Page - (000047) - in Knowledge and Networks

37 Third, and relatedly, interdisciplinary research has suggested that with all the sophistication of ICTs, face-to-face communication remains the richest, especially for complex situations (e.g., Glückler & Schrott, 2007 ; Kock & Nosek, 2005 ). Interestingly, the competitive practice of bridging relations between actors in different networks has been shown to depend on bonding relations within networks (Kraut, Steinfeield, Chan, Butler, & Hoag, 1999 ; Han & Hovav, 2013 ). Accordingly, management techniques such as brainstorming and focus groups have been recom- mended at the outset of a project to cultivate bonding and anchor effective social relations that can evolve outside conditions of initial spatial proximity (Han & Hovav, 2013 ). Actually, the nature of the “location” of actors itself is fl uid, if we consider cases of temporary spatial proximity owing to the mobility of many profes- sionals (Almeida & Kogut, 1999 ; Torre & Rallet, 2005 ; Williams, 2006 ), and pos- sibilities for the construction of temporary spatial clusters of innovation (e.g., Maskell, Bathelt, & Malmberg, 2006 ). Finally, certain types of ICTs such as teleconferencing permit face-to- face rela- tions across space, thereby creating virtual localization, overcoming the constraint of physical distance. However, research has shown that increased e-networking depends on effective and constructive personal relations within networks (Kraut et al., 1999 ), or at least in particular culture-specifi c contexts (Burt et al., 2000 ). These fi ndings corroborate more general fi ndings that effective bridging between networks of any kind (material or virtual) is contingent upon internal relations. Knowledge is subjective, and thus personal experience and relational capital (Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000 ) are pivotal resources at the outset of any project (Nonaka, 1994 ; Nonaka & Konno, 1998 ). Unsurprisingly, then, research on suites of ICTs for e- collaboration has suggested that asynchronous communication (e.g., discussion boards, e-mail, blogs, audio or video streaming, databases, or document libraries) are more appropriate at a later stage in a project, after actors’ relations become anchored in early synchronous communication (e.g., through video, and audio con- ferencing, electronic chatting, or instant messaging) (Han & Hovav, 2013 ). This technosocial framework is consistent with research that advocates beginning project work with focus groups and brainstorming sessions, focusing on other types of communication later in the evolution of a project (Kraut et al., 1999 ). It seems, then, that relational knowledge does not necessarily require face-to- face interaction, and further, localization can be achieved virtually across space with appropriate ICTs, as well as physically in short-run clustering of people from differ- ent places (Bathelt & Turi, 2011 ). But here is the rub: Just as in problems of de-segregation in housing and school districts, co-location of project participants, whether virtual, physical, or temporary, does not necessarily produce trust. 13 A simple, basic, practical point complicates 13 Approaching segregation relative to predefi ned, bounded residential areas, school districts, or workplaces is problematic because the problem is identifi ed in terms of location, without regard for processes of inclusion and exclusion. The locational conceptualization of segregation underscores the conventional de-segregation strategy that locates diverse people in the same physical or virtual place. This locational strategy ironically is repeated over time and across space, despite documen- tation of persistent segregation with in apparently integrated areal units such as school districts 2 Reversing the Instrumentality of the Social for the Economic