A periodization of research technologies and of the emergency of genericity

• 4 phases of development of research technologies are distinguished and exemplified prehistory, exploration, optimization, and diffusion.
• The prehistory is only recognizable in retrospect; exploration often takes 10 years, optimization typically takes five years.
• Hentschel׳s periodization of research technologies is a broadly applicable historiographic tool.

According to the historian and sociologist of science Terry Shinn, the creator of the concept of ‘research technologies’: “Research technologies may sometimes generate promising packets of instrumentation for yet undefined ends. They may offer technological answers to questions that have hardly been raised. Research technologists׳s instruments are then generic in the sense that they are base-line apparatus which can subsequently be transformed by experimenters into products tailored to specific economic ends or adapted by experimenters to further cognitive ends in academic research.”1 Genericity thus manifests one of three fundamental characteristics of research technologies. At the same time, however, each research technology emerges out of the specific disciplinary context in which it is initially developed with entirely concrete aims. Consequently, genericity does not exist from the outset but first has to form, along a path that remains to be clarified. It is produced or constructed by the actors on two levels: as an instrument in the laboratory and as a way of speaking at the representational level. This issue yields the structure of this paper. Three options for the transition of a specific technique into a generic research technology are compared. One of them proves to be the most frequent pattern of this dynamic. This is explored further, taking as paradigmatic examples ‘computed tomography’ (CT), ‘nuclear magnetic resonance׳ (NMR) and its application known as ‘magnetic resonance imaging’ (MRI), together with several additional examples.