Mutual Enforcement of Research and Education—The Case of Structured Inquiry-Based Teaching of Standardization
This chapter provides new empirical proof for the relationship between education and research and argues that research can lead to education and the other way around. The two concepts re-enforce each other and can increase the quality of both. This paper adds practical relevance as a concept in this relationship. The paper offers several examples of how education on standardization may lead to research on standardization and the other way around and how research and education have practical evidence.
- Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%28198903%2999%3A394%3C116%3ACTIRAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.Google Scholar
- Colburn, A. (2000, March). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 42–44.Google Scholar
- Den Uijl, S., & De Vries, H. (2008). Setting a technological standard: Which factors can organizations influence to achieve dominance? Paper presented at the 13th EURAS Workshop on Standardisation.Google Scholar
- Gallagher, S. R., & Park, S. H. (2002). Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: A historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
- Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems’ open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 351–369. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%28199307%2914%3A5%3C351%3ACCDINI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I.
- Hill, C. W. L. (1997). Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Academy of Management Executive, 11(2), 7–25.Google Scholar
- Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28198506%2975%3A3%3C424%3ANECAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M.
- Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267–284. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28199804%2923%3A2%3C267%3ATLAIMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schilling, M. A. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 387–398.Google Scholar
- Suarez, F. F. (2004). Battles for technological dominance: An integrative framework. Research Policy, 33(2), 271–286. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-49SFH5C-1/2/6ac467f816758fde3d35b8edf195c27b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van de Kaa, G. (2013). Structured inquiry and standardization. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(2), 233–237.Google Scholar
- Van de Kaa, G., & De Vries, H. (2015). Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91(2), 222–235.Google Scholar