Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 595–611 | Cite as

The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology

  • Philip ShapiraEmail author
  • Jan Youtie
  • Alan L. Porter
Article

Abstract

This article examines the development of social science literature focused on the emerging area of nanotechnology. It is guided by the exploratory proposition that early social science work on emerging technologies will draw on science and engineering literature on the technology in question to frame its investigative activities, but as the technologies and societal investments in them progress, social scientists will increasingly develop and draw on their own body of literature. To address this proposition the authors create a database of nanotechnology-social science literature by merging articles from the Web of Science’s Social Science Citation Index and Arts and Humanities Citation Index with articles from Scopus. The resulting database comprises 308 records. The findings suggest that there are multiple dimensions of cited literature and that social science citations of other social scientists’ works have increased since 2005.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Societal implications Scientometrics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (National Science Foundation Award 0531194), the National Partnership for Managing Upstream Innovation: The Case of Nanoscience and Technology (North Carolina State University, National Science Foundation Award EEC-0438684), and the Representations of Active Nanostructures project (NSF SES-0708413). The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Significant assistance in database development was provided by Ashley Rivera, Jue Wang, and Heming Zhang.

References

  1. Arnall, A. H. (2003). Future technologies, today’s choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann, G. (1998). Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos. Technologieanalyse. Düsseldorf: VDI-Technologiezentrum.Google Scholar
  3. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, R. (2003). Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against ‘molecular assemblers’. Chemical and Engineering News, 81(48), 37–42.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, I., & Sarewitz, D. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15(4), 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters? Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). Ondon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crichton, M. (2002). Prey. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Darby, M. R., & Zucker, L. G. (2003). Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology (NBER working paper no. 9825). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drexler, E. K. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  14. Feynman, R. P. (1960). There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science, 23(5), 22–36.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the national nanotechnology program. Technology in Society, 27(3), 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freitas, R. (1999). Nanomedicine, Volume I: Basic capabilities. Georgetown, TX: Landes Bioscience.Google Scholar
  17. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Allum, N. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285(5426), 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Hicks, D. (2005). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative social science and technology research (pp. 473–496). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hullmann, A. (2008). European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology. DG Research, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Joint Economic Committee. (2007). Nanotechnology: The future is coming sooner than you think. Washington, DC: United States Congress.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, R. (2004). SoftMachines: Nanotechnology and life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn’t need us: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies—robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech—are threatening to make humans an endangered species. Wired, 8 (4).Google Scholar
  25. Kostoff, R., Murday, J., Lau, C. G., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(2), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  27. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewenstein, B. (2004). What counts as a “social and ethical issue” in nanotechnology? International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L., Cozzens, S. E., & Van Den Besselaar, P. (1994). Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings. Research Policy, 23, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lux Research. (2007). The nanotech report (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacOubrie, J. (2002). Logical argument structures in decision-making. Argumentation: An International Journal of Reasoning, 17, 291–313.Google Scholar
  34. Malsch, I. (1997). Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts’ perceptions and scientific relations between sub-areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Marshall, E. (1996). The genome program’s conscience. Science New Series, 274(5287), 488–490.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, M. (1998). Nanotechnology: interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer, M. (2006). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Paper presented at the 2006 technology transfer society conference, Atlanta, Georgia, September 27–29.Google Scholar
  38. Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2003). Mind the gap: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14, R3–R13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies—shaping the future of European societies. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  43. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Porter, A. L., Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2008). The cognitive geography of nanotechnologies: Locating nano-research in the map of science. Paper Presented at the NBER conference on nanotechnology and nanoindicators, Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1–2, 2008.Google Scholar
  46. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009a). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009b). Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature-Nanotechnology, 4, 534–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. (2008b). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2008). The national nanotechnology initiative: Second assessment and recommendations of the national nanotechnology advisory panel. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  50. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2009). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics (Online).Google Scholar
  51. Renn, O., & Roco, M. (2006). Nanotechnology risk governance. IRGC white paper no. 2. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
  52. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  53. Roco, M. C. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5–6), 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  56. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2002a). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Integrating from the nanoscale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4(4), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2002b). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  58. Roco, M. C., & Tomellini, R. (eds.). (2002). Nanotechnology: Revolutionary opportunities and societal implications. 3rd joint EC-NSF workshop on nanotechnology. DG Research, Luxembourg: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Royal Society. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, K. (2006). Nanofrontiers: Visions for the future of nanotechnology. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  62. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidiciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scitech Strategies Inc. (2008). Maps of science. http://mapofscience.com. Accessed December 28, 2008.
  64. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2010). United States. In D. Guston & J. G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of nanotechnology and society. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  65. Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T. D., & Lozano, K. (2005). Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns. Technology in Society, 27(3), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siegel, R. W., Hu, E., & Roco, M. C. (1999). Nanostructure science and technology: A worldwide study. WTEC panel report. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.Google Scholar
  67. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smalley, R. E. (2001). Of chemistry, love and nanobots. Scientific America, 285(3), 76–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004). Science-technology connections and Interactions. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 695–715). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Uldrich, J. (with Newbury, D.) (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Crown Business, New York.Google Scholar
  71. Whiteside, G. (2001). The once and future nanomachine. Scientific America, 285(3), 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  73. Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. London: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  74. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008a). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008b). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Enterprise Innovation InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Technology Policy & Assessment CenterGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.Search Technology, Inc.AtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations