1. bookVolume 46 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Scientific Events as Constitutive Characteristics of New Fields of Science and Research. The Example of the “Swiss NanoConvention”

Published Online: 20 Mar 2020
Page range: 117 - 144
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
16 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Scientific events are rarely discussed in the formation and development of new fields of science. Using the example of the Swiss NanoConvention, it will be shown to what extent a long series of events shapes the Swiss nanosciences and is shaped by them. The convention offers the opportunity to both, present and legitimize new forms of science and research to heterogeneous publics, and to consolidate internal structures of the field. The analysis thus provides insight into the contours of nanoscience.

Keywords

Baird, Davis und Ashley Shew. 2004. Probing the History of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. S. 145–156 in Discovering the Nanoscale, hrsg. von Davis Baird, Alfred Nordmann und Joachim Schummer. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baird, Davis, Alfred Nordmann und Joachim Schummer (Hrsg.). 2004. Discovering the Nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baus, Daniela. 2012. Heterogene Kultur? Eine Ethnographie multidisziplinärer Nanoforschung. Marbrug: Tectum.Search in Google Scholar

Biniok, Peter. 2013. Wissenschaft als Bricolage. Die soziale Konstruktion der Schweizer Nanowissenschaften. Bielefeld: transcript.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Adele E. 1991. Social Worlds/Arenas Theory as Organizational Theory. S. 119–158 in Social Organization and Social Process. Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss, hrsg. von David R. Maines. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Duschl, Albert und Gabriele Windgasse. 2018. A Survey on the State of Nanosafety Research in the European Union and the United States. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 20: 335.Search in Google Scholar

Dellwing, Michael und Robert Prus. 2012. Einführung in die Interaktionistische Ethnografie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Flick, Uwe. 2004. Triangulation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Garud, Raghu. 2008. Conferences as Venues for the Configuration of Emerging Organizational Fields: The Case of Cochlear Implants. Journal of Management Studies 45: 1061–1088.Search in Google Scholar

Gebhardt, Winfried, Ronald Hitzler und Michaela Pfadenhauer (Hrsg.). 2000. Events. Soziologie des Aussergewöhnlichen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1980. Rahmen-Analyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1983. Wir alle spielen Theater. Die Selbstdarstellung im Alltag. München: Piper.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 2009. Interaktion im öffentlichen Raum. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Search in Google Scholar

Haslinger, Julia. 2013. Nano­Governance durch Dialoge. NanoTrust-Dossier 38.Search in Google Scholar

Hine, Christine. 2007. Multi­Sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32: 652–671.Search in Google Scholar

Hitzler, Ronald und Stefan Hornbostel. 2014. Wissenschaftliche Tagungen – zwischen Disput und Event. S. 67–78 in Wissen – Methode – Geschlecht: Erfassen des fraglos Gegebenen, hrsg. von Cornelia Behnke, Diana Lengersdorf und Sylka Scholz. Wiesbaden: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Hitzler, Ronald, Anne Honer und Michaela Pfadenhauer, Michaela (Hrsg.). 2009. Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Hitzler, Roland, Babette Kirchner und Jessica Pahl. 2013. Event­Konzept. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 16: 143–158.Search in Google Scholar

Kaiser, Mario, Monika Kurath, Sabine Maasen und Christoph Rehmann­Sutter (Hrsg.). 2010. Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Kaiser, Mario, Christiane Hauser, Julia Haslinger und André Gazsó. 2014. Governing by Dialogue. S. 259–282 in Nano Risk Governance, hrsg. von André Dazsó und Julia Haslinger. Wien: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Kurath Monika und Mario Kaiser. 2010. Fragile Disziplinen: Identitäts­Diskurse und Transformation­sprozesse in den Nanowissenschaften und Nanotechnologien. S. 93–108 in Technologisierung gesellschaftlicher Zukünfte Nanotechnologien in wissenschaftlicher, politischer und öffentlicher Praxis, hrsg. Petra Lucht, Martina Erlemann und Esther Ruiz Ben. Herbolzheim: Centaurus Verlag & Media.Search in Google Scholar

Knorr­Cetina, Karin. 1995. How Superorganisms Change: Consensus Formation and the Social Ontology of High­Energy Physics Experiments. Social Studies of Science 25: 119–147.Search in Google Scholar

Krug, Harald F. 2014. Nanosicherheitsforschung – sind wir auf dem richtigen Weg? Angewandte Chemie 126: 12502–12518.Search in Google Scholar

Lampel, Joseph und Alan D. Meyer. 2008. Field­Configuring Events as Structuring Mechanisms: How Conferences, Ceremonies, and Trade Shows Constitute New Technologies, Industries, and Markets. Journal of Management Studies 45: 1025–1035.Search in Google Scholar

Leydesdorff, Loet und Ping Zhou. 2007. Nanotechnology as a Field of Science: Its Delineation in Terms of Journals and Patents. Scientometrics 70: 693–713.Search in Google Scholar

Lösch, Andreas. 2010. Konstitutionen der Nanotechnologie durch ihre Zukunftsbilder. S. 105–128 in Visionen der Nanotechnologie, hrsg. von Arianna Ferrari und Stefan Gammel. Heidelberg: AKA.Search in Google Scholar

Merz, Martina. 2010. Reinventing a Laboratory: Nanotechnology as a Resource for Organizational Change. S. 3–19 in Governing Future Technologies. Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, hrsg. von Mario Kaiser, Monika Kurath, Sabine Maasen und Christoph Rehmann­Sutter. Dordrecht u.a.: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Merz, Martina und Peter Biniok. 2010. Technological Platforms Between Academic Science and Industry: The Case of Micro­ and Nanotechnology. MINERVA 48: 105–124.Search in Google Scholar

Merz, Martina und Peter Biniok. 2015. The Local Articulation of Contextual Resources: From Metallic Glasses to Nanoscale Research. S. 99–116 in The Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity, hrsg. von Martina Merz und Philippe Sormani. Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Martin. 2007. What do We Know About Innovation in Nanotechnology? Some Propositions About an Emerging Field Between Hype and Path­dependency. Scientometrics 70(3): 779–810.Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Uli, Cornelius Schubert und Arnold Windeler. 2018. Creating Collective Futures: How Road­maps and Conferences Reconfigure the Institutional Field of Semiconductor Manufacturing. S. 253–276 in How Organizations Manage the Future, hrsg. von Krämer, Hannes und Matthias Wenzel. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Mody, Cyrus C. M. 2004. How Probe Microscopists Became Nanotechnologists. S. 119–133 in Discovering the Nanoscale, hrsg. von Davis Baird, Alfred Nordmann und Joachim Schummer. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nadai, Eva und Christoph Maeder. 2005. Fuzzy Fields. Multi­Sited Ethnography in Sociological Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 6(3): 1–13.Search in Google Scholar

Nowotny, Helga und Ulrike Felt. 1997. After the Breakthrough. The Emergence of High-Temperature Superconductivity as a Research Field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Parry, Sarah, Wendy Faulkner, Sarah Cunningham­Burley und Nicola J. Marks. 2012. Heterogeneous Agendas around Public Engagement in Stem Cell Research: The Case for Maintaining Plasticity. Science & Technology Studies 25(2): 61–80.Search in Google Scholar

Pfadenhauer, Michaela. 2008. Organisieren. Eine Fallstudie zum Erhandeln von Events. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, Bernadette. 2009. Festivals, Events and Tourism. S. 483–503 in The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies, hrsg. von Tazim Jamal und Mike Robinson. Los Angeles: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Rao, Hayagreeva. 2001. The Power of Public Competition: Promoting Cognitive Legitimacy Through Certification Contests. S. 262–285 in The Entrepreneurship Dynamic, hrsg. von Claudia B. Schoonhoven und Elaine Romanelli. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Raab, Jürgen. 2008. Erving Goffman. Konstanz: UVK.Search in Google Scholar

Rip, Arie und Jan­Peter Voß. 2013. Umbrella Terms as Mediators in the Governance of Emerging Science and Technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9: 39–59.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Douglas, Arie Rip und Aurélie Delemarle. 2016. Nanodistricts: Between Global Nano­technology Promises and Local Cluster Dynamics. S. 117–133 in The Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity, hrsg. von Martina Merz und Philippe Sormani. Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Rowe, Gene und Lynn J. Frewer. 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanism. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30: 251–290.Search in Google Scholar

Rüling, Charles­Clemens. 2009. Festivals as Field Configuring Events: The Annecy International Animated Film Festival and Market. S. 49–66 in Film Festival Yearbook 1: The Festival Circuit, hrsg. von Dina Iordanova und Ragan Rhyne. St Andrews: St Andrews Film Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Saikkonen, Sampsa und Esa Väliverronen. 2014. Framing Engagement: Expert­Youth Interaction in a PES Event. Journal of Science Communication 13(2): 1–19.Search in Google Scholar

Schaper­Rinkel, Petra. 2010. Nanotechnologiepolitik: The Discursive Making of Nanotechnology. S. 39–53 in Technologisierung gesellschaftlicher Zukünfte. Nanotechnologien in wissenschaftlicher, politischer und öffentlicher Praxis, hrsg. von Petra Lucht, Martina Erlemann und Esther Ruiz Ben. Freiburg: Centaurus Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Scheffer, Thomas. 2007. Event and Process: An Exercise in Analytical Ethnography. Human Studies 30: 167–197.Search in Google Scholar

Schummer, Joachim. 2004. Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Patterns of Research Collaboration in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59: 425–465.Search in Google Scholar

Schummer, Joachim. 2009. Nanotechnologie – Spiele mit Grenzen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Schüssler, Elke, Gernot Grabher und Gordon Müller­Seitz. 2015. Field­Configuring Events: Arenas for Innovation and Learning? Industry and Innovation 22(3): 165–172.Search in Google Scholar

Selin, Cynthia. 2007. Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 23: 196–220.Search in Google Scholar

Stichweh, Rudolf. 1994. Wissenschaft, Universität, Profession: Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, Anselm L. 1993. Continual Permutations of Action. New York: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Strübing, Jörg. 2004. Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung des Verfahrens der empirisch begründeten Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Tipp, Anika. 2004. Nur ein Kongress? Über die soziale Praxis des 32. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in München. Soziale Welt 55(4): 425–436.Search in Google Scholar

Weingart, Peter. 1997. Interdisziplinarität – der paradoxe Diskurs. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 8: 521–529.Search in Google Scholar

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo