Although JISCMail is not formally linked to EMDR UK, the following is a piece I posted there reflecting on important potential developments in how the Association operates and understands itself — particularly in light of President Kath Norgate’s recent email informing members that EMDR UK is considering joining the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) Accredited Registers programme.
That would place the Association alongside bodies such as UKCP, BACP and the British Psychoanalytic Council as an externally accredited register.
The PSA shift is not cosmetic. Moving toward PSA Accredited Register status is not simply a matter of reputational branding. It changes how an organisation must behave.
To maintain PSA accreditation, EMDR UK would need to demonstrate:
robust governance
transparent complaints handling
proportionate but defensible disciplinary procedures
clear and enforceable education standards
consistency of decision-making
demonstrable commitment to public protection
That inevitably shifts internal culture. An organisation preparing for PSA review becomes more risk-aware, more documentation-driven, more compliance-oriented, and more sensitive to anything that could be framed as deviation from standards.
This is understandable. It is what institutions do when they move toward quasi-regulatory standing.
A number of recent developments appear consistent with governance tightening:
increased formalisation of complaints procedures
activation of disciplinary mechanisms in relation to public commentary
decisions not to award CPD points for events led by clinicians who are not accredited in the UK or who do not hold consultant status here, even where they are prominent internationally
heightened sensitivity around use of the term “training” versus CPD
Each of these decisions can be defended within a governance logic. Taken together, however, they suggest a narrowing of gatekeeping and a tightening of definitional control.
The risk is not that EMDR UK strengthens governance. The risk is that governance tightening becomes ideological tightening under the banner of organisational responsibility.
There is a subtle but crucial distinction between ensuring public protection and consistent standards, and constraining legitimate professional discourse and developmental exploration.
If CPD recognition becomes contingent solely on internal accreditation status, irrespective of speaker standing or contribution to the wider field, intellectual exchange narrows.
If reflective critique of pacing, language, or integration in EMDR becomes vulnerable to ethics framing, professional dialogue may be chilled.
PSA accreditation incentivises visible enforcement. From a regulatory perspective, an organisation must be able to show that it investigates complaints, convenes panels, and applies standards consistently.
However, if the threshold for invoking that machinery is interpretive disagreement rather than demonstrable harm, misrepresentation, or misconduct, the culture shifts from developmental to defensive.
Innovation thrives where standards are clear and misconduct is addressed firmly — but where reflective challenge is protected.
If the balance tips too far toward compliance optics, senior clinicians become cautious, language narrows, and the field risks stagnation.
At a time when EMDR internationally continues to negotiate its evidence base, methodological critiques, and public understanding, we may inadvertently invest disproportionate energy internally in boundary enforcement rather than outward-facing research, training quality, and clinical refinement.
A mature profession must be able to tolerate thoughtful internal critique while presenting coherent external standards. Over-policing internal discourse can weaken rather than strengthen that maturity.
My own position is that I am not opposed to PSA accreditation. Indeed, in the past I have argued for precisely this step.
External governance assurance can enhance credibility, improve policy standing, strengthen commissioner confidence, and future-proof the Association against possible statutory shifts.
But governance strength must not come at the expense of developmental freedom.
If EMDR UK pursues PSA accreditation, it needs explicitly to articulate how it will:
distinguish ethical misconduct from intellectual disagreement
ensure proportionality in activating disciplinary processes
prevent gatekeeping from narrowing legitimate professional exchange
protect space for evolution within agreed standards
Without that clarity, there is a risk of ideological tightening under the guise of responsibility.
This is a cultural inflection point.
EMDR UK can become governance-robust, externally assured, and intellectually alive. Or it can become procedurally strong, internally cautious, and developmentally constrained.
The difference will lie not in the PSA badge itself, but in how the Board and its members choose to balance enforcement with openness.
That conversation is worth having before the direction hardens.