Advertisement

The Local Articulation of Contextual Resources: From Metallic Glasses to Nanoscale Research

  • Martina Merz
  • Peter Biniok
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 29)

Abstract

This article addresses the local configuration of new research fields in a novel analytical perspective, inspired by Knorr-Cetina’s (1982) “transepistemic arenas of research.” Based on a qualitative investigation, it analyzes the development of nanoscale research at a select Swiss University through the lens of resource-relationships and the resources involved. The article’s central argument is that resources have to be articulated according to local conditions to become productive. Three temporal phases are differentiated to show how the current state of affairs has come about. Each phase involved specific material and immaterial resources as well as particular ways in which these were locally articulated. A first phase was characterized by the placing of probe microscopy in the local research cultures. In a second phase, nanoscale research became staged as an interdisciplinary project. Finally, a third phase involved resource relationships in the transepistemic arena of academic science and regional politics.

Keywords

Nanoscience Nanotechnology Scanning Probe Microscopy (SPM) Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) Science Dynamics Local Configuration Resource-Relationships Contextual Resources Economic Resources Framing Funding 

References

  1. Biniok, P. 2013. Wissenschaft als Bricolage: Die soziale Konstruktion der Schweizer Nanowis-senschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binning, G., H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber, and E. Weibel. 1982. Surface studies by scanning tunneling microscopy. Physical Review Letters 49: 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozeman, B., and V. Mangematin (eds.). 2007. Emerging nanotechnologies (special issue). Research Policy 36(6): 807–904.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, D., and M. Benninghoff. 2003. Policy learning in Swiss research policy: The case of the national centres of competence in research. Research Policy 32(10): 1849–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster (eds.). 2000. Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Casper, M.J. 1998. The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, A. 1991. Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. In Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss, ed. D.R. Maines, 119–158. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Felt, U. 2015. Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of Austria’s technopolitical identity. In Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power, eds. S. Jasanoff and S.-H. Kim, 103–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granek, G., and G. Hon. 2008. Searching for asses, finding a kingdom: The story of the invention of the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM). Annals of Science 65(1): 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallonsten, O. 2014. How scientists may “benefit from the mess”: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science. Social Science Information 53(3): 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hennig, J. 2011. Bildpraxis: Visuelle Strategien in der frühen Nanotechnologie. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joly, P.B., and V. Mangematin. 1996. Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R&D: The dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation. Research Policy 25(6): 901–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jouvenet, M. 2013. Boundary work between research communities: Culture and power in a French nanosciences and nanotechnology hub. Social Science Information 52(1): 134–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaiser, M., M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter (eds.). 2010. Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 27. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1982. Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science 12: 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lösch, A. 2006. Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4): 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merz, M. 2010. Reinventing a laboratory: Nanotechnology as a resource for organizational change. In Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 27, eds. M. Kaiser et al., 3–19. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merz, M. 2015. Dynamique locale des nanosciences au croisement de disciplines établies. In Disciplines académiques en transformation: Entre innovation et résistance, eds. A. Gorga and J.-Ph. Leresche, 103–116. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
  20. Merz, M., and P. Biniok. 2010. How technological platforms reconfigure science-industry relations: The case of micro- and nanotechnology. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Society 48(2): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mody, C.C.M. 2004. How probe microscopists became nanotechnologists. In Discovering the nanoscale, eds. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer, 119–133. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mody, C.C.M. 2011. Instrumental community: probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology. Cambridge MA/London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  24. Pickering, A. (ed.). 1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rip, A. 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15(4): 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roukes, M. 2001. Plenty of room indeed. Scientific American 285: 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32(2): 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapin, S. 1989. The invisible technician. American Scientist 77: 554–563.Google Scholar
  29. Star, S.L., and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss, A.L. 1993. Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Torka, M. 2009. Die Projektförmigkeit der Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Most, F. 2009. Research councils facing new science and technology: The case of nanotechnology in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Thesis, http://dx.doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036528979. Accessed 27 Aug 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education ResearchAlpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtViennaAustria
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (TINT)University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Faculty of Health, Safety, SocietyFurtwangen UniversityFurtwangenGermany

Personalised recommendations