To investigate how participants shape a field’s social and symbolic boundaries over time, I conducted an in-depth longitudinal study of five core and peripheral communities in the emerging nanotechnology field from the early 1980s to 2005. I show that core communities—futurists and government officials—initially expanded both social and symbolic boundaries to increase the field’s monetary and cultural resources, yet later they reversed course and contracted the field’s boundaries. I explain this shift by showing how an increase in resources enticed peripheral communities (service providers, entrepreneurs, and scientists) to claim membership in the field. Such claims created a self-reinforcing cycle—some peripheral communities enlarged the symbolic boundary of the field to grow the field, but this social and symbolic expansion threatened the identity of core communities and their ability to access resources. Core communities thus attempted to restrict the symbolic boundary and use this narrow definition to police membership claims by peripheral communities aiming to access the field’s resources. I develop a theoretical model of how debate over a field’s identity and resources shapes its social and symbolic boundaries. I show how different communities strategically manipulate field boundaries depending on their identification with the field. Core communities seek to keep the social and the symbolic boundaries aligned, while peripheral communities that identify only weakly with the field pursue their self-interested actions irrespective of whether these actions misalign the social and symbolic boundaries.
AldrichH. E.FiolM.1994 “Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry construction.” Academy of Management Review, 19: 645–670.
3.
AntebyM.2010 “Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 606–638.
4.
BergP.BaltimoreD.BrennerS.RoblinR. O.IIISingerM. R.1975 “Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72: 1981–1984.
5.
CarlileP. R.2002 “A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development.” Organization Science, 13: 442–455.
6.
CattaniG.FerrianiS.AllisonP. D.2014 “Insiders, outsiders, and the struggle for consecration in cultural fields: A core–periphery perspective.” American Sociological Review, 79: 258–281.
7.
ClintonW. J.2000 “President Clinton’s address to Caltech on science and technology.” White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Los Angeles, CA, Jan. 21.
8.
CraneD.1969 “Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the ‘invisible college’ hypothesis.” American Sociological Review, 34: 335–352.
9.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W.1983 “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.
10.
DrexlerE. K.1986Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor.
11.
DrexlerE. K.2004 “Nanotechnology: From Feynman to funding.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24: 21–24.
12.
DrexlerE. K.PetersonC.PergamitG.1991Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution. New York: Quill.
13.
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M.HarquailC. V.1994 “Organizational images and member identification.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.
14.
FerraroF.O’MahonyS.2012 “Managing the boundary of an open project.” In PowellW. W.PadgettJ. F. (eds.), Market Emergence and Transformation: 545–565. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
GarudR.2008 “Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: The case of cochlear implants.” Journal of Management Studies, 45: 1061–1088.
17.
GierynT. F.1983 “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.” American Sociological Review, 48: 781–795.
18.
GlynnM. A.2008 “Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities.” In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 413–430. London: Sage.
19.
GlynnM. A.AbzugR.2002 “Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names.” Academy of Management Journal, 45: 267–280.
20.
GlynnM. A.MarquisC.2004 “When good names go bad: Symbolic illegitimacy in organizations.” In JohnsonC. (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 22: Legitimacy Processes in Organizations: 147–170. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
21.
GranqvistN.GrodalS.WoolleyJ.2013 “Hedging your bets: Explaining executives’ market labeling strategies in nanotechnology.” Organization Science, 24: 395–413.
22.
GranqvistN.LaurilaJ.2011 “Rage against self-replicating machines: Framing science and fiction in the U.S. nanotechnology field.” Organization Studies, 32: 253–280.
23.
HannanM. T.PólosL.CarrollG. R.2007Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes and Ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
HoffmanA. J.1999 “Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry.” Academy of Management Journal, 42: 351–371.
26.
HolmP.1995 “The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 398–422.
27.
Howard-GrenvilleJ.NelsonA. J.EarleA. G.HaackJ. A.YoungD. M.2017 “‘If chemists don’t do it, who is going to?’ Peer-driven occupational change and the emergence of green chemistry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 524–560.
JonesC.MaoretM.MassaF. G.SvejenovaS.2012 “Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category ‘modern architecture,’ 1970–1975.” Organization Science, 23: 1523–1545.
30.
KaplanS.RadinJ.2011 “Bounding an emerging technology: Para-scientific media and the Drexler–Smalley debate about nanotechnology.” Social Studies of Science, 41: 457–485.
31.
KennedyM. T.2008 “Getting counted: Markets, media and reality.” American Sociological Review, 73: 270–295.
32.
KennedyM. T.LoJ.LounsburyM.2010 “Category currency: The changing value of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction.” In HsuG.NegroG.KoçakÖ. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations,vol. 31: Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution: 369–397. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
33.
KimE.-H.LyonT. P.2015 “Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure.” Organization Science, 26: 705–723.
34.
LamontM.1992Money, Morals, and Manners. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
LamontM.2012 “Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology, 38: 201–221.
36.
LamontM.MolnarV.2002 “The study of boundaries in the social sciences”. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 167–195.
37.
LangleyA.1999 “Strategies for theorizing from process data.” Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.
38.
LaveJ.WengerE.1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LawrenceT. B.1999 “Institutional strategies.” Journal of Management, 24: 161–188.
40.
LawrenceT. B.2004 “Rituals and resistance: Membership dynamics in professional fields.” Human Relations, 57: 115–143.
41.
LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR.2006 “Institutions and institutional work.” In CleggR.HardyC.LawrenceT. B.NordW. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2d ed.: 215–254. London: Sage.
42.
LeeP. M.2001 “What’s in a name.com? The effects of ‘.com’ name changes on stock prices and trading activity.” Strategic Management Journal, 22: 793–804.
43.
LeonardiP. M.BarleyS. R.2010 “What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing.” Academy of Management Annals, 4: 1–51.
44.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. A.2001 “Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources.” Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545–563.
45.
LounsburyM.VentrescaM.HirschP. M.2003 “Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural–political perspective on U.S. recycling.” Socio-Economic Review, 1: 71–104.
46.
MaguireS.HardyC.LawrenceT. B.2004 “Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada.” Academy of Management Journal, 47: 657–679.
47.
MarquisC.LounsburyM.GreenwoodR.2011 “Community as an institutional order and a type of organizing.” In MarquisC.LounsburyM.GreenwoodR. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 33: ix–xxvii. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
48.
MurphyG.2004The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
National Science and Technology Council2000National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.
50.
NavisC.GlynnM. A.2010 “How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 439–471.
51.
PontikesE. G.2012 “Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 81–118.
52.
PontikesE. G.KimR.2017 “Strategic categorization.” In DurandR.GranqvistN.TyllströmA. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 51: From Categories to Categorization: Studies in Sociology, Organizations, and Strategy at the Crossroads: 71–111. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
53.
PowellW. W.KoputK.Smith-DoerrL.1996 “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116–145.
54.
PowellW. W.SandholtzK.2012 “Chance, nécessité, et naïveté.” In PadgettJ. F.PowellW. W. (eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets: 379–433. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
PriceD. D. S.1963Big Science, Little Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
56.
RaoH.MoninP.DurandR.2005 “Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy.” American Sociological Review, 70: 968–991.
57.
RocoM. C.WilliamsR. S.AlivisatosP.2000Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report: Vision for Nanotechnology in the Next Decade. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
58.
RosaJ. A.PoracJ. R.Runser-SpanjolJ.SaxonM. S.1999 “Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market.” Journal of Marketing, 63: 64–77.
59.
RuefM.PattersonK.2009 “Credit and classification: The impact of industry boundaries in nineteenth-century America.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 486–520.
60.
SantosF. M.EisenhardtK.2009 “Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: A model of entrepreneurial action in nascent fields.” Academy of Management Journal, 52: 643–671.
61.
ScottW. R.2000Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
ScottW. R.RuefM.MendelP.CaronnaC. A.2000Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
SeoM.-G.CreedW. E. D.2002 “Institutional contradictions, praxis and institutional change: A dialectical perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247.
64.
SpradleyJ.1979The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
65.
StraussA.CorbinJ.1990Basics of Qualitative Research, vol. 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
StraussA.CorbinJ.1994 “Grounded theory methodology—An overview.” In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 273–285. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
SuchmanM. C.1995 “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.” Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.
68.
VentrescaM. J.MohrJ. W.2002 “Archival research methods.” In BaumJ. A. C. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations: 805–828. Oxford: Blackwell.
69.
WeberK.HeinzeK.DeSouceyM.2008 “Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 529–567.
70.
WengerE.1998Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WhiteH. C.1992Identity and Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72.
WilliamsR. H.1995 “Constructing the public good: Social movements and cultural resources.” Social Problems, 42: 124–144.
73.
WindsorD.2006 “Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches.” Journal of Management Studies, 43: 93–114.
74.
WryT.GreenwoodR.JenningsP. D.LounsburyM.2010 “Institutional sources of technological knowledge: A community perspective on nanotechnology emergence.” In PhillipsN.SewellG.GriffithsD. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 29: Technology and Organization: Essays in Honour of Joan Woodward: 149–176. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
WryT.LounsburyM.JenningsP. D.2014 “Hybrid vigor: Securing venture capital by spanning categories in nanotechnology.” Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1309–1333.
77.
ZbarackiM. J.1998 “The rhetoric and reality of total quality management.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 602–636.
78.
ZhaoE. Y.IshiharaM.LounsburyM.2013 “Overcoming the illegitimacy discount: Cultural entrepreneurship in the US feature film industry.” Organization Studies, 34: 1747–1776.
79.
ZietsmaC.LawrenceT. B.2010 “Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 189–221.
80.
ZilberT. B.2006 “The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli high tech.” Academy of Management Journal, 49: 281–303.
81.
ZilberT. B.2012 “Institutional multiplicity in practice: A tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel.” Organization Science, 22: 1539–1559.
82.
ZottC.HuyQ. N.2007 “How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 70–105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
