Approval in Nanotechnology Patents: Micro and Macro Factors That Affect Reactions to Category Blending

References

• Armstrong EA (2002) Crisis, collective creativity, and the generation of new organizational forms: The transformation of lesbian/gay organizations in San Francisco. Lounsbury M, Ventresca MJ, eds. Social Structure and Organizations Revisited, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 19 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 361–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austin DH (1993) An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: The case of biotechnology. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(2):253–258.Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Dorado S (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1419–1440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JA, Oliver C (1996) Toward an institutional ecology of organizational founding. Acad. Management J. 39(5):1378–1427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Doubleday, Garden City, NY).Google Scholar
• Bogaert S, Boone C, Carroll GR (2010) Organizational form emergence and competing professional schemata of Dutch accounting, 1884–1939. Hsu G, Negro G, Koçak Ö, eds. Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 31 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 115–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1986) Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. J. Appl. Econometrics 1(1):29–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll G (1984) Organizational ecology. Annual Rev. Sociol. 10:71–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Hannan MT (1989) Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 54(4):524–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Swaminathan A (2000) Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing industry. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(3):715–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Chalmers AF (1999) What Is This Thing Called Science? (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis).Google Scholar
• Chase WG, Simon HA (1973) Perception in chess. Cognitive Psych. 4(1):55–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemens ES (1993) Organizational repertoires and institutional change: Women’s groups and the transformation of U.S. politics, 1890-1920. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):755–798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemens ES, Cook JM (1999) Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Rev. Sociol. 25:441–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darby MR, Zucker LG (2006) Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Ann. d’Economie Statistique (79/80):143–164.Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. Zucker LG, ed. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (Ballinger, Cambridge, UK), 3–22.Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual Rev. Sociol. 23:263–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dollinger MJ (1984) Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Acad. Management J. 27(2):351–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Douglas M (2002) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Durand R, Paolella L (2013) Category stretching: Reorienting research on categories in strategy, entrepreneurship, and organization theory. J. Management Stud. 50(6):1100–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd ed. (McGraw Hill, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fligstein N (1996) Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4):656–673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fligstein N (2001) Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociol. Theory 19(2):105–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedland R, Alford RR (1991) Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 232–263.Google Scholar
• Gamson WA, Meyer DS (1996) Framing political opportunity. McAdam D, McCarthy JD, Zald MN, eds. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 275–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society (University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
• Gillund G, Shiffrin RM (1984) A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psych. Rev. 91(1):1–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glynn MA, Navis C (2013) Categories, identities, and cultural classification: Moving beyond a model of categorical constraint. J. Management Stud. 50(6):1124–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gobet F, Voogt Ad, Retschitzki J (2004) Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games (Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granqvist N, Grodal S, Woolley JL (2013) Hedging your bets: Explaining executives’ market labeling strategies in nanotechnology. Organ. Sci. 24(2):395–413.Link, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Suddaby R (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Acad. Management J. 49(1):27–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 82(5):929–964.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1986) Where do organizational forms come from? Sociol. Forum 1(1):50–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haveman HA, Rao H (1997) Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Industrial and organizational co-evolution in the early thrift industry. Amer. J. Sociol. 102(6):1606–1651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hintzman DL (1990) Human learning and memory: Connections and dissociations. Annual Rev. Psych. 41(1):109–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G (2006a) Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry. Indust. Corporate Change 15(3):467–496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G (2006b) Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):420–450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Hannan MT, Koçak Ö (2009) Multiple category memberships in markets: A formal theory and two empirical tests. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Negro G, Koçak Ö, eds. (2010) Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 31 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers from R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(5):984–1001.Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):577–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jepperson RL (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 143–163.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Vakili K (2013) Studying breakthrough innovations using topic modeling: A test using nanotechnology patents. Rotman School of Management Working Paper 2261731, University of Toronto, Toronto. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2261731.Google Scholar
• Kennedy MT (2008) Getting counted markets, media, and reality. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 73(2):270–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy MT, Fiss PC (2013) An ontological turn in categories research: From standards of legitimacy to evidence of actuality. J. Management Stud. 50(6):1138–1154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy MT, Lo Y-C, Lounsbury M (2010) Category currency: The changing value of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction. Hsu G, Negro G, Koçak Ö, eds. Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 31 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 369–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King BG, Clemens ES, Fry M (2011) Identity realization and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of identities among Arizona’s charter schools. Organ. Sci. 22(3):554–572.Link, Google Scholar
• Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Wayne State University Press, Detroit).Google Scholar
• Kodeih F, Greenwood R (2014) Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organ. Stud. 35(1):7–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppikar V, Maebius SB, Rutt JS (2004) Current trends in nanotech patents: A view from inside the patent office. Nanotechnology Law Bus. 1(1):Article 4.Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 25(2):319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M (2002) Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Acad. Management J. 45(1):255–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCray P (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. History Tech. 21(2):177–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey B (1999) Toward a Campbellian realist organization science. Baum JAC, McKelvey B, eds. Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 383–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKendrick DG, Carroll GR, Jaffee J, Khessina OM (2003) In the bud? Analysis of disk array producers as a (possibly) emergent organizational form. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(1):60–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menand L (2010) The Marketplace of Ideas (W.W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Mervis CB, Rosch E (1981) Categorization of natural objects. Annual Rev. Psych. 32:89–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences (2004) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• National Nanotechnology Initiative (2009) About the NNI. Accessed September 2010, http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/funding.Google Scholar
• National Science Board (2008) Report to Congress on Interdisciplinary Research at the National Science Foundation. Report NSB-08-80, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2007) Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) final report. Report, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
• Negro G, Leung MD (2013) “Actual” and perceptual effects of category spanning. Organ. Sci. 24(3):684–696.Link, Google Scholar
• Negro G, Hannan MT, Rao H (2010) Categorical contrast and audience appeal: Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Indust. Corporate Change 19(5):1397–1425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L (2006) Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management J. 27(4):369–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pólos L, Hannan MT, Carroll GR (2002) Foundations of a theory of social forms. Indust. Corporate Change 11(1):85–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pontikes EG (2012) Two sides of the same coin how ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):81–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? J. Nanoparticle Res. 11(5):1023–1041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doer L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):116–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of inter-organizational collaboration in the life sciences. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(4):1132–1205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roco MC (2005) International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J. Nanoparticle Res. 7(6):707–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. Roco MC, Hersam MC, Mirkin CA, eds. Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: Retrospective and Outlook, Science Policy Reports, Vol. 1 (Springer, New York), 1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romanelli E (1991) The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Rev. Sociol. 17:79–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosch E (1983) Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. Scholnick EK, ed. New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory? (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 73–86.Google Scholar
• Rosch E (1999) Principles of categorization. Margolis E, Laurence S, eds. Concepts: Core Readings (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge), 189–206.Google Scholar
• Rosch E, Lloyd BB (1978) Cognition and Categorization (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
• Ruef M (2000) The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(3):658–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat BN (2004) Examining patent examination: An analysis of examiner and applicant generated prior art. Working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
• Schumpeter JA (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, 2nd ed. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Scott WR (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organizations (Macmillan, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1974) How big is a chunk? By combining data from several experiments, a basic human memory unit can be identified and measured Science 183(4124):482–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sismondo S (2009) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK).Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe AL (1965) Social structure and organizations. March JG, ed. Handbook of Organizations (Rand McNally, Chicago), 142–193.Google Scholar
• Swidler A (1986) Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51(2):273–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taniguchi N (1974) On the basic concept of nanotechnology. Proc. Internat. Conf. Prod. Engrg. Tokyo, Part II (Japan Society of Precision Engineering, Tokyo), 18–23.Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W (1999) Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(3):801–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: Foundations, Research, and Theoretical Elaboration (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilly C (1999) Durable Inequality (University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
• Toescu EC (2005) Integration and interdisciplinarity in contemporary neurosciences. J. Cellular Molecular Medicine 9(3):529–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tolbert PS, Zucker LG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(1):22–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tracey P, Phillips N, Jarvis O (2011) Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organ. Sci. 22(1):60–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M, Henderson R, Jaffe A (1997) University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 5(1):19–50..Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psych. 5(2):207–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• USPTO (2007) Introduction to the USPTO. Accessed September 2013, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/presentation/intro_to_ca.jsp.Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1993) Sense making in organizations: Small structures with large consequences. Murnighan JK, ed. Social Psychology in Organizations (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 10–37.Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Wry T, Lounsbury M (2013) Contextualizing the categorical imperative: Category linkages, technology focus, and resource acquisition in nanotechnology entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Venturing 28(1):117–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wry T, Greenwood R, Jennings PD, Lounsbury M (2010) Institutional sources of technological knowledge: A community perspective on nanotechnology emergence. Phillips N, Sewell G, Griffiths D, eds. Technology and Organization: Essays in Honour of Joan Woodward, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 29 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 149–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG, Darby MR, Fong J (2011) Communitywide database designs for tracking innovation impact: COMETS, STARS and Nanobank. NBER Working Paper 17404, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2005) Typecasting and generalism in firm and market: Genre-based career concentration in the feature film industry, 1933–1995. Jones C, Thornton PH, eds. Transformation in Cultural Industries, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 23 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 171–214.Crossref, Google Scholar