Scientometrics

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 779–810 | Cite as

What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency

Article

Abstract

This contribution formulates a number of propositions about the emergence of novel nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N). Seeking to complement recent work that aims to define a research agenda and draws on general insights from the innovation literature, this paper aims to synthesize knowledge from innovation-related studies of the N&N field. More specifically, it is suggested that N&N is often misconstrued as either a field of technology or an area of (broadly) converging technologies while evidence to date suggests rather that N&N be considered a set of inter-related and overlapping about not necessarily merging technologies. The role of instrumentation in connecting the various N&N fields is underlined. Finally, the question is raised whether change in N&N tends to be incremental rather than discontinuous, being the result of technological path-dependencies and lock-ins in industry-typical search regimes that are only slowly giving way to more boundary-crossing activities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonelli, C. (1998), The dynamics of localized technological changes. The interaction between factor costs inducement, demand-pull and Schumpeterian rivalry, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 6: 97–120.Google Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D. (1998), Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  3. Archibugi, D., Simonetti, R. (1998), Objects and subjects in technological interdependence. Towards a framework to monitor innovation, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5(3): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonaccorsi, A., Thoma, G. (2005), Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance, LEM Working Paper 2005-13.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Schubert, A., Zsindley, S. (1997), Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance, Scientometrics, 38: 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chilcott, J., Jones, A., Mitchel, M. (2001), Applied Materials Science Nanotechnology: Commercial opportunity, London: Evolution Capital Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Coombs, R., Hull, R. (1998), ’Knowledge management practices’ and path-dependency in innovation, Research Policy, 27(3): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G. (2003), Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper Series, #9825, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9825.
  9. Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G. (2005), Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. NBER Working Paper Series, #11181, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w11181.
  10. David, P. A. (2000), Path dependence, its critics and the quest for “historical economics”, In: P. Garrouste, S. Ioannides (Eds), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available also at: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/pathdep.pdavid.pdf Google Scholar
  11. Dosi, G. (1982), Technical paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, 11(3): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ETC (2003a), The Big Down: Atom Tech — Technologies Converging at the Atomic Scale. Winnipeg, Canada: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conentration [www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf].Google Scholar
  13. ETC (2003b), No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium — Size Matters! Occasional Paper Series 7(1) [www.etcgroup.org/documents/Occ.Paper_Nanosafety.pdf].Google Scholar
  14. European Commission, European Workshop on Social and Economic Research on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, Brussels, 14–15 April 2004 [www.stage-research.net/STAGE/PAGES/Nano.html]Google Scholar
  15. Fagerberg, J. (2005), ’Innovation: A Guide to the Literature’, In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fogelberg, H., Glimell, H. (2003), Bringing Visibility To the Invisible: Towards A Social Understanding of Nanotechnology. Avdelningen för teknik-och vetenskapsstudier, Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar
  17. Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Du, Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., Debackere, K., Veugelers, R. (2003), Nanotechnology. Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U. Leuven, Steunpuntoos.Google Scholar
  18. Hinze, S., Reiss, T., Schmoch, U. (1997), Statistical Analysis on the Distance Between Fields of Technology. Report submitted to the European Commission, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  19. Hullmann, A., Meyer, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3): 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joerges, B., Shinn, T. (Eds) (2001), Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Kuusi, O., Meyer, M. (2002), Technological generalizations and leitbilder — the anticipation of technological opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69: 625–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Libaers, D., Meyer, M., Geuna, A. (2006), The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Forthcoming in Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4) 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopez, J. (2004), Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology, Hyle, 10(2): 131–154.Google Scholar
  25. Malsch, I. (1997) Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts’ Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-Areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Malsch, I. (1999), Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific and organizational dynamics. Nanotechnology, 10(1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, M. (2000), Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies. HUT-ISIB Working Paper Series, 2000/1, Helsinki University of Technology: Espoo.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, M. (2001), Between Technology and Science: Exploring an Emerging Field: Knowledge Flows and Networking on the Nano-Scale. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Sussex University: Brighton, 406 p.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer, M. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51(1) 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, M. (2005), Knowledge Integrators or Weak Links? An exploratory comparison patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Scientometrics, 68(3): 545–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer, M. (2005a), Between Technology and Science. Universal Publishers: Boca Raton, Fl.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, M. (2006), Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 35(10): 1646–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, M., Kuusi, O. (2004), Nanotechnology — Generalizations in an interdisciplinary field of science and technology. Hyle, 10(2): 155–170.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, M., Persson, O. (1998), Nanotechnology — interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2): 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., Olivastro, D. (1997), The increasing linkage between US technology and public science, Research Policy, 26: 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  37. Pavitt, K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6): 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Persson, O. (1994), The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1): 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter, A., Cunningham, S. (no date), Whither nanotechnology? Foresight Update #4.Google Scholar
  40. Price, D. de Solla (1984), The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. Research Policy, 13: 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roco, M., Bainbridge, W. S. (2003), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenberg, N. (1992), Scientific instrumentation and university research. Research Policy, 21(4): 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, London [www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm].Google Scholar
  44. Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3): 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shea, C. M. (2005), Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(3): 185–200.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. Shinn, T., Lamy, E. (2007), Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35(10) 1477–1498.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, K. (Ed.) (1998), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators — A Guide for Policy-Makers, IDEA Report 5.Google Scholar
  48. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004), Science-technology connections and interactions. In: Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, pp. 695–715.Google Scholar
  49. Tisnado, C. (2005), Techno-Systems of Innovation: The Case of German Nanotechnology. Thesis, SPRU, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  50. van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., Debackere, K. (2003), Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? Scientometrics, 57(3): 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R., van Leeuwen, T. (2006), Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains, Scientometrics, 66(2): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wood, S., Jones, R., Geldart, A. (2003), The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK.Google Scholar
  53. WTEC (1998), Nanostructure Science and Technology: R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevices, Baltimore: Loyola College [http://www.wtec.org].Google Scholar
  54. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E. (2006), Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42(6): 1513–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freeman Centre, SPRUUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren van de Vlaamse GemeenschapK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Institute of Strategy and International BusinessHelsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations