Psychotherapeutic discourse is often filled with provocative nomenclature and split into false dichotomies. The aim of the current paper is to review one such debate regarding those advocating for the utilisation of diagnostic specific Empirically Supported Treatments (EST) and on the other side, proponents of the Common Factors (CF) approach to therapy who offer up a counter argument. This paper investigates current discourses by illuminating these dichotomies based on a critical review of current literature. Furthermore, an integrative framework will be provided as a method to mediate this discourse based on current literature and within the operationalisation of Evidence Based Practice (EBP), as the framework was originally designed to be utilised. By introducing research at the cutting edge of practice, this paper will align evidence based practice and practice based evidence as two sides of the one coin, and within an integrative practitioner developmental framework.