Knowledge Creation and the Geographies of Local, Global, and Virtual Buzz

  • Harald Bathelt
  • Philip G. Turi
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 5)


This chapter is a systematic investigation of the effects that new communication technologies and different organizational forms of economic interaction have on knowledge creation and innovation processes. The emphasis is on the potential of combining computer-mediated communication (CMC) with forms of temporary and permanent face-to-face (F2F) interaction. It is pointed out that permanent co-location and F2F interaction may be efficient in some contexts but not in others and that temporary and virtual interaction, supported by CMC, are increasingly becoming the basis for establishing trans-local production networks. By combining results from social psychology with economic geography, the authors argue that there is no generally superior spatial fix for economic interaction. Different spatial configurations can be advantageous in different production and innovation contexts, even over large distances, without permanent or even regular F2F contact.


Trade Fair Knowledge Creation Knowledge Exchange Knowledge Flow Knowledge Dissemination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This chapter is based on Bathelt and Turi (2011). Parts of it were presented at various conferences between 2008 and 2010: the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers in Boston, Massachusetts; the Conference on “Industrial Cluster and Regional Development” in Kaifeng, China; the Symposium on “Knowledge and Economy” in Heidelberg, Germany; the Summer Institute in Economic Geography in Manchester, England; and the Summer School on “Management of Creativity in an Innovation Society” at HEC Montréal, Canada. We thank all the participants of these meetings, particularly Patrick Cohendet, Johannes Glückler, Ulf Matthiessen, Peter Meusburger, and one anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments and suggestions that greatly helped the revision of this chapter.


  1. Allen, J. (1997). Economies of power and space. In R. Lee & J. Wills (Eds.), Geographies of economies (pp. 59–70). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  2. Amin, A. (2004). Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1995). Living in the global. In A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds.), Globalization, institutions, and regional development in Europe (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Asheim, B., Cooke, P., & Martin, R. (2006). The rise of the cluster concept in regional analysis and policy: A critical assessment. In B. Asheim, P. Cooke, & R. Martin (Eds.), Clusters and regional development: Critical reflections and explorations (pp. 1–29). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 87, 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bathelt, H. (2006). Geographies of production: Growth regimes in spatial perspective 3—Toward a relational view of economic action and policy. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bathelt, H. (2007). Buzz-and-pipeline dynamics: Toward a knowledge-based multiplier model of clusters. Geography Compass, 1, 1282–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 31–56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bathelt, H., & Schuldt, N. (2008). Between luminaires and meat grinders: International trade fairs as temporary clusters. Regional Studies, 42, 853–868. doi: 10.1080/00343400701543298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bathelt, H., & Turi, P. (2011). Local, global and virtual buzz: The importance of face-to-face contact and possibilities to go beyond. Geoforum, 42, 520–529.Google Scholar
  12. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  13. Borghini, S., Golfetto, F., & Rinallo, D. (2004, September). Using anthropological methods to study industrial marketing and purchasing: An exploration of professional trade shows. Paper presented at the Industrial Marketing Purchasing Conference, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  14. Borghini, S., Golfetto, F., & Rinallo, D. (2006). Ongoing search among industrial buyers. Journal of Business Research, 59, 1151–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carrasco, J.-A., Wellman, B., & Miller, E. (2008). How far—and with whom—do people socialize? Empirical evidence about distance between social network members. Transportation Research Record, 2076, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crang, P. (1997). Cultural turns and the (re)constitution of economic geography. In R. Lee & J. Wills (Eds.), Geographies of economies (pp. 3–15). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  18. Dasgupta, P. (2000). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). Oxford: Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Dicken, P., Kelly, P. F., Olds, K., & Yeung, H. W.-C. (2001). Chains and networks, territories and scales: Towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy. Global Networks, 1, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Entwistle, J., & Rocamora, A. (2006). The field of fashion materialized: A study of London Fashion Week. Sociology, 40, 735–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garton, L. E., & Wellman, B. (1993). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature (KMDI Historical Papers KMDI-HP-93-13). Toronto: Telepresence Project.Google Scholar
  23. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gertler, M. S. (1995). “Being there”: Proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic Geography, 71, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for effective virtual teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, I. R., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks. Urban Studies, 37, 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grabher, G. (1993). The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In G. Grabher (Ed.), The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks (pp. 255–277). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grabher, G., Ibert, O., & Flohr, S. (2008). The neglected king: The customer in the new knowledge ecology of innovation. Economic Geography, 84, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 46–78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  33. Hossain, L., & Wigand, R. T. (2004). ICT enabled virtual collaboration through trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 22–31.Google Scholar
  34. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leamer, E. E., & Storper, M. (2001). The economic geography of the Internet age. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 641–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lundvall, B.-Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malecki, E. J. (2010). Global knowledge and creativity: New challenges for firms and regions. Regional Studies, 44, 1033–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (1997). Towards an explanation of industry agglomeration and regional specialization. European Planning Studies, 5, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malmberg, A., & Power, D. (2005). (How) do (firms in) clusters create knowledge? Industry and Innovation, 12, 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maskell, P., Bathelt, H., & Malmberg, A. (2006). Building global knowledge pipelines: The role of temporary clusters. European Planning Studies, 14, 997–1013. doi: 10.1080/09654310600852332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Basu, R. (2007). How much did distance matter before the Internet? Social Networks, 29, 430–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moriset, B., & Malecki, E. J. (2009). Organization versus space: The paradoxical geographies of the digital economy. Geography Compass, 3, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Oinas, P. (1999). Activity-specificity in organizational learning: Implications for analysing the role of proximity. GeoJournal, 49, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olson, C., & Olson, J. (2003). Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Prüser, S. M. (2003). Die Messe als Networking-Plattform [Trade fairs as a platform for networking]. In M. Kirchgeorg, W. M. Dornscheidt, W. Giese, & N. Stoeck (Eds.), Handbuch Messemanagement: Planung, Durchführung und Kontrolle von Messen, Kongressen und Events (pp. 1181–1195). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  51. Rallet, A., & Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of the global economy? GeoJournal, 49, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rallet, A., & Torre, A. (2009). Temporary geographical proximity for business and work coordination: When, how and where? SPACES online 2009–02. Toronto/Heidelberg:
  53. Reid, F. J. M., Ball, L., Morley, A., & Evans, J. (1997). Styles of group discussion in computer-mediated decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice et al. (Eds.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129–156). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Rosson, P. J., & Seringhaus, F. H. R. (1995). Visitor and exhibitor interaction at industrial trade fairs. Journal of Business Research, 32, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schuldt, N., & Bathelt, H. (2011). International trade fairs and global buzz, Part II: Practices of global buzz. European Planning Studies, 19, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sharland, A., & Balogh, P. (1996). The value of non-selling activities at international trade shows. Industrial Marketing Management, 25, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. Slevin, D. P., Boone, L. W., & Russo, E. M. (1998). CONFIDE: A collective decision-making procedure using confidence estimates of individual judgments. Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Song, M., Berends, H., van der Bij, H., & Weggeman, M. (2007). The effects of IT and co-location on knowledge dissemination. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 351–370.Google Scholar
  63. Storper, M., & Walker, R. (1989). The capitalist imperative: Territory, technology, and industrial growth. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Thrift, N. (2000). Performing cultures in the new economy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 674–692. doi: 10.1111/-5608.00217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wainfan, L., & Davis, P. K. (2004). Challenges in virtual collaboration: Videoconferencing, audioconferencing, and computer-mediated communications. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  68. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Department of Geography and Program in PlanningUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.MississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations