The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_C Date:31/3/09
Time:21:45:54 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_C.3d

success is reliant on ‘. .. social glue that binds

clusters together, contributing to the value

creation process. Many of the competitive

advantages of clusters depend on the free flow

of information, the discovery of value-adding

exchanges or transactions, the willingness to

align agendas and to work across organiza-

tions, the strong motivation for improvement.

Relationships, networks, and a sense of com-

mon interest undergird these circumstances’

(Porter, 1998c, p. 225).

The concept of the cluster mirrors in many

ways ideas contained in a wider set of literatures.

Dating back to Marshall’s (1890) work on

industrial districts and, more recently,

through studies of what have been calledlearn-

ing regionsand innovative milieux (Asheim,

1996; Malmberg and Maskell, 2002), emphasis

has been placed on the importance of geograph-

ically distinctive arrangements of firms in one

industry for knowledge production and circula-

tion. This has become especially important in

light of recent debates about theknowledge

economyand the need for cities and regions to

begloballycompetitive centres ofinnovation.It

is Porter’s cluster concept that has gained most

traction in policy circles, with regional author-

ities throughout the world employing Porter and

his followers to develop a cluster strategy for

their local industries. Many are, however, critical

of this approach. For geographers, the main

concern with the cluster concept has been its

apparent geographical fuzziness and the way in

which the boundaries of a cluster are never defi-

ned in existing work. In addition, the way in

whichiconicspacessuchasSiliconValleyare

used to produce ‘elastic’ theoretical models that

can be turned into fashionable development

concepts has also caused concern, particularly

because of the questionable levels of success of

such models (see Martin and Sunley, 2003).jrf

Suggested reading

Martin and Sunley (2003); Porter (1998b).

co-evolution In biology andecology, co-

evolution refers to the reciprocal changes that

occur between populations of species as they

interact. In one sense all evolution is co-

evolution, as all species are considered to

affect and be affected by changes to other

species and their environments. In more spe-

cific terms, co-evolution is understood to

apply to those interactions where there has

been mutual, symbiotic or parasitic changes

that have affected both parties that are tem-

porally and spatially proximate. In human

geographyand the social sciences, the term

has been used loosely to understand the com-

plex relationships between, for example, tech-

nology and place (Graham, 1998), economy

and environment (Costanza, 2003) and

humans and companion species (Haraway,

2003). The shared aim is to avoid reduction-

ism and determinism, and point to the rela-

tional character of change. sjh

co-fabrication An orientation towards

research and intervention emphasizing the

ontological and political requirement of ‘work-

ing together’ (Whatmore, 2003). Derived

from the work of the philosopher Isabelle

Stengers (1997), the implications and prac-

tices involved in co-fabrication have best

been exemplified inscienceand technology

studies andactor-network theory, where

the production of reality is demonstrated to

be something other than a zero-sum game.

Rejecting discourses of either pure human

invention or discovery of already existing real-

ity, co-fabrication enacts a relational under-

standing of ontology, suggesting that the

more activity there is from a researcher, the

more – if they are to be successful – activity

there is from the researched (Latour, 1999c).

This maxim applies as much to human–

microbeassemblagesin the laboratory as it

does to studies of, or with, social groups.

In terms of the latter, co-fabrication leads to

something akin toaction research, though

with the added implication that all participants

in the research process are treated less as

informants and more as colleagues (Stengers,

1997). For social science, this requires a

change of stance, away from distanced,

expert critique and towards the crafting of

co-operative ventures. sjh

Suggested reading

Whatmore (2003).

cohort A group of people with a common

demographic vintage. Cohorts are most often

defined on the basis of being born in the same

year or years (i.e.birth cohorts, such as the US

‘baby boom’ born in the US between 1946

and 1964), although marriage, divorce,migra-

tionand graduation events also define groups

whose life experiences and biographies can be

analysed over time. Adopting acohort approach

has deepened understanding of very low levels

offertilty(Lestheage and Willems, 1999)

and spatial variations inmigration(Plane,

1992), and supplementsperiod approachesthat

analyse changes occurring between two points

in time. ajb

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_C Final Proof page 92 31.3.2009 9:45pm

CO-EVOLUTION