8 Buzz Without Being There? Communities of Practice in Context1

Abstract

The geographical literature on communities of practice suggests that geographical proximity should not be confused with relational proximity, and that the latter is more important in determining how easily specialized knowledge can be jointly produced and shared through distributed innovation processes. However, the existing body of work has not specified the critical determinants of relational proximity, and the conditions under which we should expect it to be achieved effectively at a distance. This chapter reviews recent findings from a number of case studies in which distributed teams participating in joint problem-solving projects have attempted to engage in long-distance learning and knowledge translation, with varying degrees of success. Effective distanciated learning is shown to depend on the degree of social affinity between economic actors, and this affinity is comprised of several different dimensions: linguistic, educational, experiential, occupational, organizational, industrial, and institutional. The frictional effects of distance are also shown to depend on the types of knowledge supporting innovation in each case, with synthetic and symbolic forms of knowledge the least amenable to distanciated learning.

Urbanize or Perish? Assessing the Urbanization of Knowledge Locations in Europe

“…Synthetic knowledge results from the application or re-engineering of exiting knowledge pieces, relying on "know-how," customization, and problem-solving skills (e.g., in advanced IT activities and machineryrelated industries). Frequent face-to-face contacts and user-client interaction is vital in problem-solving and innovation (e.g., Gertler, 2008), but that can often easily be achieved within the setting of the functional urban region, not only because of physical proximity but also backed by mutual understanding and social proximity. For these activities, being located in dense and central locations is often unnecessary and frequently incompatible with the physical needs of such industries (large premises, environment and safety regulations).…”

From practice to collaborative community in interdisciplinary research contexts

“…But what supports sense-making in one community context produces confusion in another. Thus, while collaboration between communities can advance learning and innovation, differences between the practices of communities seeking to collaborate have been described as obstructing these outcomes (Duguid, 2005;Ferlie et al, 2005;Gertler, 2008;Nooteboom, 2008). Hence, understanding the dynamics and tensions underlying the development of new, shared practices that surmount barriers to learning and innovation in collaborative contexts is important.…”

Social and Spatial Structures of Innovation in the Irish Animation Industry

“…In addition, where face-to-face contact is required, the number of contact occasions can be very limited and/or involve short periods that can often be satisfied via frequent long-distance travel and the seconding of research staff for extended periods of time (Arita & McCann, 2000;Torre & Rallet, 2005;Van Egeraat & Jacobson, 2006). 2 In addition, various forms of relational proximity can act as substitutes for geographical proximity and facilitate knowledge flow and distanciated learning in distributed teams (Boschma, 2005;Gertler, 2008;Moodysson, 2007;Torre & Gilly, 2000;Torre & Rallet, 2005). Boschma (2005) applies a comprehensive categorization involving cognitive proximity (proximity in knowledge base and expertise), organizational proximity (the extent to which relations are shared in an organizational arrangement), social proximity (in terms of socially embedded relations between agents at the micro-level) and institutional proximity (related to both economic actors sharing the same institutional rules and a set of cultural habits and values).…”

“…The intentional vs. unintentional knowledge flow distinction is closely related to the concept of "buzz" (Bathelt et al, 2004;Gertler, 2008;Gertler & Wolfe, 2006;Moodysson, 2008;Storper & Venables, 2004). Asheim et al (2006) argue that buzz has been defined in rather ambiguous ways and call for a more precise definition, distinguishing between buzz and face-to-face communication.…”

“…A distinction is made between "synthetic", "analytical" and "symbolic" knowledge bases Gertler, 2008). The proponents suggest that the different knowledge bases are characterized by different sensitivities to geographical distance in relation to knowledge flow.…”