ABSTRACT
The clash between researchers and clinicians often is greatest over the utility of quite distinct treatments. Treatment developers and practitioners who are early adopters of these treatments typically find these treatments especially effective, whereas researchers tend to be conservative and look for evidence of special effectiveness. This chapter examines the hotly debated conflict that has emerged the impact of two such treatments: eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). The controversy over EMDR is, if anything, even more rancorous than the CISD debate. Introduced by psychologist Francine Shapiro in 1989, EMDR claims to resolve traumatic memories, desensitize stimuli that trigger distress, and teach adaptive coping skills. The major lesson for researchers in the debates, EMDR and CISD lies in understanding the mindset and working context of clinicians so they can better communicate their findings to those who should be their primary audience.
