Categorizing a Field – The Use of the Nanotechnology Label across Communities

Labels are important to the emergence of organizational fields. The construction and use of labels enables communication and coordination across communities. This paper argues that new and existing communities’ uses of labels commence a categorization process central to the construction of meaning and definition of boundaries within organizational fields. Employing 25 ethnographic observations, 77 interviews and 12,774 articles from five different nanotechnology communities covering primarily the 21 year period from 1984 to 2005 I show the differentiated use of the nanotechnology label across communities. 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 paper adds to our understanding of field emergence by reframing emergence as a categorization process.

[1]  W. Powell,et al.  Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  Brian Rowan Organizational Structure and the Institutional Environment: The Case of Public Schools. , 1982 .

[3]  Margaret E. Phillips Industry Mindsets: Exploring the Cultures of Two Macro-Organizational Settings , 1994 .

[4]  A. Donnellon,et al.  Communication, Meaning, and Organized Action. , 1986 .

[5]  H. Thomas,et al.  Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers , 1995 .

[6]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .

[7]  L. Vygotsky,et al.  Thought and Language , 1963 .

[8]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[9]  Christopher Marquis,et al.  Special Issue: Frontiers of Organization Science, Part 1 of 2: Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[10]  Hayagreeva Rao,et al.  Sources of Durability and Change in Market Classifications: A Study of the Reconstitution of Product Categories in the American Mutual Fund Industry, 1944-1985 , 2004 .

[11]  J. Hulland,et al.  Premarket Forecasting for New Consumer Durable Goods: Modeling Categorization, Elimination, and Consideration Phenomena , 1993 .

[12]  Stuart W. Leslie,et al.  Forces of production : a social history of industrial automation , 1985 .

[13]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[14]  Joseph F. Porac,et al.  Categorization bases and their influence on product category knowledge structures , 2002 .

[15]  T. Lawrence,et al.  From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-Cultural Discourse and Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Institutional Fields , 2004 .

[16]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  CONSTRUCTING MARKETS AND ORGANIZING BOUNDARIES: ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTION IN NASCENT FIELDS. , 2004 .

[17]  P. Galison Refections on Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics , 1999, Perspectives on Science.

[18]  J. Law,et al.  A Co-Word Study of Artificial Intelligence , 1989 .

[19]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[20]  C. Arensberg The Community-Study Method , 1954, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Susan Petrilli,et al.  Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes through the Open Network of Signs , 2005 .

[22]  M. Lounsbury A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation In the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds , 2007 .

[23]  C. Debresson,et al.  Forces of production : a social history of industrial automation , 1985 .

[24]  Stanislav D. Dobrev,et al.  Organizational mortality in European and American automobile industries. Part I : Revisiting the effects of age and size , 1998 .

[25]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[26]  G. Hodgkinson,et al.  EXPLORING THE MENTAL MODELS OF COMPETITIVE STRATEGISTS: THE CASE FOR A PROCESSUAL APPROACH , 1994 .

[27]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Anna De Fina,et al.  The ethnographic interview , 2019, The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography.

[29]  W. Richard Scott,et al.  Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care , 2000 .

[30]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[31]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  Mark J. Zbaracki The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management , 1998 .

[33]  M. Ventresca,et al.  Archival Research Methods , 2002 .

[34]  H. Rao The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912 , 1994 .

[35]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[36]  E. Laumann,et al.  An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation: A Comparative Study of Energy and Health Domains , 1985 .

[37]  Greta Hsu Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry , 2006 .

[38]  A. Hoffman,et al.  The Institutional Framing of Policy Debates , 1999 .

[39]  Patricia H. Thornton,et al.  Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958– 19901 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[40]  G Kolata,et al.  How can computers get common sense? , 1982, Science.

[41]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[42]  R. Friedland Bringing Society Back In : Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions , 1991 .

[43]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[44]  Kenneth Wm. Kury,et al.  Institutional Logics and Institutional Change in Organizations: Transformation in Accounting, Architecture, and Publishing , 2005 .

[45]  A. Stinchcombe Social Structure and Organizations , 2000, Political Organizations.

[46]  Michael R. Williams,et al.  A history of computing technology , 1985 .

[47]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[48]  Steven C. Currall,et al.  What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? , 2006, Nature nanotechnology.

[49]  M. Lounsbury Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy and the Acquisition of Resources , 2001 .

[50]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  Focusing the Corporate Product: Securities Analysts and De-diversification , 2000 .

[51]  K. Weick Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[52]  R. Smalley Of chemistry, love and nanobots. , 2001, Scientific American.

[53]  Richard A. L. Jones,et al.  The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[54]  Stephen R. Barley,et al.  The emergence of a new commercial actor: community managed software projects , 2002 .

[55]  G. Carroll,et al.  Density Dependence in the Evolution of Populations of Newspaper Organizations , 1989 .

[56]  R A Brooks,et al.  New Approaches to Robotics , 1991, Science.

[57]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[58]  J. T. Ramey The Promise of Nuclear Energy , 1973 .

[59]  R. Westrum The Social Construction of Technological Systems , 1989 .

[60]  Charles D. Elder,et al.  Popularizing Biotechnology: The Influence of Issue Definition , 1991 .

[61]  G. Carroll,et al.  Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[62]  David R. Maines,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning , 2000 .

[63]  Umberto Eco,et al.  A theory of semiotics , 1976, Advances in semiotics.

[64]  Peggy M. Lee What's in a name.com?: The effects of ‘.com’ name changes on stock prices and trading activity , 2001 .

[65]  J. Bruner Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[66]  Paul M. Hirsch,et al.  Social Movements, Field Frames, and Industry Emergence: A Cultural-Political Perspective , 2003 .

[67]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[68]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[69]  J. Porac,et al.  Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market , 1999 .

[70]  Quy Nguyen Huy,et al.  How Entrepreneurs Use Symbolic Management to Acquire Resources , 2007 .

[71]  W. Tuttle The Birth of an Industry: The Synthetic Rubber “Mess” in World War II , 2023 .

[72]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[73]  S. Barley Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organizational Cultures. , 1983 .

[74]  J. Porac,et al.  Interorganizational Cognition and Interpretation , 2002 .

[75]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory methodology: An overview. , 1994 .

[76]  G. E. Markle,et al.  Biotechnology and the Social Reconstruction of Molecular Biology* , 1985 .

[77]  David M. Berube,et al.  Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz , 2005 .

[78]  A. Kumaraswamy,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE SPONSORSHIP OF COMMON TECHNOLOGICAL STANDARDS: THE CASE OF SUN MICROSYSTEMS AND JAVA * , 2002 .

[79]  Paul DiMaggio Classification in Art. , 1987 .

[80]  Michael T. Hannan,et al.  Special Issue: Frontiers of Organization Science, Part 2 of 2: Identities, Genres, and Organizational Forms , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[81]  M. Ruef,et al.  The Emergence of Organizational Forms: A Community Ecology Approach1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[82]  Rikki Abzug,et al.  Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names , 2002 .

[83]  Kevin C. Desouza,et al.  Race to Dot.Com and Back: Lessons on E-Business Spin-Offs and Reintegration , 2005, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[84]  Steven Klepper,et al.  The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry , 2002 .