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.
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.
This article is based on research that we conducted at the University of Lucerne within the project “Epistemic Practice, Social Organization, and Scientific Culture: Configurations of Nanoscale Research in Switzerland,” funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. We thank the observed and interviewed researchers for sharing their knowledge and experience with us. For constructive criticism we thank Philippe Sormani, Monika Kurath, and Miles MacLeod.
- 2.
The importance of resources has been highlighted also by organizational theory, especially as concerns the relationship between organizations and their environment. However, the thrust of the argument is quite different with resource dependence theory (RDT) focusing on power imbalance between firms and their strategies to reduce interdependence (cf. Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). For the case of science, Joly and Mangematin (1996) have developed a typology of laboratories’ relations with firms by specifying the “dynamics of resource acquisition;” van der Most (2009) has drawn on RDT to explore how research funding organizations respond to the emergence of nanotechnology, and Hallonsten (2014) has adapted RDT to account for individual scientists’ response to the environment.
- 3.
We have translated Güntherodt’s quotes as well as quotes from our other interview partners from the original German.
- 4.
- 5.
In the publication, Binnig’s name is misspelt as “Binning.”
- 6.
In the mid-1980s, the international STM community was dominated by researchers from IBM and Bell Labs with four universities standing out, among which the University of Basel (Mody 2011: 59).
- 7.
However, this should not be mistaken for a lacking interest in nanoscale research. In fact, the SNSF had issued research programs of more modest size on associated themes as early as 1989. The most important were the National Research Programs “Chemistry and Physics on Surfaces” (1989–1995), “Nanosciences” (1996–2000), and “Supramolecular Functional Materials” (2001–2006), each endowed with CHF 15 million.
- 8.
The NCCR funding instrument still exists. As our discussion focuses on the NCCR “Nanoscale Science,” which has been completed in 2013, we write in the past tense.
- 9.
At present, CHF 1 corresponds to approximately € 0.92 or $ 1.02.
- 10.
The NCCR “Nanoscale Science” (2001–2013) had a total budget of approximately CHF 140 million, SNSF funding amounting to CHF 49 million.
- 11.
NCCR “Nanoscale Science,” http://download.nccr-nano.org/about_us/interview_gue/interview_gue.pdf (accessed on August 27, 2014).
- 12.
For a first discussion of the local dynamics of nanoscale research at the crossroads of established disciplines, cf. Merz (2015).
- 13.
The financial support increased from CHF 0.5 million in 2006 to CHF 5 million since 2009.
- 14.
Since 2010, two further scientific institutions have joined the Argovia-network.
- 15.
In much the same way, nanoscale research itself was being deployed as a framing resource at another research organization (cf. Merz 2010). Another resource, however, was predominantly absent: that of a public framing of nano and its societal effects.
References
Biniok, P. 2013. Wissenschaft als Bricolage: Die soziale Konstruktion der Schweizer Nanowis-senschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Binning, G., H. Rohrer, Ch. Gerber, and E. Weibel. 1982. Surface studies by scanning tunneling microscopy. Physical Review Letters 49: 57–61.
Bozeman, B., and V. Mangematin (eds.). 2007. Emerging nanotechnologies (special issue). Research Policy 36(6): 807–904.
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.
Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster (eds.). 2000. Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Casper, M.J. 1998. The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
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.
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.
Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 463–496.
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.
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.
Hennig, J. 2011. Bildpraxis: Visuelle Strategien in der frühen Nanotechnologie. Bielefeld: Transcript.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lösch, A. 2006. Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4): 393–409.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mody, C.C.M. 2011. Instrumental community: probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology. Cambridge MA/London: MIT Press.
Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pickering, A. (ed.). 1992. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rip, A. 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15(4): 349–365.
Roukes, M. 2001. Plenty of room indeed. Scientific American 285: 48–57.
Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32(2): 196–220.
Shapin, S. 1989. The invisible technician. American Scientist 77: 554–563.
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.
Strauss, A.L. 1993. Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Torka, M. 2009. Die Projektförmigkeit der Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
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.
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
Merz, M., Biniok, P. (2016). The Local Articulation of Contextual Resources: From Metallic Glasses to Nanoscale Research. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22683-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22682-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22683-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)