Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science

Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20

Approaches in the concept of convergence. A

critical review of the literature

Federico Stezano

To cite this article: Federico Stezano (2021): Approaches in the concept of convergence. A
critical review of the literature, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, DOI:
10.1080/13511610.2021.1919506

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1919506

Published online: 26 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciej20
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1919506

Approaches in the concept of convergence. A critical review of the

literature
Federico Stezano *

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Subregional Headquarters
in Mexico, Economic Development Unit, Mexico City, Mexico
(Received 16 January 2019; final version received 11 April 2021)

This article explores the existence of two main perspectives on the concept of
convergence. The first view assumes convergence as an epistemological,
methodological and heuristic issue resulting from the confluence of scientific
disciplines and technological fields. The second view emphasizes the importance of
technology management and industrial application development as strategies for
analyzing the technical challenges and risks associated with convergence processes
in the firm. To differentiate between the two visions, 59 specialized bibliographic
works selected from a theoretical sample are analyzed. The main finding of this
review is the characterization of these two perspectives that, although contradictory,
are part of a common conceptualization of convergence as an umbrella notion.
These findings provide relevant insights for a field of knowledge under
construction: policy agendas focused on fostering technological convergence should
start from the differentiation of these two analytical and conceptual levels.
Keywords: convergence; innovation; science and technology; interdisciplinarity

1. Introduction
Convergent technologies are techniques and knowledge systems that enable each other in
the pursuit of a common goal (Nordmann 2004). This vision of convergent technologies
was consolidated by Roco and Bainbridge (2003), who used the acronym NBIC to encom-
pass four instances of science, technology, and innovation (STI) characterized by high
growth rates: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive
sciences (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno). Based on the above, convergence is defined as the
links, synergies. or mergers between fields of scientific research and technological devel-
opment (R&D), such as nanoscience and nanotechnology, biotechnology and life
sciences, information technology and communications, cognitive sciences and neuro-
science, or robotics and artificial intelligence, among others (Andler et al. 2008).
Fostering the dynamization of relationships between R&D fields related to dimensions
of STI entails a diversity of implications. Therefore, several contemporary R&D phenom-
ena have been defined from the notion of convergence by theoretical perspectives that
have studied innovation: economics, sociology, philosophy of science, epistemology,
and anthropology. Although the phenomenon is recent, a review of the main analyses
of the concept of convergence shows that, as in the cases of other widely disseminated
concepts in social science, convergence has been built as a polysemic concept, with

*Email: fstezano@gmail.com
© 2021 The European Association for the Advancement of the Social Sciences
2 F. Stezano

weak limits, multiple memberships, and different theoretical, analytical and methodologi-
cal perspectives (Carroll 1999). In general terms, the field of study of convergence is dif-
fusely focused, covering a wide range of literature, but lacking a logically articulated
overall map. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to typify in a systematic
manner the different approaches that make up the concept of convergence. This justifies
the purpose, relevance, plausibility, and relative originality of this study and its potential
contributions to this field of knowledge.
The purpose of the present study is to characterize the perspectives of the notion of
convergence found in the specialized literature, using the literature review method.
With this objective, the study carries out a revision exercise where the review of the lit-
erature predominates over the systematic and exhaustive review. Thus, 59 texts from
the specialized bibliography were selected according to a theoretical selection criterion.
To classify this literature, we considered the main emphasis given to innovation processes
in each text. This conceptualization of innovation employs certain assumptions about the
primary purpose of an innovation. Therefore, the different perspectives of convergence
are related to the definition of innovation that each view adopts. As a result, we differen-
tiate between two main perspectives on innovation: (i) innovation as a product of the
science and technology construction process; (ii) innovation as a product of the generation
of new technical devices and their commercialization in the market (Clark 1987; Balmer
and Sharp 1993).
The literature selected for analysis was classified into these two perspectives of con-
vergence. In the first approach, convergence is an interdisciplinary R&D process, a meth-
odological, heuristic, and critical epistemological issue, and a product of the convergence
between scientific disciplines and technological fields. The second approach, on the other
hand, emphasizes the importance of technological management and the industrial devel-
opment of applications, such as cost analysis strategies, technical challenges, impacts, and
risks of technical and scientific processes that converge within the firm.
The present article is organized as follows: The first section describes the political
debate on the creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000 and the 2002
Convergence Agenda in the United States to identify the environment where the
concept of convergence has emerged. This context focuses on the issue of convergent
scientific and technological knowledge in the broader discussion of science and inno-
vation studies and scientific and technological policy. The second section articulates the
theoretical framework of the study based on the assumption that two predominant per-
spectives can be identified concerning the concept of convergence. These two visions
emerge from the theoretical debate on the scope and limits of the frontier between the
sphere of science and the sphere of technology. Once the scientific, technological, and pol-
itical fields are delimited, the third section identifies ten variables to analyze the selected
literature; this section also explains the technical characteristics of the research method
and the sampling techniques used. The fourth section presents the results of the analysis,
differentiating between the two approaches already described; that is, convergence and
innovation as the process in which interdisciplinary scientific knowledge is built, or con-
vergence as a strategy for solving and managing technical production problems. The final
section classifies the literature depending on each document’s emphasis on one of the two
approaches and concludes by discussing the implications of each vision. It highlights the
relevance of conceiving convergence as an instance where technologies and knowledge
systems enable new fields in the search for a common objective; the overall purpose is
to outline the scientific and technological potential of the converging fields and define
areas of opportunity for R&D.
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 3

2. Historical background and development of the concept of convergence

The notion of NBIC convergence from 2002 was already present in the National Nano-
technology Initiative (NNI) created by the United States federal government and led by
Roco. The rhetoric used to promote investment in nanotechnology made promises and
set expectations (Nordmann 2004; Selin 2007; Schummer 2010). During his speech on
the creation of the NNI, in January 2000, Clinton used engaging language and captivating
visions of nanotechnology (Anderson 2007). Its promoters repeated utopian predictions
and claims about their national strategic value (McCray 2005).
NNI was politically challenged in view of other, dystopian visions that fueled ethical
and normative debates (Macnaghten, Kearnes, and Wynne 2005). As a result, legislators
became concerned about the public opinion of this new field, as had previously been the
case with the Human Genome project. Policy makers were faced with the dilemma of how
to develop nanotechnology within the boundaries of social responsibility (Fisher 2005).
This led to congressional debates on how to incorporate social issues into nanotechnology
R&D, and the debate proceedings eventually became part of the twenty-first Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Fisher 2019).
This success in congressional politics was accompanied by another success in the
science policy for NNI. As nanotechnology gained relevance in the federal government’s
agenda, the National Science Foundation (NSF) gave priority to nanotechnology in its
program financing. As a result, science and technology (S&T) fields increasingly used
the ‘nano’ prefix in their monodisciplinary research. The NNI envisioned a nano-revolu-
tion where physics, chemistry, biology, materials science, and engineering used the same
principles and tools. NBIC convergence introduced biological, engineering, and materials
science components to chemical and physical processes. This passage from nano-conver-
gence to NBIC convergence represented a regrouping of disciplines and a new specific
central goal: human improvement (Schummer 2010).
What the NBIC convergence proposes is that the possibilities of new high-growth
technologies can be emphasized to improve human performance, and beyond that, the
so-called human improvement: the technological increase of human capabilities by mod-
ifying the body and the intellect (Nordmann 2004). The initial vision of the NBIC program
was questioned because it privileged individual over society goals and triggered reactions
concerning the NBIC program’s proximity to initiatives such as transhumanism or science
fiction and dubious research fields; it was also accused of concealing extreme visions in an
agenda allegedly based on science and engineering. Another controversial issue was the
concurrence of this interest in enhancing human cognition and the increased attention
US military organizations paid to the subject, especially concerning nano-convergence
(Andler et al. 2008).
In response to the NBIC initiative, the European Union (EU) appointed a group of
experts who developed a demand-based approach that stressed the importance of
guiding convergence processes in response to social needs. The initial activities of the
EU were supported by technological foresight exercises and analysis of the socioeco-
nomic and environmental implications of convergence. Such diagnoses gave rise to con-
crete political proposals for the development of convergent technological fields. The
proposed 2014–2020 Framework Program STI activities are an example of a governance
scheme that encourages innovation fields focused on priority social challenges: health,
food, bioproducts, energy, sustainability, and inclusion. The most recent vision of the
NBIC convergence concept by Roco et al. (2013) in the United States has sought to
respond to arguments against the initial versions of the concept. The author underscores
4 F. Stezano

the educational, institutional, organizational, environmental, and social dimensions of

convergence and focuses on the cooperation between scientific disciplines and technologi-
cal fields.
A common characteristic of these two views of convergence is the formulation of STI
policy agendas based on lists of technological fields and scientific disciplines that may
promote the development of convergent domains to achieve a more or less general objec-
tive (Nordmann 2004). However, the evolution of the concept shows the need to research
two approaches that have structured the debate around convergence. The first approach
deals with potential modes of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science, and the
second emphasizes empirical aspects of techno-scientific convergence (Andler et al.
2008; Casalet 2017). The historical context of the emergence and consolidation of conver-
gence reveals two recurring themes in social studies focused on S&T: (i) the incorporation
of societal aspects such as ethical, moral, and normative dimensions into the development
of emerging S&T areas (Hilgartner 1995; Fisher 2019), and (ii) the establishment of pri-
ority areas in STI financing agendas (Schummer 2010).

3. Theoretical framework
As a conceptual repertoire, the notion of convergence has been characterized in a dis-
jointed way. According to our hypothesis, there are two explanatory frameworks of
the concept of convergence that lack clear theoretical and analytical links between
them. This conceptual gap or separation is due to the existence of two approaches to
the phenomenon of convergence derived from two types of assumptions about inno-
vation processes.
The first understanding of convergence is based on the assumption that the inno-
vation process (where the convergence process is manifested) is the result of a
process of scientific and technological cognitive construction. In this view, the
causal emphases are placed on the interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and/or transdis-
ciplinary nature of innovation, the methodological, heuristic, and epistemological
implications of such processes, and the links between scientific disciplines and techno-
logical fields.
This first vision is marked by the debate on the delimitation of the boundaries between
science and technology that began in the 1980s. According to the linear model of science
and technology, science has always been a source of innovation. In this initial perspective,
scientific discovery is invariably followed by technological invention. In this manner,
science has limited the role of technology to a monotonous activity of applying science
(Brooks 1994). Newer interpretations discuss the existence of links between science
and technology. Likewise, advances in evolutionary economic theory have shown that
the linkage is greater in the early development of a technological field, when growth
and industrial innovation tend to be guided by knowledge and science. These new
visions proposed two new key analytical perspectives: (i) The science-technology
relationship is characterized by intense interaction between two semi-autonomous activi-
ties that converge in a predominantly instrumental area; and (ii) science and technology
are closely related and their boundaries become diffuse in some new fields and in times
of great change (Faulkner 1994).
In all the distinctions made by the literature, the understanding of science and tech-
nology (S&T) is reduced to nuances of meaning. Ultimately, the differences in terms of
bodies of knowledge, activities, goals, and motivations of these activities and the social
and professional institutions where they operate are scarce and historically situated
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 5

(Mayr 1976). The constructivist approach applied to studies on science, technology, and
society postulates the almost total inexistence of such differences. By using concepts
such as technoscience (Latour 1987) or boundary work (Gieryn 1995), this approach
highlights the difficulty of establishing the turning point where science ends and tech-
nology begins.
The discussions of the frontiers between science and technology refer to the degree of
epistemological autonomy that the sets of knowledge grouped in disciplinary structures
preserve when they interact with other disciplines and fields. That is, does the product
of the knowledge that emerges from the confluence of different disciplines and/or scien-
tific and technological fields, implies knowledge that constitutes a new scientific or tech-
nological paradigm? The debate is far from over. Thus, it is not clear, for example,
whether biomedicine represents a new scientific paradigm composed of a body of knowl-
edge, its own heuristics, and a new perspective or disciplinary approach. Moreover, these
fields seem to be an example of research areas that could benefit from a transdisciplinary
or even interdisciplinary approach, where several disciplines collaborate and contribute to
the resolution of various research problems from their own theoretical and analytical dis-
ciplinary perspective instead of doing so from a strictly convergent standpoint (Beckert
et al. 2008).
The second vision, on the other hand, understands innovation as the result of the gen-
eration of new technical devices and their commercialization. The importance here is
given to the management of technological processes, the industrial development of tech-
nological applications, and critical aspects of organizational strategy: cost analysis, identi-
fication of technical challenges, and risk assessment of the introduction of socio-technical
processes.
This perspective on convergence is interested in what has to do more with making and
building things (structures, objects, devices, or completely new inventions) than with
theory. Convergence thus seems to aim at the construction of entirely new structures,
objects, artefacts, or devices (Andler et al. 2008, 23–25).
This vision includes a perspective, generally associated with the concepts of industrial
or technological convergence. In this way, convergence is associated with a process in
which at least two discernible elements move toward the fusion of different technologies,
devices or industries into a unified whole. In this perspective, technology management lit-
erature becomes more important, where convergence refers to the addition of new func-
tions for existing commodities and also to the use of technology from an industrial area
within a new area (Curran, Bröring, and Leker 2010).
The perspective gives an account of a broader process of increasing relevance of tech-
nology and applications in producing innovations. Unlike the first vision, which is atten-
tive to epistemological debates on disciplinary limits and practices in construction
processes, this vision emphasizes the technical aspects of innovation, pragmatism, and
the proper functioning of a device as the main criteria for success. Thus, this view of con-
vergence pays more attention to schemes from which, based on local solutions without
theoretical integration, technology allows innovation to reach the market (Carrier and
Nordmann 2011).
For example, Curran, Bröring, and Leker (2010) propose the process of convergence
as a cycle of events that ends with the convergence of scientific disciplines, technologies,
and markets. From this perspective, the process involves an initial predominance of basic
scientific research, a later instance of greater weight of applied science and technology,
and an ending of new product-market combinations and the convergence of technologies
and markets.
6 F. Stezano

In this perspective, rather than focusing on the analysis of the limits between fields and
disciplines and the dynamics within the process of knowledge construction, interest is cen-
tered on the convergence of fields of application of knowledge and industrial segments
and markets. Thus, in this vision, the interest in convergence lies in the final moments
of innovation, those closest to the market. They include the use of technological manage-
ment tools that facilitate the process by which a laboratory process or a product prototype
suitable for large-scale production is generated from converging technological appli-
cations (Carrier 2011).

4. Data and methodology

To the best of our knowledge, the literature has failed to characterize the conceptual differ-
ences in convergence studies and the implications of these two visions, as described in the
previous section. To address this lack of research in this area, the research method adopted
in this work is that of literature review. The type of analytical, interpretative, and expla-
natory emphasis that is privileged in this study moves away from methods based on meta-
analysis (MA) techniques that privilege quantitative analysis and discard qualitative data
that contain theoretically informed and empirically based explanations of the analyzed
phenomenon.
The vision of this work approaches that of the critical realist synthesis (CRS) of
Brannan et al. (2017). By using CRS, it is possible to make an explanatory approach to
the unit of analysis and a selection of the information units. Emphasis is placed on the
importance of causal mechanisms, which are defined as the mechanisms that cause pro-
cesses, factors, and/or devices of a social, historical, cultural, political, and/or economic
nature and that influence social phenomena derived from their properties. The SRC analy-
sis thus allows the identification of causal explanations that explicitly result from the
review of the existing literature.
The method of literature review permits managing the diversity of existing knowledge
on the research topic from a review of the literature that (i) facilitates the mapping of the
field of study; (ii) allows the evaluation of the existing intellectual territory; and (iii)
enables the proposal of critical research debates that deepen the existing body of knowl-
edge (Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003).
Based on the critical discussion presented in the previous sections, we selected ten
variables to build an analysis matrix describing the vision of the documents analyzed in
the present study (Table 1).
As stated in the introduction, the unit of analysis emerged from a selection based on
theoretical criteria. A total of 59 documents on the area were selected, the last of which
was published at the end of 2017.
To select individual analysis units (documents in which convergence in scientific and
technological innovation was considered) issues involved: (i) a methodological, heuristic,
and epistemological topic; or (ii) management, cost analysis, technical challenge, impact,
and technological risk.
Consequently, the selected bibliography allowed us to characterize the conceptual ter-
ritory where documents analyzing the notion of convergence can be found. This charac-
terization is intended as a heuristic strategy to analyze the concept. The evidence has been
collected based on a theoretical approach, and we consider it to have sufficient methodo-
logical coherence and rigor to infer causality concerning the processes and relationships
under investigation (Davidson 2000).
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 7

Table 1. Analysis matrix for the studied documents.

Origin of selected dimension
Historical context where the S&T
Convergence analysis dimensions convergence emerged Distinction
Epistemic cultures and research practices in NBIC X
fields
Organizational and institutional factors X
Ethical issues X
Construction of new scientific paradigms X
STI agenda challenges to finance multidisciplinary, X
transdisciplinary, and/or inter-disciplinary R&D
STI agenda challenges to finance R&D in X
converging technological fields
New challenges for research groups and institutions X
Convergence trends in techno-economic sectors X
Trends in markets, products, and commercial X
strategies
Convergence of markets, sectors, and corporate X
management
Elaborated by the authors.

5. Results
5.1. First perspective. Scientific convergence: interdisciplinarity of the R&D
process
The first perspective of convergence as defined in the previous section refers to a process
that is closer to the process that has been defined as scientific convergence (SC). This
vision especially highlights the processes of cooperation and exchange of knowledge
from scientific disciplines working on a common theme. This perspective is based on
the assumption that the relevant integration of scientific disciplines requires a common
cognitive base that will result from convergent R&D (Schmidt 2008). Thus, the
concept describes processes where scientific disciplines come together and cooperate to
solve common problems. If an area of disciplinary overlapping becomes permanent, the
convergence from each discipline, through cooperation, could eventually create a new dis-
cipline or subdiscipline with institutions, infrastructure, and trajectories of its own (Bunge
2003; Doorn and Rip 2006).
STI policy agendas have begun to incorporate the notion of SC in response to the
growing need to foster interdisciplinary research, and the social agenda has increasingly
been considered as the guiding principle for technological development (Andler et al.
2008). The possibility of generating SC processes is weakened by the fragility of a
notion of convergence based on an interdisciplinarity vision that lacks a theoretical and
methodological paradigm to transcend the converging fields of research. The NBIC pro-
posal assumes that SC involves a new set of academic research scenes, vocabularies and
discourses (Laurent 2007), epistemological objects, research methods, theories, assump-
tions, heuristics, and cultures. These analytical levels refer to the construction of a new
paradigm that implies a degree of complexity that makes it theoretically plausible that
certain attributes of the scientific-technological areas of the NBIC are convergent while
others are divergent (Gordijn 2006).
8 F. Stezano

In terms of the change in epistemic cultures, Kastenhofer (2007) highlights that con-
vergence processes have changed the daily practices of biotechnological research, where
advances drive the emergence of new technoscience which, in turn, reconfigures science.
The result is the formation of a new biotechnological era, in which epistemic cultures con-
verge under a new paradigm focused on technology, or integrate into epistemic cultures
not related to applicability.
For Schummer (2004), current research in nanotechnology and nanoscience is not
constituted by interdisciplinarity patterns. The apparent pervasive multidisciplinarity in
these areas is nothing more than the participation of mostly monodisciplinary fields.
Upon analyzing the development of research projects in the field of bio-nanotechnology,
Rafols (2007) found that few projects use strategic collaboration with laboratories from
different disciplines or pursue the creation of mixed laboratories with researchers from
many disciplinary backgrounds.
In addition to these epistemic and cognitive aspects, research on SC highlights organ-
izational and institutional barriers to interdisciplinarity. As long as the institutionalization
of the field of science continues to be oriented around established scientific disciplines,
interdisciplinary practices clash with the reproduction of existing structures (Giorgi and
Luce 2007). In this sense, Battard (2012) finds that nanotechnology laboratories face
several difficulties in the development of multidisciplinary research. Thus, this way of
doing research encounters obstacles derived from the knowledge and practices of distinc-
tively established disciplinary traditions. The debate on the degree of interdisciplinarity
generated by the convergence of the NBIC disciplines remains open. Although new
fields and specialties have gradually emerged and interdisciplinarity has become a more
common experience, it remains problematic (Weingart and Stehr 2000).
The governance factors of convergence stand out among these organizational and
institutional aspects (Andler et al. 2008), as well as the analysis of the critical challenges
that convergence imposes on stakeholders. This group of studies pays special attention to
strategies that allow research groups and institutions to participate in convergent R&D
projects and modify their research agendas in response to the demands of the converging
disciplines (Curran 2013; Casalet 2017). The framework of SC assumes that dynamic
science-industry relations can promote the development of multi-institutional, collabora-
tive, and interdisciplinary research, with a mid- and long-term temporal perspective and a
medium to high cognitive and normative complexity (Roco and Bainbridge 2003; Larsen,
Ahlqvist, and Frioriksson 2009; Roco et al. 2013).
Finally, it is possible to find multiple bibliographical sources on legality and ethics
related to data protection, bioethics, nanomaterials, risk management, biomedical
dangers, and expert processes. These studies refer to the links among ethics, the legal fra-
mework, and the fields of science, technology, and politics (Desmoulin-Canselier 2012,
243–244).
The bibliographic sources identified in this section show the abundance of research
focused on convergence from a social perspective. These visions rethink the role of the
social, historical, organizational, and political dimensions of new technologies, their cre-
ation processes and their impacts (Woolgar, Coenen, and Simakova 2008, 3).

5.2. Second perspective. Technological convergence: industrial development and

R&D
The second perspective of convergence is concerned with the use of discoveries from
various disciplines in specific technological applications and products. Converging
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 9

technologies represent new technical options produced by synergies between cognitive

and technological capabilities from diverse fields. In the first place, these interactions
refer to new technologies based on new principles (such as a new design rule or new chal-
lenges to established scientific paradigms) that enable a new option (Doorn and Rip 2006).
This process can be observed, for example, in the simultaneous advances in the fields of
imaging, electronics, genetics, neuroscience, and other technologies based on nanotech-
nology, biotechnology, information and communication technologies (ICT), and cognitive
sciences (Roco et al. 2013).
Most of the examples of technological convergence found in the specialized literature on
the subject are focused on the STI sector. Computer equipment and electronics have been
merged for national consumption (Andler et al. 2008).1 The group of studies aligned with
this perspective is characterized by the analytical emphasis given to the generation of
dynamics, patterns, and trajectories that affect innovation management strategies in the indus-
trial sector. Some of them propose explanations for convergence processes from evolutionary
models. These models of co-evolution of dynamics, patterns, and sectoral trajectories of indus-
tries and technologies have also been used by studies that seek to generate explanations about
technological convergence from a macro perspective (emphasizing the trends of complete
techno-economic sectors) and from a meso perspective (accentuating the relevance of business
behaviors and strategies generated by firms in response to increasingly global sectoral trends).2
From a macro perspective, Shim et al. (2016) point out that the behavior of conver-
gence phenomena can be understood from the factors of diversity (the degree of a
sector’s capabilities to absorb heterogeneous technologies) and persistence (continuity
in the use of accumulated technologies) in a technological sector. For Geum, Kim, and
Lee (2016), industrial convergence is a process that is influenced by multiple factors: tech-
nology, politics, integration of social businesses, and value generation. For Broring (2013)
the convergence of industrial sectors with common projects must be understood from the
analysis of the blurred limits of value proposals, technologies, and markets of industrial
sectors. In the case of biogas technologies in the agricultural sector in Germany, Golem-
biewski, Sick, and Bröring (2015) find, instead of blurred boundaries, the emergence of a
new industrial sub-segment within the energy value chain.
Many studies in this line seek to differentiate technological trajectories from patent
analysis and, to a lesser extent, from scientific production (Karvonen and Kässi 2013;
Gauch and Blind 2015; Jeong and Lee 2015; Kim et al. 2015; Lee, Han, and Sohn
2015; Dernis, Squicciarini, and de Pinho 2016; Song, Elvers, and Leker 2017). Another
group of studies on technological convergence has focused on the managerial implications
of converging technological fields (Borés, Saurina, and Torres 2003; Andergassen,
Nardini, and Ricottilli 2006; Kim and Kim 2012; Hacklin, Battistini, and von Krogh
2013; Kim et al. 2014; Caviggioli 2016).

5.3. Summary
The following table presents a summary of the main analytical dimensions that constitute each
one of the two convergence perspectives, as well as the authors in each dimension (Table 2).

6. Conclusions
Considering the resonance that the convergence concept has had in the framework of ITS
studies and in the design of public policies in the sector, this work has sought to highlight
the importance of the way the field of knowledge is structured around this concept.
10 F. Stezano
Table 2. Dimensions of the two perspectives of convergence and their respective authors.
Perspective 1 Dimensions of research
Interdisciplinary Epistemic cultures and research
perspective and practices in NBIC fields
convergence
Organizational and institutional
influences: governance factors
Ethical aspects
Construction of new scientific
paradigms
Critical aspects to incorporate into
STI policy agendas that
encourage multidiplinary,
transdisciplinary, and/or
interdisciplinary persectives
New challenges for groups and
research institutions
Business and technology Trends and challenges of markets,
management and products, and business strategies
convergence in the ICT sector
Convergence as a process of co-
evolution of markets, sectors,
and business management
Trends in convergence in entire
techno-economic sectors
Authors
Roco and Bainbridge (2003);
Schummer (2004); Gordijn
(2006); Kastenhofer (2007);
Laurent (2007); Andler et al.
(2008); Roco et al. (2013)
Roco and Bainbridge (2003);
Giorgi and Luce (2007);
Woolgar, Coenen, and
Simakova (2008); Andler et al.
(2008); Battard (2012); Roco
et al. (2013); Casalet and
Stezano (2016)
Andler and Barthelmé (2008);
Desmoulin-Canselier (2012)
Bunge (2003); Doorn and
Rip (2006); Schmidt (2008);
MacGregor et al. (2014); Roco
et al. (2013); Stezano and
Quezada (2017)
Roco and Bainbridge (2003);
Schmidt (2008); Kastenhofer
(2007); Roco et al. (2013);
Casalet (2017); Stezano and
Oliver (2015); Stezano and
Quezada (2017)
Larsen, Ahlqvist, and Frioriksson
(2009); Curran (2013); Roco
et al. (2013); Casalet (2017);
Stezano and Oliver (2015)
Athreye and Keeble (2000);
Pennings and Puranam (2001);
Guilhon (2001); Borés,
Saurina, and Torres (2003);
Bally (2005); Lind (2005);
Hacklin, Marxt, and Fahrni
(2009); Godoe and Hansen
(2009); Moyo (2013); Basole,
Park, and Barnett (2015);
Giannoumis (2015); Han and
Sohn (2016); de Bijl and Peitz
(2008); Rath (2016); Hallingby
et al. (2016)
Stieglitz (2003); Hacklin (2008);
Karvonen and Kässi (2013)
Broring (2013); Karvonen and
Kässi (2013); Jeong and Lee
(2015); Golembiewski, Sick,
and Bröring (2015); Dernis,
Squicciarini, and de Pinho
(2016); Gauch and Blind
(2015); Shim et al. (2016);
Geum, Kim, and Lee (2016);
Song, Elvers, and Leker (2017)
(Continued )
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 11

Table 2. Continued.
Perspective 1 Dimensions of research
Implications of business
management in converging
technological fields
Critical aspects to incorporate into
STI policy agendas that seek to
strengthen converging
technological sectors
Own elaboration.
Authors
Borés, Saurina, and Torres
(2003); Andergassen, Nardini,
and Ricottilli (2006); Kim and
Kim (2012); Hacklin,
Battistini, and von Krogh
(2013); Kim et al. (2014);
Caviggioli (2016)
Hacklin, Battistini, and von
Krogh (2013); Kim et al.
(2014); Jeong and Lee (2015);
Shim et al. (2016); Geum,
Kim, and Lee (2016);
Caviggioli (2016)

The NNI project allows us to understand how academic and political struggles are
reflected in a certain ITS project and political agenda. However, the concept of conver-
gence shows a profusion of analytical notions that in many cases are contradictory and
have not been specifically and strictly identified. With this objective in mind, the theoreti-
cal framework of this paper has made a distinction between two sets of ideas and two
understandings of the concept of convergence. That is, the specialized bibliography con-
tains approaches to convergence centered on analyzing how the limits and disciplinary
boundaries are converging or not converging, in terms of fusion or generation of new
knowledge paradigms. Debates on the scope of multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and
interdisciplinary approaches are common in this first vision of convergence; and the heur-
istic and epistemological aspects that emerge from the new scientific and technological
fields where innovations are developed are central to this perspective.
The second vision of convergence includes discussions on the instruments and meth-
odologies linked to technology management that facilitate the construction of structures,
objects, devices, and new inventions. Emphasis on the methodological and epistemologi-
cal aspects associated with linking the convergence of technological fields and scientific
disciplines in the generation of innovations is replaced in this vision by the technical and
practical aspects of innovation. This perspective is much more focused on the final
instances of innovation, and thus also addresses the implications of technological manage-
ment of innovation processes where products, markets, and industries converge.
The analysis of texts related to the concept of convergence allows us to verify the
central hypothesis of the work in terms of the structuring of these two perspectives.
First, a perspective that is closer to the vision of scientific convergence addresses
aspects such as epistemic cultures and research practices in NBIC fields, governance
factors understood as organizational and institutional influences, ethical aspects,
debates around the construction of new scientific paradigms, critical aspects to be incor-
porated into STI policy programs that promote multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and
interdisciplinary aspects, and new challenges for research groups and institutions.
In the second perspective, the topics of industry, technology, and markets become
more important: the trends and challenges of markets, products, and business strategies
in the ICT sector, convergence as a process of co-evolution of markets, sectors, and
12 F. Stezano

business management, the new trends of convergence in entire techno-economic sectors,

the impact of business management in converging technology fields, and the critical
aspects to be incorporated into STI policy programs that seek to strengthen converging
technology sectors.
As noted, a common point of both perspectives relates to the analysis of critical
aspects of a new ITS agenda. The relevance to STI public policy processes shows that
the convergence project in the US version of NBIC is, above all, a political and public
policy project in STI. It is a project focused on certain scientific and technological
areas (nanotechnology) and from a vision of contemporary technical, productive, and
economic phenomena (Roco and Bainbridge 2003; Doorn and Rip 2006).
Although the two perspectives of convergence present basic conceptual and analytical
differences, the coincidence in highlighting the relevance of public policies in STI con-
firms that convergence is an umbrella notion (Robinson 2015), as well as a political
program that makes explicit proposals for an STI policy agenda. This has been associated
mainly with the American vision of convergence of the NSF. It also includes the rhetoric
of socially and economically converging technologies, as well as the identification of
certain priority areas of STI in R&D financing programs (Wienroth and Rodrigues 2015).
The convergence process manifests itself with greater dynamics in STI agendas than in
the everyday exercise of R&D and innovation. Without excluding the possibility of
finding real confluence processes (emergence, formation, and consolidation of new scien-
tific disciplines or subdisciplines), the notion of interdisciplinarity in relation to the
concept of convergence requires further research in relation to: (i) whether converging
technologies (biotechnology, nanotechnology, STI, and cognitive science) require or
can benefit from a convergence of scientific research, and (ii) whether technological con-
vergence can affect the production of scientific knowledge (Andler et al. 2008).

Notes
1. At the beginning of the last decade, several studies analyzed the convergence of STI using this
approach (Athreye and Keeble 2000; Pennings and Puranam 2001; Guilhon 2001; Borés,
Saurina, and Torres 2003; Lind 2005), emphasizing not the cognitive and epistemological pro-
cesses of technological convergence but the transformations occurring in the market arena, the
industrial sector, and the corporate world. In recent years, multiple studies have adopted this
view of the technological convergence occurring in the STI sector. These studies analyze the
co-evolution of markets, products, and business strategies in the sector (Hacklin, Marxt, and
Fahrni 2009; Godoe and Hansen 2009; Hacklin, Battistini, and von Krogh 2013; Moyo
2013; Basole, Park, and Barnett 2015) and the effect of standard-setting trends (Giannoumis
2015; Han and Sohn 2016) and regulations in the sector (de Bijl and Peitz 2008; Rath 2016;
Hallingby et al. 2016).
2. First, Stieglitz (2003) built a formal model assuming the existence of a life cycle characteristic
of industrial convergence. In the first stage, we have two existing industries unrelated from the
point of view of supply and demand. A convergence process is then triggered by an external
event, for example, the invention of a new technology. In the second stage, the two industries
converge. This process changes industrial boundaries, market structures, and corporate strat-
egies. Finally, in a third stage, industries are related from a technological or market point of
view of products and industrial structures that can stabilize or evolve towards new processes
of convergence. Secondly, Hacklin (2008) points out that the link among science, technology,
and industry in convergent industrial environments can be described by four stages: knowledge
convergence, technology, the industry, and industrial applications. In the first stage, collabor-
ation among scientific disciplines creates contiguous spaces. In the second stage, these cogni-
tive bases are translated into convergent technologies. The third stage is a step of technological
integration that leads to the convergence of new applications, products, or services and that, on
a more generic level, leads to the convergence of industrial applications understood as new and
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 13

more complex ways in which the customer is given value and the firm differentiates itself from
its competitors. The last phase of industrial convergence pertains to the evolution of emerging
applications that modify original value-creating spaces in production sectors that potentially put
business models at risk, as the boundaries separating the industrial segments involved in the
process blur or even disappear. The third model, proposed by Karvonen and Kässi (2013),
states that convergence involves the fusion of industries in a new field that creates opportunities
for new inventions in various industrial sectors. In the case of merging industries, such as
mobile telephones, new segments replace previous business segments, at least partially. For
the authors, convergence among technologies, product markets, and industries is a case of
either substitution (horizontal convergence) or integration (complementary convergence).
The strategic impact of convergence is that the process encourages firms with traditionally
different and stable business models to move into shared territory. Both forms of convergence
can refer to a firm’s main assets (patents, know-how, products) or to its basic activities
(e.g. purchasing, distribution, and marketing operations).

ORCID
Federico Stezano http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5450-6339

References
Andergassen, R., F. Nardini, and M. Ricottilli. 2006. “Innovation Waves, Self-Organized Criticality
and Technological Convergence.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 61 (4):
710–728. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2004.07.009.
Anderson, B. 2007. “Hope for Nanotechnology: Anticipatory Knowledge and the Governance of
Affect.” Area 39 (2): 156–165. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00743.x.
Andler, D., and S. Barthelmé. 2008. “Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social
Sciences and Humanities (CONTECS). Cognitive Science within Convergence: Key Issues
in the European Context.” Deliverable D3.1 – Part B, Institut de l’École normale supérieure,
Paris.
Andler, D., S. Barthelmé, B. Beckert, C. Blümel, C. Coenen, T. Fleischer, M. Friedewald, et al.
2008. “Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social Sciences and Humanities
(CONTECS).” An Analysis of Critical Issues and a Suggestion for a Future Research
Agenda, European Union, Karlsruhe. https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/publications/1243/
124377001-6_en.pdf.
Athreye, S., and D. Keeble. 2000. “Technological Convergence, Globalisation and Ownership in the
UK Computer Industry.” Technovation 20 (5): 227–245. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00135-2.
Bally, N. 2005. “Deriving Managerial Implications from Technological Convergence Along the
Innovation Process: A Case Study on the Telecommunications Industry.” Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology 11: 21–28.
Balmer, B., and M. Sharp. 1993. “The Battle for Biotechnology: Scientific and Technological
Paradigms and the Management of Biotechnology in Britain in the 1980s.” Research Policy
22: 463–478. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)90013-8.
Basole, R. C., H. Park, and B. C. Barnett. 2015. “Coopetition and Convergence in the ICT
Ecosystem.” Telecommunications Policy 39 (7): 537–552. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.04.003.
Battard, N. 2012. “Convergence and Multidisciplinarity in Nanotechnology: Laboratories as
Technological Hubs.” Technovation 32 (3–4): 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.09.
001.
Beckert, B., C. Blumel, M. Friedewald, and A. Thielmann. 2008. “A R&D Trends in Converging
Technologies.” In Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social Sciences and
Humanities (CONTECS). An Analysis of Critical Issues and a Suggestion for a Future
Research Agenda, edited by D. Andler, Simon Barthelmé, Bernd Beckert, Clemens Blümel,
Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Michael Friedewald, et al., 69–135. Karlsruhe:
European Union.
Borés, C., C. Saurina, and R. Torres. 2003. “Technological Convergence: A Strategic Perspective.”
Technovation 23 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00094-3.
14 F. Stezano

Brannan, M. J., S. Fleetwood, J. O’Mahoney, and S. Vincent. 2017. “Critical Essay: Meta-analysis:
A Critical Realist Critique and Alternative.” Human Relations 70 (1): 11–39. doi:10.1177/
0018726716674063.
Brooks, H. 1994. “The Relationship Between Science and Technology.” Research Policy 23 (5):
477–486. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3.
Broring, S. 2013. “The Role of Open Innovation in the Industry Convergence Between Foods and
Pharmaceuticals.” In Open Innovation in the Food and Beverage Industry. Woodhead
Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, edited by M. Garcia Martinez,
39–62. Cambridge: Springer.
Bunge, M. 2003. Emergencia y convergencia: novedad cualitativa y unidad del conocimiento.
Barcelona: Gedisa.
Carrier, M. 2011. “Knowledge, Politics, and Commerce: Science under the Pressure of Practice.” In
Science in the Context of Application, edited by M. Carrier and A. Nordmann, 1–10. Boston,
MA: Springer Science.
Carrier, M., and A. Nordmann. 2011. “Science in the Context of Application: Methodological
Change, Conceptual Transformation, Cultural Reorientation.” In Science in the Context of
Application, edited by M. Carrier and A. Nordmann, 11–30. Boston, MA: Springer Science.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct.”
Business and Society 38 (3): 268–295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.
Casalet, M., ed. 2017. El paradigma de la convergencia del conocimiento: Alternativa de trabajo
colaborativo y multidisciplinario. Mexico City: FLACSO-México.
Casalet, M., and F. Stezano. 2016. “Internet industrial: un campo de aplicación convergente.”
Newsletter Laboratorio Nacional de Informática Avanzada, A.C. (LANIA), 17(59), La conver-
gencia de tecnologías y el Big Data: 1–2. Xalapa, Mexico.
Caviggioli, F. 2016. “Technology Fusion: Identification and Analysis of the Drivers of Technology
Convergence Using Patent Data.” Technovation 55–56: 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.
2016.04.003.
Clark, N. 1987. “Similarities and Differences Between Scientific and Technological Paradigms.”
Futures 19 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(87)90037-1.
Curran, C. S. 2013. The Anticipation of Converging Industries: A Concept Applied to Nutraceuticals
and Functional Foods. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5170-8.
Curran, C. S., S. Bröring, and J. Leker. 2010. “Anticipating Converging Industries Using Publicly
Available Data.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77 (3): 385–395. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2009.10.002.
Davidson, E. J. 2000. “Ascertaining Causality in Theory-Based Evaluation.” New Directions for
Evaluation. doi:10.1002/ev.1178.
de Bijl, P., and M. Peitz. 2008. “Innovation, Convergence and the Role of Regulation in the
Netherlands and Beyond.” Telecommunications Policy 32 (11): 744–754. doi:10.1016/j.
telpol.2008.09.003.
Dernis, H., M. Squicciarini, and R. de Pinho. 2016. “Detecting the Emergence of Technologies and
the Evolution and Co-development Trajectories in Science (DETECTS): A ‘Burst’ Analysis-
Based Approach.” Journal of Technology Transfer 41 (5): 930–960. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-
9449-0.
Desmoulin-Canselier, S. 2012. “What Exactly Is It All About? Puzzled Comments from a French
Legal Scholar on the NBIC Convergence.” NanoEthics 6 (3): 243–255. doi:10.1007/s11569-
012-0153-3.
Doorn, M., and A. Rip. 2006. “Introduction.” In Converging Technologies: Innovation Patterns and
Impacts on Society, edited by M. Doorn and J. Stoop, 18–26. The Hague, Netherlands: The
Netherlands Study Centre fot Technology Trends (STT).
Faulkner, W. 1994. “Conceptualizing Knowledge Used in Innovation: A Second Look at the
Science-Technology Distinction and Industrial Innovation.” Science, Technology & Human
Values 19 (4): 425–458. doi:10.1177/016224399401900402.
Fisher, E. 2005. “Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI):
Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program.”
Technology in Society. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006.
Fisher, E. 2019. “Governing with Ambivalence: The Tentative Origins of Socio-Technical
Integration.” Research Policy. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.010.
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 15

Gauch, S., and K. Blind. 2015. “Technological Convergence and the Absorptive Capacity of
Standardisation.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 91: 236–249. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2014.02.022.
Geum, Y., M. S. Kim, and S. Lee. 2016. “How Industrial Convergence Happens: A Taxonomical
Approach Based on Empirical Evidences.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change
107: 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.020.
Giannoumis, G. A. 2015. “Transnational Convergence of Public Procurement Policy: A ‘Bottom-
Up’ Analysis of Policy Networks and the International Harmonisation of Accessibility
Standards for Information and Communication Technology.” International Review of Law,
Computers & Technology 29 (2–3): 183–206. doi:10.1080/13600869.2015.1055662.
Gieryn, T. 1995. “Boundaries of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited
by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393–443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giorgi, L., and J. Luce. 2007. “Converging Science and Technologies.” Innovation: The European
Journal of Social Science Research 20 (4): 307–311. doi:10.1080/13511610701775166.
Godoe, H., and T. B. Hansen. 2009. “Technological Regimes in m-Commerce: Convergence as a
Barrier to Diffusion and Entrepreneurship?” Telecommunications Policy 33 (1–2): 19–28.
doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2008.10.004.
Golembiewski, B., N. Sick, and S. Bröring. 2015. “Patterns of Convergence Within the Emerging
Bioeconomy — the Case of the Agricultural and Energy Sector.” International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management 12 (3): 1550012. doi:10.1142/S0219877015500121.
Gordijn, B. 2006. “Converging NBIC Technologies for Improving Human Performance: A Critical
Assessment of the Novelty and the Prospects of the Project.” Journal of Law, Medicine and
Ethics 34: 726–732. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00092.x.
Guilhon, B. 2001. Technology and Markets for Knowledge: Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and
Exchange Within a Growing Economy. Berlin: Springer.
Hacklin, F. 2008. Management of Convergence in Innovation: Strategies and Capabilities for Value
Creation Beyond Blurring Industry Boundaries (Springer e-books.). Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag.
Hacklin, F., B. Battistini, and G. von Krogh. 2013. “Strategic Choices in Converging Industries.”
MIT Sloan Management Review 55 (55116): 65–73.
Hacklin, F., C. Marxt, and F. Fahrni. 2009. “Coevolutionary Cycles of Convergence: An
Extrapolation from the ICT Industry.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (6):
723–736. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.03.003.
Hallingby, H. K., G. Hartviksen, S. Elaluf-Calderwood, and C. Sørensen. 2016. “Convergence in
Action: A Case Study of the Norwegian Internet.” Telematics and Informatics 33 (2): 641–
649. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.011.
Han, E. J., and S. Y. Sohn. 2016. “Technological Convergence in Standards for Information and
Communication Technologies.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 106: 1–10.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.003.
Hilgartner, S. 1995. “Biomolecular Databases: New Communication Regimes for Biology?”
Science Communication. doi:10.1177/1075547095017002009.
Jeong, S., and S. Lee. 2015. “What Drives Technology Convergence? Exploring the Influence of
Technological and Resource Allocation Contexts.” Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management – JET-M 36: 78–96. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.004.
Karvonen, M., and T. Kässi. 2013. “Patent Citations as a Tool for Analysing the Early Stages of
Convergence.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (6): 1094–1107. doi:10.
1016/j.techfore.2012.05.006.
Kastenhofer, K. 2007. “Converging Epistemic Cultures?” Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research 20 (4): 359–373. doi:10.1080/13511610701767908.
Kim, M., and C. Kim. 2012. “On A Patent Analysis Method for Technological Convergence.”
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 40: 657–663. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.245.
Kim, N., H. Lee, W. Kim, H. Lee, and J. H. Suh. 2015. “Dynamic Patterns of Industry Convergence:
Evidence from a Large Amount of Unstructured Data.” Research Policy 44 (9): 1734–1748.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.001.
Kim, K.-H., W. Shim, Y.-H. Moon, O.-J. Kwon, K. Kim, and J. Son. 2014. “The Structure of Bio-
information-Nano Technology Convergence from Firms’ Perspective.” Foresight 16 (3): 270–
288. doi:10.1108/FS-11-2012-0082.
16 F. Stezano

Larsen, P. B., T. Ahlqvist, and K. Frioriksson. 2009. Applying Technology Convergence for
Innovation in Nordic Regions. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre. http://nordicinnovation.org/
Global/_Publications/Reports/2010/Applying%20converging%20technologies%20for%
20innovation%20in%20Nordic%20regions.pdf.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laurent, B. 2007. “Diverging Convergences: Competing Meanings of Nanotechnology and
Converging Technologies in a Local Context.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research 20 (4): 343–357. doi:10.1080/13511610701760804.
Lee, W. S., E. J. Han, and S. Y. Sohn. 2015. “Predicting the Pattern of Technology Convergence
Using Big-Data Technology on Large-Scale Triadic Patents.” Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 100: 317–329. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.022.
Lind, J. 2005. “Ubiquitous Convergence: Market Redefinitions Generated by Technological Change
and the Industry Life Cycle.” In DRUID Academy Winter Conference (p. 20). https://wireless.
kth.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Ubiquitous_Convergence_Jonas-Lind.pdf.
MacGregor, D., M. Baba, A. Oliva, A. Collins, W. Scacch, B. Scassellati, P. Rubin, R. Mason, and J.
Spohrer. 2014. “Convergence Platforms: Human-Scale Convergence and the Quality of Life.”
In Convergence of Knowledge,Technology and Society. Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-
Cognitive Technologies, edited by M. Roco, W. Bainbridge, B. Tonn, and G. Whitesides, 72–
102. Dordrecht: Springer.
Macnaghten, P., M. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. “Nanotechnology, Governance and Public
Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27 (2): 268–291.
Mayr, O. 1976. “The Science-Technology Relationship as a Historiographic Problem.” Technology
and Culture 17 (4): 663–673. doi:10.2307/3103673.
McCray, W. P. 2005. “Will Small Be Beautiful? Making Policies for Our Nanotech Future.” History
and Technology. doi:10.1080/07341510500103735.
Moyo, L. 2013. “Introduction: Critical Reflections on Technological Convergence on Radio and the
Emerging Digital Cultures and Practices.” Telematics and Informatics 30 (3): 211–213. doi:10.
1016/j.tele.2012.10.005.
Nordmann, A. 2004. Converging Technologies: Shaping the Future of European Societies.
Rapporteur of the High-Level Expert Group Foresighting the New Technology Wave. https://
www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt.de/media/institut_fuer_philosophie/diesunddas/nordmann/
cteks.pdf.
Pennings, J. M., and P. Puranam. 2001. “Market Convergence & Firm Strategy: New Directions for
Theory and Research.” In ECIS Conference, The Future of Innovation Studies, Eindhoven,
Netherlands (V. 20, N. 23.09).
Rafols, I. 2007. “Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition in Bionanotechnology: Why are
Interdisciplinary Practices Less Widespread than Expected?” Innovation: The European
Journal of Social Science Research 20 (4): 395–412. doi:10.1080/13511610701760770.
Rath, B. N. 2016. “Does the Digital Divide Across Countries Lead to Convergence? New
International Evidence.” Economic Modelling 58: 75–82. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.020.
Robinson, D. K. R. 2015. “Distinguishing the Umbrella Promise of Converging Technology Form
the Dynamics of Technology Convergence.” In Knowing New Biotechnologies: Social Aspects
of Technological Convergence, 218. doi:10.4324/9781315776781.
Roco, M. C., and W. S. Bainbridge. 2003. “Converging Technologies for Improving Human
Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive
Science.” NSF/DOC-Sponsored Report. doi:10.1016/j.anngen.2003.09.001.
Roco, M. C., W. Bainbridge, B. Tonn, and G. Whitesides. 2013. Convergence of Knowledge,
Technology and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Schmidt, J. C. 2008. “Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. An Attempt to Provide a
Classification and Clarification.” Poiesis & Praxis 5 (1): 53–69. doi:10.1007/s10202-007-
0037-8.
Schummer, J. 2004. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Patterns of Research Collaboration
in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.” Scientometrics. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.
71314.38.
Schummer, J. 2010. “From Nano-Convergence to NBIC-Convergence: ‘The Best Way to Predict the
Future Is to Create It’.” In Governing Future Technologies. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook,
 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 17

vol. 27, edited by M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 57–71. New York:
Springer.
Selin, C. 2007. “Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology.” Science Technology and
Human Values. doi:10.1177/0162243906296918.
Shim, W., O. J. Kwon, Y. H. Moon, and K. H. Kim. 2016. “Understanding the Dynamic
Convergence Phenomenon from the Perspective of Diversity and Persistence: A Cross-Sector
Comparative Analysis Between the United States and South Korea.” PLoS ONE 11 (7):
e0159249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159249.
Song, C. H., D. Elvers, and J. Leker. 2017. “Anticipation of Converging Technology Areas — A
Refined Approach for the Identification of Attractive Fields of Innovation.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 116: 98–115. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.001.
Stezano, F., and R. Oliver. 2015. “La colaboración entre actores como condición para el avance de
procesos de convergencia de conocimiento para beneficio de la sociedad. Los vínculos ciencia-
industria en México”. In Convergencia de conocimiento para beneficio de la sociedad.
Tendencias, perspectivas, debates y desafíos, edited by A. Morales, R. de Gortari, and F.
Stezano, 13–42. Mexico City: Editorial Los Reyes & CONACYT.
Stezano, F., and F. Quezada. 2017. “Convergencia tecnológica y científica en torno al sector
biotecnológico.” In El paradigma de la convergencia del conocimiento: alternativa de
trabajo colaborativo y multidisciplinario, edited by M. Casalet, 25–52. Mexico City: FLACSO.
Stieglitz, N. 2003. “Digital Dynamics and Types of Industry Convergence: The Evolution of the
Handheld Computers Market in the 1990s and Beyond.” In The Industrial Dynamics of the
New Digital Economy, edited by J. Christensen and P. Maskell, 179–208. Cheltenham: Edwar
Elgar.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-
Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review.” British Journal of
Management 14: 207–222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Weingart, P., and N. Stehr. 2000. “Practising Interdisciplinarity.” BioScience 55. doi:10.1641/0006-
3568(2005)055[0967:PI]2.0.CO;2.
Wienroth, M., and E. Rodrigues. 2015. Knowing New Biotechnologies: Social Aspects of
Technological Convergence. London: Taylor & Francis.
Woolgar, S., C. Coenen, and E. Simakova. 2008. “The Ontological Politics of Convergence.” In
Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social Sciences and Humanities
(CONTECS). An Analysis of Critical Issues and a Suggestion for a Future Research Agenda,
edited by D. Andler, S. Barthelmé, B. Beckert, C. Blümel, C. Coenen, T. Fleischer, M.
Friedewald, M. Quendt, M. Rader, E. Simakova, and S. Woolgar, 291–344. Karlsruhe:
European Union. https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/publications/1243/124377001-6_en.pdf.