Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity approach

Proximity among scientists in social, cognitive, and physical dimensions promotes the sharing of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge helps scientists to understand the credibility of papers they read and to use the results in subsequent research. Hence, given the proximity among scientists in social, cognitive, and physical dimensions, one can predict patterns of diffusion in science. However, for controversial knowledge claims to become replicated, one expects the proximity between scientists itself to change as like-minded scientists relocate and create new coalitions. Proximity can thus be used as a unifying concept for the study of scientific knowledge diffusion as well as for the analysis of mobility of scientists.

[1]  P. Wood.  A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (review) , 2011 .

[2]  S. Shapin.  Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociological Problems in the Location of Science , 1998 .

[3]  Margherita Balconi,et al.  The “codification debate” revisited: a conceptual framework to analyze the role of tacit knowledge in economics , 2007 .

[4]  T. Porter,et al.  Trust in Numbers , 2020 .

[5]  D. Hicks,et al.  Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: A Reflexive Citation Analysis or Science Disciplines and Disciplining Science , 1991 .

[6]  G. Gilbert.  Referencing as Persuasion , 1977 .

[7]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Learning, Technical Change, and Public Policy: How to Create and Exploit Diversity , 2013 .

[8]  T. Gieryn.  Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies , 2006 .

[9]  Jay J Van Bavel,et al.  Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  A. Torre,et al.  Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? , 1999 .

[11]  Philip Mirowski,et al.  Science Bought and Sold , 2002 .

[12]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[13]  Simon Naylor,et al.  Introduction: historical geographies of science – places, contexts, cartographies , 2005, The British Journal for the History of Science.

[14]  G. Heimeriks,et al.  The path- and place-dependent nature of scientific knowledge production in biotech 1986-2008 , 2014 .

[15]  J. Urry.  Mobility and Proximity , 2002 .

[16]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  The Need for a Theory of citing , 1981, J. Documentation.

[17]  G. Ferro-Luzzi.  On Evolutionary Epistemology , 1982, Current Anthropology.

[18]  Christophe Carrincazeaux,et al.  The Scientific Trajectory of the French School of Proximity: Interaction- and Institution-based Approaches to Regional Innovation Systems , 2008 .

[19]  D. Livingstone,et al.  Geographies of Science , 2010 .

[20]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of 'codification' , 2003 .

[21]  R. Nelson.  On the Uneven Evolution of Human Know-How , 2003 .

[22]  D. Livingstone.  Putting science in its place , 2000, Nature.

[23]  Marie Coris,et al.  Proximity and Innovation , 2011 .

[24]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[25]  Lucio Barabesi,et al.  Intellectual and social similarity among scholarly journals: An exploratory comparison of the networks of editors, authors and co-citations , 2019, Quantitative Science Studies.

[26]  S. Breschi,et al.  Mobility of Skilled Workers and Co-Invention Networks: An Anatomy of Localized Knowledge Flows , 2009 .

[27]  G. Gilbert,et al.  The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge , 1976 .

[28]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  S. Shapin.  Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology , 1984 .

[31]  G. Nigel Gilbert.  Referencing as Persuasion , 1977 .

[32]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[33]  B. Verspagen,et al.  Systems of Innovation , 2009 .

[34]  P. Wouters.  The citation culture , 1999 .

[35]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[36]  R. Boschma,et al.  Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics , 2015 .

[37]  Sami Mahroum,et al.  Scientific Mobility , 2000 .

[38]  Paul Atkinson,et al.  Trajectories of Collaboration and Competition in a Medical Discovery , 1998 .

[39]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research , 2015, Circulation research.

[40]  Derek deS. Price,et al.  The Science/Technology Relationship, the Craft of Experimental Science, and Policy for the Improvement of High Technology Innovation : Research Policy , 1987 .

[41]  Diarmid A. Finnegan.  The Spatial Turn: Geographical Approaches in the History of Science , 2008, Journal of the history of biology.

[42]  A. Torre.  On the Role Played by Temporary Geographical Proximity in Knowledge Transmission , 2008 .

[43]  S. Cole,et al.  : A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England , 1996 .

[44]  S. Shapin.  Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science , 1995, Perspectives on Science.

[45]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation☆ , 1993 .

[46]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Theories of citation? , 1998, Scientometrics.

[47]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Theories of Citation , 1998 .

[48]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research , 2007 .

[49]  Richard Shearmur,et al.  La création et le développement de clusters maritimes au Canada et en Europe , 2007 .

[50]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by H. M. Collins (review) , 1988, Technology and Culture.

[51]  S. Jasanoff.  Controversy Studies , 2019, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.

[52]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[53]  Gaston Heimeriks,et al.  On Scaling of Scientific Knowledge Production in U.S. Metropolitan Areas , 2014, PloS one.

[54]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire , 2001 .

[55]  Jarno Hoekman,et al.  Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[56]  Paul A. David,et al.  The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness , 2000 .

[57]  Greg Myers,et al.  Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles , 1985 .

[58]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[59]  K. Head,et al.  Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics , 2015, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[60]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design , 1999 .

[61]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Citations: Indicators of significance? , 1989, Scientometrics.

[62]  David L. Hull,et al.  Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, David L. Hull. 1988. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 608 pages. ISBN: 0-226-35060-4. $39.95 , 1989 .

[63]  S. Whatmore.  Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise , 2009 .

[64]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[65]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[66]  Önder Nomaler,et al.  Measuring knowledge persistence: a genetic approach to patent citation networks , 2014 .

[67]  T. Barnes.  ‘In the beginning was economic geography’ – a science studies approach to disciplinary history , 2001 .

[68]  H. Mohr,et al.  A Critical Assessment , 1985, The Federal Estate Tax.

[69]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[70]  M. Castells.  The rise of the network society , 1996 .

[71]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research , 2004 .

[72]  Juliane Junker.  Geographies Of Science , 2016 .

[73]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[74]  Jarno Hoekman,et al.  The geography of scientific citations , 2019, Research Policy.

[75]  André Torre,et al.  Proximity and Localization , 2005 .

[76]  Trevor Pinch,et al.  Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observational Reports in Physics , 1985 .

[77]  M. Biagioli.  Replication or Monopoly? The Economies of Invention and Discovery in Galileo's Observations of 1610 , 2000, Science in Context.

[78]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[79]  R. Powell.  Geographies of science: histories, localities, practices, futures , 2007 .

[80]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[81]  T. Gieryn.  City as Truth-Spot , 2006 .