Institutional sources of technological knowledge: a community perspective on nanotechnology emergence

Although the cottage industry of neoinstitutional research gained its momentum through a conceptual architecture that was centred on a bifurcation of technological/material forces and cultural dynamics, current research in this genre has begun to re-examine the utility of such distinctions. One of the downsides of such a conceptual distinction is that the institutional approach to technology is anachronistic, treating it as an exogenous force. Even though early work by Woodward and others usefully contributed to our understanding of organizations by highlighting how different technologies correlate with various organizational forms, recent scholarship has enhanced our more functional understanding of technology by highlighting processes of coevolution and structuration. In this chapter, we draw on such social constructionist developments in the study of technology to reanimate institutional analysis. More specifically, drawing on the case of the development of nanotube intellectual property, we focus on how technological knowledge production is embedded in community cultures. Our arguments and evidence suggest that there are distinctive community cultures around intensive versus extensive knowledge-generating patents, highlighting how an approach that appreciates the interactive dynamics of technology and culture can yield important insights into the institutional dynamics of technology development.

[1]  M. Feldman.  The Entrepreneurial Event Revisited: Firm Formation in a Regional Context , 2001 .

[2]  B. Maher,et al.  Research-doctorate programs in the United States: continuity and change , 1996 .

[3]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[4]  Cameron Lawrence,et al.  Institutions and Organizations (2nd ed.) , 2003 .

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

[6]  Larry Laudan,et al.  Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate , 1984 .

[7]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[8]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[9]  W. Scott,et al.  Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory , 2008 .

[10]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935 , 1983 .

[11]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology , 1987 .

[12]  S. Barley.  Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[13]  Andrew Hargadon,et al.  When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light , 2001 .

[14]  A. Markusen.  Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts* , 1996 .

[15]  Stephen B. Adams,et al.  Stanford and Silicon Valley: Lessons on Becoming a High-Tech Region , 2005 .

[16]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences , 1998 .

[17]  M. Zald,et al.  Organizational change : the political economy of the YMCA , 1971 .

[18]  W. Powell,et al.  The Knowledge Economy , 2004 .

[19]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[20]  S. Iijima.  Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon , 1991, Nature.

[21]  M. Lounsbury,et al.  Vive La Resistance: Competing Logics and the Consolidation of U.S. Community Banking , 2006 .

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

[23]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[24]  H. Rao,et al.  The Demography of Corporations and Industries , 1999 .

[25]  M. Glynn,et al.  Community Isomorphism and Corporate Social Action , 2007 .

[26]  Xueguang Zhou,et al.  Occupational Power, State Capacities, and the Diffusion of Licensing in the American States: 1890 to 1950 , 1993 .

[27]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[28]  AnnaLee Saxenian,et al.  Regional Networks and the Resurgence of Silicon Valley , 1990 .

[29]  Daniel Lee Kleinman,et al.  Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology , 2007 .

[30]  Joseph Galaskiewicz,et al.  An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the twin cities, 1979-81, 1987-89 , 1997 .

[31]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[32]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Discovering the nanoscale , 2004 .

[33]  M. Lounsbury,et al.  Ending the Family Quarrel , 1997 .

[34]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[35]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Patent Citations in a Novel Field of Technology — What Can They Tell about Interactions between Emerging Communities of Science and Technology? , 2000, Scientometrics.

[36]  W. Orlikowski.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[37]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[38]  N. Phillips,et al.  The Birth of the 'Kodak Moment': Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies , 2005 .

[39]  R. Martin,et al.  Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? , 2003 .

[40]  M. Storper.  The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy , 1997 .

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

[42]  Jennifer Washburn,et al.  The Kept University. , 2000 .

[43]  Bennett Harrison,et al.  Industrial Districts: Old Wine in New Bottles? , 1992 .

[44]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[45]  David L. Deephouse,et al.  Does Isomorphism Legitimate? , 1996 .

[46]  Teresa A. Sullivan,et al.  Sociology of Science , 1975 .

[47]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Interorganization Contagion in Corporate Philanthropy , 1991 .

[48]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[49]  T. Bresnahan,et al.  ‘Old Economy’ Inputs for ‘New Economy’ Outcomes: Cluster Formation in the New Silicon Valleys , 2001 .

[50]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science and the Diffusion of Knowledge , 2001 .

[51]  Robert J. Thomas,et al.  What machines can't do : politics and technology in the industrial enterprise , 1995 .

[52]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory , 1967 .

[53]  P. Swann,et al.  A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology , 1996 .

[54]  Pioneering With Taconite , 1964 .

[55]  R. Stine.  Graphical Interpretation of Variance Inflation Factors , 1995 .

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

[57]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[58]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[59]  Ivana Paniccia.  One, a Hundred, Thousands of Industrial Districts. Organizational Variety in Local Networks of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises , 1998 .

[60]  A. Cameron,et al.  Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests , 1986 .

[61]  James D. Westphal,et al.  Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption , 1997 .