The adoption of a pluralistic perspective on research design, processes of data collection and analysis and dissemination of findings, has the potential to enable psychotherapy research to make a more effective contribution to building a just society. A review of the key features of the concept of pluralism is followed by a historical analysis of the ways in which research in counselling, psychotherapy and related disciplines has moved in the direction of a pluralistic position around knowledge creation. Core principles of a pluralistic approach to research are identified and explored in the context of a critical case study of contemporary research into psychotherapy for depression, examples of pluralistically oriented research practices, and analysis of a pluralistic conceptualisation of the nature of evidence. Implications of a pluralistic perspective for research training and practice are discussed. Pluralistic inquiry that emphasises dialogue, collaboration, epistemic justice and the co-existence of multiple truths, creates opportunities for individuals, families and communities from a wide range of backgrounds to co-produce knowledge in ways that support their capacities for active citizenship and involvement in open democratic decision-making. To fulfil these possibilities, it is necessary for psychotherapy research to be oriented towards social goals that are sufficiently relevant to both researchers and co-participants to harness their passion and work together for a common good.

In this reflexive case‐study, ‘Billie’, an integrative psychotherapist, and her therapist, Nicola, offer a coproduced account of Billie's lived experience of dissociative identity. Challenging the medicalised ‘fragmentation towards integration’ discourse, Billie, her parts, and Nicola coproduce a person‐centred ‘exclusion towards inclusion’ approach. The authors propose the term ‘plural identity’, situating the experience less as a disorder, and more as a way of being human. They present verbatim extracts of their therapeutic work, with parallel commentary and postsession discussion, to illustrate their developing, person‐centred and coproduced approach towards intrapsychic inclusion. They conclude that inclusion consists in unconditionally valuing three prevailing constituents in plural identity: the individual parts of self; the ecological system; and the differentiation between parts. This can result in growth for all parts, including parts that initially appear counter to growth, and allows the lived experience of the client to be honoured, not pathologised.

Grounded theory (GT) is a popular research methodology that has been used in various fields and disciplines. Its researchers face the paradox of their method being grounded in both data and theory, potentially resulting in researcher ambivalence towards existing knowledge and constructing “thin” or “descriptive” theory as a result. In this reflective paper, the researcher uses a case example of theorising the category “improvisation,” to explore the deliberate decolonial use of literature in GT. They share detailed examples of inductive coding, analytic memoing and abduction of the category. They describe a paradigm‐changing moment of realisation when they discovered their own colonial thinking towards this category and the subsequent perspective change that occurred when they attempted to “de‐link” from their colonial thinking and apply a decolonialised lens to their category. The work of Black and Indigenous authors enabled the researcher to theorise “improvisation” as a valid, transdisciplinary practice that lies at the heart of both therapy and art making. The researcher concludes that researchers intending to decolonialise their knowledge production should take a critical‐reflexive stance towards existing theory, deliberately seeking out alternate, decolonial ways of knowing, in order to construct more vital, convivial and emancipatory theories. They also offer a decolonial reimagining of therapy as a grounded, responsive, intentional and social improvisational practice, which is co‐created between client and therapist.