Abstract
Science studies have unduly neglected questions of specialty formation and disciplinary differentiation in recent times. As a novel, highly dynamic research field, nanotechnology1 provides science studies scholars with a welcome incentive and new test case for reconsidering these issues from fresh angles.2 This paper will promote attention to organizational change as one such new angle to explore science dynamics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“Nanotechnology” is employed in this text as a synonym for both nanotechnology and nanoscience. This choice is motivated, first, by a preference to increase readability and, second, based on the understanding that the distinction between the two is a matter of contention and negotiation in the concerned communities.
- 2.
A number of investigations have begun to chart out the shifting disciplinary configurations related to nanotechnology: for scientometric investigations cf. e.g. Heinze and Bauer (2007), Leydesdorff and Zhou (2007), Meyer and Persson (1998), Schummer (2004), and for observation studies cf. Kurath, in this volume, Kurath and Maasen (2006), Schüßler and Kehrt, in this volume, Vinck et al. (2006).
- 3.
- 4.
Methods include document analysis (e.g. annual reports of Empa) and ethnography (drawing, at this stage, especially on informal conversations and first phases of participant observation).
- 5.
Quote translated by the author (MM).
- 6.
Original German name: Eidgenössische Anstalt zur Prüfung von Baumaterialien.
- 7.
For the history of Empa, also see Empa (2005) and the Annual Reports of Empa, which are available for download for the years 1970–2006 at http://library.eawag-empa.ch/empa_annual_report.html (20-03-08). For the wider socio-historical context of science and research in Switzerland, cf. Gugerli et al. (2005) and Honegger et al. (2007).
- 8.
The German verb “prüfen” seems to have a wider lexical content than the English verb “to test”. The former also covers activities such as examine, review, investigate, inquire, and scrutinize.
- 9.
The new name now read “Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Versuchsanstalt für Industrie, Bauwesen und Gewerbe”.
- 10.
Empa is not the only testing institution that changed orientation throughout its history. The German “Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung” (or BAM), for example, was founded in 1871 under the name “Mechanisch-Technische Versuchsanstalt”. It saw its research orientation invigorated in the late 1980s, which then induced a change to the current name in 1987.
- 11.
In the German original: Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt.
- 12.
The notion “économie des promesses” is more commonly used in French language and has been applied to the case of nanotechnology, e.g. in the report Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (2006).
- 13.
To avoid misunderstanding it should be noted that Empa continued to pursue other research topics and activities in parallel to engaging in nanotechnology.
- 14.
In the original German: “Wir forschen und prüfen für Sie”.
- 15.
The strategic renaming of research laboratories is common practice. Another case is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN. The name was originally derived as an acronym from the French “Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire” while CERN is today commonly referred to as the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN 2007).
- 16.
Quote translated by the author (MM).
- 17.
In contrast to Empa, the German “Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung” (cf. note 10), for example, has not taken up activities in the field of nanotechnology.
- 18.
References
Bensaude-Vincent, B. and A. Hessenbruch (2004), ‘Materials Science: a Field about to Explode?’ Nature Materials 3 (June 2004): 345–347.
Bourdieu, P. (1997), Les usages sociaux de la science: pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique, Paris: INRA.
Bourdieu, P. (2004), Science of Science and Reflexivity, Cambridge: Polity.
Burri, M. (2005), Die Eidgenössische Anstalt zur Prüfung von Baumaterialien. In: ETHistory 1855–2005. http://www.ethistory.ethz.ch/besichtigungen/orte/empa (accessed on March 17, 2008).
CERN (2007), The name CERN. http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/About/Name-en.html, (accessed on March 17, 2008).
DiMaggio, P.J. and W.P. Powell (1983), ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Dowdle, M.W. (ed.) (2006), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eggimann, F. (1997), ‘Vorwort des Direktionspräsidenten 1997: Ein Jahr des Aufbruchs’ in EMPA (ed.), Jahresbericht 1997, Dübendorf: 2–3.
EMPA (ed.) (1988), Jahresbericht 1988, Dübendorf.
Empa (ed.) (2005), Forschung, die begeistert. 125 Jahre Empa, Dübendorf.
ETH-Rat (ed.) (2007), 06 ETH-Rat – Jahresbericht, Zürich.
Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (2006), Survivre aux nanotechnologies: Giga-questions, nano-visions et citoyenneté, Note No 3. http://sciencescitoyennes.org/IMG/pdf/note_nano_finale.pdf (accessed on March 17, 2008).
Gugerli, D., P. Kupper, and D. Speich (2005), Die Zukunftsmaschine: Konjunkturen der ETH Zürich 1855–2005, Zürich: Chronos.
Heinze, T. and G. Bauer (2007), ‘Characterizing Creative Scientists in Nano-S&T: Productivity, Multidisciplinarity, and Network Brokerage in a Longitudinal Perspective’, Scientometrics 70(3): 811–830.
Hermann, A. et al. (1987), History of CERN, Volume 1, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hermann, A. et al. (1990), History of CERN, Volume 2, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Honegger, C., H.-U. Jost, S. Burren, and P. Jurt (eds.) (2007), Konkurrierende Deutungen des Sozialen: Geschichts-, Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Wissenschaft, Zürich: Chronos.
Hug, H.J. (2007), ‘Welcome to SUL, the Swiss Scanning Probe Microscopy User Laboratory @ Empa!’ in Empa (ed.), Swiss Scanning Probe Microscopy User Laboratory (brochure).
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Krige, J. (ed.) (1996), History of CERN, Volume 3, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Krige, J. (2002), ‘The Birth of EMBO and the Difficult Road to EMBL’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33(3): 547–564.
Kurath, M. and S. Maasen (2006), ‘Toxicology as a Nanoscience? – Disciplinary Identities Reconsidered’, Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3(6).
Lemaine, G. et al. (eds.) (1977), Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, Chicago IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Leydesdorff, L. and P. Zhou (2007), ‘Nanotechnology as a Field of Science: Its Delineation in Terms of Journals and Patents’, Scientometrics 70(3): 693–713.
Merton, R.K. (1973/1942), ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in: R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 267–278.
Merz, M. (2005), ‘Knowledge Construction’ in S. Restivo (ed.), Science, Technology and Society: An Encyclopedia, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 249–255.
Meyer, M. and O. Persson (1998), ‘Nanotechnology – Interdisciplinarity, Patterns of Collaboration and Differences in Application’, Scientometrics 42(2): 195–205.
Rüedi, M. (2007), ‘Willkommen an der NanoPubli 2007’ in Empa (ed.), NanoPubli. http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/63962/–/l=1 (accessed on March 17, 2008).
Schlapbach, L. (2007), Welcome Address. http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/58650/–/l=2 (accessed on March 17, 2008).
Schummer, J. (2004), ‘Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Patterns of Research Collaboration in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology’, Scientometrics 59(3): 425–465.
Stichweh, R. (1994), Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Vinck, D. et al. (2006), ‘Culture de la différence et pratiques d’articulation entre chercheurs en micro- et nanotechnologies’ in J.-P. Leresche et al. (eds.), La fabrique des sciences: Des institutions aux pratiques, Lausanne: PPUR: 147–163.
Wynne, B. (1991), ‘Knowledges in Context’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(1): 111–121.
Acknowledgments
Research underlying this paper is conducted within the project Epistemic Practice, Social Organization, and Scientific Culture: Configurations of Nanoscale Research in Switzerland, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. For helpful comments I thank Daniel Barben, Priska Gisler, Hans Kastenholz, and the volume’s editors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Merz, M. (2009). Reinventing a Laboratory: Nanotechnology as a Resource for Organizational Change. In: Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds) Governing Future Technologies. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2834-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2834-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2833-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2834-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)