Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of ... - Springer Link

AMS Review https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0109-4

THEORY/CONCEPTUAL

Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation Anastasia Thyroff 1

&

Jennifer Christie Siemens 1 & Jeff B. Murray 2

Received: 11 May 2016 / Accepted: 15 December 2017 # Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Abstract The purpose of this research is to provide a framework for studying the key stakeholders who play a role in the process legitimation of an innovation. Specifically, we combine Foucault’s discourse on power, Latour’s Actor Network Theory and Goffman’s frame analysis to present a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation (PIL). To demonstrate its usefulness, we apply the PIL framework to the context of nanotechnology. We ultimately determine that there are four key stakeholders trying to frame nanotechnology: 1) Advancement (i.e., government), 2) Management (i.e., industry), 3) Development (i.e., academia), and 4) Reflection (i.e., NGOs). The trajectory of market formation and legitimation for nanotechnology will depend largely on the cultural discourses that are disseminated by these four actors and the way other peripheral actors interpret the dominant frames. By conceptualizing the current frames for an innovation in the process of legitimizing, the future of each key discourse can be envisioned. Keywords Legitimation . Nanotechnology . Goffman . Foucault . Actor network theory . Innovation . Assemblage

Introduction Historically, in marketing, emerging innovations were examined from the viewpoint of a single stakeholder; for instance, the consumer’s perspective (Mishra et al. 2015; Putit and Arnott 2007; Macnaghten et al. 2015) or the firm’s perspective (Calantone et al. 2002; Di Mascio 2016). However, the definition and scope of marketing have been broadening for decades, where the viewpoint of multiple market stakeholders is Purpose: to provide a theoretical framework for studying the process of innovation legitimation. * Anastasia Thyroff [email protected] Jennifer Christie Siemens [email protected] Jeff B. Murray [email protected] 1

Department of Marketing, College of Business, Clemson University, 262 Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29631-1325, USA

2

Department of Marketing, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, 302B, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

considered (Hult et al. 2011), which is an important direction for innovation research (Owen et al. 2012). Specifically, much attention has been brought to the assemblage or legitimation process surrounding a market or innovation. Legitimation is the perception of an entity or innovation as being Bdesirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and, definitions^ (Suchman 1995, p. 574); it is widespread societal acceptance and stability of an innovation (Engeström 2005; Johnson et al. 2006; Press et al. 2014; Weber 1978). Legitimation is formed subjectively by the objective opinions of different stakeholders and ultimately comes down to whether a dominant opinion, schema or belief is accepted by observers (Johnson et al. 2006; Suchman 1995). Multiple cultural discourses are being framed by a variety of key actors as an innovation emerges and attempts to legitimize. These key actors often do not begin with the same worldview for the novel innovation. Therefore, for a market to become legitimized, the key actors must interact and negotiate their stance, and, ultimately, a particular frame/cultural discourse, or a combination of these discourses, will need to become dominant. Although it helps to historically understand how an innovation was legitimized, it is also beneficial for marketers to understand innovation discourses while they

AMS Rev

negotiate. Further, much can also be learned from innovations that haven’t yet been fully legitimized. By studying historical legitimacy, marketing researchers have been able to understand how a product was legitimized in society. For instance, Giesler (2012) finds that companies such as Botox Cosmetics, have to tailor their marketing branding strategies to combat critics during the process of legitimation. Specifically, for Botox to legitimize, megabranding battles took place where the marketers had to combat images of poison, frozen face, torture, and junkie. Humphreys and Latour (2013) find, through a series of experiments, that the way an innovation is framed by the media has a large impact on its legitimacy. Specifically, they examine the legitimacy of online gambling before and after an abrupt shift (i.e., an FBI crackdown) in the context. They find that the media’s portrayal of the crackdown has a significant impact on consumer judgments of, and associations with, the innovation. However, despite the importance of the process of legitimation, a conceptualization that allows for the exploration of innovations while they are in the process of legitimizing is sparse. It has been suggested that researchers Bcombine the attention to technological artifacts... such as actor network theory and social construction of technology, with more traditional sociological approaches like Goffman’s, which attend to the interaction order and the means which materiality and technology facilitate^ (Pinch 2010, p. 424). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to construct a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation (PIL). To do this, we combine 1) Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ANT), 2) Foucault’s discourse on power and knowledge, and 3) Goffman’s frame analysis. Each of the selected theories plays a specific role. ANT allows for the understanding of the structure of the legitimation process and identification of the key stakeholders. Foucault’s ordering tools allow for the understanding of the contextual cultural discourses. Collectively, ANT and Foucault can be applied to Goffman’s frame analysis, which enables researchers to compare the alternative discourses. The theoretical contribution of the PIL framework is useful as it allows researchers to have a deep understanding of frame packages (i.e., set of frames that make up any given societal issue) currently surrounding an innovation. The frame packages give researchers an ability to see the different actors who will eventually use and interpret these frames. Further, by studying an innovation in the process of legitimizing, important actor tensions can be studied, and innovation futures can be critically envisioned. To demonstrate how the PIL framework can be used, we apply it to the context of nanotechnology – an exemplar context for an emerging technological innovation. We determine that there are four key stakeholders currently trying to frame nanotechnology: the government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). What happens in

the innovation’s formation and legitimation for nanotechnology will depend largely on the cultural discourses that are disseminated by these stakeholders and how other peripheral actors (e.g., media, distributors, buyers, wholesalers, doctors, lawyers, consumers) incorporate, interpret, adapt and/or reject the frames. We also use the PIL framework to envision how the future of nanotechnology would look if certain cultural discourses’ frame were to succeed.

Process of innovation legitimation (PIL) framework We construct a framework to bring together existing theories and explain how their multiplicative value allows for better understanding of the process of innovation legitimation. Specifically, we combine ANT, Foucault’s discourses on power, and Goffman’s frame analysis. Figure 1 graphically depicts the PIL framework. The PIL framework is important, as actors do not begin with the same worldview. Instead, actors argue, persuade, and negotiate with other actors in the network, asserting their worldview or perspective. Over time, their varying perspectives may become aligned, and roles for each actor are assigned, mobilizing the network and legitimizing the innovation. Several theories have been used to study assemblage and legitimation within the marketing literature thus far, but the dominant theory is ANT (Canniford and Bajde 2016). However, ANT has been critiqued for lacking ontological structure (for an overview, see Bettany 2016; Martin and 1. Actor Network Theory Analysis of translation Focus on process leading to mobilization Identifies key stakeholders

2. Foucault Discourse Analysis of historical statements Focus on order and power Helps researchers understand social system

3. Goffman’s Frame Analysis Enabling theory that makes implicit discourses explicit Organizes discourses by producer, causes, foundations, descriptors & actions

Process of Innovation Legitimation (PIL) Framework

Fig. 1 Process of Innovation Legitimation (PIL) framework

AMS Rev

Schouten 2014; Press et al. 2014). That is, although ANT is labeled as a Btheory,^ it is more of an actor identifier. Therefore, in the PIL framework, we start with ANT but do not end with it. Simply, ANT enables researchers to map the structure of a social system. This is a useful and important first step. However, it does not enable the investigator to understand the social system. To understand the content of what is being presented, discussed, debated, and negotiated within a social network demands a perspective that draws attention to two related facets: power and knowledge. Thus, we draw on Foucault’s theories of power and knowledge to better understand the cultural discourses that are asserted by different actors in the network. Foucault allows researchers to understand the key actors and the differing cultural discourses that they are asserting into society. Where ANT is useful for understanding the structure, Foucault allows for an understanding of the content. Lastly, we apply Goffman’s frame analysis as an enabling theory, as it allows researchers to compare the cultural discourses of different actors. The problem we run into when analyzing different cultural discourses, coming from different actors, is that they are intentionally framed differently and are organized in varying formats. The different framing makes it problematic to directly compare actor discourses in a parallel way. Therefore, Goffman’s frame analysis allows researchers to construct the frame package and network as well as understand the current status of legitimation for a novel social object. Specifically, it allows researchers to reformat each discourse, enabling a careful comparison of actor’s positions, root causes, foundations, descriptors, and actions. We will now detail our use of the three theories in the PIL framework below. Actor network theory (ANT) Latour’s actor-network theory (1988, 2005) has become one of the most popular theories for studying market legitimation (Bettany et al. 2014; Canniford and Shankar 2013; Epp et al. 2014; Giesler 2012; Hansson 2015; Hui 2012; Schouten et al. 2016; Thomas et al. 2013). ANT is a set of ideas that views all social actors on the same level in order to thoroughly explore a network’s relational ties. One tool within ANT is translation– a four-stage process whereby ultimately certain human and non-human actors within the network gain control over the others (Callon 1986; Latour 1988, 2005). The first step of translation, problematization, occurs when a new social object or innovation is introduced to society, and actors that seek to play a role in the market formation are identified. The second step, interessement, occurs when each of the actors begin negotiating what they would like to see happen during the legitimation process for the social object/ innovation. The third step, enrollment, is when the actors’

roles are agreed upon within the network. The last step, mobilization, is when the legitimation success, or failure, is accepted (Callon 1986; Latour 1988, 2005; Bettany 2016). Ultimately, mobilization is achieved when actors agree upon their roles, and the market achieves, or fails, to achieve stability (Latour 2005; Bettany et al. 2014). However, ANT often goes through multiple transitions, as markets are not always stable after the first attempt. ANT has been used to study the legitimation process of many contexts, including: motorcycle racing (Martin and Schouten 2014), bird watching (Hui 2012), Botox (Giesler 2012), technologies and new fatherhood (Bettany et al. 2014), and the American organic industry (Schouten et al. 2016). For example, through a series of actor network translations, Martin and Schouten (2014) examined the emergence of a new phenomenon in motorcycle racing, minimoto supercross (MMSX). Specific to MMSX, they found that the first-stage translations included the emergence of the minimoto rider, the second-stage translations included the assembling of the MMSX community, and the third-stage translations included the legitimizing and mobilization of the market. As an intuitive, albeit simplified, example, ANT can be applied to the context of introducing a new Bsignificant other^ to your friends and family. ANT helps identify the key actors, or friends and family, who will ultimately play a role in whether the Bsignificant other^ is accepted (problematization). Then, the interactions between the key actors and the new Bsignificant other^ can be patterned and analyzed (interessement). Further, dominant actor(s) with the most influence during the interactions can be identified (enrollment). Ultimately, it can be determined whether the Bsignificant other^ is accepted (or not accepted) into the social network (mobilization). As mentioned, often mobilization is disrupted and goes through several translations. Therefore, if the Bsignificant other^ isn’t accepted at first, you may try to introduce them again under a different circumstance, or after winning over one of the more dominant actors. Then, the translation process may end differently. The PIL framework is focused on understanding the process by which innovation is legitimized. Thus, ANT’s translation is relevant for two reasons. First, translation allows researchers to understand market legitimation from a temporal perspective. Specifically, translation allows researchers to identify and understand which translation stage an innovation occupies. As such, researchers can identify contexts that are still caught in the earlier phases of translation and are having difficulty reaching mobilization. Second, it allows researchers to identify the key actors and the key statements, arguments, motivations, actions that they are using to negotiate network roles. ANT can also be used to identify more peripheral actors. We consider peripheral actors be to be playing a role in the mobilization, but not a vocal one. Specifically, they are not

AMS Rev

key knowledge producers. As such, they will interpret, incorporate, adapt, and/or reject the frames the key stakeholders are adapting and translate them for society. However, since ANT does not understand the Bwhy^ of a social network, it falls short in achieving an in-depth analysis of the current state of each stakeholder. Specifically, ANT falls short in achieving an in-depth analysis of the current state of each actor. Cresswell et al. (2010), p. 6) describe ANT’s shortcoming as Bfailing to come up with any detailed suggestions of how actors should be seen, and their actions analyzed and interpreted.^ As such, they further suggest that BANT may be best used in combination with other theoretical approaches.^ Therefore, to help us understand why a mobilization did or didn’t occur, we supplement ANT with Foucault’s discourses on knowledge and power. Foucault’s discourse on knowledge and power Philosophy and history have traditionally been taught and learned by understanding the stream of people and their key thoughts that progressed concepts and theories over time (Gutting 2005). However, Foucault argues that this way of understanding history is flawed because humans are largely constrained on how they think due to implicit societal rules and cultural discourses. Therefore, one person’s view of a theory contains superficial narrative validity. Specifically, standard history misses key points Bbecause it attends only to the theories of individual thinkers and ignores the underlying archaeological frameworks necessary to grasp their ultimately significance^ (Gutting 2005, p. 39). Therefore, Foucault believed that history was nonevolutionary; it is not capable of progressions, or digressions, as they become distorted with one’s image and experiences of that period of time. Rather, he believed that history was made up of fragmented, conflicting, and sometimes unrelated pieces of information that can be valuable in understanding the deep underlying structure of a context (Best and Kellner 1991; Foucault 1972; Gutting 2005). To help understand and study history and its fragmented and conflicting pieces, he developed archaeology as an ordering tool. Archaeology involves analyzing historical actor discourses, or statements, to understand actor stances and how actors are connected to each other. The statements are then analyzed regarding how they grant actors authority and how actors can use their authority to limit other actors (Foucault 1980; Kendall and Wickham 1998). Archaeology advocates analyzing statements of the past and discovering why those statements occurred, why some reoccurred, and how statements can be used to connect the visible and the sayable. Archaeology also seeks to connect cultural discourse to the actors that they come from; it analyzes what positions different actors and stakeholders take based on their discourse and statements. Further, archaeology can determine actor power by exploring statements of

authority and limitations (Foucault 1972; Foucault 2002; Kendall and Wickham 1998). Archaeology looks at how certain statements can grant actors power and authority and how actors can use their newly acquired power to limit other actors (Kendall and Wickham 1998). Going back to our new Bsignificant other^ example, ANT can determine the key actors in the ultimate acceptance or rejection of your new Bsignificant other^ by family or friends, but Foucault’s theory allows researchers to understand the discourse, conversation, agreement, and disagreement surrounding the introduction of the Bsignificant other.^ Further, Foucault helps us better understand persuasion and influence, or power of the key actors. For instance, perhaps there is a dominant parent or a protective best friend with the capital needed to influence the others – this is power. Ultimately, Foucault allows us to better understand the process by which your friends and family ultimately decided they liked or didn’t like your Bsignificant other.^ A key point of Foucault’s theory is that understanding the underlying societal structures that form thought is more important than understanding the individual discourse surrounding a success or failure, which ANT does. Cultural discourses and underlying archaeological structure simultaneously open up and constrain ways of thinking and being. Therefore, through developing an understanding of the culture and structure, we are better able to understand the history and formation of a context. In this sense, it is not an expression that makes a statement significant, but rather its placement in society and the rules surrounding it that gives a statement meaning. Additionally, ANT describes the four stages of translation. However, Foucault can interpret the responses and reactions of the actors during the legitimation process. While Foucault mentions that there is an endless number of contingencies around this process, he doesn’t provide a way to study the contingencies (Foucault 1972) – that is, where the cultural discourses came from. It can also be difficult to compare the different actor’s discourses. Therefore, we add Goffman’s frame analysis as an enabling theory to our PIL framework. Goffman’s frame analysis At the heart of cultural and societal debates are framing competitions – or different ways issues are presented or Bframed^ to society. Frames have been shown to have an impact on how society accepts or rejects an innovation (Humphreys and Latour 2013). Cultural frames are rather stable and are established in a variety of ways by a variety of cultural producers (Goffman 1974; Goffman 1981); they can be represented by a word, phrase, or proposition (Scheff 2005). To understand the different framing competitions surrounding an issue, a frame analysis can be conducted where frame packages are developed (Goffman 1981). Frame packages describe the set of frames surrounding any given societal issue

AMS Rev

and can be used to define and give meaning to products and issues at hand (Van Gorp 2007). For instance, Van Gorp and van der Goot (2012) analyze the sustainable food industry and determine that there are six frames which are named based on their discourses relative to the contexts of sustainable food (e.g., responsibility, undermining of foundations, Frankenstein, natural goodness, progress, and good mother) that make up its frame package. Frame packages are reflective and allow researchers and consumers to excavate implicit assumptions so that a context is straightforward and easier to understand; this is important for many social issues, including ones that are complex and in the process of assembling. Frame analysis can take an intricate issue with several rooted discourses and give researchers an opportunity to organize the cultural discourses systematically. By organizing discourses into frame packages, researchers can better understand how frames compete, complement, and interact with other frames (Van Gorp 2007). Simply, frame analysis is an enabling theory that allows researchers an opportunity to organize their conceptualizations. To organize cultural discourses, a frame package is developed, which consists of six core components: the cultural producer, the current position, the root cause(s), the foundation, the descriptors, and the actions (Kwan 2009). The cultural producer of the frame is the advocate (e.g., the organization, the institutional infrastructure) that sponsors and articulates the frame. The position refers to the underlying assumptions, logic, and reasoning that define a frame. The root cause refers to the origins of cultural phenomena through which one tries to articulate the deep, underlying sociological factors that make the cultural producer have the stance that they do. The foundation is the intentional appeal to modern cultural values to which society can relate. The descriptors refer to the metaphors, catchphrases, and depictions that the particular frame uses in its dialogue. Finally, actions are the procedures, dealings, events and public policies used to enact the values of the cultural producer. Going back to our new Bsignificant other^ example, Goffman’s frame analysis allows us to categorize the different key actor’s discourses surrounding the new significant other. For instance, some of the friends or family may communicate by joking, others by fighting, others by having a reasoned, articulate opinion, and others by being emotional. Therefore, it can be difficult to compare the ideas and discourses of the different actors unless we put each discourse in the same format so that the actors can be compared across a context. Here, Goffman’s frame analysis is useful as an enabling theory where we can categorically document each key actor’s stances, foundations, descriptors used, and actions taken around the Bsignificant other.^ Frame analysis allows researchers to understand the viewpoints of various stakeholders by relating those stances to a specific cultural phenomena, innovation or object (Van Gorp 2007).

Theory integration When an innovation is introduced, there are clusters of actors, all with different worldviews who are involved in creating semiotic and material meaning for the innovation. Therefore, the different actors must interact and negotiate their varying perspective for the network to become aligned and ultimately legitimized. Traditionally, marketers are interested in understanding innovations once they have been mobilized to society. However, here we are focused on the process by which the innovation is legitimized. Therefore, we draw from ANT to help us identify the cluster of actors that exist, as well as to identify actors and their discourse while they are in the process of translation. ANT is a social network identifier, but it doesn’t help understand the underlying meanings of a network – for this, we need to draw from additional ideas. Therefore, we also draw from Foucault’s theory of power, which is used to understand the discursive content being debated within the network. However, it can be difficult to analyze multiple cultural discourses when they are coming from actors with different frames, all who are discussing the innovation in varied formats or languages. Therefore, it can be problematic to directly compare actor discourses in a paralleled way. To overcome the issue of comparing actor discourses, we draw from Goffman’s frame analysis which enables comparisons across stakeholder discourses. As such, Goffman’s frame analysis allows researchers to compare assumptions, key arguments and other discourses surrounding the innovation. In this way, Goffman’s frame analysis serves as an enabling theory for the PIL framework. ANT, Foucault’s discourses of power, and Goffman’s frame analysis come together to form the PIL framework. Each of these theories plays a specific role: ANT helps us uncover the network structure and identifies its location within the translation process, Foucault helps understand the actor content, and Goffman enables us to compare alternative discourses. These three social theories come together in an integrated way to create a single theory of process legitimation for innovations. The PIL framework is useful in multiple contexts. To demonstrate the PIL framework’s utility, we will apply it to the context of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology provides an illustrative example as it is an exemplar for emerging technological innovations and it is not yet legitimized.

Nanotechnology The eighteenth century and the creation of factories brought about what we now know as the modern city; specifically, the industrial revolution created jobs, which prompted people to migrate to cities (Huyssen 1986). For the first time in history, consumers were reliant on other people for their sources of food and products. The commercialization of food and

AMS Rev

products increased competition and encouraged companies to differentiate themselves, which often led to increasingly complex products. This trend has continued into the postmodern world, as the complication and consumer confusion of products are at an all-time high (Turnbull et al. 2000; Walsh and Vincent-Wayne 2010). Technologies are smaller, more intricate, and more integrated than ever before (Best and Kellner 1991; Chen et al. 2013; Franklin 2017). One of these cuttingedge technologies is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is the control, manipulation, and application of matter on the atomic and molecular (nano-scale) level. By manipulating matter on such a small level, nanomaterials have more unique properties than the same material at the Bbulk^ (normal size) scale (Maynard 2006). Silver, at the nanoscale, becomes antibacterial. Carbon can be transformed into nanotubes, which are lighter, but ten times stronger, than steel. Because of their unique properties, nanomaterials are attractive for use in a large spectrum of product categories (Flatow 2009). For instance, Wilson has introduced a very popular nanocarbon tennis racket that is more durable and lighter in weight than the average tennis racket. Blue Lizard uses nanozincoxide to create a strong, yet transparent, sunscreen lotion. Nanographene is great for storing energy, so it is being used to produce many electronics, batteries, and solar panels (Nanowerk 2017). There are also many nano advancements being made in the medical field. For instance, a new drug injection system called the nanosponge can link a medicine with a tracker so that specific parts of the body can be targeted with the medicine rather than the entire body (Salisbury 2010). Nanotechnology has started a new technological revolution that has the potential to change many facets of life for consumers (Peterson 2000). The justification for analyzing the process of innovation legitimation for nanotechnology is fourfold: 1) there is a lack of consumer knowledge about nanotechnology, 2) it is difficult to determine if products include nanomaterials, 3) the potential exists for broad market dissemination, and 4) the effects of use are still unknown. Specifically, although nanotechnology is slowly being diffused and used in industry, there are many studies that have put nanotechnology’s safety into question (Allen et al. 2015; Maynard 2006; Oberdörster 2010). Therefore, it is a fruitful context in which to study the process of legitimation and a good illustrative example of our PIL framework. First, unlike most products, consumers know very little about nanotechnology (Davies 2009). Due to the consumer’s lack of knowledge, it is unknown how consumers will react to its presence (Buzby 2010). Thyroff (2011) finds that about half of consumers surveyed consider themselves to be Bvery unknowledgeable^ about nanotechnology, and only 1% consider themselves very knowledgeable. Macnaghten et al. (2015) find that consumer acceptance of emerging technologies, in particular nanotechnology, is fraught with uncertainty and skepticism. Siegrist (2010) emphasizes the importance of

public perception in the acceptance of nanotechnology, and, therefore, a lack of consumer knowledge may hinder the legitimation process. The second reason why studying nanotechnology from a legitimation perspective is important is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine if a product is made using nanomaterials. Companies can simply interchange or enhance the Bbulk^ scale materials with nanomaterials without consumer awareness. In the United States, there are no labeling laws for nanotechnology products or foods (Siegrist and Keller 2011). Still, research suggests that labeling may increase risk perceptions and decrease perceived benefits associated with product use (Siegrist and Keller 2011). Siegrist et al. (2007) find that consumers are overall hesitant to purchase foods, or packaging, containing nanoparticles, partially due to a mistrust of the food industry. Third, nanotechnology’s current manifestation and commercial application have been around for nearly two decades, and its broad dissemination is impending (NNCO 2016). Federal funding of nanotechnology quadrupled from 2001 to 2012, with $2.1 billion spent on nanotechnology research and development. The NNI (National Nanotechnology Initative) plans to invest another 1.4 billion into nanotechnology in 2017 (NNCO 2016). Further, the global market for nanotechnology is expected to grow an additional 17.5% between 2016 and 2022 (Research and Markets 2015). However, these descriptive statistics indicate that, eventually, nanotechnology will become an inevitable part of life. Still, the success (or failure) of this technology depends largely on the dynamics of the actor network. That is, the commercial growth of nanotechnology depends largely on the dynamics of the actor network that surrounds nanotechnology and the frames that shape it. In this way, the potential long-term benefits of nanotechnology depend, in part, on the legitimation process. Fourth, the long-term health and environmental impact of the manufacturing and use of nanotechnologies is unknown (Hunt and Mehta 2008). Although there are no documented cases of harm attributable to nanomaterials (Davies 2009), a growing body of literature argues that there is the potential for serious health and environmental risks (Allen et al. 2015; Maynard 2006; Oberdörster 2010). While some discourse producers are trying to frame the perceived risks, others are trying to frame the perceived safety. Nanotechnology is in the process of becoming legitimized, and much can be learned from the actor tensions resulting from this process (Suchman 1995). For all of these reasons, nanotechnology is not only complex and misunderstood by consumers, it is also the subject of much debate between the government, scientists, NGOs, and academics (Buzby 2010; FOE 2014; Maynard 2006; Oberdörster 2010; Peterson 2000). Regardless of this uncertainty, both industry and government continue to fund

AMS Rev

research and produce products that are comprised of nanomaterials (Flatow 2009; Sargent Jr 2016; Shelley 2006). Since nanotechnology is so complex, the stakeholders surrounding it are so dynamic, and since it is struggling to reach mobilization, it is an ideal context in which to illustrate the PIL framework.

Illustrating the PIL framework As specified in the PIL framework, ANT, Foucault’s discourses on power and Goffman’s frame analysis were implemented in our illustration. Starting with ANT’s translation, we identified a dynamic and complex innovation struggling to reach mobilization (i.e., nanotechnology). We also relied on ANT translations to identify the key stakeholders and the statements that they are using to negotiate their role in the legitimation process. Specifically, 200 articles were collected through a Google alert for Bnanotechnology^ over a four-year period when nanotechnology was highly debated. The articles consisted of news articles, press releases, magazine features, and academic articles. We then used a historical analytic approach to analyze the statements and negotiations taking place within the articles. Then, considering Foucault’s theory of knowledge and power, we began to evaluate the meaning of the information being disseminated by each key actor. We determined that there are four main actors debating nanotechnology and disseminating information surrounding the mobilization of nanotechnology: government, industry, science, and NGOs. Although there are additional peripheral actors (which we will discuss later), these are the four main stakeholders actively framing, discussing, and disseminating the meaning of nanotechnology. As such, using NVIVO 9, a folder was created for each key actor, and the articles were placed into each folder accordingly. Then we started to analyze the material in each folder paying specific attention to the language used in the development of nanotechnology and nanoproducts. We found that each key stakeholder had a specific discourse that it was trying to disseminate to society. Specifically, the government culturally produces the advancement frame. This frame stresses the benefits of nanotechnology and contends that research and development in nanotechnology are essential to maintain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Industry produces the management frame which is based on economic efficiency and profit. This frame emphasizes that nanotechnology will produce new products and improve marketplace functionality. Academia produces the development, which is based on the exploration of the new technology and discovering applications for it. Lastly, NGOs produce the reflection frame. At the core of this frame is the belief that both industry and government are not vested in what is best for society and their power must be checked.

We then used Goffman’s frame analysis to organize our findings of these frames. Specifically, we developed a frame package for nanotechnology (summarized in Table 1). Specifically, we took the statements found from the key actors (discovered using ANT), and the understanding of the statements (discovered using Foucault) and organized them by the cultural producer, the current position, the root cause(s), the foundation, the descriptors, and the actions (enabled by using Goffman). By creating a frame package for nanotechnology, each frame can be compared easily. We now describe nanotechnology’s frame package in more detail below.

Advancement frame The cultural producer of the advancement frame for nanotechnology is the federal government. The United States government created the NNI in 2001 to coordinate all federal nanotechnology research and development (NNCO 2016). Overall, the advancement’s current position stresses the benefits of nanotechnology use for the United States. That is, the understanding and producing of a technology will lead to a technological revolution that can benefit society. This can be seen in nontechnology through the positioning of the NNI. The positioning of the NNI is fourfold: 1) to develop a world-class nanotechnology research and development program, 2) to develop nanotechnology products that will benefit society, 3) to support nanotechnology by developing educational resources, necessary infrastructure and skilled workforce, and 4) to encourage and foster responsibility during the development of nanotechnology (NNCO 2016). To explore the root cause of our frame packages, we draw from Thompson (2004) marketplace mythologies, which uses meaning and metaphors to understand ideological agendas. Specifically, Thompson (2004) identifies gnostic mythos and the romantic mythos which are at the core of debates surrounding nature and technology. The root cause of the advancement frame is the Gnostic mythos. The Gnostic mythos is the belief that science and technology are divine tools that help humanity overcome natural limitations and allow humans to maintain their dominance over nature (Thompson 2004). Further, it is believed that all technology and advances in technology are good for society. The government takes this stance with nanotechnology by advocating that all advances in nanotechnology may improve society and individual lives. Another root cause is understanding the relationship between power, control, and technology. Shelley (2006, p. 1) expresses this withstanding relationship when he says, BThe control of technology defines wealth and power. The control of new technologies shapes and reshapes wealth and power relations, whether between countries or corporations.^ The advancement frame asserts that nanotechnology is necessary for the United States to maintain its global political power.

• Romantic Mythos • Decentralization • Protect the people • Government and companies don’t do what’s best for society • Power needs to be checked • Dangerous until proven safe • Precautionary principle • Stop the sale of unsafe, untested, unlabeled nanofoods • Have had calls to action against nano • Calling for a halt to the sale of nano products • Use emotional pleas to get consumers’ attention • Pursuit of Knowledge • Scientific Method • Foster learning about new technologies • Discovery is good • All things learned are good things to learn • Curiously Cautious • Accelerating progress • Answering fundamental questions • Stimulating interdisciplinary study • Forming buildings and committees to specifically research nanotechnology • Receive money from the government and industry to fund research • Established the NNI • Funding world-class nanotechnology R&D programs • The 2017 NNI budget is $1.4 billion • Since 2001 the NNI has contributed $24 billion to nano R&D The Actions

The Descriptors

The Foundation

The Root Cause(s)

• Investing at least as much money into nanotechnology R&D programs as the government • Most industries are not labeling products as Bnano^ unless the perceived product benefits outweigh the costs

• Regulation for nanotechnology is inadequate • Need to be very cautious with nanotechnology • Society is currently powerless and not being protected • Integrate education and science • Explore and discover new technology and applications for new technology • Desire for acquiring new knowledge; positive and negative • Addressing societal challenges

• Technology creates new products and improves market functionality • Feel that existing regulations for nanotechnology are adequate • Would like future business guidelines • Trying to stay out of the nanotechnology spotlight • Gnostic Mythos • Capitalism • Healthy market performance • New and Improved products • Desire for utilitarian and hedonic values • N/A (not talking) • Nanomaterials will lead to a technological revolution • There are many benefits with the development of nanotechnology • Technology improves society and lives • Gnostic Mythos • Political Power • Nanotechnology R&D is necessary to maintain a worldwide edge • Solve problems and create new products • Maintain worldly competitiveness • Benefiting Society • Safe until proven dangerous (FDA) Current Position

Advancement Government Cultural producer

Table 1

The frame package for nanotechnology

Reflection NGOs Development Academia Management Industry

AMS Rev

The foundation from which this frame is built is the desire for leadership and creative problem-solving through innovation. The advancement frame is firm on the foundation that innovation, creativity, and technological prowess are necessary to maintain a competitive economic and political position. Furthermore, the advancement frame is based on the belief that we must stay on the cutting edge of technological breakthroughs to maintain world power, and nanotechnology is currently a big part of that logic. The following quotes (pulled from the NNI website) give support to the advancement foundation: BGovernment support for basic research and development in its early stages is needed to maintain a competitive position in the worldwide nanotechnology marketplace in order to realize nanotechnology’s full potential,^ and BThe United States has been, and is now, the recognized leader in nanotechnology R&D, but this lead cannot be assumed to be permanent. Thus, the NNI is as important as ever to ensuring U.S. leadership^ (NNCO 2016). The descriptors of the advancement frame stem from the power and the benefits society gains from having a new technology. For example, maintaining global competitiveness and power and benefiting society are both descriptors of this frame. Another catchphrase is seen with the FDA, as they consider nanotechnology Bsafe until proven dangerous^ (FDA 2016). The actions are consistent with the frame and involve the funding of world-class nanotechnology research and development programs. Since the foundation of the NNI, the US government has funded $24 billion to the understanding of nanotechnology (NNCO 2016). In the past decade, nanotechnology funding has increased 850% (McCray 2005). The budget for NNI in 2017 is $1.4 billion. Management frame The management frame package is culturally produced by industry. The nanotechnology industry encompasses all private companies that play a role in producing nanotechnology products or materials for market use. Like other industries, nanotechnology companies can arise from any sector of the supply chain, or any function in it, including: researching, planning, designing, manufacturing, retail, economic efficiency, revenue generating, and profitability. The position of the management frame revolves around the concept that all new inventions, including nanotechnology, can help with market management. Therefore, nanotechnology products are good since they can make companies more profitable and can expand shareholder wealth. The novel products resulting from nanotechnology are also valuable as they can provide customers more value with new and improved products. The management frame contends that the regulations for nanotechnology are adequate but feel that it would be helpful to have specific guidelines to support existing laws (EurActiv 2009). Lastly, it is obvious that many

AMS Rev

companies are trying to stay out of the nanotechnology spotlight. Therefore, information about the use of nanotechnology in products is found through regulatory agencies (e.g., NGOs) rather than from industries themselves. Similar to the advancement frame, within the management frame the root cause is deeply embedded in Gnostic mythos (Thompson 2004). That is, technology can do no harm, and the advance of technology is always good. However, the management frame is focused less on ways the technology can be used to benefit society and more on how the technology can be used to improve market functionality (e.g., extending product lines, create quality, solve problems, generate revenue, and open up new profitable opportunities). Therefore, we also posit that the other root cause of the management frame is the deep underlying institution of capitalism and free markets – where private industry has the power to control its enterprise. According to the World Bank (2015), the United States is the world’s largest national economy with a GDP of $17.95 trillion. The USA has maintained this title since 1944 by having stable growth, high levels of research and development, low unemployment, and free trade, and nanotechnology is an intentional appeal to this institutional value. The foundation from which this frame is built is free trade and healthy markets. Markets exist as a forum for exchange; they bring people together, help people survive, and allow for higher standards of living. The management frame also appeals to consumers’ desire for new and improved products. Therefore, this frame appeals to both utilitarian and hedonic values through product innovation. This frame is intentionally trying to communicate management’s use of nanotechnology; therefore, there are no metaphors, catchphrases, or depictions that this frame is intentionally using. However, they would likely argue for laissez-fair, or hands-off government, as these are founding principles of the United States economy. Other descriptors may include market management, free markets, healthy economy, competitive benefits, what’s good for business is good for society, high profitability, increasing sales, and safe until proven dangerous. Finally, the actions consistent with the frame involve research, development, and production of nanotechnology products. It is suggested that every large corporation has a nanotechnology division (Shelley 2006). Further, it is estimated that industry is investing just as much money into the research and development of nanotechnology products as the government (Miller and Senjen 2008). Another action is a lack of transparency in labeling; that is, the strategic labeling or failure to label products that involve nanotechnology. Products are only labeled when the inclusion of nanomaterials might improve consumers’ perceived product benefits. For instance, Wilson strategically labels some of its tennis racquets and balls for containing nanomaterials that make its products lighter and more durable. However, many companies, especially food companies, refuse to label their products as nano. For

instance, Friends of the Earth, an international network of environmental organizations, found non-naturally occurring nanoparticles in popular products produced by many major food companies (e.g., Mars, Woolworths) despite the companies denying the use of nanoparticles in their food (Nestle and Pollan 2013). Nanomaterials have also been found in food produced by Nestle, Unilever, Kraft, and PepsiCo. These companies argue that nanoproducts require no special disclosures and maintain that labeling their nanofoods products as containing nanomaterials is unnecessary (FOE 2008). Development frame The goal of the development frame is to be unbiased researchers and producers of knowledge. The cultural producers of this frame are scientific researchers in academia. The position of the development frame is the integration of education and science. Academic researchers are continuously exploring and developing nanotechnology, and the technology’s potential and real safety are closely assessed. In the process of discovery, these scientists are investigating all of the possibilities of, and applications for, nanotechnology. Additionally, academic researchers are trying to systematically assess the safety and possibilities of nanotechnology and the concepts of nanotoxicology. They do this by studying how societal challenges in communications, environment, security, energy, and health can be revolutionized through nanotechnology. Other topics studied by academics include consumer acceptance, consumer preferences, labeling issues, policy issues, the emergence of news stories, and the study of thematic trends for nanotechnology. The root cause of the development frame is the pursuit of knowledge, which is derived from the institutional desire to acquire new information, ideas, principles, facts and/or truths. With this frame, all knowledge is a good thing, regardless of what is discovered. Similarly, the second root cause is based on an appreciation of the scientific method. The scientific method has cultural roots dating as far back as ancient Greece where Aristotle stressed the importance of empirical measurement and the pursuit of knowledge (West 2013). The foundation of the development frame is fostering learning about new technologies and the belief in pushing the boundaries of science. The descriptors that depict the development frame stem from the idea of progress and enlightenment values. In a sense, pushing these boundaries of knowledge results in the development frame acting as a broker and knowledge disseminator to both the management and advancement frames. One catchphrase of the development frame is all things learned are good things to learn. Other descriptors include potential, objectivity, science is life, and pursuit of truth and progress. The actions from this frame are evidenced in a large number of academic articles published around the topic of

AMS Rev

technology. Currently, a Google Scholar web search of Bnanotechnology^ yields 964,000 academic articles (2016), up from 587,000 articles in 2013. Additional development frame actions include the worldwide growth and establishment of laboratories and other academic buildings reserved for nanotechnology research. For example, ten leading universities currently have dedicated campus buildings for studying nanotechnology, including Stanford University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reflection frame Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the cultural producer behind the reflection frame package. NGOs are nonprofit organizations that are independent and often funded by donations and run by volunteers. Unlike the other frame packages, the position of the reflection frame is a critical stance. Specifically, this actor and cultural discourse have lost confidence in the administrative institutions to make valid judgments as to the safety and importance of nanotechnology. For this actor, there is a clear legitimation crisis (Habermas 1973). While other stakeholders focus on how to use nanotechnology for their company’s (i.e., management) or society’s (i.e., advancement) advantage, the reflection frame highlights the potential unknowns associated with nanotechnology and has an agenda to communicate these potential risks to consumers. Since nanotechnology’s inception, NGOs (e.g., Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace) have warned consumers that the long-term risks associated with nanoproducts are unknown. Therefore, another underlying position associated with the reflection frame is that new technologies should be treated as dangerous until proven safe. Embedded in this position is a distrust of the other cultural producers; that is, they do not believe that society is being looked out for by the other cultural producers (specifically government and industry). The root cause that fuels the reflection frame is the romantic mythos (Frye 1957; Thompson 2004). A foundation of the romantic mythos is the belief that nature is beautiful and that technology is bad. Furthermore, this frame contends that the development of science and technology has isolated humans too much from nature; therefore, as a society, we must get back to a more natural way of living. Additionally, the reflection frame holds that economic efficiency often contradicts social efficiency. Therefore, the other root cause of the reflection frame is the decentralization of power. In other words, what is good for markets and the government is not always good for people. This position promotes a distrust of authority and the resulting belief that industry power should be dispersed to avoid excessive influence. The core foundation for the reflection cultural frame is to protect, inform, and be a voice for consumers. The NGOs

believe that both government and industry look out for their own best interest, often at the expense of consumer welfare. Therefore, both government and industry power must be checked. Some descriptors used to portray the reflection frame include the precautionary principle, which suggests that technologies should be considered dangerous until proven safe, and an agenda to stop the sale of unsafe, untested, unlabeled novel technologies. Additional descriptors used to support the reflection frame are protect, preserve, caution, safeguard, shield, safeguard, and social and personal health. The reflection frame frequently acts on NGOs beliefs by petitioning the government and industry. Additionally, NGOs have specifically called for a halt to the creation of all nanomaterials and laws prohibiting the sale of nanoproducts. The romantic mythos is represented by creativity, self-expression, and emotional appeals (Thompson 2004), and the same is certainly true of the reflection frame. Specifically, NGOs use emotions such as guilt, anger, and fear to make appeals to society in an attempt to convey their message and make their frame a dominant narrative. For example, one print ad sponsored by Friends of the Earth shows a scientist injecting an apple with the tagline BOut of the laboratory and on to our plates.^ (FOE 2008). Peripheral actors In addition to focusing on the dominate frames through the lens of legitimation and power, the PIL Framework also requires a look at the flow of power as well as how the dominant frames are communicating their stances. It is also important to identify the peripheral actors that play a role in the legitimation process. We define peripheral actors as important actors that are identified during ANT’s actor identification, which are not actively discussing a frame discourse. Instead, peripheral actors incorporate, interpret, adapt, and/or reject what the key actors are disseminating and therefore the innovation to society. When specifically analyzing the legitimation of nanotechnology, it becomes obvious that many peripheral actors outside the dominant frames are also playing a role in the ultimate acceptance/rejection and communication of nanotechnology, even if they are not intentionally disseminating knowledge about the innovation. These include (but are not limited to) the media/news, social networks, distributors, retailers, wholesalers, lawyers, judges, doctors, and consumers. The role of the peripheral actors can be visualized in Fig. 2, where the innovation (i.e., nanotechnology) is at the core of the diagram. Closest to the innovation are the four key actors (i.e., government, industry, academia, NGOs) who are actively framing nanotechnology. Further away from the key actors are the peripheral actors who are interpreting the frames. Today, culture is mediated. Media is society’s primary source for information about science and technology (Dudo et al. 2011), and, therefore, plays an important role in

AMS Rev

the legitimation of an innovation. Although at the core of society are deeply held frame packages, media coverage and social networks will ultimately incorporate the different frames’ stances into their narratives and provide their own interpreted story to society (Van Gorp 2007). Technology issues can be very complicated, so media plays a large role in consumers’ awareness, knowledge, and, ultimately, their behavior when it comes to novel technology (Dudo et al. 2011). Social networks including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs also become important sources of information for consumers. For instance, a search of Bnanotechnology^ on Twitter reveals hundreds of user accounts that are dedicated to the dissemination of nanotechnology news. Runge et al. (2013), reports that between 2010 and 2013, 27% of nanotechnology tweets were optimistic, 32% of tweets were neutral, and 41% of tweets were pessimistic, indicating that the feelings toward nanotechnology were varied. These opinions reveal the interpretation and personalization of the cultural discourses framed and disseminated by the stakeholder actors. The media and social networks are important actors in the mobilization process (Humphreys and Latour 2013). However, each dominant frame tends to use media and social media differently to further its cause. For instance, the advancement frame targets forms of media (e.g., TV, internet), stressing the importance of investment in new technologies. On the other hand, the development frame uses published journal articles and writes press releases to the media to educate other academics and the public on their research findings. Similarly, the reflection frame publishes articles and writes many media releases using emotional appeals to increase awareness of their messages. The management frame typically tries to stay out of the media spotlight altogether, as their goal is to minimize potential negative attention and uncertainty surrounding nanoproducts. As nanotechnology continues to emerge, other actors within the supply chain (e.g., distributors, retailers, wholesalers) will also have an opportunity to adopt specific frames. Depending on their frame adoption, they could play an important role in the consumer adoption of nanotechnology. Because nanoproduct labeling is unregulated, many consumers are ignorant as to the nano-content of their products. As product distributors, retailers, and wholesalers choose their stance on nanotechnology, they will also have the agency to help educate consumers (or not) regarding nanoproducts. Adopting a positive frame will likely lead to a wider distribution of nanoproducts to consumers, while a negative frame could potentially impede the supply chain. Similarly, actors within the medical and legal field will eventually have to determine which framework they adopt and embrace. As such, certain doctors may decide to use and disseminate nanoproducts and nano-medicines to their patients, while others decline. Ethics and the law will also have a large role as nanoproducts continue to be released to consumers (Hunt and Mehta 2008; Scherler 2015). The frames

that lawyers and judges select will set the tone for the ultimate acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology in society. Lastly, and perhaps most notable to marketers, is the consumer actor. Consumer awareness and perception of nanotechnology will continue to play an increasingly important role in the legitimation of nanotechnology, as consumers have more opportunities to choose nanoproducts or reject them. As such, consumer perception of nanotechnology has rightfully received much research attention (Mishra et al. 2015; Putit and Arnott 2007; Macnaghten et al. 2015).

Discussion Innovation and society are as important as ever to study. Marketing researchers have a withstanding interest in consumers’ acceptance and perception of innovations. However, marketers have recently broadened the conceptual scope of consumption to better understand the entire market system that plays a role in an innovation’s impact on society. Specifically, marketers have begun to apply assemblage theories to better understand the macro-dynamics surrounding consumption (Canniford and Bajde 2016). However, assemblage theories, such as ANT, continue to lack ontological grounding. Therefore, in this research, we conceptualize the PIL framework, which allows researchers a way to identify, understand, and compare innovation process assemblages. Engaging in the three-step conceptualization of the PIL framework provides significant insight into the direction the actor network is going regarding mobilization. Researchers then can begin discussing the potential legitimations or disruptions/demobilizations of the innovation. In the same way that we applied the three-step process of the PIL framework to understand the process of introducing a new significant other to friends and family, the PIL framework can be applied to any developing social network. Although the PIL framework is not predictive, it can be used to hypothetically discuss what role nanotechnology should play in society depending on the potential and success of different cultural discourses. For instance, if the management discourse becomes mobilized in the network, society will see a wide dissemination of nanotechnology across product categories. In the next couple of decades, every consumer product will have nanotechnology as part of the product and production processes. Further, the reflection discourse will cease, regulation will use nanotechnology as produced by management, and development will continue researching to best support industrial goals. The management framework would then want all supply chain peripheral actors to adopt nanotechnology products, and social networks, media, news, and lawyers to use and treat nanotechnology products just like non-nanotechnology products.

AMS Rev

Conclusions Social Networks Wholesalers

Retailers

News

Industry: Management

Media

Academia: Development

Government: Advancement Nanotechnology

NGOs: Reflection

Lawyers

Doctors

Distributors

Consumers

Fig. 2 Visualization of key actors and peripheral actors surrounding nanotechnology. Note: At the core of this diagram is the innovation being examined using the PIL framework. Closest to the innovation are the four key actors identified along with the key discourse that they are disseminating. On the outside of the diagram are the peripheral actors that will eventually adopt, alter, and/or reject the discourses being framed by the key actors

On the other hand, if the reflection discourse were to mobilize, nanotechnology usage would be halted and surrounded by caution. Specifically, management would cease all production of nanotechnology in consumer products. Further, advancement would use their power to insure nanotechnology was not used. Additionally, all of development’s research would be surrounding the safety, health, and environmental consequences of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology production would only take place if a thorough, long-term investigation of nanotechnology deems it safe for society and the reflection framework allows nanotechnology to move forward in a cautious, safe route. All supply chain peripheral actors would not adopt any products that use nanotechnology. Further, media, news, doctors, lawyers, and consumers would view nanotechnology as negative and encourage society not to use the products until more is known about its potential. The management and reflection framework’s mobilizations are both extreme and, therefore, unlikely. That is, we are unlikely to see nanotechnology produced in all consumer products immediately. We are also unlikely to see the technology put on hold until its deemed 100% safe for humans and the environment. The peripheral actors will likely not allow either extreme to happen as well. Therefore, it is likely that the advancement or development discourses should negotiate the nanotechnology territory so that a compromised mobilization can occur. For instance, advancement can put nanotechnology labeling into law so that consumers can ultimately choose whether to use nanotechnology for themselves or not.

Nanotechnology and its applications are growing at a rapid pace. As the market emerges, so are competing cultural discourses, represented by key stakeholders that are all trying to frame nanotechnology. This research contributes to the literature on emerging innovations by developing a new theorization for studying technology legitimation. Specifically, we iteratively combine Foucault’s discourse on power, Latour’s Actor Network Theory, and Goffman’s frame analysis to develop a theoretical process of innovation legitimation (PIL) framework and, subsequently, demonstrate the framework with the illustrative example of nanotechnology. The PIL framework represents an advancement relative to existing conceptualizations as it gives researchers a theoretical tool to understand technologies while they are in the process of legitimizing. While ANT has arguably become the most widely-used theory for analyzing assemblage, the PIL framework goes beyond ANT by giving researchers a tool for understanding the Bwhy^ questions surrounding a legitimation process. The PIL framework also gives researchers an opportunity to organize the relevant actors’ discourses by making the actor stances more explicit. Specific to this research, the context of nanotechnology was selected due to the lack of consumer knowledge about nanotechnology, a lack of labeling of nanoproducts, the potential for broad market dissemination, and the unknown effects of nanomaterial use. Application of the PIL framework reveals four dominate frames for nanotechnology (Table 1). These dominant frames include: 1) Advancement (i.e., government), 2) Management (i.e., industry), 3) Development (i.e., academia/scientists), and 4) Reflection (i.e., NGOs). Each of these frames has its position, root causes, foundation, descriptors, and actions associated with it. Additionally, other peripheral actors may also be relevant to legitimation and are discussed, leading to a paradigm for the legitimation of nanotechnology (Fig. 2). Due to several skeptical key stakeholders, it will take time to determine how nanotechnology is legitimized. This process will depend on the actor network that forms in response to nanotechnology and the framing discourse that takes place surrounding it. However, regardless of the uncertainty, both industry and government continue to find, and produce, many products that are comprised of nanomaterials because of the products’ advantageous attributes and unique characteristics (Flatow 2009).

Directions for future research Given the important peripheral value of social media and consumer actors, the role of social network theory (e.g., Burt 2004) in legitimation could be a fruitful avenue for theoretical expansion of the PIL framework. Specifically, through social

AMS Rev

networking, different observations about a new technology’s network may be made. For instance, in the context of nanotechnology, it appears that the development frame (i.e., academia) acts as a mediator between advancement (i.e., government) and management (i.e., industry) frames. In this context, the reflective frame may serve as a cautionary check, slowing growth to ensure that consumers are protected. In this way, each actor begins to assume a particular role, allowing the network to mobilize, ultimately legitimating the innovation. Future research should seek a better understanding of this mediating role and continue to explore how all four of the major frames of nanotechnology compete, complement, and interact with each other. Specific to nanotechnology, future research is needed to better understand why the management frame is choosing to avoid discourse and descriptors regarding nanotechnology. Why are some products being labeled as nanotechnology and others are not? Are there specific product categories for which the legitimation process may be easier than for others (e.g., clothing vs. food)? Future research should also explore the role of consumers and why they are still so unaware of nanotechnology. Critical research should be conducted to understand which actor would be the best for communicating with consumers and getting them actively involved in the legitimation process. The development of a methodology to help understand critical innovations in the process of legitimizing would be helpful as well. Compared to the other cultural discourses surrounding nanotechnology, the reflection discourse is unique. Therefore, we also suggest that future research explore NGOs in more detail. Particularly, while the other cultural discourses encourage the progress of technology, the reflection frame tends to take a precautionary approach. How do the message dissemination methods for NGOs differ from the other frames? More generally, we advocate further exploration of the reflection frame’s precautionary principle within marketing research. For example, the precautionary principal could be applied in the marketing public policy and ethics literature to help understand (and ultimately prevent) technology consumption disasters (e.g., lead paint, asbestos, DDT pesticide). Finally, the frames that peripheral actors adopt will ultimately provide direction as to which frame(s) is/are dominating the legitimation process. The current research explores the four key stakeholders that dominate in the discussion and culture discourse formation for nanotechnology. However, future research should seek to better understand the peripheral actors’ stories and their motivations for adopting a given frame. Although they are not producing the cultural discourse around nanotechnology, these actors will eventually play a large role in nanotechnology’s legitimation. While the present research analyzes the legitimation of nanotechnology through an American cultural lens, future research should explore the similarities and differences between legitimation in different countries. For instance, at first glance,

Chinese businesses seem to be more enthusiastic and proud to label their products as containing nanomaterials. Research should explore this difference and apply the PIL framework to determine whether the same enthusiasm exists for China’s other key stakeholders. Future research should also determine whether the nanotechnology key stakeholders are consistent across different countries, and which cultural values may motivate the frames that those stakeholders adopt. Our construction of the PIL theoretical framework provides a tool by which to utilize existing theories in an organized way to better understand the process of innovation legitimation. As such, the PIL framework opens a wide door for future research. Beyond a deeper understanding of the frames that lead to the legitimation of nanotechnology, the PIL framework will be valuable for examining other new technologies, and, more broadly, other novel contexts. For example, future research could explore whether the basic tenants of the PIL framework might apply to non-innovation contexts where the process of legitimation is understudied. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Editor, Manjit Yadav and the three anonymous reviewers for their detailed input and guidance in the review process. Input from Markus Giesler and Molly Rapert during the early stages of the development of this paper is also greatly appreciated.

References Allen, J. L., Oberdorster, G., Morris-Schaffer, K., Wong, C., Klocke, C., Sobolewski, M., … Cory-Slechta, D. A. (2015). Developmental neurotoxicity of inhaled ambient ultrafine particle air pollution: Parallels with neuropathological and behavioral features of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurotoxicology, 59, 140– 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2015.12.014. Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory. New York: The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21718-2. Bettany, S. (2016). Where (and what) is the critical in consumer-oriented actor-network theory? In R. Canniford & D. Bajde (Eds.), Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets. New York: Routledge Accessed 4 Mar 2016. Bettany, S. M., Kerrane, B., & Hogg, M. K. (2014). The materialsemiotics of fatherhood: The co-emergence of technology and contemporary fatherhood. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1544– 1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.01.012. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas1. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787. Buzby, J. C. (2010). Nanotechnology for food applications: More questions than answers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(3), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01182.x. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0019-8501(01)00203-6. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 32, 196–223. Canniford, R., & Bajde, D. (2016). Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets. New York: Routledge.

AMS Rev Canniford, R., & Shankar, A. (2013). Purifying practices: How consumers assemble romantic experiences of nature. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1051–1069. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 667202. Chen, X., Park, H.-R., Pelton, M., Piao, X., Lindquist, N. C., Im, H., … others. (2013). Atomic layer lithography of wafer-scale nanogap arrays for extreme confinement of electromagnetic waves. Nature Communications, 4(2361). Cresswell, K. M., Worth, A., & Sheikh, A. (2010). Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/14726947-10-67. Davies, J. C. (2009). Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology. http://www.nanotechproject. org/publications/archive/pen18/. Accessed 6 Jan 2016. Di Mascio, R. (2016). Firms’ adoption of self-service technology: how managerial beliefs shape co-production decisions. AMS Review, 6(1–2), 79–97. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Q u a r t e r l y, 8 8 ( 1 ) , 5 5 – 7 5 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 107769901108800104. Engeström, J. (2005). Why some social network services work and others don’t—Or: the case for object-centered sociality. http://www. zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-serviceswork-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html. Epp, A. M., Schau, H. J., & Price, L. L. (2014). The role of brands and mediating technologies in assembling long-distance family practices. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 81–101. https://doi.org/10. 1509/jm.12.0196. Euractiv. (2009). Industry, NGOs at odds over nanotech regulation. EurActiv.com. http://www.euractiv.com/section/innovationindustry/news/industry-ngos-at-odds-over-nanotech-regulation/. Accessed 23 Mar 2016. FDA. (2016). Nanotechnology - nanotechnology fact sheet. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. WebContent. http://www.fda.gov/ ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/ucm402230.htm. Accessed 24 Sept 2016. Flatow, I. (2009). How tiny nanoparticles are transforming technology. NPR.org. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId= 112557420. Accessed 28 Sept 2015. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (AM Sheridan Smith, trans. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Rome: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Abingdon. Psychology Press. Franklin, D. (2017). Megatech: Technology in 2050. London: Economist Books. Friends of the Earth (FOE). (2008). Out of the laboratory and onto our plates: Nanotechnology in food & agriculture. http://www.foe.org/ projects/food-and-technology/nanotechnology. Accessed 6 Jan 2016. Friends of the Earth (FOE). (2014). Tiny ingredients, Big Risks: Nanomaterials rapidly entering food and farming. http://www.foe. org/projects/food-and-technology/nanotechnology. Accessed 6 Jan 2016. Frye, N. (1957). Archetypal Criticism: Theory of Myths. In Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (pp. 131–242). Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. Giesler, M. (2012). How doppelgänger brand images influence the market creation process: Longitudinal insights from the rise of botox cosmetic. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 55–68. https://doi.org/10. 1509/jm.10.0406.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gutting, G. (2005). Foucault: A very short introduction (very short introductions). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/actrade/9780192805577.001.0001. Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation crisis (Vol. 519). Boston: Beacon Press. Hansson, N. (2015). BMobility-things ^ and consumption: Conceptualizing differently mobile families on the move with recent purchases in urban space. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2014.899494. Hui, A. (2012). Things in motion, things in practices: How mobile practice networks facilitate the travel and use of leisure objects. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469540512446873. Hult, G. T. M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder marketing: A definition and conceptual framework. AMS review, 1(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-0110002-5. Humphreys, A., & Latour, K. A. (2013). Framing the game: Assessing the impact of cultural representations on consumer perceptions of legitimacy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 773–795. https:// doi.org/10.1086/672358. Hunt, G., & Mehta, M. (Eds.). (2008). Nanotechnology: Risk, ethics and law. London: Routledge. Huyssen, A. (1986). After the great divide: Modernism, mass culture, postmodernism (Vol. 399). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18995-3. Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53–78. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123101. Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1998). Using Foucault’s methods (1st ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.. Kwan, S. (2009). Framing the fat body: Contested meanings between government, activists, and industry. Sociological Inquiry, 79(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00271.x. Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actornetwork theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110. Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2014). Consumption-driven market emergence. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 855–870. https:// doi.org/10.1086/673196. Maynard, A. D. (2006). Nanotechnology: The next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 51(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mel071. McCray, W. P. (2005). Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. History and Technology, 21(2), 177–203. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07341510500103735. Miller, G., & Senjen, R. (2008). Out of the laboratory and on to our plates: Nanotechnology in food & agriculture. In Friends of the Earth Australia. Europe &: U.S.A. Mishra, A., Dash, S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2015). An integrated framework for design perception and brand equity. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5(1–2), 28–44. Nanowerk (2017). Graphene Nanotechnology in Energy. http://www. nanowerk.com/graphene-nanotechnology-in-energy.php. Accessed 12 Feb 2017. Nestle, M., & Pollan, M. (2013). Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (Rev Exp edition.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

AMS Rev NNCO (2016). The National Nanotechnology Initiative. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. http://www.nano.gov/. Oberdörster, G. (2010). Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: Concepts of nanotoxicology. Journal of Internal Medicine, 267(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796. 2009.02187.x. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/scipol/scs093. Peterson, C. (2000). Taking technology to the molecular level. Computer, 33(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.816268. Pinch T. (2010). The invisible technologies of Goffman’s sociology from the merry-go-round to the internet. Technology and Cultur,e 51(2), 409–424. Press, M., Arnould, E. J., Murray, J. B., & Strand, K. (2014). Ideological challenges to changing strategic orientation in commodity agriculture. Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jm.13.0280. Putit, L., & Arnott, D. C. (2007). Micro-culture and consumers’ adoption of technology: A need to re-evaluate the concept of National Culture. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2007(6), 1–15. Research and Markets (2015). Global nanotechnology market outlook 2022. The World’s Largest Market Research Store. http://www. researchandmarkets.com/reports/3512791/global-nanotechnologymarket-outlook-2022. Accessed 7 Mar 2016. Runge, K. K., Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., et al (2013). Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(1), 1381. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11051-012-1381-8. Salisbury, D. (2010). Nanosponge drug delivery system more effective than direct injection. Vanderbilt’s Online Research Magazine: Exploration http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/stories/ nanosponge.html. Accessed 7 Mar 2016. Sargent Jr., J. F. (2016). Nanotechnology: A policy primer. Congressional Research Service: Technical Report. Scheff, T. J. (2005). The structure of context: Deciphering frame analysis. Sociological Theory, 23(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 0735-2751.2005.00259.x. Scherler, D. (2015). The ethical dilemma of nanotechnology in the food industry. http://www.pitt.edu/das240/writing3.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2016. Schouten, J. W., Martin, D. M., Blakaj, H., & Botez, A. (2016). From counterculture movement to mainstream market: Emergence of the

U.S. organic food industry. In R. Canniford & D. Bajde (Eds.), Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets. New York: Routledge. Shelley, T. (2006). Nanotechnology: New promises, new dangers. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing. Siegrist, M. (2010). Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 16(4), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2010.501255. Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1762–1769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011. 01720.x. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459–466. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.appet.2007.03.002. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Thomas, T. C., Price, L. L., & Schau, H. J. (2013). When differences unite: Resource dependence in heterogeneous consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1010–1033. https:// doi.org/10.1086/666616. Thompson, C. J. (2004). Marketplace mythology and discourses of power. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 162–180. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/383432. Thyroff, A. E. (2011). Thinking too small? Predicting intentions to consume nanofoods: A pilot study (pp. 145–158). Presented at the Robert Mittelstaedt Doctoral Symposium: Lincoln, Nebraska. Turnbull, P. W., Leek, S., & Ying, G. (2000). Customer confusion: The mobile phone market. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1–3), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700785100523. Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78. Van Gorp, B., & van der Goot, M. J. (2012). Sustainable food and agriculture: Stakeholder’s frames. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01135.x. Walsh, G., & Vincent-Wayne, M. (2010). The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 838–859. https://doi.org/10. 1108/03090561011032739. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. West, S. (2013). Episode 6 – Aristotle part 2. Philosophize This! World Bank (2015). Gross Domestic Product (GDP). http://databank. worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2016.