Page - (000046) - in Knowledge and Networks

36 the recognition of multiple types of proximities—physical, organizational, cultural, social, institutional, virtual—each with their own confi gurations of constraints and opportunities (Amin & Roberts, 2008 ; Bathelt, Feldman, & Kogler, 2011 ; Boschma, 2005 ; Jones & Search, 2009 ). Critiques of earlier notions of cozy, localized net- works recognized that such networks may not result in innovativeness, as previously thought (Gordon & McCann, 2005 ), or they often are ineffective (Ettlinger, 2008 ; Hadjimichalis & Hudson, 2006 ). Moreover, localized networks became problema- tized in terms of negative tendencies toward “spatial myopia” (Maskell & Malmberg, 2007 ) or “ lock-in” and innovative stagnation (Boschma, 2005 ). In contrast, global relations based on strategic bridging of knowledges across different networks sug- gested productive and creative possibilities (e.g., Bathelt, Malmberg, & Maskell, 2004 ). However, the implications for knowledge generation have become complex and contingent. Far from a “fl at world ” of knowledge generation as a result of a wider range of opportunities across space (Friedman, 2005 ), there are concerns about what kinds of knowledge transfers are possible across space, in part due to the prob- lem of trust among actors who lack familiarity with one another. Whether using Karl Polanyi’s ( 1958 , 1966 ) simple dichotomy of coded and tacit knowledge or more elaborated versions, there seems to be a consensus that a certain type of knowledge, relational knowledge, labeled “tacit” knowledge in Polanyi’s conceptu- alization or encultured and embedded knowledges in Blackler’s ( 1995 ) scheme, is less open to activity spread across space (e.g., Bathelt et al., 2004 ; Faulconbridge, 2006 ; Jones, 2007 ). People are reluctant to share their knowledges without having established familiarity (Han & Hovav, 2013 ). This may seem like a déjà vu—that research on networks and knowledge exchange is back to the original problem of necessitating face-to-face interaction, thereby limiting opportunities across space. Yet the situation is more complex, for several reasons. First, from an epistemological vantage point, the process by which researchers of different camps have interpreted trust and familiarity relative to space differs. Topographically oriented research that assumes the dependence of trust formation on face-to-face contact emanates from analysis that begins with a particular spatial confi guration of economic activity. In contrast, topologically oriented research, which has focused on communities of practice across space, directs attention not to what knowledge is generated by a particular spatial confi guration of activity, but rather, what practices in the everyday economy do or do not require face-to-face interaction (Amin & Roberts, 2008 ; Faulconbridge, & Hall, 2009 ; Jones, 2008 ); analytically researchers start with, rather than infer, processes, and thereby can avoid spurious conclusions about processes of interaction based on patterns of activity. Moreover, this latter approach permits sensitivity to variation in conditions for sharing and exchanging knowledges relative to different industry contexts (Brenner, Cantner, & Graf, 2013 ; Tether, Li, & Mina, 2012 ). Second, substantively, the spatiality of networks changes over time (Gückler, 2007 ). Spatially proximate ties made at one point in the evolution of a network can anchor relations as members of a network change location over time, and new ties can be developed while older ties dissolve. Moreover, the dynamics of any one net- work change as ties develop and evolve among actors in different networks. N. Ettlinger