Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This contribution formulates a number of propositions about the emergence of novel nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N). Seeking to complement recent work that aims to define a research agenda and draws on general insights from the innovation literature, this paper aims to synthesize knowledge from innovation-related studies of the N&N field. More specifically, it is suggested that N&N is often misconstrued as either a field of technology or an area of (broadly) converging technologies while evidence to date suggests rather that N&N be considered a set of inter-related and overlapping about not necessarily merging technologies. The role of instrumentation in connecting the various N&N fields is underlined. Finally, the question is raised whether change in N&N tends to be incremental rather than discontinuous, being the result of technological path-dependencies and lock-ins in industry-typical search regimes that are only slowly giving way to more boundary-crossing activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonelli, C. (1998), The dynamics of localized technological changes. The interaction between factor costs inducement, demand-pull and Schumpeterian rivalry, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 6: 97–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D. (1998), Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Sussex.

  • Archibugi, D., Simonetti, R. (1998), Objects and subjects in technological interdependence. Towards a framework to monitor innovation, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5(3): 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Thoma, G. (2005), Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance, LEM Working Paper 2005-13.

  • Braun, T., Schubert, A., Zsindley, S. (1997), Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance, Scientometrics, 38: 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilcott, J., Jones, A., Mitchel, M. (2001), Applied Materials Science Nanotechnology: Commercial opportunity, London: Evolution Capital Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, R., Hull, R. (1998), ’Knowledge management practices’ and path-dependency in innovation, Research Policy, 27(3): 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G. (2003), Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper Series, #9825, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9825.

  • Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G. (2005), Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. NBER Working Paper Series, #11181, accessed at http://www.nber.org/papers/w11181.

  • David, P. A. (2000), Path dependence, its critics and the quest for “historical economics”, In: P. Garrouste, S. Ioannides (Eds), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available also at: http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/pathdep.pdavid.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982), Technical paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, 11(3): 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC (2003a), The Big Down: Atom Tech — Technologies Converging at the Atomic Scale. Winnipeg, Canada: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conentration [www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf].

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC (2003b), No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium — Size Matters! Occasional Paper Series 7(1) [www.etcgroup.org/documents/Occ.Paper_Nanosafety.pdf].

  • European Commission, European Workshop on Social and Economic Research on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, Brussels, 14–15 April 2004 [www.stage-research.net/STAGE/PAGES/Nano.html]

  • Fagerberg, J. (2005), ’Innovation: A Guide to the Literature’, In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelberg, H., Glimell, H. (2003), Bringing Visibility To the Invisible: Towards A Social Understanding of Nanotechnology. Avdelningen för teknik-och vetenskapsstudier, Göteborgs Universitet.

  • Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Du, Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., Debackere, K., Veugelers, R. (2003), Nanotechnology. Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U. Leuven, Steunpuntoos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S., Reiss, T., Schmoch, U. (1997), Statistical Analysis on the Distance Between Fields of Technology. Report submitted to the European Commission, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research, Karlsruhe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A., Meyer, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3): 507–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, B., Shinn, T. (Eds) (2001), Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuusi, O., Meyer, M. (2002), Technological generalizations and leitbilder — the anticipation of technological opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69: 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libaers, D., Meyer, M., Geuna, A. (2006), The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Forthcoming in Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4) 443–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, J. (2004), Bridging the gaps: science fiction in nanotechnology, Hyle, 10(2): 131–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, I. (1997) Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts’ Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-Areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malsch, I. (1999), Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific and organizational dynamics. Nanotechnology, 10(1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000), Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies. HUT-ISIB Working Paper Series, 2000/1, Helsinki University of Technology: Espoo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2001), Between Technology and Science: Exploring an Emerging Field: Knowledge Flows and Networking on the Nano-Scale. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Sussex University: Brighton, 406 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51(1) 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2005), Knowledge Integrators or Weak Links? An exploratory comparison patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Scientometrics, 68(3): 545–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2005a), Between Technology and Science. Universal Publishers: Boca Raton, Fl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006), Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 35(10): 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Kuusi, O. (2004), Nanotechnology — Generalizations in an interdisciplinary field of science and technology. Hyle, 10(2): 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Persson, O. (1998), Nanotechnology — interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2): 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., Olivastro, D. (1997), The increasing linkage between US technology and public science, Research Policy, 26: 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford UP.

  • Pavitt, K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6): 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O. (1994), The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1): 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., Cunningham, S. (no date), Whither nanotechnology? Foresight Update #4.

  • Price, D. de Solla (1984), The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. Research Policy, 13: 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M., Bainbridge, W. S. (2003), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1992), Scientific instrumentation and university research. Research Policy, 21(4): 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, London [www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm].

  • Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3): 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, C. M. (2005), Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(3): 185–200.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, T., Lamy, E. (2007), Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35(10) 1477–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (Ed.) (1998), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators — A Guide for Policy-Makers, IDEA Report 5.

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004), Science-technology connections and interactions. In: Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, pp. 695–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisnado, C. (2005), Techno-Systems of Innovation: The Case of German Nanotechnology. Thesis, SPRU, University of Sussex.

  • van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., Debackere, K. (2003), Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? Scientometrics, 57(3): 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R., van Leeuwen, T. (2006), Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains, Scientometrics, 66(2): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Jones, R., Geldart, A. (2003), The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTEC (1998), Nanostructure Science and Technology: R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevices, Baltimore: Loyola College [http://www.wtec.org].

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E. (2006), Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42(6): 1513–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Freeman Centre, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QE, UK

    Martin Meyer

  2. Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Martin Meyer

  3. Institute of Strategy and International Business, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland

    Martin Meyer

Authors
  1. Martin Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M. What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics 70, 779–810 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation