A new phase of reporting has commenced. I would like to present a topic that has been occupying my thoughts recently, although I have not yet obtained approval from my academic advisor. The topic is available here, and I have been considering how to transform it into a compelling subject for further investigation. Alternatively, there may be a more suitable individual than myself to pursue this topic.
The term “digital nomad” was first introduced by researchers Makimoto and Manners in their 1997 publication Digital Nomad. In this work, the authors proposed a thought-provoking theory:the human preference for migration may stem from the nomadic lifestyle of our ancestors. This idea has gained widespread recognition in the field of sociology. Psychologists attribute this phenomenon to an innate human curiosity, while cynics interpret it as an embodiment of escapism. Regardless of the interpretation, this tendency appears to be a fundamental aspect of human nature (Jardis.com, 2021).
The interplay of technology, globalization, and evolving work paradigms has catalyzed the emergence of “digital nomadism,” challenging conventional norms surrounding the nature of work. Digital nomadism represents not only a novel form of employment but also a new lifestyle that exists between “travel” and “migration.” By 2022, the global population of digital nomads reached 35 million (The Instant Group, 2021), and it is projected to exceed 1 billion by 2035 (Levels, 2015). In recent years, the number of digital nomads in China has also grown rapidly, with an estimated 70 million to 100 million digital nomads and potential digital nomads in mainland China by the end of 2023 (Yao, 2024).
From an academic perspective, research on digital nomadism in Western academia lacks a universally accepted definition. Moreover, due to its conceptual overlap with freelancing and remote work, the distinctions between digital nomadism and related terms remain underexplored. Within the Chinese context, existing research on digital nomadism is even less developed, particularly in terms of contextualized definitions and analyses. Notably, the digital nomad lifestyle in China diverges significantly from its Western counterparts, rendering simple application of existing theoretical frameworks inadequate.
It is worth noting that the concept of digital nomadism was initially constructed through the perspectives and lifestyles of heterosexual white males, inherently embedding white normativity into the discourse and the community itself (Thompson, 2019). In other words, the patterns of mobility associated with digital nomadism often privilege certain socioeconomic groups, while issues of power asymmetry underpinning mobility and its sustainability deserve further scrutiny. As this lifestyle gains popularity, academic inquiry becomes crucial to unpack its complexities and implications (Oral, 2021).
Although digital nomadism offers opportunities for a flexible, location-independent work-life model, it is not without challenges, particularly in the context of sustainable development goals. For instance, maintaining ongoing mobility poses significant hurdles, with economic considerations and environmental consciousness being key factors. The concentration of remote work opportunities in developed countries and the clustering of digital nomad hubs may exacerbate cultural and social divides (Hannonen, 2023; Orel, 2023). Furthermore, the influx of digital nomads into culturally unique regions risks fostering cultural indifference or even eroding local traditions (Zhou, 2024), thus challenging the essence of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Even the most ardent digital nomads may eventually confront the inherent contradictions of this leisure-driven lifestyle. They often find themselves adjusting the pace of travel to accommodate work demands, and some may ultimately choose to revert to a more “traditional” lifestyle when faced with greater challenges or the desire for emotional and life stability (Daley, 2018; Thompson, 2019).
In light of these dynamics, my study will adopt a socio-economic lens (Mancinelli, 2020) to investigate “who” is able to pursue a lifestyle characterized by mobility and whether digital nomadism represents merely a transitional “leisure” phase rather than a sustainable lifestyle. Using fieldwork and semi-structured in-depth interviews, this research applies a longitudinal and process-oriented perspective to examine the preparation, execution, and potential cessation of digital nomadism among three distinct groups or individuals, focusing on the stages and practices of this extreme form of remote/mobile work.
#Academic JourneyLast modified on 2024-05-20