An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University

Our paper analyses the modalities according to which a large European university collaborates with firms by exploring its relational portfolio. We address this issue by exploiting a database that lists more than 1,000 firms having collaborated with the University Louis Pasteur (ULP) between 1990 and 2002. We first observe the relative importance of four collaborative channels (private contracts, European contracts, co-publications, co-inventions) across the whole population of firms. Second, using a multi-correspondence analysis, we derive a typology of collaborative patterns which underline the discriminating features of the frequency of interactions, of the exclusive versus open character of the relationships and of the nature of the collaborative channels. Four coherent classes emerge from particular combinations of these relational characteristics. Finally, using multinomial logit estimation, we show how this diversity of partnerships is connected to some individual attributes of the firms: size, status, sector and location.

What police want from liquor licensing legislation: the Australian perspective

Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 53 Australian police officers with specialist expertise in liquor law enforcement to ascertain their perspectives concerning the liquor licensing legislation in Australia’s eight states and territories. Respondents generally indicated that current arrangements favoured the interests of the alcohol industry and did not sufficiently empower them to reduce alcohol-related harms. Other key themes included: ambiguity surrounding the police role in liquor licensing; difficulties in enforcing drunkenness-related offences; partnerships; strategies to enhance enforcement; data/intelligence gathering; and the separation of Ministerial responsibilities for liquor licensing and policing. Overall, police in Australia are not currently being given the tools they require to effectively reduce alcohol-related harms.     

The Court of Public Opinion: Lay Perceptions of Polygraph Testing

We sampled a total of 411 participants and randomly assigned them one of three brief trial vignettes that contained either no-polygraph evidence, evidence of a passed polygraph test, or evidence of a failed polygraph test. Participants rendered guilt judgments and answered a series of questions concerning the trial in particular, and polygraph tests in general. Similar to previous studies on the impact of polygraph evidence on jurors' guilt judgments, this sample of jury-eligible adults indicated that they did not find polygraph test evidence to be persuasive. Moreover, it mattered little to participants whether the results indicated the defendant passed a polygraph test, or that he failed a polygraph test. However, when our findings are compared to those of previous surveys involving experts in the field of psychophysiology, they differ in a number of important respects. The implications for decisions regarding admissibility (e.g., U.S. v. Alexander, 1975 and U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998) are discussed.