Naming institution after neologism as marker of the institutionalization of new discipline

The rise of scientific disciplines is synonymous with the emergence of "scientific communities". Divisions between them reflect differences between objects, theories, methods and terminologies (Stichweh, 1992). This dynamism implies "boundary work" (Gieryn, 1995) toward empowerment of new discipline or institutionalization (Huntington, 1968). The role of specific terms in the construction of new research field was examined by Balmer and Sharp (1993) and the institutionalization of terminology is important for the stabilization of new discipline (Hedgecoe, 2003). Scientists construct knowledge through term formation, and used them as rhetorical device, especially at a time of new field's emergence (Pecman, 2014). Nowadays, science is producing new words or neologisms ad libitum (Fernandez-Silva, 2016). However, neologisms used have attracted little attention among Science and Technology Studies scholars. Studies of new concepts, indicated us new trends on naming institutions with neologisms. We can postulate that neologisms are markers of knowledge production and dissemination, and naming institution after neologisms could be part of a legitimation process. The aim of this empirical contribution is to explore this hypothesis by analyzing affiliation addresses in scientific publications at the global level for neologisms such as bioinformatics, interventional radiology, regenerative medicine or synthetic biology. Numerous institutions have entitled departments with neologisms: the observed trends vary according to the neologism, over time, and between country, reflecting differences in institutionalization or even legitimation strategy failure. Our results highlight the role of social strategies in constructing knowledge. We will discuss if this phenomenon is an institutional practice of field's homogenization (Glynn and Abzug 2002), or a branding strategy used by scientific community competing for resources (Dori, 2013).