IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ein/tuecis/1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Geography of Scientific Knowledge: A Proximity Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Koen Frenken

    ()

Abstract

The geography of scientific knowledge is defined as the replication process of locally produced knowledge claims. Proximity in social, cognitive, and physical dimensions promotes the sharing of tacit knowledge. Thus, given the complementarity between tacit and codified knowledge, proximity supports the replication of codified knowledge claims. Distinguishing between controversial and uncontroversial contexts, one can understand the sociology of science as explaining the behaviour of scientists from their proximity to other scientists, and the sociology of scientific knowledge as describing the processes that constitute the proximity between scientists.

Suggested Citation

  • Koen Frenken, 2010. "Geography of Scientific Knowledge: A Proximity Approach," Working Papers 10-01, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Mar 2010.
  • Handle: RePEc:ein:tuecis:1001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andre Torre, 2008. "On the Role Played by Temporary Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Transmission," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(6), pages 869-889.
    2. Christophe Carrincazeaux & Yannick Lung & Jérôme Vicente, 2007. "The Scientific Trajectory of the French School of Proximity: Interaction- and Institution-based Approaches to Regional Innovation Systems," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 617-628, December.
    3. Margherita Balconi & Andrea Pozzali & Riccardo Viale, 2007. "The “codification debate” revisited: a conceptual framework to analyze the role of tacit knowledge in economics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 823-849, October.
    4. Nelson, Richard R., 2003. "On the uneven evolution of human know-how," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 909-922, June.
    5. Paul Nightingale, 2003. "If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of 'codification'," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 149-183, April.
    6. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    7. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    8. Stefano Breschi & Francesco Lissoni, 2009. "Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 439-468, July.
    9. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    10. Andre Torre & Alain Rallet, 2005. "Proximity and Localization," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 47-59.
    11. Nightingale, Paul, 2004. "Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1259-1284, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ein:tuecis:1001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ectuenl.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.