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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Economists have given attention to industrial district formation, focusing on the role of locally mobile skilled workers (Piore and Sabel 1984). Firms exploit the locally accumulated knowledge base (skills, practices, and tacit knowledge), which transforms the region into a resource. In regional studies, cultural and organizational dimensions of dense regional networks are used to explain collective learning and flexible adjustments (Lee Saxenian 1994). The circulation of design, production, and management skills explains the success of innovations, corporations, and the cluster as a whole (Lécuyer 2006). This circulation stems from a culture of cooperation among, in this case, radio amateurs and a sense of regional pride, the perception of common interests, and the local movement of skilled workers and managers who disseminate best practices.
- 2.
A classical definition of territory (Sack 1986) refers to animal territoriality conceived in terms of control on a specific area. The notion refers to a spatial area, surrounded by boundaries, where actors find resources (people, instruments, industries or discourses). But for French speaking geographers and sociologists, the notion refers to another paradigm and corresponds to the notion of “place”: the territory is a space transformed by human action and which human beings have endowed with meaning (Raffestin 1986).
- 3.
Cf e.g. the speech of the Director of a local research institute during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Atomic Energy Authority or the local newsletters of the public authority.
- 4.
Chairman of the local council during the inauguration ceremony of Minatec (a shared infrastructure gathering research and technology transfer laboratories, two engineering schools and companies, around a technological platform), 1st of June 2006.
- 5.
Research institute leaders, industrialists working in microelectronics, political delegates, and even a group of anti-nano protesters (http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com/) say the same, even if the anti-nano proponents denounce these connections between research, industry, and politics.
- 6.
This narrative is mine as an ethnographer who reports the narratives on the basis of fieldnotes from meetings, talks, and documents. For an alternative narrative, see the pamphlet of the anti-nano group (pmo): “Michel Soutif à Minatec, contes et légendes de la technopole” (June 15, 2010). It tells another story in which the “Grenoble model” appears to be a legend, not the true history in which “opponents to electrification toppled the electric poles and the Faculty of Science refused to study electricity, hydraulics, and materials, all matters ‘good for plumbers’, in opposition to the young engineers and industrial captains ready to change the world” (ibid.).
- 7.
I discovered the first occurrence of this discourse on the “Grenoble model” in a scientific paper entitled “Pourquoi Grenoble est devenu une grande ville”, published 1941 by the famous local geographer Raoul Blanchard (1941). Various other observers underline the same characteristic: Dreyfus (1976), Soutif (2000).
- 8.
Epic is used in the sense of a series of deeds and adventures the heroic local ancestors would have experienced. For my interlocutors the epic is, by extension, what their heroic ancestors lived.
- 9.
Devoted to nano-characterization, the manufacture of nanoelectronic components, and ecotoxicological characterization, respectively.
- 10.
Titled “Nanosciences – Energy for the Future” and “Miniaturization of innovative devices in nanoelectronics”.
- 11.
In Paris, Grenoble benefited from a good reputation due to its university-industry connection and nano-orientation. But the success relates also to the narratives which shape local identity and the local construction of a concerted action towards national decision-making centers. Conversely, national reputation sometimes played against the city when it was said that “Grenoble has already received so much” or when there was a reduction in national support to the city for other internationally recognized scientific poles in software and neuroscience.
- 12.
According to ANT principles, these actors are not taken into account until they appear on the scene, like the anti-nano proponents who talk about the army or the curator of an exhibition on the local history of the paper industry who puts up an official poster saying “As we can see, in Grenoble, there are also other things than nanotechnology”. I then discover various problematizations which have in common a set of involved actors, the intensity of the links, and the epics, but which present some differences: focus on the cooperative model; focus on other actors (biomedicine and software, paper industry) and a slightly different story about trajectory A similar problematization is made by the anti-nano-group except that they introduce the army, qualify the relations differently (i.e. as a compromise rather than as cooperation), and tell a slightly different story (e.g. pointing to the conflicts). These competitive problematizations have many nodes in common; the resulting actor-network involves all of them, even if some exclude or leave others in the shade, or reject compromise (like the anti-nano group).
References
Blanchard, R. 1941. Pourquoi Grenoble est devenu une grande ville. Revue de Géographie Alpine 29(3): 377–390.
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.
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.
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.
Grossetti, M. 1995. Science, industrie et territoire. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
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.
Hubert, M. 2007. Hybridations instrumentales et identitaires dans la recherche sur les nanotechnologies. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 1(2): 243–266.
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.
Hubert, M. 2014. Partager des expériences de laboratoire: La recherche à l’épreuve des reorganisations. Paris: Edition des Archives Contemporaines.
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.
Lécuyer, C. 2006. Making silicon valley: Innovation and the growth of high tech, 1930-1970. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
McFarlane, C. 2011. Learning the city: Knowledge and translocal assemblage. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Piore, M., and C. Sabel. 1984. The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Raffestin, C. 1986. Ecogénèse territoriale et territorialité. In Espaces, jeux et enjeux, ed. F. Auriac and R. Brunet, 173–185. Paris: Fayard.
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.
Sack, R. 1986. Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Boston: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Wagner, C. 2008. The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vinck, D. (2016). The Local Configuration of a Science and Innovation Policy: A City in the Nanoworld. In: Merz, M., Sormani, P. (eds) The Local Configuration of New Research Fields. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22683-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22683-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22682-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22683-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)