On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP

Comments on the book by Francine Shapiro (see record 2001-05049-000). I was fortunate to observe Shapiro’s concern for the principles of science in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). She insisted that EMDR be called experimental until after there was supportive peer-reviewed literature, limited training to mental health professionals, and strongly encouraged research. EMDRIA and its peer-reviewed journal have generally continued in this admirable direction. However, when an association is organized around a specific method of treatment rather than a problem area or a more general philosophy of approach, the question of orthodoxy must be addressed. At its best, orthodoxy ensures that practice is consistent with what has been demonstrated to be worthwhile, and all benefit from adherence. Also, there are aspects of the adaptive information processing (AIP), as it is described in the text, that are debatable and some that appear even self-contradictory. One example is Shapiro’s claim that the AIP is a “psychophysiological” model while also denying that enough is known about the details of psychophysiology to offer an explicit model.

Journal

English

Howard Lipke

Lipke, H. (2009). On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 3(2), 109-110. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.2.109