Cultural Geography

assumed in the new cultural economic geography

literature? Are proximity and face-to-face

contact reallyso important? Isn’t this what the

information technology revolution was supposed

to address?

Good questions all, and the message of Allen,

Amin and others is that we should not presume to

know the answers simply because of the

‘accepted canon’ within the new church. Fair

enough. But before we wax too enthusiastic

about the possibilities of theological revolution,

we need to address two weaknesses in the

critique of the localist position. First, we need to

re-examine the conceptual foundations under-

lying the localist argument. While Allen is

undoubtedly correct in placing the emphasis on

‘thick relationships’ and ‘shared understand-

ings’, pleasantly enigmatic terms like ‘distanci-

ated’ may scan well, but offer us little more than

fleeting insight since they are so open to retrans-

lation and interpretation themselves. Allen’s cri-

tique of the now standard take on tacit

knowledge exposes the fact that its conceptual

foundations are indeed far from solid. Yet, even

with this critique, we still have no clear idea of

the forces and processes stimulating the emer-

gence of thick relationships and shared under-

standings between firms.

Second, it is hard to see how merely asserting

that ‘the local does not really matter’ advances

the state of our understanding in any appreciable

way, so long as statements such as this remain

unsubstantiated empirically. Instead, we need to

get beyond bald assertions to consider the

evidence at hand – something, alas, for which

neither the proponents nor the critics have shown

overwhelming concern, up to this point. In other

words, we need to engage in more ‘learning by

doing’ ourselves since there is apparently still

much hard work to be done, both conceptually

andempirically, to unravel these processes and

relationships more carefully.

Two recent studies by economic geographers –

in sectors as diverse as motor sport engineering

and life insurance – begin to illustrate the true

complexities of knowledge formation and trans-

lation over space. Both of these cases, in their

own way, deepen our understanding of the pre-

cise mechanisms by which local and non-local

processes of knowledge formation intersect at

particular sites of production. In the case of life

insurance, key ‘learning intermediaries’ – each

with their own distinct operative scales – interact

and combine to produce knowledge locally

(French, 2000: 110). When it comes to producing

and applying knowledge in the motor sport

industry, the longitudinal study of top designers’

work histories reveals a great deal about the

geographical structure and channels of knowledge

flows (Henry and Pinch, 2000). At the same

time, spatial propinquity is undeniably important

in creating a discursive dynamics of innovation

as performed through ‘gossip, rumour and obser-

vation’ (2000: 136).

Another helpful source of insight is the new

literature on ‘knowledge management’ emerging

from the business schools and international con-

sulting community. To be sure, this literature is

filled with the typical puffery about ‘harnessing

the organization’s knowledge assets’ to ‘unlock

the firm’s innovative potential’.^10 But when one

strips away all of the marketing hyperbole, one is

confronted with a striking realization: while

large corporations recognize the economic value

of tacit knowledge in producing distinctive com-

petitive advantages, they also know how difficult

it is to transpose and translate it from one local

context to another. Even the ‘success stories’ in

this literature (von Krogh et al., 2000) are not

very convincing, and betray a troubling lack of

sophistication in their understanding of how

‘shared understandings’ develop, or how tacit

knowledge and local cultures are produced

(Gertler, 2001b).^11

Far more enlightening is the recent work of

Brown and Duguid whose intriguing book The

Social Life of Information(2000) tackles these

issues head-on. Brown and Duguid situate their

work very much within the ‘communities of

practice’ approach. However, in contrast to

Wenger and others, they make a key distinction

between this construct and the related idea of

‘networks of practice’ – for example, the 25,000

service reps working worldwide for Xerox

Corporation. Their detailed research of knowl-

edge flows in large organizations leads them to

the following conclusion:

Networks of this sort are notable for their reach – a

reach now extended and fortified by information tech-

nology. Information can travel across vast networks

with great speed and to large numbers but nonetheless

be assimilated in much the same way by whomever

receives it. By contrast, there is relatively little reci-

procity across such networks: that is, network members

don’t interact with one another directly to any signifi-

cant degree. When reach dominates reciprocity like

this, it produces very loosely coupled systems. Collec-

tively, such social systems don’t take action and

produce little knowledge. (2000: 142, emphasis added)

In contrast to this, Brown and Duguid see com-

munities of practice as ‘relatively tight-knit

groups of people who know each other and work

together directly ... face-to-face communities’ in

which reach is limited but ‘reciprocity is strong’

(2000: 143). It is only these small groups that

138 THE CULTURE OF ECONOMY

3029-ch06.qxd 03-10-02 10:40 AM Page 138