Boundary work between research communities: Culture and power in a French nanosciences and nanotechnology hub

Social Science Information

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 134-158

  Jouvenet, Morgan ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

boundary work; culture; nanosciences; science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874446422     PISSN: 05390184     EISSN: 14617412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0539018412466638     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Abbott A.Status and status strain in the professions.American Journal of Sociology. 1981;86 (4): 819-835.
2. Abbott AThe System of Professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1988:.
3. Abbott AMethods of Discovery. Heuristics for the social sciences. New York, NY/London: Norton & Company; 2004:.
4. Abbott A.Linked ecologies: States and universities as environments for professions.Sociological Theory. 2005;23 (3): 245-274.
5. Barnes BThe Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Schatzki TKnorr Cetina K, ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge; 2001:17-28.
6. Barrier J.La science en projets: Financements sur projet, autonomie professionnelle et transformations du travail des chercheurs académiques.Sociologie du Travail. 2011;53 (4): 515-536.
7. Barth FEthnic Groups and Boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company; 1969:.
8. Bauchspies W,Croissant JL,Restivo SScience, Technology, and Society: A sociological approach. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006:.
9. Baus D.Cultural exchange in a heterogeneous research field: Approaching scientific culture with anthropological thought.Spontaneous Generations: A journal for the history and philosophy of science. 2009;3 (1): 95-104.
10. Bensaude-Vincent BSe Libérer de la Matière?. Paris: Editions de l'INRA 2004:.
11. Bozeman B,Larédo P,Mangematin V.Understanding the emergence and deployment of 'nano' S&T.Research Policy. 2007;36 (6): 807-812.
12. Bucher R,Strauss A.Professions in process.American Journal of Sociology. 1961;66(4):325-334.
13. Callon M,Latour BAdvances in Social Theory and Methodology. Knorr Cetina KCicourel A, ed. London: Routledge & Kegan; 1981:277-303.
14. Calvert J.What's special about basic research?.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2006;31 (2): 199-220.
15. Clarke AE,Star SLThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch M, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008:113-137.
16. Collett JPCompanion to Science in the Twentieth Century. Krige JPestre D, ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge; 2003:253-274.
17. Collins H,Evans R,Gorman M.Trading zones and interactional expertise.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2007;38 (4): 657-666.
18. Crease RP.Life at the frontier.Physics World. 2008;21 (10): 45-48.
19. Cuche DLa Notion de Culture dans les Sciences Sociales. Paris: La Découverte 1996:.
20. Dahan ALes Sciences pour la Guerre, 1940-1960. Dahan APestre D, ed. Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales; 2005:49-81.
21. Daston L.The moral economy of science.Osiris. 1995;10 (1): 2-24.
22. DelemarleA (2007) Les Leviers de l'Action de l'Entrepreneur Institutionnel: Le cas des micro et nanotechnologies et du pôle de Grenoble. Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées.
23. Descombes VPhilosophie du Jugement Politique. Paris: Points Seuil; 2008:.
24. Doing PVelvet Revolution at the Synchrotron: Biology, physics, and change in science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009:.
25. Elzinga A.The science-society contract in historical transformation: With special reference to 'epistemic drift'.Social Science Information. 1997;36 (3): 411-445.
26. Elzinga AScience, Technology, and Society: An encyclopedia. Restivo S, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:543-550.
27. Emirbayer M,Goodwin J.Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency.American Journal of Sociology. 1994;99 (6): 1411-1454.
28. Espeland W,Stevens ML.Commensuration as a social process.Annual Review of Sociology. 1998;24:313-343.
29. Etzkowitz HScience, Technology, and Society: An encyclopedia. Restivo S, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:87-93.
30. Fassin D.Les économies morales revisitées.Annales HSS. 2009;6:1237-1266.
31. Forman P.The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology.History and Technology. 2007;23 (1-2): 1-152.
32. Fourcade MEconomists and Societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain & France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
33. Forsythe DEStudying Those Who Study Us. An anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2001:.
34. Freidson EProfessionalism, the Third Logic. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press; 2001:.
35. The New Political Sociology of Science. Institutions, networks, and power. Frickel SMoore K, ed. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 2006:.
36. Fujimura JH.Constructing 'do-able' problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment.Social Studies of Science. 1987;17 (2): 247-293.
37. Galison PThe Disunity of Science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Galison PStump D, ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1996:1-33.
38. Galison PImage and Logic. A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1997:.
39. Galison PCompanion to Science in the Twentieth Century. Krige JPestre D, ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge; 2003:669-682.
40. Gibbons M,Limoges C,Nowotny H, et alThe New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage Publications; 1994:.
41. Gieryn TF.Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.American Sociological Review. 1983;48 (6): 781-795.
42. Gieryn TFCultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999:.
43. Glaeser ADivided in Unity: Identity, Germany and the Berlin police. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2000:.
44. Goyet FLe Sublime du 'Lieu Commun': L'Invention rhétorique dans l'Antiquité et à la Renaissance. Paris: Honoré Champion; 1996:.
45. Grossetti MScience, Industrie et Territoire. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail; 1995:.
46. Hemlin S,Rasmussen SB.The shift in academic quality control.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2006;31 (2): 173-198.
47. Hessenbruch ADiscovering the Nanoscale. Baird DNordmann ASchummer J, ed. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004:135-141.
48. Hoddeson LCompanion to Science in the Twentieth Century. Krige JPestre D, ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge; 2003:585-598.
49. Houdart SLa Cour des Miracles. Ethnologie d'un laboratoire japonais. Paris: Editions du CNRS; 2008:.
50. Hubert M.Hybridations instrumentales et identitaires dans la recherche sur les nanotechnologies.Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances. 2007;1 (2): 243-266.
51. Hubert M.Le rôle des dynamiques d'organisation dans les sciences: Le cas des plateformes de caractérisation en nanosciences.Terrains & Travaux. 2011;18:175-192.
52. Hubert M,Jouvenet M,Vinck DLes Mutations des Politiques de Recherche: Entre état, marché et professions. Aust JCrespy C, ed. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines; 2013:.
53. Hughes ELe Regard Sociologique. Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales; 1996:.
54. Jouvenet M.La culture du 'bricolage' instrumental et l'organisation du travail scientifique: Enquête dans un centre de recherches en nanosciences.Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances. 2007;1 (2): 189-219.
55. Jouvenet MRestructurations, Précarisation et Valeurs. Appay BJefferys S, ed. Toulouse: Octarès 2009:193-205.
56. Jouvenet M.Profession scientifique et instruments politiques: L'impact du financement 'sur projet' dans des laboratoires de nanosciences.Sociologie du Travail. 2011;53 (2): 234-252.
57. Jouvenet M.Nanosciences et nanotechnologies: Une coopération modèle? Expériences et sens politique des scientifiques.Terrain. 2012;58:44-63.
58. Kahn J.Nano's big future.National Geographic. 2006;209 (6): 98-119.
59. Keating P,Cambrosio ABiomedical Platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth-century medicine. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press; 2003:.
60. Kevles DJThe Physicists: The history of a scientific community in modern America. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press; 1995[1971]:.
61. Klein JCrossing Boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA/London: University Press of Virginia; 1996:.
62. Knorr Cetina KEpistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:.
63. Lamont M,Molnár V.The study of boundaries in the social sciences.Annual Review of Sociology. 2002;28:167-195.
64. Lamy J,Saint-Martin A.Pratiques et collectifs de la science en régimes. Note critique.Revue d'Histoire des Sciences. 2011;64 (2): 375-387.
65. Larédo P,Mustar PResearch and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy. An international comparative analysis. Larédo PMustar P, ed. Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2001:447-496.
66. Latour BLa Science en Action. Paris: Gallimard; 1989:.
67. Latour B,Woolgar SLaboratory Life. Los Angeles, CA/London: Sage Publications; 1979:.
68. Louvel SDes Patrons aux Managers. Les laboratoires de la recherche publique depuis les années 1970. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes; 2011:.
69. MacCray P.Large telescopes and the moral economy of recent astronomy.Social Studies of Science. 2000;30 (5): 685-711.
70. MacCray P.MBE deserves a place in the history books.Nature Nanotechnology. 2007;2 (May): 259-261.
71. Marcovich A,Shinn TScience in the Context of Application. Carrier MNordmann A, ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010a:221-242.
72. Marcovich A,Shinn T.Socio/intellectual patterns in nanoscale research: Feynman Nanotechnology Prize laureates, 1993-2007.Social Science Information. 2010b;49 (4): 615-638.
73. Marcovich A,Shinn T.Where is disciplinarity going? Meeting on the borderland.Social Science Information. 2011;50 (3-4): 582-606.
74. Mauss MŒuvres 3. Cohésion sociale et division de la sociologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit; 1969:.
75. McLean PDThe Art of the Network. Strategic interaction and patronage in Renaissance Florence. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press; 2007:.
76. Merz MLa Fabrique des Sciences: Des institutions aux pratiques. Leresche J-PBenninghoff MCrettaz von Roten F, ed. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes; 2006:165-182.
77. Moore KScience, Technology, and Society: An encyclopedia. Restivo S, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:552-557.
78. Mulkay M.Norms and ideologies in science.Social Science Information. 1976;:637-656.
79. Mustar P,Larédo P.Innovation and research policy in France (1980-2000) or the disappearance of the Colbertist state.Research Policy. 2002;31 (1): 55-72.
80. The Public Nature of Science under Assault: Politics, markets, science and the law. Nowotny HPestre DSchmidt-Assman E, ed. Berlin: Springer; 2005:.
81. Nowotny H,Scott P,Gibbons MRe-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity Press/Blackwell; 2001:.
82. Padgett J,Ansell C.Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400-1434.American Journal of Sociology. 1993;98 (6): 1259-1319.
83. Padgett J,McLean P.Organizational invention and elite transformations: The birth of partnership systems in Renaissance Florence.American Journal of Sociology. 2006;111 (5): 1463-1568.
84. Pestre DLouis Néel, le Magnétisme et Grenoble. Récit de la création d'un empire physicien dans la province française, 1940-1965. Paris: Editions du CNRS; 1990:.
85. Pestre DPhysique et Physiciens en France, 1918-1940. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines; 1992[1984]:.
86. Ravetz JScience, Technology, and Society: An encyclopedia. Restivo S, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:481-484.
87. Robinson D,Rip A,Mangematin V.Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology.Research Policy. 2007;36 (6): 871-879.
88. Rosental CLes Capitalistes de la Science: Enquête sur les démonstrateurs de la Silicon Valley et de la NASA. Paris: Editions du CNRS; 2007:.
89. Shapin SNever Pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010:.
90. Shapira P,Wang J.Follow the money.Nature. 2010;468:627-628.
91. Shinn T.New sources of radical innovation: Research technologies, transversality and distributed learning in a post-industrial order.Social Science Information. 2005;44 (4): 731-764.
92. Shinn T.Differentiation and complementarity: Boundaries and boundary crossing in science and industry. Communication at the 'Science in the context of application: Transformations of academic research' conference, Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung; 2006Universität Bielefeld; 2006.
93. Shinn TResearch Technology and Cultural Change: Instrumentation, genericity, transversality. Oxford: The Bardwell Press; 2008:.
94. Shinn T,Ragouet PControverses sur la Science: Pour une sociologie transversaliste de l'activité scientifique. Paris: Raisons d'Agir 2005:.
95. Shrum W,Genuth J,Chompalov IStructures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press; 2007:.
96. Slaughter S,Rhoades G.From 'endless frontier' to 'basic science for use': Social contracts between science and society.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2005;30 (4): 536-572.
97. Spillman LBlackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer G, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Reference Online, Blackwell Publishing; 2007:.
98. Star SL,Griesemer J.Institutional ecology, 'translation' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19 (3): 387-420.
99. Strauss AL,Rainwater LThe Professional Scientist: A study of American chemists. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1962:.
100. Surowiecki J.Bring on the nanobubble.The New Yorker. 2004;80 (4): 68.
101. Swidler A.Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.American Sociological Review. 1986;51 (2): 273-286.
102. Swidler AThe Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Schatzki TKnorr Cetina KVon Savigny E, ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge; 2001:74-92.
103. Taylor CARhetoric and Community: Studies in unity and fragmentation. Hogan M, ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 1998:284-291.
104. Thompson EP.The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century.Past & Present. 1971;50:76-136.
105. Traweek SBeamtimes and Lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press; 1988:.
106. Vaughan DThe Challenger Launch Decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press; 1996:.
107. Vinck D.The 'enterprise of science': Construction and reconstruction of social capital around nano R&D.International Journal of Nanotechnology. 2010;7 (2/3): 121-136.
108. Vinck D,Gallice P,Jouvenet M, et alTechnique, Communication et Société: A la recherche d'un modèle de gouvernance. Goujon PLavelle S, ed. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur; 2007:247-266.
109. Vinck D,Hubert M,Jouvenet M, et alLa Fabrique des Sciences: Des institutions aux pratiques. Leresche J-PBenninghoff MCrettaz von Roten F, ed. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes; 2006:147-163.
110. Vinck D,Zarama G.La fusion de laboratoires: Processus de gestion et constitution d'une entité pertinente de l'activité scientifique.Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances. 2007;1 (2): 267-296.
111. Wenger ECommunities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1998:.
112. Whitley RThe Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1984:.
113. Winch PThe Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge; 1990[1958]:.
114. Zarama G,Vinck D.Façonnage des espaces de travail d'un collectif de recherche en micro et nanotechnologies.Terrains & Travaux. 2011;18:61-80.