Reaction to the special section on supervision research: Comment on Ellis et al (1996), Ladany et al (1996), Neufeldt et al (1996), and Worthen and McNeill (1996)

Both the post-positivistic (M. V. Ellis, N. Ladany, M. Krengel, & D. Schult, 1996; N. Ladany, C. E. Hill, M. M. Corbett, & E. A. Nutt, 1996) and interpretive (S. A. Neufeldt, M. P. Karno, M. L. Nelson, 1996; V. Worthen & B. W. McNeill, 1996) studies in this special section on supervision research are reviewed from the perspective of rigor and relevancy to the critical questions facing educators and practitioners of supervision. The value of different empirical methods to uncover the meaning and structure of supervision is discussed in light of these researchers' contribution to building a theory of practice. Empirical findings of both methods are needed to guide the systematic teaching of psychotherapy in supervision and the teaching of supervision itself. This special section, with its inclusion of these different empirical approaches, may well herald the beginning of a new era of field relevancy and empirical rigor in supervision research.