Models of research systems increasingly emphasize collaborations between networks of heterogeneous actors, to both produce knowledge and formulate interdisciplinary responses to societal challenges and market needs. In this context, researchers' goals and practices are required to satisfy professional requirements for new scientific findings and societal demand for relevant knowledge. Researchers may need also to find ways to reconcile tensions between these two missions. This paper proposes an analytical and operational framework that incorporates individual, organizational and process-context factors to explain distinct configurations of scientific and societal impacts from research. The framework emphasises the role of productive interactions with different non-academic actors as a mechanism for reconciling the scientific and societal missions of research.

Electronic gambling machines (EGMs) proliferate in Australian club and hotel venues, generating revenues of billions of dollars annually and accounting for the majority of gambling expenditure. These revenues arguably rely on unsafe consumption practices, generating considerable harm. Clear evidence is available describing unsafe levels of EGM consumption by regular EGM consumers in hotels and clubs, and indicating modifications to EGM technology and systems to minimize harm. However, a comfortable orthodoxy, the discourse of 'business as usual', perpetuates current arrangements, sustaining in particular a model of the 'problem' gambler as an individualized flawed consumer. The article argues that the marketing and distribution of EGMs is neither accidental nor something for which the individual is responsible, and neither is the safeguarding of oneself from the harm produced by goods licensed by government. Pursuit of a goal of safe consumption for all EGM gamblers requires disruption of the discourse of business as usual.

The behavior of academic researchers who engage in cooperation with industrial partners has already been the subject of considerable research. A lack of understanding exists regarding the motivations of scientific research groups to engage in cooperation with other types of external non-academic organizations and the perceived barriers that may inhibit this activity. In this paper we analyse the motivations and perceptions of risks that shape scientific research groups' cooperation with industry and government partners. We find that motivations to cooperate are partly dependent on the type of partner organization involved, with advancing research goals mainly acting as an inducement to cooperate with government agencies, while searching for opportunities to apply knowledge motivates partnerships with firms. We also find that the majority of research groups cooperate with both firms and government, with their major motivation being to apply their knowledge. Among research groups that only cooperate with firms, interaction effects between motivations influence the likelihood of cooperation. Research groups do not consider risk to scientific autonomy a barrier to cooperating with firms, while risk to scientific credibility inhibits cooperation independently of the type of external partner. However, being motivated to advance research can reduce the effect of perceived barriers, independent of the type of partner organisation.