In her critique of Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy, McAllen highlights the absence of research backing the model, contrasting it with the long-established cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which benefited from structured academic development. Only recently has IFS garnered attention and resources for formal studies, showing early promising results. Clinicians report transformative benefits for clients, especially those with complex trauma, advocating for continued exploration of the therapy while acknowledging the need for balanced critique amidst skepticism towards popular therapy trends.
One of McAllen's central critiques of internal family systems therapy is the lack of research behind it.
While I value rigorous journalistic inquiry and a critical perspective, I urge The Nation to approach coverage of IFS with greater nuance.
Skepticism toward therapy trends is both understandable and essential; however, labeling the model itself or those who practice it as exploitative misses a deeper point.
The early results of these studies have been promising, pointing to the need for continued investigation.
Collection
[
|
...
]