Advertisement

The Local Configuration of a Science and Innovation Policy: A City in the Nanoworld

Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 29)

Abstract

Local trajectories and arrangements play a significant role because the development of a research field, such as nanoscience and nanotechnology, requires substantial investments in human and instrumental resources. But why are there often concentrated in a limited number of places? What dynamics lead to such concentration? The hypothesis is that there is an assemblage of heterogeneous resources through the action of local actors. The chapter will explore, from an Actor Network Theory (ANT) perspective, how the local emergence of research dynamics from: the revival of local traditions, the local and national action of institutional entrepreneurs, controversial dynamics, and researchers’ arrangements to involve other actors. It will examine how they connect up with each other and mutually commit themselves to the development of new technologies. It will focus on the role of narratives in this assembling: how were the local narratives of the past mobilized and to what effect.

Keywords

Nanoscience Nanotechnology Assembling ANT Trajectory Cluster Science dynamics Institutional entrepreneurs Narratives Controversy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the French National Agency for Research (ANR) and by the Rhône-Alpes Cluster 14 “Enjeux et Représentations des sciences, des techniques et de leurs usages”. I would like to warmly thank Martina Merz and Philippe Sormani, and the anonymous reviewer for their critical comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to my colleagues Alexandre Camus and Andréas Perret for their discussions and suggestions.

References

  1. Blanchard, R. 1941. Pourquoi Grenoble est devenu une grande ville. Revue de Géographie Alpine 29(3): 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callon, M. 1986. Some elements for a sociology of translation. Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St-Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? ed. J. Law, 196–223. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Dreyfus, P. 1976. La Ville et la Région de Grenoble: Les relations privilégiées de l’université et de l’industrie’. Paedagogica Europaea 11(2): 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Grossetti, M. 1995. Science, industrie et territoire. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.Google Scholar
  6. Grossetti, M., and P. Mounier-Kuhn. 1995. Les débuts de l’informatique dans les universités – Un moment de la différenciation des pôles scientifiques français. Revue Française de Sociologie 36(2): 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hubert, M. 2007. Hybridations instrumentales et identitaires dans la recherche sur les nanotechnologies. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 1(2): 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hubert, M. 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 II, Pierre Mendès, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  9. Hubert, M. 2014. Partager des expériences de laboratoire: La recherche à l’épreuve des reorganisations. Paris: Edition des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
  10. Jouvenet, M. 2007. La culture du “bricolage” instrumental et l’organisation du travail scientifique. Enquête dans un centre de recherches en nanosciences. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 1(2): 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lécuyer, C. 2006. Making silicon valley: Innovation and the growth of high tech, 1930-1970. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Marcovich, A., and T. Shinn. 2010. The cognitive, instrumental and institutional origins of nanoscale research: The place of biology. In Science in the context of application, ed. M. Carrier and A. Nordmann, 221–242. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. McFarlane, C. 2011. Learning the city: Knowledge and translocal assemblage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Piore, M., and C. Sabel. 1984. The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raffestin, C. 1986. Ecogénèse territoriale et territorialité. In Espaces, jeux et enjeux, ed. F. Auriac and R. Brunet, 173–185. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  17. Robinson, D., A. Rip, and V. Mangematin. 2007. Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy 36(6): 871–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sack, R. 1986. Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Soutif, M. 2000. La connivence entre physiciens de 1950 à 1975. La Revue pour l’histoire du CNRS (2). http://histoirecnrs.revues.org/document1439.html.
  21. Vinck, D. 2010. The ‘enterprise of science’: Construction and reconstruction of social capital around nano R&D. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2/3): 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vinck, D., M. Hubert, J. Jouvenet, and G. Zarama. 2006. Culture de la différence et pratiques de l’articulation entre chercheurs en micro- et nanotechnologies. In La fabrique des sciences: Des institutions aux pratiques, ed. J.P. Leresche, M. Benninghoff, F. Crettaz von Roten, and M. Merz, 147–163. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.Google Scholar
  23. Wagner, C. 2008. The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculté de Sciences Sociales et Politiques, Institut des Sciences Sociales, Quartier UNIL-MoulineUniversité de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations