THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD –
LABELS, MEANING AND EMOTIONS IN NANOTECHNOLOGY
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Stine Grodal
June 2007
 Copyright by Stine Grodal 2007
All Rights Reserved
ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Stephen R. Barley, Co-Principal Advisor
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Walter W. Powell, Co-Principal Advisor
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Chip Heath
Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies
iii
Abstract
Organizational theory has matured to a point where we know much about how
organizational fields, once formed, evolve. We know less about how new organizational
fields emerge. This dissertation provides a social-political account of how a field
emerges through participants’ intentional construction processes. People and
organizations join fields in order to forward their own goals. Negotiations and
contestations over meaning occur because the ability to define who and what belongs
within the field can facilitate participants’ access to resources.
Labels are important to the emergence of organizational fields. Before labels
exist it is difficult for participants to talk about the field, organize around it, and attract
resources to develop it. This dissertation argues that the adoption of labels by new and
existing communities co-evolves with meaning and resources in the emergence of an
organizational field. Employing 25 ethnographic observations, 77 interviews and 12,774
articles from five nanotechnology communities covering primarily the 21 year period
from 1984 to 2005, I show how the adoption of the label “nanotechnology” to denote
nanoscience co-evolved with the meaning of nanotechnology and the resources available
in the field. The five communities were futurists, the government, service providers,
companies, and scientists.
The nanotechnology field evolved through three phases: Mobilization,
legitimation, and institutionalization. Various mechanisms facilitated the adoption of the
nanotechnology label during the three phases. During the mobilization phase
excitement, public discourse, and social gatherings played a key role in the adoption
process. In the legitimation phase legitimacy, decoupling, and translation made the
iv
adoption possible. Finally, in the institutionalization phase renaming, labeling, and
abandonment influenced the adoption process.
In this dissertation I show that as more communities adopted the
nanotechnology label its meaning both broadened and changed from emphasizing nanorobotics to a focus on nano-materials. Scientists and entrepreneurs were not the creators
and first adopters of the nanotechnology label, instead futurists, the government and
venture capitalists played pivotal roles in promoting the nanotechnology label by
supplying the field with resources and infusing the nanotechnology label with meaning.
Theoretically this dissertation adds to our understanding of field emergence by
reframing emergence as a categorization process.
v
Acknowledgements
Any academic work is born out of collaboration. Many people have participated
in the creation of this dissertation. First and foremost I would like to thank Steve Barley,
who always believed in me, and enthusiastically supported my efforts. My work would
not have been the same without his advise. Steve was always there when I needed him
most. I would also like to thank Woody Powell, who inspired my interest in fields and
institutional theory. I am grateful to Woody for inviting me to participate in his biweekly lab meetings, where graduate students from across the university met to present
and discuss their research. The lab meetings were pivotal for my intellectual
development, and provided a great opportunity to meet and interact with graduate
students from the sociology department, the school of education, and the business
school. Forming these interdisciplinary friendships have been valuable both on a
professional and a personal level. I am also indebted to Chip Heath for his help and
encouragement in analyzing textual data and my interest in the role excitement plays in
shaping field emergence.
I thank my informants, who were generous with their time and their experiences.
In particular I would like to thank Christine Peterson for providing me with access to the
Foresight archives and in helping me locate people who were active during the early
period of nanotechnology. I would also like to thank Claudette Allison for her timely
and enthusiastic transcription work, and Susannah Carlson for her help with copyediting.
Stanford is an exciting place to study organizational theory. In particular, my
follow students collegiality and enthusiasm for organizational issues in particular and life
vi
in general have kept me going through the highs and lows of graduate studies. The
organizations studies group in the department of Management Science and Engineering
has challenged my thinking and enriched my understanding of organizational issues. I
would like to thank my two successive officemates, Victor Seidel and Tsedal Beyene, for
their support during the long hours we have spent together in The Cave. I have also
valued the friendship of Siobhan O’Mahony, Fabrizio Ferraro, Filipe Santos, Mark
Mortensen, and Andrew Nelson, who made the 4th floor of Terman a fun place to be.
Finally, I would like to thank my mother, my father, and my brother for their
lifelong support and for always encouraging me to strive for excellence.
vii
I dedicate this dissertation to my mother Birgit Grodal
- who taught me love and academic excellence.
viii
Table of Content
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................VI
TABLE OF CONTENT.................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ XII
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ XIII
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1
CHAPTER TWO – THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION ................................4
2.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 4
2.2 MEANING .................................................................................................. 5
2.3 A LINGUISTIC THEORY OF MEANING ........................................................ 9
2.4. COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................ 12
2.5 SPEECH COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 16
2.6 PIVOTAL EVENTS .................................................................................... 18
2.7 LABELS ................................................................................................... 22
2.8 A PRELIMINARY MODEL ......................................................................... 24
2.9 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEANING ........................................................... 36
2.10. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER THREE - METHODS.................................................................... 41
3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 41
3.2 STUDYING MEANING ............................................................................... 42
Criterion 1: Field Beginning ........................................................... 42
Criterion 2: Recent Field ................................................................. 43
Criterion 3: Locations of Interaction............................................... 44
Criterion 4: Paper Trail................................................................... 45
3.3 NANOTECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 47
Criterion 1: Field Beginning ........................................................... 47
Criterion 2: Recent Field ................................................................. 49
Criterion 3: Locations of Interaction............................................... 55
Criterion 4: Paper trail.................................................................... 56
3.4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................. 57
ix
Identifying Informants...................................................................... 58
3.5 ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATIONS ............................................................. 60
3.6 INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................ 65
3.7 ARCHIVAL DATA..................................................................................... 68
Historical Material .......................................................................... 68
Online Databases............................................................................. 70
Definitions........................................................................................ 77
3.8 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 78
Ethnographic Data........................................................................... 79
Interview Data ................................................................................. 80
Archival Data................................................................................... 81
3.7 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER FOUR: THREE PHASES - MOBILIZATION, LEGITIMATION
AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION……………………………………………..88
4.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 88
4.2 THREE PHASES IN THE EMERGENCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY ................... 90
4.3 1984-1996 – MOBILIZATION ................................................................... 98
4.4 1996-2000 – LEGITIMATION ................................................................. 120
4.3 2000-2005 INSTITUTIONALIZATION ...................................................... 141
4.6 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 157
CHAPTER FIVE - CHANGE IN MEANING ................................................159
5.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 159
5.2 THE CHANGE IN MEANING .................................................................... 160
5.3 THE BROADENING OF MEANING ........................................................... 166
5.4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 170
CHAPTER SIX - DISCUSSION .......................................................................171
6.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 171
6.2 THE FIELD EMERGENCE PROCESS ......................................................... 172
6.3 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITIES ................................................................. 176
6.4 RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 180
6.5 CHANGE IN MEANING ........................................................................... 182
6.6 INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS......................................................................... 186
x
6.7 EMERGENCE AS A CATEGORIZATION PROCESS ..................................... 188
6.9 FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................. 190
6.10 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 191
REFERENCES..................................................................................................194
APPENDIX 1: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................... 204
xi
List of Tables
TABLE 3.1:
Level of influence of the Five Communities and Their Goals for
Involvement in Nanotechnology
TABLE 3.2:
Overview of the Data
TABLE 3.3:
Nanotechnology Search Words
TABLE 3.3
Inductive Codes from Ethnographic Observations
TABLE 3.4
Search Words: Proper Names
TABLE 3.5
Search Words
TABLE 4.1:
Communities, Mechanisms, and Resources During the Three
Phases
TABLE 4.2a: The Three Phases in the Emergence of Nanotechnology
TABLE 4.2b: The Three Phases in the Emergence of Nanotechnology
TABLE 5.1:
Content, Breadth and Variance in Meaning
TABLE 5.2:
The Odds that a Nanotechnology Definition Contains
References to Either the Device, Material, and Small Category
TABLE 5.1:
A linear Regression Model of Nanotechnology Definitions’
Broadness Over Time Calculated pr. Year
xii
List of Figures
FIGURE 2.1: Three Organizational Fields
FIGURE 2.2: The Co-evolution of Labels, Meaning and Resources
FIGURE 2.3: Divergence and Convergence of Meaning within an
Organizational Field
FIGURE 3.1: The Convergence of Materials Science, Chemistry, Physics and
Molecular
FIGURE 3.2: Methods Overview
FIGURE 4.1: Percentage of Articles that Mention
FIGURE 4.2: Nanotechnology Articles That Mention Futurist, Government, or
Business Actors
FIGURE 4.3: Community Involvement Time Line
FIGURE 4.4: Excitement in Articles That Mention the Nanotechnology Label
Versus Articles That Do Not
FIGURE 4.5: Mentions of, “Next Big Thing,” and, “1 Trillion Dollar Market”
in Articles in the Top Fifty US
FIGURE 4.6: Growth in the Number of Press Releases and Newspaper Articles
That Mention Nanotechnology
FIGURE 4.7: Percentage of Articles Referring to Drexler
FIGURE 5.1: Definitions that Mention Small, Device or Material
FIGURE 5.2: Nanotechnology Articles that Refer to the Device and the
Material Category
FIGURE 5.3: Articles that Refer to Mundane and Extraordinary Applications
of Nanotechnology
FIGURE 6.1: The Co-evolution of Labels, Meaning and Resources in
Nanotechnology
FIGURE 6.2: Field Emergence
xiii
Chapter One - Introduction
It is impossible to dissociate language from science or science from language, because every
natural [or social] science always involves three things: the sequence of phenomena on which the science is
based; the abstract concepts which call these phenomena to mind; and the words in which the concepts are
expressed.
- Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, 1789
Organizational theory has matured to a point where we know much about how
organizational fields, once formed, evolve. We know less about how new organizational
fields emerge (Aldrich 1999). This dissertation examines how meaning is constructed
during the emergence of an organizational field. I define meaning as the connotations of
a label (Barley 1983; Petrilli and Ponzio 2005). This dissertation provides a socialpolitical account of field emergence. This account emphasizes that a field emerges
through participants’ intentional construction processes. People and organizations join
fields in order to forward their own goals. Some participants’ goals are aligned where
others are not, which results in negotiations and contestations shaping field definitions
and boundaries. Negotiations and contestations over definitions and boundaries occur
because the ability to define who and what belongs within the field can facilitate
participants’ access to resources.
The socio-political approach differs from a realist account of emergence. The
realist account stresses that the causes of field emergence are scientific breakthroughs,
1
which generate new knowledge and novel commercial possibilities. In the realist account
emergence is primarily a founding process, i.e. the field starts to emerge as more
organizations belonging to the field are founded (Hannan and Carroll 1995). In contrast
the socio-political approach presented in this dissertation emphasizes that emergence
happens through a process of meaning creation. In particular this approach emphasizes
that categorization is central to the emergence process.
Participants in fields are part of larger groups or communities whose members
share the same or similar social, political, and economic interests for participating within
a field. When actors start to participate within a new field they bring with them their
prior understandings and meanings, and they use these perspectives to negotiate the
construction of meaning with the other communities. An essential mechanism that
drives field emergence is, therefore, the joining of new communities to the field. Each
potential participant in the field joins with particular goals for participation and makes
demands on the field in order to achieve his or hers goals (Cyert and March 1963). The
degree of conflict between the communities’ goals varies. Some communities’ goals and
interests are aligned, some diverge on some points, whereas others are largely
inconsistent.
Conflicts between participants goals are solved both through ongoing
negotiations between participants and through a decoupling between participants. Field
activity exists simultaneously in disparate and loosely connected systems. Exchanges of
opinions and agreements happen at a high level of abstraction, which is removed from
daily activities. This enables participants to reinterpret agreements and others’ opinions
in accordance with the concrete issues they are facing.
2
The construction of field meaning does not happen uniformly through time, but
is centered on pivotal events. Pivotal events often happen when existing meanings are
disrupted or questioned. This can happen when abstract agreements are made concrete
and communities are confronted with their disparate interpretations of the agreements
(Cyert and March 1963). It can also happen through the disruption of the agreements as
sometimes happens when legislation changes, or when radical economic and
technological structures shift.
Some of the earliest and most important events in the emergence of a new field
are the construction and adoption of the label by different communities. When new
communities start to use the label, it disrupts the existing meaning structures and new
meanings need to be negotiated. It is in the process of adopting the label that
communities begin attributing and constructing meaning around the field.
When communities with different perspectives and goals adopt a label, they add
new connotations to it, which leads to a broadening of the label. Simultaneously the
most pronounced connotations of a label might change as new communities gain more
power in defining its meaning.
The overarching picture that emerges from this analysis is that the composition
of an organizational field is not given; it is negotiated. The meaning of the field is not
given; it is a matter for bargaining. An organizational field is not founded; it is
constructed.
3
Chapter Two – Theoretical Introduction
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter I develop the argument that the construction of meaning, in general, and
categorization processes, in particular, are important aspects of the emergence of
organizational fields and industries. Because the investigation of meaning is largely
missing from macro organizational literature, I construct a theory of meaning which
draws on semiotic theory and symbolic interactionism. The core of this theory is that
meaning can be conceptualized as the connotations of a label. The label, therefore,
becomes an important unit of analysis for investigating the construction of meaning.
I argue that meaning is a negotiated process that takes place between
communities within organizational fields. The construction of meaning does not happen
uniformly through time, but is centered on pivotal events. One of the first pivotal
events that happen during the emergence of a field or industry is the construction of a
label. Communities’ adoption and abandonment of labels are of central importance to
the construction of meaning within organizational fields and industries. I develop a
model that suggests that meaning is constructed and deconstructed through the adoption
and abandonment of labels by different communities. I further this model by arguing
that meaning changes by first going through a period of divergence, followed by a period
of convergence.
4
2.2 Meaning
Meaning is a core theoretical concept used to explain the emergence of new
organizational fields and industries. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define an
organizational field as, “those organizations that, in aggregate, constitute a recognized
area of institutional life: key suppliers, resources, and product consumers, regulatory
agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products.” Most
organizations are part of several organizational fields (see figure 2.1), where they
participate in different roles, functions, or capacities. They can, for example, be core to
one organizational field and a mere service provider in another. In the three fields
depicted in figure 2.1 a dedicated nanotechnology company is, for example, a core
company within the nanotechnology field, but a supplier within the pharmaceutical field.
A chemical company, on the contrary, is a service provider both within the
FIGURE 2.1: THREE ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS
Nanotechnology
Field
Healthcare
Field
Biotechnology Companies
Nanotechnology Companies
Chemical Companies
Hospitals
Pharmaceutical Companies
Pharmaceutical
Field
5
nanotechnology and the pharmaceutical fields.
The development of meaning is central to the emergence of an organizational
field. Scott argues that the creation of an organizational field necessitates the creation of
a shared meaning system: “The notion of field connotes the existence of a community
of organizations that partakes in a common meaning system and whose participants
interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside of the
field.” (Scott 2001 p. 56). Scott’s conception of meaning is as a social structure that
provides resources and constraints guiding participants’ actions. DiMaggio and Powell
stress the negotiated characteristic of meaning creation in fields: “The development of a
mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a
common enterprise is crucial to the creation of an organizational field.” (DiMaggio and
Powell 1983). Establishing consensus among participants in an organizational field is
also central to Fligstein’s conception of an organizational field: “Fields contain collective
actors who try to produce a system of domination in that space. To do so requires the
production of a local culture that defines local social relations between actors. These
local cultures contain cognitive elements (i.e. they are interpretive frameworks for
actors), define social relationships, and help people interpret their own position in a set
of social relationships.” (Fligstein 2001a p. 15).
Recently there has been a surge in the number of studies addressing meaning
within organizational fields. In particular, studies of industry cognition (Porac et al.
1995; Rosa and Porac 2002; Urban, Hullard and Weinberg 1993), field frames (Hoffman
and Ventresca 1999; Lounsbury and Glynn 2001; Lounsbury, Ventresca and Hirsch
2003) and changes in institutional logics (Friedland and Alford 1991; Thornton, Jones
and Kury 2005) have emphasized meaning creation within fields. These studies show
6
that the development of meaning affects the construction of markets (Lounsbury,
Ventresca and Hirsch 2003; Rosa et al. 1999), and changes in meaning influence
institutional structures and the power that participants have within the field (Lawrence
and Phillips 2004a; Thornton, Jones and Kury 2005).
What all of the studies have in common is that they use qualitative accounts to
determine a change in meaning over time and then use rigid empirical methods to
measure changes in outcome. For example Lounsbury (2006) shows how two
competing logics within the mutual funds industry, one based on a trust relationship and
the other based on performance, influenced firms’ boundary decisions. This is a
compelling story about the consequences of changes in meaning, but we are still left
without knowledge of the antecedents of meaning construction (Mohr 2006).
Other accounts of meaning within the existing literature have primarily
emphasized the role played by legitimacy. Legitimacy is defined as, “a generalized
perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and
definitions.” (Suchman 1995 p. 574). Until recently theories assumed that legitimacy was
acquired after organizations were founded, and that legitimacy was the result of a passive
process and not actively pursued by entrepreneurs (Hannan et al. 1995; Hannan and
Freeman 1977).
Recent research has emphasized that entrepreneurs actively engage in symbolic
management to influence the legitimacy of their emerging field (Aldrich 1999; Aldrich
and Fiol 1994; Zott and Huy 2007b). Drawing from work on social movements (e.g.
Benford and Snow 2000b) scholars have shown how nascent entrepreneurs use frames to
influence both the cognitive, normative and regulatory landscape in which their
7
organization is embedded (Lounsbury and Glynn 2001; Lounsbury, Ventresca and
Hirsch 2003).
Several strategies have been suggested as mechanisms for creating legitimacy
around new industries. Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) suggest that entrepreneurial storytelling influences industry level legitimacy. Rindova and Fombrun (2001) demonstrate
that entrepreneurs establish cognitive legitimacy around their products by educating
customers. In their study of the emergence of the specialty coffee niche they show that
coffee customers used to be unknowledgeable about coffee and, therefore, could not
differentiate coffee based on quality. Through extensive teaching of consumers
companies like Peets and Starbucks created customers who were able to distinguish
coffee based on quality – thus creating an increased demand for their specialty coffee
products.
Aldrich and Fiol (1994) emphasize that entrepreneurs engage in strategies to
establish trust, reliability, reputation, and institutional legitimacy at the organizational,
intraindustry, interindustry, and institutional levels. The strategies that they use to
establish this legitimacy vary depending on the level at which they try to exert influence.
The main strategies entrepreneurs employ to increase legitimacy around novel industries
is the use of symbolic language, communication of internally consistent stories regarding
their new activities, mobilization to take collective action, establishment of
interorganizational network ties, and building institutions. Conclusively Aldrich and Fiol
state that, “The social construction of organizational reality involved in building a new
industry requires meaning making on a grand scale.” (Aldrich and Fiol 1994 p. 666).
Even though the literature on legitimacy adds to our knowledge of the
construction of meaning in organizational fields it leaves many questions unanswered.
8
First the literature only examines legitimacy, which is a small part of the creation of
meaning around a field. Second, most of the studies use the legitimacy concept mostly
theoretically, but do not measure meaning empirically. Actually, little research has been
done on the construction of meaning, or the process of emergence itself (DiMaggio
1991).
2.3 A Linguistic Theory of Meaning
One reason we lack studies on the antecedents of meaning is that meaning has been
difficult to operationalize (Mohr 2006). To be able to study and measure meaning we
need to develop a theory of meaning which enables us to study it empirically. Meaning
has been defined in a number of ways. In cognitive psychology, meaning has been
associated with access and retrieval of information stored within cognitive structures
(Eysenck 1984). The cognitive definition assumes that meaning is the result of passive
information processing in which meaning is stored in the mind to be retrieved later in its
original form (Bruner 1990). The drawback to the cognitive description of meaning is
that it does not account for the emergence and change of meaning. In particular, it falls
short in accounting for how meaning changes as a consequence of social interaction.
To develop a theory of meaning centered on individual actions we need to look
at the process through which meaning is constructed. Humans communicate via
multiple means, but, “language, which may be defined here as a system of vocal signs, is
the most important sign system of human society.” (Berger and Luckmann 1967 p. 37).
Language is thus central to constructing a theory of meaning (Berger and Luckmann
1967; Potter and Wetherell 1987; Wittgenstein 1958).
9
I argue that the meaning of a field consists of the connotations associated with
the field’s label (Barley 1983). A theory of meaning that can account for how meaning is
socially constructed needs to include how interpretation influences meaning, and how
meaning is influenced by contextual factors. Semiotic theory is concerned with how
systems of signs become meaningful to the people who use them, i.e. how signification
occurs (Eco 1976). I suggest that semiotic theory provides a viable framework for
understanding the construction of meaning in organizational fields. Semiotic theory has
been used widely in anthropology to understand how members of different cultures use
words to create and communicate meaning, and how such meanings can change due to a
process of social negotiation (Petrilli and Ponzio 2005).
Semiotic theory states that there are three sign components in the construction of
meaning: The sign, the signified, and the interpreted1 (Petrilli and Ponzio 2005). I will
refer to these three elements as the sign, the denotation, and the connotation of the sign
respectively. A sign is inseparable from semiosis, in that a sign is defined exactly through
its semiotic characteristics, i.e. the signs ability to function as a signifier. The sign
becomes part of a meaning system, because it receives an interpretation, i.e. the
connotation of the sign. The connotation is itself a sign with an associated connotation.
The connotation of the connotation of the original sign is also in itself a sign etc. The
same is true for denotations. Signs, therefore, consist of an unending chain of deferrals
from one connotation to the next, creating an expansive web of meaning. This web is what
Peirce calls, “infinite semiosis.” The relationship between signs and semiosis is dialogic,
1 Saussure states that there are only two important elements in the sign which is the signifier and the
signified.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto Ponzio. 2005. Semiotics Unbounded - Interpretive Routes through the Open Network
of Signs. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press.
10
because a sign ads its meaning by virtue of another sign (Petrilli and Ponzio 2005).
Investigations of meaning thus need to study the relationship between signs (i.e. the web
of meaning), since it is in a sign’s relationship with other signs that the sign’s meaning is
revealed. If we want to study the construction of meaning, we need to study the
construction of relationships among signs.
The web of meaning is central to social behavior, because it is a repository of
accumulated meaning. It is preserved in time by bridging temporal and spatial events
and integrating them into a meaningful whole (Berger and Luckmann 1967). Analyzing
language repositories like books, articles, and memos enables us to shed light on webs of
meaning. By studying language repositories over time, we are able to track changes in
the connotations and denotations of signs, and thereby changes in meaning.
Investigating language repositories is of central importance to studying the emergence of
an organizational field, since it sheds light on the processes, meanings, and contestations
that form webs of meaning. Field participants leave paper trails in the form of articles,
memos, press releases, etc, which provide a rich data source for tracking language over
time. The paper trails reveal language use and variations at different points in time.
Lawrence and Phillips, (2004) for example, show a change in the web of meaning
from depicting whales as an aggressive dangerous animal to a friendly endangered
animal. They link this change in the connotations of whales to the growth of the whalewatching industry in North America. As long as whales were considered aggressive,
unpersonalized animals (as exemplified in the movie, Moby Dick), there was no reason for
watching them as a pastime. When public discourse shifted to portray whales as
personal, friendly, and endangered (as exemplified in the movie Free Willy) it provided
people with reasons for watching whales.
11
This construction of webs of meaning is one of constant negotiations and
contestations over boundaries and content of the shared reality (Strauss et al. 1964). I
will unpack this negotiation process in more detail in the next section.
2.4. Communities
The construction of a common web of meaning facilitates coordination and joint action
by participants involved in the organizational field. In particular, coalescence, social
construction, and boundary creation are central to the theory of fields (Fligstein 2001b).
The people who participate in a field come from different communities. A community is
defined as a set of individuals who use a similar discourse, i.e. they have a similar usage
of signs and, thus, use signs to construct similar webs of meaning. Examples of
communities are venture capitalists, biotechnology scientists, and government officials.
Communities are distinct social worlds (Becker 1982; Strauss 1978). Communities can vary
greatly in size. Some communities are global, some are local, some have rigid boundaries
and others possess permeable boundaries. But within each community one activity
(along with related clusters of activity) is strikingly evident, like investing money,
manipulating DNA, and running government offices.
The concept of a community or social world is related to the concept of a,
“sentiment pool,” which is defined as an, “aggregate of individuals who share common
grievances and attributional orientations.” (Snow et al. 1986 p. 467). The concept of a
sentiment pool is used extensively in the social movement literature. The difference
between the notion of a social world and a sentiment pool is the degree of organization
around the common meaning structures. A sentiment pool lacks an organizational base
that individuals can use to express their discontent, and it is, therefore, an unexplored
12
opportunity for people to organize. I.e. participants in a sentiment pool share the same
grievances, but are either not aware that others have the same attitude or are organized
around those issues (Snow et al. 1986). For example in the early 1970s, many evangelical
Christians felt that their values were not represented in American politics, but there were
no organization that guided or exploited this sentiment. During the 1970s, Christian
movements like the Moral Majority, Religious Roundtable, and Christian Voice, tapped
into this sentiment pool to recruit members for their organizations (Green, Guth and
Hill 1993). In contrast there is no limit to the degree of organization of a social word or
a community, and participants within social worlds are often organized around book
clubs, unions, emailing lists, art shows etc (Becker 1982). The organization of a
sentiment pool can, therefore, lead to the creation of a social world.
When participants from multiple communities begin participating within a field,
they bring with them their prior webs of meaning, which they have constructed as part
of their community. Because participants differ in their political, economic, and social
interests, the entrance of new communities can lead to contestation and negotiation.
The organizational field consists of a diverse set of communities that intersect.
One community might, for example, impinge on the other communities and question
the legitimacy of their actions, or a community might borrow an idea or a technology
from another field and reinterpret it in their own context. One of the core analytical
tasks is to discover the places were communities intersect and to trace the strategies,
processes, and consequences of community interaction (Strauss 1978; Strauss et al.
1964). In their study of the computing world, Kling and Gerson (1977) showed that the
different communities involved with computing, like innovators, vendors, service
providers, educators, hobbyists, system architects, and communities of users, intersected
13
around technological innovations. Innovations within the computer field were attributed
meaning by the participating communities. What the producers view as a technological
innovation to improve performance, some users might view as additional work, since
the, “innovation,” forces them to unnecessarily change their work practices. Vendors
intersect with both producers and users in negotiations over meaning; they strategize
over ways to sell product enhancements to users, and debate with producers over
exclusivity, product differentiations and price.
It is important to note that most communities can be broken down into
subcommunities with closer scrutiny. The community of biotechnology scientists can,
for example, decompose into scientists who work on human versus animal
biotechnology, or groups of scientists who are using specific tools. Subcommunities
often form around intersections. Communities can thus be studied at multiple levels of
analysis, and it depends upon the question that the investigation is trying to address,
which level of analysis is most suitable (Strauss 1984).
Community interaction has shaped the construction of meaning during field
emergence within fields as diverse as the automobile industry (Rao 1994; Rao 2004),
software development (Akera 2001), recycling (Lounsbury, Ventresca and Hirsch 2003),
and open source (O'Mahony 2002). For example, within the early software industry,
user communities gathered to share basic software, since it was a scarce commodity.
IBM, among others, worked closely with the user community and incorporated large
amounts of user-developed software into its standard products. The user communities
were essential in creating software categories, language, and meanings that were later
adopted by the industry, thereby shaping the long-term evolution of the industry (Akera
2001).
14
Participants from different communities engage in negotiation processes with
each other and the surrounding society in attempts to legitimate and empower
organizational fields (Scott et al. 2000; Scott 2001). Rao (1994; 2004) for example shows
that people from many different communities were involved in contestation over the
early automobile industry. Hobbyists and dedicated producers came up with a wide
range of models built on different technologies. Simultaneously, opposition to the
automobile came from horse breeders, livery stable owners, and horse-drawn vehicle
driver associations, who argued that the automobile should be banned from public
roads, since it jeopardized safety and primarily was a toy for the rich. Ultimately,
automobile enthusiasts started to arrange automobile races, “with the desire to promote,
encourage and stimulate the invention, development and perfection and general
adoption of motor vehicles.” (quoted in Rao 1994, p. 34). The results of the races were
published in magazines and, thus, provided credentialing mechanisms that legitimated
organizations, created a status hierarchy, and built the reputations of organizations.
The actions of community members in shaping the emergence of an
organizational field are evident in DiMaggio’s (1991) study of the construction of the
organizational field of art museums. Multiple communities like philanthropists,
museums workers, and museum visitors played a key role in the contestation over the
museum reform movement, which attempted to discredit existing museums.
Communities had to justify their actions on the basis of widely accepted rational myths
of justice and progress to enable them to draw on legitimacy from already established
fields. The participants in the museum reform movement borrowed models from other
fields by comparing museums to libraries, departments stores, or symphony orchestras,
but avid contestation among the participants arose about which model was most
15
appropriate. It is critical to note that efforts did not take place inside organizations, by
creating internal departments, symbols and roles. Instead professionals strived to
construct an environment they could control at the level of the organizational field
through externally focused activities. Analyses of the effects communities have on
legitimating processes, thus, need to be carried out at the field level, since this is the level
at which contestations and transpositions occur.
2.5 Speech Communities
A core characteristic of communities is that they posses different rhetorical patterns and
meaning systems (Berger and Luckmann 1967). Subgroups and speech communities
produce and reproduce different categories and meaning systems (Bruner 1990; Strauss
1984). Sociolinguists have intensively studied the role rhetoric plays in the construction
of communities and social systems. One of the key findings of sociolinguistics is that
communities use language in different ways to obtain a variety of goals. Communities
use different expressions and phrases to signal inclusion as well as boundaries. This is,
for example, true of adolescents where the use and knowledge of expressions vary across
demographic and social groups (Labov 1992; Labov 1972). Studies of linguistic
communities also find that social attitudes toward language are extremely uniform
throughout a speech community. There is, thus, agreement among the participants
within the community about what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate language use,
and a strong awareness around the association between forms of speech and
membership in other communities. A negative attitude towards Canadian French is, for
example, quite uniform in France, where the dialect is different (Labov 1972).
16
Even small variations in linguistic expressions can serve as powerful indicators of
inclusion or exclusion. Gregory (1983) showed that in a high technology company in
Silicon Valley, employees used rhetoric to distinguish between technical communities,
and that words, like “hardware,” “software,” “engineering,” and, “marketing,” obtain
specific meaning for the participants depending on their community affiliation.
Communities actively and strategically use language to construct meaning and to
influence others. Language is an essential way in which entrepreneurs influence other
community members in their efforts to create new ventures and obtain resources
(Lounsbury and Glynn 2001). Molina (1993) shows how communities of computer chip
producers used promotional language to forward their own technological trajectory.
Their statements about the future of a technology became a self-fulfilling prophecy,
which ultimately shaped the emergence of a dominant design within the computer chip
industry.
Guice (1999) demonstrates that promotion is an intricate part of technological
development. He distinguishes between scientific and promotional language, and shows
that scientific and promotional language differ in both their overall goal and form.
Whereas the language of science tends to be rational, specific, and evidence based,
promotional language tends to be emotional, general, and only loosely tied to evidence.
Promotional and scientific language are, however, not in exact opposition to one
another. Promotional language can forward the goals of science and function as a means
of attracting attention and resources to a scientific endeavor.
Communities engage in constant negotiations and use promotional language to
forward their own goals. By studying the development of language repositories over
time, it is possible to dissect the important dynamics that shape the constitution of
17
organizational fields. Language is also important because it is closely linked to action.
Since language is further linked to specific participants and communities, it is possible
through the analysis of language repositories to develop a theory of the efforts
communities engage in to shape the emergence of new industries.
2.6 Pivotal Events
The development of meaning does not happen uniformly through time. Instead the
development of meaning is centered on pivotal events where meaning is disrupted.
Ethnomethodologists have shown that it is only through close scrutiny of a
disruption of linguistic patterns that the underlying web of meaning reveals itself. The
structures that had been taken for granted can be difficult to address, but by disrupting
the regular flow of linguistic practices, or dissecting the linguistic flows, it is possible to
reveal the underlying meaning elements (Garfinkle 1967). At the field level, natural
disruptions occur like regulatory change, technological or market successes and failures,
and questioning and criticisms by powerful participants. During disruptive periods,
linguistic patterns are obstructed, taken for granted assumptions are clarified, and
multiple communities utter opinions. These are pivotal events during which meaning is
disrupted and reconstructed through a negotiation process among the participants.
Language repositories created during disruptive periods, thus, pose fertile arenas to
investigate webs of meaning in organizational fields.
The construction of meaning is most important in the earliest period of an
organizational field. Before shared understanding is established, conversations, and the
exchange of information within and between communities, are constantly disrupted by
miscommunications and misunderstandings. In the early period there is confusion about
18
roles, participants, markets, and the boundaries of the field. One example is in the
development of automobiles. “The automobile, per se, was unfamiliar to prospective
consumers and putative investors. Consumers were confused because the source of
power, the number of cylinders, systems of steering and control, and the mode of
stopping were topics of considerable controversy. The only point of agreement about
the automobile was that it could not be powered by animals.” (Rao 1994 p. 33).
Negotiation of meaning typically occurs around pivotal events such as the
establishment of standards (Garud, Jain and Kumaraswamy 2002), the publication of
groundbreaking technical papers or patents, (Anderson and Tushman 1990), certification
contests (Rao 1994), and regulatory events (Edelman 1992; Ruef 2000). These pivotal
events disrupt existing meaning structures. For example, Jensen (2006) shows that the
legalization of pornography led to contestations over the meaning of nudity and to the
creation of new movie genres that mixed comedy with pornographic elements.
Meaning construction occurs most vigorously in the early period of industry and
field emergence (Aldrich 1999). For example, in the 1970s, biotechnology was ill
defined; what the industry was, who participated, and the goals of the industry were
unclear and contested. Europeans argued that biotechnology was just a gradual
extension of 19th Century science and, therefore, included baking and brewing, as well as
recombinant DNA as part of biotechnology. Americans, on the other hand, stressed the
revolutionary nature of the recombinant process (Markel and Robin 1985). Moreover,
the biotechnology category included firms that pursued human therapeutics, human
diagnostics, the modification of plants and animals, veterinary vaccines, energy
production via biomass conversion, and pollution control using modified microbes
(Markel and Robin 1985).
19
Over time the commonly understood definition of a biotechnology firm has
narrowed even further to human therapeutics, while companies that address the other
markets either have added a qualifying term like, “plant,” or “animal biotechnology,” or
are categorized within completely different industries such as, “energy,” or, “agricultural
products.”2
The practice of distinguishing between pharmaceuticals and biotechnology
challenges the standard definition of an industry as a set of companies that address the
same market. Even though biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies compete in
the same market, (human therapeutics), they are often treated as, and referred to as,
different industries by the popular press, industry analysts, and venture capitalists.
Companies that produce human therapeutics are often categorized as biotechnology or
pharmaceutical companies, based on how they generate their products. Analysts are
more likely to class firms that use scientific techniques rooted in molecular biology as
biotechnological, and firms that employ chemistry as pharmaceuticals. This
categorization is also related to the time of founding. Companies founded before the
biotechnology revolution, and that address markets within human therapeutics, tend to
be classified as pharmaceutical companies, whereas companies founded afterwards tend
to be classified as biotechnology companies.
Challenges to industry categories are even evident in the development of the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, which forms the basis of federal
2 Nevertheless, the confusion around the categorization of biotechnology still exists. In developing the
new industry classification system 37% of the comments received (22 out of 60) regarded creating new
biotechnology industries, e.g. medical biotechnology products, food and agricultural biotechnology
products, and industrial biotechnology products, which would, “currently group a number of
establishments that are currently classified in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting;
Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sectors of NAICS”. Office of
Management and Budget. 2005. “North American Industry Classification System – Update for 2007”.
Federal Register 70.
20
regulation, control, and reporting for companies, and which provides researchers with
their most commonly used means of operationalizing industries. The SIC system is
currently being modified because of political pressure to create a unified system that
covers all of North America. The process entails considerable debate and negotiation
between interested parties in the three North American countries: “After considering all
proposals from the public, consulting with U.S. data users and industry groups, and
undertaking extensive discussions with Statistics Canada and Mexico’s INEGI3, the
ECPC4 in collaboration with INEGI5 and Statistics Canada developed recommendations
for revisions to NAICS that would apply to all three North American countries.”6
(Office of Management and Budget 2005).
Even if official categorization systems remained unchanged, legal, technological,
and social changes would stretch the denotative and connotative boundaries of terms for
industries. This is apparent in the challenges currently facing those who regulate the
telecommunications industry, where infrastructure operators increasingly provide a
bundle of voice, data, and video services. Traditional television cable companies are now
providing broadband Internet access along with video and telephone services, making
the separation of telecommunications and Internet service providers difficult.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica.
Economic Classification Policy Committee.
5 North American Industrial Classification System.
6 The adoption of the NAICS is also a big change from prior classification schemas, since “NAICS is
the first industry classification system developed in accordance with a single principle of aggregation, the
principle that producing units that use similar production processes should be grouped together in the
classification”. Office of Management and Budget. “North American Industry Classification System –
Update for 2007.”. Federal Register 70.
3
4
21
2.7 Labels
A specific pivotal event is assigning a label to a field (Hannan, Polos and Carroll 2006).
Labeling is one of the first events that occurs during a field’s emergence. A label is a
term for categorizing a person, group, or organization, on the basis of actual or
perceived similarities. Categorization is an act of meaning attribution (Vygotsky 1987).
For example, coining the label, “biotechnology,” recategorized existing researchers,
companies, and service providers in biology and biochemistry into a new category. The
label, “biotechnology,” connoted that there was a field focused on manipulating
biological organisms for industrial purposes (Markle and Robin 1985). Drawing on
semiotic theory we can specify a field’s label as a sign with connotations and denotations.
We can study the construction, negotiation and contestation of a field’s meaning by
analyzing the system of signs associated with the field’s label.
Labels are important aspects of fields, because they create reference points for
communities inside and outside the organizational field (Glynn and Abzug 2002). Labels
facilitate communication across community and cultural boundaries, because they
provide links between disparate webs of meaning (Galison 1997). Experiments have
shown that the creation of a shared label enabled people to exchange more information
and to do so more quickly, because the use of signs functions as a short cut to a larger
implied meaning structure (Clark and Wilkes-Biggs 1986). Labels also enable
communities to organize, since by adopting labels they obtain a shared identity and
establish authority within the created social structure (White 1992).
A label is one of the first elements in the creation of a field’s web of meaning.
From initiation, labels carry specific connotations. For example the construction of the
label, “artificial intelligence,” joined together webs of meaning associated with,
22
“artificial,” and with, “intelligence,” and as communities started to use the label, they
reconstructed the connotations and denotations of the label. In the case of artificial
intelligence, scientists and enthusiasts begun to use the label in association with ideas of
creating computer systems that would behave like humans, have computational power
that exceeded human capacity, or be able to carry out specific tasks with great expertise.
These linguistic actions led to the construction of artificial intelligence’s connotations
like, “super-computers,” “human-like intelligence,” and, “expert systems.”
The relationship between the adoption of labels and the construction of meaning
is dualistic, i.e. the adoption of labels affects the construction of meaning, but the
construction of meaning also affects the adoption of labels. There are some meaning
structures, which will make it more or less likely that other communities are going to
adopt the label. Heath, Bell and Sternberg (2001), for example, show that urban legends
that have a high emotional content are more likely to be retold than are legends that do
not.
Accounts of emerging fields emphasize the feelings of exuberance and
excitement that participants feel when they learn about the new technological
possibilities. The early period of the biotechnology industry, for example, was
characterized by a high degree of excitement (Rabinow 1996). Gershell and Atkins (2003
p. 321) described the early period of biotechnology: “…laypersons, researchers, and
clinicians alike speak of the biotechnology revolution with excitement. Media coverage
of new breakthroughs in medicine often have the public and the investment community
on the edge of their seats, eager for the next blockbuster drug to cure everything from
high cholesterol levels to cancer”.
23
Language that expresses excitement characterizes early fields. Both expressions
of positive and negative affect enable movement participation and actions. Studies of
social movements have shown that whereas negative affect like indignation, anger, and
suspicion is often more visible in the rhetoric of social movements, positive affect is a
central part of movement participation and success (Goodwin, Jasper and Polletta 2001).
Even if success seems unachievable, the mere process of participation can provide
participants with feelings of positive affect like pride, solidarity, and laughter. Barker
(2001) describes the initial process through which the Solidarity movement was started in
Poland in August 1980: “Fear, courage, anger, laughter, nervous breakdowns, pride, and
solidarity appear at peak intensity during those astonishing seventeen days. The narrative
is punctuated by displays of feeling, including tears, cheering, booing, whistling, open-air
Masses, public readings of workers’ poetry, and presentations of flowers.” (p. 175).
A theoretical model of the development of meaning needs to include not only
the ways in which the adoption of labels shapes meaning in the field, but also how
certain connotations facilitate the adoption of labels. I will develop a theoretical model
of the development of meaning in the following section.
2.8 A Preliminary Model
Although researchers have recognized that meaning construction and resources are
crucial to emerging fields, scholars have yet to examine the early process of meaning
construction. Existing studies of meaning making begin after labels have been
established (Aldrich 1999; Mohr 2006). Thus, prior studies of fields have taken labels for
granted and have used them to define the object of study retrospectively. The question
24
of how the adoption of labels by communities affects the construction of meaning and
availability of resources in an emerging organizational field remains virgin territory.
Drawing on the theoretical foundation laid out in the sections above, we can
start to think about how meaning is constructed within an organizational field over time.
Figure 2.2 sketches one possible scenario for how the relationship between labels,
meaning, and resources might unfold over time. Figure 2.2 shows that, during
emergence, a field goes through three phases: Mobilization, legitimation, and
institutionalization. The adoption of labels by communities affects the construction of
meaning around the label. As meaning changes it influences the availability of resources
within the field and the adoption of the label by other communities. During the three
phases, new resources are constructed within the field in the form of social, monetary,
and human capital. These three resources are all important to the creation of an
FIGURE 2.2: THE CO-EVOLUTION OF LABELS, MEANING AND RESOURCES
Resources
Meaning
Adoption
of label
Field
phase
Social Capital
* Reconstruction of
connotations and
denotations
* Meaning is specific
* Variance is small
Original creation
of the label
Mobilization
Monetary Capital
*Reconstruction of
connotations and
denotations
*Meaning is broader
* Variance is high
Adoption or
abandonment of the label
by new communities
Legitimation
Human Capital
*Reconstruction of
connotations and
denotations
* Meaning is broad
* Variance is low
Adoption or
abandonment of the label
by new communities
Institutionalization
25
organizational field, but they are most significant at different points in time during the
development of the field. I will unpack the three phases in the sections below and detail
how the adoption of labels, the construction of meaning, and the availability of resources
co-evolve in the emergence of an organizational field.
Mobilization
Early in the formation of an organizational field, a label is created and diffused within a
single community. The community brings to the label understandings, interpretations,
and interests that are relevant to its members (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Lawrence and
Phillips 2004a; Stinchcombe 1965). For example, in the early days of the automotive
field, enthusiasts lent the automobile its first connotation as a toy for racing (Rao 1994).
In the open source community, programmers motivated by an ideology of voluntary
collaboration and limited ownership created the initial connotations of open source as
freely available non-proprietary software (O'Mahony 2002). In the early period when
only one community is involved in the field there is little difference in opinion about the
connotations of the label.
The earliest phase of field emergence resembles a social movement (Hannan,
Polos and Carroll 2006). Examples from fields as diverse as automobiles (Rao 1994),
microbrewery (Carroll and Swaminathan 2000), and aviation (Wohl 1996) suggest many
of the traits that we associate with social movements can be found in the early period of
field creation. Of central importance during this period is the mobilization of
individuals to join the movement (McAdam and Snow 1997).
26
Meaning. An important mechanism in facilitating mobilization is the
construction of meaning around the label (Snow et al. 1986). Snow and Benford (1988)
have shown that movement participants, “frame, or assign meaning to, and interpret,
relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential adherents
and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists.” (1988, p.
198). Within the social movement literature the word, ‘mobilization,’ is used to specify
whether a person joins the movement and actively participates in activities that the
movement arranges. I am going to use the word participation more broadly to signify
whether a participant adopts the label. As soon as a person or an organization adopts a
label they start to contribute to the label’s web of meaning.
Early in the formation of an organizational field only a limited group of people
are involved in constructing meaning around the label. This is, for example, true of
automobiles, where early enthusiasts, who primarily viewed the automobile as a toy for
races, created the initial vocabulary for discussing automobiles (Rao 1994). In the open
source community, dedicated hackers motivated by an ideology of freely available
software, provided initial definitions (O'Mahony 2002). In this period only a limited
number of people are involved within the technological space, and they often come from
the same background – bringing with them similar terms, meanings, and practices.
Contestation, negotiation, and debate around technological concepts, tend to be limited,
and participants easily adopt a similar language. A high degree of excitement
characterizes this early stage of technological development, since there are few voices
present to contest and criticize the ideas developed by the community. Optimism with
regard to the future prevails.
27
Resources. During this initial phase, the most important resource participants
attach to the label is social capital. Social capital is defined as a resource people process
through their relationship with others (Coleman 1990). The accumulation of social
capital happens as participants adopt the label and, through interaction, get to know
other people who are also using the label. The construction of a label enables people to
organize and to form relationships that provide them with social capital within the field.
The label brings people together because it functions as a boundary object between
participants and enables disparate groups to communicate. When social capital is
attached to the label, the availability of this social resource stimulates the adoption of the
label by other communities.
Legitimation
As an organizational field develops, two mechanisms might facilitate or hinder its
emergence. The first is that the connotations of the label exude excitement. The second
is the amount of social capital that has been attached to the label. The new participants
who join the field renegotiate the label’s connotations to accommodate their perspectives
and worldview. The resulting redefinition broadens the label’s meaning and applicability
as multiple communities simultaneously influence meaning construction (Meyer and
Rowan 1977). The increase in the number of people involved in the field leads to a rise
in the cognitive legitimacy of the label (Scott 2001). The legitimacy of a field can be
further increased if high status actors adopt the label.
Meaning. When more communities become involved with the organizational
field diverse opinions, goals, and prior understandings enter the dialogue. In this period
28
definitions and meanings become contested and open to negotiation. In automobiles,
contestation occurred once new communities constructed the meaning of the
automobile as a transportational vehicle. The redefinition of the automobile from being
a toy and a race car to a method of transportation created competition with traditional
horse-drawn carriages and raised concerns over street safety (Rao 1994). When
corporations became interested in open source software, definitions of open source
multiplied and conflict arose between advocates of different definitions. As a result, the
language of open source expanded to incorporate the business and financial rhetorics of
large corporations (O'Mahony 2002).
Studies of the social construction of technology show that in the early period of
field emergence multiple interpretations of the field exist, i.e. it has interpretive flexibility
(Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 1987). Because communities enter into the field with prior
understandings they use their existing perceptions to interpret the novel phenomenon.
These interpretive processes lead to a divergence in meaning as multiple communities
and multiple meanings start to co-exist. Studies of social movements further strengthen
the perspective that meaning diverges as multiple communities join the field. Snow and
Rochford et al. (1986) show that in the effort to mobilize people from multiple
communities, movement participants extend frames and broaden the meaning of their
cause.
The social pressures of cultural selection not only apply to technological
categories, but also to single words. Individuals pursuing their own desires use
emotionally loaded and high-power words to influence, mobilize, and persuade others.
Such terms as, “cultural genocide,” or, “a cinematic extension of Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity,” draw on and extend the use of words to other contexts, transmuting or
29
eroding their original meaning. One problem is the proliferation of high-praise words to
average situations. Individuals, in their attempts to persuade or influence others, might
describe their experiences or needs in exaggerated terms. For example, in a hospital,
employees might label all their samples as “urgent,” hoping to achieve speedier handling
from the laboratory personnel. This overapplication of, “urgent,” undermines the
meaning of the word, since it can no longer be used to differentiate between samples.
Heath and Gould (2003) show that terms connoting a high level of, “goodness,” like,
“fantastic,” or, “great,” increase in frequency over time in US newspapers, whereas
words with a low level of goodness like, “fair,” or, “barely okay,” decrease in frequency.
Under the assumption that the number of events with a high level of goodness in the
world has not increased, these results indicate that concepts with a high emotional and
persuasive value fall victim to over application. This increased usage might erode the
words original significance, and over time, lead the meaning of the words to diverge.
Zbaracki’s (1998) study of the use total quality management also demonstrates
how multiple communities’ adoption of a label broadens its meaning. Total quality
management was initially well defined, but its meaning slowly became disconnected from
reality. Adopting communities reinterpreted the meaning of total quality management in
ways that were consistent with their organizational culture, and promulgated only stories
about successes.
Multiple meanings can co-exist within a field. These multiple meanings do not
exist independently of one another, but are allowed to co-exist through processes of decoupling (March 1962; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Weick 1976). Communities come into
the field with different meaning structures, so for multiple communities to co-exist in the
field together, the label needs to be interpretable from the perspective of all the different
30
communities. At this point in time the relationship between the communities begins to
resemble a political coalition, where decoupling can exist between various groups that
use the label (Cyert and March 1963; March 1962). The decoupling of usages among the
communities facilitates the existence of local interpretations, without creating conflicts
based on different applications of the label. The field is held together around the label
used by all participants, albeit for different reasons. A factor that influences the degree
of decoupling in a field is the difference in levels of abstraction on which the participants
operate (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Technological fields, for example, include scientists,
government officials, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and IP lawyers. These
communities have goals and responsibilities that are couched at different levels of
generality. Scientists use labels to denote activities that are specific, unique, concrete,
and embedded in current scientific knowledge, whereas, for example, the meaning of
political activities is general, abstract, and embedded in visions of a possible future.
Resources. As the legitimacy of the label increases there is an enhanced likelihood
that participants will attach monetary capital to the label. Funders of fields, like the
federal government or venture capitalists, must be accountable for their spending. The
flow of resources into a field is affected by whether funders have means of establishing
accountability by tracking, recording, and measuring developments in a field (Heap
2002). Until a field is labeled, accountability is hampered, because one cannot measure
(and hence, fund) that which is unidentifiable. Labeling allows various communities to
direct financial, human, and social capital toward the field (Gamson and Modigliani
1989). Once resources become available, other communities may adopt the label to
31
qualify for the resources. The entry of additional communities might attract more
resources, thus creating a self-reinforcing cycle.
Several studies have demonstrated the crucial role of resources in stimulating the
growth of new fields. Access to potential resources leads entrepreneurs to take symbolic
actions that shape meaning in emerging fields (Zott and Huy 2006). For example, in the
early days of e-commerce, the hope of attracting venture capital and increasing stock
prices led many companies to adopt the postfix label “.com” (Lee 2001). Labels can also
have a negative impact on funding. Kadapakkam and Misra (2007) show that a
voluntary change in a ticker symbol with other contemporaneous corporate events, such
as a name change negatively influences trading volume and prices on the date of the
ticker change.
Institutionalization
Participants’ attachment of financial resources to a label stimulates communities’
adoption of the label. The result of this adoption process is an institutionalization of the
field. Institutionalization happens when actions are produced, repeated, and come to
evoke stable, similar meanings for the participants in the field. “Institutionalization
occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized action by types of
actors. The typifications of habitualized actions that constitute institutions are always
shared ones. They are available to all the members of the particular social group in
question, and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.”
(Berger and Luckmann 1967 p. 54).
32
Meaning. The mobilization period of field development is characterized by an
expansion of the semantic space and the meaning systems associated with the
organizational field. It is only after an initial divergence process that convergence can
begin (e.g. Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 1987; Utterback 1994).
The proponents of the social construction of technology emphasize that over
time, “all members of a certain social group share the same set of meanings, attached to
a specific artifact,” (Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 1987 p. 30) leading to closure and
technological stabilization. Closure occurs when participants use the same language to
refer to the same elements in their surroundings, and when webs of meaning are
coordinated across communities. For example, initially a multitude of transportation
vehicles were called bicycles, but over time, issues such as safety and usability for females
resulted in the emergence of the dominant design today termed, “the bicycle.” (Bijker,
Hughes and Pinch 1987).
The emphasis on technological closure as a result of negotiation between
producers and consumers is described in Rosa et al’s (1999) study of the establishment
of a socially shared understanding of the “minivan.” This study shows that the
construction of the minivan field involved convergence about both the connotations and
denotations of the label. Starting as unstable, incomplete, and disjointed meaning
systems held by market actors, the product market for minivans became coherent as a
result of consumers and producers making sense of each other’s behaviors. Industry
newspapers and consumer magazines play a central role in providing feedback between
producers and consumers by running stories from both perspectives. In the beginning,
words like compact van, people mover, and minivan, were used interchangeably to
denote vehicles that had very similar designs. Over time, the minivan increasingly
33
became accepted as a meaningful category, whereas the compact van, and people mover,
were assigned to the dustbin of history. During the emergence of the field there was
confusion about whether the minivan was a, “car,” or a, “truck,” but, over time,
agreement emerged to connote the minivan as a, “car,” and not as a, “truck.” In a study
of the motorcycle industry, Rosa and Porac (2002) show that some categories persist due
to the web of meaning customers have constructed around them. This system of
signification is, however, not stable, but changes over time as trends and consumers
change.
The negotiated nature of concept creation has been shown in experimental
studies of conceptual development, and the establishment of common ground (Eysenck
1984). Clark and Wilkes-Biggs’ (1986) showed how two people, forced to communicate
about novel objects, generated new names to ease the communication. Over time, the
two people reached agreement on the use of the names and the transfer of information
was facilitated. Clark and Wilkes-Biggs argued that this process was based on two basic
principles: presentation and acceptance. During presentation, one person, “presents,” a
possible name or categorization to the other. This presentation is then elaborated upon
or questioned by the other person. During the acceptance stage, both people mutually
accept that each person has understood the references before they let the conversation go
on, thereby establishing agreement on a specific categorization scheme. In Clark and
Wilkes-Biggs’ experimental design closure occurred over time, and the participants’ ease
of communication accelerated.
During field emergence, several mechanisms might influence the convergence of
meaning. One mechanism is that a legitimate actor starts to promote specific views of
the organizational field. These actors can, for example, be the government, large
34
corporations, or influential non-profits. Another mechanism is that convergence is
promoted by the emergence of prototypes. The first companies that successfully
become legitimate players create prototypes for what a company within that industry
ought to look like. Subsequent firms later copy these forms through isomorphism
(DiMaggio and Powell 1991). Within the biotechnology industry, Genentech was the
first company to do an initial public offering (IPO). At the time Genentech achieved its
initial public offering it had a huge intellectual property portfolio, but it still did not have
any products on the market. The success of Genetech’s IPO based solely on its
intellectual property portfolio set a precedent for subsequent companies that wanted to
do an initial public offering. In contrast to electronics companies, that are expected to
have a revenue stream before they do an initial public offering, biotechnology firms have
since been able to do an initial public offering based on their intellectual property
portfolio alone. Companies that do not follow the prototypical model within their
industry pay a price for their deviance. Zuckerman (1999) showed that the stock price of
an American firm was discounted to the extent that the security analysts, who specialized
in its industry, did not cover the firm. Security analysts function as critics within the
industry and provide information to investors about whether to buy, sell, or hold a
company’s stock. A security analyst’s inclusion of a firm in the ratings thus creates a
social boundary for industry inclusion. When a company was part of multiple categories,
none of the analysis perceived that the company truly belonged to any of the categories
that they covered. Thus, firms that were on the boundary of many categories did not
receive much coverage.
35
Resources. As participants within a field converge, a field’s web of meaning and
the body of knowledge associated with it become codified and institutionalized. This
institutionalization of knowledge leads to an increase in human capital, because
knowledge of the field becomes easier to share. Human capital is defined as, “changing
persons so as to give them skills and capabilities that make them able to act in new
ways.” (Coleman 1990 p. 304). During this phase of emergence, educational institutions
adopt the label and create specific dedicated educational programs focused on the
knowledge of the field. Educational institutions participate in accelerating the
codification of knowledge, which further increases the human capital attached to the
label.
2.9 The Development of Meaning
The prior section points to two processes of meaning development during the
emergence of an organizational field; first a process of divergence, followed by a process
of convergence. Figure 2.3 depicts how community involvement might influence the
development of meaning. In the beginning of a field there is only one community. The
meaning of the label within this first community is specific, and there is a high degree of
agreement among the participants on the meaning of the label. Because there is only a
limited number of participants, they can fairly quickly reach consensus on the meaning
of the label. As participants from more communities become involved in the field, the
meaning of the label becomes broader and disagreement, negotiation, and decoupling of
meaning occurs. Over time, as more communities become involved in the field,
agreement starts to occur. But for consensus to happen, the meaning of the label
36
becomes broader. In figure 2.3 the process of convergence and divergence is captured
by the width of the shaded area.
In some situations convergence might never occur, and divergence or constant
fluctuations will continue to happen. This is an unstable situation for the organizational
field, since it will be filled with miscommunications, contestations, and conflict. Over
time, this can lead the organizational field to disintegrate, collapse, or break up into
subfields. An example of an unsuccessful field is artificial intelligence. Starting in the
1960s to the 1980s artificial intelligence was predicted to be an organizational field of
enormous importance (Samuel 1962; Waldrop 1988). Millions of government dollars
were invested into artificial intelligence research, universities developed artificial
FIGURE 2.3 DIVERGENCE AND CONVERGENCE OF MEANING WITHIN AN
ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD
Broadness of
Meaning
Convergence upon a
broad meaning across
communities
Agreement upon broad
meaning begins
New communities
enter.
Meaning broadens
Multiple communities
enter. Confusion on
meaning exists
Single
community.
Meaningspecific
Period of Divergence
Period of Convergence
Time
37
intelligence departments, and companies started artificial intelligence research initiatives.
From it’s beginnings in the 1950s ,until the early Eighties, the field of artificial
intelligence was fairly unified around themes like vision, expert systems, and form
recognition (Courtial and Law 1989). Toward the late Eighties, when the excitement
around artificial intelligence peaked, contestation regarding the nature of artificial
intelligence increased. Conventional artificial intelligence held that the goal of artificial
intelligence was to mirror human intelligence, and, therefore, used computational
methods based on formalism and symbolism. A competing view, however, claimed that
the core of artificial intelligence was not to mirror human intelligence, but to develop
computational intelligence. Researchers within the world of computational intelligence
emphasized that the central aspect of artificial intelligence was solely that the system
could complete the designated task. This stream of research focused on iterative
learning of connectionist systems based on empirical data (Brooks 1991; Kolata 1982).
The contestation between different communities involved with artificial intelligence
created confusion among the organizations that were funding artificial intelligence
research concerning the usability and goals of the field. Money gradually stopped
flowing into artificial intelligence research and the promise of an artificial intelligence
industry eroded. Even though there was never an artificial intelligence industry, artificial
intelligence technology has not proved to be a commercial failure (Hendler 1994).
Methods and equations developed in artificial intelligence research are the cornerstones
in billion dollar industries like robotics, computer games, and animated movies.
38
2.10. Conclusion
In this chapter I develop a theory of the construction of meaning within organizational
fields. I argue that even though meaning has been hailed as an important theoretical
construct, it has been under-theorized within the literature. In particular, there is a lack
of empirical studies of meaning within fields. I suggest that we can draw on semiotic
theory to construct a concept of meaning within organizational fields as the
connotations of the field’s label. A label is often created within a single community,
which constructs the meaning of the label based on its goals and perception of the label.
As participants from other communities adopt the label, they reinterpret the meaning of
the label based on their goals and prior understandings. These interpretation processes
lead to contestation and negotiation between the communities over the meaning of the
label. Multiple meanings also co-exist as communities decouple meanings from one
another through the use of abstract political alliances.
The development of meaning in organizational fields goes though distinct stages.
First, meaning is localized and focused within the community that first created the label.
During this phase the label is associated with a high degree of excitement, which is one
of the central mechanisms in mobilizing participants to join the field (which at this point
in time most resembles a social movement). The most prominent resource that develops
within the field at this point is social capital.
As the field attracts more communities, contestation and negotiation around
meaning begin and this broadens the meaning of the label. As the field attracts more
prominent and established actors, monetary resources become attached to the label.
Monetary resources are a strong driver for the adoption of the label. More communities
become involved in the field, creating institutions dedicated to it. The creation of
39
dedicated institutions increases the human capital within the field, since knowledge
pertaining particularly to the field becomes centralized and codified, and specific
education and certifications pertaining to the field are established.
Even though we can garner support for this account of how labels, meaning, and
resources co-evolve during the emergence of a field from other studies, we still have
limited empirical evidence for this co-evolutionary process. The research question that I
address in this dissertation is, therefore: How does the adoption of labels by communities affect the
construction of meaning and resources in the emergence of an organizational field?
In the next chapter I develop a method, and suggest a research context in which
we can seek the answer to this question.
40
Chapter Three - Methods
3.1 Introduction
The research question that I will investigate is: How does the adoption of labels by communities
affect the construction of meaning and resources in the emergence of an organizational field? In this
chapter I will develop a methodology for addressing this question.
I suggest that selection of a field of study should be based on the following four
criteria: That it has a well defined beginning, it is recent, it possesses places where the
communities interact, and all the communities leave a paper trail. I then propose that
the nanotechnology field fulfills the four criteria listed above, and that nanotechnology
is, thus, an excellent case for the study of the dynamics of meaning construction.
Nanotechnology has a fairly well defined beginning, which can be traced to the early
1980s. It is a recent field, and all the major participants can still be interviewed.
Nanotechnology consists of five primary communities: The government, scientists,
business, service providers, and futurists, who meet and interact at conferences focused
on the commercialization of nanotechnology. Finally, all five communities leave distinct
paper trails.
I collected ethnographic observations at conferences and networking events. All
five communities attended these events, and the events, therefore, were filled with
contestation and negotiation over meaning. In order to ask directed questions to
participants from each of the communities about the contestations and negotiations over
meaning within the field, I conducted interviews with representatives from each of the
communities. I analyzed the ethnographic observations and the interviews using a
41
grounded theory building methodology, and used the grounded theory building
methodology to identify important concepts and words.
Finally, I identified a data source for each of the communities in which they
discussed nanotechnology, newsletters, magazines, and newspaper articles. I analyzed
this data using an automated search tool, which traced the use of individual words over
time. The words I tracked were the words I had identified in my analysis of the
ethnographic observations and interviews.
3.2 Studying Meaning
In the prior chapter I demonstrated that meaning is important to the emergence of new
organizational fields. To study the construction of meaning empirically during field
emergence, it is necessary to employ methods adequate for capturing negotiations,
contestations, and changes in webs of meaning (DiMaggio 1991). To choose a site and a
method for studying the construction of meaning, we need to consider which parameters
might be essential to capturing the construction of meaning. Below I identify four
criteria that a field must fulfill to be an adequate case.
Criterion 1: Field Beginning
The first criterion when studying the construction of meaning in a given field is an easily
identifiable beginning. If we are unable to reasonably determine the beginning of the
field within a margin of error of less than a decade, then it is not practically possible to
study the field, since we have no way of determining when to start data collection
(McClellan III and Dorn 1999). Many fields are thousands of years old; acupuncture,
lending, agriculture, and construction are good examples. Other fields, like gourmet
42
cooking, or talk radio, do not have clear beginnings. In contrast, fields that develop
around a scientific discovery or a technological development often have relatively
discrete beginnings (Basalla 1988). To identify the beginning of the field we can focus
our analysis on the creation and adoption of the label. In scientific fields distinct labels
are created, like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. Such labels
enable us to trace the emergence of the field through the adoption of the label.
Criterion 2: Recent Field
A second criterion is that we need to study a field that has emerged relatively recently,
but yet long enough ago that some development has occurred. Ideally, when tracking
the emergence of meaning one would like to record speech acts and interactions as they
occur, but because a field’s emergence may span more than twenty years, collecting
interactions over the whole time period is not viable. Although one might attempt to
reconstruct processes of emergence in a mature industry by eliciting retrospective
recollections, such data are troublesome because interviews with informants might be
biased by the tendency to project aspects of the current state of the industry onto its
infancy. In particular, informants will have a tendency to reframe historical events using
currently accepted language (Ventresca and Mohr 2002).
We want a field that is relatively recent, but far enough along that all the
communities that are important for the development of a field have begun to participate
in it. If we study a field that does not yet include some of the most important
communities, then we will miss important changes within the field as new communities
join. On the other hand, we do not want a field so mature that it has become fully
institutionalized and its beginnings are obscured in the mists of the past. Social
43
dynamics are easier to trace and verify when participants can remember conflicts and
differences of opinion. In such a field we would be able to collect data directly from the
participants through individual interviews. These interviews would capture valuable data
on the participants’ perspective regarding the current state of the field and their
understanding of the other communities within it (Lofland and Lofland 1995; Spradley
1979).
Criterion 3: Locations of Interaction
Optimally, we want not only to be able to interview participants about their views and
ideas, but also to watch and record participants’ construction processes as they take place
in real time (Spradley 1979). It is within the behavioral and linguistic actions of
participants that their meaning attributions are revealed. Even simple actions build on
complex meaning structures that encompass the goals and wishes of participants, and
their attribution of meaning to other participants’ actions and goals (Garfinkle 1967;
Lynch 1993). Meaning attributions can be difficult to observe, however, since they are
taken for granted elements of everyday life. It is in situations where meaning is disrupted
that we can more easily study participants’ construction of meaning. When meaning is
disrupted, participants are forced to engage in sense making. Patterns of meaning are
disrupted when the routine aspects of everyday life are broken. This happens, for
instance, when participants are confronted with others who have dissimilar perceptions
of interpretations of people, events or things. (Garfinkle 1967; Haddan and Lester 1994).
Within fields these disruptions occur when participants from different communities
interact, since they are confronted with the different ways in which communities
construct meaning.
44
The third criterion for selecting a field to study is that we are able to identify
times and places where participants from various communities meet, so that we can
observe and record the interactions which take place between them. In most fields,
interactions between participants from different communities happen at unpredictable
times and in multiple locations. Such temporal and spatial distribution makes it difficult
for us to observe community interaction, since we do not know when or where these
interactions will occur. Moreover, interactions might only include participants from two
different communities, making it nearly impossible to capture a sufficient number of
interactions between participants from all the communities. For example the field of
truck driving involves truck drivers, mechanics, truck coordinators, warehouse
employees, and the highway police. These communities are scattered across geographic
locations, and many of the communities would only interact at random times, like when
the highway police stop a truck driver for speeding. We need to study a field in which
participants from multiple communities gather in one location at a predetermined time
where we are able to observe meaning construction in real-time. Ideal fields will, thus,
include events, such as conferences and gatherings, which attract all the participating
communities to the same place at a predetermined time. In these fields we would be
able to participate in conferences and use ethnographic methods (e.g. Spradley 1979) to
capture the language used by participants, and detail the interactions between
participants from the different communities.
Criterion 4: Paper Trail
The last criterion is that the field under study leaves a paper trail, a field that people write
about as it emerges in the form of newspaper articles, books, journal entries, and press
45
releases. A paper trail is a necessary part of the data collection process, since we are not
able to conduct ethnographic observations and interviews over the whole course of
development of a field. A paper trail provides us with information about the web of
meaning at different points in time during the development of a field. We can analyze
the statements that participants within the field have left in different media sources to
better trace the construction of meaning over time (Labov 1972; Phillips, Lawrence and
Hardy 2004).
Many fields do not leave a paper trail either because they do not catch the
attention of a public audience or their participants do not tend to write or detail their
activities. These fields include local fields, niche fields, and fields that are so common
that we seldom think of them as fields. This includes, for example, the fields of child
rearing by nannies, grocery stores, and plant nurseries. In contrast other fields, like
scientific fields or fields that are centered on a technological discovery, often attract
publicity and the attention of people who write public documents. Scientific fields, on
the other hand, often create a paper trail that social scientists can use to reconstruct the
construction of meaning at different points during the emergence of the field. In an
optimal case, a field not only leaves a paper trail, but the various communities leave
distinct records of their discourse in identifiable outlets. When communities speak and
write in separate venues, it is easier to identify their perspectives, agendas, interests and,
most importantly, how they use language and terms (Arensberg 1954).
46
3.3 Nanotechnology
In the sections below I use the four criteria described in the section above to argue that
the nanotechnology field is a good setting for studying how communities construct
meaning within the emergence of an organizational field.
Criterion 1: Field Beginning
As with all fields, nanotechnology does not have a definitive founding date, and various
criteria for determining when the field began will lead to slightly different start dates.
Research in nanoscience can be traced back to the 1950s, but the major scientific
breakthroughs that led to the advancement of nanoscience happened in the early 1980s.
It was also in the early 1980s that the nanotechnology label was adopted and used by the
first participants in the field.
Nanotechnology sits at the intersection of materials science, molecular biology,
chemistry, and physics. Materials science focuses on improving industrial products by
creating new and better metals, ceramics, biomaterials, and composites (i.e. mixed
materials). The fruits of materials science are to be found in everyday items like rubber
soles, automotive parts, CD’s, and clothing. Toward the end of the 20th Century,
progress in materials science had become increasingly dependent on understanding the
details of molecular and atomic structures, and this pushed materials scientists to work
with objects at the nanoscale. Cutting edge research in materials science manipulated
elements like thin-films, nanowires, and self-assembled nanostructures. In some areas of
molecular biology, chemistry, and physics, developments in computational modeling and
advanced experimental techniques allowed researchers to move toward analyzing
phenomena that occur at the level of atoms and molecules. Research in materials
47
science, molecular biology, chemistry, and physics was, thus, converging around the
manipulation of structures with dimensions measured in atoms: A scale in the range of 1
to 100 nanometers. Figure 3.1 depicts how nanotechnology lies at the intersection
between materials science, molecular biology, chemistry, and physics.
The convergence between materials science, molecular biology, physics, and
chemistry was hastened by important inventions and discoveries. Two discoveries, in
particular, spurred the growth of research within this area – both were awarded the
Nobel Prize.
The first was the development of the scanning tunneling microscope in 1982, by
Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, who worked at IBM’s Zurich lab. The scanning
tunneling microscope allowed a new method of invention, since it could be used to both
move individual atoms and molecules, and to create detailed pictures and movies of
them. The ability to observe individual atoms in detail generated new knowledge of
material properties, like solidification, layering processes, and the interaction between
FIGURE 3.1: THE CONVERGENCE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE,
CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS AND MOLECULAR
BIOLOGY
Length
scale
Materials Science
100 nm
Nanotechnology
1 nm
Molecular
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
48
solid materials and probes (Darby and Zucker 2003).
The second discovery was of the chemical structures named
‘buckministerfullerenes’ in 19857. Buckministerfullerenes consist of 60 carbon atoms
joined together in a grid structure to form a sphere. Because these new molecules
exhibited attractive properties not found at other length scales, they generated interest in
creating new chemical compounds and materials. For example, carbon nanotubes (a
structure closely related to buckministerfullerenes) proved to be semiconductors, which
is not true of carbon in larger structures like graphite. Nanotubes are also stronger and
lighter than steel, which makes them attractive as a construction material for airplanes
and in space travel. The invention of both the scanning tunneling microscope and of
buckministerfullerenes in the early 1980s makes this an important period for the
emergence of the nanotechnology field. More importantly, however, the early 1980s saw
the creation of the nanotechnology label, and the first association was made between
developments in nanoscience and the nanotechnology label.
Criterion 2: Recent Field
When I started collecting data in 2003, nanotechnology was a young field that was still
emerging: It was in a stage where institutional structures were still being formed.
Because of the recent emergence of the field, nearly all of the early participants within
the nanotechnology field could be interviewed8. It was, therefore, possible to conduct
interviews with participants from all of the nanotechnology communities. Even though
nanotechnology was still emerging, the field of nanotechnology started to form in the
7
8
Buckministerfullerenes are also known as “buckyballs”, “fullerenes” or “C60”.
One of the few exceptions is Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley, who died of cancer in 2005.
49
early 1980s, and its precursors date back more than 21 years. This provided enough time
for multiple communities to become involved with nanotechnology, and for negotiation,
contestation, and decoupling to occur.
The nanotechnology field consisted of five important communities: Scientists,
entrepreneurs, government officials, service providers, and futurists. These communities
joined at different points in time during the development of the field. The communities
had different goals and objectives for participating in the field. Table 3.1 provides an
overview of the communities’ varying goals for involvement and summarizes the
following discussion.
The futurist community, affiliated with the Foresight Institute, was the first to
join the nanotechnology field. The Foresight Institute was the first dedicated
nanotechnology organization, founded by Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson
in 1987 to promote the vision of nanotechnology that Drexler had put forward in his
1986 book, The Engines of Creation. In this book he described a future world in which
microscopic assembler robots would be used to assemble all technologies from the
bottom up, atom by atom. This vision entailed the creation of desktop manufacturing
systems that only needed crude oil as a raw material to be able to produce computers,
telephones, toothbrushes, and other devices. This production process would leave no
waste materials because all the atoms from the crude oil would be reassembled into the
desired technology (Drexler 1986).
The futurists’ goal was to prepare society for the coming era of nanotechnology.
Drexler’s purpose in writing Engines of Creation was to create awareness of
nanotechnology, so people could prepare both for its benefits and its dangers. The
Foresight Institute tried to convince people to do research on nanotechnology,
50
TABLE 3.1: LEVEL OF INFLUENCE OF THE FIVE COMMUNITIES AND THEIR GOALS FOR INVOLVEMENT IN NANOTECH
Futurists
Government
Service Providers
Companies
Scientists
Goal for
Involvement
Prepare the world for the Increase funding for
coming of nanotechnology science and engineering
Create demand for their
services
Create successful companies Obtain funding for the
generation of scientific
knowledge
Influence
The field
The field
The organization
Example
The field
“[Nanotechnology] is really A science and technology
going to happen at some initiative…is a targeted
point, and people deserve increase in funding for a
to know. … And what we particular area of science
can we do today that is
and technology. …The
relevant. And also look at [National
Nanotechnology
longer term issues, like
control issues and things Initiative] is a mechanism
like that…The ideas really for the United States
got out there and the
government to set
general public…They have priorities…… I’m not
proposing initiatives as
this idea of the little
machines and how the little the sole driver for
machines are going to be increases in funding. But
my experience was if I
able to build things, and
had some of these they
they will be able to do it
would also engender
cleanly, and they will be
able to go into your body support more broadly for
and do repairs. And that increases in sciences and
might be all that they
technology (Tom Kalil)
know, but that is pretty
good “ (Christine Peterson,
President, Foresight)
The individual
[Nanotech] is going to
I think [funding] has
I believe that we are using
be…a very lucrative area for nano-engineered principles to changed what people call
patent lawyers…I know
get unique properties and
it. I think we saw a lot of
there are some companies performance and features
people change the name
that are poised to be suing – that will allow us to do
of what they are working
commercially valuable things on. Now they say that
like right now a lot of
companies are holding back, with products in the energy they work on
there just isn't a lot of
sector. So, nano is not in our nanotechnology and all
that really happened is
products on the market to name …. and I didn't put
be suing for. … But what nano in the company's name the scale that we pattern
I'm looking at in the long for good reason... I don't see accurately decreased and
term is if I get in early, I
[us] as a nanotech company. people changed names
understand the field, and I I see us as a company with a around to get funding. …
get my name known and the strong intellectual property Instead of people getting
firm's name known, then
position focused on a specific a normal NSF grant they
when somebody's looking vertical market that is energy got an NSF grant that
for a patent firm to handle using nano-engineered
had nanotechnology in
their litigation we'll have
the title (“nanotech”
materials to accomplish
been around for a long time certain performance
scientist)
characteristics (Founder,
and be sort of the
“nanotech” company)
household name in
nanotechnology…. (Patent
lawyer)
51
and to raise money for nanotechnology, so that humanity might reap its benefits sooner
rather than later. The futurists, however, also wanted to ensure that society would be
prepared for the dangers associated with nanotechnology. They feared that
nanotechnology could be abused and worried that a lack of control might lead to
catastrophic outcomes. The main concern was with the, “grey goo scenario,” in which
self-replicating nanoscopic robots would replicate out-of-control and consume the world
as we know it.
Government officials were the next community to adopt the nanotechnology
label. The governments’ goal for involvement, to increase funding for science and
engineering, was quite different from the goal of the futurists. Officials argued that if
Congress increased funding for nanoscience, society would achieve aspects of the
nanotechnology vision laid out by the futurists, like storing the contents of the Library of
Congress in a device the size of a sugar cube.
The legitimization of the nanotechnology label by the government led service
providers to adopt it. The service providers are consultants, IP lawyers, journalists, and
venture capitalists. What this group has in common is that they provide services for the
companies that are involved with nanotechnology. Consultants service companies by
advising them about technology investments, research strategies, or manufacturing
processes. IP lawyers provide companies and scientists with legal advice about the
liabilities and benefits of their technologies by helping them manage the complex
regulatory landscape of emerging technologies. For entrepreneurial companies IP
Lawyers also sometimes provide advice about commercialization strategies. Venture
capitalists provide financial services and strategic advice to companies. They also service
the community of investors, whom they convince to invest money into their equity
52
funds. Journalists service all the communities within the field by providing them with
news and information about what occurs within and outside of the field.
The community of service providers is a more heterogeneous group than the
other communities, because the service providers have their primarily activity in multiple
industries. All, however, provide services to the field and share the same goal: To create
a higher demand for their services by stimulating the perception of a knowledge gap
between themselves and their clients. A core strategy that the service providers use to
create the perception of a knowledge gap is to claim knowledge about a new
technological domain, which their clients know nothing about. It is easy to establish the
perception of such a knowledge gap within a new technological field. Service providers,
therefore, flock to new technological fields to claim expertise, and they participate
actively in creating the perception that the field is new and radically different from
existing fields. The business press is able to sell magazines because its customers believe
that by reading they will learn something they did not know before. Many business press
companies tried to capitalize on the novelty of nanotechnology by including it on the
cover of their magazines. For example, in the beginning of 2005, The Economist, The Red
Herring, and Business Week had special issues focused on nanotechnology.
The adoption of the nanotechnology label by the government and service
providers, and the association of nanotechnology with resources, stimulated adoption of
the term by companies. A company’s goal for involvement was to increase its
profitability, competitiveness, and visibility, and enhance its long-term survival.
Companies began to adopt the label, because claiming association with the
nanotechnology field might provide them with visibility within the market and access to
resources.
53
Scientists were the last community to adopt the nanotechnology label. As a
profession, scientists are focused on the creation of pure knowledge. It is the scientists
who have knowledge that is most detached from everyday practice who achieve the
highest status among their peers (Abbott 1988). The futurists’ use of the
nanotechnology label in statements, which mixed the language of science with the
language of science fiction, violated the norms of purity prevalent within the scientific
community. Early in the field, scientists, thus, did not join the field, because
participation did not help achieve their overall goal of increasing scientific knowledge.
That changed when the government became involved with nanotechnology. After the
government began attaching monetary resources to the label, scientists realized that
adopting the nanotechnology label would provide them with resources they could use
toward their goal of forwarding scientific knowledge.
It is important to note that the communities not only differed in their goal for
involvement, they also differed with respect to the breadth of their focus. The futurists,
the government, and services providers all pursued influence at the field level, whereas
companies focused on the survival of their company, and the scientists sought primarily
to increase funding for their own research. These differences are illustrated in the
comments found in table 3.1. From this observation we might expect that institutional
entrepreneurs will be members of those communities that seek influence at the level of
the field.
The differences in the goals of involvement between the communities led to
contestation and negotiation as each community strived to fulfill its goal. Differences in
the level of involvement, however, enabled the activities of different communities, like
54
the government and the scientists, to be de-coupled, which aided them in maintaining a
political alliance free of conflicts of interest.
Criterion 3: Locations of Interaction
Nanotechnology fits the third criterion, that the field must have planned events, where
participants from multiple communities come together to discuss issues and share
opinions about the field. In nanotechnology there are multiple conferences and
networking events where participants within the field come to learn more about it and to
meet other people who are also interested in nanotechnology.
There are some conferences that only cater to a specific community, like
scientific conferences, investment conferences, and government hearings. But
conferences focused on the commercial potential of nanotechnology bring together
participants from multiple communities. These conferences attract entrepreneurs from
small and large companies who are interested in learning more about cutting-edge
technologies. Scientists participate in these conferences to promote the
commercialization of their own technology or to learn more about which commercial
opportunities exist in nanotechnology. Because nanotechnology is a large, novel,
scientific field, government officials also attend nanotechnology conferences, both as
presenters and as participants. Government officials give talks at nanotechnology
conferences to convey government interests, goals and plans, and to try to align other
communities’ interests with their own. Government officials also participate in
nanotechnology conferences to gather information that might influence policy decisions,
for example, which subfields are considered most promising from a scientific and
commercial standpoint.
55
Service providers looking to construct a new market for their services also attend
conferences focused on the commercialization of nanotechnology. At conferences they
position themselves as specialized and knowledgeable about nanotechnology, thus
creating the perception of a knowledge gap between themselves and their clients.
The futurists are also present at nanotechnology conferences. They participate in
conferences to influence participants from other communities to consider the long-term
perspective of nanotechnology and to consider both the advantages and disadvantages of
nanotechnology.
The presence of all the nanotechnology communities at the commercialization
conferences made for an excellent research site in which to observe the contestation and
negotiations between the communities. Because the communities interacted with one
another, they would disrupt each other’s meaning structures. A futurist would, for
example, ask an entrepreneur how his company was going to handle the transition to
atomic precision manufacturing. Or, a government official might ask a scientist how he
thought the public would react to the idea of nanotechnology facial creams.
Criterion 4: Paper trail
The fourth criterion for selecting a field is that the field needs to leave a paper trail that
can be studied. It is particularly important that the various communities have separate
written outlets through which one can investigate their construction of meaning. The
nanotechnology field has left many paper trails that can be studied and followed. The
five primary communities involved in nanotechnology, scientists, entrepreneurs,
government officials, service providers, and futurists communicate their messages, goals,
and meanings in written documents. Nanotechnology is a high technology field, and the
56
participants within the field are mostly well-educated college graduates who are
accustomed to participating in public discourse through written text. At the end of the
section below I will discuss the various outlets that the nanotechnology communities use
to communicate their meaning in more detail.
In conclusion, the nanotechnology field fits the four criteria well, since it is a
recent field with a fairly distinct start date. Furthermore, the nanotechnology field
consists of communities that both meet in locations where we are able to study their
ongoing construction of meaning and leave paper trails that make it possible to study
their construction of meaning over time.
3.4 Data Collection
I collected three types of data: Ethnographic observations at nanotechnology
conferences and networking events, interviews with nanotechnology participants, and
archival data. The ethnographic observations provided observations of participants
from multiple communities as they were engaging in ongoing constructions of meaning.
In the interviews I asked clarifying questions regarding some of the issues I had learned
about during the ethnographic observations. After I had clarified the meaning in the
FIGURE 3.2: METHODS OVERVIEW
Ethnographic
Observations
Interviews
Archival Data
1984
2000
57
interviews I was able to trace changes in meaning in the archival data.
Figure 3.2 displays the availability of the data-sources over time. Ethnographic
observations were carried out between 2003 and 2006. Interviews occurred between
2004 and 2006. Archival data covers the complete period from the precursors of the
field until 2005, when nanotechnology had emerged as an identifiable, though fledgling,
field.
Identifying Informants
Investigating an evolving field poses a sampling problem. Since the population of
participants within the field is not stable and well defined, it is not possible to take a
random sample. I collected real-time data on the emergence of the nanotechnology field
between 2003 and 2006. In 2003 there were few published directories of actors in the
field and those that existed were incomplete. Consequently, I had to identify participants
for inclusion in my study as my investigation unfolded.
I used all of my data-sources to determine which actors were involved in the field
at particular points in time. The population fluctuated over time as the definition of
nanotechnology changed. I used an iterative approach to identify the important
participants within the different time periods.
The iterative search for important people began with my ethnographic
observations at conferences and networking events. I observed people mentioning other
people within the field. If I heard a specific name multiple times I made a note of the
name, and when I had an opportunity, I asked participants questions about the role of
that specific person or company. Sometimes participants confirmed that the person or
company played an important role within the industry, and other times they did not. If
58
the participants confirmed that the individual or company was important for the
development of the field, I then approached that person or company (either via e-mail or
in person) and asked for an interview. If the person did not respond the first time, I
tried again. I contacted a given individual up to five times to request an interview. If
they did not respond after five requests, I gave up. At the conclusion of each interview,
I asked the informant to name other people within the industry that it would be
beneficial for me to talk to. Each interview, therefore, generated new names. At the
conferences and networking events, I asked people about the importance of the people
who had been mentioned during the interviews. Responses to these questions led me to
approach new people for interviews and, thus, the generation of more new names.
This approach might have the disadvantage of leading me to identify only a
closed circle of people whom either all knew each other, or who were deemed important
at that particular time. I, therefore, also read through the archival data to identify people
that were described as important during different periods the emergence of the field. I
then contacted these people, and after the interviews I also asked for a list of people
whom they also deemed important during that period. I then checked the names in the
archival data and contacted the most prominent ones for interviews. They would then
suggest new names, and the iterative process would continue.
In the process of identifying people to interview, I made sure that I interviewed
representatives from all five different communities. This enabled me to ensure that I
captured the perspective of all the communities within the field. Table 3.2 depicts the
distribution of data across the five communities.
59
TABLE 3.2: OVERVIEW OF THE DATA
Qualitative Data
Ethnographic
Observations
Interviews
Futurists
Government
Companies
Scientists
Service Providers
Total Interviews
Total Qualitative
Archival Data
Futurists
Government
Companies
Science
Service Providers
Newspapers
Number of
Interviews
Number of
Observations
25
11
13
24
11
18
77
102
Data Source
Foresight Update
Congressional
Hearings
Press Releases
The Journal, Science
Fortune, Forbes, The
Wall Street Journal,
Business Week
Top fifty US
Newspapers
Archival Data Total
Years
1987-2004
1991-2005
Number of Articles
926
925
1988-2005
1956-2005
1984-2005
4,157
2,509
494
1984-2005
3,762
12,773
The archival data listed above was supplemented with additional documents that were pivotal in the
development of nanotechnology.
3.5 Ethnographic Observations
At the beginning of the data collection process, I took ethnographic notes at conferences
and networking events. Conferences and networking events are major field configuring
events where participants actively discuss, contest, and negotiate the meaning of the field
(Meyer, Gaba and Cowell 2005). At these events, members of one or more of the five
communities gathered to debate important topics in the field, the role of the new
technologies, and their commercial potential. The questions participants tried to answer
60
included: Who are the most important actors? How are they realizing their potential?
When will their potential be realized? And Where is it going to take place?
Of special interest were conferences and networking events focused on the
commercial aspects of nanotechnology. These events drew participants from all of the
communities, whereas scientific conferences usually catered to a single community.
Commercial conferences and networking events were organized by non-profit as well as
for-profit organizations. Some non-profit organizations that arranged nanotechnology
conferences were affiliated with alumni groups such as the MIT-Berkeley-Stanford
Nanotechnology Forum. Others represented special interests. For example, the
NanoBio Convergence focused particularly on commercial applications at the
intersection between nanotechnology and biology. The people affiliated with these
organizations were often unpaid volunteers. The conferences and networking events
they organized were often inexpensive (i.e. about $10 for students and $25 for others),
and were held in locations owned by service providers who saw such conferences as
ways to further their commercial interests. Attendees typically included a mixture of
graduate students, university scientists, entrepreneurs, consultants, lawyers, and
individuals representing companies in related fields. Attendees were given nametags to
wear while they roamed the room. Even when the events lasted all day and were
structured around formal presentations, ample time was provided for networking, at
approximately two hour intervals.
Conferences and networking events organized by for-profit organizations were
often held in more exclusive settings like the Rancho Mirage in Palm Springs. For-profit
conferences and networking events were more expensive, with prices ranging from $100
to $2000. Nevertheless, for-profit events followed roughly the same script as events
61
organized by non-profits, except that the food, drinks, and service were of higher quality.
The attendees, however, differed. For-profit events catered to venture capitalists and
entrepreneurs looking to finance start-ups. Graduate students and lower employees of
technology companies were not in attendance.
I did ethnographic observations at 25 conferences and network events, primarily
in the Bay Area. In the process, I attended over 87 presentations by nanotechnology
participants. At the conferences and networking events, I participated by walking
around between small groups, introducing myself, listening, and recording conversation.
I sometimes asked the group questions about who they were, why they had come to the
networking event, and what they thought about nanotechnology. I would take as many
notes as I could during the informal sessions and later expand upon them.
The informal conversations that took place at the conferences and networking
events were excellent opportunities to observe the construction of meaning within the
nanotechnology field. During these informal conversations, participants provided
unsolicited opinions about how they perceived nanotechnology and were probed by
other participants to express their opinions.
For example, Felice Frankel is a research fellow at Harvard University where she
aids scientists in creating beautiful and amazing pictures of their work. At a
nanotechnology conference she provided the following unsolicited commentary
regarding what she felt the nanotechnology communities ought to be doing to achieve
greater influence and a larger audience:
I would like to encourage all of us to accept the fact that we need to
speak to all of the stakeholders, like also the religious right and the
supporters of the president [George W. Bush]. We need to find a voice
to talk to these people, too. There is a reason that NASA has been so
62
successful. Those pictures that they produced were amazing. We need
to do something like that. The people that know me will know that I
hate this word, but we need to touch people. We need to engage them
(Felice Frankel, research fellow at Harvard, nanotechnology conference)
At the conferences and networking events participants ask questions of one
another, which sometimes makes them reflect on issues that they had not previously
considered, and that brings out the differences in the perspectives of the communities.
The following is an example of an interaction between a futurist and a scientist at a
nanotechnology conference:
(The scientist has been explaining his work in highly scientific terms)
Scientist: “…There is about no degradation until the fault rate reaches
40%. There are 100 nm electrodes and 200 nm spaces between
electrodes. There are 1000 inputs per cell, with 48,000,000 synapses…. A
known connection can be built as a post-processing CMOS stem….”
Futurist: “In the case of a self-healing system. Could this be applied to a
self optimizing system?”
Scientist: “What the system does is that it is self-optimizing.”
Futurist: “Could this be applied to stroke victims?”
Scientist: “That is far down the line. To do that, you would have to make
a system that was bio-compatible. Where you had the same processing
speeds. That would be very, very challenging, and is definitely not
something that I am looking into at the moment.”
The above example shows how the different speech communities interact and
use language to communicate. Scientific language is specific and technical using words
like, “electrodes,” “synapses,” and “CMOS.” In contrast, the futurist uses ordinary
terms like, “stroke victim.” The futurist is talking at a higher level of abstraction,
whereas the scientist is focused on the details of the technology. This short sequence of
dialog also reveals differences between the communities’ goals for involvement. The
63
scientists is focused on forwarding his scientific knowledge (which he describes in great
detail), whereas the futurist is interested in the ways the technology can be used to
improve human living conditions (e.g. helping stroke victims). The futurist’s question
disrupts the web of meaning that the scientist had constructed around his technology by
trying to link the scientist’s discussion of the concrete technical constructs to the
everyday life of stroke patients.
In between networking sessions, I recorded formal presentations and question
and answer sessions with a digital recorder, while also taking the most copious notes
possible. The formal presentations provided an opportunity to observe the ways
participants from a specific community presented their views to other communities. The
question and answer sessions also provided important information on issues that other
participants considered important. At one conference, Dillon Auyoung, who was
employed at the Office of the President for University of California, started out his
presentation by saying that:
We would like to partner with you to create technologies. We would like
to see the technologies that are developed at UC used in industry (Dillon
Auyoung, University of California)
In this statement he is reaching out to other groups who are involved within the
nanotechnology field, hoping to be able to foster commercialization relationships with
them. These opening statements are mechanisms for constructing social capital within
the field.
Other presenters used the opportunity to communicate their specific
perspectives and meaning structures within the nanotechnology field. Alexei Andreev,
64
from the venture capital firm, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, for example, stated in one of his
presentations:
What is nanotechnology? Exploitation of novel properties manifested
by matter at the sub 100 nm scale. Not scaling down! (Alexei Andreev,
Draper Fisher Jurvetson)
By explicitly stating both what he thinks nanotechnology is (i.e. exploitation of
novel properties manifested by matter at the sub 100 nm scale), and what
nanotechnology is not (i.e. not scaling down), he attempts to influence other
communities to think in the same way, and he opens a debate about the very nature of
nanotechnology.
After I returned from the event, I expanded the notes I had taken in the field and
supplemented them with the recordings I had made of the formal presentations.
3.6 Interviews
Interviewing representatives of the five communities was an important aspect of data
collection. The interviews revealed the meaning communities attributed to
nanotechnology, when and why they adopted the nanotechnology label, and their views
on the resources available within the field. In total, I conducted 77 interviews across the
five communities. I recorded and transcribed all the interviews. Table 3.2 displays the
distribution of interviews among the communities.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face in the informant’s work location
whenever possible. The rest of the interviews were conducted over the telephone. Faceto-face interviews enabled me to build a greater level of rapport with the informant, and
conducting the interview in their work environment exposed me to many aspects of the
65
participant’s culture, which I did not have access to during telephone interviews. The
cultural elements revealed during the face-to-face interviews included the building in
which the participants were housed, the furniture and wall-decorations, and encounters
with other organizational members. I took note of these cultural elements and added
them to the transcripts of the interviews.
I attempted to capture differences in perspective and disagreements within
communities by talking to people with different roles and experience in each community.
For example, I made sure that I talked with people who had been longtime members of
the futurist community, as well as to people that had joined later. In the scientific
community, I deliberately interviewed people from different scientific fields. My sample,
thus, contains scientists who work on everything from nano-photonics to nanobiotechnology to nanostructured semiconductor devices.
The community of service providers was heterogeneous, being comprised of
journalists, venture capitalists, consultants, and IP lawyers. In total I conducted 18
interviews with service providers. These interviews included eight interviews with
venture capitalists (three of which were corporate venture capitalists), five interviews
with journalists, four interviews with consultants, and one interview with an IP lawyer. I
over-sampled on the venture capitalists because the goal of my investigation was to study
the construction of meaning within the nanotechnology field. Informants, both at
conferences and in interviews, told me that the venture capitalists played an important
role in shaping the industry. Venture capitalists participated vocally in the public
discourse around nanotechnology, and used their power to actively influence the
opinions of other communities. In contrast, IP lawyers were present within the field, for
66
example, at conferences and networking events, but they were not vocal within public
discourse, and they were not proactive in shaping the opinions of other communities.
The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide (Lofland
and Lofland 1995). I asked questions of all the communities regarding the definition and
development of nanotechnology. An example of such a question is: “How do you
define nanotechnology?” I also asked questions about the role of their own, and the
other communities, in shaping nanotechnology. For example, “What role does the
government play in shaping nanotechnology?” I asked specific questions tailored to the
specific community. For interviews with entrepreneurs, I asked questions about the
history of the company, the demographics of the founders, and the history of their core
technology. For the futurist community, I asked questions about the history of the
Foresight Institute. See Appendix 1 for an example of a semi-structured interview.
I used the interviews to ask pointed questions regarding the elements of meaning
construction, which I had observed during the ethnographic observations, and elements
of meaning construction, which I had learned about in other interviews (Spradley 1979).
For example, one concept that was important to participants’ construction of meaning
was, “hype.” In the example below, I used the interview to develop a more detailed
understanding of the role the concept of, “hype,” played from the perspective of a
scientist:
Stine: So one of the things that I have been interested in is this
relationship between what's hype and what's not hype. Can you say
something about that?
Scientist: I think that the main factor is that some of the things that
people say nanotechnology is facilitating right now, we're not ready to
do them yet. For example, my group does a lot of work on nanowires
and we would like to think that at some point nanowires will play a role
67
in information technology in terms of active devices. But I don't think
anybody really has clear path for how you can integrate those into
standard silicon technology. And in order to have them play a role, I
think you have to integrate them into standard silicon technology…..
People talk about the mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes.
Well, they are interesting. They are extremely strong materials. But
how long is it going to take before we begin making bridges out of
them? It's not going to happen tomorrow. So, I think a lot of the hype
is selling the story that nanotechnology is having a revolutionary
impact, and that things are happening now. There are some
nanotechnology things that are happening now, and those are being
incorporated in the standard technologies. The evolutionary ones are
happening now. The revolutionary ones haven't yet. They may, but
it'll take time for them to happen (Nanotechnology scientist).
In the quote above the scientist shares his view of the role of hype within the
nanotechnology field. From his perspective hype is a conflation of future possibilities
with the current reality, represented in the difference between evolutionary and
revolutionary technology. By asking a directed question I was able to develop a more
detailed understanding of the web of meaning the scientist attributed to the word
“hype”.
3.7 Archival Data
For the archival data, I collected historical material, articles from online databases, and
nanotechnology definitions from the top fifty US newspapers. In the following I will
describe these three data sources.
Historical Material
I relied on archival historical documents for relevant information on nanotechnology’s
precursors in materials science, chemistry, and physics to illuminate important public
debates, articles, and meetings. Because many of these documents were not available in
68
electronic form, I photocopied them from books and articles. Relevant documents
ranged from Richard Feynman’s vision in the 1950’s of a microtechnology to articles
about more recent events, such as the invention of the atomic force microscope and the
founding of the first nanotechnology firms. Archival historical documents were
necessary to construct a comprehensive picture of the role different communities played
in the history of nanotechnology before 1984, when other sources of data were not
available.
I assembled the archival, non-electronic data from multiple sources, including
books, articles, and web pages. The documents include the Foresight Institute’s archive.
From 1987 to 1994, the Foresight Institute collected all articles published in the English
speaking press that mentioned nanotechnology. After 1994, the task became too large
for this small non-profit organization. From that point forward, the Foresight Institute
gathered only nanotechnology-related articles that were consistent with their definition
of nanotechnology, focused on molecular manufacturing: assembling products atom-byatom.
I spent a week at the Foresight Institute in the spring of 2005, copying all the
materials that they had collected between 1987 and 1994. For material generated before
1987 and after 1994, I have used an iterative method to identify important documents. I
went back and forth between the interviews, ethnographic observations, and archival
data to discover important periods and documents within the development of
nanotechnology.
69
Online Databases
My main source of archival data came from online databases. The first task at hand was
to identify a data source that represented the discourse of each of the communities.
Each of the communities had an outlet in which they communicated their ideas to other
members of the community. I identified these data sources through my observations
and interactions with participants at the nanotechnology conferences and networking
events, by reading the archival material that I had collected, and through references to
the data sources that other organizational studies researchers have used. I will discuss
each data source separately below.
Companies. I used press releases published through Business Wire to capture the
rhetoric of the business community. Press releases are a data source which has been
widely used within organizational studies to evaluate company rhetoric (Pollock and
Rindova 2003). Press releases are designed to attract attention to a company by
presenting the company’s view of itself and its future. They are carefully scripted
documents, and as such are the most powerful rhetorical tools companies have for
shaping the environment around them. Most companies put considerable effort into
writing press releases. The public relations department often writes the first draft, but
before a press release is published it is often circulated to multiple departments, and the
top management, for comment. In writing press releases, companies walk a fine line
between overselling themselves and being accountable to investors. Evidence of the
latter concern is the fact that nearly all press releases end with a disclaimer about the
uncertain character of the forward-looking statements. Because posting a press release is
inexpensive (approximately $200), even small companies can afford to use press releases
70
as a marketing tool. Thus, press releases capture the rhetoric of privately held
companies, which is otherwise difficult to capture, since such companies are not forced
to disclose information. Although some privately held companies publish no press
releases, their absence poses no sampling problem. Their silence means that they are
absent from the production of the business community’s rhetoric and, thus, insignificant
in constructing meaning.
The section below is a typical announcement that a company would make in a
press release:
Veeco Instruments Inc. (Nasdaq: VECO) announced the promotion of
Jeannine Sargent to the position of Executive Vice President, General
Manager of its Research Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) business unit.
Under Ms. Sargent's leadership, Veeco has renamed this business unit,
"Nano-Bio Instruments," and intends to optimize emerging
opportunities in nanotechnology, nanomaterials, and bioinstrumentation. Ed Braun, Veeco's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, commented, "This Nano-Bio Instruments initiative will leverage
and extend Veeco's leading AFM/Scanning Probe (SPM) research
product line to accelerate product definition and development through a
more focused effort in nanomaterials, life sciences, and bio AFM
applications. Jeannine's marketing and operational background in
metrology and instrumentation, as well as her experience with emerging
technologies, make her well-suited to lead Veeco's efforts to grow this
important part of our business.” (Business Wire - June 30, 2005)
The quote shows that Veeco Instruments Inc. is using the promotion of Jeannine
Sargent to make an announcement emphasizing the position of the company within the
nanotechnology space by renaming its, “Research Atomic Force Microscope,” business
unit, “Nano-Bio Instruments.” This is a big change from the focus of the company
during its early years. Two Manhatten Project scientists who created a helium leak
detector originally founded Veeco Instruments Inc. in 1945. The name, “Vecco,” was an
anagram for, “Vacuum Electronic Equipment Company.”
71
Futurists. I assembled all the articles published in The Foresight Update - a magazine
published by the Foresight Institute. The Update served as the main communication
channel for the views of the futurist community. Initially it was published more or less
quarterly in hard copy and sent to individuals on Foresight’s distribution list. Later,
Foresight published a web-based version of The Update, so that anyone who was
interested could download copies from the website. The articles were written primarily
by Foresight Institute staff, but they also printed letters from subscribers and reprinted
short articles published elsewhere that they believed futurists would find interesting. The
Foresight Update included updates on media coverage, articles, and conference of
interest to the futurist community. The following is a typical example from the
Foresight Update:
Coverage of nanotechnology continues to increase. In January an
excellent discussion of nanocomputers appeared in A. K. Dewdney's,
"Computer Recreations," column in Scientific American. It included a large
color illustration of nanomachines clearing fat deposits from a blood
vessel. [Foresight Institute]'s address was given for more information,
and we've received over 300 requests so far, with more coming in
(Foresight Update 3, 30 April 1988).
The Foresight Institute also encouraged subscribers to submit clippings and
articles that would be relevant for the whole community. The Foresight Update was, thus,
the central outlet for the Foresight Institute’s rhetoric around nanotechnology.
Government. I assembled data representing the government from the database,
LexisNexis™ Congressional, which contains congressional reports, transcripts of
congressional testimonies, House and Senate documents, and government periodicals.
72
These documents are a rich repository of the Federal Government’s rhetoric regarding
nanotechnology. Because the government is accountable to the general public, it
publishes ample documentation of its decision making process. Congressional
testimonies are literal transcripts of all testimonies given before Senate committees.
Federal documents also offer a paper trail of perspectives and thoughts about
nanotechnology that have passed through House and Senate committees. For example,
the statement below calls for the integration of nanotechnology research within the
Energy Policy Act of 2003.
EC. 957. NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION.
(a) Establishment. The Secretary, acting through the Office of Science,
shall support a program of research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application in nanoscience and nanoengineering. The
program shall include efforts to further the understanding of the
chemistry, physics, materials science, and engineering of phenomena on
the scale of nanometers, and to apply that knowledge to the
Department's mission areas. (House Report 108-375, Energy Policy Act
of 2003, Nov. 18, 2003)
Science. I collected documents related to the scientific community by assembling
all papers and articles ever published in Science related to nanotechnology. The journal,
Science, was chosen because it is considered the most prestigious journal within
nanotechnology and its precursor disciplines: Materials science, physics, chemistry, and
molecular biology. The central part of the journal contains purely academic papers
where the rhetoric will be strictly scientific, as in the following abstract:
73
A demultiplexer is an electronic circuit designed to separate two or more
combined signals. We report on a demultiplexer architecture for bridging
from the submicrometer dimensions of lithographic patterning to the
nanometerscale dimensions that can be achieved through nanofabrication
methods for the selective addressing of ultrahigh-density nanowire
circuits. Order [log.sub.2](N) large wires are required to address
Nanowires, and the demultiplexer architecture is tolerant of lowprecision manufacturing. This concept is experimentally demonstrated
on submicrometer wires and on an array of 150 silicon nanowires
patterned at nanowire widths of 13 nanometers and a pitch of 34
nanometers (Science, Oct 21, 2005, p. 465-466)
Science also publishes more general articles on issues related to science policy and
commercialization in the front of the journal, before the academic papers appear. The
language in these articles is not as formal or as scientific as the language in the scientific
articles. They typically employ the vocabulary of business and policy, as the following
example demonstrates:
Advances in scanning probe techniques have revolutionized the field of
nanotechnology. But for the full potential of nanotechnology to be
realized, these techniques must be complemented by analogs for
macroscopic tools – such as tweezers, pipettes, and pens……One only
has to consider the evolution of the microelectronics industry over the
past few decades to understand the payoffs associated with
miniaturization. But if we can learn how to routinely prepare and
manipulate structures on the nanometer length scale, the resulting future
technological advances could make the engineering accomplishments in
the trillion dollar microelectronics industry appear trivial (Science, 10
December 1999, p. 2095).
I included both purely scientific articles and popular articles that discuss science
policy and science commercialization in my sample. Thus, Science represents both the
technical and the political language of the scientific community. I analyzed the two types
of texts separately.
74
Service Providers. Service providers span a number of communities. Key outlets
for service providers are business presses, trade magazines, and business reports. To
sample the rhetoric of service providers, I collected all nanotechnology-related articles in
Business Week, Forbes, Fortune, and The Wall Street Journal. Many of the other service
providers, like consultants, venture capitalists, and IP lawyers do not consistently release
documents and rhetoric. To capture their perspectives I searched the websites of all the
consultants, venture capitalists, and IP lawyers that I had identified through the iterative
approaches described above, and collected the articles and statements on their websites
pertaining to nanotechnology. I also searched the Factiva database to find other
documents the service providers had created. Finally, I searched through all the service
providers in the Small Times 2006 directory to identify participants, who had been
otherwise omitted, and included them in the search for documents and articles
representing the broker perspective. Small Times is a trade magazine serving the
nanotechnology field. Small Times was established in 2001 by venture capitalist, Sam
Snyder, to promote the emergence of the nanotechnology field.
Top Fifty US Newspapers. The general media plays a large role in shaping the
perception of technology categories, especially during periods when categories are
uncertain and constantly changing (Kennedy 2005a). Discourse in the general media is
not linked to a specific community, but offers a source for tracking the attention given to
each of the communities over time. This provides knowledge about the influence of the
communities at different points in time. I limited my data collection of general media
articles to the most influential newspapers, which I defined as the top fifty US
newspapers. I collected these articles from the Factiva database.
75
Identification of Articles. After identifying the archival source, I would include an
article from that source in the dataset if it contained one of 53 words that experts in
nanotechnology consider to be related to nanotechnology. The keywords were
abstracted from the keywords developed by a team of researchers at the Fraunhofer
Institute in Germany, led by Thomas Heinze and Ullrich Smoch (Heinze et al. 2007).
Table 3.3 displays those words.
I collected 926 articles from the Foresight Update, 925 Congressional hearings,
4,157 press releases, 2,509 articles from the journal, Science, 494 articles from Fortune,
Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, and Business Week, and finally, 3,762 articles from the top
fifty US newspapers. Across the six databases, the search yielded 12,774 articles. An
overview of the archival data can be found in Table 3.1. Government documents posed
a challenge in that the set of articles were not homogenous in length – some documents
TABLE 3.3: NANOTECHNOLOGY SEARCH WORDS
nanotech*
quantum dot*
nano devic*
nanotub*
nanodot*
nanodevic*
nanorod*
buckyball*
buckministerfuller*
buckytub*
fulleren*
molecular manufact*
molecular engineer*
molecular self assembl*
nanowir*
nanocompos*
nanoarchitectur*
nanophase*
nanoelectr*
nanoceramic*
nanolayer*
nanomaterial*
nanoscal*
nanosensor*
nanostructur*
atomic force microscop*
scanning force microscop*
scanning tunnel* microscop*
nanobot*
molecular robot*
nanomachin*
nanoconduct*
nanobio*
nanoengin*
nanophoto*
nanofabirc*
nanosubstrat*
nano-photolitho*
nanoparticl*
nanopore*
nanomotor*
nanopowder*
diamondiod*
nanofabric*
nanoarray*
nanocomput*
nanoswitch*
nanomanipulator*
nanolitho*
nanocrystal*
nanochannel*
nanoimprint*
nanocoating*
76
were up to fifty pages long, and only a small portion of such a document would be
related to nanotechnology. The documents were also not parsed so the portions of text
that dealt with nanotechnology could easily be extracted. I, thus, only included the text
that appeared within the two paragraphs above and below the sections that included one
of the nanotechnology search words.
Definitions
To investigate changes in the meaning of nanotechnology over time, I randomly selected
six definitions of nanotechnology published in the top fifty US newspapers during each
year from 1987 (when the first definition of nanotechnology appeared) to 2005,
generating a total of 146 definitions. I had eight coders rate the specificity of the
definitions on a five point Likert scale, where 1 was a narrow definition and 5 was a
broad definition. They were given the following descriptions of a broad definition
versus a narrow definition:
A narrow definition of nanotechnology limits the amount of things that
fit under the definition, whereas a broad definition encompasses a wider
range of things. An example of a narrow definition of a restaurant
would, for example, be, “a place where you can sit down and have a
multi-course meal with wine.” A broad definition of a restaurant would
be, “anywhere people can get food.”
To train the coders, I chose five nanotechnology definitions from the top fifty
US newspapers, which were not among the final sample. Each coder first rated the
definitions independently, and afterwards we discussed as a group the reasoning behind
the rating until all eight coders agreed on a rating. After we had gone through the five
77
examples, the coders showed a high degree of consistency in their ratings. The
Cronbach Alpha testing the eight coders’ interrater reliability of the 146 definitions was
0.88
3.8 Analysis
I analyzed all the data with the goal of identifying easily generalized patterns that could
explain the process of field emergence. A goal of the analysis was to identify social
mechanisms that facilitated the adoption of the nanotechnology label. Hedström and
Swedberg (1996a; 1996b) define a social mechanism as: “An integral part of an
explanation which, 1) adheres to the three core principles of [direct causality, limited
scope, and methodological individualism] and 2) is such that on the occurrence of the
cause or input, I, it generates the effect or outcome, O.” (Hedström and Swedberg
1996b p. 299). Social mechanisms constitute a middle ground between description and
social “laws.” In contrast to social “laws,” which can be generalized across social
settings, social mechanisms are contextualized processes with a more limited applicability
in time and space. In the social realm, we do not find anything like the universal laws of
physics, therefore, social scientists should focus their efforts on identifying social
mechanisms, even though they have more limited generablizability (Mayntz 2004).
Famous examples of sociological work based on social mechanisms include Merton’s
theory of self-fulfilling prophecy, theories of network diffusion, and Granovetter’s
threshold theory of collective behavior (Hedström and Swedberg 1996b).
78
Ethnographic Data
I analyzed ethnographic data according to principles of grounded theory (Strauss and
Corbin 1994). To analyze the qualitative data I used Atlas TI. In the initial data analysis
phase I open coded, (i.e. I looked and coded for recurrent themes across the
documents). Because my research question was focused on how communities construct
meaning within the nanotechnology field, I was particularly attentive to parts of the data
in which community members would discuss the meaning of nanotechnology and their
views on the meanings attributed by other communities.
While developing the open codes I coded anything that I thought pertained to
the overall area of the construction of meaning among the groups. For example, I coded
every time people talked about nanotechnology in relationship to the creation specific
applications. I would therefore have codes like, “electronics,” “energy,” “artificial
intelligence,” and “microscopic assembler robots.” Once I had developed these first
TABLE 3.3 INDUCTIVE CODES FROM ETHNOGRAPHIC OBSERVATIONS
First-Order Code
Higher-Level Code
Electronics
Energy
Killer Application
Life Sciences
Military
Photovoltaics
Artificial Intelligence
Microscopic Assembler Robots
Broadness of Definition
Change in Meaning of Nanotechnology
Category Ambivalence
Nanotechnology Definition
Futurist on Scientists
Venture Capitalists with Entrepreneur
Group Discussion
Applications Areas (Denotations)
Construction of Meaning
Community Interactions
79
level categories, I developed macro-level categories, like, “Application areas –
denotations,” “construction of meaning,” and, “community interactions.” Table 3.3
depicts some of the codes.
Interview Data
After analyzing the ethnographic data, I turned to the interview data, which I also
analyzed using a grounded theory building methodology (Strauss and Corbin 1994).
When I coded the interview data, I would take the codes that I had already developed in
the analysis of the ethnographic data as a point of departure. The codes that I developed
in the analysis of the interview data were, therefore, less open and more focused than the
ones that I developed in the analysis of the ethnographic data. Examples of codes that I
developed in the analysis of the interview data include, “nanotechnology – a robot,”
“nanotechnology – a machine,” and, “nanotechnology – material.” Next, I arranged the
codes into meta-categories that covered several of the initial codes. I would, for
example, collapse the two codes, “nanotechnology – a robot,” and, “nanotechnology – a
machine,” into the overarching code, “nanotechnology – a device.” I then relate these
meta-categories to theoretical constructs and reanalyzed both the ethnographic and the
interview data in the light of these insights. Through the iterative process, I found
common themes across the data. I would also contrast the statements about
nanotechnology across communities to understand how they differed from one another.
At the end of the process I had identified central elements that were important for the
development of nanotechnology.
80
Archival Data
After I finished the grounded theory building of the ethnographic observations and the
interview data, I analyzed the documents produced by the nanotechnology communities.
Historical Material. I used historical material to develop an understanding of the
cultural context in which the nanotechnology field developed. In the ethnographic
observations, and during the interviews, informants would at times refer to documents
that they perceived to be of central importance to the development of nanotechnology.
I read through these central documents, taking note of important issues, but I did not
use analytical software to analyze these texts, since the format of the texts did not fit the
analytical software. Examples of historical documents that I included in this fashion
include, Eric Drexler’s 1981 PNAS article titled, “Molecular Engineering: An approach
to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation,” the 1999
report from The Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and
Technology, entitled, “Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report
Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade,” and transcripts of President Bill
Clinton’s January 21, 2000 talk at the California Institute of Technology, as well as his
State of the Union Address of the same year.
Online Databases. Much research uses content analysis as a tool for analyzing
rhetorical differences between groups and communities to study changes in social
phenomena over time. The basis of content analysis is to count, track, and compare the
frequencies and co-occurrences of words within and between documents (Nasir 2005).
Content analysis has been applied in a variety of settings. It has been used to study the
81
development of scientific fields over time, as for example Courtial and Law’s (1989)
detailing of subfields’ mutual relationship and importance within artificial intelligence,
and Callon, Courtial, and Laville’s (1991) analysis of polymer chemistry. Content analysis
has also been applied outside of scientific studies to map the capabilities of professional
service firms (Criscuolo, Salter and Sheehan 2005), rivalries between companies
(Kennedy 2005b), and team mental models (Carley 1997). Content analysis is well-suited
for the examination of the ways meaning changes within a community over time. By
comparing the results of content analysis across communities, we are able to examine
how trends in meaning develop differently across the communities and how the
communities may have influenced each other’s construction of meaning.
There are two approaches to content analysis. The first method is an inferential
approach that uses count tools to study a small number of texts (Carley 1993). This
method includes all of the most common words within a text in the analysis. Corman et
al (2002), for example, used co-occurrence of words within noun-phrases to construct
detailed maps of three pages of text. In the analysis of this piece of text they were able
to infer relationships between actors and attitudes, such as a linking between the words,
“chairman,” and “prerogative,” and between “secretary” and “weak.”
The inferential approach is not well-suited for analyzing the way in which
communities construct webs of meaning around the nanotechnology field because the
process stretches over more than 20 years and includes thousands of documents. A
detailed analysis of the set of words in individual texts will, thus, produce a deluge of
data in which noise overwhelms signal. Even if we created a yearly map for each of the
communities over a 20 year period, we would end up with 100 maps. If we chose to
look at the 20 most common words in each map, we might end up with 2,000 different
82
words. Some of the words would overlap between maps, but that would still leave us
with around 1000 different words to make sense of. Furthermore, the 1,000 words
might not be the most meaningful. For example, in the early years of the
nanotechnology field, we would see no information regarding the use of the
nanotechnology label, because it would not be one of the 20 most common words
within the text. Instead, words like, “year,” “development,” or, “large,” would end up in
the analysis, even though there would not be any meaningful interpretation of their
appearance. The fluctuation of the words that are present within the analysis means that
it is impossible to track words that go in and out of favor, since the only words that are
consistently included within the analysis are the most common ones.
The second method is to analyze pre-specified words deductively (Kennedy
2005a). This method is more appropriate to the study of the emergence and change in
meaning among communities within an organizational field. The advantage of this
approach is that the data-output is limited, and there is, therefore, a higher likelihood
that the signal will be visible within the noise. The other advantage is that we will be
able to track specified words over a period of time, which enables us to track words as
their popularity increases or decreases. The disadvantage is that embarking on a
deductive journey requires knowing, at the beginning of the analysis, which words are
going to be important to examine. This necessitates a thorough knowledge of the field.
Through my analysis of ethnographic observations, and the interviews, I
developed a thorough knowledge of the field, and identified important constructs that I
could use to track the development of the field. I used a textual search engine called,
DocParser, to search through each article and create a count of pre-specified words
83
within the text9. DocParser creates a database with an entry for every article and prespecified word.
I identified words to use in the search in the ethnographic observations and
interviews. These words came in two types. The first were proper names of individuals
and organizations that had played a central role in the development of nanotechnology.
These included “Drexler,” “Foresight,” “Smalley,” “National Nanotechnology
Initiative,” “NSF,” and “DARPA.” If there were two different ways of referring to the
same entity, like “NNI” and “National Nanotechnology Initiative,” then the counts for
the two different expressions were combined in the final analysis. Table 3.4 depicts
these terms.
The second word type was nouns and adjectives. The first thing I did was to
identify these words in the ethnographic observations and interviews. Some words were
specific to nanotechnology, like “nanotechnology,” “molecular nanotechnology,”
“assembler,” and, “nanobot.” Other words were commonly used words like, “hype,”
“exciting,” and, “danger.” For the common words that could be found in Roget’s 21st
Century Thesaurus, I searched not only for the words, but also for the ten most common
TABLE 3.4: SEARCH WORDS: PROPER NAMES
DARPA
IBM
NASA
NIH
NSF
NNI
Intel
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
International Business Machines
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Institute of Health
National Science Foundation
National Nanotechnology Initiative
Smalley
Drexler
Feynman
Dupont
Loreal
Nanosys
Stanford Graduate School of Business Behavioral Lab developed DocParser and Professor Chip Heath
copyrighted the program.
9
84
TABLE 3.5: SEARCH WORDS
$
accuracy
accurate
afraid
anxious
“artificial
intelligence”
atom
avoid
batteries
believable
benefit
billionth
candid
capital
cash
catastrophe
conference
consult
“consumer
electronic”
correctness
cryonic
danger
deceit
deceive
destiny
diamondoid
disaster
discontent
distort
dollar
dupont
education
entrepreneur
environment
equivocate
ethics
exact
exaggerate
fabricate
factual
falsify
fear
federal
fund
gain
golf ball
government
grant
hazard
health
honest
improve
inappropriate
“initial public
offering”
investment
IPO
law
laws
lawyer
legislation
loreal
macroscopic
meeting
meso
mesoscience
mesoscopic
mezzo
micro
microscopic
microscopic
microtechnology
military
misguide
misinform
mislead
misrepresent
“molecular
engineering”
“molecular
nanotechnology”
“molecular robot”
“molecular
selfassembly”
molecule
money
nano
nanoarchitecture
nanoarray
nanobio
nanobot
nanoceramic
nanochannel
nanocoating
nanocomposit
nanoconducting
nanocrystal
nanodevice
nanodot
nanoengineering
nanofabric
nanofabrication
nanoimprint
nanolayer
nanolithography
nanomachine
nanomanipulator
nanometer
nanomotor
nanoparticle
nanophase
nanophotonic
nanopore
nanopowder
nanoscale
nanoscience
nanoscopic
nanosensor
nanostructure
nanosubstrat
nanoswitches
nanotech
nanotech industry
“nanotechnology
industry”
pants
patent
phony
photovoltaic
precise
“productive
nanosystems”
profit
regulation
reliable
research
resource
revenue
rules
sadness
scale
“scanning force
microscope”
scare
science
science fiction
semiconductor
small
smalley
socks
solar cell
standards
stock
technology
tiny
toxic
tragedy
truth
untruthful
values
“venture capital”
weapon
worry
nanotub
buckyball
nanowir
quantumdot
MEMS
nanoelectronic
nanomaterial
fullerene
afm
stm
“molecular
manufacturing”
nanorod
computer
machine
device
equipment
material
substance
exciting
interesting
dramatic
impressive
overwhelming
intriguing
provocative
inspiring
astonishing
sensational
thrilling
will
maybe
perhaps
possibly
robot
potential
future
imaginable
probable
promising
assembler
dangerous
unsafe
hazardous
risky
business
company
market
industry
trillion
“Next big thing”
electronic
cosmetic
textile
engineering
hype
85
synonyms of the word. I decided whether a synonym was common by measuring its
frequency within the top fifty US newspapers between 1980 and 2005. For example, to
track the word, “exciting,” across communities, I found the ten most frequent synonyms
of, “exciting,” from Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus, including, “interesting,” and “dramatic,”
and tracked their usage over time. I used multiple words to achieve a more robust
measure. To make sure that the words measured the same underlying construct, I
mapped the distribution of the synonyms and visually estimated that their distributions
were aligned. I would, for example, look at the usage of, “interesting,” to see if the
frequency paralleled that of, “dramatic.” It was important to know that the words
grouped into a single category had the same distribution, because they might otherwise
be measuring different underlying distributions. Table 3.5 depicts the search words.
3.7 Conclusion
In this chapter I first argued that four criteria are needed to satisfactorily select a field,
appropriate for the study of the construction of meaning in the emergence of
organizational fields. The four criteria are: A field with a fairly distinct beginning; a field
that is recent, but still mature enough that all the important communities have become
involved within it; a field with planned events where participants from all the
communities interact; a field where all the major communities involved leave a distinct
paper trail.
In this chapter I further argued that the nanotechnology field fulfills these four
criteria. The nanotechnology field began in the early 1980s, when Drexler started to use
the nanotechnology label to denote his futuristic ideas. The early 1980s was also a
period of intense scientific discovery within nanoscience. The nanotechnology field
86
consists of five distinct communities: Scientists, companies, government officials,
service providers, and futurists, all of whom engage in ongoing contestation and
negotiation over the meaning of nanotechnology. The five communities have different
goals for involvement that lead them to use the nanotechnology label in different ways
to obtain their goals. We can observe the interactions between the communities at
conferences and networking events, in which they all participate. All of the five primary
communities involved in nanotechnology leave a paper trail.
I collected three types of data: Ethnographic observations at conferences and
networking events, interviews with participants from the different communities, and
archival data. Each data source enabled me to answer different questions about the
emergence of the field.
I made ethnographic observations at 25 conferences and networking events that
were focused on the commercialization of nanotechnology. I analyzed this data using a
grounded theory building methodology. I derived my initial meaning categories from
these ethnographic observations. The ethnographic observations were followed by
interviews with representatives from the five nanotechnology communities to develop a
deeper understanding of the meaning constructs which emerged during my analysis of
the ethnographic observations. In total I conducted 77 interviews. The final step in the
analysis involved taking the concepts that had emerged during the analysis of the
interviews and the ethnographic observations and tracing them in the archival data to see
how meaning developed over time.
87
Chapter Four: Three Phases Mobilization, Legitimation, and Institutionalization
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter I am going to show that the nanotechnology field moved through three
phases: Mobilization, legitimation, and institutionalization. I will focus on the ways in
which the communities differed with regard to three central aspects: Involvement of the
communities, the mechanisms that facilitated label adoption, and resources within the
field. Table 4.1 provides a roadmap for the relationship between community
involvement, mechanisms, and resources during the three phases. In the figure a “ ● “
represents the presence of the phenomenon. Grey dots “● “ instead of black dots “ ● “
signify that the phenomenon is present but to a lesser extent. Phases are the main
organizing principle for the chapter. During each phase, I address the main
communities that became involved with the field, and how this involvement changed the
social mechanisms and resources within the field.
During the mobilization phase only the futurist community was involved with
the field. The goal of the futurists was to prepare the world for the coming of
nanotechnology. There were three major mechanisms that facilitated the adoption of the
nanotechnology label during the mobilization phase: Exciting discourse, public
discourse, and social gatherings. The exciting discourse increased attention to
nanotechnology and emotionally involved participants. Public discourse exposed many
people to the label and thereby increased the number of people likely to adopt the label.
Social gatherings exposed participants to the label and created social capital within the
field.
88
TABLE 4.1: COMMUNITIES, MECHANISMS, AND RESOURCES DURING THE
THREE PHASES
Mobilization
Legitimation
Institutionalization
Community
Futurists
●
●
●
Government
●
●
Service Providers
●
●
Companies
●
Science
●
Mechanisms
Excitement
●
●
●
Public Discourse
●
●
●
Social Gatherings
●
●
●
Legitimacy
●
●
Decoupling
●
●
Translation
●
●
Labeling
●
Renaming
●
Abandonment
Resources
Social Capital
Monetary Capital
Human Capital
●
●
●
●
●
●
A “ ● “ represents the presence of the phenomenon. Grey dots “● “ instead of black dots “ ● “ signify
that the phenomenon is present, but to a lesser extent.
89
The government and service providers entered the discourse during the
legitimation phase. The government’s goal was to increase funding for science and
engineering. The service providers’ goal was to increase demand for their services. The
government and service providers were able to use the nanotechnology label toward
these goals. During this period, three mechanisms facilitated the adoption of the label:
Legitimacy, decoupling, and labeling. The nanotechnology label became legitimized
when prominent government officials and venture capitalists began to use the label. The
extensive adoption that started at that point rested on decoupling of meaning among the
adopters. Furthermore, labeling processes facilitated the adoption of the label, because
participants began using it to denote other participants and organizations in the field.
The business and scientific communities adopted the label during the
institutionalization phase. Throughout this phase, the central mechanisms were
renaming, labeling, and abandonment. When the label became associated with money,
scientists and entrepreneurs adopted it. The futurists’ abandonment of the label
facilitated this adoption by eliminating some of the illegitimacy surrounding it.
4.2 Three Phases in the Emergence of Nanotechnology
The five communities -- futurists, government, service providers, companies, and
scientists -- adopted the nanotechnology label at different points in time. The gradual
addition of new communities into the field is important for field emergence, because
each community brings with it prior understandings which they use to reinterpret and
reconstruct the meaning of the field. As described in Chapter 2, each community had a
different goal for involvement within the field. When a new community entered the
field their various goals for involvement changed the social dynamics within it. I use two
90
different measures to establish when the various communities became involved with the
field. First, I look at when they began to use the nanotechnology label to denote
nanoscience. Second, I will examine the number of references to each of the dominant
communities within each of the phases. Nanoscience is defined as the set of search
terms listed in Table 3.3 in the Methods section, and the use of nanotechnology is
defined as using the words, “nanotech” or “nanotechnology,” within the text. Some of
the most prevalent words within the set of nanoscience search words are, “nanotubes,”
“buckyballs,” and, “atomic force microscope.”
Adoption of the Nanotechnology Label
The motives and willingness to participate in nanotechnology within the different
communities were reflected in differential rates of adoption of the term. Figure 4.1
shows the percentage of nanoscience articles that used the word, “nanotechnology,”
published annually in outlets targeting each community. The graph suggests three
distinct adoption patterns and phases.
During the early years, the futurists were the only community that used the label,
nanotechnology. Some of the other communities published articles on nanoscience, but
none used that specific term. Newspapers, the business press and the government
started to adopt the label, “nanotechnology,” to denote nanoscience around 1996. The
business community was slower to adopt the label. Not until 1998 did
“nanotechnology” appear in a press release. Once adoption began, however, its use
spread quickly. By 2002, 40% of press releases that mentioned nanoscience also
mentioned nanotechnology. The pattern of adoption in the scientific community was
quite different. Like the other communities, scientists started to speak of
91
FIGURE 4.1: PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES THAT MENTION “NANOTECHNOLOGY”
“nanotechnology” around 1996, but their rate of adoption was much slower. By 2000,
only 10% of both the scientific news articles and the scientific research articles that
talked about nanoscience also mentioned nanotechnology.
By 2005 the nanotechnology label had become more widely used by these
communities. The percentage of articles published by and for the scientific community
that used the label, “nanotechnology,” had increased to 20%, but the scientific
community remained the least likely to assign the “nanotechnology” label to
nanoscience. The futurist community still remained the most likely to mention the
nanotechnology label in association with nanoscience (85%). But explosive growth in
talk about nanotechnology had closed the gap between the writings of futurists and
92
FIGURE 4.2: NANOTECHNOLOGY ARTICLES THAT MENTION FUTURIST,
GOVERNMENT, OR BUSINESS ACTORS
government publications (60%), the business press (60%), and press releases written by
companies (70%). I also examined the extent to which the three dominant communities
in each phase were mentioned within the top fifty US newspapers. Figure 4.2 depicts
mentions of futurist, government, and business actors in the top fifty US newspapers
over time10. The figure shows that in the Eighties and early Nineties, actors associated
with the Foresight Institute were often discussed in association with nanotechnology in
the top fifty US newspapers. But after 1996, references to government and business
10 Futurist actors are measured as references to Drexler; Government actors are measured as references
to the NSF, DARPA, NIH or NASA (these actors were chosen, since they were the most frequently
mentioned government agencies); Business actors are measured as references to IBM, INTEL, NanoSys,
DuPont and L’Oreal (these actors were chosen, since they were the most frequently mentioned
companies).
93
actors become more common. References to government actors peak in 2000, and after
2003 business actors are the most frequently mentioned group.
From the analysis of the communities’ differentiated adoption of the
nanotechnology label and references to the communities within the top fifty US
newspapers, we can conclude that all the nanotechnology communities were not
involved in the beginning of the field. Instead, the various communities joined the field
at various points in time. Figure 4.3 shows a schematic illustration of when the five
communities started to partake in the nanotechnology field. The dotted lines represent
that the community was involved with nanoscience, and the solid line represents the
time when the community used the nanotechnology label to denote nanoscience. The
figure illustrates that both the business community and the scientific community, in
particular, were involved with nanoscience for a long time, but that they also waited a
long time to join the nanotechnology field. During the period when the entrepreneurs
and scientists were involved with nanoscience, but not using the nanotechnology label,
they were not contributing and participating within the field. There was a disconnect in
the transfer of information between the communities.
I use the differentiated involvement of the communities to suggest that the
FIGURE 4.3: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TIME LINE
Science
Companies
Service Providers
Government
Futurists
1984
Futurists
1996
Government
Service providers
2000
Companies
Science
94
nanotechnology field went through three distinct phases. In the first phase, lasting from
1984 to 1996, the futurist community was the only community involved with
nanotechnology. During the second phase, lasting from 1996 to 2000, the government
and the service providers joined the movement. The third phase, lasting from 2000 to
2005, was when the business and science communities joined the field.
I confirmed the existence of three phases within the nanotechnology field by
looking at the temporal distribution of five phenomena central to field emergence:
Technical advances, social institutions, publications, vision of future products, and
existing products. Table 4.2 displays how foundings and events within each of these
categories unfolded over time. This distribution of foundings and events map well with
the existence of three phases within the field. I will go through the most characteristic
traits of the phases below and save the details of table 4.2 for my subsequent analysis of
the phases.
The first phase was from 1984-1996. During this time futurists were the most
dominant community. They coined the term, “nanotechnology,” and they formed the
first dedicated nanotechnology institution, The Foresight Institute, in 1987. During this
period the field was in a state of mobilization.
From 1996-2000 the government played a large role in the nanotechnology field.
After the government adopted the nanotechnology label, it created institutions and
fueled interest in the field within a broader audience. The field became legitimized
during this period.
Starting around 2000, more communities became involved in the field. The
business and the scientific community began to participate within the field. Service
95
TABLE 4.2A: THE THREE PHASES IN THE EMERGENCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
Time Period 1984-1995
1996-2000
Futurists
New
Communities
Government
Service Providers
Field Phase
Mobilization
Technical
Advances
1982: Invention of the scanning 1996: Nobel prize awarded for the invention of
Buckminister Fullerenes
tunneling microscope
1985: Discovery of Buckminister
Fullerenes
1986: Nobel prize awarded for the
invention of the scanning
tunneling microscope
1987: The non-profit Foresight 1996: Establishment of a government working
group on nanotechnology
Institute is founded
1997: Establishment of the for-profit Nano
1990: Establishment of the
Science and Technology Institute
journal, “Nanotechnology.”
1998: Establishment of the Interagency Working
1992: Establishment of the
journal, “Nanostructured
Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN) under the
Materials”
National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC)
1997: Founding of Zyvex the first dedicated
nanotechnology company
Social
Institutions
Legitimation
Publications
1986: Eric Drexler writes Engines 1996: Scientific American prints cover story on
nanotechnology
of Creation
1997: World Technology Evaluation Center
(WTEC) publishes first report on
nanotechnology
Vision of
Future
Products
Microscopic nanobots
Storing contents of Library of Congress in a
Nanoscale manufacturing systems device the size of a sugar cube.
Cryonic technology
Detecting cancerous tumors before they are
visible to the human eye.
Making materials that are stronger than steel at a
fraction of the weight
Existing
Products
(none)
(none)
96
TABLE 4.2B: THE THREE PHASES IN THE EMERGENCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
Time Period 2001-2005
Business
New
Communities Science
Field phase
Institutionalization
Technical
Advances
(Important incremental innovations)
Social
Institutions
2001: Founding of the trade magazine Small Times
2001: First IBF conference on Nanotechnology Investment
2001: Red Herring holds first Nanotechnology Briefing
2001: Founding of the National Business Alliance
2002: Founding of the Wolfe/Forbes Nanotech Report
2002: University of Washington launches nation’s first doctoral program in
nanotechnology
2003: President Bush signs the second Nanotechnology Bill.
2004: Merrill Lynch launches Nanotechnology Index
2004: The US Patent and Trademark Office launches a patent class exclusively for
nanotechnology
2006: Founding of the journal, Nature Nanotechnology
2000: Bill Joy publishes article in Wired about the dangers of nanotechnology
2001: Red Herring publishes nanotechnology special issue.
2003: Nature Biotechnology publishes special focus on Nanobiotechnology
2004: The Economist publishes special issue on nanotechnology
2004: Red Herring publishes nanotechnology special issue
Enhanced laptop batteries
Solar cells
Faster and smaller semiconductors
Lab-on-a-chip
Publications
Vision of
Future
Products
Existing
Products
Stain resistant pants
Wrinkle-free shirts
Transparent sunscreen
Semiconductors with gate width less than 100 nm.
97
providers increased their activities and played pivotal roles as institutional entrepreneurs,
creating the infrastructure around which the nanotechnology field grew. The service
providers founded dedicated trade magazines, conferences, and interest organizations,
which helped fuel interactions between communities and draw attention to the
nanotechnology field. During this period the field became institutionalized.
4.3 1984-1996 – Mobilization
During the mobilization phase, the futurist community was the only community
involved with the nanotechnology field. The futurists had a specific goal for
involvement within the field and that was to prepare the world for the coming era of
nanotechnology. The mechanisms that facilitated label adoption during this period were
excitement, public discourse, and social gatherings. The resource available during this
early period was social capital.
Goal for Involvement: Futurist
The goal for involvement for the futurist community was primarily to prepare society for
the coming era of nanotechnology. In preparing for the coming era of nanotechnology,
the futurists thought that ordinary people, policy makers, and scientists ought to spend
time thinking about how nanotechnology was going to benefit society and how to
prevent potential abuse of the technology.
Eric Drexler coined the idea of nanotechnology while he was part of the PhD
program at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The late Seventies and early Eighties was a period of great advancement in the field of
artificial intelligence, and the environment at MIT was infused with excitement about
98
creating robotic systems. One application area for robotic systems was space
exploration, which depended on developing novel systems capable of producing
complex goods with the limited resources available in space. Simultaneously, huge
advances took place in describing the functioning of biological organisms. These
developments led Drexler to consider ways to create novel inorganic mechanical
production systems modeled on biological processes. Drexler coined the term,
“nanotechnology,” in 1986, in his famous book, Engines of Creation (1986) 11. He
described nanotechnology as the creation of nano-sized machines:
Microcircuits have parts measured in micrometers – that is in millionths of
a meter – but molecules are measured in nanometers (a thousand times
smaller). We can use the terms, “nanotechnology,” or “molecular
technology,” interchangeably to describe the new style of technology.
The engineers of the new systems will build both nanocircuits and
nanomachines” (Drexler, 1986).
In Engines of Creation, Drexler laid out a future in which molecularly sized
machines would manufacture goods from the bottom up, atom-by-atom. This
manufacturing process entailed assembler robots building everything from computers
and jet engines to silverware, one atom at a time, using only simple raw materials, like
crude oil. Drexler saw cryonics, the restoration of life in dead animals and humans, as
one of the applications of nanotechnology. Another was to heal disease in living
humans by sending “nanobots” into the body to repair individual cells. He also
hypothesized that nanotechnology might be abused if nothing was done to control it. In
11 The word “nano-technology” was used for the first time by the Japanese researcher, Taniguchi, in
1974, but the usage of the word did not disseminate until after Drexler recreated it. Drexler was not
aware of Taniguchi’s earlier usage when he started to use the word.
99
this quote from Engines of Creation, he both emphasizes the warning that nanotechnology
could pose dangers and states that early intervention might change the course of history:
Replicating assemblers and thinking machines pose basic threats to
people and to life on Earth. Today’s organisms have abilities far from
the limits of the possible, and our machines are evolving faster than we
are. Within a few decades they seem likely to surpass us. Unless we learn
to live with them in safety, our future will likely be both exciting and
short. We cannot hope to foresee all the problems ahead, yet by paying
attention to the big, basic issues, we can perhaps foresee the greatest
challenges and get some idea of how to deal with them (Drexler, 1986)
Drexler and his wife, Christine Peterson, created a social movement around
nanotechnology, which they institutionalized by founding a non-profit organization, The
Foresight Institute, in 1987. 12 The goal of Foresight was to promote safe and
responsible use of nanotechnology, and to actively shape scientific policy. They saw
their responsibility to be preparing society for the changes that nanotechnology would
bring. As they wrote in their founding statement:
If we face great challenges as a civilization, shouldn't we organize in some
way to meet them? In the coming months and years, the approach of
nanotechnology and artificial intelligence will raise a host of issues, with
technical, economic, political, and ethical dimensions. We will need
networks of informed individuals and forums for discussion. We will
need organizations able to influence public policy, including international
policy (Foresight Update 1, June 1987)
There was debate within the futurist movement about the amount of attention
that should be paid to the benefits, in contrast to the dangers, of nanotechnology. Some
12 Initially the Foresight Institute not only focused on nanotechnology, but also on artificial intelligence,
hypertext, and general future technology visions. Over time the Foresight Institute centered solely only
on nanotechnology.
100
individuals thought that if the Foresight Institute spent too much time talking about the
dangers of nanotechnology, people would not be as willing to invest in its development.
Others thought that the only way to avoid the abuse of nanotechnology was to be open
to discussion of the possible dangers.
The futurists realized that they lived in a political world in which groups of
people fought for power and in which government, industries, and other interest groups
co-opt meanings and attitudes and use them to promote their own goals. Drexler
provides this resentful description of the political landscape in the mid 1980s:
To gain influence in our mass democracy, groups try to out-shout one
another. When their views have corporate appeal, they take them to the
public through advertising campaigns. When their views have porkbarrel appeal, they take them to legislatures through lobbying. When
their views have dramatic appeal, they take them to the public through
media campaigns. Groups promote their pet experts, the battle goes
public, and quiet scientists and engineers are drowned in clamor (Drexler,
1986, p. 205).
The strategy the futurists adopted to increase knowledge of their cause was,
however, not a political one. Drexler did not want to become involved in the politics of
technology development because he viewed politics as corrupt. Instead, he thought that
it would be possible to use modern technology to save technology development from a
political downfall. His idea was that if knowledge was freely available, technological
debates could be open and credible, and not influenced by political distortion. The
futurists viewed the emerging Internet, and particularly the linking of knowledge on the
web through hypertext, as a solution to the political corruption of technological
decision-making. They threw much of their initial effort into furthering the
development of hypertext.
101
Exciting Discourse
The construction of associations between the nanotechnology label and excitement was
an important mechanism in facilitating the adoption of the nanotechnology label. Prior
studies have shown that emotional engagement facilitates participation. Excitement can
lead to overconfidence, which is shown to be necessary to overcome the uncertainty of
engaging an unknowable future, and is a necessary basis for social action (Barbalet 1998).
The early futurist movement played an important role in infusing the
nanotechnology label with excitement. A rhetoric filled with expressions of excitement
characterized the early movement. Some of these expressions included emotionally
loaded adjectives like, “exciting,” “fascinating,” and “hope.” Others created a sensation
of the fantastic through the use of analogies, imagery and the promise that
nanotechnology was going to completely alter the world’s working order.
Many participants report a sheer sense of excitement after reading Engines of
Creation. They wrote letters to the Foresight Institute expressing their feelings of
excitement about the nanotechnology vision and wanting to partake in the field. For
example, John L. Quel from Bellevue Washington wrote:
It is impossible for me to communicate my feelings of exhilaration and
hope after reading Engines of Creation. Please do add me to your mailing
list (John L. Quel, Bellevue, WA)
For many early participants it was the multi-vocal language of Engines of Creation,
mixing the language of science with the language of science fiction, that was attractive.
As one of the early participants, who later became a central member of the futurist
community, expressed:
102
I became interested in nanotechnology probably in the late 1980s due in
no small part to the work of Christine Peterson and Eric Drexler and the
books Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future. And that intrigued
me, because I felt nanotechnology had a science fiction appeal to it, a
very futuristic appeal to it, and a potential to really transform all aspects
of technology and engineering and culture as we know it, eventually
(Early participant in the futurist community)
The use of exciting words in association with the nanotechnology label is evident
in the archival data. Figure 4.3 below shows the use of exciting words in the top fifty US
newspapers in association with nanotechnology, in comparison to in the top fifty US
newspapers in general13. There is a general trend for excitement around nanotechnology,
which increases until around 1993, after which there is a decline until 1996. From 1996
FIGURE 4.3: EXCITING WORDS IN ARTICLES IN THE TOP FIFTY US NEWSPAPERS
In addition to “exciting,” the 10 words that I used were: Interesting, dramatic, impressive,
overwhelming, intriguing, provocative, inspiring, astonishing, sensational, and thrilling.
13
103
to 2000, there is again a small increase, which coincides with the adoption of the
nanotechnology label by the government. The increase continues until about 1999, after
which there is a slow decline.
I compared the use of, “exciting words,” to the general use of the same words
within the top fifty US newspapers, and found that nanotechnology articles used
significantly more exciting words than did general articles. The graph also shows that
despite a smaller peak in excitement around 1999, excitement’s association
nanotechnology decreased after 1993.
Figure 4.3 includes both articles that mention the label, “nanotechnology,” and
articles that discuss nanoscience but do not mention the nanotechnology label. Figure
4.4 shows the difference between excitement expressed in the articles that make that
explicitly mention “nanotechnology”, and articles that do not. The figure shows that
articles mentioning the nanotechnology label generally contain more exciting words than
articles that don’t. The difference in excitement between the two groups of articles was
biggest in the mid 1990s, and nearly completely disappeared around the turn of the
century, where excitement in both domains drops off.
Although general references to excitement wore off as more communities
adopted the nanotechnology label, a new form of excitement emerged. Whereas the
excitement within the futurist movement was associated with the possibility of reducing
poverty and pollution and increasing the standard of living for the general population,
the new form of excitement focused on the creation of personal wealth. In this
discourse, the references to this form of excitement are expressed through phrases like,
“Nanotechnology is going to be the next big thing,” and, “Nanotechnology is going to
104
FIGURE 4.4 EXCITEMENT IN ARTICLES THAT MENTION THE
NANOTECHNOLOGY LABEL VERSUS ARTICLES THAT DO NOT
be a 1 trillion dollar market by 2015.” The last statement references a report by the
National Science Foundation that estimated that nanotechnology was going to become a
1 trillion dollar market by 2015 (Roco and Alivisatos 1999). This number was widely
circulated among participants within the nanotechnology field, even though there was a
lack of evidence for any sound economic analysis underlying the claim.
The service providers, who were eager to increase demand for their services,
particularly promoted this new, exciting rhetoric. If they could convince other
participants within the field, or prospective participants within the field, that
nanotechnology was going to be the, “next big thing,” then demand for their services
would increase. The participants within the field referred to the construction of this new
exciting rhetoric as, “hype.” In the excerpt below, one venture capitalist describes the
role hype plays in stimulating participation within the field. He states that hype is
105
beneficial in stimulating the growth of fields, because it encourages participation.
Participation might not be beneficial for the companies or the general public who end up
investing in them. But for the venture capitalists, hype is necessary to promote their
business. It creates frantic activity, which will create many new companies. Many will
fail, but as long as the venture capitalists have companies in their portfolio that succeed
25% of the time, they will still make money:
Hype is good…..I think the Internet hype was good because it created
thousand of businesses that wouldn't have been created otherwise. It got
lots of people focused in this area…….Who would have started this
thing if it wasn't for hundreds of other businesses that never went
anywhere? It was hype that got people excited. It was the hype that
drove people to start businesses and try things out. It was the primordial
soup. You have all of this combination of things and only a couple
sputter up and give you life. The same is true for nanotech. Nanotech
has been here for decades but it hasn't been hyped at all. So, it's just
been kind of puttering along. Now people are like, wow I've got to get
into nanotech. Well, good. And will there be a nanotech bubble? Sure
there will be a nanotech bubble. And will there be too much hype?
Yeah there will be too much hype. And will companies go out of
business? Yes. And out of that destruction will emerge amazing
businesses, and that is what we need to do. Now should the general
public be investing in these early stage opportunities? No, they shouldn't
be. Will they? Yes, they will. Will they lose money? Yes they will. Will
they be mad? Yes they will. But they have to learn somehow. Our job is
to invest in businesses that only succeed 25-percent of the time. That is
our business and we are perfectly comfortable doing it. And the people
giving us money are perfectly comfortable doing it. (Venture capitalist
investing in the nanotechnology field)
Some of the participants within the field are aware that hype is created by the
service providers for the service providers. In the quote below the CEO of a
nanotechnology start-up expresses his frustrations with the service providers:
Well, I think in general [hype] helped, but in general it's not helping now.
I won't criticize specific individuals but when you have persons putting
106
out research that is just exaggerated about the impact of nanotechnology
on the world, coming from folks less than 30-years of age, plus or minus
a few years, who have never lived through any prior bubbles, and now
attempting to believe that this bubble is any different than prior bubbles.
I don't think they are necessarily doing the space a great service. I've
lived through Internet bubbles, biotech, genomic bubbles. I've lived
through the PC bubble. At 50-years of age and doing this for 30-years
I've lived through more than one bubble. No matter now thick the skin
of that bubble it eventually burst. I believe that Wall Street is too shrewd
to have bought a bubble story. … I think for the most part [hype is
generated by] new entrants in the field. That is the hype about nano is
coming from consultancy firms and research publishers who are new
businesses that didn't exist before the bubble that are trying to make
business as a result of promoting the bubble. The hype isn't as much
coming from existing research organizations, existing market research
organizations, existing business development organizations. It's sort of
the newbie's perpetuating that helps catapult their newbie business.
(CEO of “nanotechnology startup”)
In the above excerpt, the entrepreneur expresses his dissatisfaction with the hype
associated with the nanotechnology field. He believes that hype negatively affects the
field, but that there are a number of, “young,” “newbie consultancy firms and research
publishers,” who are generating the hype because it increases demand for their products
and services. The goals of involvement are different for the entrepreneurs and the
service providers, which leads the entrepreneur to resent the actions of the, “newbie,”
service providers, who are viewed as just participating within the nanotechnology field to
quickly capitalize on the excitement around it.
To investigate how hype developed over time, I tracked the two concepts, “next
big thing,” and, “1 trillion dollar market,” within the top fifty US newspapers. Figure 4.5
shows the development of these two hype-related phrases. It is notable that figure 4.4
and figure 4.5 differ in their temporal development. Whereas the mobilization phase was
characterized by a high degree of general excitement around nanotechnology, the
legitimacy phase saw an increase in monetarily-oriented excitement. The height of this
107
FIGURE 4.5: MENTIONS OF, “NEXT BIG THING,” AND, “1 TRILLION DOLLAR
MARKET” IN ARTICLES IN THE TOP FIFTY US NEWSPAPERS
new excitement occurred in 2003, after which monetarily oriented excitement started to
decrease as well.
The association between the nanotechnology label and exciting connotations was
a strong mechanism for stimulating the adoption of the nanotechnology label. Exciting
rhetoric drew many participants to the label. This played an important role during the
mobilization phase of nanotechnology. The initial movement was started and the
Foresight Institute was founded largely due to the fact that participants were attracted by
the rhetoric of nanotechnology and contacted Drexler and Peterson to ask how they
could become involved with the nanotechnology movement. Excitement was, therefore,
a powerful mechanism for mobilizing people.
108
The language of excitement that characterized the early nanotechnology
movement was a general form of excitement that was not channeled toward any specific
goal. As the field matured, during the legitimation and institutionalization stages,
excitement still played a powerful role as a mobilizing factor. There was, however, a
change in the form of excitement. In particular, as service providers started to
participate within the field, the excitement around nanotechnology turned toward
monetary rewards.
Public Discourse
The association between nanotechnology and excitement rhetoric could not have had a
large impact and mobilized initial participants if the message had not reached a large
audience. An important mechanism in stimulating early participation was public
discourse, primarily in newspapers and magazines. The futurists were able to reach a
large audience, because the media embraced Drexler’s ideas . The nanotechnology vision
was easy to describe in lay terms and built on mental images and metaphors that could
capture a general audience. Below is an example of how nanotechnology was described
in the Washington Post right after Drexler had published Engines of Creation:
Imagine a world where the finest foods and the most luxurious clothing essentially the best of everything - could be yours effortlessly. What's
more, your good fortune wouldn't deprive anyone else. Is it the imagined
world-to-come of Utopian thinkers? Or, perhaps the paradise of lifeafter-death envisioned by the religious? No, it is actually the vision of a
radical group of scientists attempting to develop new ways to manipulate
the atom (Washington Post, 21 December 1986).
Because Drexler’s rhetoric blurred the divide between science and science fiction,
Engines of Creation was mentioned and reviewed by magazines on both ends of that
109
spectrum. For example both Science News and Analog Magazine (a magazine that published
science fiction novellas) reviewed the book. This exposed Drexler’s ideas to a broad
audience. Due to this wide array of attention, many people contacted the Foresight
Institute to learn more about nanotechnology or join the movement.
The Foresight Institute tried to draw on people’s engagement after reading
Engines of Creation to make them contribute to the cause. In the passage below they
encourage people to join the cause. They highlight the fact that people have the
opportunity to make a real difference and turn the world toward a “future worth living
in.”
..Make your initial contribution substantial. Many of you wrote to us as a
result of reading Engines of Creation. Look at it again to remind yourself of
what it says about the awesome opportunities and dangers ahead. Look
at the newspapers to remind yourself of how little awareness people have
of our situation, and how little is being done to prepare. Then ask how
much you can spare to help inform people and begin preparations, to
help us arrive, alive and free, in a future worth living in. In these early
days, your contribution could make a real difference (Foresight Update,
1987).
Foresight published a quarterly magazine, The Foresight Update, which reported on
scientific discoveries and other events related to nanotechnology’s development. The
Foresight Update was distributed freely to participants on their emailing list. The Foresight
Update played an important role in keeping participants involved in the nanotechnology
cause. The Foresight Update was launched before the Internet was widely available and
was, therefore, distributed as hard copy that was sent out to individual members on the
mailing list.
The group at Foresight tried to engage communities beyond the futurists. One
strategy was to publish books and articles that would appeal to different audiences.
110
Since he was in graduate school, Drexler had tried to publish in established scientific
journals, with little success. One exception was a paper that he published in The
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in 1981 with the help of Arthur Kantrowitz.
Kantrowitz, a professor at Dartmouth’s School of Engineering, was taken with Drexler’s
vision. He describes why he became involved with nanotechnology:
I met Eric Drexler because there was a group of students that were
interested in outer space. And I worked as a faculty advisor for them.
..…..And [his idea] was very impressive to me. Though what I did was to
sponsor a paper. It was printed in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science….. [The paper] shows a kind of vision that you do
not expect of an undergraduate. It is the kind of thing that you expect
from a mature researcher….Really, very brilliant (Kantrowitz, Professor
of Engineering, Dartmouth)
Other than this paper, Drexler was unsuccessful in publishing in established
scientific journals. Most scientists found that his papers did not stand up to the rigors of
scientific research. Drexler sought to fend off criticism from the scientific community
by publishing Nanosystems (1992), a technical book on nanotechnology based on his
dissertation. The book had little effect on the scientific community.
The futurists also attempted to interest business people in nanotechnology with
Unbounding the Future (Drexler, Peterson and Pergamit 1991), which was less technical and
more oriented toward commercial applications. As one of Drexler’s co-authors said:
The readership was not attracting people coming from the non-technical
side of the house, so that would be folks from business, intelligent people
with a humanities background, people in law, politics, basically the other
side of the house. And if what you were interested in doing was seeing
the field develop not just technically but also with a business perspective,
you're going to need to fund this thing. So if you’re going to need to
fund it, the people you’re talking to on that are not the techies, they’re
the business people…So you just need to be able to open this dialogue
111
…. [Drexler] was certainly covering the more techie end of
[nanotechnology] and so we decided do a book that covered the other
end of the spectrum. It was deliberately based on audience targeting.
(Gayle Pergamit, co-author of Unbounding the Future).
Unbounding the Future was a moderate success, but did not reach as large an
audience as Engines of Creation.
During the mobilization phase, public discourse was an important mechanism in
facilitating the adoption of the nanotechnology label. Engines of Creation reached a large
audience because it was mentioned and reviewed in a large number of outlets. Other
publications, like The Foresight Update, Nanosystems, and Unbounding the Future, kept the
public, and most importantly, core members, interested in the nanotechnology cause.
During the legitimation and institutionalization phases, public discourse around
FIGURE 4.6: GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF PRESS RELEASES AND
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT MENTION
NANOTECHNOLOGY
112
nanotechnology dramatically increased. Figure 4.6 shows the growth in the number of
articles in the top fifty US newspapers, and press releases that mention nanotechnology.
During the 1980s and 1990s there was slow growth in the number of articles and
press releases about nanotechnology. Articles about nanotechnology began to
dramatically increase around 1999, and kept rising until 2005, when 1,500 press releases
and 700 newspaper articles on the subject were released.
Public discourse was an important mechanism in facilitating the adoption of the
nanotechnology label. It was through public discourse that many participants who later
adopted the label were first exposed to it.
Social Gatherings
Social gatherings like conferences, networking events, and meetings, were also key to
adoption. Social gatherings allowed the people who had read or had heard about
nanotechnology in the public discourse to become actively involved in the field and to
meet personally others who were also involved with the field.
During the mobilization phase there was only one conference where people
interested in nanotechnology could go to meet other individuals who shared their
interest. The Foresight Institute arranged this conference bi-annually. The goal of the
conference was for people to present their work and listen to the work that others were
doing within the field. Arranging the nanotechnology conference was an activity that
took most of the Foresight Institute’s time. Christine Peterson described the idea behind
the conference:
…[Eric Drexler] went to a couple of conferences, but I am not sure
where he was publishing these things at that time… There was no
113
community at all. There was nowhere really to go… Our conference
was the first place where people in the technical community started to
talk about [nanotechnology]. Starting in 1989, that was the place that you
came to talk about these things. There was not really anywhere else to go
(Christine Peterson).
The Foresight Institute’s conferences were a central gathering point for people
within the community. It was at the conferences that they met other people involved in
the field and formed friendships and bonds. A participant at an early nanotechnology
conference describes the importance of the Foresight conferences in the development of
the field in this way:
I would say that the success of the Foresight conference was very
important because that actually became a locus of nanotechnology. It
was kind of funny, many of the people that didn't necessarily take
nanotechnology too maybe seriously, or completely discredited its
possibility, came to the Foresight conference. It had become a stop in
the physical sciences conference world. It actually took a lot of
Foresight's time and energy to keep the conference going and to organize
it. But the Foresight conference also brought a lot of benefits as far as
exposing it to the community and, to some extent, establishing its
credibility in the community. And that kind of kept the idea alive and
took it forward (Futurist).
It was at Foresight’s conferences that participants from other communities were
exposed to the futurists’ ideas and had opportunities to discuss nanotechnology with
other participants. For example, Steve Jurvetson, a partner in the prominent venture
capital firm, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, started attending Foresight conferences in the late
1990s. Jurvetson had a longstanding interest in nanotechnology, but became even more
interested after he attended a Foresight gathering. He explains the story of how he
learned about nanotechnology like this:
114
I remember when Engines of Creation came out. I didn't read it that time
cover-to-cover, but I remember knowing of it, and people would talk of
nanotech within the debate circles as a sort of competitive oratory kind
of thing… At that time, it sounded like science fiction to me. Then it lay
dormant until, I think I was a Masters student in electrical engineering,
around 1989. I took a class by Drexler. He was a visiting scholar at
Stanford… That was sort of again very interesting to me but not - I
wasn't a venture capitalist at the time, I didn't really know what to make
of it… Then it came again in 1999… [A friend of mine] invited me to a
Foresight conference, something called a Senior Associate’s Gathering,
which is this weekend conference that they hold. So, I went in 1999.
And I was sort of blown away by how just incredibly interesting
everything looked. It was still pretty far forward-looking in terms of - I
remember people talking about restructuring Jupiter into one big
computer. I remember […] people saying these things with a straight
face. But I got into it. I thought, “Wow, this is like a brainstorming
session.” (Steve Jurvetson)
Steve Jurvetson became one of nanotechnology’s great evangelizers, and Draper
Fisher Jurvetson became one of the first venture capital firms to state that they were
investing in nanotechnology companies. This example shows how conferences are an
important mechanism in facilitating the adoption of the nanotechnology label.
Another example of the role the Foresight Conferences played in facilitating
interactions between communities was that Mike Roco, from the National Science
Foundation, participated in a Foresight conference in 1998. The futurists were excited
about his participation because the government had previously paid little attention to
them. Mike Roco was one of the chief architects of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative.
Participation at the Foresight conferences gradually increased. Figure 4.4 plots
the number of people who attended Foresight conferences annually between 1988 and
2003. Over the years attendance grew from 136, in 1989, to a maximum of 504, in 2001.
After 2001, attendance at the Foresight conferences declined because service providers
115
FIGURE 4.7: PARTICIPANTS AT FORESIGHT CONFERENCES
were beginning to arrange conferences in the field, which meant that there was greater
competition for attendance. Many participants who viewed Foresight’s ideas of
molecular manufacturing with skepticism found the new conferences more attractive
places to meet. The first of these competing conferences was the Nano Science and
Technology Institute conference, held for the first time in 1997.
During the legitimation and institutionalization phases, conferences continued to
play an important role in facilitating the adoption of the nanotechnology label, and in
creating bonds between participants from various communities.
Well, we certainly interact with [non-profit organizations] quite a bit,
partly because they go to the same meetings. I just was at a conference
with someone from the Foresight Institute last week and the [Action
Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration] and Sean Murdoch
from the Nano Business Alliance, I know him well. So it's still a small
enough community, I guess, we all know each other. (Government
official)
116
Many participants at the wide range of new nanotechnology conferences were
drawn to participate in this novel field since it gave them a feeling of being on the
cutting edge of science and commerce. One of the interviewees highlighted that there
was a big difference between participating in chemistry and nanotechnology conferences.
Most of the chemistry conferences in which she participated drew a small crowd of old
or middle aged men who had been working in the field for decades and who showed
little excitement about the research that they were doing. In contrast nanotechnology
conferences were bustling with excitement. This is how she described her experience:
I have never been to a conference like that before. People were sitting
on the floor, they were standing along the side of the wall, and you could
literally not walk into the room. There were four or five parallel sessions
going on at once, there were expos. It was huge. I spoke to a guy who
was one of the organizers….and [he] had never seen anything like it.
They were already thinking about how they were going to handle it the
next year. It was crazy, but it was fun. There were people from Taiwan,
people from China. There were people from all over the US putting up
nanotech initiatives. Fox was there interviewing them, having press
conferences. It was fun. It was hilarious. It has been a long time... I do
not think that I have ever experienced a conference like that (Chemist).
In conclusion, social gatherings were a key mechanism in stimulating the growth
of the nanotechnology field. It was at conferences and meetings that participants within
the nanotechnology field met each other, exchanged ideas, and built relationships.
Conferences, in particular, were a central mechanism in facilitating interactions between
the communities.
117
Resources
Monetary Resources. Funding for nanotechnology was scarce from the midEighties to the mid-Nineties. Although several individual donors contributed to The
Foresight Institute, Drexler and Peterson constantly struggled to raise money. Outside
of Foresight, only two groups showed interest in nanotechnology. One was a small
group of researchers at Xerox PARC, and the other was a group at NASA Ames. Here,
too, nanotechnology was on the fringe, and not well funded. Because the Foresight
Institute was largely unsuccessful in obtaining research grants, most people affiliated
with Foresight worked on a voluntary basis, in their spare time. The only money that the
Foresight Institute was able to raise came from a few wealthy donors, and with this
money Drexler and his wife, Christine Peterson, were able to dedicate themselves
exclusively to forwarding the goals of the Institute.
There was limited public and private funding for nanotechnology during this
period. Although investors may have invested in areas of chemistry, applied physics, and
materials science that eventually became known as nanotechnology, before 1997 neither
the government nor the venture capitalists used the term nanotechnology. Thus,
funding in this era is impossible to track.
Social Capital. The main resource available within the field during the
mobilization phase was social capital. At the time the Foresight Institute was founded
the social capital that was available for the field consisted of the relationships that had
been formed by early participants prior to their entrance into the field. Most of the early
participants were active either in space exploration (in particular the National Space
118
Society [NSS] or the L5 Society), or among Silicon Valley’s computing enthusiasts14. As
one new participant stated in the Foresight Update:
I've been an active L5er and an experimental longevity volunteer for
years. It's clear now that I'll need to direct much of my free energies to
help with the transition to nanotechnology if we are to survive and
flourish. Please keep me informed. - Phillip Jones Seattle, WA”
(Foresight Update, 1987).
The fact that Foresight drew many of its participants from NNS and the L5
Society imprinted the activities of the movement. Many early applications of
nanotechnology were related to space exploration and the establishment of space
colonies. The first efforts at exploring nanotechnology were focused on creating
computer models that could simulate how individual molecules might be assembled into
nano-machinery. Notably absent from the early crowd were materials scientists,
chemists, and physicists, who would later become the dominant groups in
nanotechnology.
Social capital gradually increased within the field. The conferences were the
most important mechanism in increasing the amount of social capital, because they
enabled participants to form social bonds. In particular, they enabled the formation of
relationships among participants from different nanotechnology communities.
14 The National Space Society (formerly known as the National Space Association, and the National
Space Institute) was founded in 1974. The National Space Society's vision is people living and working
in thriving communities beyond the Earth. NSS members promote change in social, technical,
economic, and political conditions to advance the day when people will live and work in space.
Carolyn and Keith Henson founded the L5 Society in 1975 to promote the idea of creating large space
colonies. The L5 Society was a social movement, which, at its peak, included about 10,000 people who
believed that space colonization was going to happen in the near future. They fought to increase
funding for space exploration and to avoid the privatization of space. The L5 Society merged with the
National Space Society in 1987.
119
Conclusion: Mobilization
During the mobilization phase there were three mechanisms that were important to the
growth of the field: Excitement, public discourse, and social gatherings. The excitement
around nanotechnology made people interested in the field and facilitated the adoption
of the label. Public discourse exposed many people to the label. Reports about
nanotechnology and Engines of Creation in national newspapers and magazines led many
people to purchase the book. Finally, social gatherings, like conferences, networking
events, and meetings, created social bonds among individuals.
In this early period it was difficult for the futurist community to raise resources.
The resource primary resource available within the field was social capital. Part of the
social capital available within the field was inherited through the early participants’
connections in the space exploration and computing communities. Over time, social
capital specific to the nanotechnology field developed as participants began knowing
each other through participation in nanotechnology conferences.
4.4 1996-2000 – Legitimation
During the legitimation phase, the government and service providers became involved
with the field. These two new communities had very different goals for involvement
than the futurist community. The goal of the government was to increase funding for
science and technology, and the goal of the service providers was to increase demands
for their services. The main mechanisms during legitimation were legitimacy,
decoupling, and labeling. Social capital grew within the field, and with the involvement
of the government and service providers, monetary capital was also attached to the label.
120
Goal for Involvement: The Government
In 1996, the US government began investigations into nanotechnology. Groups within
the government were looking for ways to increase funding for science and engineering.
A governmental initiative around nanotechnology became a vehicle for doing so.
During the Nineties, funding for the biological sciences dramatically increased. But
science advocates had a difficult time convincing legislators to increase funding for the
physical sciences and engineering, which were not seen as exciting, and occasionally had
negative connotations. As the president of MIT, Charles Vest, explained:
[Nanotechnology] is new. There was a strong case to be made that in
the long run this was going to either transform or create some new
industries that ultimately would provide jobs, which is what people in
Congress see their role as doing. The problem is, whether we like it or
not, if you walk into Congress and you say, "chemistry," or you say,
"physics," or you say, "mathematics," to them that says, "more of the
same." And so they are looking for new and exciting things that should
benefit the country, and I think the term kind of got that, and we all
know that while it wasn't going to happen in a year or two, that there
were visions out there about new ways of making materials highstrength, lightweight, better conductivity, things that people kind of
understand and get excited about, but yet were real (Charles Vest,
president of MIT).
Figure 4.3 shows that from 1970 to 2000, when corrected for inflation, federal funding
for the life sciences increased threefold, while spending on engineering and the physical
sciences remained relatively flat.
Government officials knew that effective vehicles for persuading Congress to
increase funding for science were national initiatives that excited politicians with grand
ideas and concrete promises. This had been the case in space exploration, high
performance computing, communications, and the Internet. Promoting a
121
FIGURE 4.8: TRENDS IN FEDERAL RESEARCH FOR SELECTED DISCIPLINES
national nanotechnology initiative for boosting research at the nanoscale seemed a
potential vehicle for increasing funding for science and engineering in general. Tom
Kalil, Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy, who
advocated strongly for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, argued:
I'm not proposing initiatives as the sole driver for increases in funding.
But my experience was that if I had some of these, they would also
engender support more broadly for increases in sciences and technology.
(Tom Kalil)
Goal for Involvement: Service Providers
Service providers started to pay attention to the field shortly after the government
became involved, partially because the government’s interest made nanotechnology
122
legitimate. Service providers generally capitalized on knowledge gaps between
themselves and those who buy their services. Nanotechnology was a novel field where
service providers could quickly acquire knowledge that other people did not have.
Many service providers thought that if they joined the nanotechnology field
while it was still emerging, then they would be viewed as experts within the field when it
matured. They also hoped that they might help the field develop by creating institutions,
like trade magazines and conferences, where participants from the different communities
could exchange opinions and form social bonds.
Legitimacy
The mid-Nineties to the start of the 21st Century was a period of legitimation for
nanotechnology. Legitimacy has been used to explain the emergence of new fields and
industries (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Hannan and Carroll 1995; Lounsbury and Glynn
2001). The literature offers varying accounts for the process that leads a field to become
legitimized. Population ecology emphasizes that legitimacy arises due to increases in
firm founding (Hannan and Carroll 1995). Research in symbolic management, on the
other hand, stresses that entrepreneurial firms legitimize a field by engaging in symbolic
actions (Lounsbury and Glynn 2001).
Scott (2001) states that there are three forms of legitimacy: Cognitive, normative,
and regulatory. In nanotechnology the three forms of legitimacy were not established
through the same process. The basis for cognitive legitimacy, the extent to which the
field is cognitively understood, began to be established during the mobilization phase.
The public discourse around nanotechnology following the publication of Drexler’s
123
books and the promotion of nanotechnology by the Foresight Institute made
nanotechnology a concept that an increasing number of people recognized.
Nanotechnology, however, lacked normative legitimacy, alignment of the values
of nanotechnology with the values of the surrounding society. Many communities,
particularly scientists, viewed nanotechnology as illegitimate, because it violated the
norms of scientific purity. Status within scientific communities is obtained through strict
adherence to scientific principles, and the language of science is formalized and well
defined (Abbott 1988). Drexler’s version of nanotechnology violated these scientific
principles by using a multi-vocal language that mixed science with science fiction; it did
not adhere to rigorous scientific principles. One scientist explained the scientific
community’s view of Drexler and the futurists this way:
Most people think [Drexler] is kind of crazy….I think scientists generally
have a negative view… [Scientists] have a very rigid view of the way
things should be done, and [Drexler] doesn't do it that way. Scientists are
very, very critical people. Criticizing people is kind of what scientist do.
He is an easy target. He gets a lot of criticisms geared toward him. I
have to say, I have heard ranting and raving over how it's basically
criminal for us not to freeze people just before they die, because surely,
with nanotechnology, we would be able to thaw out a frozen body and
repair whatever it was thought to have died from, and it's basically
murder not to freeze someone who is about to die. To hear something
that extreme, it does make you think, “Wow, this guy really is off the
deep end” (Scientist).
Many entrepreneurs also thought that the futurist’s ideas were not legitimate as a
contribution to technological development. Below is a quote from an entrepreneur, who
expresses a view of the futurists commonly held in the business community:
124
[The futurists] are probably good at writing novels. Maybe they should
just worry about their science fiction novels. I don't get those guys.
…..They have such a bizarre thinking (CEO of nanotechnology startup).
The greatest opposition to Drexler’s views came from Richard Smalley, the
inventor of Buckminister-fullerenes, and Nobel Laureate. In particular, during the
institutionalization phase, Smalley publicly attacked Drexler. In the September 2001
issue of Scientific American, Smalley outlined his scientific objections to the idea of
molecular assemblers and what he termed the, “fat fingers problem,” and the, “sticky
fingers problem.” Smalley argued that, due to chemistry between atoms not only acting
between two single atoms but between a field of atoms in the vicinity of the reacting
atom pairs, a nanobot would need a manipulator arm for each of the atoms in the
vicinity of the nanobot to control the process. The, “fat fingers problem,” is thus that,
“because the fingers of a manipulator arm must, themselves, be made out of atoms, they
have an irreducible size. There just isn’t enough room in the nanometer-size reaction
region to accommodate all the fingers of all the manipulators necessary to have complete
control of the chemistry.” (Smalley 2001 p. 77). The sticky fingers problem is that atom
bonds are difficult to manipulate: “The atoms of the manipulator hands will adhere to
the atom that is being moved, so it will often be impossible to release this minuscule
building block in precisely the right spot.” (Smalley 2001 p. 77).
Drexler responded to Smalley’s criticism, and their debate culminated in a cover
story published by Chemical and Engineering News: A point-counterpoint between Smalley
and Drexler. Smalley wrote:
I thought for a while that you really did get it, and you realized that on
the end of your robotic assembler arm you need an enzyme-like
tool………But, no, you don’t get it. You are still in a pretend world
125
where atoms go where you want because your computer program directs
them to go there….I consider that your failure to provide a working
strategy indicates that you implicitly concur - even as you explicitly deny
that the idea can work (Smalley 2003b p. 39).
Smalley also attacked Drexler’s concerns over nanotechnology’s misuse: “We
should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology.”
(Smalley 2003a p. 42). To which Drexler replied: “I have from the beginning argued that
the potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by the
US and its allies imperative” (Drexler 2003 p. 40). Smalley ended the debate with a
personal attack on Drexler:
You and people around you have scared our children. I don’t expect you
to stop, but I hope others in the chemical community will join with me in
turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in
the real world will be challenging, and there are real risks, there will be no
such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams.
(Smalley 2003a p. 42)
The first step in the legitimation of nanotechnology was the establishment of
legitimacy around the concept among government officials, Congress, and finally
President Clinton. Nanotechnology initially achieved legitimacy through the promotion
of nanotechnology by powerful stakeholders. Some of these powerful stakeholders
included, but are not limited to, Tom Kalil (Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for
Technology and Economic Policy), Mike Roco (National Science Foundation), Neal
Lane (President of the National Science Foundation), Richard Smalley (Nobel Prize
Winner), Charles Vest (President of MIT), Stan Williams (Hewlett Packard), and Charles
Harris (CEO of Harris & Harris, a prominent venture capital firm). These stakeholders
were interested in increasing funding for science and engineering in general. Some had a
126
particular interest in gaining from an increase in funding for nanoscience and
engineering. The obvious example of the latter was Richard Smalley, a Nobel Prize
laureate doing research on nanoscience. Richard Smalley supported the idea of a
National Nanotechnology Initiative, even though many scientists were against it. As
reported by Charles Vest, the president of MIT:
So, I know that some of my friends in the science community,
particularly some of the chemists and so forth, did not like the idea of an
initiative, they said all the money should just go into the disciplines
(Charles Vest, president of MIT).
Many scientists were against the idea of an initiative because it focused on crossdisciplinary work, and the scientists felt that it was better for the money to be spent on
pure science.
In contrast, there was great excitement among service providers and some
companies about the idea of a National Nanotechnology Initiative. In particular, venture
capitalists were supportive of the idea, and they spent time and effort lobbying for it.
The venture capitalists thought that a government initiative could help them fund the
commercialization process from discovery to product creation and maybe even help
ignite a new commercial space. Charles Vest from MIT describes the role of the venture
capitalists this way:
Now here, if we look at MIT, I can think of a few venture capitalists who
were very excited very early on about this area and even talked it up and
were around here probing for ideas. I particularly had in my mind,
Charlie Harris, from New York, who now is totally specialized in this
area, and I'm sure there are others as well (Charles Vest, President of
MIT)
127
The idea of having a National Nanotechnology Initiative resonated with many in
Congress. They were looking for issues on which to take a stance and nanotechnology
provided an opportunity for many in Congress to do so on a subject that showed they
had a vision for the future of the country. One Congressional aid explains how the
Congressman that he was working for ended up playing a key role in supporting the
National Nanotechnology Initiative:
I was working for [the Congressman], expecting to work on things to do
with the Science Committee. Part of my responsibility was to come up
with areas where he could try to take the lead. So I identified
nanotechnology as something for him to - a place for him to go…..I
mean he's a member of Congress, so everything is political. Everyone
that's here had to campaign to get elected and so everyone's always
looking for something in which they can distinguish themselves, and it's
hard to do that. I mean there are only so many things that get done, so
it's hard for a member to do that. So he was fortunate to have
[nanotechnology] (Congressional Aid)
In November of 1999, the Office of Management and Budget decided to
support the implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and in January of
2000, in a speech at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), President Bill
Clinton announced the National Nanotechnology Initiative with the following words:
My budget supports a major new national nanotechnology initiative
worth fifty million dollars….. Just imagine, materials with 10 times the
strength of steel, and only a fraction of the weight; shrinking all the
information at the Library of Congress into a device the size of a sugar
cube; detecting cancerous tumors that are only a few cells in size. Some
of these research goals will take twenty or more years to achieve. But
that is why - precisely why - …..there is such a critical role for the federal
government. (President Bill Clinton, Caltech, January 2000)
128
It is particularly interesting to note that the words President Clinton used to
describe the wonders of nanotechnology mirror the rhetoric used by the futurists.
The support of President Bill Clinton and the federal government altered
nanotechnology’s legitimacy. The connotations of nanotechnology changed with the
endorsement of the Federal Government. Whereas nanotechnology previously had been
viewed as a fringe and illegitimate concept that mixed the language of science with
science fiction, nanotechnology now became a legitimate concept associated with the
mainstream of society. The change in the legitimacy of nanotechnology facilitated the
adoption of the nanotechnology label by other actors.
During the mobilization phase, the nanotechnology label gained some cognitive
legitimacy. Most communities, however, still perceived it to lack normative legitimacy.
After the government adopted the label and presented nanotechnology as a major
technological revolution that was going to dominate the 21st Century, the concept also
gained normative legitimacy. The legitimacy of the nanotechnology label facilitated
adoption of the label by new communities.
Translation
The government’s adoption of the nanotechnology label was made possible through a
translation of the term’s original meaning. The futurists had developed the initial
meaning around nanotechnology as the idea of microscopic assembler robots, i.e. as a
device or as a computerized system. Drexler created this meaning of the word by
combining the word, “nano,” - a reference to small scale, with the word, “technology,” which he used to refer to a robotic system.
129
As part of the political process of establishing the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, participants began to use the nanotechnology label to denote technologies and
sciences that were outside the futurist definition. For example, after Kalil decided that a
national initiative might help increase government funding for science and engineering,
he knew that for a national initiative to succeed, he needed the support of a large
coalition. For a large coalition to succeed, he needed to translate concepts and
arguments in ways that were appropriate to each of the groups. In the quote below Kalil
describes this process:
You need to build this broad coalition of individuals, companies,
agencies, the Congress, the media, politicians, speechwriters, the Office
of Management and Budget, et cetera, et cetera. In this very
heterogeneous environment, what political scientists call policy networks,
the arguments that they are receptive to, and their incentives, and their
culture, and the way in which they look at the world, are all vastly
different. You need to develop arguments and messages and documents
that are responsive to these different communities (Tom Kalil,
government official).
At a time when the government was considering funding nanotechnology, this
was not the only area ripe for an initiative. Others were, “Complexity Research,” and
“Oceanic Research.” The competition for attention, combined with limited resources,
meant that only one of these initiatives could be supported. After intense promotion
and competition, nanotechnology garnered the most support across government
agencies, including Department of Defense, Department of Energy, The National
Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Health. The reason nanotechnology
was chosen was twofold.
First, nanotechnology was exciting, and there was an explicit vision that
nanotechnology was not only a cutting edge science, but that it would also transform
130
economic life. Some stakeholders involved in creating the National Nanotechnology
Initiative had wanted to call it the “nanoscience” initiative, because the goal of the
initiative was to fund science, not to develop commercially viable products. In the end,
the working group decided to use the, “nanotechnology,” label because it signified that
the initiative was going to have a large impact on society at large. In the quote below a
government official explains the decision-making process:
In the beginning, we were debating whether it ought to be the, “National
Nanotechnology Initiative,” or the, “National Nanoscience Initiative.”
We knew that, “nanoscience,” was the right formulation, but if we had to
get it through Congress then we needed to name it, “Nanotechnology,”
and say that it would have a large impact on the economy and society. So
we spent the next five years apologizing that it was misnamed. But it was
misnamed from the point of view of the science, but it was the right
name with regards to the political process (Government official).
Second, the concept of nanotechnology was flexible enough that it could be
reinterpreted by all the agencies to signify something that they were already doing. A
single individual was not responsible for the translation. On the contrary, translation
was a social process involving participants within the Office of Science and Technology
and participants from the individual agencies. For example, in the quote below, Kalil
described how he worked with scientists to translate complex scientific concepts into
ideas that were accessible to the general public:
So, these were some examples of grand challenges: Storing the Library
the Congress in a device the size of a sugar cube, detecting cancerous
tumors before they are visible to the human eye, making materials that
are stronger than steel at a fraction of the weight, etcetera. The way that
I developed these was [to approach scientists and say:] I know research is
not like paving roads. You cannot predict if I give you will get X amount
of money, exactly what will happen. But what I want you to do is
identify some long-term goals that you have reason to believe might
131
emerge from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, if we were to fund
such a thing, and if it were to get additional resources and attention.
They would say things that were incomprehensible like; “Well we think
we might be able to have storage densities of 10 to the 15th bytes per
cubic centimeters. We have a really interesting idea for nano-engineered
MRI contrast agents with functionalization of these bio-molecules.”
Then I would sort of ask them naïve and stupid questions until I had
some idea of how I could capture that in ways that were accessible to
politicians and the media. If you go back and read [President Clinton’s]
speech, that is where those came from. (Tom Kalil)
People within the agencies were also involved in specifying the translation
process. They were asked to provide estimates of their current nanotechnology
spending, which led them to reframe their current activities in light of nanotechnology
funding. Many agencies, like the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Defense, were
able to identify a great deal of research that they funded at the sub-100 nanometer scale.
Most of this work was basic chemistry, materials science, and physics, and most of it was
far removed from Drexler’s vision of microscopic assembler robots. By applying the
nanotechnology label to new technologies, the agencies changed the denotations of the
label.
The translation and relabeling of technologies in the range of 1 to 100
nanometers as, “nanotechnology,” posed problems. The first arose when officials tried
to include the National Institute of Health (NIH) in the nanotechnology coalition.
Because the NIH was one of the most powerful and well-funded government agencies, it
could bring legitimacy to nanotechnology. But a definition of nanotechnology solely in
terms of size was so broad that it included most research already done by the NIH,
because most microbiological processes occur at the nanoscale. To solve this problem,
NIH created its own definition of nanotechnology, which not only emphasized that
132
nanotechnology was a technology between 1-100 nanometers, but that nanotechnology
had to be something besides a biological process. Below is the definition that the NIH
ended up using:
While much of biology is grounded in nanoscale phenomena, NIH has
not reclassified most of its basic research portfolio as nanotechnology.
Only those studies that use nanotechnology tools and concepts to study
biology; and propose to engineer biological molecules toward functions
very different from those they have in nature; or that manipulate
biological systems by methods more precise than can be done by using
molecular biological, synthetic chemical, or biochemical, approaches that
have been used for years in the biology research community, are
classified as nanotechnology projects (NIH Nanotechnology and
Nanoscience Information, 2006).
Having settled on, “nanotechnology,” the problem became how to associate the
term with existing industries that had long been producing technologies under 100 nm.
For example, the semiconductor industry’s constant attempts to miniaturize meant that
the gates on common semiconductors were already less than 100 nm. As stated by a
government official at a nanotechnology conference:
You can quarrel about the definition, but the National Nanotechnology
Initiative defines nanotechnology as anything that is 1-100 nanometer
and that has new properties at this level. There is a debate about whether
or not technology that is 200 nm can be included. But since the current
semiconductors have gone below 100 nm, they could actually be
characterized as nanotechnology. But they have not fundamentally
changed their products, so we say that they are not nanotechnology. If
we labeled semiconductors less than 100 nm as nanotechnology, then it
would make everybody look stupid, since the size of the nanotechnology
marked would go from $1 billion in one year to $100 billion the next
year. (Government official at nanotechnology conference)
Figure 4.5 is a schematic illustration of the translation process involved in
nanotechnology. Translation can happen either within the denotations or the
133
FIGURE 4.5 TRANSLATION OF A LABEL’S CONNOTATIONS AND DENOTATIONS
Connotations 1
Label
Label
Denotations 1
Denotations 2
Connotations 2
Connotations 2
Label
Label
Denotations 3
Time
connotations of a label. Translation of a label’s denotations happens when the label is
used to denote a new class of objects. In the case of nanotechnology, the denotations of
the label changed when agencies started to use the label to denote research done on
nanoparticles, and not just Drexler’s assembler robots. Translation of a label’s
connotations happens when participants start to use the concept in association with new
webs of meaning. In the case of nanotechnology the connotation of the label changed
when participants began using the label in association with phrases like, “increasing
funding for science and engineering,” instead of, “improving the world through the
creation of microscopic assembler robots.”
The creation of new connotations of a label also happened through associations
with actors. The sentence, “President Bill Clinton announced a National
Nanotechnology Initiative today in his talk at Caltech,” created an association between
President Bill Clinton and, “nanotechnology.” Through webs of association, the
134
connotations of nanotechnology acquired some of President Bill Clinton’s connotations,
like “prestigious”, “acclaimed”, and “important”. The translation processes involving
denotations and connotations were not independent, because changes in the denotations
of a label facilitated a translation of a label’s connotations.
Translation was an important mechanism in facilitating the adoption of the
nanotechnology label. It aligned the connotations and denotations of nanotechnology
with new constituencies. Translation also paved the way for the creation of a political
coalition, because it enabled members of the coalition to create interpretations of the
label that were aligned with their goals of involvement.
Decoupling
Decoupling is a powerful mechanism in facilitating a political coalition. Decoupling
arises when multiple meanings of the same concept co-exist within an organization, or
organizational field, without causing conflicts or questioning from participants (Cyert
and March 1963; March 1962). The translation of the nanotechnology label by multiple
participants simultaneously meant that multiple meanings co-existed - often without
consequences. For example, as stated above, the NIH participated in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative even though they operated with a different definition of
nanotechnology than the rest of the agencies.
Each agency also made constant decisions about which projects ought to be
funded. These decisions involved translating the overall goal of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative onto concrete research projects that were submitted by
researchers, primarily at universities and government labs. These translations changed
the denotations within each agency of what constituted nanotechnology. One driver of
135
the translation work was that the agencies wanted to fund the most qualified applications
and the best projects. These projects were, however, not always the projects that were
most aligned with how nanotechnology was defined in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative.
Decoupling existed between the agencies, but, first and foremost, it existed
between the funding decisions that the agencies were making and the vision of
nanotechnology that Congress funded. Members of Congress had been excited about
the technological vision that the futurists presented:
The way that people first pitched nanotechnology in the Congress [was
very hyped] – and then what gets the funding is a lot different. There are
little factions within the nanotechnology community where their pitches
were on the far out there in the future kind of things, like, “You know,
we could change the way everything is made, and not have waste, and
reduce our energy consumption, because we could assemble things atom
by atom. We could have everything that we want built the way we want
it.”… If you talk to the people who think about those things, they say,
“We can't get any government funding. All the funding is going to
making lighter tennis racquets, or that kind of stuff.” So, I mean, there
was a very grand vision that was what got some of the members of
Congress very excited; looking at the idea of a world where we don’t
have to use as many resources, we don't have to use as much energy, and
have the pollution and waste. I mean that long, out there, vision was
very appealing and that was what got people excited, but there is a
difference between that and what’s going on right now. (Congressional
Aid)
The view expressed by the Congressional aid resonated with participants in the
futurist community. The community around the Foresight Institute felt that their vision
had been co-opted by the commercial community, which transformed the meaning of
nanotechnology away from the Foresight Institute’s original notions and toward
mundane applications that were already in existence. Christine Peterson expresses this
perspective in the quote below:
136
[The National Nanotechnology Initiative] is like a founding coalition, and
what it was is that a very, very, very wide variety of folks got together and
said this is a sexy word, and it is sexy, mainly because of all [the futurist
activities]. It was a sexy word, it was a powerful idea, and we think that
our work is nano scale, so we can use this word…. [The commercial
community] has co-opted our word … What they mean by
nanotechnology is very different from what we believe nanotechnology
to be … Golf balls and stain resistant pants were not part of our vision.
(Interview with Christine Peterson)
In particular there was much anger in the futurist community that none of the
funding from the National Nanotechnology Initiative was used to research the futurists’
ideas. The first budget drafts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative contained
money earmarked to conduct feasibility studies of the futurists’ ideas. After lobbying
efforts from service providers and the business community, this part was omitted from
the final draft. The futurists’ frustration with not receiving any of the money from the
National Nanotechnology Initiative is illustrated in the quote below:
It was very hard to get funding. Even though we helped get the National
Nanotechnology Initiative going, it was immediately hijacked by people
who wanted to do the near-term stuff. I often say it would be as if
Kennedy had said, “I have a vision for going to the moon and back and
we're going to have a big space program, we're going to open up the
space frontier and develop space industry, and space resources,” and
Boeing or Lockheed say, “Well, you know, we're in the space business,
we go from Miami to L.A., fund us.” And these guys in a garage forget
about that, that's just amateur stuff, we do the real thing. And when
you're talking to people who are technologically illiterate they may not
realize that jet engines don't typically fly around in space, they need
oxygen and things like that, and you need a different architecture to go to
space. But if they don't know any better they think it's all the same.”
(Nanotechnology futurist)
Despite the resentment from the futurists, the decoupling between the vision of
nanotechnology Congress thought they had funded, and the funding decisions made by
137
the agencies, was allowed to continue. The reason nobody took action was that none of
the involved parties (to the extent that they were even aware of the decoupling), had a
vested interest in calling attention to the discrepancy between the initial vision and the
implementation of the vision. Congressional members were satisfied because they could
claim to have supported the next technological revolution, and funding agencies were
satisfied to have more money at their disposal.
Decoupling was an important mechanism in facilitating the construction of a
political alliance in support of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Without
decoupling between powerful stakeholders like the National Science Foundation and the
National Institute of Health, and between Congress and government agencies, these
powerful stakeholders could not have adopted the nanotechnology label, and the
development of the nanotechnology field would have been severely crippled.
Resources
Monetary Resources: During the late Nineties there was a dramatic increase in
funding for nanotechnology. Figure 4.4 shows a steady growth in investments in
nanotechnology starting at around $100 million in 1997, and increasing to around $1
billion by 2004. The downturn in venture capital investments in nanotechnology in 2002
tracked the general downturn in venture capital during this period. The reason the graph
starts in 1997 is that before 1997 the government did not use the nanotechnology label,
and there was, therefore, no accountability to track funding in nanotechnology before
this time.
Figure 4.5 shows the number of nanoscience articles that refer to money and the
number of nanotechnology articles that refer to money. The graph clearly shows that
138
FIGURE 4.4: GOVERNMENT AND VC FUNDING FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY
FIGURE 4.5 NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NON-NANOTECHNOLOGY ARTICLES,
IN THE TOP FIFTY US NEWSPAPERS THAT MENTION MONEY
139
articles that mention the nanotechnology label tend to refer to money more often than
the pure nanoscience articles15. The rate of association between the nanotechnology
label and money grew quickly after 1996, when the government became involved in
the nanotechnology field, because the government started to attach monetary
resources to the label. This graph shows that, as the nanotechnology field developed,
it was not the case that money was talked about equally in nanoscience articles and in
articles that mention the label, “nanotechnology.” Instead, it was the case that talk
about money was specifically related to the nanotechnology label.
Conclusion: Legitimation
The major event that happened during the legitimation phase was that the government
and service providers started to adopt the nanotechnology label. The goal of
involvement of the government and the service providers was distinct from the futurists.
The futurists wanted to develop nanotechnology in order to improve life for all of
humanity. In contrast, the government wanted to increase funding for science and
engineering, and the service providers wanted to increase demand for their services.
Three central mechanisms facilitated the adoption of the nanotechnology label:
Legitimacy, translation, and decoupling. During the mobilization phase, when the
futurists were the only community involved with nanotechnology, most other
communities viewed the nanotechnology label as illegitimate, because they saw it as
mixing the language of science with the language of science fiction. The nanotechnology
An article is counted as mentioning, “money,” if it contains one of the following words or symbols: $,
money, dollar, grant, investment, resource, capital.
15
140
label became legitimized when powerful individuals within the government adopted the
label.
In order to establish a political coalition around nanotechnology, each of the
stakeholders, like the government agencies, translated nanotechnology in accordance
with their own goals by changing either the connotations or the denotations of
nanotechnology. This led to a discrepancy in the meaning of the nanotechnology label
between the stakeholders. This discrepancy in meaning was maintained through a
decoupling of meaning between the participants. The involvement of the government
within the nanotechnology field changed the available resources. The nanotechnology
label began to be associated with monetary resources.
4.3 2000-2005 Institutionalization
The beginning of the 21st century marked a period of intense institutionalization of the
nanotechnology field. President Bill Clinton’s speech at Caltech in 2000 made
nanotechnology visible for many communities that had not previously been involved
with the field. Scientists had previously shunned the word, “nanotechnology,” as fringe
science. But after the government began funding nanotechnology, many scientists
willingly renamed the work they had carried out for years, “nanotechnology.” The
service providers became increasingly engaged in the field as venture capitalists,
consultants, and lawyers looking for the, “next big thing,” rushed to provide services to
the booming field.
During the institutionalization phase three mechanisms were important to the
development of the field: Renaming, labeling, and abandonment. Among both
scientists and entrepreneurs, renaming was widespread. To access the resources that
141
became associated with the nanotechnology label, scientists and entrepreneurs renamed
their work, “nanotechnology.” Service providers, who needed successful scientists and
companies to display at their conferences and about whom they could write about in
their magazines, also reframed scientists and companies’ work as nanotechnology.
The rapid adoption of the nanotechnology label, and the change in the
connotations and denotations of the label, also led to an abandonment of the label by
participants, who adhered to old usages of the word. In the nanotechnology field,
abandonment happened particularly among the futurists.
Goal for Involvement: Scientists
As described in the section on legitimacy, scientists shunned the nanotechnology label
when the futurists were the only community involved in the field. The futurist
conception of nanotechnology did not harmonize with the established scientific
paradigms of rigor and scientific purity (e.g. Abbott 1988). The principles of scientific
purity and rigor are, however, decoupled from the everyday world of scientific research,
which is practical and contextualized (Latour 1987). One of the practical constraints of
scientific research is that scientists need money to fund students, postdoctoral candidates
and lab technicians. They also need money to purchase laboratory equipment, chemicals
and computers, and to participate in conferences to present their work (Hull 1990). The
cost of scientific research means that scientists constantly have to engage in activities to
attract funding. Many scientists are provided with some of their funding from their local
institution and from corporate sponsors, but many scientists also must constantly write
government grant proposals to be able to conduct research.
142
The possibility of obtaining access to government funds was an important
motivation for scientists to adopt the nanotechnology label. With the creation of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative there was a dramatic increase in the number of
government grants to study nanotechnology, and many scientists, therefore, adopted the
nanotechnology label in an effort to fund their research.
Goal for Involvement: Companies
The focus of companies is to enhance the survival of their business. Many companies
engage in symbolic management in efforts to influence the public perception of their
firm. Pozner and Zajac (2006) show that in their quarterly earning statements, firms use
sense-giving tactics to influence the interpretation of their corporate performance.
Likewise, Zott and Huy (2007a) show that entrepreneurial firms use symbolic
management to appear more attractive to potential investors. It is well known that one
strategy for influencing the perception of the firm within the market is to associate the
firm with various symbols and labels (Lee 2001). Nanotechnology is one such label.
Many firms adopted the nanotechnology label in their press releases or changed the
name of their company to include “nano” as a pre- or postfix to signal participation
within the nanotechnology field.
Renaming
We use categories to make sense of the world around us. Classical theories of category
formation emphasize two important features. First, categories are structured
hierarchically, where each category signifies a higher level of abstraction. An example of
such a hierarchy is the categorization of the human species. “Homo sapiens,” is a
143
subcategory of, “primates,” that is a subcategory of, “mammals,” that is a subcategory of,
“animals.” Second, categories are isomorphic representations of features in the physical
world. According to classical theories of categorization, renaming happens when we
discover a mistake in the categorical system. For example, when it was discovered that
dolphins are mammals, their categorical affiliation changed from, “fish,” to, “mammals.”
(Eysenck 1984)
Recent research on the nature of categories has shed doubt on whether
categories are hierarchical in nature. Rosch (1978) shows that categories are formed not
based on a hierarchical relationship between elements, but based on resemblance to a
prototype. Whether a piece of furniture is categorized as a, “chair,” or a, “sofa,”
depends on how closely it resembles our prototypical understanding of what a chair and
a sofa look like. Rosch emphasizes that categories are not rigid, but fluid, and that
objects can belong to multiple categories simultaneously. We might, for example,
consider a piece of furniture to be both, “kind of like a chair”, but also “a bit like a sofa.”
Further research has shown that categories are not just fluid, but are social constructions
that, to varying degrees, are decoupled from the “real world” objects that they denote.
Particularly novel categories are socially negotiated among the participants who use them
(Bowker and Star 1999).
During the institutionalization phase, a central mechanism that facilitated the
adoption of the nanotechnology label was the renaming of existing scientific research as
belonging to the nanotechnology category. Because the precursors of nanotechnology
are to be found in chemistry, physics, materials science, and molecular biology, the
scientific community had participated in the development of nanotechnology for
centuries. Nevertheless, the scientific breakthroughs that became the foundation of
144
nanotechnology occurred in the 1980s (see Table 4.1 for more detail). The scanning
tunneling microscope, which enabled the observation and manipulation of individual
atoms, was invented in 1982, followed by the discovery of Buckminister Fullerenes –
spheres of 60 carbon atoms – in 1985. But at the time, scientists did not label this work
nanotechnology. Instead they framed these advances as progress in the disciplines of
chemistry, physics, and materials science. In the quote below a scientist describes how,
in the mid 1990s, nanotechnology was not a concept that was used in chemistry:
When I was [studying chemistry] in grad school, between 1992 and 1997,
we didn't use the word, “nanotechnology.” There was no such word, and
so we wouldn't say, like people do today, “Oh, that's what we do, we're
doing nanotechnology.” (Prior chemistry professor)
The National Nanotechnology Initiative changed the situation. By embracing
nanotechnology, the government legitimized the concept and associated the term,
“nanotechnology,” with government grants. This led many researchers to rename their
work even though they did not change the substance of their science. As a materials
science researcher explained:
I think [government funding] has just changed what people call it. I
think we saw a lot of people change the name of what they are working
on. Now they say that they work on nanotechnology, and all that really
happened is the scale that we pattern accurately decreased and people
changed names around to get funding. Nanotech will go out of
popularity soon, and something else will catch on, and people will come
up with a new name. I think that will happen. It really wasn't new
money. It was just moved around. Instead of people of getting a normal
NSF grant they got an NSF grant that had nanotechnology in the title. I
don't think there was actually an increase in the amount of materials
research being done (Interview with scientist)
145
Scientists, however, used different labels depending on the community they were
communicating with. When they talked to people funding their work they spoke of
nanotechnology, but they used scientific labels when they communicated internally. As
described by one scientist:
[You use the labels] depending on what kind of others you talk to….for
example, I know a lot of people from chemistry….when they talk within
chemistry, and in the scientific community, they don't use the nanoscience and technology terms so much. When they talk to people in
industry, and venture capitalists, they certainly use these terms a lot,
because this is an advantage… So two things; you don't need to use
nano-science and technology terms to encourage your colleagues….But
you do understand the significance of [the labels]. To the public eye, you
might want to use layman’s terms to describe it. (Nanotechnology
scientist)
Renaming also happened within the business community. Many companies
began to use the nanotechnology label in advertising campaigns and press releases.
Hewlett Packard, for example, associated itself with nanotechnology when, in 2003, it
aired nationwide television commercials that portrayed HP as a leader in
nanotechnology. The words of the commercial were the following:
The study of things less than 1/1000th the width of a human hair.
These are the building blocks of nature, and they can be used to build
some amazing things. Like a car that can think. Or a tiny computer that
can hold every book ever written. Or maybe some things we haven’t
even thought of yet. All in less than the width of a human hair. N is for
nanotechnology. And it’s brought to you by HP. A leader in this
science of almost limitless possibilities. (HP television commercial,
2003)
The vision of nanotechnology HP presents in this commercial is closely related
to the futurists’ nanotechnology vision (“a car that can think”), and also mirrors the
146
vision presented by President Clinton when he announced the nanotechnology initiative
(the words President Clinton used were, “Storing the Library of Congress in a device the
size of a sugar cube”).
Other companies went one step further and affixed the, “nano,” prefix into their
name. The company Altair International, Inc., for example, changed its name to, “Altair
Nanotechnologies, Inc.,” on July 18, 2002. The company justified the name change by
claiming that it better reflected the company’s focus on nanotechnology. There was,
however, no evidence that any of the company’s products or scientific efforts had
changed.
Renaming was a socially negotiated process that at times met resistance from
other participants within the field. The Harris and Harris Group, for example, wanted to
change their name to Tiny Technology Venture Capital Inc. To authorize the name
change the SEC demanded that The Harris and Harris Group needed to have 80% of
their assets invested in nanotechnology companies. The Harris and Harris Group could
not prove that was the case, and therefore had to give up changing their name.
Many other venture capitalists claimed that they had been investing in companies
working at the nanoscale for a long time: They simply had not called these companies,
“nanotechnology” companies. As one venture capitalist said about one of his early
investments:
….[In 1989, when we started investing] there was some discussion about
nanotechnology. But it was not a field that was being widely touted,
certainly not the way it is today. We actually invested in a company in
1990 that had a very unique technology for making materials called
cermets. […]..I assume they are still using that technology today. But we
never touted it as a nanotechnology investment. In fact the company's
name was NanoDyne. So, we knew that we were using nanotechnology.
It was reflected in the name of the company. Over the years, I can count
147
probably a dozen companies in our portfolio that are nanotechnology
companies. I just didn’t know it at the time we invested. Well, in some
cases I did know. I could very easily tout our fund as a nanotechnology
fund. I don't want to be known as an entity that starts with technology.
I want to be known as an applications-oriented firm. (Venture capitalist)
Even though companies like NanoDyne were already working on nanostructured
materials, the first dedicated nanotechnology firms were founded in the late 1990s.
Zyvex, founded in 1997, claims to be the first dedicated nanotechnology company. They
specialize in creating instruments, solvents, and probes for other companies that use
nanotechnology, to enhance their existing products. The products of the new nanotech
companies were far different than the microscopic robots described by Drexler. Most
firms produced nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes and instruments.
The renaming of companies and products with the “nano” pre- or postfix were
most often ignored, but sometimes incidents and accidents caused disruptions in the
meaning structures by questioning whether the connotations and the denotations of the
label were in congruence. Ethnomethodologists state that it is in these disruptions of the
regular flow of activity that meaning is revealed (Garfinkle 1967). In April 2006 several
people reportedly developed respiratory problems after using the cleaning product,
“Magic Nano.” This led the media to question the safety of nanotechnology . The
Nanoethics Group, a nonpartisan research organization based in Santa Barbara, CA,
called the incident a “wake-up call” for the potential risks of nanotechnology.
Conversely, government officials and scientists claimed that “Magic Nano” was not a
nanotechnology product, since none of its molecules were at the nanoscale. This led to a
debate about what constitutes a nanotechnology product and who could use “nano” as a
prefix. Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, the U.S. trade
association of the nanotech industry, remarked:
148
The confusion over whether or not the, “Magic Nano,” product really is,
“nano,” points to the need to develop standards for terminology so that
there is agreement as to what constitutes a nanoparticle, nanofilm, or a
“nanofluid,”… If companies call things nano that are not, and then have
issues with them, it does create a potential problem with perceived risk
being associated with nanotech products (Small Times 14 April 2006)
The renaming of nanoscience and nanoscience companies was part of a large
categorization process that was a central element in the creation of the nanotechnology
field. In a famous experiment about categorization formation, Vygotsky showed that
categories form when people begin applying labels (in his case, meaningless labels like,
“Vuk,” and, “Stuk”) to specific objects (Vygotsky 1987). In nanotechnology the field
categorization happened through the renaming of existing companies and sciences with
the nanotechnology label.
Labeling
The socially negotiated nature of labels is even more evident in the process of labeling
than in the process of renaming. Labeling is when an actor assigns a label to another
individual or organization. Labeling theory suggests that assigning a label to an
individual or an organization has consequences for the future development of the person
or organization. In particular the person’s or organization’s actions will, over time,
conform with the expectations of the label (Ashforth and Humphrey 1995; Scheff 1974).
Becker (1963) developed labeling theory by studying mentally ill patients. All the
patients in the study were difficult to diagnose, because they only exhibited some traits
of mental illness. In the end, doctors made decisions about the patients, and some were
hospitalized while others were not. Over time, differences in psychological problems
149
between the group of patients that had been labeled, “mentally ill,” and the ones that had
not been labeled, “mentally ill,” started to increase. Becker (1963) explained this
phenomena by the fact that if the surroundings treat a person as a patient, then they also
start to behave like one. Labeling is, therefore, a powerful social mechanism that can
draw persons or organization into a field without them proactively striving to participate.
Within the nanotechnology field many companies did not, themselves, choose to
adopt the nanotechnology label, but stakeholders labeled them as nanotechnology
companies. Although these companies and participants did choose to participate in the
nanotechnology field, service providers drew them into the field, because they needed
token companies and scientists to display as examples of the success and promise of
nanotechnology.
In general the business community was more ambivalent about adopting the
nanotechnology label than the service providers. In comparison with service providers,
firms faced more risk in associating themselves with nanotechnology, because their
reputations might be tarnished if the field collapsed. The crash of the Internet bubble
cautioned firms about the danger of associating themselves with novel, but ill-defined,
fields. Companies were faced with a strategic decision about whether to associate
themselves with the field or not, and many opted not to. Nevertheless, service providers
labeled firms, “nanotechnology companies,” because they needed nanotechnology
companies that they could promote in their magazines and conferences. When
questioned, principals in these companies emphasized that theirs was not really a
nanotechnology company, since their technology was not at the nanoscale. For instance
the CEO of a company that had been named one of the 10 most prominent companies
by a leading trade magazine explained:
150
[Our company] gets categorized variously as a microfluidics company, a
nanotechnology company, a nanobiotechnology company, a
biotechnology company, which in one sense is good for us, because it’s
indicative of the fact that we don’t really fall neatly into any specific
category, which means that we're doing something new, which is great, of
course, but also a challenge. So, as I said before, we've been invited to
lots of nanotech things, and we sort of get put in that category from time
to time. But we don't fulfill the NIH definition, because we don't make
features that are below 100 nanometers (CEO of a, “Nanotechnology,”
start-up)
The labeling of companies as field participants happened through the creation of
directories and lists of nanotechnology companies. One example is that, in April 2004,
Merrill Lynch launched a nanotechnology index (NNZ) of, “nanotechnology
companies,” traded on the US stock exchange. To create an index, they needed to
identify companies that they believed belonged within the nanotechnology category.
Merrill Lynch provided the following justification for their categorization:
The Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index, designed to help investors track the
developing area, is an equally weighted index of 25 nanotechnology
companies headquartered in the United States or traded through
American Depositary Receipts (ADR). Each company included in the
index has a significant percentage of its future profits tied to
nanotechnology. In addition, each company’s stock must trade largely
based upon its nanotechnology business. Companies that have
significant nanotechnology efforts, but are traded based primarily upon
other business lines, are not included in the index. Types of companies
involved in the index include: semiconductors, biotechnology,
instrumentation, sensors, diagnostics, drug delivery, drug development,
genomics, and materials. (Merrill Lynch, press release, April 1, 2004)
This labeling effort caused much contestation about which companies could
actually be considered nanotechnology companies. Some of the twenty-five companies
were content to be part of Merrill Lynch index, but some companies did not want to be
151
associated with the label. This led to a public debate about which companies could
actually be considered nanotechnology companies. Manuel Asensio, a noted short-seller,
for example, said about the index:
For all of [Merrill Lynch’s] high finance and sophistication, for them to
create an index like this is sloppy, careless and wrong. (Manuel Asensio,
Forbes, April 16 2004)
Due to the immense criticism, Merrill Lynch stated only two weeks after the
launch of the index that they had dropped six companies from the list that did not meet
its definition of nanotechnology and added three new ones instead (Forbes, April 2004).
Labeling was a powerful mechanism within the nanotechnology field for
including new organizations, products and people within the nanotechnology field.
Although some labeling efforts were highly contested, and not all were successful, the
labeling efforts (primarily by service providers) did draw the categorization of new firms
as belonging to the field.
Abandonment
As powerful communities began adopting the nanotechnology label and changing its
connotations and denotations, the label became less attractive for some participants
within the field. In particular, the Foresight Institute lost its monopoly on defining
nanotechnology. This led to disagreements between the futurists and other communities
over who had the right to define nanotechnology. Because the government and service
providers had superior resources, and more legitimacy, they increasingly shaped the
meaning of nanotechnology. Thus, the definition of nanotechnology shifted away from
Drexler’s vision to the one promoted by the government. To regain the power to define
152
meaning, the futurists created sub-labels like “molecular nanotechnology” and
“productive nanosystems.” The futurists started to increasingly use these sublabels to
refer to their work.
The pattern for the futurist use of the “nanotechnology” looks different if the
use of the label, “molecular nanotechnology,” is subtracted from the graph in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.6 shows how the futurists abandoned the “nanotechnology” label and started to
use the label, “molecular nanotechnology,” instead. In 1987 the futurists use of the
label, “nanotechnology,” without using the qualifying term, “molecular nanotechnology,”
was 85%, by 2004 this usage had dropped to 40%.
FIGURE 4.6: PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES THAT MENTION
“NANOTECHNOLOGY” WITHOUT MENTIONING “MOLECULAR
NANOTECHNOLOGY”
153
In Figure 4.6 the rise of the futurists use of the nanotechnology label from 1999
to 2002, followed by a decrease in 2004 reflected an internal struggle within the
Foresight Institute. Some members thought that Foresight ought to keep its focus on
Drexler’s original vision. Others, however, thought that Foresight should renew itself
and focus on ideas that were aligned with the other nanotechnology communities. Over
time the renewers won, and Drexler decreased his involvement with the Foresight
Institute. The Foresight Institute then developed a new strategy that was more aligned
with mainstream ideas about nanotechnology. The first thing was to recruit Scott Mize,
who had a background in the industry, to be the new president of Foresight. Mize
moved Foresight from its old location, in a family home in Palo Alto, to office spaces in
FIGURE 4.7: PERCENTAGE OF ARTICLES REFERRING TO DREXLER
154
Menlo Park donated by industrial partners. With Mize as the head of the organization,
the Foresight Institute became a regular player in the mainstream nanotechnology
community, alongside other non-profit institutions, like the NanoBusiness Alliance.
This is the reason that Foresight started to use the nanotechnology label again. After
leaving the Foresight Institute Drexler created his own website www.e-drexler.com,
and continued to promote his own version of nanotechnology.
One measure of Drexler’s diminishing influence is the decrease in mentions of
his name in the top fifty US newspapers over time. Figure 4.7 shows that, in 1987,
50% of all nanotechnology articles in large American newspapers referred to Drexler,
but by 2005 such references had fallen to about 2%.
Resources
Resources dramatically increased during the institutionalization of the field. First,
monetary resources from both the government and the venture capital industry
increased. Second, the multitude of conferences and surge of new participants within
the field meant that there was a dramatic increase in social capital.
Human capital increased during institutionalization. The main factor that drove
an increase in human capital during institutionalization was the creation of dedicated
programs at universities for students to specialize in nanotechnology. These programs
started to graduate students with a specific knowledge of nanotechnology.
Simultaneously, specialized journals focused on nanotechnology were created. Together,
these two trends meant that nanotechnology knowledge became codified.
After 2000, foundings of nanotechnology institutions rapidly increased. These
ranged from trade magazines, investment conferences, and the National
155
Nanotechnology Initiative, to the US Patent and Trademark Office’s creation of a patent
class dedicated to nanotechnology in 2004. The central institutional entrepreneurs were
service providers. They established trade magazines, market research firms, and
conferences with the goal of creating the infrastructure for forming an industry. For
instance, Rick Snyder, a venture capitalist, founded the trade magazine, Small Times,
explicitly to create a venue for the growth of the industry. As the managing editor at
Small Times put it:
[Small Times] was founded in 2001…. And it was sort of the brainchild of
Rick Snyder, who is a venture capitalist, and Rick had been investing in
microtechnology companies and recognized that for the industry to gain
any traction it needed to have a higher presence. And so he had the idea
of creating a media company that would look at this industry
In all, the institutionalization phase was characterized by a large increase in the
available resources within the field. Monetary, social, and human capital became part of
the institutional structure of nanotechnology. Toward the end of 2005 nanotechnology
had matured as an institutional field with all five communities participating in the field
and individually trying to reach their goal for involvement.
Conclusion: Institutionalization
The beginning of the 21st Century was a period of rapid institutionalization within the
nanotechnology field. Three mechanisms facilitated this process: Renaming, labeling,
and abandonment. The most important process during the institutionalization phase
was renaming. The field grew quickly, because many (primarily scientists and
entrepreneurs) renamed their activities as, “nanotechnology.” Some participants did not
proactively seek to participate in the field, but other actors (primarily service providers)
156
pulled them into the field by labeling them as nanotechnology participants. The last
mechanism was abandonment. The massive adoption of the nanotechnology label led
some participants, primarily the futurists, to become dissatisfied with the change in the
nanotechnology category. These participants opted to abandon the field.
4.6 Conclusion
In the beginning of this chapter I show that nanotechnology went through three phases:
Mobilization, legitimation, and institutionalization. In each of the phases new
communities became involved with the field. During the moblization phase, from 19841996, only the futurist community was involved with the field. In the legitimation phase,
from 1997-2000, the government and service providers entered the field. In the last
phase from 2000-2005 – institutionalization – the business community and the scientists
joined the field.
During the three phases, various mechanisms affected the adoption of the
nanotechnology label. In the early days of nanotechnology, the field resembled a social
movement. Excitement, social gatherings, and public discourse were important to
attracting participants to the field. In the second phase, legitimation, translation, and
decoupling were the driving forces of adoption, since legitimation and translation of
meaning enabled more participants, for example, various government agencies, to use
the nanotechnology label to denote their activities. The result of these interpretive
processes was that multiple nanotechnology meanings co-existed, decoupled from each
other.
Renaming, labeling and abandonment were important processes during the
institutionalization phase. Scientists and companies renamed their existing efforts,
157
“nanotechnology,” in order to gain access to the resources associated with the label. In
attempts to position themselves within the field, participants also gave other companies
and participants the nanotechnology label. The rapid adoption and change in meaning
of nanotechnology pushed other participants to abandon the label, since it was no longer
useful in their pursuits.
The mechanisms that facilitated the adoption of the nanotechnology label beg a
reframing of our theory of emergence. Where existing research emphasizes
organizational foundings as the main mechanism that facilitates emergence (e.g. Hannan
and Carroll 1995; e.g. Hannan and Freeman 1977), this analysis of the nanotechnology
field points to emergence as a categorization process. The foundings of new organizations
did play a role in the emergence of the nanotechnology field, but new organizations were
only a fraction of the organizations that eventually took part in the nanotechnology field.
The central process through which the field was formed consisted of field participants
engaging in categorization processes.
158
Chapter Five - Change in Meaning
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter I investigate how the meaning of nanotechnology changed as the five
communities adopted the label. During the emergence of the nanotechnology field there
were two dominant conceptions of it. The futurists provided the first meaning as a
microscopic assembler robot – the dominant meaning of nanotechnology was therefore
that of a device. Subsequent communities translated the futurist notion of
nanotechnology to signify anything that contained nanoparticles – the meaning they
attributed to nanotechnology was that it was a material.
I will show that during the mobilization phase when only the futurist community
was involved in the nanotechnology field, the meaning of nanotechnology was specific.
When the meaning is specific, it means that the nanotechnology label has a limited
number of connotations, i.e. few technologies fit under the definition. During the
mobilization phase there was little variance in the meaning that participants attributed to
nanotechnology, i.e. most participants within the field had the same understanding of
what nanotechnology was.
During the legitimation phase, dual meanings of nanotechnology began
emerging. The conception of nanotechnology as a device was still held by many
participants within the field, but the government officials and service providers that
adopted the label began to use it to signify nanostructured materials, like carbon
nanotubes and buckminister fullerenes. At this point in time the variance among the
definitions of nanotechnology was large, because multiple definitions of nanotechnology
159
existed simultaneously. At the same time the breadth of nanotechnology’s meaning
started to increase, nanotechnology began to denote more different technologies.
During the institutionalization phase, the business community and the scientists
adopted the nanotechnology label. Their adoption intensified the meaning of
nanotechnology as a materials technology. Because more communities used the
nanotechnology label to denote various technologies, the meaning broadened. Over
time, participants converged on the broader meaning and the variance in the definition
of nanotechnology decreased.
Tabel 5.1 provides an overview of developments in the meaning of
nanotechnology over time.
TABLE 5.1: CONTENT, BREADTH AND VARIANCE IN MEANING
Field Process
Meaning Content
Meaning Breadth
Meaning Variance
Mobilization
Device
Specific
Small
Legitimation
Device/Material
Mixed
Large
Institutionalization
Material
Broad
Small
5.2 The Change in Meaning
The meaning of nanotechnology changed as a consequence of the communities’
adoption of the nanotechnology label. To investigate whether a change in the meaning
of nanotechnology occurred, I counted the number of nanotechnology definitions in a
specific year that portrayed nanotechnology as, “a device,” or, “a material.” These two
categories were chosen because they reflected the two dominant views of
nanotechnology held by participants in the various communities.
In the futurists’ vision, nanotechnology consisted of microscopic assemblers and
molecular robots – this view is represented in the “device” category. Due to the
160
FIGURE 5.1: DEFINITIONS THAT MENTION SMALL, DEVICE OR MATERIAL
involvement of the government and service providers and, later, the business and science
communities, the meaning of nanotechnology gradually changed. Translation, renaming,
and labeling altered both the connotations and denotations of nanotechnology, and
changed the meaning of nanotechnology to be closely linked to materials science. The,
“materials,” category represents this view. Common across all of the communities was
that nanotechnology implied the creation or manipulation of entities on a molecular scale
– this view is represented in the “small” category.
Figure 5.1 shows the percentage of articles in a given year that referred to one of
161
the three categories16. Mentions of small scale remained constant throughout the entire
period, but, over time, definitions of nanotechnology shifted from devices to materials in
accordance with the change in community involvement during the three phases.
Because the early development of the nanotechnology field was closely associated with
Drexler’s vision, most definitions of nanotechnology mentioned some form of device
and pointed to small-scale technologies. It is remarkable that no early definition
mentioned materials. As the government began to adopt the nanotechnology label, the
percentage of definitions that referred to the device category decreased. Simultaneously,
some of the definitions started to refer to the materials category. In the beginning of the
21st century when multiple communities were present within the field, the number of
definitions mentioning devices dramatically decreased, whereas definitions mentioning
the materials category increased.
I used a logistic regression model to test whether the changes were statistically
significant. Table 5.2 displays the results. I found that the decrease in the device
category was significant at the p<0.001 level, and for every year that passed, the
probability that the device category was mentioned declined by 17%. The increase in the
materials category was also significant at the p<0.001 level, and for every year that
passed, the probability that the materials category was mentioned increased by 38%.
Smallness on the other hand remained constant. It is interesting to note that the,
“nano,” part of, “nanotechnology,” remained constant, whereas the “technology” part
was altered over time.
16 I treated robot, computer, device, or equipment as indicators of the device category. I defined
materials by mentions of material or substance. I used the following words to signify the notion of
small scale: Atom, molecul*, scale, small, tiny, micro, or microscopic.
162
TABLE 5.2: THE ODDS THAT A NANOTECHNOLOGY DEFINITION CONTAINS
REFERENCES TO EITHER THE DEVICE, MATERIAL, AND SMALL
CATEGORY
MODEL 1
MODEL 2
MODEL 3
Dependent var:
Dependent var:
Dependent var:
Device
Material
Small
Intercept
373.9
-641.2
-103.8
Years
.83***
1.38***
1.06
N
147
147
147
*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * p<.05
To confirm the finding that there was a change from an emphasis on devices to
an emphasis on materials, I examined the prevalence of words pertaining to the two
categories within all of the articles in the database that mention the word
nanotechnology.
FIGURE 5.2: NANOTECHNOLOGY ARTICLES THAT REFER TO THE DEVICE AND
THE MATERIAL CATEGORY
163
Figure 5.2 shows that over time references to the device category decrease,
whereas references to the materials category increase. In year 2004 it became more likely
for an article to reference the materials category, in comparison to the device category.
Using a logistic regression model, I showed that for every year that passed, the
probability that an article mentioned at least one word from the device category
decreased with 5.7% (p<.001). On the contrary for every year that passed, the probability
that an article mentioned at least one word from the materials category increased with
7% (p<.0001).
Another change that occurred as new communities entered the nanotechnology
field and began to rename products and scientific areas, was a shift in the denotations of
nanotechnology, i.e. in the application areas. For the futurists, nanotechnology enabled
the creation of miscroscopic assembler robots and novel forms of artificial intelligence.
The applications the futurist community envisioned were desktop manufacturing
systems that could produce any technology from the bottom up, atom-by-atom, and
microscopic assembler robots that could circulate in the human blood stream and
remove the plaque that had built up in the arteries. After the science and business
communities became involved with nanotechnology, the applications associated with it
became more mundane and commercial. The products that the business community
associated with nanotechnology were advances in battery technology, consumer
electronics, and textiles.
164
Figure 5.3 shows the change in references form extraordinary to mundane applications
of nanotechnology over time within the top fifty US newspapers17. The graph shows a
marked change around the year 2000 in the depiction of nanotechnology applications
areas. References to complex applications like the creation of robots dramatically
decreased. Simultaneously references to mundane technologies like cosmetics, stain
resistant pants, and consumer electronics dramatically increased. This change happened
at the same time as the business community adopted the nanotechnology label. The
business community saw a great opportunity to rename many of their products with the
nanotechnology label and fed newspapers with stories about their new nano-enhanced
FIGURE 5.3: ARTICLES THAT REFER TO MUNDANE AND EXTRAORDINARY
APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
Extraordinary applications are measured as references to: robot, or artificial intelligence. Mundane
applications are measured as references to: cosmetics, textiles, consumer electronics, batteries, golf balls,
or pants.
17
165
products. In March of 2005, the San Diego Sun-Tribune, for example, ran the following
story about nanotechnology:
Nanotechnology has resulted in many new products. These include
water filters, a dental bonding agent, special car bumpers, protective
coatings for eyeglasses, novel sunscreens and cosmetics, stain-resistant
clothing, and longer-lasting tennis balls (San Diego Sun-Tribute, 12
March, 2007)
This list of products represents a nanotechnology vision far removed from the
futurists’ assembler robots.
5.3 The Broadening of Meaning
The adoption of the nanotechnology label by multiple communities not only led to a
change in meaning, it also broadened the meaning. Translation processes facilitated that
participants could denote the activities that they were already engaged in as
nanotechnology.
To investigate the broadening of meaning I examined the results from the ratings
of the nanotechnology definitions (please see the methods chapter for more detail). The
results show that the nanotechnology definitions became broader over time. Figure 5.5
depicts the average specificity rating of the eight coders. The graph is smoothed using a
three-year moving average. I used a linear regression model to test the results. The
trend toward the definitions becoming broader over time is significant with a p-value of
0.0022 and an adjusted R2 equal to 0.0570. Table 5.3 displays the results. The increasing
broadness of the definitions parallels the participation of new communities within the
nanotechnology field. Figure 5.5 also depicts that the variance of the definitions follows
an inverted U-shaped curve. This shows that in the beginning there was agreement upon
166
FIGURE 5.5: BROADNESS OF DEFINITIONS
“Nanotechnology - the science of
developing tools and machines as small
as one molecule”
“Nanotechnology - the science of
creating things on a molecular
level”
“Nanotechnology - using a combination
of biology and computers to create
microscopic "assembler robots" that
could build a new car or maybe a new
being”
the definition of nanotechnology followed by a period of greater range of breadth
among the definitions, and ending with a new period of agreement upon the broader
definition.
TABLE 5.3: A linear Regression Model of
Nanotechnology Definitions’ Broadness
Over Time Calculated pr. Year
MODEL 1
Dependent var:
Broadness
Intercept
-96.09
Years
.05**
N
145
Adjusted R2
.06
*** p<0.001 ** p<0.01 * p<0.05
167
Mobilization. During the mobilization phase the definition of nanotechnology
was narrow. An example of a nanotechnology definition in the top fifty US newspapers
from this period is: “Nanotechnology - using a combination of biology and computers
to create microscopic ‘assembler robots’ that could build a new car or maybe a new
being.” (The San Francisco Chronicle, July 6, 1989). This definition is narrowly focused
on the creation of assembler robots in accordance with Drexler’s vision. The definition
quickly started to broaden, until 1992, when broadness ceased to increase. The variance
during this period was low, which means that there was agreement among the
definitions.
Legitimation. In the late nineties the average broadness of definitions remained
fairly stable. An example of a definition during this period is, “Nanotechnology - the
science of developing tools and machines as small as one molecule.” (The Washington
Post, October 18, 1999). The variance during the period was high, peaking in 1996,
which suggests that the range of definitions increased as more communities became
involved with nanotechnology.
The adoption of the nanotechnology label by multiple communities led to a
controversy over nanotechnology’s definition. Each community had a different motive
for being involved with nanotechnology and, hence, different interests in setting the
definition’s boundaries. As one entrepreneur noted:
So basically, if you look at the nanotechnology area there are – depending
on who you talk to… a lot of different perceptions of what it is and in
some cases they don’t match up or don’t even overlap. So, yeah, the
science fiction loving general public who watched a lot of Star Trek
168
thinks that we're all going to make little tiny robots that are going to
devour their internal organs, right? And there is this thread coming from
material science where people were making mezzo structured materials
and that’s what they were called in the ‘80s but they changed that and
now they’re calling them nanostructured materials (Nanotechnology
entrepreneur).
Institutionalization. During the institutionalization phase the definition of
nanotechnology became even broader. The variance among the definitions decreased,
signifying an emerging consensus on the broader definition of nanotechnology. A
typical definition during this period was, “nanotechnology - the science of creating things
on a molecular level.” (Chicago Sun-Times, November 5, 2005).
The broadness of the nanotechnology definition had both benefits and
drawbacks. As one government official noted:
It's both sort of a blessing and curse that nanotechnology is so broad.
It's not really one narrow segment of work, which is sort of much easier
to just turn off and turn on, it's everywhere. It's enabling, it's embedded
in every other area. In fact, as I say, it makes it difficult in some ways,
too, because you have news coming out about some nano related thing,
and it could have an effect on an entire range of nanotechnologies, even
though it really only is related to one particular application or something.
So I think it's here to stay. (Government official)
The increasing broadness of nanotechnology enabled the growth of the field,
because many communities were able to fit their activities under the nanotechnology
umbrella. Simultaneously, the broadness of the term was undermining the role of the
label as a vehicle for information transfer.
169
5.4 Conclusion
In this chapter I showed that the change in the meaning of nanotechnology coincided
with new communities’ adoption of the label. Over time, the meaning of
nanotechnology changed from being a device to being a material. This change was
accompanied by an increasing broadness in the meaning of nanotechnology.
Furthermore, in the beginning of the nanotechnology field, when there was only one
community involved with the field, there was a high degree of agreement about the
definition of nanotechnology. During the legitimation phase, as government officials
and service providers joined the field, there was confusion and contestation over the
definition of nanotechnology. After the entrepreneurs and scientists adopted the label,
agreement began on the broader definition of nanotechnology.
170
Chapter Six - Discussion
6.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines a new theory of field emergence. Existing theories emphasize that
organizational foundings or technical innovation are the central processes that drive field
emergence. Instead, I argue that communities’ adoption of a field’s label is the central
process that drives field emergence.
Communities adopt labels in order to pursue their goals. They engage in
contestations and negotiations with other communities about the meanings of the labels
in order to be able to shape those meanings to suit their own purposes. These
contestations change the connotations and denotations of the label, and, thus, the
meaning of the field. We, therefore, need to reconceptualize field emergence as a
political process. Emergence is not a result of isolated individuals founding firms, but is
a socially negotiated process. In particular, emergence is a categorization process.
Translation, renaming, labeling, and abandonment facilitate the social negotiation of a
field by specifying whether an individual, technology, or organization should be included
or excluded from the field.
Communities’ adoption of labels influences the resources available within the
field. From my analysis of the nanotechnology field I suggest that there is a specific
pattern to the resources that are available within a field. During the mobilization phase,
social capital is constructed within the field, during the legitimation phase, monetary
capital is attached to the label, and during the institutionalization phase, human capital is
created within the field. Community participation, meaning and resources co-evolve
within the field.
171
6.2 The Field Emergence Process
Labels were important to the emergence of nanotechnology as an organizational field.
Communities’ adoptions of labels co-evolve with the construction of meaning and the
availability of resources within an emerging organizational field. Figure 6.1 shows how
the adoption of the nanotechnology label by various communities influenced the
construction of meaning and the availability of resources within the field. As an
increasing number of communities adopted the label, they infused it with meanings that
reflected their interests, values, and goals. The monetary, social, and human resources
that flowed to the field depended on the label’s meaning at the time. When the futurist
community adopted the label, only limited resources became associated with
nanotechnology, whereas, the adoption of the label by the government spurred an
enormous growth in available resources. The constant reconstruction of the
nanotechnology label broadened its meaning.
The co-evolutionary process in nanotechnology suggests a general pattern of
field emergence depicted in figure 6.2. Involvement of new communities is central to
the emergence of a new organizational field. In the beginning of a field, a label is created
within a community and infused with meaning. Multiple mechanisms like excitement,
translation, legitimation, decoupling, naming, and labeling drove changes in meaning,
which again facilitated the adoption of the label by new communities. If other
communities do not adopt the label, a field does not evolve, but continues to be a social
world. A necessary condition for a field to evolve is, thus, new communities’ adoption
of the label. It is, however, not possible for new communities to adopt a label without
172
FIGURE 6.1: THE CO-EVOLUTION OF LABELS, MEANING AND RESOURCES IN NANOTECHNOLOGY
Resources
Meaning
Adoption
of Label
Monetary
resources through
the National
Nanotechnology
Initiative
Building of social
capital. Futurists
attract limited
monetary capial
Infusion of meaning
into the label;
nanotechnology is
associated with
molecular assembler
and nano-robots.
Creation of
the label by
the futurists
Nanotechnology is
broadened through
associated with
existing
technologies and
scientific
disciplines
Adoption of
the label by the
government
Adoption of
the label by
brokers
Venture capitalists start
creating dedicated
nanotechnology funds.
Conferences and
magazines create social
capital within the field.
Nanotechnology
is broadened
through
association with
business.
Adoption of
the label by
scientists
Researchers dedicate time,
effort, equipment, and
graduate students to the
field. This increases the
human and the social
capital within the field
Scientists
rename their
existing work
nanotechnology
Nanotechnology
is defined as
simply a
technology on
the nano scale.
Adoption of
the label by
entrepreneurs
ss
173
FIGURE 6.2: FIELD EMERGENCE
Resources
Mechanism
Social Capital
Excitement
Public Discourse
Social Gatherings
Monetary Capital
Legitimacy
Decoupling
Translation
Human Capital
Renaming
Labeling
Abandonment
Adoption
of Label
Creation of the
Label
Adoption of the Label
by Communities
Meaning
Specific
Variance Small
Mixed
Variance Large
Broad
Variance Small
Field
Phase
Mobilization
Legitimation
Institutionalization
Adoption or Abandonment of
the Label by Communities
174
changing the meaning of the label. By definition, communities posses different webs of
meaning and they use symbols in different ways (Becker 1982; Strauss 1978). When the
label is integrated into a new symbolic system its references change.
Evidence from the emergence of fields as diverse as biotechnology (Markle and
Robin 1985), rubber (Tuttle 1981), and artificial intelligence (Crevier 1994) seem to suggest
that the co-evolution of labels, resources and meaning, generalizes beyond
nanotechnology. The meaning of biotechnology has, for example, been highly contested,
and the labels used to denote molecular bio-science have changed over the years. During
the 1970s the field exploring recombinant DNA and related technologies was referred to
as, “genetic engineering.” Multiple communities adopted this label, including venture
capitalists and scientists who sought to reposition their research within this new and
growing field. Non-profit organizations and environmentalists also adopted the label,
“genetic engineering,” and reconstructed the meaning of the label as a threat to humanity
and global survival. The negative connotation subsequently affected the resources
available to the field, because government officials, especially in Europe, became wary of
funding genetic engineering due to ethical considerations. To avoid being associated with,
“genetic engineering,” the members of some communities, including the government,
scientists, and entrepreneurs, began to use the label, “biotechnology,” around 1980 (Markel
and Robin 1985). As various communities adopted “biotechnology,” it, too, became
infused with meaning; some more positive than others. During the mid to late Nineties, a
new label, “life science,” was created and adopted by participating communities (Powell et
al. 2004).
175
6.3 The Role of Communities
Most studies investigating meaning construction in emerging fields have focused on the
role of entrepreneurs (Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Lounsbury and Glynn 2001; Santos and
Eisenhardt 2006) or scientists (Gilbert and Woolgar 1974). Aldrich and Fiol (1994)
emphasize that entrepreneurs are the initiators of meaning within organizational fields, and
that they create meaning by developing knowledge, trust, and reputation at the
organizational, intraindustry, interindustry, and institutional levels of analysis. Population
ecologists also highlight entrepreneurs as the key drivers of meaning creation because they
legitimize fields by founding companies (Carroll and Swaminathan 2000; Hannan and
Freeman 1977) and creating new organizational identities (Hsu and Hannan 2005). Recent
research on symbolic management also highlights the role entrepreneurs play in shaping
meaning in emerging fields. Entrepreneurs engage in symbolic actions such as story telling
(Lounsbury and Glynn 2001), adoption of symbols (Lee 2001), and positioning (Zott and
Huy 2006) to acquire resources. These symbolic actions influence the construction of
meaning at the field level (Santos and Eisenhardt 2006).
Scientists are another community said to create meaning around fields. The
literature on the emergence of scientific fields emphasizes endogenous growth, where
existing scientific disciplines and scientists working in these fields are the core drivers of
meaning creation (Gilbert and Woolgar 1974). Fields are created through the
commercialization of scientific research. Universities and research institutions invent
technologies like semiconductors, recombinant DNA, and wireless communication
technology, which form the kernels of fields like semiconductors, biotechnology, and
wireless communications (Mirowski and Sent 2002). In this view, the construction of
176
meaning begins with the scientific community and later diffuses to other communities
through the commercialization process.
This study shows that entrepreneurs and scientists need not always be the most
important arbiters of meaning within organizational fields. In particular, scientists and
entrepreneurs played a limited role in shaping the meaning of nanotechnology, and as
institutional entrepreneurs, primarily because their level of influence was not at the level of
the field. Instead scientists and entrepreneurs were at the individual and organizational
levels of influence, respectively (see table 3.1). The mechanisms through which
communities establish status and prestige affect their level of influence. For example, the
scientific community attributes status to people who use precise, accurate, and detailed
language (Abbott 1988). These attributes of scientific language run counter to the
imprecise, open, and fluid language that facilitates the establishment of a political alliance
through translation and decoupling (Cyert and March 1963; March 1962). Scientists can,
therefore, not be influential at the field level without jeopardizing their status within the
scientific community.
In contrast, communities whose influence is at the field level are the most
important actors in shaping meaning during the emergence of an organizational field. In
nanotechnology, futurists, government officials, and brokers played a central role in
shaping the early period of the field. In particular, they exercised influence by adopting the
label, transforming and decoupling the term’s meaning, creating political alliances, and
attaching resources to the label. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these often omitted
communities have played a central role in shaping other fields. Since World War II, the
government has played an important role in shaping scientific fields such as biotechnology
(Powell et al. 2004), machines tools (Noble 1984), and computing (Williams 1997). The
177
government’s role is less pronounced in specialized fields like PDAs, electric toothbrushes,
or web-cameras, which revolve around a single, specific technology, because these
technologies are neither infrastructural nor important to national security (Ruef 2000).
Analysts have largely ignored the role futurists play in developing organizational
fields, but historical examples support the role of futuristic and marginal communities in
generating ideas and visions, which, once co-opted by legitimate and established actors,
become mainstream. This was, for example, the case in DiMaggio’s study of art museums:
“The components of the reform position can be traced to..…the arts and crafts
movement, the librarians’ professionalization project….But it was only with their embrace
by the professional vanguard of museum work that they became influential enough to win
sponsorship from national foundations.” (DiMaggio 1991 p. 272). Futurists were also
pivotal in creating the early meanings of technologies and institutions in the automotive
field (Rao 2004), the field of aviation (Wohl 1996), computing (Williams 1997), artificial
intelligence (Crevier 1994), whale-watching (Lawrence and Phillips 2004a), and recycling
(Lounsbury, Ventresca and Hirsch 2003).
Conclusively, the communities that are most influential in shaping the emergence
of new organizational fields are the ones whose level of influence is at the field level. In
particular, communities that use words and symbols that are open for translation, i.e.
words that are not well defined, imprecise, and fluid, will be most likely to establish the
political alliance necessary for a field to emerge. Communities are more likely to join a
new field if they can translate the meaning of the field to suit their own purposes. When
words and symbols are open for translation, communities can decouple their activities,
which increase the probability that a field will form.
178
There are contextual conditions under which linguistic fluidity will play a larger
role. The more communities need to be involved for a field to emerge the more important
it is for labels to be open for translation. I, therefore, suggest that scientists and
entrepreneurs will be more influential in shaping fields that are structured around specific
technologies, and involve few similar communities like the fields involved with portable
music players, blenders, and vacuum cleaners. Service providers, the government, and
futurists will pay a larger role in fields that necessitate the formation of a larger political
alliance, like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology.
This study points to the process of labeling as central to the construction of
meaning and attraction of resources to fields. This implies that labels have consequences
for individual firms, who are trying to compete in emerging markets. Research has shown
that associating with labels can lead to higher stock evaluations (Lee 2001), and that
mismatches between firms and labels can lead to lower stock evaluations (Zuckerman
1999), and can pressure firms to dediversity, i.e. sell business units that are not within their
core competency (Zuckerman 2000). Managing the construction of meaning is, therefore,
a central question issue for managers of entrepreneurial firms. Recent research on
symbolic management has suggested tools managers can use to influence the construction
of meaning within fields (Santos and Eisenhardt 2006; Zott and Huy 2006). Little
emphasis has been placed on the need to influence the greater organizational environment
in which the company is embedded. This research demonstrates that firms in emerging
markets must not only focus attention on their competitors, but influence the actions of
the government and brokers within the field.
179
6.4 Resources
A field cannot emerge if resources are not created among its participants. Three forms of
resources play a strong role in field emergence: Social capital, monetary capital, and
human capital.
The nanotechnology label was important in establishing social capital within the
field. The label, “nanotechnology,” functioned as a boundary object through which
information and opinions were exchanged between communities within the field (see Star
and Griesmer 1999). The existence of a common label enabled disparate communities to
organize and collectively coordinate action. Heath and Seidel (2006) suggest that
metaphors, images, and concepts are vehicles for organizing within companies. Metaphors
and images play a key role in communicating action plans across occupational boundaries,
and thus facilitate coordination, the cornerstone of organizational functioning (Donnellon,
Gray and Bougon 1986). Likewise the establishment of a label becomes a vehicle for
organizing. Although the word, nanotechnology, was contested, and disagreement over its
definition still prevails, the term has become the epicenter of interorganizational action.
Participants were able to organize their activities once they had a common label through
which to exchange information. For example, many brokers participated in conferences to
learn about this novel concept. Entrepreneurs started to pay more attention to scientific
discoveries labeled, “nanotechnology,” and to talk to venture capitalists, futurists, and
government officials who also referred to their work as, ”nanotechnology.”
“Nanotechnology,” thus became a magnet around which a new organizational field was
born. This supports the notion that only a minimal shared understanding is required for
social structures to emerge, since organization is based primarily on exchange. It is not
180
necessary that members have similar goals, or interpretations of their collective actions
(Weick 1976; Weick 1979).
The accumulation of social capital within the field was based on symbolic
processes. Likewise, symbolic transformation of the label facilitated the attachment of
monetary capital. Without manipulations and transformations of the meaning of
nanotechnology, communities like the government and service providers would not have
associated monetary resources with the label. Furthermore, the creation of human capital
relied on the codification of symbolic systems. Conclusively, the establishment of social,
monetary, and human capital within the nanotechnology field relied on the availability and
manipulation of symbols. Symbolic manipulation was the central mechanism that
facilitated the creation of social, monetary, and human capital within the field.
The ability and power to manipulate symbols is, in itself, a resource that some
communities possess to a larger extent than others. Bourdieu (1989) defines symbolic capital
as the honor and prestige a person possess within a given social structure. Symbolic
capital is a subcategory of cultural capital. The examples Bourdieu mentions of symbolic
capital, are among others, processions, prestigious gifts, and medals. These actions and
objects are valued primarily for their symbolic, and not for their economic, value. Instead,
I suggest that we define symbolic capital as the ability of a person or a group to influence
socially distributed symbolic structures. This definition changes the focus of symbolic
capital away from accumulation and towards action. The emphasis on action is evident in
some of Bourdieu’s writings: “Belief-categories, classification-systems, i.e. primarily words
and names, that construct the social world as much as they express it, is the main element
in the political struggle.” (Bourdieu 1994 p. 64). The most important aspect of symbolic
capital is how it can be used to manipulate the beliefs of others. An emphasis on action
181
accentuates that symbolic capital is always contextualized. For example, the futurists had
access to symbolic webs, both in the realm of science and science fiction, which they used
to influence others’ beliefs about the future. This was a powerful symbolic resource,
which enabled the futurists to create a social movement around their initial ideas. This
symbolic resource was, however, contextualized within a specific group of people at a
particular point in time. When both the symbolic and the social organization of the
nanotechnology field changed, the futurists’ symbolic capital diminished.
6.5 Change in Meaning
The symbolic manipulations led first a divergence in meaning, followed by convergence in
meaning. Throughout both phases meaning broadened. Prior research has mainly
emphasized specialization and contraction as key components of field emergence
(Anderson and Tushman 1990; Suarez and Utterback 1995; Utterback 1994). But these
studies of meaning making begin after labels had been widely adopted (Aldrich 1999; Mohr
2006).
Research on social movements has demonstrated some elements of meaning
broadening. In particular, social movements extend their frames to be able to include new
participants. Snow, Rochford et al. (1986) write that: “The programs and values that
some social movement organizations promote may not be rooted in existing sentiment or
adherent pools, or may appear to have little if any bearing on the life situations and
interests of potential adherents. When such is the case, a social movement organization
may have to extend the boundaries of its primary framework so as to encompass interests
or points of view that are incidential to its primary objectives, but of considerable salience
to potential adherents,” (Snow et al. 1986 p. 272).
182
For example, in recent years residents in the building, 1520 Sedgwich Avenue in
the Bronx, New York, have been afraid that their rent would increase due to the
gentrification of the area. They started a social movement to secure rent control of their
building, but had little success with generating support for their cause. After the building
occupants accidentally discovered that D.J. Kool Herc, one of the first hip-hop DJs, lived
in the building during hip-hop’s early years, they extended the framing of their cause to
include, “preserving the birthplace of hip-hop.” (Gonzalez 2007). This frame extension
enabled building occupants to tap into a larger sentiment pool, e.g. people who appreciated
hip-hop and felt that more should be done to recognize and preserve hip-hop as part of
American cultural heritage. The frame extension enabled the building occupants to garner
a larger amount of support for their cause. Similar frame extension has also been observed
within Hara Krishna, e.g. recruiting participants with the goal of meeting people of the
opposite sex (Lofland 1977), and the peace movement, e.g. extending their initial framing
to include fighting racism and unjust discrimination (Snow et al. 1986).
The frame extensions detailed within the literature of social movements differ
from extension processes within nanotechnology, and organizational fields in general, with
regards to the number of communities involved in the extension processes. In the social
movement literature, frame extensions are described as the result of framing efforts by
core participants (Benford and Snow 2000a). The social movement participants, thus,
retain control of the meaning construction process. In contrast, frame extensions within
organizational fields involve multiple communities. Meaning construction in
organizational fields is not the result of a single community, and no one community has
complete control of the process. The probability that frames will be considerably
183
extended, and that the meaning of the label will broaden is, therefore, higher in
organizational fields than in social movements.
There is evidence that many fields also go through an early period (or periods) of
broadening. In the emerging e-commerce industry, the “.com,” label was broadened as it
was adopted by multiple communities (Becker 2006). The label was infused with meaning
around the creation of completely new ways of doing business, and even many established
companies adopted the label, leading to a broadening of the term (Darrin, Ranganathan
and Desouza 2005). Artificial intelligence is another case in point. Between the 1960s to
the 1980s artificial intelligence was predicted to be an organizational field of enormous
importance (Waldrop 1988). From the term’s emergence in the 1950s, through the early
1980s, the field was fairly unified around computer vision, expert systems, and form
recognition (Courtial and Law 1989). Toward the late Eighties, when excitement around
artificial intelligence peaked, contestation of the nature of artificial intelligence increased.
Conventional artificial intelligence held that the goal of artificial intelligence was to mirror
human intelligence, and therefore used computational methods based on formalism and
symbolism. A competing view, however, claimed that the core of artificial intelligence was
not to mirror human intelligence, but to develop computational intelligence, systems that could
complete a designated task. This stream of research focused on iterative learning of
connectionist systems based on empirical data (Brooks 1991; Kolata 1982). The
contestation between communities led to a broadening in the meaning of artificial
intelligence to include both forms (Crevier 1994).
The broadening of meaning in the emergence of an organizational field is also seen
outside of high technology areas. One example comes from the field of micro-credit.
Initially the label, “micro-credit,” was used only to denote group-based lending to
184
extremely poor, mostly female, entrepreneurs, without taking collateral. Muhammad
Yunus created the microcredit concept as a method for allowing the poor in Bangladesh,
who had no other access to banking, to borrow (Yunus 1999). The success that Yunus
and his Garmeen Bank experienced alleviating poverty led to excitement about the
practices and many organizations adopted the micro-credit label and some of the practices.
Over time, as more people became involved, the definition of micro-credit started to
broaden. In 2002 Yunus commented on the change in the meaning of, “micro-credit,”
over the last thirty years:
The word “microcredit” did not exist before the Seventies. Now it has
become a buzz-word among the development practitioners. In the
process, the word has been imputed to mean everything to everybody.
No one now gets shocked if somebody uses the term, “microcredit,” to
mean agricultural credit, or rural credit, or cooperative credit, or
consumer credit, credit from the savings and loan associations, or from
credit unions, or from money lenders. When someone claims
microcredit has a thousand year history, or a hundred year history,
nobody finds it as an exciting piece of historical information. I think this
is creating a lot of misunderstanding and confusion in the discussion
about microcredit. We really don't know who is talking about what. I
am proposing that we put labels to various types of microcredit so that
we can clarify at the beginning of our discussion which microcredit we
are talking about. This is very important for arriving at clear conclusions,
formulating right policies, designing appropriate institutions and
methodologies. Instead of just saying, “microcredit,” we should specify
which category of microcredit (Muhammed Yunus, 2003).
As in nanotechnology, the broadening of the meaning of, “micro-credit,” led to the
creation of sub-labels. Because people started to use microcredit in ways that were
inconsistent with how Yunus had originally defined it, he started to use the term,
185
“Grameencredit,”18 instead of, “micro-credit.” Yunus felt that the use of subcategories
was the only way that the original meaning of, “microcredit,” could be retained.
After multiple communities have adopted the label, and the field has matured,
evidence from other fields suggests that meaning often begins to contract (Pinch and
Bijker 1989; Utterback 1994). For example, initially the meaning of biotechnology
broadened, but over time the meaning narrowed around human therapeutics. Companies
that address other markets have either added a qualifying term like, “plant,” biotechnology,
or are categorized within industries like, “energy,” or, “agricultural products.” (Plein 1991).
Studies of categorization processes suggest that prototypes are central to the construction
of meaning (Lakoff 1987; Rosch 1978). In organizational fields, prototypes arise around
successful companies. Netscape became a prototype for the emerging e-commerce field
when the one-year-old company’s initial public offering valued it at $2 billion (Becker
2006).
If a label broadens excessively, it breaks down as a vehicle for communicating and
coordinating, and its use dwindles (Hsu 2006; Lounsbury and Rao 2003). Instead, meaning
creation consolidates around sub-labels. For example, after initial broadening, “artificial
intelligence,” lost popularity as a label, but coordinated activity continued within sub-fields
like expert systems and form recognition (Crevier 1994).
6.6 Institutional Logics
The changes in meaning that accompanied the communities’ adoption of the label
influenced the field’s institutional logic. A field’s institutional logic is defined as, “a set of
The word Grameencredit came from the name of the bank that Yunus founded, which is called the
Grameen Bank (Yunus, 1999).
18
186
material practices and symbolic construction, which constitutes its organizing principles
and which is available to organizations and individuals to elaborate.” (Friedland and Alford
1991 p. 248). Recently, much research has been done on institutional logics. Several
studies detail the effect changes in institutional logics have on a variety of organizational
outcomes, like a mutual fund’s decision about whether to use in-house or external money
management (Lounsbury 2006), and determinants of executive succession in the higher
education publishing industry (Thornton and Ocasio 1999). The studies of institutional
logics have tended to focus on the consequences and not the antecedents of logic change.
The study of nanotechnology’s emergence shows that institutional logics change as new
communities adopt the field’s label.
During the mobilization phase, the influence of the futurist community meant that
the dominant institutional logic was centered on saving humanity. The meaning of the
label and the activities of the futurists were focused on preparing the world for the coming
era of nanotechnology. The main organizing element that held participants in the field
together was their focus on creating a better world, and making sure that the development
of new technologies happened sustainably. Foresight’s conferences, and the Foresight
Update, constituted the main organizational infrastructure that held the field together.
As the government and the service providers began dominating the field, the
institutional logic changed. The institutional logic during the legitimation phase focused
on increasing funding for science and engineering. Furthermore, the infrastructure
holding the field together expanded to include congressional hearings, meeting of
government subcommittees, and individual meetings between service providers and
government officials.
187
Lastly, the influx of scientists and entrepreneurs shifted the institutional logic to a
focus on increasing the wealth or the status of the individual. The organizing principle of
the field shifted from an emphasis on laying out a strategic vision for the development of a
new field, to individuals and organizations pursuing individual goals. Organization within
the field began to be shaped by collaborations around concrete commercialization and
research projects.
New community participation within a field drives both the construction of
meaning and the central organizing principles within the field, and thereby influences the
field’s institutional logic.
6.7 Emergence as a Categorization Process
The existing literature on the emergence of new organizational fields has primarily focused
on emergence as a founding process (Hannan and Freeman 1977). Instead, I suggest that
we need to reframe emergence as a categorization process. This study adds two elements to
our understanding of the emergence of new organizational fields. First, the emphasis on
foundings has overlooked the role existing organizations play in the emergence process,
and second, that inclusion or exclusion within the field is a socially negotiated process.
When most of the organizations within the nanotechnology field were formed, they were
not considered nanotechnology organizations. Likewise few scientists labeled themselves
nanotechnology scientists. The field was formed through a socially negotiated
categorization process where organizations and individuals adopted, or were labeled, as
belonging to the nanotechnology category. Organizational fields, thus, emerge from
components in other fields that became recategorized under a new label.
188
Table 6.1 details how organizational foundings are only one process through which
organizations become associated with a label. Renaming and labeling are just as important.
Furthermore, categorization processes consist of deciding which elements belong to, but
also elements do not belong within, a category (Vygotsky 1987). Two processes are
involved in the social negotiation process of which organizations do or do not belong to a
category: Abandonment and de-labeling. De-labeling occurs when other actors stop
assigning a label to an organization. In the nanotechnology field, limited de-labeling has
occurred, even though some entrepreneurs, scientists, and service providers have started to
denounce the futurists’ activities as not pertaining to the nanotechnology category. One
reason for this might be that the field is still in its emergent stage. De-labeling may
become more prominent in the future as discrepancies expand between the meaning of the
label and the way that it is currently used.
Reframing emergence as a categorization process adds to our understanding of the
social construction of markets (e.g. Porac et al. 1995; Porac, Ventresca and Mishina 2002;
Rosa et al. 1999; Santos and Eisenhardt 2006). Where prior work has emphasized the
social negotiation of market categories (Rosa et al. 1999) and firm boundaries (Santos and
Eisenhardt 2006), little attention has been paid to the social construction of fields.
TABLE 6.1 ADOPTION AND ABANDONMENT
Adoption
Abandonment
New Organizations
Existing Organizations
Foundings
Renaming
Labeling
Abandonment
Delabeling
189
6.9 Future Research
Future research needs to address the role of labeling and meaning creation within other
emerging organizational fields to confirm the findings, and to develop a more detailed
picture of the emergence process. In particular, research is needed on the roles that
various communities play during the emergence process, and the generalizability of the
three stages in field development.
Further research is also needed on the reasons specific organizations choose or do
not choose to adopt labels. The adoption of labels is one of the key elements in the
categorization process that drives field emergence. In particular we need to understand
which organizations are most likely to adopt labels. Preliminary accounts from the
nanotechnology field suggest that large and older organizations have a greater propensity
to adopt labels early. The reason for this discrepancy between older and larger
organizations and young and small organizations, is that old and large organizations often
have a well defined identity. The association with a novel and unstable social category
does not pose much risk to an older organization’s identity, if the category should develop
negative connotations. On the contrary young and small organizations have a more fragile
organizational identity that is more adversely impacted by changes in the meanings of
labels.
There is also a greater need to understand the processes of abandonment and delabeling, both with regards to why labels are abandoned, and who are most prone to
abandon a label. Because these processes occur later in the emergence process we need to
follow fields during a longer period of time.
Finally, there is a great need to understand the relationship between labels at
different levels of abstraction, for example the relationship between technical and socio190
political labels. Furthermore, we need to know more about which characteristics of labels
enable and hinder their proliferation. If we are able to fully understand the mechanisms
that guide the proliferation of some labels and not others, we will have made great
progress toward understanding the categorization processes in emerging fields.
6.10 Conclusion
This dissertation addresses how meaning is constructed during the emergence of a new
organizational field. In particular, I examine the role that communities’ adoption of labels
plays in the construction of meaning and the creation of resources within an organizational
field. I examine this research question within the nanotechnology field.
I show that the nanotechnology field emerged as new communities joined the field.
There were five communities that were important for the emergence of the
nanotechnology field: Futurists, the government, service providers, companies, and
scientists. The communities differ with regards to their goal for involvement. When they
entered the field they brought with them their prior understandings, and they used these
frameworks to reinterpret the meaning of the field.
The involvement of new communities meant that the nanotechnology field went
through three phases: Mobilization, legitimation, and institutionalization. During the
mobilization phase only the futurist community was involved. The futurists invented the
label, nanotechnology, and infused it with the meaning of microscopic assembler robots.
At this point in time there were few people involved with the field, which made it easier
for the participants to reach a specific and shared meaning of the label.
The futurists mobilized new participants to join the field via exciting discourse
disseminated through the public media. Social gatherings also played a central role during
191
nanotechnology’s infancy, because conferences enabled participants interested in
nanotechnology to interact and form social bonds. These social relationships increased the
social capital within the field.
The exciting discourse attracted new participants. In particular, people within the
government thought that nanotechnology was a good vehicle for increasing funding for
science and engineering. As the government adopted the nanotechnology label, its
meaning changed. Government agencies began using the label to denote advanced
materials science and chemistry. These translation processes meant that meaning became
decoupled between various participants within the field, and several meanings of
nanotechnology co-existed. The government’s adoption of the label legitimated the
nanotechnology label. The futurist community was perceived as illegitimate and fringe by
most of the other communities. The government, on the contrary, granted legitimacy to
the nanotechnology label, and attached monetary resources to it, in the form of a national
initiative.
After the government had legitimated the nanotechnology label and attached it
with resources, companies and scientists rapidly started to adopt it. Scientists began
renaming their existing scientific efforts, “nanotechnology,” to obtain funding. Some
companies adopted the label; others were labeled, “nanotechnology,” by service providers,
who needed token companies to demonstrate the future potential of nanotechnology. As
new communities adopted the label, the futurists began to abandon it. The rapid adoption
of the nanotechnology label led to a change in its meaning, focused on materials science
and nanoparticles – far removed from the futurists’ nanotechnology vision. The label,
thus, lost its usefulness for the futurists. New communities’ adoption of the
nanotechnology label broadened the meaning of nanotechnology, since more communities
192
now tried to fit their activities under it. Consensus began forming around the broader
meaning. During this period the field became institutionalized.
The translation, renaming, labeling, and abandonment processes within the
nanotechnology field call for a reframing of our conception of emergence. Whereas prior
literature emphasizes funding as the fundamental emergence process, this study finds that
emergence is a categorization process, which involves both new and existing firms.
193
References
Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Profession: An Essay on the Division of Expert
Labor. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Akera, A. 2001. "Voluntarism and the Fruits of Collaboration - The IBM User Group,
Share." Technology and Culture 42:710-736.
Aldrich, Howard E. 1999. Organizations Evolving: Sage Pubns.
Aldrich, Howard E., and Marlene Fiol. 1994. "Fools Rush In? The Institutional
Context of Industry Construction." Academy of Management Review 19:64570.
Anderson, P., and M. L. Tushman. 1990. "Technological Discontinuities and
Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change."
Administrative Science Quarterly 35.
Arensberg, Conrad M. 1954. "The Community-Study Method." American Journal of
Sociology 60:109-124.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Ronald H. Humphrey. 1995. "Labeling Processes in
Organizations: Constructing the Individual." Research in Organizational
Behavior 17:413-461.
Barbalet, J. M. 1998. Emotions, Social Theory, and Social Structure - A
Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Barker, Colin. 2001. "Fear, Laughter, and Collective Power: The Making of
Solidarity at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, August 1980." in
Passionate Politics, edited by Jeff Goodwin, James M. Jasper, and Francesca
Polletta. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Barley, Stephen R. 1983. "Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and
Organizational Cultures." Administrative Science Quarterly 28:393-413.
Basalla, George. 1988. The Evolution of Technology: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance: Free Press.
—. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Becker, William H. 2006. "The Dot.Com Revolution in Historical Perspective."
Entreprises et Histoire 43:34-46.
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000a. "Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology
26:611-639.
—. 2000b. "Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and
Assessment." Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-39.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality.
New York: Anchor Books.
Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch. 1987. The Social Construction of
Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
194
—. 1994. "Socialt Run og Symbolsk Magt." in Pierre Bourdieu, edited by Staf
Callewaert, Martin Munk, Morten Nørholm, and Karin Anna Petersen:
Akademisk Forlag.
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Brooks, Rodney A. 1991. "New Approaches to Robotics." Science 253:1227-1232.
Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Acts of Meaning: Harvard University Press.
Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and F Laville. 1991. "Co-word Analysis as a
Tool for Describing the Network of Interactions Between Basic and
Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemistry." Scientometrics
22:155-205.
Carley, Kathleen M. 1993. "Coding Choices for Textual Analysis: A Comparison of
Content Analysis and Map Analysis." Sociological Methodology 23:75-126.
—. 1997. "Extracting Team Mental Models through Textual Analysis." Journal of
Organizational Behavior 18:533-558.
Carroll, G., and A. Swaminathan. 2000. "Why The Microbrewery Movement?
Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing
Industry." American Journal of Sociology 106:715-762.
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Biggs. 1986. "Referring as a Collaborative
Process." Cognition 22:1-39.
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Corman, Steve, Timothy Kuhn, Robert D. McPhee, and Kevin J Dooley. 2002.
"Studying Complex Discursive Systems - Centering Resonance Analysis of
Communication." Human Communication Research 28:157-202.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, and John Law. 1989. "A Co-Word Study of Artificial
Intelligence." Social Studies of Science 19:301-311.
Crevier, Daniel. 1994. AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial
Intelligence: Basic Books.
Criscuolo, Paola, Ammon Salter, and Tony Sheehan. 2005. "Making Knowledge
Visible: Using Expert Yellow Pages to Map Capabilities in Professional
Service Firms." Working paper.
Cyert, Richard, and James G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm:
Prentice-Hall.
Darby, Michael R., and Lynne G. Zucker. 2003. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs:
Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry into Nanotechnology."
Working paper.
Darrin, Thomas, C Ranganathan, and Kevin Desouza. 2005. "Race to Dot.Com and
Back: Lessons on E-business Spin-offs and Reintegration." Information
Systems Management 22:23-30.
DiMaggio, Paul J. 1991. "Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional
Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-40." Pp. 267-92 in The New Institutionalism
in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J.
DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
195
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter P. Powell. 1991. "Introduction." Pp. 1-38 in The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter P. Powell and
Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited:
Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational
Fields." American Sociological Review 48:147-60.
Donnellon, Anne, Barbara Gray, and Michel G. Bougon. 1986. "Communication,
Meaning, and Organized Action." Administrative Science Quarterly 13:43-55.
Drexler, Eric. 1986. Engines of Creation - The Coming Era of Nanotechnology:
Anchor Books.
—. 1992. Nanosystems - Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation.
New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
—. 2003. "Drexler Open Letter." Chemical and Engineering News 81:37-42.
Drexler, Eric, Christine Peterson, and Gayle Pergamit. 1991. Unbounding the Future
- The Nanotechnology Revolution. New York: Quill William Morrow.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana
Press.
Edelman, L. 1992. "Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures." American Journal of
Sociology 97:1531-1576.
Eysenck, Michael. 1984. A Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. London: Erlbaum.
Fligstein, Neil. 2001a. The Architecture of Markets - An Economic Sociology of
Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies: Princeton University Press.
—. 2001b. "Social Skill and the Theory of Fields." Sociological Theory 19:105-125.
Friedland, Roger, and Robert R. Alford. 1991. "Bringing Society Back In: Symbols,
Practices, and Institutional Contradictions." in The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic - A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. "Media Discourse and Public
Opinion on Nuclear Power: A constructionist Appraoch." American Journal
of Sociology 95:1-37.
Garfinkle, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Garud, Raghu, Sanjay Jain, and Arun Kumaraswamy. 2002. "Institutional
Entrepreneurship in the Sponsorship of Common Technological Standards:
The Case of Sun Microsystems and Java." Academy of Management Journal
45:196-214.
Gershell, Leland J., and Joshua H.
Atkins. 2003. "A Brief History of Novel Drug
Discoverty Technologies." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2:321-327.
Gilbert, G. Nigel, and Steve Woolgar. 1974. "The Quantitative Study of Science: An
Examination of the Literature." Science Studies 4:279-294.
Glynn, Mary Ann, and Rikki Abzug. 2002. "Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic
Isomorphism and Organizational Names." Academy of Management Journal
45:267-280.
196
Gonzalez, David. 2007. "Will Gentrification Spoil the Birthplace of Hip-Hop?" The
New York Times.
Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. 2001. "Why Emotions
Matter." in Passionate Politics, edited by Jeff Goodwin, James M. Jasper, and
Francesca Polletta. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Green, John C., James L. Guth, and Kevin Hill. 1993. "Faith and Election: The
Christian Right in Congressional Campaigns 1978-1988." The Journal of
Politics 55:80-91.
Gregory, Kathleen L. 1983. "Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures and Cultre
Conflicts in Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 38:359-376.
Guice, Jon. 1999. "Designing the Future: the Culture of New Trends in Science and
Technology." Research Policy 28:81-98.
Haddan, Stuart C., and Marilyn Lester. 1994. "Grounded Theory Methodology as a
Resource for Doing Ethnomethodology." in More Grounded Theory
Methodology: A Reader, edited by Barney G. Glaser: Sociology Press.
Hannan, M. T., G. R. Carroll, E. A. Dundon, and J. C. Torres. 1995. "Organizational
Evolution in a Multinational Context: Entries of Automobile Manufacturers in
Belgium, Britain, France, Germany and Italy." American Sociological Review
60:509-528.
Hannan, Michael T., and Glenn R. Carroll. 1995. "An Introduction to Organizational
Ecology." Pp. 17-31 in Organizations in Industry: Oxford University Press.
Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1977. "The Population Ecology of
Organizations." American Journal of Sociology 82:929-64.
Hannan, Michael T., Laszlo Polos, and Glenn R. Carroll. 2006. Logics of
Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes and Ecologies. Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves. 2002. "Making British Universities Accountable." in
Science Bought and Sold, edited by Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Heath, Chip, Chris Bell, and Emily Sternberg. 2001. "Emotional Selection in Memes:
The Case of Urban Legends." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Heath, Chip, and Roger V. Gould. 2003. "Semantic Stretch in the Marketplace of
Ideas: A Tragedy of the Verbal Commons?" Working paper.
Heath, Chip, and Victor Seidel. 2006. "Language as a Coordinating Mechanism: How
Linguistic Memes Help Direct Appropriate Action." Working paper.
Hedström, Peter, and Richard Swedberg. 1996a. "Rational Choice, Empirical
Research, and the Sociological Tradition." European Sociological Review
12:127-146.
—. 1996b. "Social Mechanisms." Acta Sociologica 39:281-308.
Heinze, Thomas, Philip Shapira, Jacqueline Senker, and Stefan Kuhlmann. 2007.
"Identifying Creative Research Accomplishments: Methodology and Results
for Nanotechnology and Human Genetics." Scientometrics 70:125-152.
Hendler, James. 1994. "High-Performance Artificial Intelligence." Science 265:891892.
197
Hoffman, Andrew J., and Marc J. Ventresca. 1999. "The Institutional Framing of
Policy Debates: Economics Versus the Environment." American Behavioral
Scientist 42:1368-1392.
Hsu, Greta. 2006. "Evaluative Schemas and the Attention of Critics in the US Film
Industry." Industrial and Corporate Change 15:467-496.
Hsu, Greta, and Michael T. Hannan. 2005. "Identities, Genres, and Organizational
Forms." Organization Science 16:474-494.
Hull, David L. 1990. Science As a Process: an evolutionary account of the social and
conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jensen, Michael. 2006. "Legitimizing Illegitimacy: Creating Markets for Socially
Illegitimate Products." Working paper.
Kadapakkam, Palani-Rajan, and Lalatendu Misra. 2007. "What's in a Nickname?
Price and Volume Effets of a Pure Ticker Symbol Change." The Journal of
Financial Research 30:63-71.
Kennedy, Mark T. 2005a. "Behind the One-Way Mirror: Refraction in the
Construction of Product Market Categories." Working Paper.
—. 2005b. "From Deviation to Innovation: Stories, Cognitive Embeddedness and
Organizational Performance." Working Paper.
Kling, Rob, and Elihu M. Gerson. 1977. "The Social Dynamics of Technical
Innovation in the Computing World." Symbolic Interaction 1:132-146.
Kolata, Gina. 1982. "How Can Computers Get Common Sense?" Science 217:12371238.
Labov, Theresa. 1992. "Social and Language Boundaries among Adolescents."
American Speech 67:339-366.
Labov, William. 1972. "The Study of Language in its Social Context." in
Sociolinguistics, edited by J. B. Pride and Janet Holmes: Penguin Education.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things - What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action - How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
Through Society: Harvard University Press.
Lawrence, Thomas B., and Nelson Phillips. 2004. "From Moby Dick to Free Willy:
Macro-Cultural Discourse and Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Institutional Fields." Organization 11:689-711.
Lee, Peggy. 2001. "What's in a Name.com? The Effects of '.com' Name Changes on
Stock Prices and Trading Activity." Strategic Management Journal 21:793804.
Lofland, John. 1977. "Becoming a World-Saver Revisited." American Behavioral
Scientist 20:805-819.
Lofland, John, and Lyn H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings - A Guide to
Qualitative Observation and Analysis: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lounsbury, Michael. 2006. "A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice
Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds." Academy of Management
Journal Forthcoming.
198
Lounsbury, Michael, and Mary Ann Glynn. 2001. "Cultural Entrepreneurship:
Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources." Strategic
Management Journal 22:545-564.
Lounsbury, Michael, and Hayagreeva Rao. 2003. "Sources of Durability nd Change
in Market Classification: A Study of the Reconstitution of Product Categories
in the American Mutual Fund Industry." Social Forces 82:969-999.
Lounsbury, Michael, Marc J. Ventresca, and Paul M. Hirsch. 2003. "Social
Movements, Field Frames and Industry Emergence: A Cultural-political
Perspective on US Recycling." Socio-Economic Review 1:71-104.
Lynch, M. 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action. London: Cambridge
University Press.
March, James G. 1962. "The Business Firm as a Political Coalition." The Journal of
Politics 24:662-678.
Markel, Gerald E, and Stanley S. Robin. 1985. "Biotechnology and The Social
Reconstruction of Molecular Biology." Science, Technology and Human
Values 10:70-79.
Mayntz, Renate. 2004. "Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena."
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34:237-259.
McAdam, Doug, and David A. Snow. 1997. Social Movements - Reading on Their
Emergence, Mobilization, and Dyanmics. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury
Publishing Company.
McClellan III, Jeames E., and Harold Dorn. 1999. Science and Technology in World
History: The John Hopkins University Press.
Meyer, Alan, Vibha Gaba, and Kenneth A. Cowell. 2005. "Organizing Far from
Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields." Organization
Science 16:456-473.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal
Structure as Myth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology 83:340363.
Mirowski, P., and Ester-Mirjam Sent. 2002. "Introduction." in Science Bought and
Sold, edited by P. Mirowski and Ester-Mirjam Sent. Chicato: The University
of Chicago Press.
Mohr, John W. 2006. "Implicit Terrains: Meaning, Measurement, and Spatial
Metaphors in Organizatinal Theory." in Constructing Industries and Markets,
edited by Joseph R. Porac and Marc J. Ventresca. New York: Elsevier.
Molina, Alfonso H. 1993. "In search of insights into the generation of technoeconomic trends: Micro- and macro-constituencies in the microprocessor
industry." Research Policy 22:479-506.
Nasir, Suphan. 2005. "The Development, Change, and Transformation of
Management Information Systems (MIS): A Content Analysis of Articles
Published in Business and Marketing Journals." International Journal of
Information Management 25:442-457.
Noble, David F. 1984. Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial
Automation. New York: Oxford University Press.
199
O'Mahony, Siobhan. 2002. The Emergence of a New Commercial Actor: Community
Managed Software Projects: Department of Management Science and
Engineering, Stanford University.
Office of Management and Budget. 2005. "North American Industry Classification
System - Update for 2007." Federal Register 70.
Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto Ponzio. 2005. Semiotics Unbounded - Interpretive Routes
through the Open Network of Signs. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University
of Toronto Press.
Phillips, Nelson, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Cynthia Hardy. 2004. "Discourse and
Institutions." Academy of Management Journal 29:635-652.
Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe E. Bijker (Eds.). 1989. The Social Construction of Facts
and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of
Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Cambridge and London: The MIT
Press.
Plein, Christopher L. 1991. "Polularizing biotechnology: The influence of Issue
Definition." Science, Technology and Human Values 16:474-490.
Pollock, Timothy, and Violina P. Rindova. 2003. "Media Legitimation Effects in the
Market for Initial Public Offerings." Academy of Management Journal
46:631-642.
Porac, Joseph R., Howard Thomas, Fiona Wilson, Douglas Paton, and Alaina Kanfer.
1995. "Rivalry and The Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers."
Administrative Science Quarterly 40:203-227.
Porac, Joseph R., Marc J. Ventresca, and Yuri Mishina. 2002. "Interorganizational
Cognition and Interpretation." in The Blackwell Companion to Organizations,
edited by Joel A. C. Baum: Blackwell Business.
Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social psychology. London: Sage.
Powell, Walter W., Douglas White, Kenneth W. Koput, and Jason Owen-Smith.
2004. "Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences." The American Journal of
Sociology.
Pozner, Jo-Ellen, and Edward J. Zajac. 2006. "Explaining Firm Performance:
Symbolic Management and Quarterly Earnings Announcements." Working
paper.
Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Making PCR - A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago and London:
The University of Chicago Press.
Rao, Hayagreeva. 1994. "The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification
Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American
Automobile Industry: 1895-1912." Strategic Management Journal 15:29-44.
—. 2004. "Institutional Activism in the Early American Automobile Industry."
Journal of Business Venturing 19:359-384.
Rindova, Violina P., and Charles J. Fombrun. 2001. "Entrepreneurial Action in teh
Creation of the Specialty Coffee Niche." in The Entrepreneurship Dynamic,
edited by Claudia Bird Schoonhoven and Elaine Romanelli. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
200
Roco, Mihail C., and Paul Alivisatos. 1999. Nanotechnology Research Directions:
IWGN Workshop Report - Vision for Nanotechnology Research and
Development in the Next Decade: WTEC. Loyola College Maryland.
Rosa, Jose Antonio, and Joseph R. Porac. 2002. "Categorization Bases and Their
Influence on Product Category Knowledge Structures." Psychology and
Marketing 19:503-531.
Rosa, Jose Antonio, Joseph R. Porac, Jelena Runser-Spanjol, and Michael S. Saxon.
1999. "Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market." Journal of Marketing
63:64-77.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. "Principles of Categorization." Pp. 27-48 in Cognition and
Categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruef, M. 2000. "The Emergence of Organizational Forms: A Community Ecology
Approach." American Journal of Sociology 106:658-714.
Samuel, Arthur L. 1962. "Artificial Intelligence: A Frontier of Automation." Annals
of American Academy of Politcal and Social Science 340:10-20.
Santos, Filipe M., and Kathleen Eisenhardt. 2006. "Constructing Markets and
Organizing Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Action in Nascent Fields." Working
paper.
Scheff, T. J. 1974. "The Labelling Theory of Mental Illness." American Sociological
Revew 39:444-452.
Scott, Richard W., Martin Ruef, Peter J. Mendel, and Carol A. Caronna. 2000.
Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations - From Professional
Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and Organizations: Sage.
Smalley, Richard. 2001. "Of Chemistry, Love, and Nanobots." Scientific American
285:76-77.
—. 2003a. "Smalley Concludes." Chemical and Engineering News 81:37-42.
—. 2003b. "Smalley Responds." Chemical and Engineering News 81:37-42.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Jr. Rochford, Steven Worden, and Robert D. Benford.
1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement
Participation." American Sociological Review 51:464-481.
Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and
Participant Mobilization." in International Social Movement Research, Vol. 1.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Spradley, James. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and
Winston.
Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesmer. 1999. "Institutional Ecology, "Translations", and
Boundary Objects - Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39." in The Science Studies Reader, edited by M.
Biagioli. New York
London: Routledge.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1965. "Social Structure and Organizations." Pp. 142-169 in
Handbook of Organizations, edited by J. G. March: McGraw-Hill.
201
Strauss, Anselm. 1978. "A Social World Perspective." in Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, edited by Norman K. Denzin. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press
Inc.
—. 1984. "Social Worlds and Their Segmentation Processes." Studies in Symbolic
Interaction 5:123-139.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1994. "Grounded Theory Methodology - An
Overview." in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K.
Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln.
Strauss, Anselm, Leonard Schatzman, Rue Bucher, Danuta Ehrlich, and Melvin
Sabshin. 1964. Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions. London: The Free
Press of Glencoe.
Suarez, Fernando F., and James M. Utterback. 1995. "Dominant Designs and the
Survival of Firms." Strategic Management Journal 16:415-430.
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
Approaches." Academy of Management Review 20:571-610.
Thornton, Patricia, Candace Jones, and Kenneth Kury. 2005. "Institutional Logics and
Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Accounting,
Architecture, and Publishing." Research in the sociology of Organizations
23:127-172.
Thornton, Patricia, and William Ocasio. 1999. "Institutional Logics and the Historical
Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher
Education Publishing Industry, 1958-1990." The American Journal of
Sociology 105:801-843.
Tuttle, William M. 1981. "The Birth of an Industry: The Synthetic Rubber "Mess" in
World War II." Technology and Culture 22:35-67.
Urban, Glen L., John S. Hullard, and Bruce D. Weinberg. 1993. "Premarket
Forecasting for New Consumer Durable Goods: Modeling Categorization,
Elimination, and Consideration Phenomena." Journal of Marketing 57:47-63.
Utterback, James M. 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Ventresca, Marc J., and John W. Mohr. 2002. "Archival Research Methods." in The
Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by Joel A. C. Baum:
Blackwell.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1987. Thought and Language. New York: Plenum Press.
Waldrop, Mitchell M. 1988. "National Academy Looks at Computing's Future."
Science 241:1436.
Weick, Karl E. 1976. "Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems."
Administrative Science Quarterly:1-9.
—. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.
White, Harrison. 1992. Identity and Control: Princeton University Press.
Williams, Michael R. 1997. A History of Computing Technology: Wiley-IEEE
Computer Society.
Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations: Basil Blackwell.
Wohl, Robert. 1996. A Passion for Wings: Aviation and the Western Imagination,
1908-1918: Yale University Press.
Yunus, Muhammad. 1999. Banker to the poor: Public Affairs.
202
Zbaracki, Mark J. 1998. "The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management."
Administrative Science Quarterly 43:602-636.
Zott, Christoph, and Quy Huy. 2006. "Symbolic Emphasizing: How Entrepreneurs
Use Symbolism to Acquire Resources." Administrative Science Quarterly
Forthcoming.
—. 2007a. "Symbolic Emphasizing: How Entrepreneurs Use Symbolism to Acquire
Resources." Administrative Science Quarterly Forthcoming.
—. 2007b. "Symbolic Emphasizing: How Entrepreneurs Use Symbolism to Acquire
Resources." Administrative Science Quarterly.
Zuckerman, E. W. 2000. "Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and dediversification." Administrative Science Quarterly 45:591-619.
Zuckerman, Ezra W. 1999. "The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the
Illegitimacy Discount." The American Journal of Sociology 104:1398-1438.
203
Appendix 1: Semi-structured Interview Guide
Interview for the Futurist Community
The General Focus of My Project



Understanding drivers in the evolution of the nanotechnology industry
How the science gets commercialized (transition from university based research to
a commercial industry).
How firms position themselves within a scientific field
Three Ways in which you can be Helpful


Enhance my understanding of the evolution of the nanotechnology industry
Understand the role of the Foresight Institute
About Your Self




How did you first become involved with nanotechnology?
How did you become involved with the Foresight?
What is your role at Foresight?
What was your motivation for being involved with nanotechnology?
Role of Different Actors
Futurists
 The Foresight Institute
 Which role has the Foresight Institute played?
 What has been the role of the Foresight Institute in shaping nanotechnology?
Scientific Community
 Which role has the scientific community played?
 What has been the scientific communities attitude toward nanotechnology?
Business Community
 Which role has the business community played?
 What has been the business community’s attitude towards nanotechnology?
The Government
 Which role has the government played?
 What has been the government’s attitude towards nanotechnology?
204
Service Providers
 Which role has service providers played?
 What has been the service providers attitude towards nanotechnology?
The Evolution of the Nanotechnology Industry



What changes have you observed in the industry since it started?
What do you see as the main drivers of the industry? Is it researchers trying to
commercialize their knowledge, or VCs looking for funding opportunities?
Established firms looking for new innovations/R&D opportunities?
Do you see the industry as fragmenting into different areas? (Or has this existed all
along)?
205