The Legitimation of Novel Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology

162 Pages·2016·1.04 MB·English

by  Anastasia E. Thyroff

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff AArrkkaannssaass,, FFaayyeetttteevviillllee
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss@@UUAARRKK
Graduate Theses and Dissertations
8-2013
TThhee LLeeggiittiimmaattiioonn ooff NNoovveell TTeecchhnnoollooggiieess:: TThhee CCaassee ooff
NNaannootteecchhnnoollooggyy
Anastasia E. Thyroff
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd
Part of the Marketing Commons, Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Commons, and the Philosophy of
Science Commons
CCiittaattiioonn
Thyroff, A. E. (2013). The Legitimation of Novel Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology. Graduate
Theses and Dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/835
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
The Legitimation of Novel Technologies:
The Case of Nanotechnology
The Legitimation of Novel Technologies:
The Case of Nanotechnology

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration

By

Anastasia E. Thyroff
Clemson University
Bachelor of Science in Marketing, 2004
University of Georgia
Masters of Marketing Research, 2009

August 2013
University of Arkansas

This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council.

_____________________________________
Dr. Jeff B. Murray
Dissertation Director

_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Dr. Molly Rapert Dr. Markus Giesler
Committee Member Committee Member
ABSTRACT

Nanotechnology is the control, manipulation, and application of matter on an atomic and
molecular level. The technology is complex and confusing to consumers, and its long-term safety
and effect on the human body, as well as the environment, are unknown. However, for the past
decade, nanotechnology has been used to develop consumer products and food with novel and
attractive attributes.
Since nanotechnology is still not well known, it is not legitimized; that is, it has not been
deemed safe and accepted by society. However, the market for nanotechnology is in the
legitimation process. It will take an entire network of key stakeholders playing a specific roles
for nanotechnology to legitimize. Specifically, each key stakeholder will align with a certain
cultural discourse to frame nanotechnology in a particular way that complements their values.
In Essay 1, I follow previous market system dynamic’s literature and combine Actor
Network Theory (ANT), Foucault’s Discourse on Power and Goffman’s Frame analysis to
theoretically explore what the actor network for nanotechnology looks like. Four dominate
frames are identified: 1) Advancement (i.e., government), 2) Management (i.e., industry), 3)
Development (i.e., academia/scientists), and 4) Informant (i.e., NGO).
Essay 2 empirically explores each actor’s perspective on the nanotechnology network
through a total of 24 interviews. A hermeneutic approach is used to analyze the 208 page text
and themes describing each actor’s role from a self and other’s perspective are discussed.
Additionally, three overarching themes (i.e., contradiction, constance, and cutoff) emerge; these
themes describe the degree of similarity in how actors view their role in the nanotechnology
network compared to how other actor’s view that actor’s role.
In Essay 3, I bring critical theory into market system’s research to better contextualize
market formation theories. Specifically, I discuss how critical theory can be used to supplement
ANT. I suggest that ANT can be combined with critical theory to better understand the process
of translation through exploring conflicts and contradictions among key stakeholders. To show
this process, I explore the juxtaposition of economic benefits vs. cultural concerns that has
emerged in the nanotechnology marketplace. It is determined that this exploration process can
determine why mobilization has not occurred.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional and
unwavering support; without it I would have never had the courage to attempt getting a PhD.
Special thanks to Mom, Dad, Emily, Bryan, Alex, Joanie, Jeannie, Joe, Claudia, Marcia,
Philomena, Vince, (and of course the rest of the Thyroff, Valenti, Reissig, and chosen family) for
the endless amount of cards, phone calls and advice when times got tough, and for always
reminding me that no matter the distance, family is always close by.
I would also like to thank my friends in Fayetteville who became an extended family to
me. Sunday kickball, softball leagues and championships, Mojos on the deck, long walks on the
Fayetteville trail, board games at Molly Court, celebrations at the Wine Cellar, sand volleyball
and grilling at Gulley and Veterans Park, hiking Mount Sequoyah, drinks at Brewskis and
Nameless, floating the Buffalo River, cabin weekends, and of course, Accounting Department
get-togethers, were the breaks from school that kept me going. Special thanks to Lauren, Cari,
Sam, Amy, Brian, Lucas, Casey, Robbie, Illene, Scott, Taylor, Linda, James, and of course, Pam,
for redefining the meaning of friendship to me and for keeping my head on straight.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank Markus, Molly, and Jeff for being the best
academic advisors I could have ever asked for. Markus – thank you for the encouragement and
reinforcement to pursue my research ideas. I’m so glad we met in Turkey two years ago. It has
been an honor having you as an outside professor on my dissertation committee. Molly – thank
you for being the soundboard for many decisions I have made in the program. You are my role
model in many facets in life; two of many include teaching and work-life balance. Down the
road, if I am considered to be like Molly Rapert, I will know I have done well in academia and
life. Jeff – I couldn’t be happier about the research, friendship and mentorship that have
blossomed out of the Cannon of Classics. You have taught me so much about research, being a
great faculty member, and the field of CCT. Thank you for the memories and the good times still
to come. Cupcake wine and friends for life.
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to everyone mentioned in the acknowledgement to my
sweet dog, Belle.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. ESSAY 1: NANOTECHNOLOGY AND ITS ACTOR NETWORK ....................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
Nanotechnology .......................................................................................................................... 4
Legitimation and Innovativeness ................................................................................................ 8
Consumer Acceptance and Legitimation of Technologies ....................................................... 15
Conceptualization ..................................................................................................................... 20
Nanotechnology as an Actor Network ..................................................................................... 29
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 41
III: ESSAY 2: NANOTECHNOLOGY AND ITS ACTOR NETWORK.................................... 43
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 43
Essay 1 Review ........................................................................................................................ 44
Method ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Results and Analysis ................................................................................................................ 58
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 113
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 119
IV: ESSAY 3: BRINGING THE CRITICAL INTO MARKET FORMATION RESEARCH . 121
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 121
Actor Network Theory and Critical Theory ........................................................................... 123
Review of Essay 1 & 2 ........................................................................................................... 127
Review of Key Actor’s Themes from Essay 2 ....................................................................... 130
Overarching Theme: Economic Benefits vs. Cultural Concerns ........................................... 134
Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................................................... 140
V. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 142
VI. APPENDIX........................................................................................................................... 148
I. INTRODUCTION

The nineteenth century industrial revolution and the creation of factories brought about
what we now know as the modern city. The industrial revolution created jobs, which prompted
people to migrate into cities; forcing people to depend upon food and products that they did not
grow or produce. At the same time both food and consumer products were becoming
increasingly complicated – a trend that has continued throughout the 20th and 21st century. The
quandaries and confusion of complex products are at an all-time high. Not only are modern
technologies more intricate than ever, but also people no longer know what materials their
products are made out of, what components their food is comprised of and what energy
efficiencies (or deficiencies) their products cause. The market formation process too has become
increasingly complex.
Recently, a new technology, called nanotechnology, has emerged to develop and improve
consumer products and food production. Nanotechnology is multifaceted and often confusing to
consumers who are aware of it. Nanotechnology has also been the subject of much debate among
academics and scientist as the safely and long-term effects of using nanotechnology are
unknown. Regardless of the uncertainly, due to the intriguing benefits of using nanotechnology,
there are already hundreds of nanoproducts in the consumer marketplace. This dissertation
explores the juxtaposition of cultural concerns vs. economic benefits that has led
nanotechnology’s current market situation. More specifically, the purpose of this dissertation is
to explore the process by which something that is perceived as risky evolves into something that
is legitimized.
1