This study questions the erstwhile claim that the growth of scientific knowledge and successes of radical technological innovation are the consequence of cognitive and organizational differentiation, and that differentiation and integration are antithetic. It is shown that throughout the 20th century many radical technological innovations originated with and developed around generic instrumentation, the practitioners and artefacts of which are characterized by selective and intermittent boundary crossing between academia, industry, state technical and metrological services, the military, etc. However, this mobility is not to be confused with mode 2-like anti-differentiation between science and engineering and between academia and enterprise. The innovative feats of what are here labelled “research-technologies” derive from the capacity to reconcile differentiation and integration, and to secure the division of labour embedded in speciality domains, while simultaneously promoting transverse communication and interaction between actors located in multiple and heterogeneous environments and linked to diverse interests. Research-technologies breed a new constellation of intellectual and institutional transverse dynamics which selectively accommodate both stability and change.
Abbott, A. (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
2.
Abir-Am, P. (1993) “From Multidisciplinary Collaborations to Transnational Objectivity: International Space as Constitutive of Molecular Biology, 1930- 1970”, in E. Crawford , T. Shinn and S. Sverker (eds) Denationalizing Science. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, pp. 153-186. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .
3.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1998) “On the Macroscopic Effects of Major Technological Change”, in E. Helpman (ed.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, pp. 121-144. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
4.
Baird, D. (2004) Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
5.
Bechtel, W. (1993) “Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology” , Biology and Philosophy8(3): 277-299 .
6.
Ben-David, J. (1960) “Roles and Innovations in Medicine” , American Journal of Sociology65(6): 250-258 .
7.
Ben-David, J. (1991) Scientific Growth. Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
8.
Ben-David, J. and Collins, R. (1966) “Social Factors in the Origins of a New Science: The Case of Psychology” , American Sociological Review31(4): 451-465 .
9.
Bijke, W. (1997) Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnological Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
10.
Bijke, W. , Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. , eds (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
11.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1970) La reproduction: e systéléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris: Minuit.
12.
Bresnahan, T. and Trajtenberg, M. (1995) “General Purpose Technologies: Engines of Growth?” , Journal of Econometrics:83-108 .
13.
Brown, F.L. (1967) A Brief History of the Physics Department of the University of Virginia, 1922-1961. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press .
14.
Callon, M. (1986) “Elements pour une sociologie de la traduction: la domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pecheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc”, L’Année Sociologique 36: 169-208.
15.
Edge, D. and Mulkay, M. (1976) Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain. New York: Wiley Interscience .
16.
Elzen, B. (1986) “Two Ultracentrifuges: A Comparative Study of the Social Construction of Artefacts” , Social Studies of Science16(4): 621-662 .
17.
Forman, P. (1971) “Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment” , Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences3: 1-115 .
18.
Galison, P. (1997) Image and Logic: Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
19.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. and Trown, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Society. London: Sage .
20.
Helpman, E. , ed. (1998) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
21.
Helpman, E. and Trajtenberg, M. (1998a) “Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies”, in E. Helpman (ed.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, pp. 85-120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
22.
Helpman, E. and Trajtenberg, M. (1998b) “A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technology”, in E. Helpman (ed.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, pp. 55-84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
23.
Joerges, B. and Shinn, T. , eds (2001) Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .
24.
Johnston, S.F. (2001) “In Search of Space: Fourier Spectroscopy, 1950-1970”, in B. Joerges and T. Shinn (eds) Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry, pp. 121-141. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .
25.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
26.
Latour, B. (1989) La Science en action. Paris: La Decouverte.
27.
(2nd edn 1986, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .)
28.
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
29.
Merton, R.K. (1938) “Science and the Social Order” , Philosophy of Science5: 321-337 .
30.
Merton, R.K. (1942) “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order” , Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1: 115-126 .
31.
Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
32.
Mokyr, Joel (2002) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
33.
Nelson, R.R. and Rosenberg, N. (1994) “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry” , Research Policy23(3): 323-348 .
34.
Noble, D. (1977) America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. New York: A. Knopf .
35.
Nowotny, H. , Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press and Blackwell .
36.
Olesko, K.M. (1991) Physics as a Calling . Discipline and Practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
Rasmussen, N. (1997) Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 1940-1960. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
38.
Rasmussen, N. (1998) “Instruments, Scientists, Industrialists and the Specificity of Influence: The Case of RCA and Biological Electron Microscopy”, in J.P. Gaudilliere and I. Lowy (eds) The Invisible Industrialist: Manufactures and the Construction of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 173-208. London: Macmillan .
39.
Rosenberg, N. (1998) “Chemical Engineering as a General Purpose Technology”, in E. Helpman (ed.) General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, pp. 167-192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
40.
Shinn, T. (1993) “The Grand Bellevue Electroaimant, 1900-1940: Birth of a Research-Technology Community” , Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences24(1): 157-187 .
41.
Shinn, T. (2000) “Formes de division du travail scientifique et convergence intellectuelle”, Revue Française de Sociologie 41: 447-73.
42.
Shinn, T. (2001a) “The Research-Technology Matrix: German Origins, 1860-1900”, in B. Joerges and T. Shinn (eds) Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry, pp. 29-46. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .
43.
Shinn, T. (2001b) “Strange Cooperations: The U.S. Research Technology Perspective, 1900-1955”, in B. Joerges and T. Shinn (eds) Instrumentation between Science, State and Industry, pp. 69-95. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .
44.
Shinn, T. (2003) “General Purpose Technologies, Generic Instrumentation, Occupations and Institutions: In Search of Linkage Mechanisms” , paper presented at the Berlin Technical University Workshop entitled Innoversity, 18-20 September, Berlin.
45.
Shinn, T. and Joerges, B. (2002) “The Transverse Science and Technology Culture, Dynamics and Roles of Research-Technology” , Social Science Information41(2): 207-251 .
46.
Shinn, T. and Joerges, B. (2003) “Paradox oder Potential? Zur Dynamik Heterogener Kooperation”, in J. Glaser et al. (eds) Kooperation im Niemandsland. Neue Perspektiven auf Zusammenarbeit in Wissenschaft und Technik, pp. 77-101. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
47.
Shinn, T. and Ragouet, P. (2005) Dynamiques des sciences. Sociologie des activite scientifiques. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.
48.
Shishoni, D. (1970) “The Mobile Scientist in the American Instrument Industry” , Minerva8(1): 58-89 .
49.
Von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
