project and the axiological directive—the underlying value and purpose—that motivates research in the first place (Anderson & Braud, 2011). In the transpersonal context, this underlying value extends beyond accumulation of information toward generating experience and knowledge that is potentially healing (Anderson & Braud, 2011), emancipatory (Ferrer, 2002, 2014, 2017), and supportive of human flourishing (Heron, 1996; Lincoln & Guba, 2011).

Contemporary transpersonal psychology, thus, stands together with the human community at an important threshold, called to face our limitations to find sustainability and, perhaps, new levels of flourishing in more balanced relationship with the Earth. Addressing the three strands of critique synthesized here—cultural bias, social engagement, and research—may offer directions on this path of maturation. Although these critiques are not exhaustive and remain open to deeper analysis, I believe that attending to them will support the next generation in transpersonal psychology to renew and actualize its mission. The CI examples presented in the next section begin exploring possibilities for practical applications along these lines.

Cooperative Inquiries in Practice

With the theoretical foundation of transpersonal psychology critiques established, I now turn to existing CIs that may illustrate possible responses to them. While there is considerable overlap, this review is divided into two sections with studies of particular relevance for cultural bias and social engagement respectively. All of the examples below address the issue of research scarcity, while a closing section regarding transpersonal science and validity presents a few more inquiries into classically transpersonal topics.

Cultural Bias

Insight into ways beyond the limited attention paid to culture, diversity, and selfhood can be gleaned from existing CI examples. While the following review does not exhaust all relevant inquiries in this domain, it aims to elucidate a variety of applications. In one way or another, all of these inquiries address dimensions of social identity within a Western, patriarchal context and the movement toward greater consciousness and skillful action with regard to them.

Importantly, CI has been applied to explore social identity themes on both sides of the power/privilege and oppression divide. The exemplary work of The European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness ([ECCW] 2002, 2009) and some of its members (e.g., Barlas et al., 2000; Kasl & Yorks, 2002; Paxton, 2003) have grappled with “white consciousness” in co-inquirer lives. Barlas et al. (2000) presented a case study about “how people with the power and privilege conferred by white skin used CI as a self-directed learning strategy to change their consciousness and behavior” (p. 26) based upon four CI groups inquiring about “the meaning and impact of white supremacist consciousness in my life” (p. 26). After an academic year, co-inquirers reported:

Increased capacity to be trusting, vulnerable and self-reflective; new use of language for conversing about race; increased knowledge about White norms; changes in behavior in work and personal settings; increased sense of community with White people; and increased compassion for self and others. (ECCW, 2002, p. 77)

Based on the outcomes of this ongoing project—such as a “new sense of community that alleviates the isolation, despair and guilt they have often associated with challenging their own racism” (ECCW, 2002, p. 73)—co-inquirers asserted the unique value of CI as a liberatory and transformative practice to address challenging issues within privileged social-identity groups (see also ECCW, 2009).

CI has also been used by oppressed social identity groups to facilitate healing and empowerment of co-inquirers. Rosenwasser (2000) asserted the value of CI as a practice for healing internalized oppression amongst Jewish women from diverse backgrounds. In addition, she emphasized the creative, multidimensional process and sense of community that CI fostered: “Cooperative inquiry’s holistic epistemology supported our sharing stories, art, movement, songs, cocounseling, poetry, theatre, dance, and Jewish ritual to access different ways of knowing, and to help us build closeness, community and connection” (Rosenwasser, 2000, p. 5). Another CI focused on the experience of marginalized groups was conducted with seven gay father couples in Australia who achieved parenthood through surrogacy (Tuazon-McCheyne, 2010). Exploring co-inquirers “journeys to parenthood” and “subsequent politicization as gay fathers,” the authors reported that “the cooperative inquiry process strengthened [inquirers] resolve to be intentionally ‘out’ in their communities to overcome discriminatory and conservative social attitudes” (Tuazon-McCheyne, 2010, p. 311). In one final example, a multi-group CI with “disadvantaged” women at four different YWCA locations in England and Whales explored “safe expression of sexuality and young women’s sexual health” (Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2007, p. 407). In a detailed account of the inquiry process, challenges, and merits, the authors highlighted the ways in which CI illuminated existing “power dynamics” within their hierarchical organization and issues regarding establishing genuine collaboration under these conditions (Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2007).

Engaging a feminist lens, past CIs have also explored the personal and professional experiences of women in typically male dominated contexts. One inquiry conducted with academic professionals working in a university context explored ways to “challenge the basic assumptions of the dominant masculine values in the organization” (Treleaven, 1994, p. 160) with the hope to illuminate “women-centered ways of working” (p. 161) and shift the organization toward including “diverse and integral spaces where women can work creatively and participate fully” (p. 162). A more recent CI conducted with women in high-level leadership positions in the United States explored “what it takes to create a shift in the discourse about leadership—from a heroic, masculine, often white view, to a more collective, relational and inclusive view” (Bronznick & Goldenhar, 2008, p. 2). The authors described the way co-inquirers examined these themes personally and professionally, concluding that, “Over time, this process created a safe context that allowed the women to explore a wider spectrum of how they think, feel, behave and present themselves” (Bronznick & Goldenhar, 2008, p. 11). Finally, focusing on the personal lives of self-identified feminist women in the UK, Riley and Scharff (2013) shared a CI investigating feminism versus femininity. They reported, “Cooperative inquiry allowed us to identify and explore in an in-depth way a form of sense making that had troubled core aspects of our identities in terms of what it means to be female and to engage authentically with the world” (Riley & Scharff, 2013, pp. 14-15). These inquiries illustrate various ways that CI can be applied to counteract patriarchal conditioning and cultivate new ways of being in both personal and professional contexts.

Social Engagement

Naturally overlapping with inquiries around culture, identity, and diversity, CIs have also explicitly explored social engagement and activism efforts. Inquiries in this domain include rural development and community work (Godden, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c), community mental health (Fieldhouse & Onyett, 2012; Van Lith, 2014), social justice leadership (Ospina et al., 2008; Yorks et al., 2008), art for social change (Scher, 2007), and ecological awareness (Fessenden, 2007; Maughan & Reason, 2001). Again, while these inquiry examples are not exhaustive, they illustrate a variety of social contexts of particular relevance for transpersonal psychology in which CI has been successfully employed.

First, in a series of CIs exploring the role of love in community work, Godden (2016, 2017a, b, c) presented three inquiries she initiated in rural communities in Timor-Leste, Australia, and Peru. Along with emergent responses to “the love ethic in international rural community work… a post-development approach that engages love to challenge structural inequality” (p. 56), Godden (2017a) offered reflections on the CI methodology and its unique features:

The data suggest that the [CI] research process was both empowering and rigorous, as it supported us to collaboratively develop new knowledge that was relevant to our work, and co-inquirers also learned new skills and information. Furthermore, we developed new friendships and networks and built trust with colleagues, strengthening local connections and solidarity. Importantly, the process also supported co-inquirers to experience personal and professional transformation. (p. 67)

These studies may be significant for transpersonal initiatives cultivating spiritual activism (e.g., Anzaldua, 2002; Horowitz, 2002; Sheridan, 2011), sacred activism (Harvey, 2009), subtle activism (Nicol, 2015), and archetypal activism (Aizenstat, 2009), as well as further exploration of love, compassion, and altruism in social engagement initiatives.

In the domain of community mental health, Fieldhouse and Onyett (2012) presented a combined appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) and CI involving inter-agency collaboration between mental health service managers, practitioners, service users, and community representatives to promote social inclusion of mental health services patrons in “ordinary mainstream community services” (p. 357). Fieldhouse (2012) presented insights into supporting social inclusion of mental services recipients gained through the study, while Fieldhouse and Onyett (2012) reflected on the participatory methodology they employed as well as the value of including “different ways of knowing” (p. 369) and the extended epistemology of CI to bolster community mental health research initiatives. This study demonstrates the viability of CI in community mental health and outreach initiatives as well as the possibility of combining CI with other complementary research methods.[xxi]

Focusing on social justice leadership specifically, Yorks et al. (2008) reported on six inquiry groups comprised of social change leaders, observing “remarkable parallels between CI and the framework of leadership that emerged from our analysis of the six CI reports” (p. 495). Scher (2007) presented the specific insights of one of these groups that inquired: “How and when does art release, create, and sustain transforming power for social change?” (p. 3). In this 18-month long inquiry, a diverse group of community activists and educators explored the transformative potential of art, discovered numerous ways that art can contribute to social change, and reported that their “cooperative inquiry inspired [them] to see new ways out of the dead space that organizing for justice often falls into” (Scher, 2007, p. 10). In addition, based on these inquiries and seven others conducted with social justice leaders, Ospina et al. (2008) explored the role of CI in ameliorating the academic-practitioner divide and reported ways in which the method promoted learning and connectedness in a professional school context. In all of these cases, CI was described as a process favorable for engaging meaningful explorations of social change mechanisms.  

CIs have also initiated efforts toward ecological awareness, sustainability, and activism. In a unique CI exploring possible avenues toward sustainable behavior and lifestyle change, Fessenden (2007) applied a participatory worldview to ecological education and personal transformation. “Grounded in the idea that changes in behavior that move towards sustainable lifestyles are related to how deeply we experience ourselves as part of nature,” the study explored what co-inquirers called “interbeing,” or personal “awareness of interdependence of human existence within nature” (p. xiv). While admitting that the inquiry remained in a “discovery stage” (p. 275) regarding the lived experience of interbeing after six inquiry cycles, the report elaborated the conditions that facilitate or inhibit interbeing. Relatedly, a CI conducted in a graduate context explored the “experience of deep ecology” and “activities and disciplines that aid its development” (Maughan & Reason, 2001, p. 3). The authors shared the journey that unfolded amongst twenty-four diverse inquirers as they lived in community within a natural environment for an immersive week, culminating with their realization that sustaining ecological awareness long-term requires “deep commitment” and “spiritual awakening” that may enable individuals to “treat the Earth as we would ourselves” (p. 10). As evidenced by both of these inquiries, CI is well suited to support individuals interested in bringing a social value—such as ecological awareness—to life. Although replication and longitudinal studies would be necessary to assess the broader implications of this work, the potential to bridge the gap between belief and action may prove significant. That is, in addition to charting challenges and resources for ecological and social change movements, these inquiries suggest that CI could serve as a supportive environment and mechanism for personal change, offering a promising foundation for future research.

Transpersonal Science and Validity

While all of the above inquiries address the issue of limited research, I offer a few additional examples that highlight classically transpersonal research domains. First, Heron and Lahood (2008) shared reflections from a long-term charismatic inquiry group in New Zealand exploring various facets of “the realm between persons where a sacred presence may manifest” (p. 1), including themes like “transpersonal activities in everyday life, empowerment in everyday life, coming into being, gender issues” (p. 8), among others. Beyond outcomes specific to these inquiry domains, Heron and Lahood reported that the inquiry process in itself supported “an intentional rebirthing of the spiritual potential within the basic energies of our embodiment” (p. 14) catalyzing a process through which “immanent spirit becomes manifest… as relational and situational sacred presence” (p. 14). Another psychospiritually-focused inquiry explored the experiential outcomes of practicing the Jesus prayer within a group of ten middle-aged Catholics (Rubinart et al., 2016). The authors reported that CI provided “abundant phenomenological accounts” (p. 139) from participants out of which they gained insight into the prospective spiritual benefits of the practice, such as “sense of calm and tranquility,” “deeper connection with their hearts and a Higher Source,” and “acquiring a ‘vital trust’” (p. 139). Finally, Ross (2008, 2019, in press) initiated a CI in which seven women who had recent experiences of life changing international travel inquired about the experience of integrating transformation and developed a model of such an integrative process. Each of these examples asserted that the CI approach not only offered generative insight into their respective psychospiritual domain, but also was experienced as intrinsically worthwhile, healing, empowering, or transformative by co-inquirers.

These examples illustrate several strengths of the CI methodology in the context of transpersonal validity. Building on the features of CI highlighted earlier—the experiential, holistic, relational, and transformative dimensions of the method—CI is aligned with the underlying transformative vision of transpersonal psychology. That is, CI in any domain can offer a transformative container in which co-inquirers grow along the specific lines of their inquiry while simultaneously developing capacities that enable genuine autonomy and collaboration in an intentional group (e.g., Heron, 1996; Heron & Lahood, 2008; Heron & Reason, 1997). While the lived experience and broader implications of this twofold transformation requires further elaboration, its repeated acknowledgement in existing CIs attests to the intrinsic transformative validity of the method. At the same time, CI can generate informative outcomes that can be meaningfully communicated to broader audiences when care is taken to document, analyze, and report findings. Moreover, the quality of these outcomes is bolstered by the fundamental features of CI. Specifically, informative outcomes are enhanced through the application of multiple ways of knowing (i.e., experiential, imaginal, practical, and conceptual), their grounding in co-inquirer experience, as well as through intersubjective verification of individuals’ knowledge (e.g., Heron, 1996, 1998; Heron & Reason, 1997). Finally, with all human faculties available as inquiry tools—including intentionally cultivated or expanded states of consciousness—CI is well suited for various transpersonal domains, from exploring spiritual practices or skills to facilitating personal healing and social transformation.

Methodological Limitations of CI

While the potential for CI to be used to address the challenges of contemporary transpersonal psychology is substantial, the method is not a universal panacea for all research initiatives in all situations. Arguably, the most significant limitation of CI is the time and energy intensive nature of the method, placing significantly more demand on co-inquirers than conventional research (e.g., Heron & Reason, 2006; Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2007; Rossenwasser, 2000). At the same time, when embraced, this very challenge becomes a source of validity. Lavie-Ajayi et al. (2007), for example, stressed the time, energy, and commitment required for their inquiry but concluded that this investment yielded corresponding gains in personal transformation and the vitality of research outcomes. Still, this methodological demand is important to bear in mind when considering the suitability of CI.

Beyond raw time, energy, and commitment, valid implementation of CI requires certain foundational skills, and, hence, presents a possible learning curve for co-inquirers (Godden, 2017a, 2017b). These skills include “Being present and open… bracketing and reframing… radical practice and congruence… non-attachment and meta-intentionality… [and] emotional competence” (Heron & Reason, 2008, pp. 12-13). Yet, as Heron and Reason (2008) pointed out: “The co-operative inquiry group is itself a container and a discipline within which these skills can be developed” (p. 13; see also Reason, 1994). That is, CI does not simply require certain inquiry skills as a prerequisite but can serve as a supportive environment for inquirers to cultivate them, along with developing other skills specific to collaboration and authentic relating—such as genuine self-expression, skillful communication, and mutual decision making (e.g., Godden, 2017a; Ospina et al., 2008; Rosenwasser, 2000; Ross, 2019, in press). Relatedly, there are challenges to establishing genuine collaboration, which is a fundamental requirement of a valid CI. This challenge is exacerbated when groups have significant pre-existing power differences between members, such as groups of teachers and students, managers and employees, or organizations and community members (e.g., Lavie-Ajayi et al., 2007; Sohmer & Ferrer, 2017). Consciously grappling with this challenge, however, can illuminate existing power structures and enable possible structural reorganization toward more balanced relations (e.g., Howard et. al., 2015; Lavie-Ajayi et. al., 2007). While these challenges to CI are important to be aware of, the transpersonal community is likely to be well prepared for the introspective, communicative, and collaborative skills that CI requires (Ross, in press).

Along with these basic challenges, it is worth restating CI is not suitable for situations where researchers are seeking objective or universal truth claims because knowledge produced in CI is necessarily participatory (i.e., subjective-objective; Heron & Reason, 1997) and contextual (Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017; Hartelius & Ferrer, 2008). While replication can be undertaken to expand the generalizability of CI outcomes to broader spheres when appropriate (Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017), this is not a built-in feature of the method. However, not having claims to objective truth or broad generalizability does not undermine the value of CI in a transpersonal research context. Again, as many transpersonal researchers have emphasized, the underlying purpose of transpersonal research is not purely to generate information, but to facilitate meaningful individual and social transformation, healing, and growth (e.g., Anderson & Braud, 2011; Ferrer, 2014, 2017; Heron, 1998).

Future Horizons

Building on the existing research in related disciplines, many opportunities remain for inquiries designed specifically to address the persistent critiques of transpersonal psychology. Inquiries could focus as broadly or narrowly on specific transpersonal challenges as desired by co-inquirers, while the holistic nature of CI ensures that any given inquiry will address multiple, if not all, of the critiques simultaneously. In closing, I offer my personal reflections along several branches of inquiry, offering buds of potential inspiration for future co-researchers to explore, refine, and engage in practice.

            In the realms of cultural awareness, identity, and diversity in transpersonal psychology, there are many ways CI could be applied. On a fundamental level, inquiries could investigate culturally biased assumptions in transpersonal theory and practice, undertaking a broad sweep of transpersonal perspectives and practices or focusing on specific domains. For example, regarding the aforementioned critique of the Jungian theory of anima/us, a CI group could explore co-inquirers’ personal experiences with Soul figures in dreamwork and active imagination to contribute a contemporary, experiential counterpoint to the existing theory. CI could also be employed to develop holistic theories of selfhood and continue to engage social identity issues. Along these lines, intergroup inquiries could offer potent opportunities to build bridges across identity differences and leverage the creativity inherent in bringing together divergent perspectives. Beyond intergroup dialogue—which serves to facilitate communication between diverse groups, often a group in a dominant social position and one in the target or marginalized group (e.g., Zúñiga et al., 2016)—joining together with a shared purpose and the curious spirit of inquiry could be a powerful way to bridge intergroup challenges. For example, inquiries into antiracism strategies among people of color and white individuals could be deeply generative and healing at this time, as could inquiries with women, men, and nonbinary individuals exploring paths toward post-patriarchal society. Relatedly, inquiries within and between spiritual communities could be fruitful. In this domain, individuals informed by similar or different spiritual orientations could explore diverse spiritual experiences and knowledge claims, or groups on opposite sides of a religious divide could inquire into harmonious coexistence, peace, and action in conflict situations.

CIs could also be applied to facilitate social engagement in transpersonal psychology. The emerging transpersonal social engagement (TSE) (Rothberg & Coder, 2013) movement, for example, would be well served by passionate individuals joining in inquiry to clarify the aims of TSE and develop pathways of skillful implementation and optimal modes of transpersonal activism. Similarly, the related spiritual, sacred, subtle, and archetypal activism movements could employ CI to optimize action and to promote resilience. In these contexts, inquiries into a variety of questions at the interface of transpersonal or spiritual orientation and activism would all serve as powerful seeds for CI. For example, questions like: “How do we bridge spirituality and social activism?” and “How does spirituality serve as a resource for resilience and strengthen the quality of our action?” are arguably low hanging fruit with mutually enhancing potential—whereby the psychospiritual resources and vision of transpersonal psychology can fuel genuinely transformative action, which in turn, will vastly enhance the reach and relevance of the field. Also, inquiries focused on environmental activism and restoration could explore ways to generate effective personal and collective responses and support individuals and communities to overcome fear, grief, and powerlessness in the face of environmental devastation, enabling appropriate action (see also Macy, 2003; Macy & Johnstone, 2003).

CI is also well suited to foster epistemic diversity in transpersonal research, open to multiple ways of knowing (see also Embodied Spiritual Inquiry; Ferrer & Sohmer, 2017), state specific knowledge, expanded states of consciousness (i.e., meditative or visionary states), and possible collaboration with nonhuman intelligences (see Dev, 2018). Inquiries of this nature could focus on developing diverse ways of knowing beyond the dominant cognitive mental mode or to leverage multiple intelligences in the effort to address the global practical crises of our times. Finally, there are countless other transpersonal inquiry domains that would be well addressed through CI—from exploring specific psychospiritual practices to integrating transpersonal values into daily life.  

With this exploration of prominent critiques in contemporary transpersonal psychology and CI as applied in related fields, I hope to inspire innovative thinking and practical responses to issues that have challenged the discipline from the beginning. At this critical time of widespread social, ecological, and spiritual crisis, the holistic worldviews and tools of transpersonal psychology are poised to be of great service. This potential will be bolstered if the discipline engages more thoroughly with the self-reflective and practical work of maturing toward greater cultural awareness, social engagement, and research. As demonstrated in the existing examples and future visioning, CI and related participatory approaches—with their holistic, experiential, relational, and transformative dimensions—may be a powerful resource in this effort. This discussion has highlighted numerous opportunities for growth along these lines and it is my sincere hope that some will be enacted in the next generation of transpersonal psychology.

References

Aizenstat, S. (2009). Dream tending: Awakening to the healing power of dreams. Spring Journal, Inc.

Anderson, R. (2004). Intuitive inquiry: An epistemology of the heart for scientific inquiry. The Humanistic Psychologist, 32(4), 307-341.

Anderson, R. (2018a). Frontiers in transpersonal research methods: Historical overview and renewed visions. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 50(2), 129-143.

Anderson, R. (2018b). Toward a sacred science—Reflecting forward. The Humanistic Psychologist, 46(1), 1-5.

Anderson, R., & Braud, W. (2011). Transforming self and others through research: Transpersonal research methods and skills for the human sciences and humanities. SUNY Press.

Anderson, R., & Lancaster, L. (2017). Foreword. In L. McMullin, R. U. Hess, & M.

Boucouvalas (Eds.), Metamorphosis through conscious living: A transpersonal psychology perspective (pp. x-xiii). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Anzaldua, G. (2002). Now let us shift… the path of conocimiento… inner work, public acts. In G.

Anzaldua & A. Keating (Eds.), This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation (pp. 540-578). Routledge.

Barlas, C., Kasl, E., Kyle, R., MacLeod, A., Paxton, D., Rosenwasser, P., & Sartor, L. (2000, June 2-4). Learning to unlearn white supremacist consciousness. In T. Sork, V. Lee-Chapman, & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 26-30). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia (ED452417). ERIC. https://files.eric.gov/fulltext/ED452417.pdf

Boucouvalas, M. (1980). Transpersonal psychology: A working outline of the field. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 12(1), 37-46

Boucouvalas, M. (1981). Transpersonal psychology: Scope and challenge. Australian Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1(2), 136-151.

Boucouvalas, M. (1995). Transpersonal psychology: Scope and challenge revisited. In E. M.

Neill & S. Shapiro (Eds.), Embracing transcendence: Visions of transpersonal psychology (pp. 1–25). Bolda-Lok.

Boucouvalas, M. (1999). Following the movement: From transpersonal psychology to a multi-disciplinary transpersonal orientation. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31, 27-40.

Braud, W. (1998). An expanded view of validity. In W. Braud & R. Anderson, Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honoring human experience (pp. 213-237). SAGE.

Braud, W., & Anderson, R. (Eds.). (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences. SAGE.

Bronznick, S., & Goldenhar, D. (2008). 21st century women’s leadership. Research Center for Leadership in Acton NYU Wagner. https://wagner.nyu.edu/impact/research/publications/ 21st-century-womens-leadership

Brooks, C. (2010). Unidentified allies: Intersections of feminist and transpersonal thought and potential contributions to social change. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 29(2), 33-57.

Brooks, C., Ford, K., & Huffman, A. (2013). Feminist and cultural contributions to transpersonal psychology. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 612-625). John Wiley & Sons.

Caplan, M. (2009). Eyes wide open: Cultivating discernment on the spiritual path. Sounds True.

Caplan, M., Hartelius, G., & Rardin, M. A. (2003). Contemporary viewpoints on transpersonal psychology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 35(2), 143-162.

Clements, C. J., Kaklauskas, F. J., Hocoy, D., & Hoffman, L. (2016). History, development, and contemporary perspectives of transpersonal psychology. In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L. Hoffman (Eds.), Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 9-30). University Professors Press.

Cook-Greuter, S. (2010). Second-tier gains and challenges. In S. Esbjörn-Hargens (Ed.), Integral theory in action: Applied, theoretical, and constructive perspectives on the AQAL model (pp. 303-321). SUNY Press.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R.

Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1,pp. 129-169). JAI Press.

Cortright, B. (1997). Psychotherapy and spirit: Theory and practice of transpersonal psychotherapy. SUNY Press.

Cunningham, P. (2007). The challenges, prospects, and promise of transpersonal psychology. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26(1), 41-55.

Cunningham, P. (2015). Empirical rationalism and transpersonal empiricism: Bridging the two epistemic cultures of transpersonal psychology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 47(1), 83-120.

Cunningham, P. (2019a). Scientism and empiricism in transpersonal psychology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 51(1), 6-27.

Cunningham, P. (2019b). Science and unity in transpersonal psychology—Part II. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 51(2), 176-197.

Dale, E. J. (2014). Completing Piaget’s project: Transpersonal philosophy and the future of psychology. Paragon House.

Dalton, J. C., Eberhardt, D. M., Bracken, J., & Echols, K. (2006). Inward journeys: Forms and patterns of college student spirituality. Journal of College and Character, 7(8), 1-22.

Daniels, M. (2005). Shadow, self, spirit: Essays in transpersonal psychology. Imprint Academic.

Daniels, M. (2013). Traditional roots, history, and evolution of the transpersonal perspective. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 23-43). John Wiley & Sons.

Davis, D. M., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy, 48(2), 198-208.

Dev, L. (2018). Plant Knowledges: Indigenous approaches and interspecies listening toward decolonizing Ayahuasca research. In B. C. Labate & C. Cavnar (Eds.), Plant medicines, healing and psychedelic science: Cultural perspectives (pp. 185-204). Springer, Cham.

Duerr, M., Zajonc, A., & Dana, D. (2003). Survey of transformative and spiritual dimensions of higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 177-211.

Engler, J. (1984). Therapeutic aims in psychotherapy and meditation: Developmental stages in the representation of self. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1), 25-61.

European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness. (2002). A multiple-group inquiry into whiteness. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(94), 73-82.

European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness. (2009). In Challenging racism in self and others: Transformative learning as a living practice. In J. Mezirow, E. W. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace and higher education (pp. 262-267). Jossey-Bass.

Eurotas. (2019). 20th Eurotas conference – European transpersonal conference, Paris. Eurotas. https://www.eurotas2019.com/en

Ferrer, J. N. (2000). The perennial philosophy revisited. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 32(1), 7-30.

Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of human spirituality. SUNY Press.

Ferrer, J. N. (2008). Spiritual knowing as participatory enaction: An answer to the question of religious pluralism. In J. N. Ferrer & J. H. Sherman (Eds.), The participatory turn: Spirituality, mysticism, religious studies (pp. 135-169). SUNY Press.

Ferrer, J. N. (2011). Participatory spirituality and transpersonal theory: A ten-year retrospective. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 43(1), 1–34.

Ferrer, J. N. (2014). Transpersonal psychology, science, and the supernatural. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 46(2), 152-186.

Ferrer, J. N. (2017). Participation and the mystery: Transpersonal essays in psychology, education, and religion. SUNY Press.

Ferrer, J. N., Romero, M. T., & Albareda, R. V. (2005). Integral transformative education: A participatory proposal. The Journal of Transformative Education 3(4), 306-330.

Ferrer, J. N., & Sherman, J. H. (Eds.). (2008). The participatory turn: Spirituality, mysticism, religious studies. SUNY Press.

Ferrer, J. N., & Sohmer, O. R. (2017). A radical approach to second-person contemplative education. In O. Gunnlaugson, E. Sarath, H. Bai, & C. Scott, (Eds.), The intersubjective turn: Theoretical approaches to contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines (pp. 15-35). SUNY Press.

Fessenden, L. (2007). On the way to interbeing: A cooperative inquiry. (Publication No. 3296095) [Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies]. ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global.

Fieldhouse, J., & Onyett, S. (2012). Community mental health and social exclusion: Working appreciatively towards inclusion. Action Research, 10(4), 356-372.

Friedman, H. (2002). Transpersonal psychology as a scientific field. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 21(1), 175-187.

Friedman, H. L. (2009). Xenophilia as a cultural trap: Bridging the gap between transpersonal psychology and religious/spiritual traditions. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28(1), 107–111.

Friedman, H. L. (2013). The role of science in transpersonal psychology: The advantages of middle-range theory. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 300–311). John Wiley & Sons.

Friedman, H. L., & Hartelius, G. (2013). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Freinacht, H. (2017). The listening society: A metamodern guide to politics book one. Metamoderna.

Gleig, A. (2010). The culture of narcissism revisited: Transformations of narcissism in contemporary psychospirituality. Pastoral Psychology, 59(1), 79-91.

Godden, N. J. (2016). Love in community work in rural Timor-Leste: A co-operative inquiry for a participatory framework of practice. Community Development Journal, 53(1), 78-98.

Godden, N. J. (2017a). The participation imperative in co-operative inquiry: Personal reflections of an initiating researcher. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30(1), 1–18.

Godden, N. J. (2017b). Community work research through co-operative inquiry in Timor-Leste, Australia and Peru: Insights into process. Systemic Practice Action Research, 31(1), 55-73.

Godden, N. J. (2017c). Co-operative inquiry about love using narrative, performative and visual methods. Qualitative Research, 17(1), 75-94.

Gregory, K., & Kellaway, J. A. (2016). Reconciling identity, oppression, and the transpersonal.

In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L. Hoffman (Eds.), Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 179-190). University Professors Press.

Grof, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious: Observations from LSD Research. Viking.

Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the brain: Birth, death, and transcendence in psychotherapy. SUNY Press.

Grof, S. (1998). The cosmic game: Explorations of the frontiers of human consciousness. SUNY Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. SAGE.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). SAGE.

Hagen, I., & Nayar, U. S. (2014). Yoga for children and young people’s mental health and well-being: Research review and reflections on the mental health potentials of yoga. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5, 35.

Hartelius, G. (2014). The imperative for diversity in a transpersonal psychology of the whole person. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 33(2), iii–iv.

Hartelius, G. (2016). Participatory transpersonalism: Transformative relational process, not the structure of ultimate reality. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 35(1), iii-ix.

Hartelius, G., Caplan, M., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology: Defining the past, divining the future. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 135–160. 

Hartelius, G., & Ferrer, J. N. (2013). Transpersonal philosophy: The participatory turn. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 187–202). John Wiley & Sons.

Hartelius, G., Friedman, H. L., & Pappas, J. D. (2013). Calling to a spiritual psychology: Should transpersonal psychology convert? In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 44-61). John Wiley & Sons.

Hartelius, G., Harrahy, M., Crouch, C., Adler, H., Thouin, M., Stamp, G., & Pardo, S. (2017). [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Second wave transpersonal psychology: Embodied, embedded, diverse, transforming. Department of Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, School of Consciousness and Transformation, California Institute for Integral Studies.  

Hartelius, G., Krippner, S., & Thouin-Savard, M. I. (2017). Transpersonal and psychology: An experiment in inclusivity and rigor (Editor’s Introduction). International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 36(1), pp. iii-vi.

Hartelius, G., Rothe, G., & Roy, P. J. (2013). A brand from the burning: Defining transpersonal psychology. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 3-22). John Wiley & Sons.

Hartelius, G., Thouin-Savard, M. I., & Richards Crouch, C. (2018). Rigor in the multicultural psychology of the whole person: Embracing the challenge. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 37(1), pp. iii–vii.

Harvey, A. (2009). The hope: A guide to sacred activism. Hay House.

Heron, J. (1970). The phenomenology of social encounter: The gaze. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 31(2), 243-264.

Heron, J. (1971). Experience and method: An inquiry into the concept of experiential research. Human Potential Research Project. University of Surrey.

Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood: Psychology in another key. SAGE.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. SAGE.

Heron, J. (1998). Sacred Science: Person-centered inquiry into the spiritual and the subtle. PCCS Books.

Heron, J. (2006). Participatory spirituality: A farewell to authoritarian religion. Lulu Press.

Heron, J. (2018). Humanism the fourth wave. In R. House, D. Kalisch, & J. Maidman (Eds.), Humanistic psychology: Current trends, future prospects (2nd ed., pp. 269-281). Routledge.

Heron, J., & Lahood, G. (2008). Charismatic inquiry in concert: Action research in the realm of the between. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 439-449). SAGE.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1981). Co-counselling: An experiential inquiry. Human Potential Research Project. University of Surrey.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1982). Co-counselling: An experiential inquiry 2. Human Potential Research Project. University of Surrey.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1984). New paradigm research and whole person medicine. The British Journal of Holistic Medicine, 1(1), 123-134.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1985). Whole person medicine: A co-operative inquiry.British Postgraduate Medical Federation.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1986). Research with people. Person-centered Review, 4(1), 456-476.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274-294.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 144-154). SAGE.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2008). Extending epistemology within a co-operative inquiry. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 366-380). SAGE.

Heron, J., & Sohmer, O. (in press). An interview with John Heron: Exploring the interface between cooperative inquiry and transpersonal studies. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.    

Hocoy, D. (2016).Transpersonal psychology in the age of ISIS: The role of culture, social action, and personal transformation. In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L.

Hoffman (Eds.), Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 31-44). University Professors Press.

Hoffman, L. (2016).Transpersonal psychology, multiculturalism, and social justice activism.

In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L. Hoffman (Eds.), Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 223-231). University Professors Press.

Hollywood, A. M. (2002). Sensible ecstasy: Mysticism, sexual difference, and the demands of history. University of Chicago Press.

Horowitz, C. (2002). The spiritual activist: Practices to transform your life, your work, your world. Penguin Putnam.

Howard, A., Agllias, K., Cliff, K., Dodds, J., & Field, A. (2015). Process observations from an Australian cooperative inquiry project aimed at improving undergraduate student’s experience. Qualitative Social Work, 14(6), 776-793.

Huxley, A. (1945). The perennial philosophy. Harper & Row.

Jantzen, G. M. (1995). Power, gender, and Christian mysticism. Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, E. (2007). Using cooperative inquiry and clinical supervision to improve practice. British Journal of Community Nursing, 12(2), 63-69.

Jung, C. G. (1971). The psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G, Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 6). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)

Jung, C. G. (1972). The relations between the ego and the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 123-244). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1928)

Kaklauskas, F. J., Clements, C. J., Hocoy, D., & Hoffman, L. (2016a). Shadows & light: Theory, research, & practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 1). University Professors Press.

Kaklauskas, F. J., Clements, C. J., Hocoy, D., & Hoffman, L. (2016b). Shadows & light: Theory, research, & practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 2). University Professors Press.

Kaklauskas, F. J., & Randol, L. (2016). Empirical foundations of transpersonal counseling and psychotherapy. In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L. Hoffman (Eds.), Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 71-100). University Professors Press.

Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2002, Summer). Collaborative inquiry for adult learning. In L. Yorks & E. Kasl (Eds.), Special issue: Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning (pp. 3-11). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 94. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.54

Khalsa, S. B. S., & Butzer, B. (2016). Yoga in school settings: A research review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1373(1), 45-55.

Khalsa, S. B. S., Hickey-Schultz, L., Cohen, D., Steiner, N., & Cope, S. (2012). Evaluation of the mental health benefits of yoga in a secondary school: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39(1), 80-90.

Lahood, G. (2006). Skulls at the banquet: Near birth as nearing death. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 38(1), 1-24. 

Lahood, G. (2007a). The participatory turn and the transpersonal movement: A brief introduction. ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation, 29(3), 2-6.

Lahood, G. (2007b). Rumour of angels and heavenly midwives: Anthropology of transpersonal events and childbirth. Women and Birth, 20(1), 3-10.

Lahood, G. (2008a). Paradise bound: A perennial tradition or an unseen process of cosmological hybridization? Anthropology of Consciousness, 19(2), 155-189.

Lahood, G. (2008b). Worlds made flesh: Why we don’t talk much about childbearing or possession in transpersonal theory. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 12(1), 15-33.

Lahood, G. (2009). Secreting religion: Perinatal dynamics, ego death and ‘reproductive consciousness’ in childbirth. Australian Religion Studies Review, 22(2), 161-189.

Lahood, G. (2010a). Relational spirituality, part 1: Paradise unbound: Cosmic hybridity and spiritual narcissism in the “one truth” of New Age transpersonalism. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 29(1), 31-57.

Lahood, G. (2010b). Relational spirituality, part 2: The belief in others as a hindrance to enlightenment: Narcissism and the denigration of relationship within transpersonal psychology and the New Age. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 29(1), 58-78.

Lahood, G. A. (2013). Therapeutic democracy: The roots and potential fruits of a Gestalt- assisted collaborative inquiry. Gestalt Review, 17(2), 119-148.

Lahood, G. A. (2016). Peer reviewed article Love’s threshing floor: Sifting the participatory wheat from the perennial chaff in the transpersonal psychology ‘familiar’ to Gestalt therapy. Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 12(2), 17.

Lahood, G. (in press). The rainbow of desire: Seven-years practicing seven relationships in relational inquiry. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.

Lanzetta, B. (2005). Radical wisdom: A feminist mystical theology. Fortress.

Lavie-Ajayi, M., Holmes, D., & Jones, C. (2007). We thought we “knew”, so we “did”: A voluntary organization’s beginnings in action research. Action Research, 5(4), 407-429

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163-188). SAGE.

Louchakova, O., & Lucas, M. K. (2007). Transpersonal self as a clinical category: Reflections on culture, gender, and phenomenology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 39(2), 111-136.

MacDonald, D. A. (2009). Identity and spirituality: Conventional and transpersonal perspectives. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28(1), 86-106.

MacDonald, D. A. (2013). Philosophical underpinnings of transpersonal psychology as a science. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 312–329). John Wiley & Sons.

Macy, J. (2003). World as lover, world as self: A guide to living fully in turbulent times. Parallax Press.

Macy, J., & Johnstone, C. (2003). Active hope: How to face this mess we’re in without going crazy. New World Library.

Malkemus, S. A. (2012). Toward a general theory of enaction: Biological, transpersonal, and phenomenological dimensions. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 44(2), 202-223.

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand.

Maslow, A. (1969). The farther reaches of human nature. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1(1), 1-9.

Masters, R. A. (2010). Spiritual bypassing: When spirituality disconnects us from what really matters. North Atlantic Books.

Maughan, E., & Reason, P. (2001). A cooperative inquiry into deep ecology. Revision, 23(4), 18-25.

McMullin, L. L., Hess, R. U., & Boucouvalas, M. (Eds.). (2017). Metamorphosis through conscious living: A transpersonal psychology perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Nicol, D. (2015). Subtle activism: The inner dimension of social and planetary transformation. SUNY Press.

Ospina, S., El Hadidy, W., & Hofmann-Pinilla, A. (2008). Cooperative inquiry for learning and connectedness. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 5(2), 131-147.

Palmer, P., & Zajonc, A. (2010). The heart of higher education. Jossey-Bass.

Paxton, D. (2003). Facilitating transformation of white consciousness among European-American people: A case study of a cooperative inquiry. (Publication No. 3078796) [Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Wiley.

Riley, S. C., & Scharff, C. (2013). Feminism versus femininity? Exploring feminist dilemmas through cooperative inquiry research. Feminism & Psychology, 23(2), 207-223.              

Rosenwasser, P. (2000, June 2-4). Tool for transformation: Cooperative inquiry as a process for healing from internalized oppression. In T. Sork, V. Lee-Chapman, & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 392-396). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia (ED452417). ERIC. https://files.eric.gov/fulltext/ED452417.pdf

Ross, S. (2019). The making of everyday heroes: Women’s experiences of transformation and integration. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 59(4), 499-521

Ross, S. (in press). Finding our way to the precious knowledge, together: One study’s use of cooperative inquiry. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.

Rothberg, D. (1986). Philosophical foundations of transpersonal psychology: An introduction to some basic issues. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 18(1), 1-34.

Rothberg, D. (1992). Buddhist responses to violence and war: Resources for a socially engaged spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(4), 41-75.

Rothberg, D. (1993). The crisis of modernity and the emergence of socially engaged spirituality. ReVision, 15(3), 105-114.

Rothberg, D. (1999). Transpersonal issues at the millennium. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31(1), 41-67.

Rothberg, D., & Coder, K. E. (2013). Widening circles: The emergence of transpersonal social engagement. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 626-639). John Wiley & Sons.

Rothberg, D., & Kelly, S. (Eds.). (1998). Ken Wilber in dialogue: Conversations with leading transpersonal thinkers. Quest.

Rowe, N., & Braud, W. (2013). Transpersonal education. In H. L. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 666-686). John Wiley & Sons.

Rowland, S. (2002). Jung: A feminist revision. Polity Press.

Rubinart, M., Moynihan, T., & Deus, J. (2016). Using the collaborative inquiry method to explore the Jesus Prayer. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(2), 139-151.

Sanders, K. M. (2010). Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Focus, 8(1), 19-24.

Scher, A. (2007, Winter). Can the arts change the world? The transformative power of community arts. In S. Hayes & L. Yorks (Eds.), Arts and societal learning: Transforming communities socially, politically, and culturally (pp. 3-11). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No.116. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.272 

Sheridan, M. J. (2011). Spiritual activism: Grounding ourselves in the spirit. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 31(1-2), 193-208.

Shewmaker, G. M., Carrington, V., Hoffman, L., Kmura, N., O’Neil, J., Paige, J., Rathsack, J.,

Silveira, D., Sipes, G. S., & Vu, T. (2018). Identification of key authors & texts in transpersonal psychology [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal Psychology Specialization. Saybrook University.

Schipke, T. (2017). Narcissism, ego, and self: Kohut—A key figure in transpersonal psychology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 49(1), 3-21.

Sohmer, O. R. (2018). Interactive meditation as research practice: An introduction to embodied spiritual inquiry. Integral Transpersonal Journal, 10(10), 118-137.

Sohmer, O. R. (Ed.). (in press). Participatory research methods in transpersonal psychology. [Special Issue]. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies.

Sutich, A. (1968). Transpersonal psychology: An emerging force. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8(1), 77-78.

Tarnas, R. (1991). The passion of the Western mind: Understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. Ballantine Books.

Tarnas, R. (2001). A new birth in freedom: A (p)review of Jorge Ferrer’s ‘Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of human spirituality.’ The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 33(1), 64-71.

Tarnas, R. (2006). Cosmos and psyche: Intimations of a new world view. Viking. 

Tart, C. T. (2009). The end of materialism: How evidence of the paranormal is bringing science and spirit together. New Harbinger Publications.

Tart, C. T. (2016). The importance of curiosity in transpersonal psychology, in spiritual development. In F. J. Kaklauskas, C. J. Clements, D. Hocoy, & L. Hoffman (Eds.),

Shadows and light: Theory, research and practice in transpersonal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-15). University Professors Press.

Treleaven, L. (1994). Making a space: a collaborative inquiry with women as staff development. In P. Reason (Ed.), Participation in human inquiry (pp. 138-162). SAGE.

Trollvik, A., Eriksson, B. G., Ringsberg, K.C., & Hummelvoll, J.K. (2013). Children’s participation and experiential reflections using co-operative inquiry for developing a learning programme for children with asthma. Action Research, 11(1), 31-51.

Trungpa, C. (1973). Cutting through spiritual materialism. Shambhala.

Tuazon-McCheyne, J. (2010). Two dads: Gay male parenting and its politicisation—A cooperative inquiry action research study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(04), 311-323.

Van Lith, T. (2014). A meeting with ‘I-Thou’: Exploring the intersection between mental health recovery and art making through a co-operative inquiry. Action Research, 12(3), 254-272.

Wade, J. (2019). Transcending “transpersonal”: Time to join the world. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 51(1), 70-88.

Walach, H. (2008). Narcissism–The shadow of transpersonal psychology. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 12(2), 47-59.

Washburn, M. (1988). The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonal theory of human development. SUNY Press.

Welwood, J. (1984). Principles of inner work: Psychological and spiritual. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1), 63–73.

Welwood, J. (1990). Intimate relationship as path. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 22(1), 51-58.

Wilber, K. (1975). Psychologia perennis: The spectrum of consciousness. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 7(2), 1-21.

Wilber, K. (1980). The atman project. Quest.

Wilber, K. (1981). Up from Eden. Doubleday Anchor.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, and spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology. Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2001). Eye to eye: The quest for the new paradigm. Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2005). Introduction to integral theory and practice. AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1(1), 2-38.

Wilber, K. (2006). The kosmos trilogy[xxii] volume 2 excerpt b: The many ways we touch—Three principles helpful for any integrative approach. Ken Wilber. http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/

Wilber, K., Engler, J., & Brown, D. (1986). Transformations of consciousness. Shambhala.

Wright, P. A. (1995). Bringing women’s voices to transpersonal theory. ReVision, 17(3), 3-11.

Yorks, L., Aprill, A., James, L., Rees, A. M., Hofmann-Pinilla, A., & Ospina, S. (2008). The tapestry of leadership: Lessons from six cooperative inquiry groups of social justice leaders. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 487-497). SAGE.

Zúñiga, X., Lopez, G., & Ford, K. A. (Eds.). (2016). Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference, social identities and social justice. Routledge.

---

[i] For the purpose of this article, I define “spirituality” as the force and sensibility that connects humanity to the greater web of life.

[ii] While this article invites renewed attention to the larger social and ecological spheres in and to which transpersonal psychology contributes, it is important to acknowledge that these areas have been a part of the transpersonal vision from the inception of the discipline (see Boucouvalas, 1980, 1981, 1995, 1999 for comprehensive reviews of the field). That is, the intention of this article is not to suggest that these interests are new within transpersonal discourse, but to reinvigorate dialogue and action with regard to them in light of our contemporary context and recent transpersonal understandings.

[iii] Heron (1996) differentiates between the full and partial forms of CI. In the full form, all co-inquirers participate in research design, data collection, and analysis whereas in the partial form an external initiator or facilitator remains partially outside of the research process.

[iv] In addition to the CIs referenced in this article, interested readers can turn to Heron’s (1996, 1998) texts on Cooperative Inquiry methodology, which contain numerous practical examples.

[v] That is, The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. Lahood’s (2010b, 2013) brief accounts of CI within a broader discussion of relational spirituality and his forthcoming account of a long-term Gestalt-informed relational inquiry group in Australia (in press) are the only existing exceptions. Note, Ross’s (2019) CI exploring the integration of transformation was published in the sister Journal of Humanistic Psychology.

[vi] See Ross (in press) also for a discussion of CI merits beyond the ones highlighted here where she asserts that the method is “effective, relational, holistic, transformative, grounded, and engages the transcendent” (p. 28).

[vii] From the perspective of certain developmental models (e.g., Cook-Greuter, 2010; Wilber, 2000), aspects of these critiques can be seen as deriving from the so-called pluralistic stage (i.e., characterized by relativism, epistemic diversity, and aspiration for inclusivity; located above the conventional/formal and below integral developmental stages). Although these models, and the relegation of pluralistic consciousness to a lower developmental stage than say nondual consciousness, are not uncontroversial (see Ferrer, 2002; Rothberg, 1986; Rothberg & Kelly, 1998), it can be helpful to further examine the underlying assumptions inherent to this type of consciousness, and perhaps re-evaluate the critiques from alternative types or developmental stages. Due to space limitations, the following discussion focuses on synthesizing well-established critiques, engaging this level of meta-analysis only minimally, and inviting deeper examination in the future.

[viii] This article employs Western, patriarchal bias as an underlying construct and critical lens to elucidate several interconnected challenges in the transpersonal field based on the construct’s well-established presence and function in contemporary transpersonal discourse (e.g., Ferrer, 2002, 2017; Heron, 1996, 1998; Hocoy, 2016; Hoffman, 2016; Lahood, 2016). It is worth noting, however, that a deeper order of analysis, perhaps integrating sociological critiques of this construct (e.g., Freinacht, 2017), might yield alternative perspectives that could challenge some of the transpersonal accounts of those Western and patriarchal biases.

[ix] Note, “masculine” here refers to qualities that have associated with masculinity in patriarchal context and are not necessarily essential to the masculine archetype in its mature or dynamic form. These qualities include favoring cognitive or rational thinking at the expense of emotional and intuitive functions (i.e., cognicentrism; Ferrer et al., 2005), overly linear modes of learning and communicating, hyper-individualism, and either-or binary thinking. However, I believe the “masculine” and “feminine” archetypes are ready to be redefined and experienced in a post-patriarchal context and participatory research modalities are well suited for this task.   

[x] Of course, this does not invalidate the emerging spiritual paths and communities in the New Age movement and beyond that employ authentic personal and relational spiritual practices to consciously counter these potential pitfalls of dogmatism and narcissism.

[xi] Highlighting the importance of cultural factors does not negate the possibility of transpersonal experiences or dimensions that may in fact transcend culture (e.g., nondual states, experiences of oneness, transcultural archetypes) on subjective-experiential or, perhaps, even ontological grounds. This question goes beyond the current discussion, which primarily aims to balance tendencies to skip over cultural influences in the study and cultivation of transpersonal states, values, and developmental processes. 

[xii]  The original source of this sentiment comes from Engler’s (1984) conclusion that “you have to be somebody before you can be nobody,” (p. 31) discussing psychotherapy and meditation from a Buddhist perspective.

[xiii] These figures are estimates based on demographic data about student enrollment and graduation rates from the Schools of Professional Psychology and Consciousness and Transformation at California Institute of Integral Studies, a leading institution providing graduate education in transpersonal psychology (L. Fon, personal communication, January 15, 2019). While a deeper, more comprehensive analysis of student and alumni demographics is necessary, it is expected that these estimates are representative of transpersonal psychology graduate-granting institutions on the whole. 

     At the same time, given various confounding factors (e.g., economic, social, psychological), exact parallels cannot be drawn between student/graduate demographics and ideal distribution of male and female authorship. It may be more appropriate to ensure equal access and support to pursue publication than for equal—or representative—percentages. Future research exploring interest in, and challenges to, publication among transpersonal scholars with attention to gender considerations is necessary to clarify this matter.

[xiv] These data come from a survey conducted by Shewmaker et al. (2018) in a collaborative effort led by Saybrook University. While the outcomes of a survey like this may be limited by the participant response rate and population (i.e., important segments of the transpersonal community that may not have been invited to respond), it indicates a vital area for further research. Note that, when taking duplicate entries into account, women accounted for only 3 mentions of 41, that is, only 7%.

[xv] It is important to acknowledge that diversity in transpersonal psychology is also limited by the exclusivity and elitism in academia at large, which is a broader issue not unique to transpersonal psychology. In this case, CI and other participatory methods have a unique advantage, granting access to a broader pool of the population who can be included and empowered as co-researchers. In this way, participatory action research may be a way to infuse transpersonal psychology with greater diversity and engage more diverse persons even if the academic field remains more heavily populated by dominant social groups.

[xvi] Situating limited epistemic diversity within Western patriarchal cultural bias does not negate the expanded and pluralistic epistemic models that have been developed in this context (e.g., Heron and Reason’s [2008] extended epistemology; Wilber’s [2005] Integral Methodological Pluralism). Arguably, these efforts challenge the dominant cultural mode. Building on the work of several feminist scholars of religious studies (e.g., Hollywood, 2002; Jantzen, 1995), Ferrer (2017) identified a prospective patriarchal bias in transpersonal ranking systems that denigrate feminine visionary forms of mysticism below nondual, monistic, and formless ones. See also Lanzetta’s (2005) feminist mystical theology for a critique of biases in the Western religious and scholarly tradition demoting the embodied mystical knowing characteristic of many Christian female mystics.

[xvii] It is also important to note that the applied dimensions of transpersonal psychology refer not only to the heights of human potential but to all facets of life (e.g., Boucouvalas, 1980, 1999; Brooks, 2010; Clements et al., 2016)

[xviii] For example, the most recent European Transpersonal Conference in Paris was organized around the theme “Being Human in a World in Transition,” with the majority of plenary presentations attending to the global social and ecological crises on some level (Eurotas, 2019).

[xix] See Walach’s (2008) article, “Narcissism: The Shadow of Transpersonal Psychology,” for an insightful discussion of the expressions of narcissism—ego-inflation and the Moses complex—as dangers on the spiritual path in Western culture and within transpersonal psychology specifically. For two other discussions of different aspects of narcissism in transpersonal development and scholarship, see Ferrer (2002) and Lahood (2010a, 2010b), respectively.

[xx] Note that there are contrasting positions regarding the assessment of transpersonal truth claims, with some  scholars advocating for the viability of objective knowledge in the context of transpersonal science (e.g., Friedman, 2002, 2013) and others proposing a larger number of epistemological frameworks beyond narrow empiricism and mainstream objectivism for the task (e.g., Braud & Anderson, 1998; Cunningham, 2015; Ferrer, 2017).

[xxi] See also Van Lith (2014) for a study blending CI with art-based research exploring art-making in mental health recovery and Lahood’s (2013, 2016, in press) discussion of Gestalt-informed relational inquiry.

[xxii] The Kosmos Trilogy by Ken Wilber refers to his plan for a three-volume book series. The first volume, entitled Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, was published in 1995; however, neither of the latter two volumes seem to have been published as coherent and unified texts, at least not yet. Stable “excerpts” intended for volume 2, however, are cited in many sources, and they are all consistent: The most commonly cited excerpts include Excerpt A: An Integral Age at the Leading Edge; Excerpt B: The Many Ways We Touch; Excerpt C: The Ways We Are In This Together; Excerpt D: The Look of a Feeling — The Importance of a Post/Structuralism; Excerpt G: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Subtle Energies.