What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency

Scientometrics

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 779-810

  Meyer, Martin ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847407925     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. ANTONELLI, C. (1998), The dynamics of localized technological changes. The interaction between factor costs inducement, demand-pull and Schumpeterian rivalry, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 6: 97-120.
2. ARCHIBUGI, D. (1998), Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Sussex.
3. ARCHIBUGI, D., SIMONETTI, R. (1998), Objects and subjects in technological interdependence. Towards a framework to monitor innovation, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5 (3): 295-309.
4. BONACCORSI, A., THOMA, G. (2005), Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance, LEM Working Paper 2005-13.
5. BRAUN, T., SCHUBERT, A., ZSINDELY, S. (1997), Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance, Scientometrics, 38: 321-325.
6. CHILCOTT, J., JONES, A., MITCHEL, M. (2001), Applied Materials Science Nanotechnology: Commercial opportunity, London: Evolution Capital Limited.
7. COOMBS, R., HULL, R. (1998), 'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation, Research Policy, 27 (3): 237-253.
8. DARBY, M. R., ZUCKER, L. G. (2003), Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper Series, #9825, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9825.
9. DARBY, M. R., ZUCKER, L. G. (2005), Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. NBER Working Paper Series, #11181, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w11181.
10. DAVID, P. A. (2000), Path dependence, its critics and the quest for "historical economics", In: P. GARROUSTE, S. IOANNIDES (Eds), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available also at: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/pathdep.pdavid.pdf
11. DOSI, G. (1982), Technical paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, 11 (3): 147-162.
12. ETC (2003a), The Big Down: Atom Tech - Technologies Converging at the Atomic Scale. Winnipeg, Canada: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration [www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf].
13. ETC (2003b), No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium - Size Matters! Occasional Paper Series 7(1) [www.etcgroup.org/documents/Occ. Paper_Nanosafety.pdf].
14. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, European Workshop on Social and Economic Research on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, Brussels, 14-15 April 2004 [www.stage-research.net/STAGE/PAGES/Nano.html]
15. FAGERBERG, J. (2005), 'Innovation: A Guide to the Literature', In: J. FAGERBERG, D. MOWERY, R. NELSON (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
16. FOGELBERG, H., GLIMELL, H. (2003), Bringing Visibility To the Invisible: Towards A Social Understanding of Nanotechnology. Avdelningen för teknik- och vetenskapsstudier, Göteborgs Universitet.
17. GLÄNZEL, W., MEYER, M., DU, PLESSIS, M., THIJS, B., MAGERMAN, T., SCHLEMMER, B., DEBACKERE, K., VEUGELERS, R. (2003), Nanotechnology. Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U. Leuven, Steunpuntoos.
18. HINZE, S., REISS, T., SCHMOCH, U. (1997), Statistical Analysis on the Distance Between Fields of Technology. Report submitted to the European Commission, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research, Karlsruhe.
19. HULLMANN, A., MEYER, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58 (3): 507-527.
20. JOERGES, B., SHINN, T. (Eds) (2001), Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
21. KUUSI, O., MEYER, M. (2002), Technological generalizations and leitbilder - the anticipation of technological opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69: 625-639.
22. LEONARD-BARTON, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
23. LIBAERS, D., MEYER, M., GEUNA, A. (2006), The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Forthcoming in Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4) 443-450.
24. LOPEZ, J. (2004), Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology, Hyle, 10 (2): 131-154.
25. MALSCH, I. (1997) Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-Areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
26. MALSCH, I. (1999), Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific and organizational dynamics. Nanotechnology, 10 (1): 1-7.
27. MEYER, M. (2000), Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies. HUT-ISIB Working Paper Series, 2000/1, Helsinki University of Technology: Espoo.
28. MEYER, M. (2001), Between Technology and Science: Exploring an Emerging Field: Knowledge Flows and Networking on the Nano-Scale. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Sussex University: Brighton, 406 p.
29. MEYER, M. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51 (1) 163-183.
30. MEYER, M. (2005), Knowledge Integrators or Weak Links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Scientometrics, 68 (3): 545-560.
31. MEYER, M. (2005a), Between Technology and Science. Universal Publishers: Boca Raton, Fl.
32. MEYER, M. (2006), Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 35 (10): 1646-1662.
33. MEYER, M., KUUSI, O. (2004), Nanotechnology - Generalizations in an interdisciplinary field of science and technology. Hyle, 10 (2): 155-170.
34. MEYER, M., PERSSON, O. (1998), Nanotechnology - interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42 (2): 195-205.
35. NARIN, F., HAMILTON, K. S., OLIVASTRO, D. (1997), The increasing linkage between US technology and public science, Research Policy, 26: 317-330.
36. NONAKA, I., TAKEUCHI, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford UP.
37. PAVITT, K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13 (6): 343-373.
38. PERSSON, O. (1994), The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (1): 31-38.
39. PORTER, A., CUNNINGHAM, S. (no date), Whither nanotechnology? Foresight Update #4.
40. PRICE, D. DE SOLLA (1984), The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. Research Policy, 13: 3-20.
41. ROCO, M., BAINBRIDGE, W. S. (2003), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
42. ROSENBERG, N. (1992), Scientific instrumentation and university research. Research Policy, 21 (4): 381-390.
43. ROYAL SOCIETY & ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, London [www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm].
44. SCHUMMER, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59 (3): 425-465.
45. SHEA, C. M. (2005), Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22 (3): 185-200.
46. SHINN, T., LAMY, E. (2007), Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35 (10) 1477-1498.
47. SMITH, K. (Ed.) (1998), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators - A Guide for Policy-Makers, IDEA Report 5.
48. TIJSSEN, R. J. W. (2004), Science-technology connections and interactions. In: MOED, H. F., GLÄNZEL, W., SCHMOCH, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, pp. 695-715.
49. TISNADO, C. (2005), Techno-Systems of Innovation: The Case of German Nanotechnology. Thesis, SPRU, University of Sussex.
50. VAN LOOY, B., ZIMMERMANN, E., VEUGELERS, R., VERBEEK, A., MELLO, J., DEBACKERE, K. (2003), Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? Scientometrics, 57 (3): 355-367.
51. VAN LOOY, B., DEBACKERE, K., CALLAERT, J., TIJSSEN, R., VAN LEEUWEN, T. (2006), Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains, Scientometrics, 66 (2): 295-310.
52. WOOD, S., JONES, R., GELDART, A. (2003), The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK.
53. WTEC (1998), Nanostructure Science and Technology: R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevices, Baltimore: Loyola College [http://www.wtec.org/].
54. ZITT, M., BASSECOULARD, E. (2006), Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42 (6): 1513-1531.