I am a Ph.D, counseling psychologist, and NLP master practitioner. I've been a full time faculty member at Villanova University since 1973. I have a colleague who has the same credentials except he has been teaching three years more than I. We train masters level counselors / psychotherapists in Cognitive Behavior, Gestalt, REBT, Systems,... as well as brief psychotherapeutic strategies and techniques, especially NLP and Ericksonian hypnosis and language patterns.
As far back as 12 years ago we wrote proposals to get funded to do research designed to test the efficacy of NLP techniques.... Not one funded.
We have submitted a number of research, anecdotal and heuristic papers to refereed psychological or social journals. Not one of ours accepted. Only two of mine accepted.
My belief that the proposals and experimental designs were more than adequate has been reinforced by the fact that similar proposals we wrote regarding Behavior and Cognitive-Behavior strategies were accepted.
Personally, out of frustration, I gave up submitting NLP related articles to refereed journals quite a while ago. Instead I chose to write for AnchorPoint, Tennis Worldwide, WorldGolf and on my own web site.
I have my fantasies about why NLP is in disfavor in the social science and academic worlds. They range from the efficacy of NLP falling outside the belief system (cognitive map) of non-NLPers, being a threat to those who use techniques that are inferior, less effective, slower, ... and R. Bandler's disrespect for other forms of therapy in his workshops and writing, his personal problems,...
Most of all, however, I believe that it was the early, invalid, research conducted non-NLP researchers. Although invalid such resaerch is still quoted by academics as disproving NLP assumptions and the effcicay of NLP techniques. One such study is: "NLP... magic or myth?" by Krugman et. al., 1985, J. of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 53 (4), 526 - 530. In this study:
(1) The treatment "therapists" in this study were 3 "graduate students" who were
(2) The 3 graduate students were trained by a clinical psychologist who had been taught the NLP treatment in a WORKSHOP...
(3) The ""Anchoring" procedure has major flaws, including (a) the therapist (not the client) choosing the "desired" resource and (b) having the client dissociated rather than associated into the resource context.
Accordingly, whatever Krugman et. al. tested proved not to be effective wasn't Anchoring as we know it. Yet this is one of the studies most often quoted by a-NLP and anti-NLP academics.