How does a doctor or therapist bridge the gap between particulars and generalizations regarding patients and various phenomena or diseases? The authors of this volume illustrate the multiple ways practitioners in the fields of clinical psychology and medicine address the tension between the universal nature of scientific knowledge and its particular applications. They discuss the fact that some decisions, if made erroneously, have impacts that cannot be reversed. An error in the realms of medicine, ecology, peace, and war brings with it psychological strategies that differ from those a practitioner faces where errors are correctable. How does a doctor or therapist bridge the gap between particulars and generalizations regarding patients and various phenomena or diseases? The authors of this volume illustrate the multiple ways practitioners in the fields of clinical psychology and medicine address the tension between the universal nature of scientific knowledge and its particular applications. They discuss the fact that some decisions, if made erroneously, have impacts that cannot be reversed. An error in the realms of medicine, ecology, peace, and war brings with it psychological strategies that differ from those a practitioner faces where errors are correctable. The disciplines of psychology and medicine have two shared goals. The first is that both disciplines seek a basic understanding about how human beings exist in their ordinary biological and psychological worlds and the second is the attempt to describe and treat disruptions of each person's healthy state of being. Therefore, the four coeditors uncover areas of mutual interest between the two disciplines and the basis for the conflicts that have arisen in their fields.

Bibace, Dillon, and Dowds articulate diverse aspects of partnerships, comparing them to traditional relationships between professionals and patients, students, and research particpants. Neither the editors nor the various contributors subscribe to one interpretation of "partnerships." Instead they subscribe to the assumption that there are multiple interpretations. These differences are based on many factors such as a professional's primary identity as clinician, teacher, or researcher. The possibilities presented will aid readers in enacting partnership relationships in their own settings.

Bibace, Dillon, and Dowes articulate diverse aspects of partnerships, comparing them to traditional realtionships between professionals and patients, students, and research participants. Neither the editors nor the various contributors subscribe to one interpretation of Partnerships. Instead they subscribe to the assumption that there are multiple interpretations. These differences are based on many factors such as a professional's primary identity as clinician, teacher, or researcher. The possibilities presented will aid readers in enacting partnership relationships in their own settings.