The Emergence of novel science-related fields: Regional or technological patterns? Exploration and exploitation in United Kingdom nanotechnology

Regional Studies

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 935-959

  Meyer, Martin ^a,b   Libaers, Dirk ^c   Park, Jae Hwan ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Emerging technologies; Innovation systems; Nano districts; Patent analysis

Indexed keywords

HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY; INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; REGIONAL ECONOMY; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79960623101     PISSN: 00343404     EISSN: 13600591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00343401003792468     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Afuah A. and Utterback J. M. (1997) Responding to structural industry changes: a technological evolution perspective, Industrial and Corporate Change 6, 183-202.
2. Alencar M., Antunes A. and Porter A. (2006) Nanopatenting raise issue for managers and countries, Research-Technology Management 49, 8-9.
3. Andersen E. S., Lundvall B.-Å. and Sorrn-Friese H. (2002) Editorial, Research Policy 31, 185-190.
4. Anderson P. and Tushman M. L. (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 604-633.
5. Asheim B. T. (2000) Industrial districts: the contributions of Marshall and Beyond, in Clark G., Feldman M. and Gertler M. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
6. Asheim B. T. and Cooke P. (1999) Local learning and interactive innovation networks in a global economy, in Oinas P. and Malecki E. J. (Eds) Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change, pp. 145-178. Ashgate, Aldershot.
7. Autio E. and Hameri A.-P. (1994) Technological Systems: Structures, Dynamism, and Sources of Change. Working PaperNumber 1994/ 1. Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Industrial Management, Espoo.
8. Avenel E., Favier A., Maa S., Mangematin V. and Rieu C. (2007) Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies, Research Policy 36, 864-870.
9. Bonaccorsi A. and Thoma G. (2007) Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology, Research Policy 36, 813-831.
10. Bowman D. M. and Hodge G. A (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier, Futures 38, 1060-1073.
11. Bozeman B., Laredo P. and Mangematin V. (2007) Understanding the emergence and deployment of 'nano' S&T, Research Policy 36, 807-812.
12. Bresnahan T. F. and Trajtenberg M. (1996) General purpose technologies: 'engines of growth'?, Journal of Econometrics 65, 83-108.
13. Bunnell T. G. and Coe N. M. (2001) Spaces and scales of innovation, Progress in Human Geography 25, 569-589.
14. Camagni R. (1991) Local 'milieu', uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic theory of economic space, in Camagni R. (Ed.) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, pp. 121-142. Belhaven, London.
15. Carlsson B. (Ed.) (1997) Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics. Kluwer, Boston, MA.
16. Carlsson B. and Jacobsson S. (1994) Technological systems and economic policy: the diffusion of factory automation in Sweden, Research Policy 23, 235-248.
17. Carlsson B. and Stankiewicz R. (1991) On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1, 93-118.
18. Carlsson B., Jacobsson S., Holmen M. and Rickne A. (2002) Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues, Research Policy 31, 233-245.
19. Cooke P. (1992) Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe, Geoforum 23, 365-382.
20. Cooke P., Heidenreich M. and Braczyck H. J. (2004) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governance in a Globalized World, 2nd Edn. Routledge, London.
21. Dosi G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories-a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Research Policy 11, 147-162.
22. Edquist C. (2005a) Systems of innovation approaches-their emergence and characteristics, in Edquist C. (Ed.) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Pinter, Washington, DC.
23. Edquist C. (2005b) Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges, in Fagerberg J., Mowery D. and Nelson R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 181-203. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
24. Edquist C. and Johnson B. (2000) Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation, in Edquist C. and McKelvey M. (Eds) Systems of Innovation: Growth Competitiveness and Employment, pp. 41-63. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
25. Fagerberg J. (2005) Innovation: a guide to the literature, in Fagerberg J., Mowery D. and Nelson R. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 1-21. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
26. Feldman M. P. and Audretsch D. B. (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition, European Economic Review 43, 409-429.
27. Florida R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic, New York, NY.
28. Florida R. (2003) People, place, and region: the economic geography of talent, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, 743-755.
29. Freeman C. (1987) Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London.
30. Freeman C. (1988) Japan: a new national system of innovation?, in Dosi G. (Ed.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, pp. 349-369. Pinter, London.
31. Garnsey E. and Heffernan H. (2005) High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: the Cambridge case, Regional Studies 39, 1127-1144.
32. Gilsing V., Nooteboom B., Vanhaverbeke W., Duysters G. and van den Oord A. (2008) Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density, Research Policy 37, 1717-1731.
33. Glänzel W., Meyer M., Du Plessis M., Thijs B., Magerman T., Schlemmer B., Debackere K. and Veugelers R. (2003) Nanotechnology: Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
34. Granberg A. (1996) On the pursuit of systemic technology policies in an unstable environment: reflections on a Swedish case, Research Evaluation 6, 143-157.
35. Green A. and McKnight A. (1996) The changing distribution and composition of the highly qualified. Unpublished conference paper, Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, Coventry.
36. Harrison B., Kelley M. R. and Gant J. (1996) Innovative firm behaviour and local milieu: exploring the intersection of agglomeration, firm effects, and technological change, Economic Geography 72, 233-258.
37. Heinze T. (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States, Nanotechnology Law and Business 1, 427-447.
38. Heinze T. (2006) Die Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. Das Beispiel der Nanotechnologie. Campus, Frankfurt.
39. Howells J. (1999) Regional innovation systems, in Archibugi D., Howells J. and Michie J. (Eds) Innovation Policy in a Global Economy, pp. 67-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Keeble D., Lawson C., Lawton-Smith H., Moore B. and Wilkinson F. (1998) Internationalisation processes, networking and local embeddedness in technology-intensive small firms, Small Business Economics 11, 327-342.
41. Keeble D., Lawson C., Moore B. and Wilkinson F. (1999) Collective learning processes, networking and 'institutional thickness' in the Cambridge region, Regional Studies 33, 319-332.
42. Kelley M. R. and Helper S. (1999) Firm size and capabilities, regional agglomeration, and the adoption of new technology, Economics of Innovation and New technology 8, 79-103.
43. Klepper S. (1996) Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle, American Economic Review 86, 562-583.
44. Kuhn T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
45. Kuusi O. and Meyer M. (2002) Technological generalizations and leitbilder-the anticipation of technological opportunities, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69, 625-639.
46. Lawton-Smith H. (2006) Universities, Innovation and the Economy. Routledge, Abingdon.
47. Lawton-Smith H., Glasson J. and Chadwick A. (2005) The geography of talent: entrepreneurship and local economic development in Oxfordshire, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 17, 449-476.
48. Lee Y. G. and Song Y. I. (2007) Selecting the key research areas in the nanotechnology field using technology cluster analysis: a case study based on national R&D programs in South Korea, Technovation 27, 57-64.
49. Leydesdorff L. (2008) On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, 77-85.
50. Libaers D., Meyer M. and Geuna A. (2006) The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: the case of nanotechnology, Journal of Technology Transfer 31, 443-450.
51. Lundvall B., Johnson E., Andersen S. and Dalum B. (2002) National systems of production, innovation and competence building, Research Policy 31, 213-231.
52. Lundvall B. A. (Ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.
53. Mahdi S. and Pavitt K. (1997) Key national factors in the emergence of computational chemistry firms, International Journal of Innovation Management 1, 355-386.
54. Malerba F. (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Research Policy 31, 247-264.
55. Malerba F. and Orsenigo L. (1996) Schumpeterian patterns of innovation, Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 47-65.
56. Malerba F. and Orsenigo L. (1997) Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities, Industrial and Corporate Change 6, 83-117.
57. Malsch I. (1997) Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-areas. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies-Joint Research Centre (IPTS-JRC), Seville.
58. Malsch I. (1999) Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific and organizational dynamics, Nanotechnology 10, 1-7.
59. Maynard A. (2006) Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk. Project on Emerging Technologies. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
60. Meyer M. (2000) Hurdles on the Way to Growth. HUT-ISIB Working Paper Series Number 2000/1. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.
61. Meyer M. (2001a) Between technology and science, exploring an emerging field. DPhil thesis, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton.
62. Meyer M. (2001b) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology, Scientometrics 51, 163-183.
63. Meyer M. (2006) Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their noninventing peers in nano-science and technology, Research Policy 35, 1646-1662.
64. Meyer M. (2007) What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency, Scientometrics 70, 779-810.
65. Meyer M. and Bhattacharya S. (2004) Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses, Scientometrics 61, 443-456.
66. Meyer M. and Persson O. (1998) Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application, Scientometrics 42, 195-205.
67. Meyer M. and Kuusi O. (2004) Nanotechnology: generalizations in an interdisciplinary field of science and technology, Hyle 10, 155-170.
68. Miyazaki K. and Islam N. (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation-an analysis of industry and academic research activities, Technovation 27, 661-675.
69. Momma S. and Sharp M. (1999) Developments in new biotechnology firms in Germany, Technovation 19, 267-282.
70. National Science and Technology Center (NSTC) (2002) National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan (FY 2003). Report, June. NSTC.
71. Nelson R. and Winter S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknapp, Cambridge, MA.
72. Nelson R. R. (Ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
73. Noyons E. C. M., Buter R., Raan A. F. J. V., Schmoch U., Heinze T., Hinze S. and Rangnow R. (2003) Mapping Excellence in Science and Technology Across Europe. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report to the European Commission. University of Leiden, Leiden.
74. Oinas P. and Malecki E. J. (1999) Spatial innovation systems, in Oinas P. and Malecki E. J. (Eds) Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change, pp. 7-33. Ashgate, Aldershot.
75. Oinas P. and Malecki E. J. (2002) The evolution of technologies in time and space, International Regional Science Review 25, 102-131.
76. Oinas P. and van Gils H. (2001) Identifying contexts of learning in firms and regions, in Felsenstein D. and Taylor M. (Eds) Promoting Local Growth: Process, Practice, Policy, pp. 61-79. Ashgate, Aldershot.
77. Persson O. (1994) The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45, 31-38.
78. Persson O., Danell R. and Schneider J. (2009) How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis, in Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies. Festschrift for Olle Persson at His 60th Birthday, pp. 9-24. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI), Leuven (available at: http://www8.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/ollepersson60.pdf) (accessed on 17 January 2010).
79. Powell W. and Grodal S. (2005) Networks of innovators, in Fagerberg J., Mowery D. and Nelson R. (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 56-85. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
80. Quigley J. M. (1998) Urban diversity and economic growth, Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 127-138.
81. Robinson D. K., Rip A. and Mangematin V. (2007) Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology, Research Policy 36, 871-879.
82. Saviotti P. and Metcalfe S. (1991) Present development and trends in evolutionary economics, in Saviotti P. and Metcalfe S. (Eds) Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change, pp. 1-30. Chur, Harwood.
83. Saxenian A. (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
84. Schmoch U. (1997) Indicators and the relationships between science and technology, Scientometrics 38, 103-116.
85. Shapira P. and Youtie J. (2006) Measures for knowledge-based economic development: introducing data mining techniques to economic developers in the state of Georgia and the US South, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73, 950-965.
86. Shapira P. and Youtie J. (2008) Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: path dependency or new opportunities?, Economic Development Quarterly 22, 187-199.
87. Simmie J. (2005) Innovation and space: a critical review of the literature, Regional Studies 39, 789-904.
88. Spender J.-C. (1989) Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgment. Blackwell, Oxford.
89. Wood S. and Jones R. (2003) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. Report. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), London.
90. Yli-Renko H. and Autio E. (1997) New, Technology-Based Firms. Working Paper Number 1997/1. Center for Technology Management, Helsinki Region Center of Expertise, Helsinki University of Technology, and Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.
91. Youtie J. and Shapira P. (2008) Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: a multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South, Journal of Technology Transfer 33, 209-223.
92. Zitt M., Barre R., Sigogneau A. and Laville F. (1999) Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European Union: a descriptive analysis, Research Policy 28, 545-562.
93. Zucker L. G. and Darby M. R. (2005) Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. Working Paper Number 11181. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
94. Zucker L. G., Darby M. R., Furner J., Liu R. C. and Ma H. (2007) Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production, Research Policy 36, 850-863.