A Call to Action for Qualitative Behavior Analysis

Burney and colleagues wrote a position paper. They say behavior analysis needs a new branch that uses qualitative methods.

The paper lists big problems the field faces. It argues numbers alone cannot solve them.

The authors found that stories, interviews, and field notes could fill gaps charts miss.

They claim a formal qualitative wing would help behavior analysts listen better and stay relevant.

Burney et al. (2025) supply the call; their twin paper Burney et al. (2025) shows the struggle. In that second paper, behavior analysts admit they feel torn when they trade graphs for lived-experience quotes.

Jackson-Perry et al. (2025) extends the same reform spirit. They add autistic voices and push for Critical Behavioral Studies. Where the target paper asks for new tools, the extension asks who gets to hold them.

Levy et al. (2022) and Najdowski et al. (2021) echo the self-check mood. They target racism in training, not methods. All four papers agree: the field must look inward, just through different mirrors.

If you supervise students or shape training, start asking where qualitative questions fit. Add an interview assignment to your next grad class. Open staff meetings with "What are we not measuring?" These small moves let the field test Burney’s call without waiting for a new department.