Internal Family Systems (IFS) and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) are two counselling models that can bring powerful shifts in trauma recovery. Navigating the counselling field can feel overwhelming—especially when you’re trying to find the right support to heal from trauma. Some counsellors work with approaches that aren’t trauma-focused, while others offer methods that support meaningful healing.
Over the years, I’ve worked with clients who’ve tried counselling that didn’t work for them. That doesn’t mean they were beyond help—it often means the approach wasn’t the right fit or wasn’t applied appropriately.
Both IFS and EMDR can be profoundly transformative, but the best approach depends on your history, needs, and current state in your healing journey.
In this article, I’ll explain the key differences and similarities so you can understand how these approaches might work for you.
What is IFS?
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a parts-based therapeutic approach developed by Richard Schwartz. It’s grounded in the understanding that we all have different “parts” within us—some that are healthy and balanced, and others that carry the impact of trauma. Some parts hold pain, while others work hard to protect us from it.
IFS isn’t the only model that uses parts work, but it has gained significant attention in recent years due to strategic marketing. At its core, IFS aims to help people reconnect with self—a calm, wise, and caring inner presence that can support and lead the internal system. From an IFS perspective, trauma is seen as the result of parts becoming stuck in extreme roles due to what they’ve experienced. Mental health symptoms are viewed as protective parts acting with good intentions, even if their strategies create distress.
The IFS process focuses on building a relationship between the client and their parts. Clients are encouraged to befriend protective parts and gain their consent before working with wounded ones. If the protective parts are willing, the client supports the burdened parts in releasing the emotional weight they carry. In turn, the protective parts are invited to take on new roles in what IFS calls the unburdening process.
Conclusion IFS
While IFS can offer powerful insights and healing, it’s important to acknowledge both the hype and the limitations—especially when it’s promoted as a standardized, one-size-fits-all solution for trauma. I’ve worked with various parts-based approaches before training in IFS, and I’ve seen both the value and the risks of presenting any method as the answer. This is especially true when working with complex trauma, where the approach must be adapted to each person’s unique needs and pace.
Like any modality, IFS is most effective when it aligns with your needs, follows the principles of trauma-informed care, takes into account the type of trauma you’ve experienced, and is facilitated by a skilled and attuned practitioner.
What is EMDR?
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) was developed by Dr. Francine Shapiro. The goal of EMDR is to process traumatic experiences so they can be resolved and integrated. This reduced the emotional, cognitive, or somatic distress. It’s based on the theory that unprocessed traumatic memories are at the root of many trauma-related symptoms.
In EMDR”s view on trauma, distressing or traumatic experiences interrupt the natural memory reprocessing. Therefore, the brain can’t fully integrate the memory. Unlike non-distressing memories, which are processed and integrated step-by-step, distressing memories are often “hidden behind a wall.” However, the stuck memories behind the wall want to be integrated. Therefore, they come out if we face a similar situation in the present. We often don’t experience them as past events but as overwhelming emotions or body sensations.
EMDR uses bilateral stimulation—typically through guided eye movements—to activate the brain’s natural processing mechanisms. The EMDR process helps clients integrate traumatic memories and form new, more adaptive associations in the brain’s memory network. In doing so, EMDR can support emotional regulation, reduce physical distress, and allow clients to develop new perspectives and beliefs related to the trauma.
One of EMDR’s strengths is its respect for the client’s boundaries. Clients are not required to verbalize every detail of their trauma for effective healing. This can make it a more accessible and safe approach, especially when working with interpreters or in culturally diverse settings.
Research supports EMDR’s effectiveness in treating PTSD, and it has shown promise in telehealth settings and the treatment of complex trauma—when facilitated with appropriate pacing and attunement.
Comparison IFS and EMDR
Each of these models offers a doorway into healing, and the “right” approach often depends on where you are and what you need. In the next section, we’ll explore how IFS and EMDR compare—looking at what might help you feel safe, supported, and ready to heal.
Similarities of IFS and EMDR
IFS and EMDR trust in the client’s innate capacity to recover from trauma. EMDR ‘s perspective on healing is that our brains have a natural system—the adaptive information processing system—that helps us integrate difficult memories when the right conditions are in place. IFS, on the other hand, is based on the belief that each person has a core Self that is calm, curious, and capable of leading the healing process. From this perspective, healing happens through the relationship between the Self and the various parts of us that carry pain or work to protect us.
IFS is likely one of the least pathologizing models of trauma counselling I’ve seen. This is an important quality for trauma recovery. It sees symptoms not as problems to eliminate but as protective parts trying to help in the only ways they know how. EMDR, in turn, honours the memory itself. It doesn’t require clients to share every detail of their trauma out loud, which can make it feel safer for those who need privacy or are working in multilingual or cross-cultural therapy settings.
Differences between IFS and EMDR
These two models diverge more significantly in how they approach regulation and readiness for trauma work. EMDR emphasizes assessing the client’s ability to stay within their window of tolerance. This is an essential skill to process the memories with EMDR. Furthermore, it supports clients to build internal resources. This includes skills and tools that support emotional regulation and inner safety.
IFS takes a different route: instead of focusing on skill-building or nervous system work up front, it asks protective parts not to overwhelm the client. It assesses how much “Self-energy” is available to guide the process. While this can be powerful, it doesn’t work for everyone. For some clients—especially those with relational or complex trauma —it may take time (and additional support) to access a stable connection to self.
In my clinical practice, I usually offer both models as options and invite clients (and their parts) to choose what feels safest. This collaborative approach honours both autonomy and the body’s wisdom.If you want to understand what tools I may use in a session, check out the episode ‘Five Trauma Counselling Techniques That Actually Work’.
Missing integration of anti-oppressive practices
In their purest forms, neither IFS nor EMDR explicitly integrates anti-oppressive practices. IFS acknowledges intergenerational, cultural, and collective trauma. EMDR tends to be more silent on these issues. That means clients who are targeted by systemic oppression—due to race, gender identity, disability, class, or other factors—may be especially reliant on the individual counsellor to create an affirming, anti-oppressive space. It’s worth naming that not all practitioners are equipped to do this, which can be a significant barrier to healing.
In my experience, the IFS training I attended did not explicitly emphasize boundaries. However, boundaries are essential in trauma-informed care, especially when healing from childhood abuse or complex trauma. Boundaries are not just about saying no; they are about safety, agency, and the ability to make choices in relationships. Without a clear framework for understanding and practicing boundaries, clients may struggle to integrate their insights into real-life situations, especially those shaped by past relational harm. Furthermore, IFS relies on the concept of compassion which can be difficult to access for some people. Therefore, it can be useful to integrate other models when needed.
Conclusion of comparison
EMDR and IFS are effective stand-alone approaches for trauma recovery. For single-incident trauma, either model likely offers you enough support on its own. However, it looks different if people have experienced complex or relational trauma. In these cases, an integrative approach that draws from both modalities is the most effective approach for recovery. If you want to learn more, check out the article “What is the difference between trauma and complex trauma.“
For clients with complex trauma, EMDR alone can sometimes move too quickly. Therefore, they risk that their symptoms worsen if the protective parts did not consent to the EMDR process. IFS offers a powerful framework to transform your relationship with yourself. However, it may not always provide enough tools for managing highly activated parts or soothing the nervous system. Furthermore, it may not give you any skill building to identify toxic dynamics or set healthy boundaries in your relationships. In my work, I often blend both approaches. Therefore, clients have more choices and the healing process respects their needs and pacing.
Final thoughts on IFS and EMDR
I find that both IFS and EMDR can be powerful pathways to healing — especially when they’re used with care, flexibility, and deep respect for your pace. But no single method can hold all the answers. Healing from complex, relational, or systemic trauma isn’t just about “using the right technique.” It’s about safety, connection, and feeling genuinely seen for who you are and what you’ve lived through.
The more complex your experience, the more likely you’ll benefit from a combined approach. Sometimes the most important step is finding someone who can adapt the process to you — not the other way around. In my work, that often means blending IFS and EMDR so you have more choice, more agency, and more space to move at a pace that feels right.
