In the interest of full disclosure I should mention Im currently writing a paper as part of a masters thesis about the application or integration of Mindfulness within certain non-Buddhist contexts, like education, policy, social inclusion and so on. I have been practing in a few Buddhist traditions for about 14 years. As many others have, after having spent much of that time in Tibetan and Zen traditions, over the last few years I have taken to a sort of "reset" of my practice (and professional life) and have settled into a more Theravadin/Thich Nhat Hanh/IMS/MBSR kind of paradigm.
The MBSR system, which, after having gone through an 8 wk program, I have come to respect as being a basically secular, realistic and practical, yet somewhat rigorous "modality" if committed to, has already been widely studied and written about. Most of this study, as many would know or assume, has primarily accepted Zinn's theoretical and practical assumptions as the starting point and has been trying to assess and even "measure" its affectiveness in a variety of settings. Without getting too much into it, if something has bothered or at least nagged me about The MBSR system, it would be the fact that it tends not to differentiate the origins of their selection of practices. This is fine, imo, in that the average person who tries the program wont care, and for practical purposes the practices are experiential and speak for themselves. If one is learning the practices and wanting to adopt them in their life, this is more or less just great. The problem though is that the program was designed for use in mainly healthcare-oriented contexts, and this attribute I mention, makes the prospect of transferability into new contexts, with sound justification, kind of difficult.
Setting aside the fact that it is not presented as Buddhist per se, and whether or not one thinks isolating mindfulness from the rest of Buddhism is a good or viable thing, it is my understanding that the MBSR program has gradually, since its humble beginnings recognized a need for and incorporated at least aspects things like sila and sangha - which the do, but apparently it wasnt always there. But they do so without really being explicit about it. Again, for the reasons above, for practical purposes this is fine, imo. (Albeit also possibly strategic in terms of maintaining academic, clinical and scientific interest and support).
Also, without getting too into it, I am very interested in Ellen Langer's conception of Mindfulness, which she has almost stubbornly developed, completely independently, with little or no interest in, or even real understanding, of it's Buddhist counterpart. Nevertheless, there are fascinating touchpoints and overlaps with both MBSR and Buddhism proper.
So, after all this, Without wanting to be strident or polemical about it, I am trying to situate or perhaps, loosely "map" these "Western" conceptions within the Buddhist context. The purpose is not to equate, and indeed it is important to highlight differences, some, major ones, but to aid further research and lessen the dependency on Langer and Zinn.
That was long, and I apologize, but I thought it would help in understanding the nature of any questions I may pose.