Breaking the monolith - differences in ascribed relevance of different standards types in different research contexts

Standards are - stereotypically - believed to be relevant only äs a diffusion catalyst for inno-vations, facilitating economies of scale, building critical masses, creating network external-ities, and reducing costs of transaction of Information. Accordingly, Standards should not be relevant for those researchers who not engaged in market activities. In the light of some of findings of the INTEREST project this monolithic view of Standards may very well need re-consideration. The INTEREST project has analysed survey data collected from more than 500 FP5 project participants. These data were differentiated by types of Standards, like e.g., standards for terminology, measurement & testing, quality & safety, or those facilitating compati-bility between interfaces and products or Services. This analysis shows that in fact different types of Standards do matter for different contexts of research.