Rage against self-replicating machines: Framing science and fiction in the US nanotechnology field

Organization Studies

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 253-280

  Granqvist, Nina ^a   Laurila, Juha ^b  

^a HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

boundary work; field emergence; framing; nanotechnology; professional field; scientific field

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952286057     PISSN: 01708406     EISSN: 17413044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0170840610397476     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Abrahamson, E., & Eisenman, M. (2008). Employee-management techniques: Transient fads or trending fashions? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (4), 719-744.
3. Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. (1994). Fools rush in? The Institutional context of industry construction. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645-670.
4. Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
5. Boxer, M.J. (1998). When women ask the questions: Creating women's studies in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6. Burri, R.V. (2008). Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Social Studies of Science, 38 (1), 35-62.
7. Butler, R. (1997). Stories and experiments in social inquiry. Organization Studies, 18 (6), 927-948.
8. Choi, H., & Mody, C. (2009).The long history of molecular electronics: Microelectronic origins of nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science, 39 (1), 11-50.
9. Collins, H.M. (2000). Surviving closure: Post-rejection adaptation and plurality in science. American Sociological Review, 65 (6), 824-845.
10. Crandall, B. C., & Lewis, J. (Eds.) (1992). Nanotechnology: Research and perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. David, R., & Strang, D. (2006). When fashion is fleeting: Transitory collective beliefs and the dynamics of TQM consulting. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2), 215-233.
12. Drexler, K.E. (1981), Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 78 (9), 5275-5278.
13. Drexler, K.E. (1992). Nanosystems: Molecular machines, manufacturing and computation. New York: Wiley Interscience.
14. Drexler, K.E., Peterson, C., & Pergamit, G. (1991). Unbounding the future: The Nanotechnology Revolution. New York: Quill.
15. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
16. Fischer, E., Selin,C., & Wetmore, J. (Eds.) (2008). The yearbook on nanotechnology in society, Volume I: Presenting futures. Springer Science +Business Media.
17. Frickel, S. (2004). Building an interdiscipline: Collective action framing and the rise of genetic toxicology. Social Problems, 51 (2), 269-287.
18. Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70 (April), 204-232.
19. Gamson, W.A., & Meyer, D.S. (1996). The framing of political opportunity. In J. McCarthy, D. McAdam, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275-290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gaziano, E. (1996). Ecological metaphors as scientific boundary work: Innovation and authority in interwar sociology and biology. The American Journal of Sociology, 101 (4), 874-907.
21. Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781-795.
22. Gieryn, T.F., Bevins, G.M., & Zehr, S.C. (1985). Professionalization of American scientists: Public science in the creation/evolution trials. American Sociological Review, 50 (3), 392-409.
23. Gill, J., & Whittle, S. (1992). Management by panacea: Accounting for transience. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (2), 281-295.
24. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
25. Heinze, T. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: Analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1 (4), 427-447.
26. Hutter, B.M. (2001). Regulation and risk: Occupational health and safety on the railways. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Hänninen, H., & Laurila, J. (2008). Risk regulation in the Baltic Sea ferry traffic: The successive failures of bow visor technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33 (6), 683-706.
28. Jackson, B. (2001). Management gurus and management fashions: A dramatistic inquiry. London: Routledge.
29. Jacobs, J.A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43-65.
30. Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
31. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Making strategy under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19 (5), 729-752.
32. Kaplan, S., & Murray, F. (2010). Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29, 107-147.
33. Kinchy, A.J., & Kleinmann, D.L. (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33 (6), 869-896.
34. Kirby, D.A. (2003). Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 33 (2), 231-268.
35. Kline, R. (2009). Where are cyborgs in cybernetics? Social Studies of Science, 39 (3), 331-362.
36. Krummenaker, M., & Lewis J. (Eds.) (1995). Prospects in nanotechnology: Toward molecular manufacturing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
37. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545-564.
38. Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P.M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104.
39. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/ AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5), 657-679.
40. Mellor, F. (2003). Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4), 509-538.
41. Mellor, F. (2007). Colliding worlds: Asteroid research and the legitimation of war in space. Social Studies of Science, 37 (4), 499-531.
42. Mody, C.M. (2004a). How probe microscopists became nanotechnologists. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 119-233). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
43. Mody, C.M. (2004b). Small, but determined: Technological determinism in nanoscience. HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10 (2), 101-130.
44. Mody, C.M. (2006). Corporations, universities and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981-1996. Technology and Culture, 47, 56-80.
45. Mody, C.M. (2008). The larger world of nano. Physics Today, October, 38-44.
46. Moore, K. (1996). Organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest organizations, 1955-1975. The American Journal of Sociology, 101 (6), 1592-1627.
47. Numagami, T. (1998). The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: A reflective dialogue in defence of case studies. Organization Science, 9 (1), 2-15.
48. Oreskes, N. (2003). A context of motivation: US Navy Oceanographic research and the discovery of sea-floor hydrothermal vents. Social Studies of Science, 33 (5), 697-742.
49. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 635-652.
50. Poole, R.W. Jr., & Butler, V. (1999) Airline deregulation: The unfinished revolution. Regulation, 22 (1), 44-51.
51. President's Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC.
52. Ramsden, E. (2002). Carving up population science: Eugenics, demography and the controversy over the 'biological law' of population growth. Social Studies of Science, 32 (5-6), 857-899.
53. Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of non-profit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 912-961.
54. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M.N. (2000) Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 239-282.
55. Ritvala, T., & Granqvist, N. (2009). Institutional entrepreneurs and local embedding of global scientific ideas: The case of preventing heart disease in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (2), 133-145.
56. Roco, M. (2007). National nanotechnology initiative: Past, present and future. In W. A. Goddard, III, D. W. Brenner, S. E. Lyshevski, & G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook on nanoscience, engineering and technology (pp. 3-25). London: Taylor & Francis.
57. Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
58. Scott, W.R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. (2000). Institutional change and organizations: Transformation of a health care field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Schurman, R. (2004). Fighting 'Frankenfoods': Industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Social Problems, 51 (2), 243-268.
60. Slayton, R. (2007). Discursive choices: Boycotting Star Wars between science and politics. Social Studies of Science, 37 (1), 27-66.
61. Small, M.L. (1999). Departmental conditions and the emergence of new disciplines: Two cases in the legitimation of African-American Studies. Theory and Society, 28, 659-707.
62. Snow, D.A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S.K., & Benford, R.D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481.
63. Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64. Stevenson, W.B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 651-678.
65. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 27-48.
66. Toumey, C. (2005). Apostolic succession: Does nanotechnology descend from Richard Feynman's 1959 talk? Engineering and Science, 68, 16-23.
67. Toumey, C. (2007). The man who understood the Feynman machine. Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (1), 9-10.
68. Toumey, C. (2008). Reading Feynman into nanotechnology: A text for a new science. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12 (3), 133-168.
69. Washington, M. (2004). Field approaches to institutional change: The evolution of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Organization Studies, 25 (3), 393-414.
70. Whittle, A. (2008). From flexibility to work-life balance: Exploring the changing discourses of management consultants. Organization, 15 (4), 513-534.
71. Zbaracki, M. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (4), 719-744.