Social Network Sites and Knowledge Transfer: An Urban Perspective

Abstract

This article surveys the literature to explore whether and how internet technologies and applications such as social network sites (SNS) support social interactions and, through them, knowledge transfers at different spatial scales and settings. By employing concepts from economic geography and combining them with ideas and empirics from urban sociology, business, and media studies, this article informs urban thinking about the underpinning mechanisms behind SNS-mediated vis-à-vis face-to-face knowledge-related interactions and how they mirror but also challenge established spatial patterns of knowledge spillovers.

Listening to the buzz: Exploring the link between firm creation and regional innovative atmosphere as reflected by social media

“…Our results build on previous insights on the potential in using big data from social media for spatial analysis (Graham and Zook, 2011;Indaco, 2020;Tranos, 2020;Wang et al, 2017). In particular, by providing a novel approach based on text analysis of geo-located tweets to capture the content of buzz, the paper points to opportunities in merging big data, applied linguistics and natural language processing methods in economic geography as well as entrepreneurship research (Corradini, 2021;Obschonka et al, 2020).…”

“…Focusing on the aggregate content of place-specific communication ecologies, our approach is intended to emphasise the spatial embeddedness that is inherent to local buzz. This is in contrast to the analysis of knowledge flows occurring exclusively within the structure of online exchanges, as reflected in the concept of virtual buzz (Bathelt and Turi, 2011;Tranos, 2020). In this sense, our measure offers a complementary perspective to previous research using Twitter data to explore entrepreneurial networks across digitally mediated interactions (Wang et al, 2017).…”

“…Differences in the socio-economic profile of Twitter users are reflected in well-known digital divides and uneven spatial distribution of content creation, which is markedly higher in places with higher education and economic activity (Graham and Zook, 2011;Indaco, 2020;Stephens and Poorthuis, 2015;Tranos, 2020). This requires adjusting text analysis for regional differences in the level of Twitter activity, in combination with ancillary data (Crampton et al, 2013).…”

“…To 'listen' to the buzz, we leverage the opportunities offered by big data recently highlighted in the scholarly community in the context of regional studies and entrepreneurship research (Indaco, 2020;Schwab and Zhang, 2019;Van Meeteren and Poorthuis, 2018). In the last decade, the increasing availability of geo-tagged data from social network sites has led to a substantial body of research exploring the structure and spatiality of online communities (Crampton et al, 2013;Stephens and Poorthuis, 2015;Tranos, 2020), including digitally mediated interactions of entrepreneurial networks (Wang et al, 2017). Here, we endeavour to contribute to this literature following a complementary perspective focusing on the content of geo-located social media and language patterns in economic geography (Casadei and Lee, 2020;Obschonka et al, 2020).…”

Ubiquitous digital technologies and spatial structure; an update

“…On the one hand, despite the broader agreement that no digital technology can reach the content richness of face-to-face communications, empirical research from the management field suggests that current digital technologies can effectively facilitate the sharing of knowledge with low to medium tacitness and even support knowledge sharing of a high degree of tacitness [ 10 ]. On the other hand, the very same technologies can further enhance what Storper and Venables [ 11 ] termed as buzz, as the constant publication of our personal and professional updates and whereabouts enabled by ICT can directly facilitate deliberate as well as unplanned or even unintentional face-to-face meetings [ 12 ].…”