Núm. 39 (2013)
Artículos

The technological paradigm of Nanosciences and Technologies: a study of science-technology time and space relations

PDF
  • Ugo Finardi
Ugo Finardi
National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Economic Research on Firms and Growth
Biografía
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24275/ETYPUAM/NE/392013/Finardi
Publicado mayo 22, 2014
Aviso de derechos de autor/a

Resumen

One of the most relevant theoretical insights into the characteristics of technological change is Dosi’s technological paradigm. Dosi aims to overcome technology-push and demand-pull theories into a framework closer to facts. The present contribution is set in this framework, aiming to find some evidence, starting from an empirical analysis, of the characteristics of technological paradigms. The context is the ex ante and preindustrialization phase of a highly knowledge-intensive paradigm, that of nanotechnologies and nanosciences. The present work exploits an empirical analysis related to patent citations, with particular regard to citations of scientific journal articles. Both the time and the space dimensions are explored. Results – strict time and space relations between patenting and previous scientific production – confirm some characteristics of technological paradigms envisaged both by the original work and by subsequent literature.
PDF

Citas

  1. Avenel, E., Favier, A. V., Ma, S., Mangematin, V. and Rieu, C. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36(6), pp. 864-870.
  2. Bacchiocchi, E. and Montobbio, F. (2009). Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), pp. 169-181.
  3. Balzani, V. (2005). Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: A personal View of a Chemist. Small 1(3), pp. 278-283.
  4. Binnig, G. and Rohrer, H. (1986). Scanning tunnelling microscopy. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 30(4), pp. 355-369.
  5. Bonaccorsi, A. and Thoma, G. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy. 36(6), pp. 864-870.
  6. Bozeman, B., Laredo, P. and Mangematin, V. (2007). Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” s&t. Research Policy, 36(6), pp. 807-812.
  7. Breschi, S. and Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), pp. 14-26.
  8. Cimoli, M. and Dosi, G. (1995). Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development: an introductory roadmap, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5(3), 243-268.
  9. Coccia, M., Finardi, U. and Margon, D. (2011). Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), pp. 777-787.
  10. Criscuolo, P. and Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), pp. 1892-1908.
  11. Dasgupta, P. and David, Paul A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23(5), pp. 487-521.
  12. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11(3), pp. 147-162
  13. Feynman, R. P. (1960). There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science 23(Feb.), pp. 22-36.
  14. Finardi, U. (2011). Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics 89(1), pp. 37-50.
  15. Glänzel, W. and Meyer, Martin (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of “reverse” citation relations. Scientometrics 58(2), pp. 415-428.
  16. Hu, D., Chen, H., Huang, Z. and Roco, M. C. (2007). Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9(4), pp. 529-542.
  17. Huang, C., Notten, A. and Rasters, N. (2011). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), pp. 145-172.
  18. Hulmann, A. and Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), pp. 507-527.
  19. Iijima, S. (1991). Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354(6348), pp. 56-58.
  20. Islam, N. and Miyazaki, K. (2009). Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectory. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(1), pp. 128-140.
  21. Islam, N. and Miyazaki, K. (2010). An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains. Technovation, 30(4), pp. 229-237.
  22. Kroto, H. W., Heath, J. R., O’Brien, S. C., Curl, R. F. and Smalley, R. E. (1985). C60: Buckminsterfullerene. Nature, 318(6042), pp. 162-163.
  23. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), pp. 159-167.
  24. Leydesdorff, L. and Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), pp. 693-713.
  25. Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z. and Roco, M. C. (2007). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), pp. 337-352.
  26. Li, X., Lin, Y., Chen H. and Roco, M. C. (2007). Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of uspto, epo, and jpo patents (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(6), pp. 977-1002.
  27. Meyer, M. (2000a). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), pp. 409-434.
  28. Meyer, M. (2000 b). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), pp. 93-123.
  29. Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51(1), pp. 163-183.
  30. Nelson, R. R. (2008). Factors affecting the power of technological paradigms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17 (3), 485-497.
  31. nni (n.d.). Nanotechnology. [pdf] Avalaible at: www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nanotechnology_bigthingsfromatinyworld-print.pdf. Accessed May 2013.
  32. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. and Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), pp. 715-728.
  33. Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the Knowledge Transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), pp 193-211.
  34. Sternitzke, C. (2010). Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Research Policy, 39(6), pp. 810–821.
  35. Teece, D. J. (2008). Dosi’s technological paradigms and trajectories: insights for economics and management. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17 (3), 507-512.
  36. Von Tunzelmann, N., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P. and Metcalfe, S. (2008). Technological paradigms: past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3), 467-484.
  37. Wang, G. and Guan, J. (2010). The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventions from China’s nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), pp. 338–350.