Second, because the volume of qualitative studies of mental illness and of experiences of recovery is steadily growing, the next logical step is to estimate how recovery experiences are linked with objectively measured recovery outcomes, such as employment status and the Recovery Assessment Scale (5), and whether there is a shared recovery trajectory. Currently we use an array of terms—for example, syndromal recovery, functional recovery, and personal recovery—which are often subjectively appraised by an individual to refer to different types of recovery. However, several unanswered questions remain: To what extent do these terms overlap, or do they refer to fundamentally different states? Is experiencing one type of recovery a prerequisite for experiencing another? Is one form of recovery more subjectively meaningful than others, and for whom? On the basis of Windell and colleagues' typology, does the psychological domain of recovery enhance the functional and social domains? How can findings about recovery that have emerged from qualitative and quantitative research paradigms be reconciled? These are epistemologically and clinically important questions.