Choreographies of entrepreneurship. How different formats of co-presence are combined to facilitate knowledge creation in seed accelerator programs


  • Andreas Kuebart Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Flakenstraße 29-31Erkner, Deutschland
  • Oliver Ibert Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Flakenstraße 29-31Erkner, Deutschland Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbus, Deutschland



Temporary co-presence, relational distance, entrepreneurship, accelerator


This paper explores different functions of co-presence for collaborative knowledge creation in the context of seed accelerator programs. Seed accelerators offer programs of three to six months to enhance the growth of early-stage start-ups through various means of training and organizational development. In this paper, seed accelerator programs are analysed as orchestrated sequences of different types of physical co-presence. By drawing on qualitative case study data, the paper identifies eight different ways in which physical co-presence is used during seed accelerator programs. Through these eight types of co-presence, the analysis reveals that physical co-presence unfolds unique social dynamics that are utilized in a carefully designed combination of presence and absence. It is shown that physical co-presence is a means to enact relational distance and to bridge this distance for the benefit of the entrepreneurial process. Therefore, this paper adds a new perspective on how co-presence is used to facilitate the generation of value through collaborative knowledge creation.


Download data is not yet available.


Amin, A.; Cohendet, P. (2004): Architectures of knowledge. Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford. doi: 10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199253326.001.0001

Bathelt, H.; Gibson, R. (2015): Learning in ‘Organized Anarchies’: The Nature of Technological Search Processes at Trade Fairs. In: Regional Studies 49, 6, 985-1002. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.783691

Bathelt, H.; Henn, S. (2014): The Geographies of Knowledge Transfers over Distance: Toward a Typology. In: Environment and Planning A 46, 6, 1403-1424. doi: 10.1068/a46115

Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A.; Maskell, P. (2004): Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. In: Progress in Human Geography 28, 1, 31-56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa

Battistella, C.; De Toni, A.F.; Pessot, E. (2017): Open accelerators for start-ups success: a case study. In: European Journal of Innovation Management 20, 1, 80-111. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2015-0113

Bliemel, M.; Flores, R.; de Klerk, S.; Morgan, M.P. (2019): Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clusters. In: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 31, 1-2, 133-149. doi:10.1080/08985626.2018.1537152

Boden, D.; Molotch, H.L. (1994): The Compulsion of Proximity. In: Friedland, R.; Boden, D. (eds.): NowHere: Space, Time, and Modernity. Berkeley, 257-286.

Boschma, R. (2005): Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. In: Regional Studies 39, 1, 61-74. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320887

Brown, R.; Mason, C. (2017): Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In: Small Business Economics 49, 1, 11-30. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7

Cope, J. (2005): Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 4, 373-397. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

Dempwolf, C.S.; Auer, J.; D’Ippolito, M. (2014): Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics Among Startup Assistance Organizations. Washington DC.

Dowling, R.; Lloyd, K.; Suchet-Pearson, S. (2016): Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. In: Progress in Human Geography 40, 5, 679-686. doi: 10.1177/0309132515596880

Drori, I.; Wright, M. (2018): Accelerators: Characteristics, trends and the new entrepreneurial ecosystem. In: Wright, M.; Drori, I. (eds.): Accelerators: Successful Venture Creation and Growth. Cheltenham, 1-20.

Goffman, E. (1963): Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York.

Goswami, K.; Mitchell, J.R.; Bhagavatula, S. (2018): Accelerator Expertise: Understanding the Intermediary Role of Accelerators in the Development of the Bangalore Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. In: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12, 1, 117-150. doi: 10.1002/sej.1281

Grabher, G.; Ibert, O. (2014): Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. In: Journal of Economic Geography 14, 1, 97-123. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbt014

Grabher, G.; Melchior, A.; Schiemer, B.; Schüßler, E.; Sydow, J. (2018): From being there to being aware: Confronting geographical and sociological imaginations of copresence. In: Environment and Planning A 50, 1, 245-255. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17743507

Granovetter, M.S. (1973): The Strength of Weak Ties. In: American Journal of Sociology 78, 6, 1360-1380.

Growe, A. (2018): Buzz at workplaces in knowledge-intensive service production: Spatial settings of temporary spatial proximity. In: European Urban and Regional Studies. doi: 10.1177/0969776418784999

Growe, A. (2019): Developing trust in face-to-face interaction in knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS). In: Regional Studies 53, 5, 720-730. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1473567

Hausberg, J.P.; Korreck, S. (2018): Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. In: The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-018-9651-y.

Henn, S.; Bathelt, H. (2015): Knowledge generation and field reproduction in temporary clusters and the role of business conferences. In: Geoforum 58, 104-113. doi: 10.1016/j. geoforum.2014.10.015

Herbert, S. (2010): A Taut Rubber Band: Theory and Empirics in Qualitative Geographic Research. In: DeLyser, D.; Herbert, S.; Aitken, S.; Crang, M.; McDowell, L. (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography, London, 69-81.

Hochberg, Y.V. (2016): Accelerating Entrepreneurs and Ecosystems: The Seed Accelerator Model. In: Lerner, J.; Stern, S. (eds.): Innovation Policy and the Economy. Chicago, 25-51.

Hoegl, M.; Proserpio, L. (2004): Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. In: Research Policy 33, 8, 1153-1165. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.06.005

Ibert, O. (2010): Relational Distance: Sociocultural and Time-Spatial Tensions in Innovation Practices. In: Environment and Planning A 42, 1, 187-204. doi: 10.1068/a4247

Ibert, O.; Hautala, J.; Jauhiainen, J.S. (2015): From cluster to process: New economic geographic perspectives on practices of knowledge creation. In: Geoforum 65, 323-327. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.023

Ibert, O.; Müller, F.C. (2015): Network dynamics in constellations of cultural differences: Relational distance in innovation processes in legal services and biotechnology. In: Research Policy 44, 1, 181-194. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.07.016

Ihrig, M.; Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D.; O’Gorman, C. (2006): The knowledge-based approach to entrepreneurship: linking the entrepreneurial process to the dynamic evolution of knowledge. In: International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies 1, 1/2, 38-58. doi: 10.1504/IJKMS.2006.008844

Knoben, J.; Oerlemans, L.A.G. (2006): Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 8, 2, 71-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x

Langley, A. (1999): Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. In: The Academy of Management Review 24, 4, 691-710. doi: 10.2307/259349

Lundin, R.A.; Söderholm, A. (1995): A theory of the temporary organization. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 4, 437-455. doi: 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U

Malmberg, A.; Maskell, P. (2002): The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. In: Environment and Planning A 34, 3, 429-449. doi: 10.1068/a3457

Maskell, P. (2014): Accessing remote knowledge. The roles of trade fairs, pipelines, crowdsourcing and listening posts. In: Journal of Economic Geography 14, 5, 883-902. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbu002

Maskell, P.; Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A. (2006): Building Global Knowledge Pipelines: The Role of Temporary Clusters. In: European Planning Studies 14, 8, 997-1013. doi: 10.1080/09654310600852332

Mattes, J. (2012): Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases. Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors. In: Regional Studies 46, 8, 1085-1099. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.552493

Minniti, M.; Bygrave, W. (2001): A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, 3, 5-16. doi: 10.1177/104225870102500301

Nooteboom, B. (2000): Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford.

Obstfeld, D. (2018): Getting New Things Done. Networks, Brokerage, and the Assembly of Innovative Action. Stanford.

Page, S. (2008): The Difference. How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton.

Panitz, R.; Glückler, J. (2017): Rewiring global networks at local events: Congresses in the stock photo trade. In: Global Networks 17, 1, 147-168. doi: 10.1111/glob.12134

Pauwels, C.; Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; van Hove, J. (2016): Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. In: Technovation 50-51, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j. technovation.2015.09.003

Polanyi, M. (1967): The Tacit Dimension. New York.

Power, D.; Jansson, J. (2008): Cyclical Clusters in Global Circuits: Overlapping Spaces in Furniture Trade Fairs. In: Economic Geography 84, 4, 423-448. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.00003.x

Rutten, R. (2017): Beyond proximities: The socio-spatial dynamics of knowledge creation. In: Progress in Human Geography 41, 2, 159-177. doi: 10.1177/0309132516629003

Simmel, G. (1903): Soziologie des Raumes. In: Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 27, 1, 27-71.

Spradley, J. (1979): The Ethnographic Interview. New York.

Stein, A. (2014): The significance of distance in innovation biographies. The case of law firms. In: Growth and Change 45, 3, 430-449. doi: 10.1111/grow.12053

Steyaert, C. (2007): ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. In: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19, 6, 453-477. doi: 10.1080/08985620701671759

Storper, M.; Venables, A.J. (2004): Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. In: Journal of Economic Geography 4, 4, 351-370. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027

Tempest, S.; Starkey, K. (2004): The Effects of Liminality on Individual and Organizational Learning. In: Organization Studies 25, 4, 507-527. doi: 10.1177/0170840604040674

Uzzi, B. (1996): The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations. In: American Sociological Review 61, 4, 674-698. doi: 10.2307/2096399

van Weele, M.A.; Steinz, H.J.; van Rijnsoever, F.J. (2018): Start-up Communities as Communities of Practice. Shining a Light on Geographical Scale and Membership. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 109, 2, 173-188. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12277

Vedres, B.; Stark, D. (2010): Structural Folds: Generative Disruption in Overlapping Groups. In: American Journal of Sociology 115, 4, 1150-1190. doi: 10.1086/649497

Wilson, J.M.; Boyer O’Leary, M.; Metiu, A.; Jett, Q.R. (2008): Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-But-Close. In: Organization Studies 29, 7, 979-1002. doi: 10.1177/0170840607083105

Yang, S.; Kher, R.; Lyons, T.S. (2018): Where do accelerators fit in the venture creation pipeline? Different values brought by different types of accelerators. In: Entrepreneurship Research Journal 8, 4, 1-13. doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0140

Yin, R.K. (2014): Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Los Angeles.




How to Cite

Kuebart A, Ibert O. Choreographies of entrepreneurship. How different formats of co-presence are combined to facilitate knowledge creation in seed accelerator programs. RuR [Internet]. 2020 Feb. 28 [cited 2024 Jun. 15];78(1):35-51. Available from: