Reversing the Instrumentality of the Social for the Economic: A Critical Agenda for Twenty-first Century Knowledge Networks

The author identifies a critical juncture in the global economy: the emergence of a new production system pivoting on “open innovation” and knowledge networks that are, however, exclusive in the context of rapidly increasing poverty and socio-economic polarization worldwide. The chapter develops a critical agenda to make use of: (1) theories about (economic) knowledge generation and networks to develop social knowledges by dissolving frictions of difference and constructing an inclusive system of collaborative work; and (2) the market itself to adapt new corporate strategies to social ends in the course of sustaining, if not augmenting, productivity. The chapter envisions a system of mediated crowdsourced project work drawing support from the public and private sectors. Precedents for various components of the agenda exist; the agenda is to imbricate such projects in a holistic approach to achieve social as well as economic change by reconfiguring the values that govern everyday life.

Taking stock of changing realities, in this chapter I take note of an emergent production system around the turn of the twenty-fi rst century that pivots on new approaches to innovation and, relatedly, on open networks to access dispersed knowledges. At the same time, it is sensible to recognize pressing social problems associated with dramatically increasing socioeconomic polarization and precarious livelihoods worldwide, as well as persistent problems of segregation that inform the nature of exclusions. Although the new system of production is lucrative for fi rms, its contribution to social problems has been negative at best because new networking strategies remain exclusive, while being highly exploitative in new ways. At this critical juncture in the global economy, my aim in this chapter is to bring a sociopolitical agenda to new economic realities that would service economic agents and goals while developing a means to extend living-wage and stable work in knowledge networks to diverse people, and in the process dissolve frictions of difference through collaborative work relations. Based on a critical synthesis of information drawn from case studies across wide-ranging literatures ( economic geography and sociology; social theory; and business, management, and information science), I conceptualize a strategy for making use of new networking strategies that is inclusive and shaped by social goals .
The ensuing argument begins with conceptualizing a reversal of the usual instrumentality of the social for the economic. I contextualize the agenda in terms of the above-stated critical juncture in the global economy, namely new types of economic knowledge networks that reap enormous rewards for corporations without, however, attention to dire and worsening social needs and problems. I conclude this section with a call for imbricating social knowledges with an understanding of economic knowledge networks. In the next section I discuss a particular social problem, segregation, which spatially expresses exclusions in everyday life. Crucially, segregation is driven by ignorance; therefore, constructively engaging segregation requires targeting ignorance by developing social knowledges-per the frame of this edited collection, specifi cally in the context of knowledge networks. I turn then to the literature on knowledge generation and exchange in economic-oriented literatures to cull insights regarding requirements for the development of socially oriented issues of trust and mutual respect that underpin collaborative project work . One limitation of this literature is that it presents a faceless landscape of actors, and thereby elides issues of difference. In light of my goal to conceptualize the proactive construction of diverse and inclusive knowledge networks, I then draw insights from the business, management, and information science literatures on potential problems of the frictions of difference in on-the-ground as well as virtual workplaces. While useful, this literature nonetheless lacks attention to social goalsback to the problem of the usual instrumentality of the social for the economic-and thus requires attention to the multidimensionality of problems. As I will elaborate, I envision the construction of a web of inclusive knowledge networks in what I call "mediated crowdsourced project work," supported by government and other organizations to ensure continual, living-wage employment in ephemeral networks that form, dissolve, and form anew with different membership to meet the requirements for particular constellations of expertise across projects. At the outset I envision such a project at the metropolitan scale where fi eld research can identify the domain of skills in local populations, allowing for such projects to extend beyond localities over time. My aim is to develop a critical agenda-as opposed to a blueprint or policy brief-to clarify the issues, the logics, and, moreover, the need to chart a new course, while avoiding the replication of existing ills. The vision here derives analytically from a critique of the existing system and a problematization of those new features of the production apparatus that require reconfi guration to achieve social as well as economic goals.
Despite this admittedly ambitious agenda, precedents for discrete components nonetheless exist in various contexts. Open network strategies such as crowdsourcing connect fi rms seeking expertise or intellectual property with individuals who may be disassociated from fi rms (although not in association with stable, livingwage jobs). The U.S. government has supported the formation of open networks constituted by fi rms (although not open networks that draw from a skilled population of workers who may be disassociated from fi rms). Governments outside the United States support enterprises that privilege social objectives and community well-being over economic goals (although not in connection with new types of knowledge networks). Field research has identifi ed skill sets among marginalized, populations (although not in association with new approaches to production and not necessarily remunerative). The novelty of the agenda I develop, then, lies in the imbrication of components among discrete projects in a holistic approach to achieve both social and economic change.

The Nature of Economic Networks in Relation to Social Issues
Analyses of economic networks for goods and services commonly cast people as instrumental to the effective functioning of networks. The social capital that accrues to such networks is seen to result in productivity, innovativeness, resilience, and the like. 1 This relation between people and networks, with the former serving the latter, is sensible in the context of neoliberal society, which encompasses researchers as much as their subjects and objects of study. As critical philosopher and historian Michel Foucault (2004 argued, neoliberal practices transform the social into economic opportunity, refl ected in the academic conceptualization of social relations as instrumental to economic goals. I aim to conceptualize a reversal of the usual relation between the social and the economic to engage specifi cally how economic knowledge networks can enhance social relations. How, then, might economic networks contribute to social change? The question appears to counter neoliberal logic. However, as research on economic networks has pointed out, constructive social relations in the arena of production and innovation depend on effective collaboration, trust, and mutual respect ( Bourdieu , 1986 ;Glückler, 2005 ). Thus, the process of achieving social goals embeds economic goals (Cantener, in this volume). Such nesting is not, however, necessarily implicated when the goal is conceived economically because economic goals often are achieved at the expense of the social, notably labor. 2 The overall strategy I offer aims at subverting the usual logic of instrumentality by rendering economic effectiveness useful for social relations without, however, negating the importance of social relations for economic performance. I advocate a counter-conduct 3 that works from within the dynamics of the system, consistent with Foucault's ( 1996 , p. 387) provocative point that effective critique and resistance "relies upon the situation against which it struggles" and is immanent to the system of governance. Per Foucault ( 1996 , p. 386) resistance "is not simply a negation, but a creative process," which can take shape in an agenda for positive social change.
1 Alternatively, Bourdieu's ( 1986 ) discussion of social capital casts individuals' membership in a network as benefi tting individuals, notably regarding their social positioning. This view does not negate the instrumental view of people relative to economic networks, but it offers more in terms of potential benefi ts of social capital. This said, the concern of this chapter is less with the benefi ts of network relations to an individual and more with a specifi cally relational view of social interaction, that is, the development of constructive relations among individuals based on the development of trust, mutual respect, and the like. 2 Achieving economic goals at the expense of social goals can be a matter of exploiting vulnerable workers for the sake of personal or shareholder gain. Other processes include myopic strategic planning (Ettlinger, 2008 ) as well as implicit biases against, and thus exclusion of, talented people who may be outside entrenched power networks (Ettlinger, 2003 ;Faulconbridge, 2007 ;Faulconbridge and Hall, 2009 ). 3 Foucault conceptualized systems of governance in terms of the conduct of conduct (e.g., Foucault, / 2007, with reference to the strategies, tactics, and programs that guide actors to make choices (often unconsciously) in accordance with societal norms. Counter-conduct, then, is the governance of practices that counter those norms (e.g., Foucault, / 2007.

A Critical Juncture in the Global Economy: Open Innovation and Networks
The impetus for a normative agenda is recognition of a critical juncture in the global economy in which an emergent mode of production associated with new networking strategies reaps considerable rewards for fi rms and shareholders, but exacerbates already precarious ways of earning a living and, more generally, inequality in the context of deepening socioeconomic polarization worldwide (Beck, 1999(Beck, / 2000Standing, 2011 ). The aim is not to dismantle existing corporate strategies, an unfeasible strategy, but rather to conceptualize ways to make use of them by reconfi guring goals to privilege the sociopolitical without jettisoning the economic-admittedly diffi cult, but plausible.
The emergent system of production is characterized overall by openness (Ettlinger, 2014 ) regarding two overlapping systems: innovation, and networks to access labor. Networks connect with innovation as a means by which fi rms access expertise and intellectual property. However, networks also enable fi rms to access labor for non-innovative yet menial activity, and the processes for connecting with this labor market differ. 4 In keeping with the theme of this volume, my focus in this chapter is on networks in relation to innovative activity, specifi cally knowledge networks.
Novel forms of knowledge networks have evolved in the context of what has been termed open innovation in the business literature. The term was coined in 2003 by former corporate manager and Berkeley scholar Henry Chesbrough (Chesbrough, 2006a(Chesbrough, , 2006bChesbrough , Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006 ). The fi rst survey of open innovation was conducted in 2013, encompassing large fi rms in the United States and Europe with sales of more than 250 million dollars; results showed that over three quarters of the fi rms actively pursued open innovation strategies and, moreover, support for open innovation among top managers is increasing (Chesbrough & Brunswicker, 2013 ).

Open Innovation and Networks
Open innovation refers to the eclipsing of a longstanding tradition of in-house innovation by new practices whereby fi rms develop innovations on the terrain of interorganizational relations. Although fi rms externalized production under the regime of fl exible accumulation beginning around 1980 in the United States and Britain and 4 Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk subsidiary (Mechanicalturk.com) exemplifi es non-routine but menial work. Skilled labor is required, but for relatively low-skilled tasks that nonetheless are nonroutine and therefore unamenable to operation by artifi cial intelligence. Amazon.com lists jobs or human intelligence tasks (HITs) for other companies that pay Amazon.com 10 % of the fee for completed tasks. People are paid extremely low wages by the task, not the unit of time-a situation that has been likened to "piece work" in a digital sweatshop. more recently in continental Europe, innovation nonetheless largely remained an in-house activity. Around the turn of the twenty-fi rst century, fi rms began externalizing innovation , in part as deepening vertical disintegration (associated with fl exible accumulation) gradually produced unanticipated benefi ts for large fi rms, namely the possibility of learning from suppliers and making use of innovations they developed-a trajectory facilitated by the increasing ubiquity of personal computer hardware and software (Gawer & Cusumano, 2002 , p. 5). Further, as availability of venture capital from venture capital fi rms declined over the last decade, many large fi rms internalized venture capital programs (corporate venture capital, CVC) to invest in small to medium-sized fi rms (SMEs) to develop innovations pertinent to their (the large fi rms') competencies ( Van de Vrande, Vanhaverbeke, & Duysters, 2011 ). 5 Push factors for open innovation included the increasing costs of technology development, which have prompted fi rms across the size spectrum to develop strategies to spread expenses to reach beyond their boundaries for problem solving and intellectual property. Further, many large fi rms lack suffi cient internal expertise, in part as a vestige of lean management in the 1980s, when fi rms laid off many personnel, including researchers; accordingly, fi rms increasingly access expertise externally (Chesbrough, 2006a , p. 190). The goal set by Proctor and Gamble's newly appointed chief economic offi cer in 2000 is telling: to acquire 50 % of the company's innovations from external sources (Huston & Sakkab, 2006 ).
Beyond the development of innovative capabilities among suppliers in the context of relations between large and small fi rms, open innovation also entails interfi rm relations among large fi rms that interlink business models based on new innovations, notably in industries that produce multi-component products (Chesbrough, 2006a(Chesbrough, , 2006bCooke, De Laurentis, MacNeill, & Collinge, 2010 ;Gawer, 2009 ;Gawer & Cusumano, 2002 ). The main imperative in open innovation is to continually move to new innovative activity in concert with other fi rms producing related products and services. 6 The management of innovation across the spectrum of fi rms practicing open innovation has occurred in the context of the development of a relatively new demand environment: customized demand , which requires combinations of expertise that cannot be anticipated (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, 1995 ). Although, in principle, fi rms under such circumstances can continually add to their repertoire of skill through mergers, acquisitions, and continual hiring of experts, the high costs of 5 For a survey in 2013 of the top 50 Forbes Global 2000 fi rms with CVC programs, see Battistini, Hacklin, and Baschera ( 2013 ). 6 Intel's activity in the 1990s serves as an instructive example of interlinked activity among fi rms and novel strategies to coordinate innovativeness (see discussion in Gawer & Cusumano, 2002 ). By the late 1980s the pace of Intel's innovation in its core product, computer microprocessors, exceeded the pace of innovation in IBM's personal computer (PC) architecture. In response, Intel staffed a new lab with software engineers to fi nd new uses for its hardware (microprocessors), in turn to stimulate demand for a new generation of personal computers that require Intel's core product. Its strategy in the next decade and into the twenty-fi rst century has been "to establish the technologies, standards and products necessary to grow demand for the extended PC through the creation of new computing experiences" (cited in Gawer & Cusumano, 2002 , p. 25). such a strategy often prompt fi rms to look instead for expertise among external sources (Grant, 1998 ). From the vantage point of structural hole theory, linkages to an increasingly broad range of organizations increase social capital, provide a means by which individual fi rms can overcome structural gaps (Burt, 1992 ;Burt, Hogarth, & Michaud, 2000 ;Garrigos-Simon, Alcami, & Ribera, 2012 ), and enhance innovative capacity based on increasingly diverse knowledges (Frey, Lüthje, & Haag, 2011 ;Poetz & Schreier, 2012 ). Agility, defi ned in this context as the capacity of fi rms to tap external resources effi ciently and rapidly, is a key asset of organizations (Goldman et al., 1995 ;Greis & Kasarda, 1997 ). 7 Outsourcing in the context of open innovation, even if exploitative, is prompted at the outset not by lowest cost of labor and products in externalized production, as in a Coase ( 1937 )-inspired model of economic activity, but rather by the need to incorporate expertise external to a fi rm in projects that crosscut fi rms, as in a Hayek ( 1945 )-inspired conceptualization. Per Hayek ( 1945 ), the world constantly changes, requiring an effective means of culling dispersed knowledges. Assuming all individuals possess unique knowledge, a central problem for Hayek was how dispersed knowledges might be accessed. The contemporary answer to Hayek's problem regarding innovation is open networks, in contrast to the tradition of relatively closed organizational forms (Lazega, in this volume). Whereas just-in-time manufacturing networks associated with fl exible production tended to evolve as relatively closed with "strategic bridges" (Burt, 1992(Burt, , 2005 forged between networks to facilitate fl ows of new information, Web 2.0 information and communications technologies (ICTs) have facilitated the development of open networks that draw from dispersed knowledges across fi rms (Garrigos-Simon et al., 2012 ).
Crucially, fi rms have opened their boundaries in the realm of innovation not only to other fi rms, both small and large, but also to freelancers "on the street," who may not necessarily be associated with fi rms and conceivably may even be unemployed. The governing apparatus of this labor market is crowdsourcing, which is one of several short-run avenues by which fi rms ensure fast profi tability to complement long-term investment strategies and meet the demands of shareholders. Other shortrun avenues include licensing in ready-to-go innovations to avoid their expense as well as time to invention and innovation; licensing out warehoused inventions that 7 The concept of agility was fi rst developed in U.S. defense-related production and eventually became wedded with the concept of the virtual enterprise in the early 1990s (Goldman et al., 1995 ;Goranson, 1999 ). The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Pentagon created a program managed by several military services (especially the Air Force) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop an organizational strategy to respond to unexpected problems in a post-Cold War environment; the research fi rm Sirius-Beta developed a key role in the program, connecting the idea of effectively and rapidly tapping external resources (agility) with the idea of ephemeral networks (the virtual enterprise). The NSF supported research centers at universities, pilot production programs, and information networks regarding the new paradigm. In 1991 the NSF supported a workshop at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Political support and thus defense dollars eventually diminished, although the NSF continued its support for programs, conferences, workshops, and publications to disseminate the new paradigm to the private sector.
Companies crowdsource by sending out open, electronic calls for inventions or expertise when problems emerge and require solution. For example, in 2002 Proctor and Gamble wanted to fi nd a way to print edible pictures on each potato chip in a Pringles can; their electronic call was answered by the owner of a small bakery in Bologna, Italy, who had invented a way to print edible pictures on cakes and cookies; more generally, Proctor and Gamble has developed a strategy it calls "Connect + Develop" to replace the more traditional mentality of in-house research and development (Huston & Sakkab, 2006 ). Other companies orchestrate highstakes online competitions as a growth strategy to access inventions that would enhance core competencies. Cisco Systems, for example, arranged an online competition for an invention related to its core competency in internet technology in 2007, offering a prize of 250,000 dollars to the winner; 2500 inventors across 104 countries competed, with rules stipulating that the winner would sign over the commercial rights of the invention to Cisco (Jouret, 2009 ). This one-time cost was offset considerably by the long-term billion-dollar business that Cisco launched using the winning invention as a platform.
Many fi rms now outsource crowdsourcing, giving rise to a new breed of fi rms that connect seekers (fi rms looking for new technology or expertise) with solvers (fi rms or individual actors with intellectual property or expertise who may be disassociated from fi rms)-the contemporary answer to Hayek's concern for how to access dispersed knowledges. Useful classifi cations of these mediators 9 exist (e.g., Feller, Finnegan, Hayes, & O'Reilly, 2009 ), 10 but the rapid evolution and internal diversifi cation among these fi rms render the classifi cations insightful mainly in clarifying an initial division of labor. For example, some of these fi rms specialized in connecting seeker fi rms with experts selling existing intellectual property, while others connected seekers with experts selling their expertise to solve problems; some specialized at the outset in demand-driven activity such as classifying and cataloguing problems that solvers search, while others focused on supply-side activity such as fi nding solutions sought by fi rms. Most of these fi rms gradually have diversifi ed internally, developing an array of activities and services to complement 8 Around 90 % of Proctor and Gamble's patents in 2002 were never commercialized as innovations-a situation that is emblematic of tendencies to warehouse inventions (Chesbrough, 2006a , p. 9). In the context of open innovation, dormant inventions take on new value as a means to earn revenue quickly as other fi rms look to license in new technologies to avoid the costs of technology development. 9 These third-party organizers conventionally are termed "intermediaries." Taking a cue from Bruno Latour's ( 2005 ) compelling argument that "intermediary" implies neutrality, I use the term "mediator." 10 Feller et al.'s ( 2009 )  the kind of activities that characterized their niche as they emerged at the outset as a secondary market for innovation .
Whereas all the above-mentioned mediators broker networks characterized by a hub-and-spoke structure in which the mediating fi rm is the connector but the network of individual solvers (people) lacks connectivity, another model of open networks entails networks of solver fi rms (not people) that collaborate relative to customized demand. In this latter system one fi rm receives customized orders from seeker fi rms and subsequently coordinates expertise amongst solver fi rms in ephemeral networks. Firms coalesce temporarily in projects to combine expertise to solve a problem; networks dissolve following completion of projects, and form anew with new memberships relative to the required expertise. This type of solver network is exemplifi ed by the Agile Web, a virtual corporation established in 1995 and constituted by 20 small-to-medium-sized manufacturing fi rms that were selected from a population of over 700 prescreened fi rms in northeastern Pennsylvania; by 1999 it obtained over 50 million dollars in orders (Sheridan, 1993(Sheridan, , 1996. In 2000, G5 Technologies, a company in New Jersey, acquired the Agile Web to enhance its array of collaborative business services and internet-based software technologies; as a subsidiary, the Agile Web remained intact, providing collaborative product design and manufacturing solutions (PR Newswire Association LLC, 2000 ). Similarly, KICMS is an association established in South Korea in 2004 that coordinates collaboration on research among large numbers of SMEs (around 4000), while also providing consulting services and assistance to the SMEs in developing markets (Lee, Park, Yoon, & Park, 2010 ).
To date, then, there are fi rms that access innovative expertise among individual people (not fi rms) in a hub-and-spoke approach in which there is no collaboration among solvers, and there are fi rms that access expertise among fi rms (not people) that engage in collaborative problem solving and temporarily coalesce in networks. The former case represents a lucrative model for fi rms that contracts with people, not fi rms, but is hardly a source of remunerative, living-wage jobs; each contest has one or a few winners and often thousands of losers who self-fund, and moreover, sign away their intellectual property rights when submitting their contributions. The latter case represents an effective organizational model to meet economic (not social) goals, and the customized orders reach fi rms, not individual people. Consider, then, the possibility of combining elements of each of these types of knowledge networks to constitute a hybrid system that serves social as well as economic goals.

Making Use of New Knowledge Networks to Develop Social Knowledges
I am interested in the proactive construction of one type of activity: mediators, which may be non-profi t and at least partially government funded, that could connect fi rms as well as other organizations (e.g., government-funded and non-profi t organizations, academic institutions) with appropriate networks of solvers who are people, not fi rms, to collaborate in remunerative, problem-solving activity. Based on information drawn from numerous cases studies, I develop a normative argument about the social as well as economic potential of this organizational approach to innovation that I term mediated crowdsourced project work . At this critical juncture in the global economy I am interested in how new approaches to accessing expertise in open networks, notably crowdsourcing, might be constructed so as to erode precarious conditions of work while serving to dissolve frictions of difference among people who might otherwise not interact in an increasingly segregated world.
Mediated crowdsourced project work is germane for two main reasons. First, the effort and ability of fi rms to reach innovative freelancers disassociated from fi rms and even unemployed conceivably can avoid institutionalized discrimination at the outset because actors in crowdsourced activity are recruited on the basis of their expertise relative to specifi ed problems, not their work associations, previous history, or formal education. If we accept that many people earning below a living wage have well-developed skills, even if informally developed, then this system in principle has the potential to be inclusive, although to date, inclusivity has not been a goal and indeed has not been served. Second, the immateriality of collaboration in knowledge networks associated with project work (as opposed to selling intellectual property) brings people into contact with one another on the basis of their expertise. If innovative communities of practice 11 that are tapped for expertise were to open to diverse actors, then people who might otherwise not interact beyond superfi cial exchanges could gain trust and mutual respect through working together in meaningful interaction aimed at effective problem solving.
The idea of people developing mutual respect and trust in the process of using complementary expertise to solve problems for fi rms suggests that people learn about each other and develop social knowledges in the process of work with economic, material objectives. This is key, although the content of social knowledges typically is absent from analysis of economic networks in light of the conventional instrumentality of the social for the economic.
I suggest extending types of knowledges in economic-oriented literatures to include social knowledges, which I defi ne as the generation of knowledges about actors' lives and circumstances, talents, idiosyncrasies, tragedies, and humor. Existing typologies of economic knowledges are rooted in Karl Polanyi's ( 1958, 1966 distinction between tacit and coded knowledges. Frank Blackler's ( 1995 ) elaborated typology includes embrained knowledge (rooted in an individual's cognitive abilities); embodied knowledge (practical knowledge developed in specifi c physical contexts, as in project work); encultured knowledge (rooted in shared understanding developed through socialization); embedded knowledge (subjective knowledge embedded in a context), and encoded knowledge (knowledge that can be presented in manuals, books, websites, and the like). The addition of social knowledges to existing typologies rests on the recognition of problems of social interaction. In an inclusive framework, exclusions wrought of segregation require attention.

Problematizing the Social: Conceptualizing Exclusion in Relation to Social Knowledges
Constructing networks among people who might otherwise not interact due to membership in different affi nity groups (by class, race, ethnicity, gender, and the like) is fraught with problems in light of people's life experience in a hypersegregated world. Although segregation commonly is viewed in the context of residential areas and school districts, occupational segregation also is well documented. Further, the management literature has documented frictions of difference within occupations in both material and virtual workplaces, as well as tendencies for people to want to work with people similar to themselves (e.g., Brown, Jenkins, & Thatcher, 2012 ;Joshi, 2006 ). Electronic workplaces in association with e-collaboration have been shown to embed implicit sociolinguistic biases regarding gender (Gefen, Geri, & Paravastu, 2007 ); moreover, different modes of e-communication have been shown to foster or inhibit constructive social relations in the context of diverse participants (Brown et al., 2012 ). Difference matters, consistent with geographer Mark Graham's ( 2011a ) more general point that virtual space embeds biases relative to the range of axes of difference that exist in material space, while also creating new axes of difference. Recognizing persistent problems of difference departs from various sanguine views, such as the notion that activity in virtual space portends a more democratic future (e.g., see critical reviews by Graham, 2011b ;Etling, Faris, & Palfrey, 2010 ), or that convivial interaction among diverse groups signifi es the dissolution of frictions of difference, despite the superfi ciality of interaction (Gilroy, 2004(Gilroy, , 2005. Segregation along any of many or a combination of axes of difference contributes to the increasingly polarized nature of our world because it blocks access to information and opportunity to groups that lack resources, and moreover, it renders those without access out-of-sight and out-of mind (Young, 2000 ). Drawing from the theory of communicative action (Habermas, 1984 ), we can understand segregation in terms of the absence of communication among different groups via the construction of invisible and sometimes visible walls among groups, which then generate misinformation and the production of homogenizing and typically derogatory stereotypes. Misinformation in turn produces fear and discriminatory practices, which reinforce segregationist tendencies.
If segregation is understood as the socio-spatial production of ignorance, whether on the ground or virtually, then the task is to dissolve ignorance by developing new social knowledges through meaningful interaction (Ettlinger, 2009 ) . I pursue new types of knowledge networks as a possible context for social change in association with the emergence of open innovation. The recognition of social knowledges in typologies of knowledge suggests important implications for adapting theory of knowledge generation regarding competitiveness to the domain of social relations while recognizing the benefi ts for economic performance. In light of the relative absence of attention to problems of knowledge generation in the realm in social theory, I turn now to literature on economic networks for clues regarding knowledge generation and sharing, with the aim of using these insights toward social knowledges in the context of economic dynamics.

Adapting Theories of (Economic) Knowledge Networks to Social Relations: Generating and Sharing Knowledges, and the Nagging Problem of Trust and Familiarity
Research in economic geography and sociology and allied fi elds in business and management has grappled with the "soft" issue of trust as a linchpin in the generation of knowledges for innovative activity among fi rms. Despite an absence of interest in the content of social knowledges and their usefulness for social issues, this literature nonetheless is germane because it clarifi es the complexity of establishing trust and mutual respect, irrespective of the agenda.
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 problem of trust among actors who lack familiarity with one another. Whether using Karl Polanyi's ( 1958Polanyi's ( , 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 conceptualization 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 network change as ties develop and evolve among actors in different networks.
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 recommended 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 professionals (Almeida & Kogut, 1999 ;Torre & Rallet, 2005 ;Williams, 2006 ), and possibilities 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 relations 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 conferencing, 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-toface interaction, and further, localization can be achieved virtually across space with appropriate ICTs, as well as physically in short-run clustering of people from different 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 documentation of persistent segregation with in apparently integrated areal units such as school districts matters, namely, what people think of each other a priori, and the nature of power relations , affect prospects for knowledge sharing (Brown, Jenkins, & Thatcher, 2012 ). Moreover, research has shown that knowledges are communicated in verbal and nonverbal ways, including body language and other contextual cues (e.g., Harvey, Novicevic, & Grarrison, 2004 ), potentially inhibiting productive interaction in physical or virtual face-to-face settings (Brown et al., 2012 ;Shachaf, 2007 ). Bias is embodied, reinforcing the importance of incorporating faces as well as bodies in research on networks. Critical human geographers writing about issues in fi eld strategies have highlighted some of the problems of, for example, focus groups, wherein power relations can surface and thereby produce silences among some members (Hyams, 2004 ). Similarly, in the business world, brainstorming sessions can inhibit creativity as different participants take on more and less responsibility in a groupthink culture (Cain, 2012 ). Sometimes network analyses incorporate power relations (e.g., Faulconbridge & Hall, 2009 ) regarding, for example, selective recruitment by gatekeepers and executive search fi rms (Faulconbridge, Beaverstock, Hall, & Hewitson, 2009 ), agents' relational positioning (Weller, 2009 ), different kinds of proximities (Jones & Search, 2009 ), and uneven access to circuits of knowledge (Faulconbridge, 2007 ;Grabher, 2002 ). 14 And sometimes research in economic geography on networks connects with gender issues (Blake & Hanson, 2005 ;Hanson & Blake, 2009 ;McDowell, 2000 ). However, there is relative silence on issues of race and ethnicity and, more generally, issues of difference broadly construed. 15 The "soft" fi eld of feelings and interpersonal relations remain central yet relatively unexplored. 16 (Riley & Ettlinger, 2011 ) and neighborhoods (Joseph, Chaskin, & Webber, 2007 ). Given that the usual goal is defi ned not in terms of the nature of interaction, but rather in terms of the pattern of co-location, success is relatively easily achieved, perhaps in part explaining views that segregation is not really a problem. In contrast, a topological and non-Euclidean (as opposed to topographic and Euclidean) approach to segregation recognizes that segregation ripples through everyday life at fi ne scales, within so-called mixed residential communities such as schools, as well as in workplaces, including virtual workplaces. 14 See Christopherson and Clark ( 2007 ) for a discussion of power relations in fi rm networks in which the actors are represented at the scale of fi rms. 15 For example, Ash Amin, who has written extensively on issues in economic geography on knowledge generation (Amin, 2004 ;Amin & Cohendet, 2004 ;Amin & Roberts, 2008 ), has published on issues of race (e.g., Amin, 2010 ) and more general social theory (Amin & Thrift, 2013 ), but this part of his scholarship tends to be discrete from his publications on issues in economic geography. Similarly, Doreen Massey, whose early scholarship (Massey, 1984 ) paved the way for analysis of spatial divisions of labor, eventually departed from issues of fi rms and the economy (e.g., Massey, 1991Massey, , 2005. 16 The allusion to emotions here differs from ideas about "emotional intelligence" in the business and management literature, which engages emotions in the context of fi xed hierarchical structures and focuses on particular actors who are leaders to manage the emotions of their staffs-a topdown approach that implicitly is about policing emotions to fi t with a prescribed confi guration of emotion and reason to accommodate fi rm goals of productivity. The perspective here differs insofar as fi rst, the usual instrumentality of the social for the economic is reversed, and second, emotions are not to be managed or possibly suppressed, but rather understood so as to enable constructive relations (Ettlinger, 2004 ).

The Difference that Difference Makes
Injecting problems of difference (along any of many axes) into the problematic arena of knowledge generation and sharing deepens already existing challenges. Thinking about difference entails more than adding Others to existing groups of workers; rather, it requires altering strategies that might otherwise be developed. For example, whereas there seems to be a consensus from e-collaboration and general management and organization studies that techniques for social bonding and building social awareness should be developed at the start of a project, whether in virtual or physical face-to-face settings (Han & Hovav, 2013 ;Kraut et al., 1999 ), difference might be served best differently. Research on heterogeneous groups recognizes that although diversity is seen instrumentally as productive due to a multiplicity of knowledges and perspectives (Shachaf, 2007 ), people nonetheless prefer to work and interact with those most similar to themselves, and moreover, are reluctant to share their knowledges with Others (Brown et al., 2012 ) in the context of prevailing preconceived views and derogatory stereotypes (Brown et al., 2012 ;Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010 ). Admittedly, economic performance can be served while social identities and relations are not, but, beyond ethics, economic productivity at the expense of the social arguably is sub-optimal because constructive social relations are strategic for economic performance.
Interestingly, research specifi cally on collaboration when difference is considered suggests a trajectory of communication strategies in which the outset of a project might benefi t from a synchronous modes of communication or possibly avatars (Kock & Nosek, 2005 , p. 3), and subsequently move to face-to-face interaction, virtually or physically, followed by diverse modes of communication depending on project needs (Brown et al., 2012 ). Asynchronous modes of communication, which lack physical cues, conceal at least some elements of difference, 17 permitting more focus at the outset on the objective content of interaction (Brown et al., 2012 ;Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010 ;Shachaf, 2007 ), 18 and possibly facilitate a formulation of identities at least partially unencumbered from visual cues among diverse actors at the start of new project (Amiri, Gholipour, & Sohrabi, 2011 ). A trajectory of asynchronous and synchronous communication is best conceptualized as dialectical rather than unilinear to permit adaptation to unanticipated dynamics (Brown et al., 2012 ). The difference that difference makes in the strategic design of project communications would seem to occur notably at the outset, entailing a reversal of the conventional logic for the appropriate communication platform at this stage.
But if the ultimate aim targets social relations in the course of project work, there remains more to consider. If a principal task is to develop social knowledges, beyond sharing economic knowledges in collaborative project work, then at least a portion of overall collaboration should entail some physical face-to-face interaction through work as well as social time. Personal relations matter in the sharing of knowledge s, or more generally, private resources (Hambley, Kline, & O'Neil, 2007 ;Kraut et al., 1999 ;Uzzi, 1999 ). Further, the creation of a space and time for people to learn about each other in the course of collaborating on a project is complex because social learning is far from automatic. Rather, it requires careful planning of the mundane-seating arrangements, for example-to avoid the self -segregation during social time that has been documented in apparently "mixed" residential complexes and lunchrooms in schools. 19 The idea here is to take what we know about the value of routinized rhythms of interaction from communities of economic practice in innovative activity (Brown & Duguid, 1991 ), and introduce such routinization in new social relations formed around collaborative project work. 20 Drawing from what we know about path dependence and the value of respect for another's work for future interaction, the sharing of knowledges about people as well as project work positions future social relations constructively. Pragmatically, the agenda produces logistical problems as well as the expense of ensuring participants' travel to a central place for the portion of project work requiring physical face-to-face interaction (see Feller, Finnegan, Hayes, & O'Reilly, 2012 , regarding the critical role of stability for open innovation). In this regard, public-private partnerships may be crucial to provide continual support.

Envisioning Socially Responsive, Collaborative Knowledge Networks in the New Economy
The short-term nature of collaboration and the continual reconfi guration of proactively constructed networks ensure a continual meeting ground of diverse actors. The main drawback of network ephemerality from the vantage point of solvers is the potential instability of work. 21 Especially in light of one of the objectives to 19 Lee's ( 2007 ) provocative account of a neighborhood's effort to deter Vancouver planners, engineers, politicians, and developers from moving ahead with plans for demolition and gentrifi cation is instructive. Organizers of the movement against demolition and gentrifi cation recognized that the actors behind these plans regarded the neighborhood as blight, and did not have any idea or even image of the people living in the neighborhood. Rather than protest, community leaders invited city offi cials and representatives of the new planning movement to their neighborhood for festivals, dinner, and walking tours, paying close attention to mundane details such as seating arrangements at dinner and the like. The face-to-face interaction and development of personal relations culminated in the termination of city plans for demolition and gentrifi cation following what might be described as a concert of orchestrated "situated practices" that emplaced actual faces and livelihoods in the image of the neighborhood. 20 The rhythms of working together and getting to know one another might otherwise be stated in terms of the socialization stage in Nonaka's conceptualization of knowledge generation (Nonaka, 1994 ;Nonaka & Konno, 1998 ). 21 There also is a drawback of ephemeral networks from the vantage point of economic activity and goals, namely that the complex problem of establishing trust must be continually engaged-a serve diverse labor markets in the context of increasing socioeconomic polarization, the type of system I advocate is one that should have the support of local and federal governments and other public and private organizations to sustain continual employment through a web of solver networks.
There is an existing model for such support , although the solvers in this model are fi rms (not individual people) and the goal is economic, not social. The previously mentioned Agile Web was formed and operated under the auspices of the state-funded Ben Franklin Technology Partners at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The center works with federal, state, and regional agencies, universities, and the private sector in a mission to achieve technology-based economic development. Prior to the formation of the Agile Web, the National Science Foundation funded an "Agility Forum" at Lehigh University, which laid a foundation for the development of the Web. The funded conceptualization and planning of the Agile Web occurred over a period of 2 years.
Consider the possibilities if federal, state, and regional agencies, universities, and the private sector were to reconfi gure goals so as to value the social in the course of achieving economic ends. There are precedents for such reconfi guration, although not specifi cally in the context of open innovation and related network strategies (Gibson- Graham & Cameron, 2010 ;Gibson-Graham, Cameron, & Healy, 2013 ). One is the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC), which was founded in 1956 in Spain's Basque region with funding by business owners, institutions, workers, and municipal government. The MCC persists through the present as a business group based on democratic governance and a privileging of social and community objectives. Although it developed as a regional industrial complex spanning manufacturing, fi nance, distribution, housing, services, research, education, and training, it now has operations worldwide. Another model was Tony's Blair's "Third Way" programs in the United Kingdom in which the U.K. government provided fi nancial and bureaucratic support for the development of "social enterprises " defi ned with reference to social and community objectives. In Australia, the Victoria government allocated 9.2 million dollars to a community enterprise strategy, and with the Brotherhood of St. Laurence supports 42 localities in the development of community enterprises. This selection of exemplars in different contexts demonstrates the plausibility of government and various local institutions and actors taking a proactive and supportive role in the systematic development of enterprises oriented to social and community goals. J. K. Gibson- Graham and Jenny Cameron ( 2010 ) have indicated that some social enterprises are remunerative and some are not; some "fail" yet serve an important role in providing a platform for the participants to move on to other enterprises, and in that sense, can reasonably be understood more as successes than failures.
My concern here is for remunerative and continual employment in mediated crowdsourced project work in the context of open innovation and related knowledge problem that closed networks need not engage. As previously indicated, however, closed networks have other problems, and further, changing conditions have required increasing openness. The task then, is how to engage the new realities constructively, creatively, and effectively. networks. The imperative for the provision of continuous, living-wage work across ephemeral networks derives from a fundamental concern for problems of underconsumption among increasingly large numbers of people worldwide, as well as the ills of the credit economy, in turn related to insuffi cient or no wages (Lazzarato, 2011(Lazzarato, / 2012. The agenda to construct collaborative networks of people, not fi rms, connects with an innovation of open networks associated with open innovation: crowdsourcing. Although crowdsourcing often is exploitative (Howe, 2008 ;Korkki, 2014 ), I suggest treating it as a tool to achieve social objectives by creating a time and space for diverse people to realize their talents while being paid a living wage, and in the process develop meaningful knowledges about each other using multiple modes of communication in the course of sharing economic knowledges in temporary, collaborative networks that respond to customized demand for expertise in the context of open innovation.
Municipal governments might well consider it desirable to develop localized networks that are inclusive to avoid local socioeconomic and political tensions wrought of exclusionary processes. The multidimensionality of the agenda developed in this chapter suggests that it may be prudent to spatially fi x it initially at the local scale to permit localized fi eld research for the identifi cation and establishment of knowledge networks in connection with the intricate dynamics of classifying problems relative to requisite sets of expertise. This sort of project need not, however, remain spatially bounded. Considering the long-run possibility of such projects worldwide, local mediators (supported by government at different scales) could work to ensure continual employment via local projects while connecting with other projects in other places; the local versus extra-local issue can, but need not, be a zero-sum game with appropriate goals, planning, and local participation. The evolution of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation from localized to globally extensive is a case in point, although as J. K. Gibson- Graham ( 2006 , p. 123) has pointed out, it is unclear whether democratic practices and the privileging of social objectives extend to offshore operations. Indeed, a transfer of social relations across space is anything but perfunctory and hardly a seamless operation; for this reason, beginning mediated crowdsourced project work at the metropolitan scale is pragmatic.
One central problem is recruitment. Recall Cisco's open electronic call for expertise and the considerable response across the world-2500 inventors across 104 countries. While many of those responding may well be without stable employment despite their skills, they nonetheless are "plugged in" to a global network, even if exploitative. In addition to all those who did not win Cisco's one-time prize, consider also the large numbers of people who remain unplugged from opportunitiesas previously explained, a defi ning feature of segregation. People in untapped labor markets live in resource-poor areas that lack access to lucrative information, in part due to the absence of material and immaterial resources as well as institutionalized discrimination.
Extending knowledge networks to untapped labor markets, including people who are talented but lack formal work and educational experience, requires fi eld research as a crucial complement to electronic communication to engage the complex terrain of sedimented exclusions. 22 Placing appropriate computer hardware and software in such communities at central-access locations would be ineffective without also seeking out and connecting with local gatekeepers as well as would-be gatekeepers across multiple community groups engaged in a wide range of activities. 23 While incorporating new members into a community of practice requires signifi cant effort (de Vreede et al., 2007 ), the challenges are multiplied when new members come from previously excluded communities. The role of mediators entails coordinating, connecting, facilitating, and indeed empowering (Obstfeld, 2005 ). 24 To avoid the pitfalls of top-down programs, it would be especially helpful if leaders of fi eld research were recruited from within excluded neighborhoods (Kindon, Pain, & Kesby, 2007 ). An important part of the fi eld research in these contexts entails assisting people who have been undervalued and might otherwise self-select out of opportunities to recognize and draw upon their strengths. Jenny Cameron and Katherine Gibson ( 2004 ) carried out precisely this type of fi eld work in Australia, where they sought out people in communities devastated by industrial restructuring; crucially, these researchers recognized that the devastation was as much subjective as a matter of objectifi ed conditions. Using fi eld strategies such as focus groups, they helped people develop new subjectivities, based on recognition of their skills and talents despite exclusion from the market. In mediated crowdsourced project work, fi eld research also must entail a constructive way to screen and evaluate expertise that would have to depart from existing techniques such as competitions (Howe, 2008 ;Lampel, Jha, & Bhalla, 2012 ;Villarroel, Taylor, & Tucci, 2013 ), which are win-lose propositions and incompatible with the objectives I have laid out. Face-to-face focus groups may be at least one viable alternative (Schweitzer, Buchinger, Gassmann, & Obrist, 2012 ). Admittedly, the task is huge, encompassing fi eld research , continual classifi cation of seeker problems in connection with appro-22 Although formal education often is used as a proxy measure for skill, this measure misses the variety of avenues by which people develop skills and knowledges. This much has been recognized by the business world, which has recognized that many educational systems around the world lack appropriate training for many workplaces. In response, training increasingly is linked to continuous learning in ongoing on-the-job training (Marković, 2008 ). Accordingly, many fi rms develop rigorous recruitment and selection criteria based on apparent intelligence, sense of responsibility, ambition, and the like and subsequently train workers themselves rather than rely on educational institutions. 23 I include legal as well as illegal activity here. Regarding the latter, the view here is that illegal activity is most fruitfully engaged by providing new opportunities and practices, not by imprisoning and more generally constraining people who have been subjected to institutionalize discrimination-a system that has been shown to multiply existing problems. The view overall is consistent with Foucault's point that arriving at new truths requires the development of new practices, as opposed to proselytizing ( 1980 , p. 133) or repression, which produces rather than eliminates actions on a targeted population (Foucault, 1976(Foucault, / 1990. 24 Obstfeld ( 2005 ) countered Burt's ( 1992 ) tertius gaudens (the third party that profi ts and plays one party off another) with tertius iungens (the third party that joins, unites, facilitates, connects, creates). priate solvers (Feller et al., 2012 ), and effective communication among all actors orchestrating the different components of the project.
The dynamics of the mediated crowdsourced project work I envision entail something akin to the Agile Web, except that the solvers are talented people, not fi rms, who are identifi ed at the outset and continually across a metropolitan region. In an era of increasingly customized demand, wide-ranging problems (from mechanical to electronic) that emerge are crowdsourced. In the scenario laid out in this chapter, crowdsourcing targets networks of diverse solvers (people) who would earn a living wage by collaborating in problem solving and the development of innovations demanded by seekers (private as well as public, organizations). Networks, coordinated by mediators between seekers and solvers, form around particular problems, dissolve, and form again with different membership relative to the expertise required for new problems. As networks form and reconfi gure relative to the constitution of membership, each solver interacts with an increasingly wide array of people while developing social knowledges in the course of each collaboration. The point is to construct social knowledges to erode ignorance in the course of fl uid, living-wage, collaborative work, supported by public and private institutions that serves both the economy and its people. The process renders economic space social and vice versa.

Conclusion: A Matter of Values
The agenda of this chapter is to conceptualize how to work towards social ends by recognizing and acting on the role of meaningful social knowledges in the pursuit of knowledges for economic gain. The context is the emergence of new production dynamics and labor recruitment strategies amid dramatically increasing socioeconomic polarization and exclusion. To date, crowdsourcing associated with open innovation has proven to be lucrative for fi rms but also highly exploitative and exclusive. Recognizing insidious dimensions of the market, the underlying suggestion here is to make use of the market, not to work against it, with public and private support for social as well as economic objectives. If the social and the economic as well as the cultural and political are mutually constituted, then it is sensible to refuse the conventional privileging of one dimension, the economic, at the expense of another, commonly the social. I have privileged social over economic goals to encompass strategies that might otherwise be jettisoned, but economic goals remain nested in the broader project. At this critical juncture in the global economy, the agenda I have in mind entails nothing less than reconfi guring the values that govern our lives.