Search results

The purpose of this study is to understand the strategic roles of service customer equity (SCE) and innovation protection on firm performance (FP).

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the proposed model. The authors tested the model using managerial data from two countries: USA and India.

The findings of this study indicated positive direct impacts of service innovation (SI) on FP and positive indirect impacts via SCE in both samples. SI and SCE impacts on FP were both stronger in the US samples. However, the effect of SI on SCE is stronger in India than in the USA. This study also identified moderating impacts of service innovation protection (SIP) on the relationship between SI and FP in the Indian sample and between SI and SCE in the US sample.

Although there is scholarly research in SI and its impact on FP, there are no studies the authors identified that discuss the moderating effect of SIP. The authors studied the moderating effect of SIP because (1) it is crucial for industries to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, (2) it protects industries investment in research and development and (3) it also protects industries intellectual property, such as trademark, copyrights and patents. There are two key contributions of this study: (a) investigating the effect of SCE between SI and FP and (b) investigating the moderating effect of SIP using managerial data from two countries (USA vs India).

Advanced education is often thought to respond to the demands of the economy, market forces create new occupations, and then universities respond with new degrees and curricula aimed at training future workers with specific new skills. Presented here is comparative research on an underappreciated, yet growing, concurrent alternative process: universities, with their global growth in numbers and enrollments, in concert with expanding research capacity, create and privilege knowledge and skills, legitimate new degrees that then become monetized and even required in private and public sectors of economies. A process referred to as academization of occupations has far-reaching implications for understanding the transformation of capitalism, new dimensions of social inequality, and resulting stratification among occupations. Academization is also eclipsing the more limited professionalization processes in occupations. Additionally, it fuels further expansion of advanced education and contributes to a new culture of work in the 21st century. Commissioned detailed German and US case studies of the university origins and influence on workplace consequences of seven selected occupations and associated knowledge, skills, and degrees investigate the academization process. And to demonstrate how universal this could become, the cases contrast the more open and less-restrictive education and occupation system in the US with the centralized and state-controlled education system in Germany. With expected variation, both economies and their occupational systems show evidence of robust academization. Importantly too is evidence of academic transformations of understandings about approaches to job tasks and use of authoritative knowledge in occupational activities.

A hybrid of architectural design and engineering, architectural engineers (AEs)design and remediate problems with internal and external structures and systems of building and facilities in the US. Trained and credentialed in academic programs awarding approximately 1,000 degrees annually, AE is a mid-sized specialty engineering degree comparable to computer software, nuclear, or materials engineering. The case outlines the origins and history of the occupation and illustrates three aspects of the academization process: integration of the university’s charter for knowledge production within an occupation; possibilities for conflict and power within universities that can shape occupational outcomes; and the role of the university and collaborations with practitioners in creating change in theoretical conceptions, on-the-job skills, and problem-solving strategies. AE demonstrates academization in a field with specific physical outcomes and functional requirements that are technically bounded. As counterfactuals, possible alternative occupational paths for the work roles of AEs are considered, along with reasons why they did not happen. What did occur demonstrates the impact of the academization process, with both credentialing and new research. AE is an informative example of constructed functionalism, formed and continually shaped by the university.

This chapter investigates the ongoing process of academization within the field of educational therapy in Germany, particularly in the context of the introduction of university degrees in integrative educational therapy and the psychology of learning. The introduction of these degrees brought about transformative changes in the professional landscape. Educational therapists holding such degrees often demonstrate a more advanced understanding of their roles, which is underpinned by thorough university education and the legitimizing influence of their academic titles. Prior to the establishment of these degree programs, the field of educational therapy was notably unregulated, devoid of a protected professional title or a specific qualification. This lack of regulation resulted in a proliferation of varied providers, giving rise to what’s known as the “after-school market” phenomenon. This chapter explores the genesis and institutionalization of degree programs in educational therapy as a path toward professionalizing the field. It reveals the crucial role that professional associations along with scientific experts have played in launching these degree programs. Additionally, it discusses the impact of competition among different approaches to educational therapy within this rapidly evolving landscape.

Schooling expansion is typically operationalized as the proportion of the population attending and the number of years attained; however, expansion can also be examined through new fields of study. Early childhood education entered the university as occupational training and has grown into a legitimate field of study. For example, an analysis of the expansion of early childhood papers and topics in scientific journal articles shows a slow steady rise before a dramatic increase in the 1956–2021 time period. The expansion of early childhood education as a field has been synergistic with the process of academization. Training in the occupation of early childhood education started first in its country of origin and then moved to independent training programs and normal schools in the United States before landing in four-year institutions that include everything from small colleges to large universities.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.