Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 105–124 | Cite as

How Technological Platforms Reconfigure Science-Industry Relations: The Case of Micro- and Nanotechnology

  • Martina Merz
  • Peter Biniok
Article

Abstract

With reference to the recent science studies debate on the nature of science-industry relationship, this article focuses on a novel organizational form: the technological platform. Considering the field of micro- and nanotechnology in Switzerland, it investigates how technological platforms participate in framing science-industry activities. On the basis of a comparative analysis of three technological platforms, it shows that the platforms relate distinctly to academic and to industrial users. It distinguishes three pairs of user models, one model in each pair pertaining to how platforms act toward and conceive of academic users, the other model regarding users from industry. The article then discusses how technological platforms reconfigure the science-economy divide. While the observed platforms provide new institutional contact and interaction between academia and industry, new research collaboration does not necessarily materialize in practice. In this respect, science-industry mediation by way of technological platforms does not make science-industry boundaries more porous. Instead, the declared openness of public research with respect to industry, in the case of technological platforms, may contribute to maintain public science’s autonomy.

Keywords

Technological platforms Science-industry relations Micro- and nanotechnology User models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is based on research conducted within the project “Epistemic Practice, Social Organization, and Scientific Culture: Configurations of Nanoscale Research in Switzerland,” funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). For constructive criticism we thank Jörg Potthast, Liliana Doganova, Dominique Vinck, Jochen Gläser, two anonymous reviewers and the participants of the European Workshop “Doing Science-Industry” organized by the PROKNOW consortium at Sofia (September 2008). We are grateful to the observed and interviewed scientists for sharing their time and experience with us.

References

  1. Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29: 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carayol, Nicolas. 2003. Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy 32: 887–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ciborra, Claudio U. 1996. The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science 7(2): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faulkner, Wendy, and Jacqueline Senker. 1994. Making sense of diversity: Public-private sector research linkage in three technologies. Research Policy 23: 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galison, Peter, and Bruce Hevly (eds.). 1992. Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In: The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 3–30.Google Scholar
  8. Gerstein, Marc S. 1992. From machine bureaucracies to networked organizations: An architectural journey. In Organizational architecture, eds. D.A. Nadler, M.S. Gerstein, and R.B. Shaw, 11–38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbons, Michael, et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2002. What buildings do. Theory and Society 31: 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubert, Matthieu. 2009. Les plates-formes pour la recherche en nanotechnologies: Politiques scientifiques et pratiques de laboratoire à l’épreuve de l’organisation du travail expérimental. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  12. Hug, Hans Josef. 2007. Welcome to SUL, the Swiss Scanning Probe Microscopy User Laboratory @ Empa. In: Empa (ed.), Swiss Scanning Probe Microscopy User Laboratory (brochure).Google Scholar
  13. Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2000. Biomedical platforms. Configurations 8: 337–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keating, Peter, and Alberto Cambrosio. 2003. Biomedical platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth-century medicine. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kim, Dong-Jae, and Bruce Kogut. 1996. Technological platforms and diversification. Organization Science 7(3): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenoir, Timothy, and Eric Giannella. 2010. Technological platforms and the layers of patent data. In Contexts of invention: Creative production in legal and cultural perspective, eds. Mario Biagioli, Petter Jaszi, and Martha Woodmansee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Merz, Martina. 2010. Reinventing a laboratory: Nanotechnology as a resource for organizational change. In Governing future technologies—Sociology of the sciences 27, eds. Mario Kaiser, et al., 3–19. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder, and Ulrich Schmoch. 1998. Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27: 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mirowski, Philip, and Esther-Mirjam Sent. 2008. The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In The handbook of science and technology studies, eds. Edward J. Hackett, et al., 635–689. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research Policy 32: 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2005. Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. Higher Education 49: 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peerbaye, Ashveen, and Vincent Mangematin. 2005. Sharing research facilities: Towards a new mode of technology transfer? Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 7: 23–38.Google Scholar
  24. Potthast, Jörg, and Michael Guggenheim. 2008. Are academic spin-offs really doing science? WZB discussion paper SP III 2008–602. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  25. Rappert, Brian, Andrew Webster, and David Charles. 1999. Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28: 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson, Douglas K.R., Arie Rip, and Vincent Mangematin. 2007. Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy 36: 871–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shinn, Terry. 1998. The impact of research and education on industry. Industry and Higher Education, October: 270–289.Google Scholar
  28. Shinn, Terry, and Erwan Lamy. 2006. Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy 35: 1465–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Traweek, Sharon. 1992 [1988]. Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tuunainen, Juha, and Tarja Knuuttila. 2009. Intermingling academic and business activities: A new direction for science and universities? Science, Technology, & Human Values 34(6): 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weingart, Peter. 2001. Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of SociologyUniversity of LucerneLucerne 7Switzerland

Personalised recommendations