Dissertation Research: Solid-State Innovations: Technical Practice and Organizational Change in the Electronics Industry

本论文将记录在20世纪50年代广泛的变化，引起固态电子的兴起。这段时间捕捉到了人们对晶体管的最初反应。晶体管是一种固态电子设备，用来取代笨重的真空管，1947年由贝尔电话实验室的一群物理学家发明。他们的晶体管发明不仅引起了竞争对手电子制造商的热烈反响，也引起了军方和大学的热烈反响。这篇论文的目的是在20世纪50年代复杂而混乱的世界中恢复新电子时代的基础，当时美国公司开始学习制造晶体管的艺术。“军事-工业-学术综合体”的紧密结合结构是组织对将新的晶体管技术融入现有生产和研究关系的挑战的不同反应的结果。一项技术挑战，一项新技术的大规模生产，加上国家安全需要，促进了美国经济的根本重组。虽然电子学的历史在科学技术史上是一个相对丰富的分支领域，但以前的描述主要集中在20世纪40年代末和50年代初的贝尔电话实验室或60年代的硅谷。本论文将通过研究关键机构之间形成的众多联系来弥合历史编纂方面的差距，正是在整个20世纪50年代奠定新技术基础的时候。该提案将辩称，“军事-工业-学术综合体”的出现，是这些关于新型固态技术的基本谈判的结果。它将揭示以前未被调查，但战后电子工业的重要参与者。RCA是战前该领域的主要参与者，在20世纪40年代末积极推行晶体管的研发计划。虽然RCA成功地建立了其固态技术能力，但它最终未能确保晶体管市场的相当大一部分。摩托罗拉在战前是一家相对较小的外围公司，到20世纪60年代发展成为固态电子领域的领导者。陆军信号部队看到了晶体管在小型化通信系统中的巨大潜力。虽然通信兵作为赞助人的作用是众所周知的，但它不仅是一个财政机构，而且是创新过程中的积极参与者，为私营公司提供了相互协商技术发展过程所需的制度平台。本论文有两个更广泛的影响。首先，它阐明了适应新技术的成功和失败的过程。特别是当一个行业的基本“构建块”发生变化时（如真空管到晶体管），参与者通常需要经历组织变革，以便在谈判新的技术实践时重新编织彼此之间的关系。其次，它从更广泛的角度重新评估了国家的作用。战后的美国政府，尤其是军方，同时是固态电子产品的赞助人、最终用户和推动者。这一观点将使我们更好地理解国家在技术密集型产业中所扮演的角色。

Project SummaryThis dissertation will document the broad-ranging changes in the 1950s wroughtby the rise of solid-state electronics. This period captures the initial responses to thetransistor-a solid-state electronics device developed to replace the unwieldy vacuumtube-invented in 1947 by a group of physicists at the Bell Telephone Laboratories. Thetransistor's invention sparked enthusiastic responses not only from rival electronicsmanufacturers, but also from the military and the universities. This dissertation aims to recover the foundation of the new electronics era in the complex and messy world of the 1950s, when U.S. firms began to learn the art of making the transistor. The tightly-knit structure of the "military industrial-academic complex" was a result of divergent organizational responses to the challenge of weaving the new transistor technology into pre-existing production and research relationships. A technical challenge, the mass production of a new technology, coupled with a perceived national security need, facilitated a fundamental rearrangement of the U.S. economy.Intellectual MeritsWhile the history of electronics has been a relatively prolific subfield within thehistory of science and technology, previous accounts have largely focused on either theBell Telephone Laboratories in the late 1940s and early 50s or Silicon Valley in the 60s. This dissertation will bridge the gap in the historiography by examining the numerous links that were forged among key institutions, precisely when the foundation of the new technology was being laid throughout the 1950s. The proposal will argue that the "military-industrial-academic complex" emerged as a result of these fundamental negotiations over the new solid-state technology. It will uncover the previously unexamined, but significant participants of the postwar electronics industry. RCA, a major player in the field before the war, actively pursued an R&D program for transistors in the late 1940s. While RCA was successful in building up its solid-state technological capabilities, it ultimately failed to secure a substantial portion of the transistor market. Motorola, a relatively small and peripheral firm before the war, grew to be a leader in solid-state electronics by the 1960s. The Army Signal Corps saw enormous potential in the transistor for miniaturized communications system. While its role as patron is well known, the Signal Corps was not merely a fiscal agency, but also an active participant in the process of innovation by providing the institutional platform private firms needed to negotiate the course of technological development with one another. Broader Impacts This dissertation has two broader implications. First, it illuminates the process of success and failure in adapting to a new technology. Especially when the fundamental "building block" of an industry changes (i.e. vacuum tubes to transistors), it is often necessary for the participants to undergo organizational change in order to reweave the relationship with one another in negotiating the new technical practice. Second, it reassesses the role of the state from a broader perspective. The postwar American state, especially the military, was at once a patron, end user, and facilitator of solid-state electronics. This viewpoint will allow us to better appreciate the role played by the state in technology-intensive industries.