Give qualitative research the recognition it deserves

Ratcliffe et al. (2024, JEP 93, Art. 102199) raise concern about the exclusion of purely qualitative research from JEP, as proposed by Schultz and McCunn's editorial stance published in 2022. We support Ratcliffe et al.’s call for equal recognition of qualitative work alongside quantitative work in environmental psychology. Our article aims to contribute to this debate by presenting five additional points that emphasise the importance of qualitative contributions in advancing environmental psychology research. Through illustrative examples, we demonstrate how qualitative methods can reveal overlooked aspects, empower marginalised groups, promote social justice, and adapt to dynamic contexts and sensitive topics. We argue that qualitative research is as rigorous as quantitative research and offers insights that quantitative measures may fail to capture. Embracing qualitative contributions alongside quantitative work would advance interdisciplinary dialogue, strengthen environmental psychology and promote a comprehensive understanding of human-environment relationships. •We share the concern about JEP's decision not to accept pure qualitative research.•Excluding qualitative work risks missing vital insights for environmental psychology.•It may hinder empowerment of marginalised groups and impede social justice.•It may limit the flexibility needed for analysing emotional and sensitive subjects.•Methodological pluralism fosters a more comprehensive and robust body of knowledge.