IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v70y2007i3d10.1007_s11192-007-0312-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Meyer

    (University of Sussex
    K.U. Leuven
    Helsinki University of Technology)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:70:y:2007:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-0312-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-007-0312-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    3. Michael L. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2010. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 143-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Daniele Archibugi & Roberto Simonetti, 1998. "Objects and Subjects in Technological Interdependence. Towards a Framework to Monitor Innovation," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 295-309.
    5. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    6. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    8. Paul A. David, 2007. "Path Dependence, its Critics, and the Quest for ‘Historical Economics’," Chapters, in: Geoffrey M. Hodgson (ed.), The Evolution of Economic Institutions, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Crlstlano Antonelli, 1998. "The Dynamics Of Localized Technological Changes. The Interaction Between Factor Costs Inducement, Demand Pull And Schumpeterian Rivalry," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2-3), pages 97-120.
    10. Bart Van Looy & Edwin Zimmermann & Reinhilde Veugelers & Arnold Verbeek & Johanna Mello & Koenraad Debackere, 2003. "Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 355-367, July.
    11. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    12. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    13. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Grid Thoma, 2005. "Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance," LEM Papers Series 2005/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Dirk Libaers & Martin Meyer & Aldo Geuna, 2006. "The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 443-450, July.
    15. Bart Van Looy & Koenraad Debackere & Julie Callaert & Robert Tijssen & Thed van Leeuwen, 2006. "Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 295-310, February.
    16. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    17. Coombs, Rod & Hull, Richard, 1998. "'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 237-253, July.
    18. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kang, Inje & Yang, Jiseong & Lee, Wonjae & Seo, Eun-Yeong & Lee, Duk Hee, 2023. "Delineating development trends of nanotechnology in the semiconductor industry: Focusing on the relationship between science and technology by employing structural topic model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    3. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    4. Poh Kam Wong & Yuen Ping Ho & Casey K. Chan, 2007. "Internationalization and evolution of application areas of an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 715-737, March.
    5. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    6. Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie & Alan L. Porter, 2010. "The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 595-611, November.
    7. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    8. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    9. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 457-472, January.
    11. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    12. Roberto Patuelli & Andrea Vaona & Christoph Grimpe, 2010. "The German East‐West Divide In Knowledge Production: An Application To Nanomaterial Patenting," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(5), pages 568-582, December.
    13. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    14. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    15. Heinze, Thomas, 2006. "Emergence of nano S&T in Germany: network formation and company performance," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 7, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    16. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    17. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    18. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    19. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    20. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:70:y:2007:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-007-0312-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.