publications, the opportunity arose to establish Zentralblatter and Handbucher for the various growing medical specialisms; by 1914, 75 per cent of the firm's output was in engineering and medicine and a largish group of German scientists found additional employment as advisers on monthly retainers. Sarkowski provides a gripping account of the dangerous thirties when the firm's Jewish genealogy...

This paper continues the discussion of the essential features and methods inherent within three approaches to the interpretation of qualitative data presented in Part 1 (Priest et al 2002). Leslie Woods, Helena Priest and Paula Roberts explore the use of grounded theory, qualitative content analysis and narrative analysis through the use of an illustrative example.

drug', and considered the benefits, side-effects, and overdose effects of this drug. 3 From this perspective, Balint asked doctors to recognise that the GP role goes beyond their medical expertise. Currently, the training of GPs is systematic and deliberate, encompassing some time in hospital specialties and at least a year in general practice under supervision. GPs are no longer freshly qualif...

The programmatic statement put forward in von Wright’s last works on deontic logic introduces the perspective of logical pragmatics, which has been formally explicated here and extended so to include the role of norm-recipient as well as the role of normgiver. Using the translation function from the language of deontic logic to the language of set-theoretical approach, the connection has been e...

anon law defines a chaplain as “a priest to whom is entrusted in a stable manner the pastoral care, at least in part, of some community or special group of Christ’s faithful, to be exercised in accordance with universal and particular law” (Canon 564). The law establishes the chaplain as a canonical figure in the person of a priest who is accountable to the diocesan bishop. A deacon cannot be n...

In his paper in this Issue, ‘ “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” Revisited’, Tom Tillemans reflects on his paper “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” (2009), itself a reply to earlier work of ours (Deguchi, Garfield, and Priest 2008, Garfield and Priest 2003). There is much we agree with in these non-dogmatic and open-minded papers. Still, we have some disagreements. We begin with a response to Tillemans’ firs...