‘Escaping the Rat Race’: Different Orders of Worth in Digital Nomading

Daniel Schlagwein, UNSW Sydney, schlagwein@unsw.edu.au

Introduction

The use of information technologies (IT) transforms “work”, with the corresponding
discourse often using labels such as “the future of work” (Forman, King, & Lyytinen, 2014),
“digital work” (Orlikowski & Scott, 2016) or “the changing nature of work” (this
workshop). In this domain, a new and exciting phenomenon is emerging: “digital
nomading”. This phenomenon is focal to the study outlined here.

Digital nomading refers to freelancers and entrepreneurs working digitally over the
Internet and travelling perpetually. Preferred work locations for digital nomads are places
such as Bali or Thailand, where thousands of digital nomads have migrated or are passing
through during their travels. Digital nomads are mostly highly-qualified Western
professionals with desired skills (e.g., developers) sourcing their work and income over the
Internet. While there have been individual digital nomads since the 1990s (Makimoto &
Manners, 1997), it is since 2015 that a substantial global movement is emerging, with
dedicated conferences, web communities and co-working spaces.

What do we know about digital nomading? Surprisingly, the phenomenon has seen
virtually no research (Müller, 2016). Early reports on the phenomenon (Altringer, 2015)
and my own primary research, however, suggest that digital nomads engage in this digital
(IT-enabled) form of work for reasons very different from more conventional work. Digital
nomading can be related to electronic freelancing (Aguinis & Lawal, 2013; Malone &
Laubacher, 1998) and Internet-based entrepreneurship. Further, the phenomenon also
includes aspects of lifestyle migration (Benson & O'Reilly, 2009; Ferriss, 2007) and
backpacking/flashpacking (MacRae, 2016; Molz & Paris, 2015). While such references can
be made, none of these existing framings promises a full explanation of digital nomading.
Exploration of digital nomading is in the (very) early stage and we have no research
answering even fundamental questions such as to why people engage this emerging form
of digital work/life-style.

Hence, the purpose of this ongoing exploratory study is to answer: Why do people
engage in digital nomading? That is, the study is interested in the underlying values that
drive digital nomads to make the jump from a fixed location and traditional career
trajectories to a nomadic lifestyle based on digital work.

Literature Review

Digital Work and Digital Nomading

Early on, the emergence of an “elance economy” was predicted (Malone & Laubacher,
1998). This elance economy was envisioned as being based on the transaction cost
efficiencies of electronic markets (Malone, Yates, & Benjamin, 1987) and online
communities (Benkler, 2002). Since then, IT-enabled work models such as telework,
1
crowdsourcing and the sharing economy have emerged. Digital nomading, in particular,
however has only emerged over the past few years (especially since 2015). Digital nomads
work digitally over the Internet in freelance, project-based arrangements or run their own
online businesses while travelling. Some press reports see digital nomads numbering as
high as 500,000 for 2016 (Carter, 2016); with the number of all electronic freelancers and
Internet platform-based workers been predicted to reach 70 million in 2025 (McKinsey
Global Institute, 2015). Digital nomads create a work-life that is substantially different
from any conventional organization of work-life. They appear to be driven by a strong
desire to travel and a search for “a better life”, now possible through IT. However, why
people engage in digital nomading remains to be better understood.

Orders of Worth Theory

What emerged as a useful explanatory theoretical lens for the study and to the above
“why” question, is the “orders of worth” theory (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006). The orders
of worth theory centres on an analysis of the different orders of worth, value systems or
economies of worth present in modern societies. They are drawn upon by individuals to
justify their actions and choices. Boltanski and Thévenot identified a set of interwoven and
often conflicting value systems. The theoretical approach of “orders of worth” helps us to
understand how humans justify their actions based on different, overlapping value systems
and how they reconcile and compromise between value systems to arrive at a concrete
course of action. Hence, and of importance for this study, the orders of worth theory
provides a theoretical foundation that helps us to understand the different types of
explanation and justification (in the sense of legitimacy) of digital nomads.

Research Method

Due to the complex nature and novelty of the digital nomading phenomenon, the study
has an exploratory, qualitative and interpretivist orientation, focusing on “lived experience”
and natural field data (Silverman, 2011). In line with current qualitative and grounded
approaches (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013), existing theory is considered in the analysis
as it progresses. Through the data analysis, the orders of worth theory (Boltanski &
Thévenot, 2006) emerged as an insightful theoretical framing. Field research and data
collection in this ongoing study involves two main areas: field research on site at digital
nomading locations as well as online research on digital platforms. Field research is being
conducted through interviews, observation, participation and other ethnographic methods
(Locke, 2011), including digital-ethnographic methods.

Empirical Findings

Participants justified (explained) their lifestyle choice for themselves and towards me in
various ways. They took it as a given that a travelling lifestyle is a valuable experience.
One participant explained this as a gradual development when asked why he became a
digital nomad: “For the first year or so … I was [just] travelling. And then, I guess six
months after, a few months after I started, I was like, I made my decision [to] travel for six
[more] months and then go back home and keep working. I just quit my job and I just
2
travelled for a while. And then I was like: ‘Well, I've got to figure out how to extend this.
It's like ... (laughs) This is pretty good!”. Within the same theme, another digital nomad
related the cultural experience to inner growth “[Travelling], that's just the external
adventure. Then there's the internal adventure, so what's going on in my mind”, further
explaining how the lifestyle has impacted on the widening of his horizon and the ability to
focus on key interest beyond work.

Another central theme of digital nomading was belonging to a community of like-

minded people. While not all digital nomads identified themselves as digital nomads,
participants acknowledged the existence of a growing community online and offline. It was
evident that many digital nomads oriented their justifications towards others in the
community. Expectations were expressed of being helpful to other digital nomads, from
helping them to settle in a new place, to sharing information, educating one another and, in
many cases, sharing clients, projects and work. Digital nomads articulated that meeting
“interesting people” was central to living an “interesting life” as a digital nomad. Open
invitations on community websites (“always happy to catch-up other digital nomads,
please contact me when you are coming to KL]”) were common.

Other justifications related to the cheaper costs of living overseas. For example, when
asked why a founder was running a startup in Chiang Mai, Thailand, instead of his native
Western country, he explained: “Yeah. That [lower costs] is the reason why, yes. There's
this concept called ‘bootstrapping’, where people just come here, live very inexpensively. I
think Chiang Mai is a very famous hub for bootstrappers and they just start up with their
business, and then they can save a lot of money”. Others emphasized that, even with
perpetual travelling (which, in most cases, manifested as a series of short-term stays, such
as several weeks or months, and then moving on), the costs were much lower pretty much
everywhere compared to Western countries.

Theoretical Analysis

The findings above help us to shed light on the research questions and to propose (at this
stage preliminary) answers.

Table 1 summarizes the orders of worth, their generic description and the concrete
justifications (legitimizations) used by digital nomads. The classification, naming and
descriptions are based on the orders of worth theory as introduced above (Boltanski &
Thévenot, 2006) and the literature that has used this approach (e.g., Patriotta, Gond, &
Schultz, 2011).

Order of Worth Generic Description What Legitimizes Digital

Nomading?

Inspirational order The inspirational order of worth is based
of worth on art and taste. Authenticity, creativity
and individualism are valued. An action
is justified through the greater artistic
achievement or through the better sense
Inherent attractiveness of travelling
and experiencing different cultures.
Personal growth, development
experience and challenge.

3
 for the “art of living” demonstrated.

Civic order of In the civic order of worth, actions are
worth justified based on being in accord with a
collective. Shared identity,
representativeness and acting in line with
the collective are valued. Justification is
provided based on acting in alignment
with the relevant collective.
Experience of digital nomads being
helpful and “good team players”.
Interest in meeting, interaction with
and learning from “interesting
people”.
Notion of an online and an offline
“community”.

Market order of The market order of worth values
worth abilities, merit, rationality and
competition. Buying and selling
according to economic mechanisms are
legitimized. Actions are justified based
on a markets/economic optimization
making them “most rational”.
Lower living costs in one country,
while being paid at the pay rate of
another country (personal level).
Ability to “bootstrap” one’s venture/s
or shared ventures (business level).

Table 1: Summary of Orders of Worth Identified in Digital Nomading

The preliminary analysis reveals that digital nomads refer to different, interwoven value
systems in explaining and justifying their lifestyle choice. What legitimizes digital
nomading (as per their own accounts) is (a) the inspirational order of worth in which value
is placed on creativity and individualism. Digital nomads find travelling and experiencing
different cultures inherently interesting. The opportunity provided by a lifestyle focused on
personal growth, development, experience and challenge is highly valued. Furthermore, (b)
the civic order of worth provides legitimacy for “acting as a digital nomad”. Shared,
reciprocal expectations were expressed of being helpful (digital nomads not helping others
were frowned upon), with an identity emerging of digital nomading as a distinct work-life
culture, along with the notion of an online and an offline “community”. The participants
often stated that they were interested in meeting “interesting people”, such as other digital
nomads, and used them as references points for themselves. Finally, (c) the market order of
worth was referenced as a legitimization for digital nomading. Digital nomads saw this as
a rationale for taking advantage of living in a cheaper location, often in the developing
world, while receiving professional pay rates from, typically, developed world locations.
Other digital nomads described this as a rational move for their business and startup,
allowing them to have the necessary time to develop the business.

Discussion and Conclusion

The study outline here focuses on digital nomading within the larger space of digital,
Internet-based work (McKinsey Global Institute, 2015). Digital nomading is an interesting,
novel, IT-enabled phenomenon. Despite early predictions of the emergence of this
phenomenon (Makimoto & Manners, 1997; Malone & Laubacher, 1998), scholarly work
on this interesting use of IT and this new form of work-life is missing. Recently, calls have
been made for this research in this area (Colbert, Yee, & George, 2016; Nickerson,
Sundararajan, & Teigland, 2016; Orlikowski & Scott, 2016; Weitzel & Niehaves, 2017).
This study provides initial fieldwork in response to such calls.

4
References

Aguinis, H., & Lawal, S. O. (2013). eLancing: A Review and Research Agenda for Bridging the Science–
Practice Gap. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 6-17.
Altringer, B. (2015). Globetrotting Digital Nomads: The Future of Work or Too Good to Be True?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2015/12/22/globetrotting-digital-nomads-the-
future-of-work-or-too-good-to-be-true/#53b77aaa7594
Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369-
446.
Benson, M., & O'Reilly, K. (2009). Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences:
Routledge.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On Justification: Economies of Worth: Princeton University Press.
Carter, J. (2016). Why a Growing Army of ‘Digital Nomads' Are Choosing Asia as Their Base.
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/article/1983144/why-growing-army-digital-nomads-
are-choosing-asia-their
Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The Digital Workforce and the Workplace of the Future. Academy
of Management Journal, 59(3), 731-739.
Ferriss, T. (2007). The Four-Hour Work Week: Escape the 9-5, Live Anywhere and Join the New Rich:
Random House.
Forman, C., King, J. L., & Lyytinen, K. (2014). Special Section Introduction: Information, Technology, and
the Changing Nature of Work. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 789-795.
doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0551
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research Notes
on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
Locke, K. (2011). Field Research Practice in Management and Organization Studies: Reclaiming its Tradition
of Discovery. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 613-652.
MacRae, G. (2016). Community and Cosmopolitanism in the New Ubud. Annals of Tourism Research, 59,
16-29.
Makimoto, T., & Manners, D. (1997). Digital Nomad: Wiley.
Malone, T. W., & Laubacher, R. J. (1998). The Dawn of the E-Lance Economy. Harvard Business Review,
76(5), 144.
Malone, T. W., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies.
Communications Of The ACM, 30(6), 484-497.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2015). A Labor Market That Works: Connecting Talent with Opportunity in the
Digital Age. Retrieved from
Molz, J. G., & Paris, C. M. (2015). The Social Affordances of Flashpacking: Exploring the Mobility Nexus
of Travel and Communication. Mobilities, 10(2), 173-192.
Müller, A. (2016). The Digital Nomad: Buzzword or Research Category? Transnational Social Review, 6(3),
344-348.
Nickerson, J. V., Sundararajan, A., & Teigland, R. (2016). Call for Papers, Track on ‘Crowdsourcing,
Crowdfunding, Blockchain and the Sharing Economy’. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2016). Digital Work: A Research Agenda. In B. Czarniawska (Ed.), A
Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth and
Public Justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804-1836.
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Data (4e). London, UK: Sage.
Weitzel, T., & Niehaves, B. (2017). Call for Papers for Track on ‘Digital Work’. https://wi2017.ch/en/track4