Reiterated Concerns and Further Challenges for Mindfulness and Meditation Research: A Reply to Davidson and Dahl.
Nicholas T. van Dam, Marieke K. van Vugt, David R. Vago, Laura Schmalzl, Clifford D Saron, Andrew Olendzki, Ted Meissner, Sara W. Lazar, Jolie Gorchov, Kieran C. R. Fox, Brent A. Field, Willoughby B. Britton, Julie A. Brefczynski-Lewis, David E. Meyer
Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science January 1, 2018 DOI: 10.1177/1745691617727529 (opens in new tab) via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe authors reply to a commentary by Davidson and Dahl, agreeing with many suggestions but emphasizing that their original concerns remain especially relevant to mindfulness and meditation research. They highlight the vulnerability of this relatively young field compared to more mature scientific disciplines, discuss special characteristics of research participants, and stress the serious consequences of adverse experiences that a significant subset of individuals suffer during mindfulness and other contemplative practices. They also scrutinize common applications of mindfulness and meditation to illness and introduce caveats regarding mobile technologies for guiding contemplative practices.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Commentary or reply Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Adverse events Questionable research practices |
| Key finding | Argues that concerns about mindfulness and meditation research remain especially germane, highlighting adverse experiences in a subset of practitioners and caveats about mobile technology guidance. |
Abstract
In response to our article, Davidson and Dahl offer commentary and advice regarding additional topics crucial to a comprehensive prescriptive agenda for future research on mindfulness and meditation. Their commentary raises further challenges and provides an important complement to our article. More consideration of these issues is especially welcome because limited space precluded us from addressing all relevant topics. While we agree with many of Davidson and Dahl's suggestions, the present reply (a) highlights reasons why the concerns we expressed are still especially germane to mindfulness and meditation research (even though those concerns may not be entirely unique) and (b) gives more context to other issues posed by them. We discuss special characteristics of individuals who participate in mindfulness and meditation research and focus on the vulnerability of this field inherent in its relative youthfulness compared to other more mature scientific disciplines. Moreover, our reply highlights the serious consequences of adverse experiences suffered by a significant subset of individuals during mindfulness and other contemplative practices. We also scrutinize common contemporary applications of mindfulness and meditation to illness, and some caveats are introduced regarding mobile technologies for guidance of contemplative practices.