This article examines the characteristics of large-scale facilities and their increasing role in scientific activity, while sociologists, for some decades, have rather focused on texts and objects. As (partially) highlighted by the institutional definitions, there are five criteria that can be used to define large-scale facilities: their central role in scientific research, their size, rarity, their partially closed-off nature and the service activity they deliver. However, these institutional definitions, for political and financial reasons, tend to conflate facilities with scientific infrastructures and instruments. To distinguish between them leads us to open up avenues of analysis that have too often been neglected by researchers, such as input from the professions, concern for the territorial impact of facilities, analysis of temporalities and the outputs and outcomes of policy actions.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbbottA. (2001). Time matters: On theory and method. University of Chicago Press.
3.
AkrichM. (1993). Les objets techniques et leurs utilisateurs, de la conception à l’action. In ConeinB., DodierN., & ThévenotL. (Eds.), Les objets dans l’action: De la maison au laboratoire (pp. 35–57). Éditions de l’EHESS.
4.
BarryA. (2001). Political machines: Governing in a technological society. Athlone Press.
5.
BellivierF., & NoivilleC. (2009). Les biobanques. Presses Universitaires de France.
6.
BowkerG. C., & StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
7.
BrunssonN., & OlsenJ. P. (Eds.). (1993). The reforming organisation. Routledge.
8.
ButtonG., & SharrockW. (1998). The organizational accountability of technological work. Social Studies of Science, 28(1), 73–202.
9.
CahanD. (1989). An institute for an empire: The Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, 1871–1918. Cambridge University Press.
10.
ChampyF. (2012). La sociologie des professions. Presses Universitaires de France.
11.
ChristiansonJ. R. (2000). On Tycho’s island: Tycho Brahe and his, assistants (1570–1601). Cambridge University Press.
12.
DodierD., & StavrianakisA. (Eds.). (2018). Les objets composés. Agencements, dispositifs, assemblages. Editions de l’EHESS.
13.
ESFRI. (2006). European roadmap for research infrastructures: Roadmap 2006. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/esfri_roadmap_2006_en.pdf
14.
ESFRI. (2008). European roadmap for research infrastructures: Roadmap 2008. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/esfri_roadmap_update_2008.pdf
15.
ESFRI. (2011). Strategy report on research infrastructures: Roadmap 2010. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/20160309_ROADMAP_browsable.pdf
16.
FerretS. (1996). Le bateau de Thésée: Le problème de l’identité à travers le temps. Éditions de Minuit.
17.
GalisonP. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.
18.
GalisonP. (2001). Ainsi s’achèvent les expériences: La place des expériences dans la physique du XXe siècle. La Découverte.
19.
GalisonP., & HevlyB. (Eds.). (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford University Press.
20.
GierynT. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31(1), 35–74.
21.
GierynT. (2006). City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 5–38.
22.
GingrasY. (2001). What did mathematics do to physics?History of Science, 39(4), 283–316.
23.
GrossettiM. (2001). Genèse de deux systèmes urbains d’innovation en France: Grenoble et Toulouse. Annales des Mines: Réalités industrielles, 68–72.
24.
GrossettiM. (2004). Sociologie de l’imprévisible: Dynamiques de l’activité et des formes sociales. Presses Universitaires de France.
25.
HahnR. (1993). L’anatomie d’une institution scientifique: L’Académie des sciences de Paris, 1666–1803. Éditions des Archives Contemporaines.
26.
HallonstenO., & HeinzeT. (2013). From particle physics to photon science: Multi-dimensional and multi-level renewal at DESY and SLAC. Science and Public Policy, 40(5), 591–603.
27.
HannawayO. (1986). Laboratory design and the aim of science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe. Isis, 77(4), 584–610.
28.
HuberF. (2012). Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in information technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 107–126.
29.
JacobM., & HallonstenO. (2012). The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 411–415.
30.
JervisR. (1999). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton University Press.
31.
JoergesB., & ShinnT. (Eds.). (2001). Instrumentation between science, state and industry. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32.
Knorr CetinaK. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon Press.
33.
Knorr CetinaK. (1995). How superorganisms change: Consensus formation and the social ontology. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 119–147.
34.
Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
35.
KojevnikovA. (2002). The Great War, the Russian Civil War, and the invention of big science. Science in Context, 15(2), 239–275.
36.
KuhnT. S. (2002). La structure des révolutions scientifiques. Flammarion.
37.
LamyE. (2008). Les limites de la proximité spatiale dans l’essaimage académique. Géographie, économie, société, 10, 9–27.
38.
LamyJ. (2007). L’observatoire de Toulouse aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles: Archéologie d’un espace savant. Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
39.
LamyJ. (2011a). What management do to space projects? The Franco-Soviet project ARCAD 3 in the late 1970s. Science in Context, 24(4), 545–588.
40.
LamyJ. (2011b). Grandeur scientifique et politiques de l’espace: La création et le transfert du CNRS (1958–1974). Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 58(1), 156–177.
41.
LamyJ. (2018). Faire de la sociologie historique des sciences et des techniques. Hermann.
42.
LamyJ., & DavoustE. (2009). General-purpose and dedicated regimes in the use of large telescopes of the 20th century. Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 12(3), 189–200.
43.
LatourB. (1999). Politiques de la nature: Comment faire entrer les sciences dans la démocratie. La Découverte.
44.
LatourB. (2006). Changer de société: Refaire de la sociologie. La Découverte.
45.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1988). La vie de laboratoire: La production des faits scientifiques. La Découverte.
46.
LevittB., & MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
47.
LongP. O. (2001). Openness, secrecy, authorship: Technical arts and the culture of knowledge from antiquity to the Renaissance. Johns Hopkins University Press.
48.
LynchM. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
49.
MangematinV., & PeerbayeA. (2004). Les grands équipements en sciences de la vie: Quelle politique publique?Revue française d’administration publique, 112(4), 705–718.
50.
McClellanJ. E. (1985). Science reorganized: Scientific societies in the eighteenth century. Columbia University Press.
51.
McCrayW. P. (2000). Large telescopes and the moral economy of recent astronomy. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 684–711.
52.
McCurdyH. (1993). Inside NASA: High technology and organizational change in the U.S. space program. Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
MelotM. (2007). La bibliothèque multimédia contemporaine. In JacobC. (Ed.), Les lieux de savoir: Espaces et communautés (pp. 637–653). Albin Michel.
54.
MersitsU. (1987). From cosmic-ray and nuclear physics to high-energy physics. In HermannA., KrigeJ., MersitsU., & PestreD. (Eds.), History of CERN, Vol. 1: Launching the European Organization for Nuclear Research (pp. 3–60). North Holland.
55.
MertonR. K. (1938). Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris, 4, 360–632.
56.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
57.
ModyC. M. (2011). Instrumental community: Probe microscope and the path to nanotechnology. MIT Press.
58.
ParadeiseC., PeerbayeA., AggeriF., BranciardA., & Le MassonP. (2007). Technological platforms in the life sciences: Public policies, organizations and performance. Revue d’économie industrielle, 120, i-xxv.
59.
PatelP., & PavittK. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.
60.
PhiloC. (2004). A geographical history of institutional provision for the insane from medieval times to the 1860s in England and Wales: The space reserved for insanity. Edwin Mellen Press.
61.
RasmussenN. (1997). Picture control: The electron microscope and the transformation of biology in America. Stanford University Press.
62.
RemingtonJ. A. (1988). Beyond big science in America: The binding of inquiry. Social Studies of Science, 28(1), 45–72.
63.
RocheD. (1989). Le siècle des Lumières en province: Académies et académiciens provinciaux, 1689–1789. Mouton.
64.
SchafferS. (1989). Glass works: Newton’s prisms and the uses of experiment. In GoodingD., PinchT., & SchafferS. (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 67–104). Cambridge University Press.
65.
SchafferS. (1992). Late Victorian metrology and its instrumentation: A manufactory of ohms. In BudR. & CozzensS. (Eds.), Invisible connections: Instruments, institutions and science (pp. 23–56). SPIE Optical Engineering Press.
66.
ShackelfordJ. (1993). Tycho Brahe, laboratory design, and the aim of science: Reading plans in context. Isis, 84(2), 211–230.
67.
ShapinS. (1988). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. Isis, 79(3), 373–404.
68.
ShapinS. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77(6), 554–563.
69.
ShapinS., & SchafferS. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton University Press.
70.
ShinnT. (1980). Division du savoir et spécificité organisationnelle: Les laboratoires de recherche industrielle en France. Revue française de sociologie, 21(1), 3–35.
71.
ShinnT. (1993). The Bellevue Grand électro-aimant, 1900–1940: Birth of a research-technology community. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 24(1), 157–187.
72.
ShinnT. (1995). Genèse d’une nouvelle communauté de recherche: Aimé Cotton et le grand électroaimant de Bellevue. Bulletin de la Société Française de Physique, 98, 19–21.
73.
ShinnT. (2000). Formes de division du travail scientifique et convergence intellectuelle: La recherche technico-instrumentale. Revue française de sociologie, 41(3), 447–473.
74.
ShinnT. (2008). Research-technology and cultural change: Instrumentation, genericity, transversality. Bardwell Press.
75.
ShinnT., & LamyE. (2006). Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university–enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35(10), 1465–1476.
76.
SimoulinV. (2007). Une communauté instrumentale divisée… et réunie par son instrument. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 1(2), 221–241.
77.
SimoulinV. (2012). Sociologie d’un grand équipement scientifique: Le premier synchrotron de troisième génération. ENS Éditions.
78.
SimoulinV. (2016). The synchrotron generations: Communities and facilities at the crossroads between the national and the international. Revue française de sociologie, 57(3), 340–361.
79.
SimoulinV. (2017). An instrument can hide many others: Or how multiple instruments grow into a polymorphic instrumentation. Social Science Information, 56(3), 416–433.
80.
SparyE. C. (2000). Utopia’s garden: French natural history from Old Regime to Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
81.
StinchcombeA. L. (2001). When formality works: Authority and abstraction in law and organizations. University of Chicago Press.
82.
StrasserB. J. (2002). Totems de laboratoires, microscopes électroniques et réseaux scientifiques: L’émergence de la biologie moléculaire à Genève (1945–1960). Revue d’histoire des sciences, 55(1), 5–44.
83.
ToppL., MoranJ., & AndrewsJ. (Eds.). (2007). Madness, architecture and the built environment: Psychiatric space in historical context. Routledge.
84.
TraweekS. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press.
85.
VelhoL., & PessoaO. (1998). The decision-making process in the construction of the synchrotron light national laboratory in Brazil. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 195–219.
86.
WhitleyR. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford University Press.
87.
WoolgarS. (1982). Laboratory studies: A comment on the state of the art. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 481–498.
88.
ZabuskyS. (1995). Launching Europe: An ethnography of European cooperation in space science. Princeton University Press.
