Clinical supervision: An intensive case study.

We used a rigorous case study methodology to examine one supervisory dyad's work together during one semester. We used the best-worst strategy of several recent researchers, multiple sources of qualitative and quantitative process data, and the perspectives both of the participants and of observers. A number of findings provide hypotheses to guide future research. For example. Session 2 was identified as best by both participants. That it focused on relationship issues between the participants is consistent with other findings that the supervisor-supervisee relationship was a primary focus during the first several supervisory sessions. Despite its shortcomings, the science of counseling and psychotherapy rests on a solid empirical foundation. Yet the same is not true for the science of clinical supervision, which is still very much in its infancy. In commenting on this, Holloway and Hosford (1983) observed that scientific endeavor progresses through a series of stages, the first of which is observing a phenomenon in its natural environment. They maintained that observation should be the proper research emphasis at this particular stage of the science of supervision. At first glance, this prescription would seem inappropriate, for observational data are amply represented in the supervision literature. For example, Searles (1955) used case material to introduce a phenomenon that others since have called parallel processes; Markowitz (1958) presented a retrospective, comparative account of supervision that he received from each of several supervisors; and Mueller and Kell (1972) used observations of supervision for their rich formulations of supervisory processes. The supervision literature is replete with such examples.