Research in the sociology of science has increasingly begun to acknowledge the role that external influences play in shaping the boundaries and content of science. However, a scarce understanding still prevails with regard to the role of peripheral, popular movements in the emergence of scientific fields, and of professional fields in general.Through their attention to boundary work, scientific fields also provide a fruitful yet neglected context to study how actors engage in efforts to alter frames in order to adjust and negotiate community boundaries. This qualitative study of the emergence of the US nanotechnology field from 1986 to 2005 makes several contributions to knowledge about these issues. First, our study shows that peripheral, popular movements open up avenues for scientific fields by generating understanding and receptivity for novel ideas through story-telling, which gives rise to their cultural embeddedness. Second, we find that by capitalizing on such culturally embedded concepts, scientists make science particularly vulnerable to external interventions, limiting the effect of boundary work. Third, the study shows how usually persistent hierarchies between communities are tested, challenged, and reproduced in an emerging professional field. The study therefore provides understanding on how actors in the key communities are able to use framing to negotiate their positions and community boundaries within a complex, emergent field.
Abbott, A. ( 1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Abrahamson, E., & Eisenman, M. ( 2008). Employee-management techniques: Transient fads or trending fashions? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (4), 719-744.
3.
Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. ( 1994). Fools rush in? The Institutional context of industry construction. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645-670.
4.
Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. ( 2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
5.
Boxer, M.J. ( 1998). When women ask the questions: Creating women’s studies in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
Burri, R.V. ( 2008). Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Social Studies of Science, 38 (1), 35-62.
7.
Butler, R. ( 1997). Stories and experiments in social inquiry. Organization Studies, 18 (6), 927-948.
8.
Choi, H., & Mody, C. ( 2009).The long history of molecular electronics: Microelectronic origins of nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science, 39 (1), 11-50.
9.
Collins, H.M. ( 2000). Surviving closure: Post-rejection adaptation and plurality in science. American Sociological Review, 65 (6), 824-845.
10.
Crandall, B. C., & Lewis, J. (Eds.) (1992). Nanotechnology: Research and perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
David, R., & Strang, D. ( 2006). When fashion is fleeting: Transitory collective beliefs and the dynamics of TQM consulting. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2), 215-233.
12.
Drexler, K.E. ( 1981), Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 78 (9), 5275-5278.
13.
Drexler, K.E. ( 1992). Nanosystems: Molecular machines, manufacturing and computation . New York: Wiley Interscience.
14.
Drexler, K.E., Peterson, C., & Pergamit, G. ( 1991). Unbounding the future: The Nanotechnology Revolution . New York: Quill.
15.
Epstein, S. ( 1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
16.
Fischer, E., Selin,C. , & Wetmore, J. (Eds.) ( 2008). The yearbook on nanotechnology in society, Volume I: Presenting futures. Springer Science +Business Media.
17.
Frickel, S. ( 2004). Building an interdiscipline: Collective action framing and the rise of genetic toxicology. Social Problems, 51 (2), 269-287.
18.
Frickel, S., & Gross, N. ( 2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements . American Sociological Review, 70 (April), 204-232.
19.
Gamson, W.A., & Meyer, D.S. ( 1996). The framing of political opportunity. In J. McCarthy, D. McAdam , & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275-290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Gaziano, E. ( 1996). Ecological metaphors as scientific boundary work: Innovation and authority in interwar sociology and biology. The American Journal of Sociology, 101 (4), 874-907.
21.
Gieryn, T.F. ( 1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781-795.
22.
Gieryn, T.F., Bevins, G.M., & Zehr, S.C. ( 1985). Professionalization of American scientists: Public science in the creation/evolution trials. American Sociological Review , 50 (3), 392-409.
23.
Gill, J., & Whittle, S. ( 1992). Management by panacea: Accounting for transience. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (2), 281-295.
24.
Goffman, E. ( 1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience . New York: Harper Colophon.
25.
Heinze, T. ( 2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: Analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1 (4), 427-447.
26.
Hutter, B.M. ( 2001). Regulation and risk: Occupational health and safety on the railways. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Hänninen, H., & Laurila, J. ( 2008). Risk regulation in the Baltic Sea ferry traffic: The successive failures of bow visor technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33 (6), 683-706.
28.
Jackson, B. ( 2001). Management gurus and management fashions: A dramatistic inquiry. London: Routledge.
29.
Jacobs, J.A., & Frickel, S. ( 2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43-65.
30.
Jasanoff, S. ( 1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
31.
Kaplan, S. ( 2008). Framing contests: Making strategy under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19 (5), 729-752.
32.
Kaplan, S., & Murray, F. ( 2010). Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology . Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29, 107-147.
33.
Kinchy, A.J., & Kleinmann, D.L. (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics . Social Studies of Science, 33 (6), 869-896.
34.
Kirby, D.A. ( 2003). Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 33 (2), 231-268.
35.
Kline, R. ( 2009). Where are cyborgs in cybernetics?Social Studies of Science, 39 (3), 331-362.
36.
Krummenaker, M., & Lewis J. (Eds.) (1995). Prospects in nanotechnology: Toward molecular manufacturing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
37.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. ( 2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545-564.
38.
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P.M. ( 2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104.
39.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/ AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5), 657-679.
40.
Mellor, F. ( 2003). Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4), 509-538.
41.
Mellor, F. ( 2007). Colliding worlds: Asteroid research and the legitimation of war in space. Social Studies of Science, 37 (4), 499-531.
42.
Mody, C.M. ( 2004a). How probe microscopists became nanotechnologists. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 119-233). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
43.
Mody, C.M. ( 2004b). Small, but determined: Technological determinism in nanoscience. HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10 (2), 101-130.
44.
Mody, C.M. ( 2006). Corporations, universities and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981-1996. Technology and Culture, 47, 56-80.
45.
Mody, C.M. ( 2008). The larger world of nano. Physics Today, October, 38-44.
46.
Moore, K. ( 1996). Organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest organizations, 1955-1975. The American Journal of Sociology, 101 (6), 1592-1627.
47.
Numagami, T. ( 1998). The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: A reflective dialogue in defence of case studies. Organization Science, 9 (1), 2-15.
48.
Oreskes, N. ( 2003). A context of motivation: US Navy Oceanographic research and the discovery of sea-floor hydrothermal vents. Social Studies of Science, 33 (5), 697-742.
49.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., & Hardy, C. ( 2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 635-652.
50.
Poole, R.W. Jr., & Butler, V. ( 1999) Airline deregulation: The unfinished revolution. Regulation, 22 (1), 44-51.
51.
President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC.
52.
Ramsden, E. ( 2002). Carving up population science: Eugenics, demography and the controversy over the ‘biological law’ of population growth . Social Studies of Science, 32 (5-6), 857-899.
53.
Rao, H. ( 1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of non-profit consumer watchdog organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 912-961.
54.
Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M.N. ( 2000) Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 239-282.
55.
Ritvala, T., & Granqvist, N. ( 2009). Institutional entrepreneurs and local embedding of global scientific ideas: The case of preventing heart disease in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (2), 133-145.
56.
Roco, M. ( 2007). National nanotechnology initiative: Past, present and future. In W. A. Goddard, III, D. W. Brenner, S. E. Lyshevski , & G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook on nanoscience, engineering and technology (pp. 3-25). London : Taylor & Francis.
57.
Rojas, F. ( 2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
58.
Scott, W.R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. ( 2000). Institutional change and organizations: Transformation of a health care field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
Schurman, R. ( 2004). Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: Industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe . Social Problems, 51 (2), 243-268.
60.
Slayton, R. ( 2007). Discursive choices: Boycotting Star Wars between science and politics. Social Studies of Science, 37 (1), 27-66.
61.
Small, M.L. ( 1999). Departmental conditions and the emergence of new disciplines: Two cases in the legitimation of African-American Studies. Theory and Society, 28, 659-707.
62.
Snow, D.A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S.K., & Benford, R.D. ( 1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481.
63.
Stake, R.E. ( 2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64.
Stevenson, W.B., & Greenberg, D. ( 2000). Agency and social networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 651-678.
65.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. ( 2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 27-48.
66.
Toumey, C. ( 2005). Apostolic succession: Does nanotechnology descend from Richard Feynman’s 1959 talk? Engineering and Science , 68, 16-23.
67.
Toumey, C. ( 2007). The man who understood the Feynman machine. Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (1), 9-10.
68.
Toumey, C. ( 2008). Reading Feynman into nanotechnology: A text for a new science. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12 (3), 133-168.
69.
Washington, M. ( 2004). Field approaches to institutional change: The evolution of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Organization Studies, 25 (3), 393-414.
70.
Whittle, A. ( 2008). From flexibility to work-life balance: Exploring the changing discourses of management consultants. Organization , 15 (4), 513-534.
71.
Zbaracki, M. ( 1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management . Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (4), 719-744.
