In a recent paper, Meric Gertler notes, "considerable disagreement and confusion persists concerning the nature of tacit knowledge and its relation to the geography of innovation."  [1]  Although there seems to be general agreement that tacit knowledge is important and the sharing of such knowledge is facilitated by "closeness," we still don't know what kind of closeness is the most relevant.  Furthermore, we may focus too much on tacit knowledge to the neglect of the importance of explicit knowledge.

The Importance of Tacit Knowledge

In knowledge management circles, knowledge is commonly divided into two categories.  Explicit knowledge is that knowledge that can be codified and, consequently, can be communicated with relative ease.  In other words, explicit knowledge might be considered "book" knowledge.  Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, might be considered "practical" knowledge.  The transmission of tacit knowledge is inhibited by two obstacles.  First of all, we're often unaware that we possess it.  Second, it can be very difficult to describe.  As a result, a common assumption is that tacit knowledge can only be acquired through example or direct experience.

Our has been called a knowledge economy, driven by continuous innovation.  Explicit knowledge, because of its presumed transferability, is assumed to be globally available.  Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is presumed to be "sticky," in that it tends to be localized in some fashion.  Therefore, it has become accepted that tacit knowledge is the most important basis for a differentiated level of innovation.

Alternative Perspectives on the Transmission of Tacit Knowledge

So how is tacit knowledge shared, and how does that impact the geography of innovation?  According to Gertler, there are three schools of thought:

1. According to the learning region camp, the transmission of tacit knowledge is best accomplished through face-to-face interactions among partners who already share basic similarities.  Geographic proximity takes center stage.
2. Alternatively, the proponents of the communities of practice perspective emphasize how commonalities among practitioners of a certain craft or profession (e.g., computer engineers) can provide the basis for the sharing of tacit knowledge.  In these cases, relational proximity built through repeated interactions across time in the context of a shared profession are more important than geography.
3. Others have concluded that the transmission of tacit knowledge across organizational boundaries is a wickedly difficult proposition that is made easier by the active agency of knowledge enablers, boundary spanning individuals who act as relational bridges between localized clusters of knowledge.

Gertler points out that there are some whose observations combine elements of two or three of the preceding frameworks.  John Seely Brown, the former head of Xerox PARC, for example, adopts the communities of practice perspective, but still believes that tacit knowledge is bounded geographically.  For Brown, the source of requisite propinquity between individuals is physical closeness as well as professional affinity.

It Just Ain't Easy to become Knowledgeable

For his part, Gertler thinks that institutional context is neglected.  For example, common assumptions regarding intellectual property rights, or the rule of law in general, provide a critical backdrop for the exchange of knowledge.  The lack of shared institutions, in other words, can be more important than distance or practice.

Gertler also questions the assumption of the ease of transmission of explicit knowledge.  For example, how many business and economic development practitioners find learned academic journals on economic geography accessible enough to actually read?  Business magazines and other interpreters are often required  to catalyze an effective connection.  The relative importance of tacit, or practical, knowledge over explicit, or theoretical, knowledge may be overstated.

It turns out that knowledge is just plain hard to come by.

[1] "Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there)," Journal of Economic Geography, Vol 3, No. 1, January 2003, pps. 75-99.