{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.00741839762611276, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.303738317757009, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Tacit Knowledge, Industrial Districts and the Social Embeddedness of Creativity, or why scholars have known more than they could tell about tacit knowledge and regional competitive advantage

This paper reconsiders the question of how tacit knowledge is linked to regional competitive advantage by examining the different meanings given to the concept by different authors. What stands out most strongly is the way in which a concept that was first introduced to refer to deep, personal and embodied aspects of knowledge has come to stand for the shared but unspoken knowledge, beliefs and habits that form a background for social practice and for the generation and sharing of knowledge. This more relational way of thinking about knowledge suggests that tacit knowledge is largely bound to spatial proximity because geography has an important role in determining the social context in which knowledge is shared and transmitted. The paper identifies three distinct traditions for thinking about how geographical context has been thought to influence the creation and transmission of tacit knowledge. While acknowledging the problems with such a polysemic and confusing concept, it is argued that debates on tacit knowledge might open the way for a concept of knowledge that is both deeply personal and situated within broader social structures.