Understanding the Virtualization of the Backpacker Culture

and the Emergence of the Flashpacker: A Mixed-Method Approach

by

Cody Morris Paris

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

August 2010
 Understanding the Virtualization of the Backpacker Culture

and the Emergence of the Flashpacker: A Mixed-Method Approach

by

Cody Morris Paris

has been approved

April 2010

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Victor Teye, Chair

Dallen Timothy
Gyan Nyaupane
Alexandra Brewis Slade

ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

 ABSTRACT

Backpackers are pioneers of mobility, who provide a unique domain for critical

tourism research. The lineage of backpacker ideals, including pursuit of authentic

experiences, independence, escape and social interaction, can be traced back to the

'tramps' of the 1880s and the 'drifters' of the 1970s. The recent emergence of the

'flashpacker' suggests a cultural divergence from 'traditional backpackers'. Flashpackers

are 'digital nomads', members of a 'new global elite' that symbolize the ongoing

convergence in society of technology, physical travel, and daily life. The enduring ideals,

history of mobility and the emerging flashpacker subgroup provides a rich context from

which to the study the relationship between contemporary society, tourism and

technology. This dissertation represents a critical turn in backpacker research, building

upon the perception of backpacking phenomenon as a metaphor for the complex

mobilities of the global contemporary culture. The New Mobilities Paradigm provides the

theoretical and methodological basis for this study. Cultural Consensus Analysis from the

field of cognitive anthropology was applied in the analysis of the backpacking culture

and the apparent emergence of the flashpacker subculture. A survey was administered in

Facebook backpacker groups, in Cairns, Australia, and key informant flashpackers

(n=493). Findings from the CCA suggest that backpackers share a common cultural

model and that flashpackers and non-flashpackers do not operate from separate cultural

models. The findings suggest that even though flashpackers appear to be an emerging

independent subculture, they in fact share the same cultural ideals of traditional

backpackers. The only major difference is the usage and importance of technology for

flashpackers. This study further examined the virtual spaces of backpacking through a

iii
mobile-virtual ethnography and in-depth e-interviews with eight flashpackers. Findings

provide important insight into the usage and meanings associated with social media for

backpackers, the virtual infrastructure of the backpacker culture, and the role of social

media as a mediator of the backpacking experience. Micro and macro level analysis of

the virtualization of backpacker culture are examined through the conceptualization of

the virtual backpacking spaces via the notion of the blogosphere and statusphere and

through the analysis of the socio-technographics backpacker behavior.

iv
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family. You are my foundation.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The academic journey that I have been on over the last 8 years at Arizona State

University has been extremely memorable. I have had the opportunity to learn and work

with some amazing scholars. Each of whom has contributed to my growth and future

success. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Victor Teye, who has been an amazing mentor.

His passion for what he does opened my eyes to my future. His mentorship has provided

me the opportunities, guidance, and independence to be an excellent scholar. I would

also like to acknowledge Dr. Rick Knopf for the collaboration and guidance he has

afforded me during the last two years. I would also like to thank him for stimulating my

intellectual curiosity within the community development field. Dr. Tim Tyrrell, Dr. Gyan

Nyaupane, Dr. Woojin Lee are all deserving of acknowledgments for allowing me to

learn through experience and collaborate on research as a peer. I cannot imagine a better

graduate experience. I would like to also acknowledge Dr. Kathleen Andereck, Dr.

Dallen Timothy, Dr. Rhonda Phillips, Dr. Mark Searle, and the rest of the Faculty of the

School of Community Resources and Development for their continued guidance and

mentorship. I would like to thank my fellow SCRD PhD students for their support.

Thank you to the individuals that proofread my document. Finally, I would like to thank

my dissertation committee for all of your help getting me to this point. Thank you: Dr.

Victor Teye, Dr. Gyan Nyaupane, Dr. Dallen Timothy, and Dr. Alexandra Brewis Slade.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1

Information and Communication Technologies ........................................... 10

Research Objectives……………………………………………………...15

Organization of the Study……………………………………….……….17

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 19

Virtualization of Culture ................................................................................ 21

Virtual Moorings………………………………………………………25

Backpacking Culture……………………………………………………..27

Technological Innovations and Backpacking…..………………………..31

Flashpackers…….………………………………………………………..34

Social Media……………………………………………………………..36

Facebook……………………………………………………………..37

Twitter………………………………………………………………..39

Youtube………………………………………………………………40

Blogs…………………………………………………………………40

Techno-Social Graphics………………………………………………….42

Cultural Consensus Analysis….………………………………………....46

vii
 Page

Applications of CCA…….………………………………………..51

Conclusion………………….…………………………………………....52

3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................. 54

Data Collection .............................................................................................. 56

Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 66

Ethnographic Methods...…………….……………………………………69

Ethical Considerations………………………………………………..74

Mobile-Virtual Method……………………………………………….76

Sampling and Data Collection………………………………………..77

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….....80

4 RESULTS OF CULTURAL CONSENSUS ANALYSIS ............................. 81

Profile of Respondents................................................................................... 81

CCA Results................................................................................................... 93

QAP Results………………...……………………………………….124

Cultural Norms Statements………………………………………….126

5 QUALITATIVE RESULTS .......................................................................... 122

Interview Results ......................................................................................... 122

Physical Mobilities…..……...……………………………………….124

Communicative Travel and Digital Movement of Media.………….126

Physical Mobility of Technological Devices………………………

Imaginative Travel…………………………………………………

viii
 Page

Planning and Independence…………………..……………………..129

Time……………..…..……...……………………………………….124

Backpacker and Flashpacker Identities…………………..………….126

Summary……………………………………………………………..

Results of Mobile-Virtual Ethnography…………………………………

Behavior Maps……………………………………………………….

Summary……………………………………………………………..

6 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 122

Backpacker Culture and Emergence of Flashpacking ................................ 122

Convergence of ICT and Backpacking ....................................................... 122

Virtual Spaces of Backpacking...……………………………………….124

Socio-Technographics of Backpackers.…..…………………………….126

7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 122

Summary of Results .................................................................................... 122

Backpacker Culture .............................................................................. 122

Backpackers and Technology..…………………………………….124

Backpackers’ Virtual Mobilities and Moorings……………………

Limitations………………………………………………………………

Contributions……………………………………………………………

Practical Contributions……………………………………………..

Theoretical and Methodological Contributions……………………187

Future Research……………………………………………………...…189

ix
 Page

Conclusion……………………………………………………………...191

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 193

APPENDIX

A SURVEY INSTRUMENT .......................................................................... 209

B VIRTUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE………………..……………216

C SOCIAL MEDIA MAPS………………………………………………..219

D IRB EXEMPTION………………………………………………………224

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Respondents’ demographics ............................................................................ 82

2. Nationality of respondents ............................................................................... 83

3. International travel experience.......................................................................... 86

4. Technology brought while traveling………………………………………..87

5. Social media used by respondents………………………………………….88

6. Most active use of social media and email while traveling….……………..89

7. Lease active use of social media and email………………………………...91

8. Internet usage when traveling and when at home………..….……………..92

9. Highest Proportion of agreement with cultural norms statements for non-

flashpackers and flashpackers…………….………………………………100

10. Lowest proportion of agreement with cultural norms statements for non-

flashpackers and flashpackers…………………………………………….103

11. Significant differences in proportions of agreement with cultural norms

statements between non-flashpackers and flashpackers………………….107

12. Disagreement with the culturally correct answers………………………..110

13. Influence of Individuals Social Media……………………………………143

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Theoretical framework of backapcker mobilities ............................................. 24

2. Visualization of Consensus Factor Loadings……………………………….96

3. Statusphere and Blogosphere…………………………………………….. 149

xii
 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

A nomad is defined as a wanderer, a person who roams about, a person with no

fixed residence (Nomad, n.d.). The term “nomad” has been regularly invoked as a

metaphor of both the backpacker phenomenon (Richards & Wilson, 2004) and the

technologically mediated mobile lifestyles and identities of modern society (Makimoto &

Manners, 1997). Backpackers are what Pico Iyer (2000) would describe as ‘global souls’,

pioneers of mobility, who embrace life on the move. The backpacker phenomenon is a

rich context from which a contribution to the study of the relationship between

contemporary society, tourism and technology can be made. A critical turn (Tribe, 2005;

Ateljevic, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2007) in backpacker research, stemming from the

perception of the backpacker phenomenon as, “an embodied metaphor for the various

mobilities in global contemporary culture” (Ateljevic & Hannam, 2008, p. 256), provides

a context through which critical questions about the relationship between contemporary

society, tourism, and technology can be discussed. Tourism, and particularly

backpacking, have always been manifestations of mobility (Urry, 2002), even during pre-

globalization and before mobility became a metaphor of the modern conception of the

world (Bennett, 2007). The backpacking culture has seemingly endured time and global

changes, even though backpacking has been referred to by various other names. The

basic elements of the backpacking travel experience and mentality that Meriwether wrote

about in 1886 (in A tramp trip: How to see Europe on fifty cents a day) are very similar to

the modern ‘culture’ of backpacking. Recently, however, there have been several calls
 2

for examining the sub-segments and sub-cultures of backpacking (Paris, 2008; Sorensen,

2003) as the backpacking phenomenon has become mainstreamed, and has become a

significant market segment of the travel and tourism industry at most major tourism

destinations.

The recent emergence of the “flashpacker,” a segment that is arguably even more

symbolic of contemporary society, could suggest a ‘break’ in the backpacking culture.

The flashpacker has been embraced as an increasingly important sub-segment of

backpacking both in the academic literature and the tourism industry (Jarvis & Peel,

2010). The flashpacker has been viewed as a ‘key constituent of contemporary society’

emerging from the economic, demographic, technological, and social changes in the

world (Hannam & Diekmann, 2010). In addition to being generally older, having more

disposable income, and traveling as a ‘backpacker’ by choice rather than budgetary

necessity, flashpackers’ travel experience is mediated by communications technology and

technological devices (Paris, 2010a; Hannam & Diekmann, 2010). Flashpackers

seemingly embody both the backpacker culture and that of the ‘digital nomad’

(Makimoto & Manners, 1997). Flashpackers could also be considered part of a new

global elite (Bauman, 2000; 2007). These elite are hypermobile mentally, corporeally,

and virtually. They have the means to move fluidly across the globe through the various

travelscapes using the ‘nomadic institutional structure’ and have the ability to connect

instantly with multiple networks from virtually anywhere through an array of mobile

technologies (O’Regan, 2008).

 3

Against this background, this dissertation seeks to examine backpackers, and

more specifically the emerging flashpacker, because of their metaphoric importance to

the contemporary understanding of the interaction between technology, tourism, and

society. This examination will begin with an analysis of the backpacking culture and test

for the apparent divergence of the flashpacking sub-culture. To do this Cultural

Consensus Analysis (CCA) (Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986; Batchelder &

Romney, 1988; Weller, 2007) will be used to determine if there is a shared cultural

understanding among backpackers; if flashpackers have a different shared cultural

understanding of backpacking; and what those differences are. A small group of

flashpackers will then be examined in-depth using a mix of eInterviews and a mobile-

virtual ethnography. Focus will be given to developing an understanding of the uses and

meanings associated with social media and other communications technologies in relation

to the backpacking experience and backpacking culture.

By exploring the personal virtual mobilities of each of the individuals through

their use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and blogs, a structure of the virtual moorings of

backpacking will be developed. Understanding these virtual spaces of backpacking is

valuable not only for understanding the virtualization of backpacking culture, but also for

constructing a dialogue about the use of these social media by the backpacker and

tourism industry.

Backpackers provide the perfect group from which to study personal mobilities.

Complex global trends have led to the parallel growth in the virtual and corporeal

mobilities of people (Kellerman, 2006). Backpackers are, and always have been,
 4

extremely mobile physically. Recently, innovations in communications technologies, the

Internet, mobile devices, and connectivity have given rise to a new virtual mobility for

backpackers (Paris, 2010a). The implications of the technological developments will be

discussed in the context of online behavior, social interactions, and cultural norms of

backpacking. It is hoped that this study will be able to close the gap between the

historically divided epistemological lines of backpacker research (Ateljevic & Hannam,

2008; Richards & Wilson, 2004b) by contributing to both the critical understanding of

the social science of tourism and to the practical demands of the backpacking and tourism

industry. The current convergence of information and communication technologies and

tourism provides a need to examine the implications of the technologies on the tourism

industry. Additionally, there is a strong need to understand the mediation of the tourism

experience for individuals. The apparent stability of the backpacking culture provides a

great vehicle from which to understand this convergence.

This study is rooted in the field of travel and tourism because backpackers are

travelers who have economic, cultural and ecological impacts on destinations, just as

most others tourists do. The cultural roots of backpacking today emerged from the tramps

of the late 19th century and the beatnik and hippie countercultures of the 1950s-1970s.

Backpacking has evolved and adapted to technological, social, political and economic

trends in both the home and destination societies of backpackers since the 1970s. These

global trends, particularly over the last few decades, have led to a democratization of

backpacking to a large, heterogeneous, and globally diverse group of people (Paris,

 5

2008), and as a result, backpacking has become a mainstreamed phenomenon in tourism

(O’Reilly, 2006).

The ‘pillars of ideology’ of the backpacking subculture (Welk, 2004; Paris,

2010a) have persevered over the last few decades, but the social cohesiveness imparted

early on by the close connection with the social countercultures of the time (Loker-

Murphy & Pearce, 1995), arguably, has not. One of the largest constraints to depicting

backpacking as a subculture is that it has become so mainstream (Scheyvens, 2002;

Welk, 2004; O’Reily, 2006), it is difficult to illustrate clearly the boundaries between the

backpacker community and other mainstream tourists. Even so, inquiry into the

backpacking phenomenon has received increasing attention in the tourism literature. In

addition to articles published in top tourism journals, there have been three recent books

that were products of three ATLAS Backpacker Research Group symposia held in 2004,

2006, and 2008, and a special issue of the journal Tourism Recreation Research. Recent

changes in the backpacker phenomenon and culture have been the basis for several

researchers to note the need for research into the heterogeneity of backpacker culture

(Ateljevic & Doorne, 2004). Recent studies have also examined differences in

backpackers based upon their nationality, age, motivations, behaviors, and gender (Paris,

2008). The understanding of particular sub-segment, flashpackers, has been relatively

unexplored, until very recent, in the literature (Jarvis & Peel, 2010). The emergence of

the notion of flashpackers is one of the recent key developments in backpacker tourism.

Hannam and Diekmann (2010) note that the emergence of the flashpacker “exemplifies

the changing demographics in western societies where older age at marriage, older age
 6

having children, increased affluence and new technological developments, alongside

increased holiday and leisure time have all come together” (p. 1-2).

Recent developments in information and communications technology have

provided the basis for the backpacker culture once again to gain the cohesiveness without

the temporal or spatial constraints of the ‘backpacker trail.’ While the physical mobilities

of backpackers are still just as important to the backpacking experience, new virtual

moorings (Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006) have developed that allow backpackers to be

fully integrated in their multiple networks and maintain a sustained state of co-presence

between the backpacker culture and their home culture (Mascheroni, 2007). Backpackers

manage their multiple networks while traveling and at home through social networking

sites, email, and other technologies, which have blurred the boundaries between home

and away. The close virtual proximity that backpackers maintain allows them to be able

to be instantly in contact with friends, family, work, school, and fellow travelers.

Further, the backpacker ideals of independence, freedom, and physical travel are all

enhanced by the virtual mobility of backpacker information, identities, and culture.

Backpacking is symbolic of the recent societal transitions occurring as a result of

recent macro-trends in the contemporary global society. As a result, contemporary global

society has been referred to by Bauman (2000; 2007) as ‘liquid modernity’. Bauman

explained that nomadism is the general trait of the liquid modern person, allowing

individuals to travel fluidly through their own lives, changing things like their job, social

position, spouses, political affiliation, social interactions, and consumption. Research

concerning the relationship between technology and society also needs to adapt in order
 7

to address the complexities of liquid modernity. Technological innovations have

transformed the daily lives of individuals, communities, and countries worldwide. The

transition from industrial societies to information societies during the ‘Information Age’

(Castells, 1996) has been highlighted by the adjustments and advances in society that has

resulted from the proliferation of new technologies, particularly by Web 2.0 and Social

Media, wireless networks, mobile devices, and broadband Internet more recently. These

technological advances have led to a democratization of knowledge that has quickly

transitioned society into one where connectivity is no longer a luxury but a necessity, a

cultural norm, and even a human right. The human need for connectivity is innate to the

human species, and now the technology available has created a global society in which

connectivity is fluid. In the conclusion of his trilogy on the Information Age, Castells

(1998) argues that this change had its origins in 1970s, when the world started to change:

A new world is taking shape in this end of millennium. It originated in the

historical coincidence, around the late 1960s and mid-1970s, of three

independent processes: the information technology revolution; the

economic crisis of both capitalism and statism and their subsequent

restructuring; and the blooming of cultural social movements such as

libertarianism, human rights, feminism, and environmentalism. The

interaction between these processes, and the reactions they triggered,

brought into being a new dominant social structure, the network society; a

new economy, the informational/global economy; and a new culture, the

culture of real virtuality. The logic embedded in this economy, this

 8

society, and this culture underlies social action and institutions throughout

an interdependent world. (p. 336)

The dramatic growth of international tourism, with international arrivals approaching one

billion a year (UNWTO, 2009), and the mainstreaming of the backpacking phenomenon

have mirrored the three independent processes that Castells outlined. The three processes

have intersected to contributing to the complex contemporary world.

The complexities of the contemporary society require that scientific inquiry also

increases in complexity. Tourism research has recently taken a critical turn (Ateljevic,

Pritchard, & Morgan, 2007) into what Tribe (2005) refers to as ‘new’ tourism research.

This critical turn includes advancement beyond an applied business field to one that

incorporates new methods, paradigms and new research fields into tourism research. This

critical turn has also allowed tourism research to advance with society.

One new paradigm that has emerged with contribution of tourism academia is the

New Mobilities Paradigm (Urry, 2000; 2007). The mobilities paradigm is a concept in

social sciences, that when applied to tourism studies calls for a decentralization of the

focus away from tourists and their travels. Instead focus is placed on the interconnected

mobilities of an array of individuals whose movements “are implicated within complex

networks by which ‘hosts, guests, buildings, objects and machines’ are contingently

brought together to produce certain performances in certain places at certain times.’

(Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006, p.13). The mobilities paradigm has been used in a host

of tourism studies, and studies surrounding the backpacking phenomenon, in particular,

 9

have engaged with the new mobilities paradigm (Atelevjic & Hannam, 2008; Hannam &

Diekmann, 2010).

This research will focus on the complexities of the backpacking phenomenon.

Understanding the complexities of backpacking can contribute to the greater discourse on

technology and society. Current backpacking can trace its recent history along the lines of

Castelles’ (1998) three independent processes discussed above. The cultural roots of

backpacking were intertwined with the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s and

1970s. This cultural foundation, along with the geopolitical situation (Cold War,

Vietnam, Economic Recession) contributed to the escape of early ‘drifters’ (Cohen,

1979), often to undeveloped locations in the developing world. These early backpackers

created the cultural and physical foundations for the current mainstream backpacking

phenomenon. Many of the early backpacking centers (enclaves) and routes established

by drifters of the 1970s are still the epicenter of backpacking, as are some of the cultural

vessels of backpacker culture, such as Tony Wheeler’s Lonely Planet guidebooks. This

historical context of the backpacking suggests that this group is distinctive as it arguably

has interdependently developed along with society’s transformation through the

Information Age. This dissertation will primarily focus on the backpacking phenomenon

during the recent chapter of the information technology revolution including Web 2.0 and

Social Media.

The recent convergence of information technology and physical travel has been

embraced by backpackers. The technological innovations have contributed to the

mainstreaming of backpacking (Paris, 2010a). Advancements in communications have

 10

allowed individuals to connect instantly with their social networks, thus overcoming

isolation and physical distance (Mascheroni, 2007). Communications technologies have

also allowed many small backpacker businesses to compete and connect to their markets

directly instead of relying completely on word of mouth on the backpacking trail or

backpacker guide books. Understanding the impacts of emerging technologies on the

backpacking experiences and businesses was one of the eight main themes for future

research that emerged from a recent study of the backpacker market in Australia (Pearce,

Murphy, & Brymer, 2009). Many of the respondents to that study, both academic

researchers and the backpacker industry, felt that not enough was understood about how

new technologies are impacting the backpacking experience and industry. Several recent

studies indicate that backpackers are very active users of communication technologies,

particularly social media (Hofstaetter & Egger, 2009; Paris, 2010a; Mendes-Filho, Tan,

& Milne, 2010). The use and importance of social media for many backpackers is

reflective off the growing use and dependence on communication technologies in the

daily lives of individuals.

Information and Communication Technologies

Communication technologies allow an individual to be in contact instantly with

individuals from around the world. For travelers this means greater freedom in their

mobility, as access to travel information can be instantaneous allowed for greater

spontaneity. It can also provide the security for individuals who need to be in contact and

are comforted in knowing that their loved ones are only a phone call, email, Facebook

message, or tweet away.

 11

During the last two decades of the Information Age, information became a main

“economic commodity.” Now companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and social

media platforms Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube all provide users with access to

limitless amounts of information. Web 2.0 and social media have given rise to user-

generated content and further democratizing by these innovations allowing for

individuals anywhere, to create and disseminate information to wide audiences. Youtube,

Facebook, Twitter, Wikis, Blogs, Trip Advisor, etc, are all results of this. Information

thus is now de-commoditized as individuals’ attention has become the most important

commodity. People are technologically connected. Many individuals, particularly those

of Gen X and Gen Y, spend time connected to multiple networks at the same time

through multiple means. For example, individuals simultaneously can be using Facebook

on their iPhones, uploading videos to Youtube directly from their digital video cameras,

video chatting with someone through Skype, using Blackboard or Gmail to connect with

school or work, playing video games live with friends and strangers through Xbox Live,

etc.

Within the context of tourism, individuals are increasingly able to contact their

networks via social media, internet smart phones, laptops, wi-fi and wi-fi enabled

devices. Hotels, restaurants, transportation systems, and attractions are all implementing

technologies in accordance with the demand of the modern tourist. The tourism industry

is also implementing technologies to enhance the tourist experience, including things like

wi-fi on airplanes and GPS tour guides at attractions. Increasingly, the tourism

experience is mediated by information and communications technologies (Xiang and

 12

Gretzel, 2009; Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009). This mediation occurs before, during,

and after an individual’s trip (Paris, 2010a). Tourism products are booked and

information is collected via social media and e-word-of-mouth (Litvin, Goldsmith, &

Pan, 2007) prior to the trip (Xiang & Gretzel, 2009). Individuals maintain connections

with home, collect information, book travel, upload photos, blogs, twitter, Facebook, and

download travel guides while traveling. After the trip, individuals also use social media

and other technologies to portray, reconstruct and relive their trips (Xiang & Gretzel,

2009; Pudliner, 2007). Some have argued that technology can detract from tourist

experiences, which are emphasized by the contrast to every day life (Uriely, 2005). The

distinction between tourist experiences and home experiences has blurred, and now

experiences are more liquid as tourists experiences can flow through virtual networks and

thus are accessible even during everyday life without the necessity of physical movement

(Uriely, 2005; Urry, 2005). The role of consumer generated media for tourism has

received considerable attention lately, as it has tremendous implications for the future of

the tourism industry, particularly in understanding how tourism marketers can leverage

social media (Gretzel, 2006), better organized travel information for search optimization

(Xiang & Gretzel, 2009), to understand the influence and implications of eWOM (e-word

of mouth) (Litivn, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008), and the use of mobile devices and

connectivity while traveling.

The proliferation of connections and overwhelming amount of information

availability and choices that these recent technological innovations have created is also

shifting society into a ‘new’ age. This new age was recently referred to as the Attention
 13

Age and has emerged from the late information age as a result of Web 2.0 technologies

(Attention Age, 2010). The Attention Age derives its name from Attention Economics

(Davenport & Beck, 2001). As information systems have been constructed for the

efficient production and dissemination of information, information overload has started to

occur. Recently, there is now a need for information systems to be developed that allow

individuals to apply their attention more efficiently. Simon (1971) envisioned this:

...in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth

of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes.

What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of

its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention

and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance

of information sources that might consume it (p. 40-41).

Information is no longer the commodity. High-quality, valuable information is now not

only abundantly available, but it is instantly available, producible, and sharable.

Each individual only possesses a limited amount of attention. Individuals are

forced to ration their attention. Young (2009) uses the metaphor of informational diet

and suggests that people risk ‘Infobesity’ if they do not take care to consume in

moderation funny YouTube videos (the sweet sugary snack). Social networks, real-time

activity streams, and increasingly complex mobile devices have resulted in an extremely

complex situation in which information must be processed from a variety of different

sources. While from a closed systems view, comprehension of these complexities are

difficult to perceive, but as the father of artificial intelligence and attention economics,
 14

Simon (1996) pointed out that “An ant, viewed as a behaving system, is quite simple.

The apparent complexity of its behavior over time is largely a reflection of the

complexity of the environment in which it finds itself.” (p. 22). Backpacking in itself is

relatively simple, and the apparent complexity of the phenomenon is reflective of the

complexities of modern global society. The emergence of the flashpacker, the tech-savvy

sub-group of backpacking, could be seen as the product of backpacking adaptation to

modern global complexities, and as such many flashpackers could maintain the same

understanding of backpacking culture, it would just be how they interact within that

culture that has changed. Understanding how technology has affected flashpackers’

backpacking experience could provide a snapshot into one how technological innovations

are impacting one aspect of life: travel and tourism.

As the world transitions into the Attention Age, research needs to focus on

systematically understanding the role that new technological developments play in

individual’s lives, as well as the meanings and uses that individuals associate with each

technology. The continued commoditization of attention suggests that researchers shift

their questions to focus on how information is consumed, shared, created, and applied.

Research questions need to adapt to these changes. For example, a question of if a person

is connected is now nearly irrelevant. Instead, researchers need to focus a new set of

‘attention-based’ questions. Who do people choose to connect with? When do they

choose to connect with them? How do they choose to connect with them? Similar

questions can be asked of individual’s processing of information and use of technology

while traveling, at work, at home, and while driving.

 15

In everyday life, individuals choose to connect to certain networks at certain

times. Everyone makes these choices constantly by ignoring a phone call or text message,

deleting a Facebook comment, deciding not to join Twitter, following a live stream, or

forwarding an email. While traveling individuals also make choices about whom they

will devote some of their attention and time to. While individuals may ignore work

emails, phone calls, certain family and friends, they at the same time could be sharing

their experiences with other people using Twitter, Facebook, or a blog. For some,

traveling is something they want to share. They might seek to gain some social status by

traveling, seek tips while on the road, or simply want not to miss out on what is going on

in their ‘home-lives.’ Some people may decide to work on the road while traveling, or

even, the extreme, become a true digital nomad, and have a constantly hyper-mobile life.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to explore the virtualization of the backpacker culture

resulting from the convergence of the information and communication technologies,

backpacker culture, and physical travel. To satisfy this purpose, this dissertation focused

on four research objectives. The first objective was to undertake a contemporary

examination of the backpacker culture and the emerging flashpacker sub-culture through

an application of Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA).

The second objective was to examine the convergence of information technology

and backpacking and develop an understanding of some of the socio-technical

implications of social media and other technologies for the backpacking experience and

backpacking culture. The third objective was to develop an understanding of the

 16

virtualization of the backpacking culture through a mobile-virtual ethnography of the

hybrid backpacking spaces and mobilities, with particular attention paid to the virtual

spaces and processes. The fourth objective was to examine the online behavior of

backpackers within the backpacker mobilities framework and a socio-technographic

typology. The research will explore the virtual moorings of the backpacker culture,

technological preferences, the personal virtual mobilities, and production and

dissemination of content by a small group of technologically savvy backpackers.

The following questions will be addressed:

• Is there a shared or common cultural model among backpackers?

• Are there differences in the cultural models of flashpackers and non-flashpackers?

If so, what are the differences? What are the implications of these differences?

• What information and communication technologies are preferred by backpackers?

And how are these technologies used? How do they contribute to the backpacking

culture and experience?

• What is the structure of the virtual space of backpacking? Where is the virtual

backpacking culture moored? What are the implications of the virtualization of

the backpacker culture?

To achieve these objectives, this study utilized a mixed-methods research design.

The qualitative portion of this study consisted of a virtual ethnography of online

backpacker culture. This mobile-virtual ethnographic method ‘followed’ eight

 17

backpackers through the virtual moorings using a combination of participatory

observation, content analysis, and email questionnaires.

Data for a cultural consensus analysis were collected through a self-administered

survey. Surveys were advantageous for this study because they allow for a large number

of respondents from each of the three collection areas to be studied economically and

compared statistically. Further, surveys allow for a broad understanding of the concepts

of this study, which were then explored more deeply through qualitative methods. The

methods employed in this study and the justification for them is discussed in detail in

Chapter 3.

Organization of the study

This document is organized into seven chapters. The second chapter develops the

foundation for the study by reviewing literature related to backpacking, mobilities,

information technology, and cultural consensus. This chapter is followed by a methods

chapter which presents the mixed-methods used in this study, and all the considerations

that were made in the application. The mixed-methods combined a quantitative analysis

in the form of cultural consensus analysis and a qualitative analysis in the form of e-

interviews and a mobile-virtual ethnography.

Chapter 4 presents the results of the cultural consensus analysis. In this chapter

CCA was applied to four groups from a survey administered to backpackers online and in

Cairns, Australia. The analysis explored the shared understanding of backpacking culture

by the whole sample, two sub-samples of flashpackers and non-flashpackers, and six key
 18

informant flashpackers who were the focus of the qualitative analysis. Chapter 5 includes

the findings of the e-interviews with the eight key informants and the mobile-virtual

ethnography of their virtual moorings.

The results of the two chapters are then discussed in Chapter 6. This discussion

frames the findings within the backpacker mobilities framework developed in Chapter 2.

The results are also discussed within the context of the complex convergence of

information technology and tourism and the current state of backpacking.

Chapter 7 concludes with insights into the future of backpacking and tourism

research. Theoretical and practical implications are provided for individuals, researchers,

and the backpacking sector. Finally, an agenda for future research is presented.
 19

Chapter 2

Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to develop an understanding of the virtualization of

backpacking culture by examining the socio-technical implications of social media for

the backpacking experience, developing an understanding of the virtual moorings and

mobilities of backpacking, reviewing the literature on backpacking culture. Particular

attention is paid to the emerging flashpacker subgroup of backpacker. The potential for

applying the cultural consensus analysis to the study of backpacking culture as a

compliment to previous ethnographic studies of backpacker culture is then discussed. The

analysis of the virtual moorings of backpacking in this study will mainly concentrate on

four different social media outlets: Twitter, blogs, Facebook, and YouTube. Background

information for each of the types of social media is presented. Additionally, two

typologies of online behavior are presented that are helpful in understanding the use of

social media by backpackers.

Backpacking tourists now make up a large percentage of all international

travelers. Because of the difficulty defining backpacking tourists, there are no definite

aggregate numbers of the size of the backpacking market as a whole. A report produced

in 2005 by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the

International Student Travel Confederation (ISTC) suggests that youth and backpacking

tourism make up 20% of the global tourism spending estimated to exceed $136 billion

(Richards, 2005). Many countries have embraced the development of the backpacking

industry as a means for economic development. Australia recognized that backpacking

 20

was an increasingly valuable tourism segment early on, and as a result a large proportion

of the tourism expenditures are from backpackers. In 2002, backpackers contributed an

estimated A$2.5 billion to the Australian economy, which represented 22% of total

tourism earnings (Bureau of Tourism Research, 2002). The total expenditure by

international backpackers to Australia has steadily grown throughout the decade

increasing to A$3 billion in 2007 (Tourism Research Australia, 2007) and $3.5 billion in

2009 (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2010). Compounding these

numbers is the fact that backpackers make up only 10% of the visitors to Australia, thus

spending proportionally more then other visitors (Department of Industry, Tourism and

Resources, 2003).

The backpacker tourism market is also particularly resilient as compared to other

tourism niches. Between 2002 and 2007, backpackers’ spending increased by almost

40%, a much higher rate of growth than the overall international travel market. The

backpacking and youth tourism sectors have had continued growth during the past decade

in spite of global crisis like 9/11, SARS, the Avian Flu, and the recent economic crisis

(WYSE Travel Confederation, 2010). While backpacking is an important to many

destinations, economically, the critical study of the backpacking phenomenon as a whole

is also important for understanding some of the global trends in tourism as well as

individuals’ daily lives. This dissertation is primarily focused on the examination of

flashpackers, an emerging backpacker sub-group. The term flashpacker has been used in

the industry to refer to a sub-group of backpackers. The consensus of industry and

academic literature is that backpackers are classified as flashpackers if they are affluent
 21

and/or tech-savvy. Hostelbookers.com, one of the main online hostel booking sites,

suggests that flashpackers are usual backpackers who are “looking for something a bit

more up-market from their digs” and are “just part of the growing number of techno-

travelers” (Hostelbookers.com, 2010). The growing penetration of technology in the

daily lives of individuals world-wide gives rise to questions about the relationship

between the level of affluence and the level of tech-savvy for backpackers. The

following section begins with a discussion of the virtualization of backpacking using the

New Mobilities Paradigm (Urry, 2007) as a basis for understanding the convergence of

technology and backpacking.

The virtualization of backpacking: Convergence of technology and travel

The New Mobilities Paradigm (Urry, 2007; 2000) seeks to establish a movement-

driven social science. The mobilities paradigm examines the increasingly complex world

through the exploration of the varying levels of movement of people, ideas, objects, and

information. Urry proposes that examining social life through the mobilities ‘lens’ will

allow for the construction of new theories, methodologies, questions, and solutions.

Proponents of the mobilities paradigm argue that the multiple types of movements that

occur in the world today have been inadequately examined by many of the social

sciences. The mobilities paradigm provides a strong basis for understanding how the

explosion of the Internet and related technologies have been incorporated into the daily

lives of people around the world. This dissertation employs the mobilities paradigm to

examine the convergence of technology and backpacking tourism. Tourism is an

inherently mobile phenomenon. The study of the backpacking phenomenon through a

 22

‘mobilities lens’ provides a vehicle for developing an understanding of the complexities

of the intersection of physical travel, technologies, and daily life.

The recent innovations of the Internet and communications technologies have

created a more networked patterning of social life, home life, and work life (Hannam,

Sheller, & Urry, 2006). No longer are the simple discussions of the opposition of ‘real’

vs. ‘virtual’ or online vs. offline relevant, instead it is more useful to examine the

hybridity between physical spaces and cyberspace. These technologies have allowed

many people to maintain intermittent co-presence with these networks. Co-presence is

further enhanced by ‘virtual travel’ as many social interactions need to take place over

long distances, where corporeal travel is not as easy. This virtual proximity is proliferated

by advances in cyberspace, including email, social networking sites, blogs, and other

virtual extensions of personal identity. The virtual proximity of an individual’s multiple

networks allow them to shift easily between or simultaneously interact with more than

one network. In the increasingly complex world, where people need to maintain close

networks over large geographical distances, virtual mobility allows for the strengthening

of interactions (Urry, 2002). The virtual mobility of personal networks allows people to

connect to their networks anywhere and at anytime, especially with advances in personal

wireless technologies (Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006). The spatial division between

‘home and away’ is now less important, which allows people greater flexibility with

concerns to their movements through time and space. Many new jobs allow people to

work anywhere they have a connection, while extended education programs allow people

to receive education over long distances. The profusion of information available and
 23

adoption of e-commerce by travel service providers have made independent travel much

easier. The understanding of the convergence of travel and communications technology

can be particularly enhanced through the examination of the current state of backpacking.

The study of the complexities of the backpacking phenomenon, especially when

considering the implications of its convergence with emerging technologies, requires the

development of a systematic overview of multiple intersections of the spaces of

backpacking. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of these intersections. The

developments of social media and mobile technologies have dramatically changed how

backpacking is ‘done’, how experiences are shared, and how communication occurs. The

cultural knowledge discussed in chapter 4 is no longer developed and reemphasized along

the corporeal backpacker trail, but is now virtualized, allowing individuals to collaborate

virtually.
 24

Physical Spaces
(hostels, enclaves, transport,
‘backpacking trails’)

Backpacker
Mobilities

Virtual Spaces Cultural Spaces

(social media, (‘knowledge’, ideals,
mobile devices, experiences,
connections) identities, meanings)

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Backpacker Mobilities. (Source: Paris, 2010a)

Mobility is inherently part of the backpacker phenomenon. Figure 1 presents the

theoretical framework of backpackers’ mobilities. The framework illustrates three

‘spaces’ of backpacking, and the intersections or mobilities between the spaces. The

physical spaces include backpacker destinations, enclaves, hostels, transportation, and

home locations. The cultural spaces represent the shared ideology, identity, social status,

motivations and attitudes, ‘outside’ representations and perceptions of backpacking, and

 25

transformative effects of backpacking. The virtual spaces of backpacking include email,

online communities, blogs, and personal websites, as well as mobile devices (laptops,

mobile devices, cell phones) and connections (Internet, wi-fi, broadband).

Virtual moorings. In the past studies of backpacker mobility the focus has been on

the physical and cultural spaces, but recent innovations in communication technology

have added a virtual space to the study of backpacker mobilities. The Internet, cell

phones, and other mobile media have provided communications tools that allow travelers

to stay in contact with friends, family and other travelers while away. While at home

these same tools have enabled travelers to share their experiences and virtually take part

in other travelers’ experiences through a form of digital voyeurism. Backpackers have

fully adapted the new communication tools into their travel activities, thus giving rise to a

new virtual mobility. Travelers can now be in two places at once: their physical location

either at home or on the road, and the virtual location. A number of studies have

examined aspects of the virtual mobility phenomenon with specific reference to

backpackers. For example, Mascheroni (2007) explored the convergence of new

communication media, the Internet and mobile phones, and travel by backpackers. The

author concluded that “global nomads produce and maintain mobile spaces of sociality,

founded on a complex interaction of face-to-face interaction and mediated

communication, co-presence and virtual proximity, corporeal travel and virtual

mobilities” (p.527). Backpackers have increasingly used email and social networking

sites to stay in contact with fellow backpackers met during their trip (Paris, 2010a), and

their social network thus becomes accessible anywhere at any time (Mascheroni, 2007).
 26

An increasing number of backpackers are carrying laptops, smart phones and wireless

access in hostels and guesthouses, as well as cafés, restaurants, and bars in backpacker

enclaves provide an almost constant connectivity of the Internet while traveling.

Another study identified the Internet as a large source of just-in-time (Adkins &

Grant, 2007) information for backpackers when planning, as well as a tool for booking

travel, which allows backpackers to maintain the independent nature of their travel

experience. The interaction with fellow travelers in online web communities has

provided backpackers with a useful source of travel information. Many backpackers use

narrative emails and/or travelogues via personal websites, blogs, or social networking

sites to share their experiences with friends and family back home, as well as fellow

travelers. Mascharoni (2007) points out that travelogues allow backpackers to maintain

mobile spaces of sociality that follow individuals during their trip, are constantly updated,

and with an email address that represents the only permanent address of the traveler. The

mobile sociality allows backpackers to maintain connections with fluid social networks

made up of friends, family, travelers met while on the road, local people, and unknown

travelers (Mascharoni, 2007). Adkins and Grant (2007) note that information and

communication technologies develop solidarity and a culturally shared understanding of

what a backpacker is, and that the culturally shared understanding of backpacking could

conflict with the commercial backpacker image. Constant contact with the subculture

through the Internet can help to cultivate an individual’s backpacker identity, while at

home or on the road (Paris, 2008; Mascheroni, 2007; Sorensen, 2003). The previous

study of backpacking culture has focused primarily on the ‘road culture.’ The following
 27

section provides a current review of the literature on backpacking culture, which is made

up primarily of ethnographic studies conducted at backpacker destinations.

Backpacking Culture

Several researchers have successfully analyzed the backpacking culture through

ethnographic research (Sorensen, 2003; Anderskov, 2002; Ateljevic & Doorne, 2004;

Riley, 1988; Scheyvens, 2002; Spreitzhofer, 1998; Teo & Leong, 2006), but other

researchers have been cautious in studying the entire backpacking culture (Anderskov,

2002), choosing instead to examine a piece of the backpacking phenomenon, or

understanding backpacking from an industry perspective and classifying it as a market.

Welk (2004) views the backpacker community as a scene, or an informal social group

with undefined boundaries. Members of a scene often share common leisure interests

and frequent particular ‘hangouts.’ Welk also argues that the backpacker community is

not a real subculture, but it does take on some of the characteristics of one constrained by

a constant assimilative pressure by mainstream tourism. Backpackers have also been

characterized as neo-tribes (Mafessoli, 1995; Wilson & Richards, 2003), social groups

that are temporarily bonded together. Backpackers on the road are temporary members

of the ‘road culture’ participating in short-term fleeting social interactions, often traveling

together, eating together, and sharing common experiences together. The social

interactions (Murphy, 2001) between them revolves around the shared ideology and a

sense of companionship in the midst of social insecurity of traveling in a distant unknown

place, but, traditionally this ideology was temporally and physically constrained to the
 28

time spent traveling and the physical spaces traveled to and through. The backpacker

sociality was preserved through the shared ideology.

Welk (2004) proposed that the backpacker community has evolved around a set of

stable common symbolic lines of ideology (Pearce, 1990). Five pillars of backpacker

ideology include: to travel on a low budget, to meet different people, to be free,

independent and open-minded, to organize one’s journey individually and independently,

and to travel as long as possible (Welk, 2004; Pearce, 1990). Welk’s findings were

supported by Paris and Teye’s (2010) study on backpacker motivations. In that study the

authors found that there were six dimensions of backpacker motivation including:

personal and social growth, experiential, relaxation, cultural knowledge, budget travel,

and independence. This common ideology has also led to the development of negative

perceptions of backpackers. For example, as many backpackers attempt to travel on as

small of budget as possible, and because ‘getting a good deal’ is a status symbol (Riley,

1988), backpackers are often criticized for excessive bargaining. The focus of

backpackers to travel ‘off-the-beaten-track’, to interact with the locals, and to seek out

authentic experiences has led some researchers to suggest that backpacking is more

invasive (Butler, 1990), and has more lasting and shaping impacts on host destinations

(Spreitzhofer, 1998), particularly in the developing world (Scheyvens, 2002).

Backpackers’ perceived freedom from social commitments and constraints of

home can cause them to participate in socially or culturally inappropriate behavior,

particularly in concentrated backpacker enclaves (Scheyvens, 2002). This conflict

between the ideology and actual practice of backpacking is also evident in popular
 29

literature. The fictitious dialogue between a British backpacker and a journalist in India

in William Sutcliffe’s Are You Experienced? (1999) described backpacking as a, “kind of

travel [that] is all about low horizons dressed up as open-mindedness. You have no

interest in India, and no sensitivity for the problems this country is trying to face up to.

You also treat Indians with a mixture of contempt and suspicion which is reminiscent of

the Victorian colonials. Your presence here, in my opinion, is offensive” (Sutcliffe 1999,

p. 140).

Many of the current characteristics of backpackers differ, as a result of the global

trends during the last few decades, than those of the ‘drifters’ and ‘nomads from

affluence’ (Cohen, 1972 & 1973) of the sixties and seventies, but it is the ideology,

motives, and intentions that have persevered (Sorensen, 1992; 1999; 2003). This

ideology can be traced even further to the ‘trampers’ of the late 1800s. In the preface of

his book A tramp trip: How to see Europe on 50 cents a day, Meriwether (1886)

described his trip:

The first-class tourist may see the beauties of a country’s landscapes…but

his vision goes no further—does not penetrate below the surface. To

know a country one must fraternize with its people, must live with them,

sympathize with them, win their confidence. I was desirous of seeing

something of low life; I donned the blouse and hobnailed shoes of a

workman, and spent a year in a “Tramp Trip” from Gibraltar to the

Bosporus. (p. 1)
 30

The stability of this ideology is evident through the ethnographic study of the

backpacker culture conducted by Anderskov (2002) in Central America that found that

the key elements of the backpacker culture, succinctly outlined by Welk’s five pillars and

Pearce’s (1990) characteristics of backpacking, were essentially the same as they were in

Sorensen’s (1992) study, even though the studies were conducted on two different

continents a decade apart. Many backpacker’s experience with the backpacker culture

was limited to the ‘road culture’ (Sorensen, 2003) due to corporeal mobility, temporary

social interactions, and a limited amount of time participating in the culture, and as a

result few new practices were created that led to changes in the structure and values of

backpacker culture.

Anderskov (2002) concluded that the backpacker culture is hierarchically

structured, with individual status connected to the values of freedom, independence,

tolerance, low budget, and interaction with locals. Further, the author argued that social

hierarchy of the backpackers was dependent on the exchange of the most valuable object

in the culture: information. While the ideology of the backpacker market is represented

in the value system (Paris, in press), there is a noticeable gap between the structure and

the actual practice by backpackers (Anderskov, 2002; Richards & Wilson 2004a). Both

Sorensen (1992) and Anderskov (2002) note backpacking culture is unique in comparison

to other travel cultures in that most respondents ideally wanted to project the values

gained as participants in the backpacker culture over to their ‘normal’ lives. Sorensen

(2003) argued that developments in the Internet confirm connection between home and

away, and, “It is likely to impact on conceptions of distance, and to impart a change in
 31

the comprehension and framing of the type of liminoid experience which backpacker

tourism typifies.” (p. 861). Technological innovations have long impacted the actual

backpacking experience.

Technological Innovations and Backpacking

Technological innovations have contributed to evolutions and adaptations in

backpacking culture. In the 1970s the increased number of young independent travelers

with a strong association to the counterculture, commonly referred to as drifters (Cohen,

1973), led to the development of the early backpacker trails and enclaves, including the

‘Hippie Trail’ (Hippie Trail, 2010), an overland route that connected Amsterdam and

London with India, Nepal, and Southeast Asia (Cohen, 1973). It was after taking a long-

term overland trip from Europe to Southeast Asia on the Hippie Trail that Tony Wheeler

and his wife wrote the first Lonely Planet guidebook (Wheeler & Wheeler, 2005; Welk,

2008), Across Asia on the Cheap. This title soon grew into the ‘yellow bible’, South East

Asia on a Shoestring, taking on a similar connotation to Meriwether’s title Tramping

Europe on 50 Cents a Day, printed nearly a century earlier.

Interdependently, the development of alternative guidebooks, like Lonely Planet,

and the evolution of the social systems of backpackers occurred (Welk, 2008). The

guidebook represented a fixed structure of the backpacker culture that facilitated

information and culture transfer between current backpackers, new backpackers, and

from one generation of backpackers to another (Sorensen, 2003). Guidebooks provided a

common reference source for backpackers while solidifying the backpacker ideology of

independent, free, and long-term travel. Guidebooks also reinforced the development of
 32

backpacker trails and enclaves by providing information to cultural insiders. The

expansion of the guidebooks contributed greatly to the mainstreaming of the backpacker

culture as they made the actual act of backpacking easier. Guidebooks are not the only

reason for the expansion of backpacking. The development of an advanced infrastructure

of backpacker accommodations, travel agencies, and transportation all contributed

greatly, as did other global trends such as the increasing global middle class, increasing

amounts of disposable income of younger people, the increased representation of

backpacking in pop culture (Richards & Wilson, 2004a), and increased social support for

backpacking in the form of the Overseas Experience (Bell, 2002) or the Gap Year

(O’Reilly, 2006). The Overland Experience is the name given to the long-term overseas

travel experience by young New Zealanders. It is often referred to as the Big OE, and can

last several years. Similarly, the Gap Year, which originated in the UK in the 1960s,

refers to the year abroad that young people take. This year traditionally occurred before

starting at university, but can now occur at any time, as many older adults are taking a

year off as ‘career gapers.’ During the Big OE and the Gap Year experience, individuals

often travel as backpackers, and often combine their independent travel with periods of

studying, volunteering, and/or working.

As noted earlier, the mainstreaming of backpacking is considered the main barrier

to examining backpacking as a culture, or in other words, backpacking culture has

outgrown the social structure needed to support it.

The backpacker culture anchored by the guidebooks, backpacker trails and

enclaves, and travel infrastructure, has also adapted. The social structure of backpacking
 33

has expanded into the virtual world. The development of the Internet, as well as online

communities, in the past decade has created a new social structure on which the ever

expanding backpacker culture can exist. The developments in information

communication technology have been embraced by backpackers. Other technologies

historically have been avoided by backpackers when traveling. For example,

transportation technologies have been thought of as ‘disconnectors’ between the travelers

and local people of host. Meriwether (1886) offered:

As a tramp, with a modest bag on your back, you will be taken for an

itinerant journeyman or peddler, and as such can fraternize and live with

the peasants and people. The rider of a bicycle, however, if not mistaken

by the simple peasants for some strange sort of animal, will at any rate be

looked on as a tourist, and will be treated accordingly…. The bicycler

might go faster, but he would see less; so my advice is—leave your wheel

at home and walk. (p.7-8)

Similarly, drifters, and to some extent modern backpackers often shun more comfortable

forms of transportation, for ‘local transportation’ in order to preserve the local experience

(Cohen, 1972).

Communication ‘technologies’ used by backpackers have adapted over time, and

often were central to the ‘road culture.’ The performance associated with postcards was

replicated throughout the backpacker modalities. Postcards, early on, represented the

primary contact with home, and the selection, writing, and mailing of postcards was

intertwined with the road experience. Contact with other travelers was made using hostel
 34

message boards on which notes were written and posted onto a bulletin board. The only

other way to contact fellow travelers was through ‘chance’ meetings along the well-

trodden backpacker trails and backpacker enclaves. Phone cards, pay phones, and

internet cafés provided easier, instant contact with home. These more recent methods of

connection also became intertwined with the physical spaces, as internet cafés opened in

backpacker enclaves, hostels added pay phones (and later computers). While this

provided the ability for instant contact, there were still some barriers to connection, such

as availability, cost, and interactivity. New innovations in communication technologies

including Web 2.0, Mobile phones, laptop and net-book computers, and Wi-Fi access,

have created hybrid-spaces for backpacking, blurring boundaries between the physical

and virtual, as well as the virtual and cultural. The blurring of these boundaries could

create a disconnect, as some backpackers are too connected to be mindful of the

destinations, cultures, and fellow travelers while on the road. This disconnect can be

similar to that which backpackers historically have ideologically avoided, such as the

bicycle and local transportation example earlier. The convergence of technology and

backpacking has potentially led to the emergence of a new sub-culture of backpackers

who embrace the technological innovations to a greater extent. These individuals are

referred to as Flashpackers.

Flashpackers

There is an increasing amount of literature and industry focus on a backpacker

segment referred to as ‘flashpackers.’ Flashpackers can be considered part of the new

‘mobile elite’ (Bauman, 2007), made up of sub-group of backpackers that are

 35

technologically connected, have large amounts of disposable income, and on average

travel for a shorter period of time (Hannam & Diekmann, 2010). The notion of the

flashpacker is representative of changing demographics in the Western World, including

increased amounts of leisure time, older age at marriage, older age having children,

increased disposable incomes and technological innovations (Hannam & Diekmann,

2010). Flashpackers are usually twenty-somethings who backpack with ‘style,’ with

‘bucks and toys.’ Hannam and Diekmann (2010) define the flashpacker as,

…the older twenty to thirty-something backpacker, who travels with an

expensive backpack or a trolley type case, stays in a variety of

accommodation depending on location, has greater disposable income,

visits more ‘off the beaten track’ locations, carries a laptop, or at least a

‘flash drive’ and a mobile phone, but who engages with the mainstream

backpacker culture. (p. 2)

Some general and market research have recently focused on helping destinations

attract and meet the demands of flashpackers. In their study of flashpackers in Fiji, Jarvis

and Peel (2010) suggest that policy makers at destinations need to recognize the

flashpacker market as a potential niche for future sustainable tourism development, and

that destinations should focus on supporting local industry to address new demands

associated with ‘flashpackers’. While flashpackers engage with the mainstream

backpacker culture, the growing interest and research by the backpacking sector and

academia, suggest that there needs to be further understanding of the potential divergence

of these two groups. The two key characteristics that are used to differentiate
 36

backpackers from flashpackers are money and technology. Several recent studies have

examined the interaction of backpackers and innovations in information and

communication technologies (Paris, 2008; Sorensen, 2003; Adkins & Grant, 2007;

Mascheroni, 2007).

On one hand, these innovations appear to be changing the classic backpacker

ideology, and on the other hand, these innovations also appear to allow backpackers to

narrow the gap between the ideology and actual travel experience. Innovations in

information and communications technology have, arguably, decreased the

‘independence’ by removing the communications gap between home and away impacting

the ‘authentic’ experience of off-the-beaten-track travel. The Internet has provided

backpackers with just-in-time access to travel information, effortless booking of

accommodations and transportation, increased mobility, and access to the backpacker

culture through online communities (Paris, 2008; Mascheroni, 2007). Recent

developments in social media have been embraced by many backpackers, and in

particular, flashpackers.

Social Media

As discussed in the introduction chapter of this dissertation, social media has

recently become an important topic for tourism researchers. The development of social

media has been part of the Web 2.0 revolution, during which the internet has become

much more open. This openness has allowed individuals with minimal technical expertise

to create and share content and removed many of the geographical barriers to social

interaction. The implications of social media for backpackers are examined through the
 37

usage of four types of social media. The following section provides historical background

information about these four types of social media.

Facebook. Facebook is a social networking site founded by former Harvard

student Mark Zuckerberg on February 4, 2004. The story of its founding, and the

incomprehensible growth of the site in six years epitomize the technological innovations

and society’s response to those innovations. Zuckerberg came up with the initial concept

for Facebook in his dorm room:

Sitting alone in his dorm room that night in 2003, Zuckerberg had just been

jilted by a girl. He started drinking and once again sought solace in the realm

that never let him down. Logging on to his blog, he created an entry titled

"Harvard Face Mash: The Process." His plan was as simple as it was vindictive:

create a site called Facemash.com, hack into Harvard's directory, download

photographs of his classmates and post them online next to photos of farm

animals to rate who was more desirable. (Hoffman, 2008. p. 2)

Zuckerberg’s adolescent response to a girl breaking up with him has grown into one of

the most influential social devices. The statistics for Facebook are staggering. It has more

then 400 million active users (50% who log on every day), 35 million users update their

status each day, and 3.5 million events are created each month. Facebook is also the

center of online multimedia with more than three billion photos uploaded monthly, and

five billion pieces of content shared between users each week including web links, news

stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, videos, etc. While Facebook has from the start

been an important part of individuals’ social lives, it is now increasingly more a piece of
 38

the business network. There are currently three million active Pages, with more then 1.5

million local businesses with active Pages on Facebook. Facebook Pages currently have

5.3 billion fans with an additional twenty million being added each day. Facebook’s

unique platform has also for nearly one million developers and entrepreneurs from more

then one hundred eighty countries to contribute to the growth of Facebook Platform apps.

All aspects of Facebook users’ online lives are being concentrated through Facebook

Connect, which has been implemented by over 80,000 websites including two-thirds of

the top one hundred visited websites in the USA. Facebook Connect allows users to log-

in to third-party websites through their Facebook identity, allowing them to share

essentially everything they do with their Facebook networks. (Facebook.com, 2010,

March 10)

While Facebook began as an exclusive network, open at first to students at

Harvard University, and later university students in the USA, it is now open to anyone

over the age of thirteen with an email address. Facebook is now international with about

70% of users located outside of the USA. Facebook is also available more than seventy

different languages, made possible with the help of 300,000 users who contributed to the

translations. Facebook itself has become mobile, with more then one hundred million

active users connecting via mobile devices. These mobile users are twice as active as

non-mobile users. There are also an additional two hundred mobile operators in sixty

countries promoting and deploying mobile Facebook products. (Facebook.com, 2010,

March 30)
 39

Facebook is a central part of liquid modernity; it has taken on a role in all aspects

of society, changing the way individuals interact both online and offline, often blurring

the difference between. Facebook will continue to be, “a social utility that helps people

communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers…. develops

technologies that facilitate the sharing of information through the social graph, the digital

mapping of people’s real-world social connections.” (Facebook.com,)

Twitter. Twitter, while often categorized as a social networking site, self brands

itself as an information networking site. Twitter describes itself this way:

Twitter is a real-time information network powered by people all around the

world that lets you share and discover what’s happening now. Twitter asks

‘what’s happening’ and makes the answer spread across the globe to millions,

immediately. (Twitter.com)

Twitter is a micro-blogging social networking site that allows users to post 140 character

messages. These messages can be updated through Twitter websites, Text message,

mobile phone applications or interfaces with other websites such as Facebook-Twitter

applications that simultaneously send a Tweet and update Facebook status. Since its

founding in 2006, Twitter has grown to be the third most used social networking site,

behind Facebook and MySpace with six million users and 55 million unique site visits

(Kazeniac, 2009). Twitter was also the fastest growing website with a monthly growth

rate of 1382% in March of 2009 (compared to Facebook’s 228 %) (McGiboney, 2009).

However, only about 40% of those users are retained (Hoffman, 2009). Twitter has

recently changed its strategy, moving away from a network where individuals shared
 40

‘pointless babble’ (Kelly, 2009) to one emphasizing the sharing of news and information.

This was highlighted by the changing of the question that users are asked to respond to

from ‘What are you doing?’ to ‘What is happening?’ (Twitter, 2010).

YouTube. Youtube.com is the most popular online video sharing community. It

was founded in February 2005, and was acquired nineteen months later by Google for

$1.65 billion (Youtube, 2010). Youtube provides a medium for individuals to upload and

share videos easily via YouTube’s website, as well as embedding and sharing videos

through blogs, personal websites, and mobile devices. Youtube describes itself as

“empowering them [users] to share their experiences, talents, and expertise with the

world” by creating a “place for people to engage in new ways with video whenever and

wherever they want” (Youtube, 2010). Youtube operates localized versions of the site for

twenty-two countries, and is available in fourteen different languages. Youtube videos

are viewed nearly one billion times each day, or thirty billion video views each month.

Youtube promotes itself as a community of sharing, exploration, interaction and

discovery (Youtube, 2010).

Blogs. Blogs, short for weblogs, are the earliest form of user generated content

online. The first blog emerged from manually updated websites that documented daily

activities. These early e-journals started to appear in 1994. In the last sixteen years the

number of blogs has grown exponentially. While Technocrati, the top blog search

engine, was tracking an estimated 112 million blogs (Blog), there are arguments over

what blogs should be counted. Blog is also a verb, and might be a better way to

understand the phenomenon as it has changed. People are able to blog both on blog-
 41

specific sights like Google’s Blogger.com or Word Press. They can also create blog-like

content on Facebook using Notes feature or blog Facebook applications. Individuals can

also blog from their mobile phones, or micro-blog using Twitter, or a regular blog setup.

Blogs are regularly updated websites with commentary focused around a singular

topic, news, or personal diary entries. Blogs and bloggers are contained in a hierarchy of

blog communities. The blogosphere contains all blogs online, with individual blogs

connected through various networks of blog rolls and links. Blog search engines, such as

Technocrati, provide tools for navigating the blogosphere. Within the blogosphere,

bloggers have formed blog communities. Online blog communities provide a space for

individual bloggers to interact with each other. The Travel Blog Exchange (TBEX) is a

good example. Within TBEX, bloggers are free to create interests groups, such as

Backpacking or Long-Term Travelers, to further tighten the relationships between

bloggers with similar interests. Twitter addresses provide the means for individual

bloggers to promote their own blog and connect with other bloggers.

Social media has penetrated all aspects of daily life including: social relationships,

politics, business, news, travel and art. How individuals use social media varies greatly.

Some people actively create content, while others simply consume it. Some individuals

maintain deep personal relationships through multiple online channels, while others do

not. The use of social media by tourists and backpackers varies greatly as well.

Therefore, it is important to understand how social media is used by different people.

 42

Techno-Socialgraphics

As social media has become an important part of the daily lives of individuals, a

need has arisen to understand the social media behavior of individuals resulting in the

development of Techno-Socialgraphics by Forrester Research. While Forrester

Research’s main focus is on helping businesses target certain audiences through social

media, the typologies they have developed can be useful in understanding the

implications of social media for the tourism industry, and more relevant to this

dissertation, the travel experience of individuals.

Forrester Research has been a pioneer in helping businesses engage with social

media. The company recently released a report that profiled individuals by their social

media behavior, or Techno Socialgraphics. According to Bernoff, Fiorentino, Glass, and

Li (2007), “many companies approach social computing as a list of technologies to be

deployed as needed—a blog here, a podcast there—to achieve a marketing goal. But a

more coherent approach is to start with your target audience and determine what kind of

relationship you want to build with them, based on what they are ready for.” Bernoff et

al (2007) presented their social technographics hierarchy that included six profiles based

upon individuals’ social computing behaviors. The hierarchy included:

• Creators- individuals who publish web pages, blogs, YouTube videos

and other content.

• Critics- individuals who comment on content or post ratings and

reviews.

• Collectors- those who use RSS feeds and add ‘tags’ to websites.
 43

• Joiners- Individuals that maintain profiles and visit social networking

sites.

• Spectators- content consumers who read blogs, watch videos, listen to

podcasts, etc.

• Inactives- Individuals who do none of the above.

• Conversationalists- those that update their status on social networking

sites or post updates on Twitter---added recently (Bernoff, 2010).

Social technographics classify individuals’ participation in social media, allowing

businesses to strategize for focused marketing, branding, and relationship building with

consumers based upon their social technographic profiles. Similarly, socialgraphics were

also conceptualized using an ‘engagement pyramid’ that provides the insight for business

to develop a social strategy to engage with their customers. The Altimeter group (Li,

2010) recently held a webinar during which they argued that the only way for effective

relationships to be built with customers is for businesses to have a genuine understanding

and interaction with customers’ social media behavior. Altimeter’s Engagement Pyramid

(Li, 2010) provides a model for categorizing individuals based upon their online social

behavior. The pyramid had 5 levels of behavior described by Solis (2010):

• Curating-Individuals that are heavily involved in online communities

by moderating, contributing, and editing content. They contribute time

and energy to improve the structure for information content.

 44

• Producing- Individuals that create and publish original content in

order to expresses expertise, status, and to the overall knowledge pool

by sharing thoughts and making decisions.

• Commenting- Individuals that respond to content contributed by

Producers. While not contributing original content, they are actively

involved in the understanding and influence of the content.

• Sharing- Individuals who actively update their status on social

networking sites and who share and forward links, news, photos,

videos, etc.

• Watching- Individuals who consume the content in order to make

decisions, to be entertained, or to learn from peers.

The Engagement Pyramid has also been used to maps the specific online behavior unique

to the Twitterverse, “The Twitterverse advances micro interaction and connections

through an expanding network of applications, engendering the potential for macro reach

and resonance online and IRL (in real life)” (Solis, 2009). In Twitter individuals curate

(# hashtags), share/produce (tweet), share (re-tweet), comment (@reply), and watch (read

tweets).

Developing an understanding of backpackers’ online behavior is important. By

understanding the virtual behavior profiles of their target market, businesses connecting

with their target market with more precision. Additionally, developing an understanding

of the most active individuals in the online backpacking community, backpacker

businesses, as well as destinations, can be drastically increase the power and efficiency of
 45

their connections. Recent literature suggests that there are a relatively small number of

individuals who create content in online communities, whereas the majority of users

consume it as ‘lurkers’ (Courtois, Mechant, De Marez, & Verleye, 2009). For example,

figures have been presented that indicate that 2% of the users on Wikipedia have

contributed 60% of the articles and 6% of the users on YouTube upload 90% of the

videos (Bughin, 2007). The case can then be made that for backpackers a select few

tech-savvy individuals are active producers, consumers, and disseminators of the online

backpacker content. These individuals potentially have large amounts of influence

through their various networks, and can be seen as the ‘experts’ to whom many of the

non-producer backpackers turn to for information, insight, trends, and recommendations.

Earlier in this chapter the emergence of a tech-savvy and affluent sub-group of

backpackers was discussed. These flashpackers represent individuals who are very active

users of social media, however they likely are not all ‘curators’ or ‘creators.’ This creates

the need to understand the relationship between three groups of backpackers:

flashpackers who are the active producers and curators of online backpacker content,

flashpackers who a bit less active online, and non-flashpackers. Because of the

penetration of social media into all aspects of life, it is assumed that non-flashpackers still

use social media, but likely fall into the spectator, joiners, and/or critics groups of

Bernoff et al’s (2007) typology. In order to understand the relationship of these three

groups, this study uses a mixed-method approach that uses qualitative methods to gain a

deeper understanding of the use of social media for a small group of the curator-creator

flashpackers and a quantitative approach to examine the potential cultural divergence of

 46

the flashpackers and non-flashpackers. As discussed earlier in this chapter backpacking

culture has been a topic of several past studies, many of which employ ethnographic

methods. While an ethnographic method is useful for examining the small group of

curator-creator flashpackers, this study employs a quantitative method to examine the

potential cultural divergence of flashpackers and non-flashpackers. Specifically, it uses

Cultural Consensus Analysis which is briefly discussed in the following section.

Cultural Consensus Analysis

Recent studies discussed earlier in this chapter have taken the subjective

ethnographic approach to the study backpacker culture. Most of the ethnographic

backpacker studies conducted to date have been carried out by researchers who consider

themselves backpackers, and most have taken place in a specific destinations or regions.

These studies have successfully contributed to the expanding academic literature on

backpackers, cementing a common understanding of what backpacking is, as well as

what the cultural norms and markers are. In order to understand the potential divergence

of sub-cultures of backpacking, an ethnographic method is not appropriate. Instead this

study uses Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA) (Romney et al., 1986; Batchelder &

Romney, 1988) to examine backpacking culture, and the potential divergence of the

flashpacking sub-culture. By examining the cultural model of a sample of

backpackers, and then comparing the differences in the cultural models of two

subsamples divided by technology usage, this study will contribute to both the

understanding of backpacker culture and the effects of innovations in information and

communication technologies on the shared cultural model.

 47

This section examines cultural consensus analysis and how it can be used to

achieve some of the research objectives of this dissertation. Cultural consensus analysis

(CCA) was developed in the field of cognitive anthropology as a way of objectively

measuring and describing the amount and distribution of culture among a group of

individuals (Romney, et al., 1986). CCA is based on the propositions that individuals

with a common culture have shared cultural knowledge and that individual’s agreement

with the shared cultural knowledge varies according to each individual’s possession of

culturally correct knowledge (Romney, et al., 1986; Weller, 1987). Cultural consensus

analysis is based on a cognitive theory of culture, such as that championed by

Goodenough (1957):

A society’s culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in

order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members. Culture is not a

material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, behavior, or emotions.

It is rather an organization of these things. It is the form of things that

people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and otherwise

interpreting them. (p. 167)

Culture is often defined by cognitive anthropologists in terms of shared

knowledge (D’Andrade, 1981; Kroeber & Kluckholm, 1952; Romney et al. 1996; Weller,

1987; Caulkins, 2004; Chick, 1997). This conceptualization of culture as a shared and

learned information pool was described by D’Andrade (1981):

It is not just physical objects which are products of culture…behavior

environments, consisting of complex messages and signals, rights and

 48

duties, and roles and institutions, are culturally constituted reality which is

a product of our socially transmitted information pool…In saying that an

object—either a physical object like a desk, or a more abstract object like

a talk or a theorem—is a product of culture, I mean that the cultural pool

contains the information which defines what the object is, tells how to

construct the object, and prescribes how the object is to be used. Without

culture, we could not have or use such things. (p. 180)

CCA is able to “use the pattern of agreement or consensus among individuals to make

inferences about their differential knowledge of the shared information pool constituting

culture” (Romney et al., 1987: 165). When applied to a set of cultural norm statements or

questions about a specific cultural domain, such as backpacking, CCA can

simultaneously provide an estimate of knowledge or cultural competence of each

individual and an estimate of the culturally correct answer to each question (Romney et

al., 1996).

CCA also provides mathematically rigorous answers to two important questions:

1) what are the source models from which people acquire their knowledge? and 2) how

do people differ in the way they draw from such models? (Hruschka, Sibley, Kalim, &

Edmonds, 2008). This rigor is the result of three assumptions noted by Romney et al.

(1987) that form the ground rules for the operationalization of the Analysis: 1) that there

is a common truth between informants, that the informants are from shared culture, and

that the cultural reality is the same for all informants in the sample, 2) local

independence, and 3) each informant has a fixed cultural competence, and that each
 49

questions is the same difficulty level. When all three of these assumptions hold, the

resulting model provides culturally correct answer keys, as well as measurements of the

degree with which individuals approximate it (Hruschka et al, 2008).

CCA does not require the knowledge of culturally correct answers in advance

because of the robustness of the mathematical model that has been developed. As

Romney et al. (1996) noted:

…the consensus model provides a way to utilize much of the accumulated

knowledge of traditional psychometric test theory without knowing the

‘correct’ answers in advance. Whereas traditional test theory begins with

‘performance’ data (i.e. items coded as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’) consensus

theory begins with response data (items coded as given by the informants;

for example ‘true’ or ‘false,’ with no assumptions about whether the

informant is correct or incorrect.) The potential implications of this fact

for behavioral sciences may be important. It means that we are now in a

position to measure the knowledge of subjects where we do not know the

answers to the questions we ask and to do so with a degree of accuracy

comparable to that in traditional test theory.” (pp. 4701).

Cultural consensus theory (CCT) attempts to investigate culture with an

objectivity that complements ethnography. According to Handwerker and Borgatti

(1998), “Consensus analysis answers what may be the single most important question of

ethnography: Who agrees with whom about what and to what degree” (p. 569). While

ethnography is subjective, CCA provides an objective measure of culture. This

 50

objectivity is also the basis for the main limitation of CCA. CCA makes the assumption

that there is a fixed answer key and that individuals come form a common culture. This

has been perceived as a bounded conceptualization of culture, which Handwerker (2002)

finds to be unrealistic. Handwerker argues that individuals in reality participate in

multiple cultures all of which can affect their cultural competence. Caulkins and Hyatt

(1999), however disagree, suggesting that consensus analysis does not have to be limited

to a singular cultural test. Instead it can be expanded to “reveal contested meanings,

overlapping understandings, and value diversity” (Caulkins, 2001, p. 117). Caulkins and

Hyatt (1999) proposed a typology of agreement which allows for a refined understanding

of culture by examining non-consensus and non-cohesive domains. CCA can be useful

for examining the cultural models of sub-cultural groups to see if there are multiple

cultural models for a group. In this study, CCA is applied to 1) backpacker culture, 2)

flashpacker culture and non-flashpacker culture. In order to compare the cultural models

for flashpackers and non-flashpackers, the approach proposed by Hruschka et al (2008)

was applied.

Hruschka et al (2008) addressed questions that arise when there might not be a

singular cultural model. One approach suggested in their discussion was to specify a-

priori groupings and then use those to determine if the model for those groups represents

increased similarity. If there is greater similarity within the sub-groups than between

them, this could suggest that individuals in each group are drawing from distinct, but

potentially overlapping, cultural models. The strength of CCA has long been known
 51

within many sub-fields of anthropology, and has been applied to increasingly diverse

populations and knowledge domains.

Applications of CCA: CCA has been used in a variety of studies in the past. For

example, CCA has been applied to: the study of child abuse (Weller, Romney, & Orr,

1986), disease and Guatemalans (Romney et al., 1986), pollution and food safety

(Johnson and Griffith, 1996), boundaries of Celtic cultures (Caulkins, 2001), AIDS

(Weller & Baer, 2001), social networks (Klauer & Batchelder, 1996), knowledge of fish

(Boster & Johnson, 1989), university sororities (Iannucci & Romney, 1990), fisheries in

Hawaii (Miller et al., 2004), postpartum hemorrhage in Bangladesh (Hruschka et al.,

2008), environmental behavior in Mexico (Ross, 2002), and marine ecological

knowledge in Solomon Islands (Grant & Miller, 2004). CCA has also been applied in the

study of leisure. Li, Chick, Zinn, Absher, Graefe (2007) used the CCA to examine the

usefulness of ethnicity as a construct in leisure research by comparing the shared cultural

understanding of leisure for ethnicities. Students’ perceptions of leisure, leisure

professionals and the professional body of knowledge were examined by Parr and Lashua

(2005). However, only a couple recent examples of CCA applied in a tourism context

could be found. Gatewood and Cameron (2009) used CCA to examine the extent to

which respondents in the island country of the Turks and Caicos had a common cultural

understanding of tourism. They found that overall there was a weakly shared common

cultural understanding of tourism, as well as stronger cultural understanding of tourism

by sub-cultural groups. Ribeiro (2010) also mentions the use of CCA as part of an

ongoing study of university spring break tourists and destinations.

 52

Travel and tourism are important components of people's lives; as such CCA

should be a useful analytical tool for tourism researchers. The Turks and Caicos report is

an example of the use of consensus analysis to understand differing perspectives of the

importance of tourism development in the country. They found that there were differing

perspectives among individuals living on different islands, and included the CCA as part

of a larger report to be used by tourism policy makers. Understanding of residents’

attitudes toward tourism and community-based tourism development could benefit from

application of CCA. Another area of tourism research, which has started to receive a lot

of attention in the literature, is niche tourism. CCA could be used to understand the

cultural nuances of niche tourism beyond the traditional market segmentation approaches.

CCA could also be used to examine deviant forms of tourism, such as sex tourism. In

this dissertation CCA is applied to the understanding of the emerging flashpacker sub-

group and its relationship with the backpacking culture.

Conclusion

The study of backpacking tourism and culture has developed over the past four

decades. This chapter provided a review of literature on backpacking and current trends

of the convergence of technology and backpacking and the emergence of the flashpacker.

This chapter also developed a conceptual framework based upon the New Mobilities

Paradigm to be used to examine these current trends. The relationship between

backpacking and technology was also considered, with particular focus placed on the

virtualization of backpacking culture. Background of four types of social media

(Facebook, blog, Youtube, and Twitter) and techno-socialgraphics were also discussed to
 53

provide the necessary technical background for understanding these trends. Finally, this

chapter also explored the development and potential application of Cultural Consensus

Analysis to the study of backpacker culture and the emerging flashpacker sub-culture. In

the next chapter, the methods employed and their justifications are described in detail.
 54

Chapter 3

Research Methods

A mixed-methods approach was used in this dissertation to examine the

flashpacker phenomenon. First, a survey was used to collect data for quantitative

analysis. Cultural Consensus Analysis was applied to this data in order to examine the

differences between flashpackers and non-flashpackers, and is discussed first in this

section. A more penetrative examination of the flashpacker was then conducted through a

mobile-virtual ethnography and eInterviews. The qualitative methods are discussed in

the second half of this chapter.

Cultural consensus analysis seeks to answer one of the critical questions of

anthropology: how do we know what we know? CCA determines the level of agreement

on a shared pool of knowledge, and if agreement exists, to determine the correct

knowledge for that particular culture (Romney et al., 1986; Batchelder & Romney, 1988).

Survey Instrument. The questionnaire is included in Appendix A. First, it was designed

to gather respondents’ demographic information including age, gender, education,

employment status, nationality, and previous travel experience. Second, the questionnaire

employed a set cultural norm statements developed by the author based on an analysis of

the literature (Paris, 2008; Adkins & Grant, 2007; Mascheroni, 2007; Sorensen, 2003;

Richards & Wilson, 2003a; Hottola, 2005; Jarvis & Peel, 2010; Paris & Teye, 2010;

O’Reagan, 2009; O’Reilley, 2008; Prideaux & Coughlin, 2006; Scheyvens, 2002;

Spreitzhofer, 1998; Welk, 2004), previous research experience, personal experience

traveling as a backpacker by the author, and several informal interviews with

 55

backpackers during the past three years. Sixty dichotomous (Yes/No) cultural norms

statements about backpacking were used. The questions were worded so that there were

a balanced number of positive and negative questions on the same difficulty level.

The survey was administered using two different modes of data collection, which

are discussed in the following section in more detail. The survey was administered

through online communities and in Cairns, Australia, and careful thought was put into the

survey construction. During the creation of the online version of the survey, as much of

the original survey design was preserved as possible. All of the questions in each version

had the same question text, the same question order, and used a simple text format. The

surveys were designed using principles outlined by Dillman (2007) and Dillman, Tortora,

and Bowker (1998). Both surveys were also text based and self-administrated. The

unimode construction of the survey allows for respondents to respond to the survey from

a similar level of mental stimulation and can reduce measurement error (Dillman, 2007).

In addition, comparability of data can be enhanced through consistent design (de Leeuw,

2005). Prior to being administered, the online survey was pre-tested with a small group

of individuals through a Facebook backpacker group. Respondents were asked to provide

feedback on any errors or issues with the survey content and design. The backpacker

group was different than the backpacker groups where the final instrument was

administered. A second pre-testing occurred with a small group of 10 graduate and

undergraduate students at Arizona State University. Taking into account

recommendations from both pre-tests, particularly with respect to any compounding

issues, the survey instrument was revised before being administered.

 56

Data Collection

Targeting backpackers for survey research entails some unique issues and

considerations (Paris, 2008). Backpackers are very mobile, traveling between developed

backpacking centers or enclaves and more remote, off-the-beaten-path destinations.

Backpacking is also a global phenomenon contributing to the difficulty of obtaining a

representative sample. In the past, survey research has targeted backpackers in

backpacker enclaves. Sampling backpackers in enclaves, particularly hostels, has

provided a means of cross-sectional data collection, but with some limitations. The

sample of backpackers from one backpacking enclave in one location might differ from

that in another part of the globe resulting in coverage and sampling error (Dillman, 2007).

Some studies have applied online surveys as a remedy to this coverage issue. The

Backpacker Research Group (BRG) conducted a study that used an online survey

administered online, via e-mail, in partnership with the International Student Travel

Confederation (Richards & Wilson, 2003a). Their study did provide a large global

sample with individuals from numerous nationalities and overcame coverage and

sampling errors stemming from geographical constraints of administering surveys in

backpacker enclaves. Their study did have some limitations of its own as it was sent to

student travelers, which excludes older and non-student backpackers. Paris (2008)

administered an online survey through backpacker specific Facebook Groups and Lonely

Planet’s Thorn Tree Forums. The justification of using Facebook Groups was that self-

identified backpackers were able to be targeted without concern for their geographical

location. Additionally, Lonely Planet Forums allowed for older backpackers and
 57

backpackers from many nationalities, to be targeted, as older backpackers have been

found often to be more active in their participation in the online travel forums (Paris,

2010a). The use of Lonely Planet also had the disadvantages of being an open community

making the calculations of a response rate nearly impossible.

The optimal data collection method is one that provides the best method within

the constraints of the research that addresses that research question (de Leeuw, 2005).

Based on these previous backpacker studies, this study used a mixed-mode dual frame

sampling procedure combining:

1. self administered surveys through backpacker specific groups on Facebook.com,

2. self-administered surveys at backpacker hostels in Cairns, Australia, and

3. to a group of eight key informants.

Within the constraints of time and funding, the decision was made that this was the

optimal sampling approach as mixed-mode sampling can provide the opportunity to

balance the limitations of each individual mode (de Leeuw, 2005). The sampling

procedure provided a means of targeting this difficult-to-sample population (Lepkowski,

1991). Mixed-mode dual frame sampling approaches are typically used in international

research when a unimode approach is not feasible or optimal (de Leeuw, 2005).

Combining these two modes allowed for a diverse sample of backpackers that includes

individuals from many different nationalities, individuals at home or traveling and not in

a backpacker enclave, individuals that do not use Facebook or participate in online

groups, older backpackers, and individuals traveling for an extended period of time.

While the sampling coverage of all backpackers is nearly impossible because the global
 58

and mobile nature of backpacking, it is hoped that the conscious decisions made in the

sampling procedure helps to reduce the coverage error of previous studies and allow for

adequate inferences to be made about backpackers. The decision to use online surveys as

one of the modes of data collection was made after careful consideration of the

advantages and disadvantages of online surveys, both in general and in the particular case

of this research.

Online surveys have been used since the mid 1990s, and the advantages and

disadvantages are well documented. Online surveys are generally distributed through

either email, a webpage based survey, or a combination of the two (Van Selm &

Jankowski, 2006; Andrews, Nonnecke, & Preece, 2003). The current developments of

Web 2.0 technologies have not been addressed in previous literature on online surveys,

but should have a large impact on the development and complexity of online surveys.

Wright (2005) outlined several key advantages for online surveys including: access to

unique populations, access to individuals in distant locations, automated data collection,

ability to collect data while working on other tasks, and comparatively lower costs than

other surveying methods. Wright also discussed several disadvantages that exist, and

strategies to reduce them. The primary issue is the sampling, as it is often very difficult

to accurately estimate the size of an online population. One way to reduce this is to use an

email list to send an online survey link to. In this study online messages were sent to

individuals that were members of Facebook backpacker groups, which are closed online

communities. Combining an online survey link with a message can preserve respondents’

anonymity, which is lacking in regular email surveys (Tasci & Knutson, 2003).
 59

Another obstacle to online surveys is the access to the internet, which has been

seen as a major limiting factor in previous literature. However, the increased convergence

of internet, communication devices, and tourism has really reduced this limitation. In the

world today it is unlikely that people who have the means to travel for leisure do not have

the means to access the internet, even in the least developed parts of the world.

Traditional data collection methods such as mail and phone could become outdated, as

data collection techniques are changing to keep up with the changing lives of research

subjects (Tasci & Knutson, 2003). This, arguably, is even truer for the study of

backpackers, as the backpackers’ inherent mobility means that, in some cases,

backpackers’ only permanent/stationary addresses are their email addresses and/or social

media profiles (Paris, 2010a; Mascheroni, 2007). In the current study discussed in this

dissertation, only five individuals (<1%) (Table 8) responded that they do not log onto

the internet at home. Additionally, only sixteen individuals (3.3%) (Table 8) responded

that during their current or most recent trip they did not access the internet. Self-selection

bias and nonresponse error are major limitations of online surveys (Sills & Song, 2002),

as some individuals are more likely to participate in surveys than others (Wright, 2005).

Additionally, many internet users are desensitized to survey requests online resulting in a

propensity to ignore survey invitations. Self-selection bias is an issue in other survey

methods as well, such as mail-based surveys.

For this study, the survey was administered through ten backpacker-specific

groups on Facebook.com. Facebook was chosen because it is the largest social

networking site in the world, and provides the virtual infrastructure that allows groups of
 60

people with a common interest to interact socially. Facebook Groups allow individuals to

interact as a group through text, pictures, and video, providing a much more developed

level of interaction than found through traditional text based online interactions, such as

those that occur in most internet forums. Facebook Groups also allow for the researcher

to calculate a response rate because messages are sent to all members of the group. The

number of potential respondents is known, unlike conducting a survey through an online

forum or website.

In order to gain access to the backpacker groups, the researcher made contact

through Facebook with the group administrator and explained the purpose of the study,

and the potential benefits of the study to the community. A similar strategy for gaining

access to online communities was discussed by Wright (2005). It was important to gain

full administrator access to the groups in order to be able to send direct messages to all

group members. A link to the ‘backpacker survey’ and a short message explaining the

purpose was both posted on the discussion boards of ten backpacker-specific groups on

Facebook.com of which members voluntarily joined. The message was tactful and

offered to share results of the study with the community when they were available. The

message also included an advanced apology for any inconvenience caused by the

message or survey. Two follow-up/reminder messages were sent after one week and two

weeks. These messages thanked those who had completed the survey already and

provided a friendly reminder for those who had not. A final message was also sent after 1

month to thank everyone for their participation. It was hoped that these steps would help

to reduce the self-selection bias by creating a more personable relationship with potential
 61

respondents, however there is no way to calculate if self-selection bias was indeed

reduced.

Random sampling is nearly impossible to do online, however sampling frames

can be obtained through closed internet communities such as listservs, Usenet

newsgroups, multi-user games (Kaye & Johnson, 1999), and in the case of this study

Facebook Groups. Self-selection sampling design was used, with a predetermined

sampling frame that included the members of the ten backpacker groups on

Facebook.com. While the results, arguably, cannot be directly generalized to the whole

population of backpackers, the results should provide strong indicators of the backpacker

phenomenon, and will be complemented with destination-based data in order to expand

the sampling frame and reduce converge error.

In Cairns, Australia, surveys were administered at 15 pre-selected backpacker

hostels in June 2009. The specific locations to administer the survey were selected after

considering past backpacker surveys administered in Cairns (Prideaux & Coghlan, 2006;

Prideaux, Falco-Mammone & Thompson, 2006). Cairns, Australia was selected as a data

collection location because the advanced level of development as a backpacking industry.

Cairns is a gateway to both the wet tropics of North Queensland, to the Great Barrier

Reef, the Australian Outback and a backpacker trail stretches from Melbourne and

Sydney, up the Gold Coast to Northern Queensland. Cairns can also be considered a well

developed backpacker enclave, as it has a dense collection of backpacker hostels in the

downtown area providing access to a large number of potential respondents. Because of

 62

the transient nature of backpackers, conducting survey research outside of well developed

backpacker enclaves can be difficult.

Using a purposive sampling method, respondents were approached in Cairns in

common areas of each hostel. When respondents were approached, and asked if they

could take a few minutes to complete the ‘backpacker survey’, thereby allowing them to

object to being associated with backpacking. Local residents were not allowed to

complete the survey. Collecting data at both backpacker destinations and in online

communities reduces limitations that have been associated with both methods of data

collection in the past. Additionally, the survey was administered online to the eight

individuals who were subjects of the qualitative part of this study. Out of these eight

individuals, six were able to complete the survey. Each of these individuals is strongly

associated with the backpacking culture, having traveled extensively. They are also all

very active in shaping the online backpacker culture. The decision to combine these

eight individuals with the whole sample for the consensus analysis was made because of

their definitive involvement in the backpacking culture and virtual spaces. These eight

can provide a baseline for examining backpacking culture and the emergence of

flashpackers, as well as provide a link between the quantitative and qualitative analysis of

this study.

The data collection resulted in a total of 519 surveys, of which 493 were usable.

Out of the 275 surveys distributed in Cairns, Australia, 230 were completed for a

response rate of about 83.6%. The online survey was distributed through a message via

ten Facebook backpacker groups. The survey link was sent to a total of 1453 individuals,
 63

of which 283 were completed for a response rate of 19.5%. Response rates for email

surveys are commonly under 20% (Witmer, Colman, & Katzman, 1999; Deutskens,

Reyter, Wetzels, & Oosterveld, 2004; Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003). The between-

mode differences in response rate could have several explanations. First, individuals

surveyed in hostels were traveling. Many backpackers value leisure, relaxation, and often

have a much more leisurely pace to their daily lives than they would back home (Paris, in

press; Paris & Teye, 2010). Additionally, the survey was administered mid-morning,

when many of the respondents were having breakfast. Many of the individuals who

responded to the online survey were not currently traveling and were living their normal

daily lives. Similar to the reasoning of Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant (2003), the low

response rate for the online survey could be due to the increasingly fast-paced culture and

the growing time demands on each individual’s attention in their daily lives. Another

explanation for the lower response rate for the Facebook survey could be that some

people just did not check their Facebook inbox during the data collection period. Little is

known about how regular individuals check their Facebook inboxes, so many individuals

might not received the messages in time to respond to the survey. Another reason for

low response rate could be that it is easier to refuse an online survey than other surveys

administered by phone, mail or face-to-face as individuals don’t have to deal with a

psychological factor of social approval or guilt that they are wasting something that is

valuable (stamped return envelope) (Mavis & Brocato, 1998).

While response rates are consistently lower for online surveys, several studies

have found that the quality of responses were better for online surveys than other modes.
 64

Schaefer & Dillman (1998) found that the responses to an email survey included more

complete questionnaires, and lower item non-response than a paper version. Even

answers to open-ended questions have been found to be longer (Bachman, Elfrink, &

Vazzana, 1996), suggesting that the freedom for an individual to respond on their own

time can contribute to the completeness of a questionnaire. Representativeness in survey

research is more important than response rate (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). While,

response rate is a usual measure of representativeness, even studies with a high response

rate can have large amount of non-response bias (Sills & Song, 2002).

It is therefore important to try to understand any non-response bias that might be

present in each mode, and the implications of that bias for this study. It is very difficult

to measure non-response bias; however, demographic data can provide some insights into

the differences in who responded to each survey. In this study, the biggest difference

between each mode of administration was gender. Fifty-six percent of the respondents to

the online survey were men, while fifty-six percent of the respondents to the hostel-based

survey were women. Women have made up a larger percentage of the respondents in the

majority of the recent studies on backpackers (Paris, 2008) indicating that either more

women travel as backpackers, or that women are more likely to be open and complete

paper based surveys in hostels. Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant (2003) found that when given

the choice, men were more likely to choose an online survey, and women were more

likely to choose a paper based survey. Similar studies have found that men are more

likely to respond to online surveys than women (Palmquist & Stueve, 1996; Kehoe &

Pitkow, 1996; Smith & Leigh, 1997). Another difference in the two groups was age; the
 65

average age of the online respondents was almost 27, which were over 3 years older than

the average hostel respondent. Many older backpackers have constraints to traveling for

extended periods of time as they once did, such as jobs and families, but many do still

actively participate in the backpacking culture through online communities (Paris,

2010a). Additionally many older backpackers are more affluent, and can afford to stay in

more expensive accommodations, even though they still enjoy similar experiences as

their younger counterparts (Paris, 2008). The third large difference was the nationality of

respondents. Respondents of the online survey represented 21 additional nationalities

than the hostel based survey. The hostel based survey in Australia had large percentages

of respondents from United Kingdom, Australia, Western Europe, and New Zealand. The

online survey had a larger percentage or respondents from United States of America,

Canada, Scandinavia, South East Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

The dramatic differences of the gender, age, and nationality of respondents to the

two modes of administration point to potential non-response bias and converge error in

previous studies on backpackers that have focused administering surveys using a single

mode. Much of the literature on multi-mode approaches, non-response error, and online

surveys would view these differences as limitations to the study. This would be

particularly true if each of these samples in this study were meant to be representative

and make inferences about the general population on their own. Additionally these

differences would be major limitations, particularly in the analysis of the data if the study

was focused on comparing the two samples. For this study, however, these demographic
 66

differences between the two survey modes should be viewed as strengths, since the data

from the two modes could be complimentary.

One of the objectives of this dissertation is to examine the backpacker culture

using cultural consensus analysis. By using a mix-mode survey approach, this study is

able to expand the coverage to people that might have not been targeted through a

singular approach. In this unique case, the dual frame mixed-mode approach has more

advantages than limitations. Based on previous literature on backpacking and

methodology, in this particular case combining the data from each survey provided a

stronger sample from which to make inferences regarding the overall backpacker culture

using Cultural Consensus Analysis. The next section describes in more detail the data

analysis procedures used.

Data Analysis. The data analysis for this study included several parts. First, descriptive

analyses, using SPSS 16.0, were used to provide background information on the sample.

Then UCINET version 6.232 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) was used to conduct

the Cultural Consensus Analysis. The CCA included three procedures. First, a factor

analysis was performed to extract the level of agreement of the data. Romney et al.

(1986) referred to this as minimal residual factor analysis. The software automatically

rotates the data matrix so that the factor analysis is conducted on individuals, not on the

items. A single cultural model is indicated by a single dominant factor. Second, a

knowledge score is produced for each respondent, which shows the level of a cultural

knowledge for the individual. The score is essentially a the individual’s correlation with

the first factor, and the scores typically range from 0 to 1.0, with a score of .5 indicating
 67

that the individual provided the culturally correct answer 50% of the time (Caulkins,

1998). The third procedure calculates the culturally correct answer for each question.

The UCINET software produces the ‘answer keys’ by accumulating the agreements

between responses. The agreements are derived on the assumption that agreement

between individuals, based on Bayesian weightings, is a function of the level of

culturally-correct knowledge each individual has (Shim, 2004).

Thirdly, a Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) Linear Regression Model was

fit to a set of matrices to measure the similarity within and compare similarity between

two a-priori segments. The sample of this study was broken into two a priori groups: non-

flashpackers and flashpackers. The flashpacker group selection criterion was based upon

recent literature (Hannam & Diekmann, 2010; Jarvis & Peel, 2010; Paris, 2010a) and

included individuals that did at least two of the following: brought a laptop or video

camera on their trip, had a budget of at least $1000 a week on their most recent trip, and

indicated a score greater than 3 (on a 1-5 Likert, with 1- never, 3-often and 5- always) on

questions about their social media usage while traveling. These include blogging,

twittering, and uploading videos to YouTube while traveling. Overall there were 102

individuals who fit the criterion and were separated into the flashpacker group, including

all six of the ‘expert’ individuals. The non-flashpacker group was composed of the rest of

the 391 individuals. The decision to separate the sample into these individual groups was

based upon the growing literature and industry focus on the emergence of flashpackers

discussed previously in review of literature and the introductory chapter.

 68

The QAP analysis in this study followed the procedure recommended by

Hruschka, Sibley, Kalim, and Edmonds (2008) and Romney, Moore, Batchelder, and

Hsia (2000), includes two steps. The first step was to prepare the data matrices, and the

second step was to fit a QAP linear regression model to those matrices. For the first step,

the preparation of the matrices was conducted using MATLAB for Windows (2007).

First a person-by-person (493x493) agreement matrix was calculated. Each cell included

the raw proportion of the 60 items upon which the two individuals agreed. Next, two

additional person-by-person matrices (493x493) were constructed, one for backpackers

and one for flashpackers. In the backpacker matrix, 1s were added where there were two

backpackers, and 0s were added everywhere else. The same was done for the flashpacker

matrix: there were 1s where there were two flashpackers, and 0s where there were not.

These were calculated by creating two vector matrices with one column and 493 rows. In

each of these matrices, there were 1s placed for individuals in that particular group. For

the flashpacker vector, 1s were inputted for individuals that were in that group (102) and

the rest were 0s. The same was done for a backpacker vector. Each of these vectors was

then multiplied by its transpose, resulting in two of 493x493. A fourth matrix was also

constructed to control for response similarity due to individual competence. This matrix

resulted from the product of the vector made up of the individual competency scores from

the Cultural Consensus Model, multiplied by its transpose.

The second step was to fit a QAP linear regression model to the matrices. In this

model, the agreement matrix was set as the dependent variable, and the two identities
 69

(flashpacker and backpacker) and the CCM matrices as the independent variables. The

data analysis was conducted using UCINET 6.232, MatLab, and SPSS 16.0.

The quantitative analysis of this dissertation was aimed at examining the

flashpackers from a more general perspective. The use of CCA provided a means for

understanding aggregate differences/similarities between flashpackers and non-

flashpackers, and complemented previous ethnographic backpacker studies. The second

part of this dissertation applies qualitative methods focused on a deeper exploration of the

relationship between flashpackers and technology. A mobile-virtual ethnography was

developed and combined with a set of eInterviews of a sample of eight flashpackers. The

following section provides background on the development and application of the

mobile-virtual ethnography and eInterviews.

Ethnographic Methods

Ethnography is an appropriate and often used method for understanding

backpackers. Ethnography can also be adapted for the study of the virtualization of

backpacker culture and backpacker mobilities. Central to ethnography is for the

researcher to be in the presence of the people being studied (Miller, 1997). Ethnographic

research has evolved since its early colonial origins, especially when taking into account

the emergence of globalization, technological innovations, and a ‘more networked’ daily

life of individuals today. Today, ethnographic methods have become more multi-faceted

and multi-sited. The ethnographic methods employed in this study are mindful of the

mobilities paradigm, and thus differ from the classical understandings of ethnographic

research. Ethnographic research is often place-based, in which a researcher goes ‘into the
 70

field.’ As Clifford (1997) notes: “In the disciplinary idealization of the “field” spatial

practices of moving to and from, in and out, passing through have, tended to be subsumed

by those of dwelling” (p. 67).

There seems to be a level of invisibility in many sociological methods handbooks

for digital ethnography (Murthy, 2008). Bailey’s (2007) definition of field research as

“the systematic study, primarily through long-term, face-to-face interactions and

observations, of everyday life” (p. 2) is reflective of this lack of focus on digital

ethnography in methods books. This definition is also representative of a delimited

perspective that does not take into account the increasingly technologically mediated

lives of people around the world. Murthy (2008) concludes that new media and digital

‘old’ media provide valuable resources and methods for social scientists.

While ethnography is now going digital, it is still about telling social stories

(Murthy, 2008). Digital cameras allow for images of ethnographic sites to be taken,

which allows for recording of interviews and research sites, webcams and

videoconferencing, and a new set of tools for the social stories to be told. Murthy (2008)

suggests that researchers in the social sciences, particularly in sociology and

anthropology, have side-stepped the development of digital methods, and that this side-

stepping must not continue in the future. Because of the fluidity of the spaces that are the

spatial and environmental context of this current research, a stationary ethnographic

approach would be limiting . Traditional ethnographic research is generally localized and

a-mobile (Larsen, 2008). Humans and technologies are increasingly mobile, and therefore

it is vital that ethnographic approaches engage with mobilities that connect the ‘fields’ or
 71

localized spaces of interest across distances. With reference to the backpacker mobilities

framework presented in Figure 1, this study incorporates an ethnographic approach to

examine the varied mobilities of backpacking. These mobilities are similar to the ones

outlined by Larsen (2008) that include:

• physical travel of people

• physical movement of technologies and objects

• digital movement of images, text, and videos

• Imaginative travel of people through memories, stories, images, etc.

• Communicative travel of people via social media, text message, phones,

email, etc.

Recent studies employing virtual ethnography or cyberethnograpy have moved

away from the bounded/exotic elsewhere of traditional ethnographic studies in an effort

to study populations that are not easily ‘located’ and that only have moments of ‘common

fixedness’ virtually through spaces like online communities (Fay, 2007). Virtual

ethnography has emerged recently as the need for methods to understand the

significances, implications, and meanings associated with developments in computer-

mediated communications. Technological developments leave the Internet and other

communication technologies in a constant state of flux that challenges researchers to

adapt to new research methods (Toulouse, 1998). Research is moving from research

about the Internet to Internet research (Mann & Stewert, 2000) capturing the complex

interface between technology and society (Sassen, 2002). The Internet has certainly

become an integral part of daily life, resulting in unique social dynamics associated with
 72

it. Meanings, contextual specifics, and shared values of virtual moorings and interactions

can now be analyzed. Hine (2000) provides an early and comprehensive study of

cybernetography, concerned with not only individuals’ use of the Internet, but also how

individuals’ usage creates meaning within specific contexts. As Hine (2000, p. 34)

stated, "virtual ethnography aspires to give a distinctive understanding of the significance

and implications of the Internet.”

Virtual ethnographic methods have come under some scrutiny in the literature.

Some commentaries l point to a skeptical view that questions the level of rigor employed,

often citing style over substance. Murthy (2008) argues that this skepticism is similar to

scrutiny that photography received in the 1970s, as Becker (1974) considered

anthropologists’ pictures to be no more then vacation photos similar to those taken by

non-anthropologist tourists. Murthy also suggests that some of the researchers who had

previously embraced photography as a new tool in the 1970s are today the same skeptics

of the new virtual methods. This current study adapts the virtual ethnographic method to

be better equipped to understand the complexities arising from Web 2.0.

Travel photography and videography are also significant elements in backpacker

tourism and have been examined in travel ethnographic studies. They are representative

of performed social relations where often ordinary landscapes are converted into

‘dramaturgical landscapes’ (Haldrup & Larsen, 2003; Larsen, 2005). Digitized tourist

photography can take on many different forms, depending on how they are framed, made

meaningful, performed and presented in certain situations (Larsen, 2008). Digital tourist

photography and videography can be a useful medium for examining hybridized

 73

performances, as the performance in taking photographs often includes a chorography.

Digital cameras allow photos to be seen instantly and often use memory cards with the

ability to hold thousands of photos, allowing for flexibility of what is captured. Digital

media allow travelers to have more control over how they and their travels are presented.

Digital cameras dematerialize photographs into images, which are easily saved, deleted,

and edited (Larsen, 2008). Social media and Web 2.0 technologies provide the

infrastructure for individuals, including tourists to share their images, videos, and other

digital media.

Non-digital photography is directed towards a future audience (Larsen, 2008).

More recent developments, including 3G phones with cameras and wi-fi enabled digital

cameras have allowed tourist photos to be shared instantly across physical distances. As

an individual experiences something, a tourist can instantly take a photo of it, and share it

via email, MMS, or a social networking site (Facebook). Instant digital photography is

typical of the ‘now society’ where gratification and pleasure are expected to be instant

(Bauman, 1998). Instead of travel photographs and postcards depicting ‘I was here’, live

photography can be shared with family, friends, and strangers while individuals are at a

destination (Bell & Lyall, 2005). Digital media is the content that is shared across

networks. Digital media is mobile and immobile as it flows between and merges virtual

moorings online. While ethnographic studies have focused on the content of the digital

media, the mobility of digital media, amplified by Web 2.0 and social media

technologies, has not received scholarly attention. This research will incorporate social

media technology and its utilization by backpackers.

 74

Social media websites have been described as “places where people carve out

moments of connection and sociality within Mobility” (Molz, 2004, p. 179.) Molz (2006)

suggests that blogs are the only stable address for long-term or round the world travelers.

Blogs and other social media allow for individuals to communicate both their experiences

and well-being to friends and family (Laresen, 2008). Additionally, friends and family

back home can maintain real-time surveillance on individuals that were away. Thus,

social media, digital photography, 3G phones, etc, all illustrate the current ‘time-space’

compression as individuals increasingly are able to produce and consume friends and

family members’ travel experiences instantly and across geographical distances.

Similarly, virtual distances have undergone similar ‘time-space’ compression, as social

media sites are connected and integrated.

Ethical Considerations. There are several ethical considerations that must be

understood when employing virtual ethnographic methods. Murthy’s (2008) review of

digital ethnographic studies revealed that there were a disproportionate number of covert

studies. Much of the early digital work was focused around topics of sex and deviance,

which were conducted through covert participant observation, similar to antecedent

physical ethnographic studies pioneered by the Chicago school that focused on sex and

deviant behavior (Cressey, 1932). While the presence of ethnographers in a virtual

setting can be invisible, the researcher must realize that the virtual space is a fieldwork

setting, and, as such, data collection and analysis is biased by the same personal agendas,

histories, and social norms of the researcher (Dicks, Soyinka, Coffey, 2006). Covert

ethnographic data collection in virtual spaces often requires the researcher to be a

 75

‘lurker.’ Lurking represents digital ethnography’s “uniquely unobtrusive nature…the

source of much of its attractiveness and contentiousness” (Konzinets, 2002, p. 65).

While some researchers have provided ethical guidelines suggesting that researchers be

overt, rather than taking on a role as a lurker. Schrum (1995) suggests that researchers

have obligation to the electronic communities they are researching. Murthy (2008) for

example, argues that this understanding, that is 15 years old, is not as relevant today, as it

is more suited for research on listservs rather than social media.

While there are several divergent views of covert digital data collection (Sharf,

1999; Schrum, 1995; Bruckman, 2002), it is important that the researcher question the

potential harms or conflicts with online groups and the benefits to the group being studied

(Sharf, 1999). It is also important to note that researchers retain their socio-cultural gazes,

even during covert digital studies of population that they would not have access to in a

physical setting because of their gender, race, age, etc. It is important that researchers

understand their bias created by their particular gaze, and to be sure that they are not just

‘recording the exotic’ or marginalizing populations through the data that they collect. The

potential for dramatically increased dissemination of the observed material is amplified

for digital ethnographical research, which can amplify the impacts of the research

materials. (Murthy, 2008)

In this study, an overt ‘lurking’ approach is used. Each of the eight individuals

was interviewed, were specifically asked for their consent to visit and analyze their social

media sites.. All of the individuals consented. The social media sites were visited, and

participated in as a lurker. Taking on the role of the lurker was an active role in social
 76

media consumption. According to Bernoff et al’s (2007) hierarchy of social

technographic behavior, ‘spectators’ make up a large percentage of the overall online

behavior. Spectators, while not contributing to content, are the major consumers of the

social media. Taking on this role of a spectator, allowed for an overt participation without

disturbing the actual space being observed. Several of the respondents wanted to publish

the electronic interviews they participated in on their backpacking blogs. This can be

problematic, as it dramatically hampers the ability to preserve the anonymity of the

respondents. In this study, each of the individuals names were changed and no specific

content of the respondents is cited. These measures were put in place in order to preserve

the anonymity of the individuals. If any of this information was included, a simple

Google search would result in the identity of the participants.

Mobile-Virtual Method

The method for this study is also informed by the mobilities paradigm. The

purpose is to understand the virtual mobilities and moorings of the backpacker culture.

Therefore employing a virtual ethnographic method would allow for just the

understanding of the virtual moorings. In order to understand the virtual mobilities and

moorings of backpackers’, a mobile ethnographic method must be married into the virtual

method. A multi-sited (Marcus, 1995) or mobile ethnography (Sheller & Urry, 2006)

involves participating in patterns of movement while conducting ethnographic research.

There has been a call for mobile ethnographic research in tourism, as tourism is a mobile

phenomenon, which involves following tourists’ movement, instead of just observing

them at a stationary site. Similarly, to understand fully the virtual moorings and
 77

mobilities of backpacking, a mobile ethnography of the content, communications, and

networks must be employed that follows the digital ‘objects’ through the virtual spaces.

For this study, a mobile-virtual ethnography is employed to understand the uses,

meanings, and implications within the context of the online backpacker culture. A

hybridity through the virtual, physical, and cultural spaces of backpacking has arisen

through the use of information and communication technologies. Four types of online

technologies were the basis for a mobile-virtual ethnographic study, including Youtube

videos, personal backpacker blogs, Facebook pages and/or profiles, and Twitter. Using a

mobile ethnographic approach, eight backpackers were ‘followed’ as they traversed their

multiple virtual moorings. The connections between their virtual spaces were examined

in order to gain a stronger grasp of the four different types of social media. The

advancement of Web 2.0 technologies has created a much more ‘real’ virtual

environment. Digital media, including videos, pictures, tweets, news stories, and podcasts

have allowed individuals to interact in virtual environments with a much greater level of

intensity than during previous text-based Internet communications. As such, virtual

ethnographic methods need to be better equipped to extract meaning from virtual

interactions in the current virtual landscape.

Sampling and data collection. The interactivity that is inherently part of Web 2.0

and in particular, social networking sites, provides an interesting opportunity for

ethnographers. Murthy (2008) suggested several ways that social networking sites, like

Facebook, can be useful to ethnographers. Because social networking sites are essentially

chains of potential respondents, they have large amounts of multimedia material that
 78

allow ethnographers the ability to invisibly observe social interactions (something

previously unavailable to researchers). This also provides researchers with the ability to

create specific pages for data collection and dissemination of information. Conducting an

ethnography research on the Internet often involves ‘learning’ how to live in cyberspace

and to account these events over time (Carter, 2005). According to Agar, to identify

patterns of behavior, the patterns must be learned gradually over a period of prolonged

direct contact (Agar, 1996). This study therefore employs a mobile-virtual ethnography

based upon participant observation in the backpacker virtual culture. These observations

are supplemented by interview data and previous survey data.

Key informant e-interviews were conducted with flashpackers with and

established virtual presence. An initial contact, who was an active backpacker and

maintains a travel blog, YouTube account, Twitter account, Facebook account, as well as

several other social media outlets, was contacted and asked to review the questionnaire

and recommend any adjustments. Several grammatical adjustments were made, two

questions were added, and one was deleted based on the recommendation of the first

informant.

Potential individuals were contacted using a snowball sampling procedure. The

initial key informant was asked to recommend other backpackers who were tech savvy

and actively contribute to the production of online content. Five additional individuals

were contacted and asked to participate and recommend other potential participants, who

then recommended a total of 10 other individuals. All fifteen individuals were screened,

with only individuals who actively maintained a minimum of three of the following were
 79

invited to participate: a blog, Facebook profile, Twitter and YouTube account. Eleven

individuals met this requirement and were then sent an email explaining the study

(including the observation of their social media accounts) and were asked to fill out the

short questionnaire that included 15 open-ended questions. The finalized questionnaire

that was sent to these 11 individuals is included in Appendix C. Eight of the eleven

individuals agreed to participate. These eight individuals were then asked to complete

the survey described earlier in this chapter. Of these eight, six were able to complete the

survey. The other two, who were currently traveling, were not able to.

This study used a mobile-virtual ethnography to examine the differences in uses

and meanings, and the integration of individual backpackers’ social media outlets. All of

the individuals maintained a Twitter account and a Blog. The participants’ Twitter

accounts were used as the starting point for the ethnography. The 60 most recent tweets

were examined. First, the text of the Tweet was examined to see if it was a ‘status

update’, a tip, a news article, or a link to a blog post, YouTube Video, Flikr picture, etc.

Once this was established, Tweet communication tools were counted. Each individual’s

level of interaction with other Twitter users was determined by his/her use of RT, @, and

#. Individual’s use the RT (re-tweets) was used to forward on someone else’s Tweet to

their own followers. The @ symbol is used to respond directly to another individuals

tweet, with the response visible to all of that person’s followers. The hash-tag symbol, #,

is used to categorize the tweet and link it to some other general topic, group, and/or

geographical location. Global tweets for each hash-tag can be viewed by any individuals.

Finally, the method that the individual used to post a tweet was examined. This could
 80

occur through a variety of methods including directly through Twitter using a web

browser or a mobile phone application, through a integration site (that would update an

individuals multiple social media profiles from one centralized platform), through a

Facebook application that would simultaneously update an individual’s Twitter through

his/her Facebook status update function.

Each link was then followed, and destinations documented and further examined

using a similar method. Destinations from links to Facebook, YouTube, and Blogs were

documented. Next, each individual’s blog was examined for linkages to and integration

with other types of social media websites, the source of the content. The linkages were

then followed to the Facebook and YouTube (if they existed). Any linkages from

Facebook and Youtube to Twitter or the Blog were also followed and documented.

Notes from the observations for each individual were then used as a basis for constructing

maps of each person’s online social movements and integration of their social media.

Conclusion

The mixed-methods approach of this dissertation research allows for both a broad

examination of the emerging flashpacker sub-culture with relation to the backpacking

culture as a whole and an in-depth analysis of the meanings and uses of social media for a

small group of flashpackers and the virtual spaces of backpacking which they contribute

and flow through. The following chapters present the results of the study. Chapter 4

presents the results of the cultural consensus analysis, and chapter 5 presents the results

of the qualitative part of the study. The results of each are then discussed in chapter 6.
 81

Chapter 4

Results of Cultural Consensus Analysis

This chapter is the first of two results chapters. In this first chapter, the results of a

cultural consensus analysis are presented. The data for this chapter comes from the

survey administered through Facebook backpacker groups and in Cairns, Australia. This

chapter first presents the profile of the respondents, then the results of the cultural

consensus analysis and quadratic assignment procedure linear regression. Implications of

the results of this chapter and the following chapter, which presents the results of the

qualitative study of the eight flashpackers and their technology, are discussed in Chapter

6.

Profile of Respondents

Table 1 presents the profile of respondents (n=493). There were slightly more

female respondents than male respondents. The majority of the respondents were 30

years old or younger (87.8%). The sample was generally well educated with over 80%

indicating at least some college/university-level education, with nearly 30% of the

respondents indicating that they are currently students.

 82

Table 1

Respondents’ Demographics

Attribute Number Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 235 47.7

Female 254 51.5

Total 489 99.2

Age (years)

18-20 61 12.4

21-24 187 37.9

25-30 185 37.5

31-35 29 5.9

>36 27 5.5

Total 489 99.2

Education

High School (up to year 12) 96 19.5

College (4 year) 288 58.4

Graduate School (advanced degree) 96 19.5

Total 480 97.4

Employment

Student 146 29.6

 83

Employed (Part-Time) 55 11.2

Employed (Full-Time) 216 43.8

Unemployed 70 14.2

Total 487 98.8

The sample surveyed included individuals of 41 different nationalities (Table 2).

While the majority of these were from North America, Western Europe, and

Australia/New Zealand, there were quite a few from unusual source countries. For

example, 13 respondents were from Indonesia (ranked 8th as a source country).

Additionally, there were a large number of respondents of other Asian, Eastern European,

Middle Eastern, and Latin American nationalities.

Table 2

Nationality of Respondents

Country of Origin Number Percentage (%)

USA 108 21.9

UK 89 18.1

Canadian 57 11.6

Australian 38 7.7

Germany 28 5.7

Ireland 17 3.4

The Netherlands 14 2.8

 84

Indonesia 13 2.6

New Zealand 11 2.2

France 10 2.0

Israel 10 2.0

South Africa 8 1.6

Switzerland 7 1.4

Denmark 7 1.4

Sweden 7 1.4

Norway 7 1.4

Brazil 7 1.4

Belgium 6 1.2

Italy 6 1.2

Spain 5 1.0

Singapore 4 0.8

South Korea 3 0.6

Thailand 3 0.6

Finland 3 0.6

Argentina 3 0.6

Philippines 2 0.4

Malaysia 2 0.4

Mexico 2 0.4
 85

Greece 2 0.4

Portugal 2 0.4

Russia 1 0.2

Estonia 1 0.2

Romania 1 0.2

Guatemala 1 0.2

Qatar 1 0.2

Lithuania 1 0.2

Taiwan 1 0.2

Iran 1 0.2

Slovakia 1 0.2

Austria 1 0.2

United Arab Emirates 1 0.2

Total 492 99.8

The previous travel experience of respondents varied (Table 3). While nearly 30% of the

sample had traveled to 8 or fewer countries, over 20% had traveled to 21 or more.

Slightly more then 50% of the sample had been on 4 to 10 international trips, and 17%

had traveled on more then 16 international trips.

 86

Table 3

International travel experience

Number Percentage (%)

Number of Countries Visited

1-4 49 9.9

5-8 92 18.7

9-12 87 17.6

13-16 78 18.8

17-20 66 13.4

21-24 20 4.1

25-30 47 9.5

>30 48 9.7

Total 467 94.7

Number of International Trips

0 5 1.0

1-3 94 19.1

4-6 143 29.0

7-10 106 21.5

11-13 29 5.9

14-16 28 5.7

>16 84 17.0
 87

Total 489 99.2

Average Length of Previous Trips (weeks)

0-2 72 4.6

2-6 200 40.6

6-11 81 16.4

12-24 82 16.6

25-52 51 10.3

Total 486 98.6

Table 4

Technology brought while traveling.

Number Percentage (%)

Digital camera 452 91.7

Laptop 130 26.4

Video camera 55 11.2

Cell Phone w/ international capability 210 42.6

Cell phone w/ no international capability 113 22.9

IPod or Mp3 339 68.8

CD player 12 2.4

Wi-Fi PDA or Cell Phone 56 11.4

Personal GPS 12 2.4

Note: More than one could be selected. Total is more than 100%.
 88

The sample included some very technologically-savvy individuals. While over

90% of people brought digital cameras with them, the interesting number was over 26%

of the sample that brought a laptop with them (Table 4). This shows a steady increase

over two previous similar, but unrelated studies on backpackers. A survey conducted by

Paris (2008) in 2007 through Facebook groups indicated that 9.5% of the sample carried

a laptop, and a survey conducted by Paris (2010a) in 2008 through Facebook groups and

hostel based surveys in Cairns, Australia indicted 20.5% of the population carried a

laptop. Respondents were also asked if they normally maintained a blog, YouTube

account, or a Twitter account. Table 5 indicates that while these technologies receive a

large amount of recent attention, and are the focus this dissertation, a minority of the

backpacker population uses them to create and share content. More detailed questions

also asked about their use of social media while traveling and how often then accessed

the internet (Tables 6-8).

Table 5

Social media used by Respondents.

Number Percentage (%)

Have Personal Blog 96 19.6

Have a YouTube account 160 32.7

Use Twitter 60 12.3

Note: More than one could be selected. Total is more than 100%.
 89

Table 6

Most Active Use of Social Media and Email While Traveling

Mean Std. Dev.

How often do you use Facebook when 3.74 1.09

traveling?

How often do you check your email 3.29 0.99

while traveling?

How often do you email friends and 2.89 0.95

family while traveling?

How often do you add people you met 2.64 1.00

on your trip to Facebook?

How often do you use Facebook to 2.30 1.02

connect with the backpacker culture?

How often do you visit Youtube.com? 2.29 1.04

How often do you post pictures of your 2.20 0.91

trips on Facebook?

Scale 1-5. 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very often, 5=Always

Table 6 shows that many backpackers do use social media and email quite often

when traveling, even if they are not creating and sharing content. The most active use

was of Facebook and checking email, which they did often while traveling. Additionally

they used Facebook occasionally to add new friends met while traveling and to upload
 90

photos to Facebook. Uploading of photos was the only example of creating online content

that the respondents did on a regular basis. The rest of their online behavior was

consumptive, as with the watching of videos on Youtube, or social. The least likely

behavior of the respondents is summarized in Table 7. Respondents were least likely to

create and share content including uploading videos to Youtube, using Twitter while

traveling, maintaining a blog during or after a trip, and posting pictures to websites other

than Facebook. These findings suggest that the majority of backpackers’ online behavior

is consumptive and/or based on social interaction. These results reflect the general online

behavior typology that was developed by Bernoff et al (2007), which is discussed in more

detail in Chapter 6 of this dissertation. While these findings suggest that the majority of

backpackers do not create content, they are consuming content that is created by someone

and participating in the online backpacker culture within the virtual spaces that are

supported by social media. The qualitative part of this study examines the ‘creators’ and

‘mediators’ of the online backpacker content and culture through in-depth analysis of the

uses of social media and the structure of the social media spaces maintained by eight

flashpackers.
 91

Table 7

Least Active Use of Social Media and Email

Mean Std. Dev.

How often do you post videos from your 1.18 0.511

trip on Youtube.com

How often do you use Twitter when 1.20 0.72

traveling?

How often do you post photos of your 1.57 0.90

trips on other websites (not Facebook)?

How often do you blog while traveling? 1.59 0.96

How often do you email work while 1.59 1.01

traveling?

How often do you blog about your 1.61 0.943

travels while at home?

How often do you post pictures of your 2.20 0.91

trips on Facebook?

Scale 1-5. 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very often, 5=Always

Respondents were also asked to indicate how often they accessed the internet and

how long they spent online while traveling and while at home (Table 8). The results

indicate that only a very small percentage of individuals did not access the internet while

traveling or while at home. The frequency of access while traveling also varied; some
 92

individuals accessed the internet only once every few days or multiple times a day. The

majority of respondents (60%) accessed the internet daily while traveling. This

represents a decrease in connection than when at home, where a majority of respondents

access the internet several times a day. While traveling over half of the respondents spent

between thirty minutes and an hour online, and about forty percent spent less than thirty

minutes. At home respondents generally spent more time online. While there is a

decrease in the frequency of connection and the amount of time spent online while

traveling, the figures in Table 8 suggest that backpackers spend a significant amount of

time online when traveling, thus making their online activities an important component of

their travel experience.

Table 8

Internet usage when traveling and when at home

Number Percentage (%)

Internet usage during current/most recent trip

Never 16 3.3

Once every few days 98 20.1

Once a day 295 60.5

Several times a day 79 16.2

Total 488 99.0

Time spent online when traveling

Less than 30 minutes 205 41.6

 93

30 minutes-1 hour 265 53.8

More than 1 hour 17 3.4

Total 487 98.7

Internet usage while at home

Never 5 1.0

Once every few days 55 11.3

Once a day 134 27.5

Several times a day 294 60.2

Total 488 99.0

Time spent online while at home

Less than 30 minutes 58 11.8

30 minutes to 1 hour 208 42.4

More than 1 hour 224 45.7

Total 490 99.4

The next section presents the results of the cultural consensus analysis. In this

analysis two a-priori groups were designated. Individuals were classified as a flashpacker

based on their responses to the technology questions and their daily expenditures while

traveling. The CCA was used to examine any differences in the shared cultural

understanding among technologically savvy and affluent flashpackers and the non-

flashpackers.
 94

CCA Results

Cultural consensus analysis provides three estimates regarding an individual’s

agreement with the backpacker cultural domain. The first estimate is the eigenvalue ratio

between the first and second factor, which estimates the group’s overall level of

agreement. The second measure provides the extent to which each individual agrees with

the group, referred to as cultural competence. The third provides the culturally

appropriate answer to each of the cultural domain items (answer key). These estimates

were attained through a survey administered to 493 individuals who were asked to

respond to sixty yes/no items. UCINET version 6.232 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman,

2002) was used to conduct the consensus analysis. CCA was used to measure the level of

agreement and individual cultural competence for four groups: the full sample of

backpackers, a sub-group of flashpackers, a sub-group of non-flashpackers, and the six

‘expert’ flashpackers that are subjects of the qualitative analysis.

For all four groups the three assumptions of consensus analysis (Romney et al.,

1987) were fulfilled. Two main outputs of the study were used to determine that these

assumptions were fulfilled, which would indicate good model fit. First, the ratio between

the eigenvalues for first and second factor should be at least 3:1 (Romney et al, 1986).

The second output used to determine if the assumptions were met were the individual

loadings on the first factor. These loadings should be all positive to indicate general

agreement with the single factor (cultural model) (Romney et al., 1986). The loadings are

also referred to as cultural competence coefficients or knowledge scores. Additionally,

the mean of all of the loadings should be greater than .5 to indicate a cultural pattern of
 95

agreement among the whole sample. Weller (2007) suggests that an average of

competency scores greater than .66 indicates a strong cultural pattern.

The results of the analysis of the full sample of backpackers indicate a 9.33:1 ratio

between the eigenvalues of the first and second factors. The mean cultural competence

score was .54 (σ=0.16), and there were no negative competence scores. The two groups,

flashpackers and non-flashpackers were then analyzed separately. The flashpacker group

fulfilled the assumptions indicating good fit of the cultural model, with a 9.55:1 ratio

between the eigenvalues of the first and second factors, no negative loadings, and a mean

competence score of .56 (σ=.15.). The non-flashpacker group also fulfilled all of the

assumptions, as the Eigen ratio and mean scores for the group were adequate (9.108:1

ratio and mean of .53, σ=.16), although they were slightly less than the consensus model

for the entire sample. There were no negative competence scores for the non-flashpacker

group. All three of the samples had similar results with eigenvalue ratios around 9:1 and

mean competence scores of .53-.56. While the mean average competency scores are all

over .5, they are less than the .66 (Weller, 2007), suggesting that there is a culturally

agreed upon model, but that the level of agreement is not strong. Additionally, the

similarity in the agreement scores and eigenvalue ratios could indicate that the pattern of

agreement for each sample is similar, and that there is not a difference in the cultural

models for flashpackers and non-flashpackers for the backpacking knowledge domain

represented by the sixty items used in this analysis. The CCA of the fourth group

composed of the six expert flashpackers, also indicated good model fit with eigenvalue

ratio of 5.11:1, a mean competence score of .56 (σ=.09), and no negative competency
 96

scores. A benefit of CCA is that it can be applied, with statistical soundness, to very

small samples (Romney et al., 1986; Weller, 2007).

Figure 2. Visualization of Consensus Factor Loadings.

A scatter-plot of the consensus factor loadings on the first two factors was used to

visualize the non-flashpacker, flashpacker, and expert flashpacker groups (Figure 2). A

few interesting findings result. First, all three groups exhibit a similar pattern. This is

particularly true for the non-flashpacker and flashpacker group, which compounds the
 97

suggestion that these two groups are not drawing from different cultural models. The

plot of the six expert flashpackers suggests that these individuals are representative of

flashpackers, and backpackers as a whole. There seems to be a split in this group with

two individuals who have cultural competence scores slightly below 0.5 and four around

0.6 or greater. This pattern can also be seen in the other two group plots, where the

majority of individuals score greater then 0.4 and a minority of individuals score less than

0.4. The individuals with low competence scores do not have high levels of individual

agreement with the culturally correct model. The impact of the second factor, which

represents the potential of a latent cultural impact on the individuals’ competence, is

seemingly low with no scores for any individuals greater than +/- 0.5. However the range

of scores on the second factor and the nearly even split in the flashpacker and non-

flashpacker groups with negative and positive scores on the second factor could suggest

that there is some latent affect and potentially one or more groups of backpackers are

drawing from an alternative cultural model. This latent affect should be examined in

future research, as it could be caused by a variety of things including nationality, age,

travel experience, gender, religion, and/or technology. Interestingly, the second factor

appears to be much less of a concern for the six expert flashpackers, as they all have

second factor scores close to 0. This could suggest that whatever the affect is for the other

two groups, it is not as impactful for this small group.

To summarize the results of the CCA there is no apparent support that

flashpackers and non-flashpackers draw from different cultural groups. This is further

supported by the visualization in Figure 2. Additionally, the findings suggest that the six
 98

expert flashpackers that were surveyed are representative of flashpackers, as well as the

whole backpacker group. This finding supports the use of the eight expert flashpackers

for qualitative analysis, the results of which are presented in the next chapter. The

quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) linear regression model was used to test if there

was increased similarity within each of the two sub-groups than between them. This test

will indicate if the flashpacker and non-flashpacker sub-groups draw from different

cultural models. Additionally, the cultural norms statements were examined individually

for any differences between the flashpackers and non-flashpackers.

QAP Results: The cultural model represents structured knowledge (Hrushchka et

al., 2009) about what backpackers and backpacking are. This model was observed using

the 60 questions about backpacking culture. While the cultural model ‘passed’ the

diagnostic criteria for consensus analysis (Romney et al., 1986; Batcherfeld and Romney,

1988; Weller, 2007), to determine if there is a shared model, further analysis is needed.

Hruschka et al. (2008) show that there is still the possibility that individuals in the

population draw from different or multiple cultural models. They suggest specifying a

priori groupings, and then testing for increased similarity of the models held within the

groups. If greater similarity exists within groups, this suggests that individuals in the

groups draw upon distinct and/or overlapping models. Hruschka et al (2008) suggest two

tests of independence of respondents that controls for the answer key and individual

competences. One of the tests of independence tests the hypothesis that there are no

systematic factors that contribute to the level of similarity between individuals. Hruschka

et al. used a test described by Romney, Moore, Batchelder, and Hsia (2000) that used a
 99

quadratic assignment procedure (QAP). The QAP examines the non-independence of

observations while analyzing pairs of individuals (Hubert & Shultz, 1976).

The QAP linear regression was applied to the two a priori groups in this study.

The methods section in this chapter discusses the process in more detail. The results

indicate that both flashpackers and non-flashpackers did not agree among themselves

significantly more than individuals in the other sub-group. The QAP linear regression

model indicated that there was not a significant proportion of variance of the agreement

matrix (R²=.000, p=.384) explained by the independent variables. Neither the

flashpackers nor non-flashpackers agreed more among themselves than individuals in the

other group. As the competence matrix adjusted for the similarity in responses due to

individual competence, a second model was run, without adjusting CCM matrix, as the

adjustment is only needed when testing the assumptions of the CCM. The second model

also resulted in non-significant differences. These results, which are different than the

findings among the sub-groups in Hruschka et al (2008), indicate that the flashpacker and

non-flashpacker groups do not draw from significantly different cultural models. The

QAP results also support the initial speculation resulting from the similarity of the results

of CCA for each of the three groups; they each draw from a similar cultural model. In

other words, they have a shared cultural understanding of backpacking.

Cultural Norms Statements: Table 6 presents the results of cultural consensus

analysis based on the yes/no cultural norms statements for the entire backpacker sample,

flashpackers, and non-flashpackers. The percentage of responding “yes” to each of the

items about backpacking culture were then examined for non-flashpackers and
 100

flashpackers, which are presented in Table 9 thru 12. The cultural norm statements that

received 80% or more of the individuals answering ‘Yes’ for either the entire group or

one of the two subgroups are presented in Table 9. Table 10 includes the statements that

received 30% or less of the respondents answering ‘Yes’, and Table 12 shows any

instances where the culturally correct answer for the whole group was different than the

answer given by the majority of one of the two subgroups. SPSS 16.0 was also used to

calculate t-tests to measure significant differences between responses by flashpackers and

non-flashpackers across all items, and these results are presented in Table 11.

Table 9

Highest Proportion of agreement with cultural norms statements for non-flashpackers

and flashpackers

Statement Text Proportion Answering “Yes”

Agree with the statement: Culturally Flashpacker Non- Whole

Correct Flashpacker

It’s ok to spend extra money on

once in a lifetime experiences. Yes 98.0% 97.0% 97.2%

Backpacking is a more free way

to travel. Yes 97.0% 96.4% 96.6%

Backpackers help each other. Yes 99.0% 95.2% 95.9%

Backpackers develop an Yes 94.9% 94.2% 94.3%

 101

understanding of other cultures.

Socializing with other

backpackers is an important part

of the experience. Yes 92.9% 94.2% 93.9%

Backpackers often share their

experiences online through

Facebook, Email, and Blogs. Yes 96.0% 91.9% 92.7%

Facebook is useful to stay in

contact with other people met

during the trip. Yes 96.0% 90.9% 91.9%

The best travel tips are spread by

word of mouth. Yes 91.9% 91.1% 91.3%

Eating weird food is all part of the

experience. Yes 89.9% 90.6% 90.5%

People who take short-term trips

can still be considered

backpackers. Yes 88.9% 90.9% 90.5%

Traveling with other backpackers

is a good way to save money. Yes 86.9% 87.8% 87.6%

The journey is more valuable than

the destination. Yes 88.9% 84.3% 85.2%

 102

Backpackers arrange things

themselves. Yes 89.9% 83.8% 85.0%

Backpacking is a better way to

interact with locals. Yes 78.8% 84.5% 83.4%

Backpacks are better than

suitcases. Yes 82.8% 83.2% 83.2%

Its ok to go to Starbucks or

McDonalds while traveling to get

a break Yes 82.8% 82.5% 82.6%

Backpacking allows people to see

the world as it really is. Yes 83.8% 80.7% 81.3%

Backpackers seek extreme

experiences when they travel. Yes 77.8% 80.7% 80.1%

It’s better to travel off the beaten

track. Yes 82.8% 78.4% 79.3%

It’s essential to get the best deal

and pay local prices. Yes 82.8% 76.9% 78.1%

 103

Table 10.

Lowest proportion of agreement with cultural norms statements for non-flashpackers and

flashpackers

Statement Text Proportion Answering “Yes”

Agree with the statement: Culturally Flashpacker Non- Whole

Correct Flashpacker

Real backpackers do not

take photos while traveling. No 8.1% 9.9% 9.5%

Real backpackers never use

guidebooks. No 10.1% 12.2% 11.8%

To be considered a

backpacker a person must

travel for a long time, like 1

year. No 13.1% 11.7% 12.0%

Backpacking is really for the

young. No 13.1% 18.5% 17.4%

Sex with locals is sort of

“gross”. No 16.2% 18.3% 17.9%

Locals don’t like

backpackers. No 16.2% 18.5% 18.1%

 104

Its not a good idea to go

‘local’ No 17.2% 20.1% 19.5%

There are too many hippy

type backpackers No 25.3% 20.1% 21.1%

Backpackers never carry

laptops with them. No 10.1% 25.1% 22.1%

Backpackers prefer to talk to

locals rather than to other

backpackers. No 20.2% 23.1% 22.5%

Hostels are just for

backpackers. No 24.2% 26.4% 26.0%

Backpackers shun

technology like IPods, Cell

phones, and Laptops while

traveling. No 20.2% 28.7% 27.0%

There is something odd

about backpacking when older. No 28.3% 27.2% 27.4%

The results presented in Table 9 and Table 10 indicate that the most agreed with

and most disagreed with items, across the whole group and the two sub-segments are

reflective of the characteristics of the literature on backpacker culture discussed earlier in

this chapter. Several items related to the independence and freedom of backpacking were
 105

agreed with by 80% of the individuals. These included items like “Backpackers arrange

things themselves” and “Backpacking is a more free way to travel.” On the other hand,

many backpackers still do use guidebooks, as seen with a low agreement with the

statement that “Real backpackers never use a guidebook”. Another characteristics of

backpacking culture that was supported by this study was the importance of socialization

with other backpackers and local people, as evident by high agreement on items like,

“The best travel tips are spread by word of mouth,” “Socializing with other backpackers

is an important part of the experience,” “Backpackers help each other,” and “Backpackers

often share their experiences online through Facebook, email, and blogs.” There was also

very low agreement with the statement “Backpackers prefer to talk to locals rather than to

other backpackers,” which could suggest an awareness of the division between the idea of

backpacking and the actual practices.

Traveling on a budget was also supported, as the “Traveling with other

backpackers is a good way to save money,” received overall agreement greater than 80%.

The characteristic of backpacking culture that received the most support from this

analysis was the agreement of the importance of and ability to have authentic travel

experiences as a backpacker. Several items with high levels of agreement addressed this

including “Backpacking allows people to see the world as it really is,” “Backpacking is a

better way to interact with locals,” “Backpackers develop an understanding of other

cultures,” “Eating weird food is all part of the experience,” “The journey is more valuable

than the destination,” and the low level of agreement with the statement “Its not a good

idea to go ‘local’.”
 106

Several items also support recently emerging themes in backpacker research that

contradict the original characterization of backpackers. Sorensen (2003) and Paris (2008)

suggested that current societal pressures and opportunities are leading to fewer ‘long-

term’ backpackers and an increasing number of ‘short-term’ backpackers. These findings

support this, as the item “People who take short-term trips can still be considered

backpackers” received a high level of agreement, and the item, “To be considered a

backpacker a person must travel for a long time, like 1 year” a high level of shared

disagreement. Similarly, most backpacking literature and particularly the industry

characterize the backpackers as mostly young individuals. This was supported by the

number of individuals with a high level of shared disagreement on the item in this study,

“Backpacking is really for the young.”

Several items offer important implications for the backpacker industry. There was

a high level of agreement among all the backpackers in the study that “It’s ok to spend

extra money on once in a lifetime experiences.” This agreement suggests that while

traveling on a budget is important to backpackers, backpacker businesses that can offer a

once-in-a-life-time opportunity could really profit. Additionally, the high level of

agreement on several items highlights the important role innovations in information and

communications technology are/will play for backpackers and the backpacker industry.
 107

Table 11.

Significant differences in proportions of agreement with cultural norms statements

between non-flashpackers and flashpackers

Proportion Answering “Yes”

Statement Text

Agree with the statement: Culturally Flashpacker Non- Whole

Correct Flashpacker Sample

If you twitter or Facebook all

the time while backpacking 40.4

Yes 59.1% 55.4%
you diminish the experience.

***

Backpacking alone is not 60.6

No 45.7% 48.7%
risky. **

Backpackers are more patient 85.9

Yes 72.3% 75.1%
and tolerant of people. **

The internet provides a better

69.7
source of information than Yes 58.1% 60.4%

guidebooks. *

Backpackers never carry 10.1

No 25.1% 22.1%
laptops with them. ***

Taking local transportation is Yes 60.6 71.6% 69.4%

 108

better than flying.*

Time doesn’t matter when 57.6

No 69.5% 67.1%
traveling. *

Posting a video on
75.8
Youtube.com is great way to Yes 61.7% 64.5%

display travel experiences. **

Note: * notes significant at p<.05, **-p<.01, and ***-p<.001

There were several items for which the flashpacker and non-flashpacker groups

had significantly different levels of agreement, and these are presented in Table 11. One

of them is “Backpacking alone is not risky,” which is logical as flashpackers, who agreed

with the statement, are generally older, with more financial security that allows them to

pay for more comfort and security, and are more connected via technology. The

perception of risk could provide an interesting topic of for future research. Another

difference was for the item “If you twitter or Facebook all the time while backpacking

you diminish the experience.” The flashpacker group disagreed with the statement, while

the non-flashpacker group agreed. This item supports the notion that the perception of

technology and communication is likely the point of departure that is greatest between

flashpackers and non-flashpackers. Four items related to technology were significantly

different in terms of the proportions of flashpackers and non-flashpackers answering the

questions ‘yes’. “Backpackers never carry laptops with them,” “Posting a video on

Youtube.com is great way to display travel experiences,” “The internet provides a better

source of information than guidebooks,” and “If you twitter or Facebook all the time
 109

while backpacking you diminish the experience” were all significantly different, with

flashpackers answering more positively. The next chapter of this dissertation further

explores the relationship of flashpackers with technology, particularly social media more

in-depth.

The perception of time was also a point of departure between the two groups.

Specifically, the item, “Time doesn’t matter when traveling,” was significantly different

between the two groups with fewer flashpackers agreeing with the statement. As

mentioned before, there was a high level of agreement among all individuals that

backpacking does not necessitate a long-term trip.

There was disagreement (Table 12) between the flashpackers and non-

flashpackers with regards to the three items “The more countries the better,”

“Backpacking alone is risky,” and “A good backpacker does lots of research before

leaving home.” The culturally correct answer for flashpackers was that the more

countries the better, whereas for non-flashpackers it was not. While this difference was

not significantly different, more then 50% of flashpackers answered differently than the

culturally correct answer. Symbolizing flashpackers as digital nomads of liquid

modernity, as discussed in the introduction chapter, could suggest that because they

freely flow through destinations, over borders, in compressed almost disconnected time,

they are more open to traveling to as many countries as possible.

 110

Table 12.

Disagreement with the culturally correct answers.

Proportion Answering “Yes”

Statement Text

Culturally Non-
Agree with the statement: Flashpacker Whole
Correct Flashpacker

Backpacking alone is not

No 60.6% 45.7% 48.7%
risky.

A good backpacker does lots

of research before leaving No 54.5% 48.5% 49.7%

home.

The more countries the

No 55.6% 49.5% 50.7%
better.

On the other hand, non-flashpackers, who are possibly traveling for a longer

period of time, might perceive time as being more important or valuable, as they might be

traveling during a more formative personal period and often staying at locations for

longer periods of time. Flashpackers might ‘do’ Australia in one or two weeks, whereas a

non-flashpacker could be there for a year on a work visa, working in a hostel or along the

Harvest Trail. The third item also has to do with the amount of time available to travel.

As flashpackers often have a smaller amount of time to complete their trip, they plan a
 111

large portion ahead of time, whereas non-flashpackers could have more time to just

wander and drift. Another rationale for the flashpackers planning beforehand is that they

are constantly connected via technology to the online backpacker moorings. Their

planning in that instance could simply be through sustained interactions with the virtual

backpacker culture.

The results of the CCA suggest three key findings. First, there is a shared cultural

model for the entire sample, as well as for each of the two sub-groups. Second, there was

no significant difference in the cultural models for flashpackers and non-flashpackers.

Third, the analysis of the culturally correct answers suggest that there are a few

differences between flashpackers and non-flashpackers, as well as between the traditional

view of backpackers in the literature and industry and the view of backpackers by the

respondents of this study. While there was not a significant difference in the cultural

model of the two backpacker subgroups, the findings did indicate the greatest point of

departure for the flashpacker group was the use and perception of the role of technology

during their backpacking experience.

The next chapter of this dissertation presents the results of a qualitative analysis

of the eight expert flashpackers and their use of social media and other technologies. As

discussed earlier in this chapter, CCA was applied to six of these experts. The findings,

particularly the visualization in Figure 2, suggest that these individuals are culturally

competent. The second part of this mixed-method dissertation uses eInterviews and

develops a mobile-virtual ethnography to examine the convergence of technology and

backpacking for this small group of flashpackers.

112
 113

Chapter 5

Qualitative Results

This chapter presents the results of the second part of this mixed-method study,

and focuses on the convergence of technology and the emerging flashpacker sub-group.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section examines the results of the e-

interviews conducted with the eight flashpackers. The second section analyzes the results

of the mobile-virtual ethnography of the virtual moorings and mobilities of the eight

flashpackers, with a focus on the Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and Twitter. The

discussion of the implications and contributions of the results presented in both this

chapter and the previous chapter make up the chapter following this one.

Interview Results

Physical mobilities. The ongoing convergence of technologies and backpacking

can be seen in the hybridizing of the physical, cultural, and virtual spaces. Several

themes emerged from the interviews including the conceptualization of connection and

disconnection, impact of technologies on traditional physical spaces of backpacking,

social interaction, and working to prolong the backpacking experience.

The utilization of communication and mobile technologies by the respondents

suggest that for some backpackers traveling alone, there is difficulty being able to

disconnect truly and get lost when friends and family are a text message, Skype call,

Facebook wall post or Tweet away. This conflict can also spill over into the social

interactions of backpackers in physical spaces. The hostel common rooms and long

distance transportation are important spaces of the backpacking travelscape (Binder,

 114

2004) that enables, represents and provides structure to backpackers’ mobilities

(O’Reagan, 2010). Hostels are symbolic of the backpacking and, historically, spaces in

which backpacking is consumed and performed They provide the time and space for the

‘backpacking’ trip, where individuals construct their own backpacker identities, narrate

stories, exchange knowledge, and interact (O’Reagan, 2010). Hostels are usually located

within backpacker enclaves that can vary in size, and represent the space where

contemporary backpackers spend significant amounts of time, often the majority of their

time (Cohen, 2003). These enclaves, made up of hostels, restaurants, and bars, provide

the spaces for meaningful interactions, communication, expression of shared values, and

the backpacker travel identity (Sorensen, 2003; Murphy, 2001). Backpacking literature

often depicts backpacker enclaves as meta-spaces that provide a space for adjustment,

reduced culture shock, respite from life on the road, perceived control, and often provide

comforts of home (Hottola, 2004, 2005; Johnson, 2010). These spaces also include what

Molz (2006) referred to as a ‘system of surveillance.’ The system of surveillance is the

hybridizing of the physical and virtual spaces of backpacking. Backpackers ‘surveil

themselves by documenting their experiences for others to see using connections such as

internet café’s, wi-fi, or mobile phones. Increasingly these connections are offered free

of charge within a backpacker enclave. Alan (respondent 5) reiterated this as most of the

destinations he traveled to were ‘heavily wired’, and with the ‘additions by most major

hostels of free Wi-Fi and 2-4 computers on site with free or for a nominal fee/hr [internet

access].” This hyper-connective ability has also created some experiential conflicts in the

physical destination. Brandon (respondent 6) reflected on a recent hostel experience:

 115

I’ve sat in hostel common rooms where 10 backpackers were silently

staring at screens gathering information about the city they are in on

Twitter rather than talking to each other, meeting new friends, and sharing

information through the ‘traveler network’ that is right in the room. I can’t

count the times that I have sat next to a stranger on a bus that I would have

spoken to and interacted with had they not spent the entire journey playing

with iPhone apps.

Each of the individuals interviewed did agree that innovations in communication

technologies have affected the backpacking culture, especially in terms of the social

interactions. Alan (respondent 5) claimed that these innovations have ‘revolutionized’

backpacker culture in terms of social interactions while on the road. Social interactions at

destinations has been examined in the literature and found to be a crucial part of the

experience. Alan (respondent 5) further described traditional backpackers’ social

interactions on the road as, “…transient in nature. You met, you socialized, you enjoyed

each other’s company and then you parted ways. If lucky you’d bump into each other

later down the road in a different city or country, but for the most part good-bye was just

that.” This account of the fleeting interactions of backpackers is echoed in the backpacker

literature (Loker-Murphy, 1995). Recent developments have also been ‘revolutionary’

by increasing the ability for individuals to ‘meet-up’. Alan (respondent 5) recounted a

personal experience of when he had planned to meet a friend at the McDonalds in the

train station in Florence several years ago: “I didn’t have a cell phone at the time, making

timing of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, not only was there a train strike, but the
 116

train station and immediate area had two separate McDonalds.” He ended up spending

the majority of the day and his patience trying to find his friend. Nowadays, social media

developments, Wi-Fi, Internet access, and mobile phones have decreased this hassle for

some.

The maintenance of blogs, and virtual content has also, for a select few, provided

a means of income to continue traveling. The relationship between working and traveling

has long been part of the backpacking experience and culture. Backpackers often

combine short stints working to be able to extent their trips. Examples include working

on the “harvest trail circuit” in Australia (Cooper, O’Mahony, and Erfurt, 2004) or

working in a hostel in exchange for free housing. Some individuals are now traveling

perpetually. For example, Andy Graham of Hobotraveler.com has been traveling for the

past 12 years, during which he has been running Hobotraveler.com. He has accrued

enough income to pay for his travel and then some. His website is a trove of traveler

knowledge, including specifics on how to maintain a ‘Mobile Office.’ (Mobile Office).

The use of social media for income was discussed by Brandon (respondent 6) who

maintains a regular travel blog and other websites as a primary source of income while

traveling and, “because of this, I use Twitter, StumbleUpon, Digg, and upload all of my

photos on Fotki.com…When I write a new article, I promote it via social media to attract

friends of friends to become new readers or so that established writers will pass it along

to their readers and colleagues.” Chris (respondent 2), who maintains a digital travel

publishing business, uses social media to promote his business through several steps for

which he gave an example:

 117

We published our podcast on our first thoughts on travelling in Chile on

our website. Following that, we broadcast the link on Twitter, and it was

re-tweeted several times. We also posted it on Facebook (the public fan

page and personal profiles) and had several comments regarding what we

talked about. We also posted the page on StumbleUpon, which allowed it

to be shared with dozens of other people. In total, the page had over 1,000

views and the podcast will probably have around 2,000 downloads in the

first week.

Social media has been prominently used for communication and the spread of digital

media. The technological advancements have allowed individuals to share and document

their experiences through digital photos, videos, podcasts, and real-time updates. The

next section examines the communicative travel of the individuals and the digital

movement of their media.

Communicative travel and digital movement of media. The hybridization of

backpacker spaces facilitated by developments in information and communication

technologies has created a mobile sociality that exists virtually and physically. Social

media offer individuals a place for co-presence and interaction with various networks, but

also are spaces of expression through digital media. This section explores the many

meanings and uses of social media by the interviewees for the communicative travel,

digital movement of media, and the mediation of the tourist experience.

Many backpackers maintain social connections with people they once met

physically, as strangers, as well as contacts in future destinations. All of these contacts

 118

are virtually proximate to each other allowing for backpackers to interact instantly and

simultaneously with people from all over the world. As Sara (respondent 4) stated,

The rise in social media has fostered a community where it is incredibly simple

to find people to meet up with and keep in touch with. I can find a couch to crash

on in New Zealand, ask a friend for travel recommendations on Vietnam and

email that Canadian kid I met in Bosnia last summer within the span of 5 minutes.

Different types of social media are used in different ways to navigate throughout the

hybrid spaces. Each type of social media can have different uses, often echoing the goals

and positioning of the company itself. Twitter’s recent adaptation to a news and

information network is confirmed by its use by Sara (respondent 4), a self-proclaimed

Twitter person who was fairly skeptical about the medium in the beginning, but now sees

it as, “an amazing tool for connecting with people and promoting my work.”

Facebook is often perceived as a more private space than Twitter, blogs, or

Youtube. While the emphasis is still social interaction, Facebook is often used to

maintain deeper prolonged individual-to-individual relationships. Sara (respondent 4), for

example, sees Facebook as a more personal space that she uses to connect to people she

has actually met face to face.

Some types of social media can be avoided for specific reasons associated with

who the social media is connecting the individual to. Sara (respondent 4) does not use

LinkedIn, a professional social network, because she does not want her employers to

know about her extracurricular travel activities. Brandon (respondent 6) on the other

hand uses LinkedIn to write recommendations for individuals, but only while at home.
 119

When on the road traveling, backpackers typically use social media in a few

ways. First to provide an account of their experiences for people at home, as well as their

virtual networks, to maintain contact with the virtual community, and to connect with

people met during the trip. Alan (respondent 5), an active blogger, suggests that social

media provides a space for him to record his own experiences to reflect on in the future

and is a huge reward in itself, “to that end, I’d create, write and upload material I’ve

assembled even if I knew no-one was reading it.” Essentially he suggests that blogging

and other multimedia used to document experiences are essentially the same as analogue

cameras and handwritten journals. On an upcoming round-the-world (RTW) trip, Sara

(respondent 4) plans to use her blog to ‘showcase’ her experiences, to update her twitter

as often as possible to stay connected with the backpacker community, and to use

Facebook to coordinate with people she plans to meet up with.

Brandon (respondent 6) reiterated Sara (respondent 4)’s Facebook usage. Brandon

(respondent 6) also maintains his blog and several other websites, which now provide his

primary source of income. The creation and maintaining of his virtual identity and space

allows him to become physically nomadic. As a result, he uses a handful of websites

while traveling including sites to promote his work: Twitter, StumbleUpon, and Digg,

and sites like Fotki.com (an online photo storage site). The innovations of social media

have changed the way backpackers communicate with home. Another one of the

interviewees traced these innovations through the travel experience of his parents and

himself. When his parents over-landed from Scotland to New Zealand, his grandparents

could only expect an occasional postcard or letter, where as now when he travels his
 120

parents, friends, and other networks can follow his blog, view photos uploaded onto

Flikr.com, and interact on Twitter and Facebook. Additionally Chris (respondent 2)

produces podcasts from the road, both as guides for other travelers, but also as an

auditory story telling for his followers. For some backpackers, who traveled pre-Web

2.0, a dramatic change in both communication and experience can be traced. Don

(respondent 3) reflected on a backpacking trip in 1998 around Europe:

I kept a written journal of my experiences and after 2 months home, I

taught myself HTML and put it all up on a website. It was a long and slow

process, but even strangers would find it and read along. There was no

Facebook—you lived in the moment, sent postcards to people at home.

Now social media, blogs, and quality internet connections around the

world make it incredibly easy to update people on your travels and

experiences. Plenty of backpackers do not keep blogs, but simply post

updates and photos to Facebook from time to time. It’s the norm.

These increased innovations in communication, as discussed earlier in this

dissertation, have provided a ‘safety-net’. Instantaneous communication with people

anywhere in the world can reduce the perception of risk of independent travel. This can

be particularly true for female backpackers traveling on their own, such as Sara

(respondent 4). Sara (respondent 4) said that, “it’s very important for me to keep in touch

with my immediate family. I want them to know where I am and that I’m safe. I usually

email them daily or whenever I have internet connection. My friends usually just follow

my blog.” Sara (respondent 4) uses email, a much more private form of communication,
 121

to maintain daily contact with her family. On the other hand, she uses her blog to share

her experiences with her friends. There is a balance between how much contact with

home is culturally acceptable. While Brandon (respondent 6) perceives Facebook as “a

fun way to let my friends know that I am still alive somewhere.” Homesickness is often

something travelers experience at some point during their trips, especially long-term or

trips to destinations far different than an individual’s home. Social media allows for

instant contact and thus, as Alan (respondent 5) pointed out, “often helps to

alleviate/reduce homesickness. It also dramatically reduces the catch up time when re-

integrating at the end of a trip.”

Social media also provide a means for friends and family to seek out news and

help when crises do occur. Things do go wrong. Previously, the ability to get news

updates, and mobilize searches was nearly impossible. With contact only through

occasional letters and postcards the location of backpackers could never really be known

by family and friends back home. Instant, global contact mediated by social media now

provides friends and family a better starting point from which to begin when the worst

occurs. The online social convergence in response to disasters has been examined in the

literature. Hughes, Palen, Sutton, Liu, and Viewveg (2008) used the 9-11 World Trade

Center Disaster, Hurricane Katrina, Virginia Tech Shooting, and Southern California

wildfires in 2007 to talk about online convergence activities as the displays of the seven

types of social convergence (Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003): helping, being anxious,

returning, supporting, mourning, exploiting, and being. Recent tragedies and disasters

related to backpackers can also provide context for the displays of online social
 122

convergence activities. In 2007, a solo female backpacker disappeared while traveling

from West Africa to Turkey via the Middle East. Using a blog on LiveJournal, the

woman’s family was able to mobilize hundreds of helpers who have translated documents

between English and Arabic, interviewed witnesses, searched hotels, and come very close

to finding the woman. The blog was submitted to Digg, a syndication tool, which

brought in many new volunteers. Many of these helped the woman’s brother to trace IP

numbers to actual physical addresses, allowing for the location of the missing women’s

last email to be pinpointed to the Syria and Lebanon border (Andrews, 2007). Facebook

has been used in a similar way by a father during his search of his daughter who went

missing during a backpacking trip in Croatia (Dobbin, 2008).

The recent earthquake in Chile also provides a good context of how social media

can be used in the midst of disaster. Twitter was used extensively in the aftermath of the

earthquake. One example is that of a missing British couple, who went missing after the

quake in the surfing destination of Pichilemu. Shortly after, the sister of one of the

missing started a Twitter account to try to find her missing brother. A review of at the

tweets and re-tweets on her account indicate that she interacted a lot with the Twitter

accounts of one of the surfer resorts and Pichilemu.com, as well as individuals from all

around the world. The missing couple was found shortly after. Facebook, Google Person

Finder, and Couchsurfing.org were all used to mobilize the search for the missing couple

(Urquahard & Smith, 2010). Chris (respondent 2), one of the interviewees that was in

Chile during the earthquake, provided a first-hand account of the Chilean earthquake and

the social media response. “Following the Chilean earthquake last week, we found
 123

dozens of comments on Facebook and Twitter asking where we were, if we were OK,

and if we needed help. People were asking the Twitter community if anyone had heard

from us and by the time I answer emails and logged into Twitter to say we were safe,

people I had emailed had posted on twitter and Facebook that we were safe. It was nearly

instantaneous and this wide group of virtual friends we’ve never met were rallying

around to look for us.”

While this instant contact with home, friends and family, and the virtual

community can be very beneficial when traveling, and during disasters, a theme emerged

from several of the interviews that suggests that being too connected can take a way from

the experience of traveling. Brandon (respondent 6) urges that “being TOO connected to

home dissipates your focus….and really takes away from the place you are exploring.

How can you really enjoy what’s going on in a local village if your mind is thinking

about gossip and updates from home that come straight to your phone?” Gasser and

Simun (2010) suggest in their discussion of the travel experiences of ‘Digital Natives’

that while these individuals are physically traveling, they are mentally and emotionally at

home. The innovations in communication technologies make it increasingly easier for

individuals to have undisturbed connections with home. As the barriers for maintaining

continuous contact with various networks have decreased, individuals now have the

choice of who they will stay in contact with, how they will stay in contact, and when they

will make contact. Some self-described flashpackers, such as Don (respondent 3), carry

lots of technological devices meant to maintain connections with home, virtual

community, and to document their experiences to share virtually. Despite this Don
 124

(respondent 3) said that he, “Purposefully did not bring a cell phone with me on my trip,

as a way to stay somewhat disconnected.” This marks an interesting shift in the

perception of ‘being disconnected’ from previous backpackers, who were disconnected

by default of their form of travel. Nowadays, the shift is towards a perception of

disconnect based upon the individual’s own choice to be disconnected and/or the devices

used to be ‘connected.’ Using a net-book or laptop to connect and interact with a virtual

network through social media appears not to be defined as ‘being connected.’ As Alan

(respondent 5) explained, “I typically check in (depending on how wired my destination

country is) between 3-6 times a week via email, Facebook and Twitter. I do not, however,

take a cell phone with me…I enjoy my lack of phone/limited connectivity on the road.”

Another interviewee added additional insight by suggesting that the adoption of

communication technologies, virtual applications and mobile devices, seemed to follow a

‘career’ path during which individuals ‘experimented’ with new devices or applications

and how they used them. Don (respondent 3), a very active blogger and Twitter user,

who has thousands of views to his blog monthly, is, preparing to travel internationally to

Rwanda for first time in 7 months, and will be carrying his Blackberry for the first time.

He will be tweeting his experiences and photos real time whenever possible in order to

share his experiences better with followers on Twitter and readers of his blog and to drive

more traffic to his blog, a main income source. He weighed the trade-offs of this as he

feared that being connected constantly with his virtual followers will take him out of the

experiential present.
 125

While social media, and in particular social networking sites, are used to maintain

social relationships, most are primarily focused at already established relationships.

Backpacking, traditionally, has consisted of fleeting social interactions with individuals

while traveling. These social interactions rarely followed individuals home. With the rise

of social networking sites, like Facebook, maintaining connection with individuals met

on the road is easier, but yet sometimes the relationships do not develop. As Don

(respondent 3) noted, “People are relying heavily on Facebook to stay connected,

especially with other travelers met along the way, but after time passes, unless the

connection was really strong in person, then usually those people fade into the

background and you’ll never write them or hear from them again.” This statement echoes

the findings of Paris, Lee, and Seery (2010), which suggest that the strength of the online

relationship is an important factor for tourism businesses to consider to effectively use

Facebook to market to consumers. Virtual relationships through Facebook are intimate

and must be reciprocally nurtured. Other social networking sites, however, are focused on

providing a space for individuals to meet strangers and build relationships. This

reciprocity is also evident in social networking sites that are meant to facilitate off-line

connections, such as Couchsufing.com, a site that provides a space for backpackers to

meet individuals who are both strangers and locals that wish to share their own personal

space (couch) with other strangers. This community is unique in that it requires

individuals to also commit to allowing fellow couchsurfers crash on their own couches at

some point. Even though there are social networking sites directed at facilitating both

on-line and off-line interactions, the strength of these relationships are dependent upon
 126

the effort put into them by individuals. The level of effort in maintaining online or

offline relationships could be related to each individual’s value of the mode of the

relationship.

There seems to be conflicting views of online and offline friendships among the

respondents. On one side there is a hierarchy with offline friendships being more

substantive then online. Sara (respondent 4) echoes this, “virtual friendships are

definitely more superficial, but I’m always up to meeting virtual friends in person and

converting them to ‘real’ friendships.” Communities like Couchsurfing.org (CS) provide

a ‘safe’ place for individuals to interact online and arrange to meet in person. CS differs

from other social networking sites that are mainly used to strengthen existing

relationships in virtual spaces (e.g. Facebook or Twitter). CS facilitates the creation of

new face-face relationships between travelers around the world (Pultar & Raubal, 2009).

While the website uses some privacy safeguards, the success of the site is based upon a

‘reputation’ system that leverages the high degree of interaction and reciprocity between

members to facilitate a system where individuals ‘vouch’ for one another (Lauterback,

Truong, Shah, Adamic, 2009). Social media and mobile devices have changed how

people interact with their established social networks and the development of new social

networks. Additionally, social media and mobile devices have affected how travel

experiences are documented. The process of capturing an experience, and sharing that

experience, has become much more fluid and instant.

Travel photos taken at destinations progress through a journey from capture of an

experience through the digital camera, onto a memory card, into a computer, and then
 127

uploaded online. Mobile smart phones are even quicker. A photo can be taken and

uploaded in seconds online. Photos are uploaded mainly to two different sites. First,

Facebook provides a space to share photos with restricted networks for friends, family,

and strangers. Flikr, and other photo sites were mentioned by the interviewees as places

where photos are stored, publicly, and linked or embedded to on blogs. Additionally,

digital devices can also replace more bulky items necessary for travelers. Alan

(respondent 5) suggests that, “access to the web also makes it possible to travel lighter. In

place of bulky guide books, you can rely on smaller guide books supplemented with

digital content. I’ll regularly take a quick snap shot on my camera/phone of a map or

directions and use that image as a digital map/guide as I travel.” Lonely planet has also

started to profit from this digitalization, as they now allow individuals to download

specific chapters of their popular guidebooks online in .pdf format for a drastically

reduced fee. The virtualization of information and communication for backpackers has

also affected the traditional backpacker culture.

The recent innovations in information and communications technologies,

especially Web 2.0 development of social media, have given rise to virtual-cultural

hybrid spaces. These online communities provide a hybrid space for cultural norms and

community values to be experienced without the need of corporeal travel. Previously the

backpacking culture was immobile, only accessible to a select few while traveling to

backpacker enclaves and over backpacker trails. This limited accessibility also facilitated

the noticed gap between backpacking ideals and backpacking experience. Backpacking

culture could only be experienced in the close physical proximity to other backpackers,
 128

thus decreasing the independence and local immersion. Virtual moorings of backpacker

culture arguably allows individuals to have intimate contact with the backpacking

community from anywhere at any time. Alan (respondent 5) was aware of the importance

of technological innovations for backpacking culture. He said that, “It [technological

developments] further empowers backpackers, and encourages backpackers to develop an

extensive social network of friends and contracts which offer constant insights into

different cultures and peoples.” These hybrid spaces resulting from the technological

developments allow individuals to experience and interact with the backpacker culture

freely without the physical limitations of the past. This arguably allows them the freedom

to travel completely physically ‘off-the-beaten-track’ if they so desire, as they will be

safe in knowing that they will be able to share their experiences with the virtual

backpacker community.

Many travelers have had trouble transferring over their experiences from their on-

the-road lives to their home lives. The virtualization of the backpacking culture, has

allowed for communities to form online, providing spaces for individuals to maintain

their sense of belonging and connection with like-minded individuals. As Sara

(respondent 4) puts it, “Before I discovered Twitter, I really didn’t have a community of

travelers to connect with while at home. It was very discouraging, but now I have

encouragement, I have advice, and I have an outlet for expression.” The online

backpacker community has developed a social structure that in itself complements the

physical backpacker spaces by providing a place of continuity of the culture, instead of

sporadic interactions on the road with the ‘road’ culture. The continuity of the
 129

backpacker culture from ‘on-the-road’ to the virtual to the home, also means a continuity

of individuals’ identity. Backpacking and virtual identities are very similar, as both allow

individuals to ‘escape’ and be who they want to be. Anonymity has been protected

traditionally by the separation of spaces. Individuals could be whoever they wanted while

backpacking, as most of the relationships they maintained were fleeting. Similarly, virtual

identities allowed individuals to put any mask that they wanted to on, thus separating

their virtual and physical selves. Current innovations have led to an increase in the

virtual proximities of an individual’s networks. Individuals’ online identities are losing

their anonymity and privacy. Social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allow

individuals to interact with multiple networks simultaneously, but they also decrease an

individual’s ability to maintain anonymity. Similarly, travelers on the road have seen a

decrease in their anonymity, as the ability to maintain connections with other travelers

they have met has benefited from the communication developments. In terms of

developing authentic relationships with other travelers as well as individuals at the

location, this was perceived as a positive development by some of the interviewees. Alan

(respondent 5) believed that for him, “the reduction of anonymity in both [travel and

internet] is a push towards more real friendships and interactions.” He continued, “I think

it adds an added realness to the interaction which is overall a positive.” It comes down to

an individual’s choice to reduce his/her anonymity and develop a lasting relationship. For

example, even though Alan (respondent 5) has met hundreds of people while traveling,

he only regularly converses and maintains social relations with 5-10 people he met while

traveling, and periodic communication with another 20-30.

 130

The ‘expert’ interviews were with individuals who all maintain a travel blog. It

emerge that some are more ‘casual’ bloggers, while others were professionals that were

able to make money doing so. The use of social media for these individuals is usually

split along a public private dichotomy. Individual Facebook profiles and email accounts

provide a private means of contact with friends and family. Other types of social media

are used as a means of promotion. As Jess (respondent 8) explained, “We use social

media, especially Facebook, for two reasons. The first is for personal use (updating

friends and family and reading about them). The second is to promote/update the fans of

our blog through our Facebook Fan Page.” The ability to distinguish between public and

private online identities allows individuals to maintain more control over their online

backpacker identities, as they would in the ‘anonymous’ on-the-road identity. Craig

(respondent ….) reiterated the different types of media used to interact with each

network, as he “stayed in contact with family by email, as most do not use social

media…stay connected with friends mainly through Facebook...Our ‘work’ is in

communicating with the travel blogging community and our audience. We use email,

RSS, Twitter, and our fan page [Facebook] to chat with them and promote pages on the

website. We use the same plus Skype, Google Chat, and Travelblogexchange.com to talk

business with other bloggers and publishers.”

Some individuals also noted the hierarchy of their virtual identities, some taking

on the form of a brand. Don (respondent 3) sees social media as, “first and foremost, a

way to build traffic and the … brand. Using it for personal reasons has and will continue

to be secondary.” As a ‘professional backpacker blogger,’ Don (respondent 3) also

 131

reiterates the concepts presented in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, that attention is

extremely important. Don (respondent 3) efficiently distributes his attention to the two

social media outlets from which he perceives there to be the largest return: “I’ve decided

to simply focus on Twitter and Facebook as I feel that’s where the most people are now.

Otherwise, if I tried to use very big social media option to its full extent, I’d have little

time for anything else.” While Don (respondent 3) says he ‘focuses’ on just Twitter and

Facebook, he maintains an extensive blog that he drives traffic to through Twitter and

Facebook. In order to maintain a blog, take digital photos and videos, create podcasts,

etc. while on the road, technological devices must be taken along on the trip. The next

section discusses the physical mobility of technological devices.

Physical mobility of technological devices. An important part of this study is

understanding the mobility of the technological devices used by backpackers during their

travels (Larsen, 2008), as backpackers are increasingly carrying technological devices

with them (Paris, 2008; 2010a). They are using these devices to document their trips, and

many are continually creating content on their blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and

other social media, allowing other people to interact emotionally and imaginatively with

their physical travel experience. Some share these experiences for profit, while others do

not. The devices that Brandon (respondent 6) has carried with him have changed over

time. During his first trip, which lasted 12 months, he carried only an iPod Mini and a

point-n-shoot analogue camera. However, over the last few years he has started to carry

a Netbook, a small Digital SLR camera, and a mobile phone (he buys a SIM card at the
 132

destination). This evolution is being witnessed by the growing segment of Flashpackers

(Hannam & Diekmann, 2010).

Interestingly some devices are seen by some to be culturally taboo, as Brandon

(respondent 6) suggests that, “backpackers with GPSs should be flogged---half the fun is

getting lost anywhere, that’s when all the interesting things happen!” This is an

interesting perspective. The GPS is a device designed to help people not get lost, or to

find their way. When trekking, they can be essential, but for some, they dramatically

conflict with the cultural norm of independence and exploration. Other devices are

openly used and accepted culturally that can essentially do the same things, especially in

settings of human settlement. The iPhone and other smart phones include maps and GPS

applications that can be downloaded. Another issue that arises, particularly with long-

term travelers is the need to both carry the devices used to document the trip, and the

accessories and products of those devices. So not only do these tech savvy travelers carry

their camera’s, laptops, lenses, iPods, batteries, chargers, cables, and memory cards, they

also need to carry external hard drives. Chris (respondent 2) and his wife have been

traveling since 2006, and have been documenting their travels through High Definition

videos, photos, and audio recordings. The video in particular takes a lot of memory to

store, approximately 1 gigabyte per 15 minutes of raw footage. Storing the video and

photos takes up many external hard drives, and they recently purchased their 6th extra

hard drive, just adding to the weight of everything that they must carry with them.

Digital storage devices are becoming smaller with small portable external hard drives

coming out with capacities of 1 terabyte (1,000 gigabytes) or more and Flash drives with
 133

storage for 64 gigabytes. The average backpacker and traveler does not carry around as

many devices with himself/herself, but nearly all carry at least a digital camera to

document his/her experiences (Paris, 2008; 2010a). The proliferation of technological

devices that many backpackers are carrying with them allows them to add continually

content and real-time interactivity to the virtual moorings of backpacking. Parallel to a

larger trend in the mediation of the tourist experience, this content and interactivity

allows for the imaginative travel of consumers of the content, as well as the

reconstruction of the experiences into memories by the travelers themselves

Imaginative travel. Another interesting effect of the Web 2.0 developments for

backpacking and tourism in general is that User Generated Content can influence or at

least be perceived to influence more people to travel. Tara (respondent 7) attributes both

the development of Web 2.0 and the inclusion of backpacking in mainstream media as a

contributing factor, as she concluded that, “more young people are backpacking and

exploring due to the ability to explore blogs, travel sites, reality shows, and hear other

fellow backpacker stories.” Brandon (respondent 6) noted that by posting photos and

stories online, people at home are able to dream and escape by virtually taking part in the

traveler’s adventures. He also notes a downfall to this; that it can have a negative effect

on the exploration, expectations, and overall experience. As Brandon (respondent 6)

stated, “when you arrive and you now have a filter planted firmly in your head rather than

an open mind in which to form you own personal opinions.”

The virtualization of experiences and memories by travelers has been examined

briefly in the travel literature, and provides a basis for understanding the human
 134

technology hybrid spaces (Larsen, 2008). The transformation from experience to

virtually stored memory is an interesting transition to examine. While the photos that

backpackers take would provide interesting insights, the digital movement of the images

(and video and texts) that document a backpacker’s experiences from the physical

destination to the virtual moorings shed light onto both the travel practices of individuals

and the uses of social media to share their experiences with backpacking culture. The

consumer generated media produced by other backpackers is viewed and taken into

account by many backpackers when they are planning their trips (Paris, 2010a).

Planning and Independence. The abundance of information and the ease of

accessing it through Social Media and mobile devices has arguably resulted in the

increased independence of backpackers (Paris, 2010a), which is one of the main ideals of

the backpacking culture. Alan (respondent 5) summed up the ‘pre-Facebook’ and ‘pre-

iPhone’ backpacking experience as, “Less connected. Harder to research on the go. Less

spontaneous.” It is important to note that there were conflicting views on whether social

media and communications technologies increased the independence of backpackers in

the interviews. Chris (respondent 2) argued that the new developments have just

replaced past dependencies, “Where someone used to religiously carry around their

Lonely Planet bible, they’re now perhaps using a Google search, Wikitravel or other

personal favorites to find the same information.” In Sara’s (respondent 4) response, a

similar sentiment emerged suggesting a dependence on information via the Internet might

exist. Sara (respondent 4) said, “it is so much easier to plan and book your own travel on

the internet. I would say I do 75% of my research for trips on the internet.” On the other
 135

hand individuals have more control and flexibility in their travel planning. The

virtualization of word of mouth recommendations allow individuals to instantly access

vast stores of peer reviews on destinations, accommodations, restaurants, etc, while being

physically mobile. Alan (respondent 5) is a big proponent of this innovation, “Social

functions (such as real time reviews) on booking sites have made a huge difference. One

of my favorites is Hostelworld.com which provides a multi-point review system with user

comments for each hostel. There is nothing better then being able to look through tens if

not hundreds of reviews left by real travelers.” Some individuals try to find a middle-

ground between planning and allowing time for drifting. As Chris (respondent 2)

summed up, “With so much access to information and online booking, many people are

planning much more in advance than in the past. We try to find a middle point between

understanding our destination, booking flexibly and a few days in advance, and also

finding space and time to go with the flow and take local advice from people online and

offline.”

While the general feeling of respondents is that the technological innovations and

increased amount of information available online has made backpacking easier, Jess

(respondent 8) pointed out that, “There is also conflicting information that sometimes

complicates things, especially when you go off the beaten path. So we would say that it’s

[recent technological developments] made it [backpacking] both easier and more

complex.” As information is available instantly, anywhere, and at anytime, independence

and pre-planning using consumer-generated media have become a balancing act. The

resulting time-compression of the developments in information and communication

 136

technologies has also resulted in different constructions of time and the backpacking

experience.

Time. Time is an interesting component of the backpacking culture. Cohen’s

(1973) term drifter, suggests a traveler that perceives time as free, and unimportant.

Backpackers have been conceptualized as “Long-term travelers” early on in the literature

(Riley, 1988). Societal constructions of the backpacking experience also suggest that

backpacking often occurs during ‘gap’ of time in individuals lives, such as during career

gaps and gap-years (O’Reilley, 2006). The perception of backpacking as ‘time away’ is

now being contested through the developments of communications technologies. As

mentioned in the previous section, individuals are now constantly connected with their

various social networks, home and away. Time is also being compressed in terms of the

length of time it takes to connect with social networks. In the 1970s, a letter from India to

North America could take several weeks to reach home. This dropped considerably with

the development of land-line phones in developing destinations, internet cafés,

international cell phones, and email. For some, the perception of time has compressed

even more as Tara (respondent 7) mentioned, “Emailing usually took a bit longer

compared to quick responses from Facebook. I say overall, things just took longer [pre-

Facebook].” Similarly, Facebook and other social networks have facilitated ‘faster’

connection with other travelers met on the road. Traveling physically, away from

responsibilities of home, can also allow individuals more time to connect virtually and

contribute to the online backpacker culture. While traveling, Jess (respondent 8) has only

been disconnected a total of 3 weeks out of a total of 10 months traveling, and “have far
 137

more time while on the road to access these sites and produce content for our blog than

we had when we were home working.” Being connected, carrying technological devices,

and using those devices throughout the backpacking experience, is the main

characteristics differentiating backpackers and flashpackers.

Backpacker and Flashpacker identities. The backpacker and flashpacker identity

is often based upon two factors: use of technology and higher disposable income. While

chapter two of this dissertation did not find any difference in the cultural model of

‘flashpackers’ and ‘backpackers’ subgroups, the individuals interviewed offered some

insights into how individuals construct their backpacker or flashpacker identities. Alan’s

(respondent 5) identity has changed, as he “historically categorized myself as more of a

backpacker. However over the last 14 months as I’ve ramped up my travel and acquired

new gadgets, I’m definitely a Flashpacker now.” While Alan’s (respondent 5) account

suggests a transition from one to the other, Chris’s (respondent 2) reflection on his own

identity is murky. Chris (respondent 2) maintains hold on the ‘traveler’ identity, which

echoes the literature on backpacker identity. However, Chris (respondent 2) mentions

that:

Our travel pattern fits the backpacker ideas: we have more time than

money, we travel reasonably slowly and for long periods of times, we stay

in hostels or with couchsurfing hosts. On the other hand, around 1/3 of our

baggage is electronics and we get pretty jumpy if we’re offline for more

than 48 hours…we tend to book a private room—these could be called

Flashpacking characteristics.
 138

The inner conflict between ‘being’ a backpacker or flashpacker can also be compounded

by the destinations to which individuals travel. Jess’s (respondent 8) statement reflects

this as she identifies herself as, “Neither and both. We weave in and out of these

categories depending on where we are. In Myanmar, for example, backpacking is the

only way to have any progress as an impendent traveler. In India, spending just a little bit

more than a ‘backpacker’ gets you quite a lift in terms of standards and ease of travel.”

Similarly, some of the respondents suggested that their situations decided their identities.

Don (respondent 3) said that he was a Flashpacker, “by virtue of what is required to

actively maintain a blog while traveling.” While some individuals, from all appearances,

would be considered a flashpacker, some just more closely identify with being a

backpacker. Brandon (respondent 6) described this from a particularly interesting

background, “I started my traveling after more than 10 years in the corporate IT world

and carry a notebook and SLR camera, but still more closely identify with

‘backpackers.’”

Backpacker angst has been an important topic in the literature (Welk, 2004);

however flashpacker angst has not yet received any attention. Sara’s (respondent 4)

interview suggests that there might be a segment of backpackers who have flashpacker

angst, or the rebellion from being labeled as a ‘flashpacker.’ She identified herself as a

backpacker, as she stayed primarily in hostels and self catered, and even though she

carried a laptop she did not associate with the flashpacker identity. Instead she actually

thought the “term flashpacker is a bit snooty.” The apparent emergence of Flashpacking
 139

is a complex one, just as historically, every other aspect of society to emerge in liquid

modernity.

Summary. The future impacts of technology and communication advancements on

tourism and backpacking in particular mirror those in society in general, especially the

more developed countries, as we advance into the Attention age. Travelers must choose

to be connected or not. For some, being able to be connected instantly and continuously

adds to their ability to travel and independence while traveling. On the other hand, for

some individuals, being constantly connected while traveling takes away from the

experiences while traveling. Most travelers will find a happy medium between the two,

bringing to light the need to understand conceptually what it means to be disconnected,

and to focus the discussion on the individual’s choice of how, who, when, and where to

connect. For the backpacking and broader travel industry, understanding this decision-

making process of individuals will allow them to better position themselves to intersect

with their customers on their customers’ terms, thus allowing for deeper relationships to

be built. Stronger reciprocal relationships have been found to be important factors in

judging the effectiveness of social media marketing (Paris, Lee, & Seery, 2010). While

the technological innovations have affected what and how backpacking destinations,

experiences, and culture are being produced and consumed, Don (respondent 3) put it

best, with the comment: “you can still have the same backpacking experiences today as

you could 20 years ago, but its up to the individual to build such boundaries.”

This section of Chapter 5 used in-depth interviews with eight key informants to

understand the uses, meaning, and influence of social media and other mobile
 140

communication technologies on backpacking. The next section complements the

interviews by discussing the results of the mobile-virtual ethnography of the eight key

informants’ social media outlets.

Results of Mobile-Virtual Ethnography

This diction of the study focused on the four prominent virtual spaces of Twitter,

YouTube, Facebook, and blogs. For each respondent, a map was created that shows the

directional flows between the four virtual spaces. All of the key informants were heavy

social media users with strong connections to the backpacker culture. Even so, there were

major differences in the group in terms of the ways that individuals used the types of

social media, where they focused their attention, what they used the types of social media

for, and who the content they created was targeted to. Developments of social media are

currently influencing the tourism industry particularly how consumers and the industry

interact. As a direct result, understanding the consequences of technological

developments for both backpackers and business has been an increasingly important

direction for academic backpacker research (Pearce, Murphy, Brymer, 2009).

Furthermore, the importance of examining the impacts of technology on the backpacker

experience has been identified as one of the three main future directions that backpacker

research needs to address (Pearce, Murphy, Brymer, 2009). In this context, this section

addresses the online behavior of eight highly ‘connected’ backpackers, while also

examining the potential influences on other backpackers who are ‘online observers’. At

the time of writing up this research, five of the eight key informants are currently

traveling, and thus maintaining their virtual spaces while being physically mobile. While
 141

traveling, they are using the social media outlets to maintain connections with friends,

family and the online backpacker culture, document and share their experiences, and

some are even prolonging their physical mobility by earning income through their

websites.

Another important reason for understanding the ways in which the different types

of social media are used and how information is spread between virtual spaces and to

virtual audiences is the increasing importance of consumer-generated media (CGM) in

promoting backpacker businesses and the development of brands. Traditionally,

consumer branding has been the product of top-down marketing plans developed by

companies and ‘targeted’ towards consumers. Christodoulides (2008) suggests that there

is a shift from the top-down marketing communications to a new-age branding built from

an emphasis on relationships between businesses and consumers. Successful businesses

now are adapting to the movement towards user-generated branding in which consumers

are partners in collaborative relationships that seek to create mutual value and brand

meanings (Burmann & Arnhold, 2008). There are a few examples in tourism of the

power of this co-creation of branding. Websites like TripAdvisor, Kayak ratings, and

Google Pages, and for the backpacking industry—Hostelworld.com, have become

tremendously powerful spaces in which consumer branding and decisions are

simultaneous created. Tourism businesses are quickly realizing the potentially negative

and positive influences on consumer decisions that social media sites can have. Poor

quality products or services can now ‘go viral’ and be instantly spread to entire markets.

Successful businesses have been able to adapt and embrace the technological
 142

advancements seeking to be proactive in the development of user-generated branding and

building relationships with consumer markets through social media. While being

proactive about adapting to the changes is a necessity, doing so nearly blindly without

proper understanding of the medium can be both inefficient and harmful for the

businesses.

The virtualization of backpacker culture has also occurred, and understanding the

infrastructure on which this virtualization is occurring is important. The behavior maps

discussed in the following paragraphs provide a picture of this infrastructure. The maps

show the virtual connections between four virtual moorings on which the backpacker

culture is embedded.

Behavior maps. The social media maps (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs) of

the eight individuals are all located in Appendix D. Each map shows the pathways

connecting the four different types of social media, where and what kind of content is

produced, the number of people that are directly interacting with the individuals, and the

integration of the social media outlets. While each of the individual’s social media maps

are different, several trends did emerge in terms of individuals level of influence, level of

integration, type of content, blurring of personal and ‘professional’ profiles, and the type

of social media on which the online behavior of the individual was centered upon.

The influence within the online backpacker community was measured in terms of

their Twitter networks, Facebook fans or friends, YouTube video views, visitors to their

blog for month of February 2010, and traffic ranking of their website. Each of these

numbers can be found in Table 13.

 143

Table 13

Influence of Individuals Social Media.

Twitter Blog Youtube Facebook

Following Followers Visitors last Ranks Total Friends/Fans
month Views
Greater
Influence
Mike 4444 8112 42231 42633 55048 1918
Chris 5182 5403 14629 110583 9569 527
Don 3325 3302 7793 190457 38021 814
Sara 924 1780 8078 184783 n/a 162
Alan 922 1295 3974 337038 55291 888
Lesser
Influence
Brandon 308 560 2582 493069 n/a 473
Tara 522 54 618 1774928 221 217
Jess 10 31 n/a n/a 3998 141

The eight individuals were divided into two groups, those with greater influence

and those with lesser influence. It should be noted that these individuals all produce and

disseminate content online, and thus have some sort of influence among their networks.

The data presented in Table 13, however, reflect both the influence of their content and

the size of the networks with which the content is shared. The numbers shown above

suggest that the individuals classified as having greater influence have direct influence on

thousands of individuals. Looking at their Twitter networks, most of the individuals in

the greater influence group have more ‘followers’ than people they are following. Also,

the indirect influence that they have within the ‘statusphere’ is multiplied. Because of the

use of RT (re-tweeting), and using # (hash-tags) on Twitter, the indirect effect of

influential individuals’ Tweets grows dramatically as their number of followers increases.

 144

In terms of their blog traffic, each of the individuals, and in particular Mike (respondent

1), have widely visited websites. Mike’s (respondent 1) website is the 42633rd most

visited website for the month of February 2010, which is quite a good number

considering there are at least 117 million websites currently active on the Internet

(http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/).

All of the individuals had larger Twitter networks than Facebook Networks. This

suggests that Twitter is used to connect to a wider audience, whereas Facebook is used to

connect with a more intimate group of people. The content of these individuals can be

extremely influential to other backpackers in terms of where they travel to, what products

they consume, and what behavior they exhibit at destinations. The influence of online

word-of-mouth plays an important role in consumer behavior, even more so in the

tourism industry as the product that individuals purchase is experience based. The advice

from other travelers who have had previous experience with a tourist product is

considered the preferred and most influential source of pre-purchase information (Crotts,

1999). Several studies have examined the impact of blogs on marketing in the travel and

tourism industries (Pan, MacLaurin, & Crotts, 2007; Mack, Blose, & Pan, 2008; Litvin,

Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008). The data in Table 13 also suggest that some individuals focus

on particular media outlets more than others. Alan (respondent 5), for example, has the

‘least’ active blog of the most active group and his Twitter network is the smallest, but

his Facebook network is the second largest and he has the most video views on YouTube.

Previous literature in this area has focused primarily on blogs as the source for eWOM

(Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008), but the current findings suggest that individuals have
 145

varying levels of influence across different types of social media, and therefore

researchers and tourism marketers should study the pre-purchase influence of individuals

across the varying types of social media.

A review of the social maps (Appendix D) also suggests that some of the

individuals’ online behavior was centered on a particular social media, while others were

not. Mike (respondent 1) (Appendix D) centered his online activities on his Blog as a

center for content, Twitter as his communication outlet, and Facebook as a platform to

interact on a more intimate level, as well as a platform to access the other types of media.

Mike (respondent 1) had the most visited blog, most Facebook Fans, and largest Twitter

network. While Mike (respondent 1) had a tri-modal focus, the bi-modal behavior was

the most common for the sample. The online behavior of six of the individuals was

focused on two of the virtual moorings, their blogs and Twitter. The blogs were the

center of their content and Twitter was used to disseminate most content (blogs,

YouTube, Podcasts, etc), and provide status updates (at home and while traveling). Jess

(respondent 8) was the only individual whose online behavior focused upon one type of

social media, her blog. The process of mapping individuals’ online behavior in this study

suggests that while individuals do have differences in how they use social media, usage

patterns have emerged. In the future this study should be repeated with individuals who

are not as active as the individuals in this study. The findings here could suggest that

most people focus the majority of their online attention on two types of social media.

While they may participate in ‘lower-rung’ activities as ‘spectators’ or ‘joiners’ (Bernoff,

2010) using a variety of social media, higher-level online behaviors might be the focus of
 146

only a few particular types of social media. Having a better understanding on the types of

social media those individuals of a particular tourist segment focus on would allow

tourism marketers to properly channel their resources to be more efficient and effective in

targeting those segments.

While this study was not meant to go into details of the actual content, a brief

discussion of what kinds of content are produced and disseminated through each type of

social media as well as the differences and similarities for each group is warranted. The

majority of content for all individuals was presented through blog posts. Most blogs

contained embedded photos from Flikr.com and other sites and embedded videos from

YouTube. The blog posts included personal content that the individual wrote. This

content often included a current or historical account of a travel experience, a review of a

destination/product/services, a ‘top-ten’ list, and/or travel tips. Three of the individuals

had what could be considered ‘commercial content.’ These included podcast travel

guides (Chris (respondent 2)) and eBooks on backpacking (Mike (respondent 1)). All

three individuals used their blogs as a central aspect of their personal branding as

backpacking experts. During the interviews all three individuals also used the websites

as primary sources of income. Mike (respondent 1) and Chris (respondent 2) have been

traveling for more than two years, using the websites to generate income to prolong their

travels. The blogs from Chris (respondent 2) and Don (respondent 3) both include a large

number of posts from contributing authors. While Chris (respondent 2) and Don

(respondent 3) both author a great number of the posts, the addition of the other

contributors give both blogs an almost e-Magazine feel. Twitter was used by most of the
 147

individuals to communicate with their networks. The content that was posted through

Twitter varied with each individual. One popular use of Twitter was to provide updates

every time they made a new post or uploaded new content to their blog or YouTube

account. Twitter was also widely used to provide ‘status’ updates of what the individual

was doing or thinking. Other types of content were updated through Twitter using other

applications available in the Twitterverse (Solis, 2009). The most popular is one that

allows individuals to upload a picture from their mobile phone or other mobile

application. Similarly, updates to Facebook status and the use of Facebook mobile photo

uploaders were used by several of the individuals. Twitter and the Facebook status

represent what has been referred to as the statusphere. The statusphere is the “the state of

publishing, reading, responding to, and sharing micro-sized updates” (Solis, 2007).

Solis (2007) suggests that as we progress into the Attention Age, the traditional

ways of measuring a blog’s authority is outdated. The increased participation in ‘micro

communities’ and social networks are detracting from the amount of time individuals

spend writing blogs, commenting on blogs, and reading blogs. This rise of the

statusphere, which is dominated by Facebook and Twitter, has changed the way that that

the online interactions and conversations are taking place. Instead of focused on the host

site, they are occurring through syndication. Content is now spread and curated by peers

through the statusphere. Individuals are now empowered in the dissemination of

information and the evolution of connectivity through social networking tools like

Twitter’s RT and Facebook’s ‘likes’ and comments. While the amount of traffic and
 148

interaction in the blogosphere is declining, it can also be argued that the influence of the

blogosphere is increasing. Solis (2007) argues:

One blog post can spark a distributed response in the respective

communities where someone chooses to RT, favorite, like, comment, or

share. These byte-sized actions reverberate throughout the social graph,

resulting in a formidable network effect of measurable movement and

activity. It is this form of digital curation of relevant information that

binds us contextually and sets the stage to introduce not only new content

to new people, but also facilitates the forging of new friendships, or at

least connections, with the publisher in the process.

Essentially, the statusphere provides the space for which social interaction can be

maximized.

The results of the mobile-virtual ethnography in this study support the notion of

the emergence of two distinct virtual spaces: the statusphere and the blogosphere. Figure

3 provides a visual representation of the relationship between these two spaces. The

statusphere provides a mediator between users and the content of the blogosphere. As the

developments of social media have allowed a dramatic increase in the amount of

consumer-generated content, certain technologies have developed that allow individuals

to manage their attention more efficiently, allowing them a more direct way to the

information they want. In this study, Twitter and Facebook provide this buffer to the

content provided on blogs and YouTube. Many other tools are also available in the

statusphere including: RSS feeds, friend feed, recommender systems, and even Google’s
 149

efforts for personalized searches. Similarly, the blogosphere is a title given to the content

of the Internet, which is not limited to just YouTube and blogs. For this study, however,

the relationship does emerge through the analysis of the four types of social media.

Blogosphere
Statusphere

Figure 3. Statusphere and Blogosphere

The statusphere provides the means for content in the blogosphere to reach more

people, more effective and efficiently. This is an important thing for tourism businesses

to recognize. Instead of just blindly creating social media or online marketing plans, they

should realize that these two distinct spaces exist. A backpacker hostel, for example,

could design a blog on which it provides destination information, tips, specials, etc. This

would be their presence in the blogosphere. Next, the hostel would then maintain a

presence in the statusphere through Twitter and/or Facebook, with the purpose of

drawing individuals back to the source page through back linking. The online behavior

maps of the 8 individuals in this study support this two-sphere phenomenon that is
 150

emerging. All of the individuals maintained a blog and used Twitter and/or Facebook to

link people to the original blog post and to facilitate discussion.

The integration of these individuals’ content and networks is evident through the

blogosphere and statusphere example above. Web 2.0 advancements have also provided

tools for the integration of individuals’ social media. These tools allow individuals to

increase the mobility and close the virtual distance between their multiple virtual

moorings. The individuals in this study had varying levels of integration. Alan’s

(respondent 5) Twitter, Facebook, Blog, and YouTube were all highly integrated. Every

content update he added to his blog or YouTube account produced an automated status

update for his Facebook profile. His Facebook status and Twitter status were also

coordinated, so that anytime he updates either (manually or automatically) the other also

updates, thus maximizing his connectivity with his multiple networks. This integration

connects his two networks. When he Re-Tweets or Replies @ to a message on Twitter, it

also shows up on his Facebook Profile, along with the message he sent, thus allowing his

friends of friends to connect across the two social networks. Several of the other

individuals had similar auto-updates connecting their blogs or YouTube accounts with

their status updates. Mike’s (respondent 1) social media outlets were all highly integrated

as well. His Twitter and Facebook Page status updates were integrated. Additionally,

Mike (respondent 1) used Facebook Applications to provide an extra Tab on his

Facebook Page for both his YouTube and Twitter. This allowed individuals to visit these

other sites without leaving his Facebook Page. Alan (respondent 5) also had one more

level of integration. His blog comments were all integrated. Anytime a blog update on his
 151

Facebook or Twitter status was responded to or commented on, the comment would also

appear on the original blog post along with the direct comments. This final level of

integration represents the completed circuit of the integration between his blogosphere

and statusphere.

Using this integration example for the backpacking hostel, the hostel that has both

the blog and the Twitter/Facebook account, can then integrate them so that all the

comments are aggregated on their blog profile. The user-generated content, such as

comments or user reviews, are the information that is most trusted by other consumers. If

a tourism business is able to centralize this feedback from multiple sources, it has the

opportunity to maximize the benefit of this eWord-of-mouth. Another aspect of

integration that seemed to be apart of some of the individuals was the ‘blurring’ of

personal and professional identities.

Social media is the basis for several of the respondents’ main source of income.

Chris (respondent 2), Don (respondent 3), and Mike (respondent 1) all use social media

to create a backpacker brand, but some of these brands are blurring what is personal and

what is professional for each of these individuals. Don (respondent 3), for example, has a

branded backpacking blog, Facebook profile, and YouTube account, but uses a personal

Twitter account. Chris (respondent 2) maintains his ‘professional profile’ that is

integrated with his other social media, as well as a personal blog, that is essentially a

travelogue of his current journey. All of the individuals have created some sort of

personal backpacking brand of themselves as experts; otherwise they would not have the

authority to grow the large networks that they have. The blurring of personal and
 152

professional social media, echoes what is going on in society at large, as a more

networked pattering of life has emerged in which the boundaries between home and away

and work and leisure have become increasingly fluid. Understanding that this blurring

does not mean that individuals want to be ‘friends’ with a hostel, for example, just

because they added them as ‘friend’ or became a Fan on Facebook, is crucial in

understanding how tourism businesses must approach the online B2C (business-to-

customer) interactions. Also understanding that whatever B2C interactions occur, there

must be a level of mutual benefit and reciprocity for a relationship to develop, and that all

virtual B2C interactions online are mediated by C2C (customer-to-customer). This is

more obvious in the tourism industry with the rise of review websites like TripAdvisor

and Hostelworld.com, but the C2C interaction that occurs through social media is less

obvious.

Summary: This section presented the findings of a mobile-ethnography of eight

individuals’ use of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs. Changes that can be

attributed to Web 2.0 as well as the advancement into the emerging Attention Age create

a necessity for the tourism industry to incorporate social media as a means of

communicating with potential and actual tourists. Up until now much of this has been

done blindly, with little understanding of the differences in how each type of social media

is used, how the different types of social media are integrated, as well as the emerging

space of the statusphere. This section has provided some insights into what is occurring

and discussed how these eight individuals behave online. Reflecting back upon the

Social Technographics and the Engagement Pyramid, the eight individuals in this study
 153

were primarily engaged in higher-order activities. The individuals here are some of those

responsible for the curating of the online backpacker culture and the production of

content. They are the ‘Creators’ and ‘Conversationalists’ that help to maintain the

structure and content of the online backpacker community, facilitate many of the social

interactions that occur online, and influence the consumer behavior of backpackers.

They are extremely influential, and the insights provided here will hopefully allow those

individuals (and individuals like them) to reflect on their position as trend setters. These

individuals embody the historical exploratory nature of the off-the-beaten path

backpackers. Many of the backpacker enclaves and popular mass-tourist sites were

visited originally by “explorer backpackers.” These explorer backpackers shared their

experiences through word of mouth, and as time progressed the tourism frontiers

progressed through the tourism destination cycle. In a similar way, these eight individual

virtual explorer backpackers, can be considered as paving the way of the new virtual

frontiers of the future of backpacking.

The findings presented in this chapter and the one preceding it provide a

significant contribution to the understanding of backpackers, the emerging flashpacker,

and technological innovations’ impacts on both. The next chapter discusses these

findings within the context of previous literature reviewed, the backpacker mobilities

framework, and the techno-social graphic typologies.

 154

Chapter 6

Discussion

The four main objectives of this research were stated in Chapter 1. The purpose of

this study is to explore the virtualization of the backpacker culture resulting from the

convergence of the information and communication technologies, backpacker culture,

and physical travel. To satisfy this purpose, this dissertation focused on four research

objectives. The research set out to explore the backpacker culture and emerging

flashpacker sub-culture, develop an understanding of the convergence of social media

and other mobile technologies for the backpacking experience and culture, develop an

understanding of the virtualization of the backpacker culture through the examination

hybrid backpacking spaces and mobilities, and to understand the technological

preferences, personal virtual mobilities, and production as well as dissemination of social

media by a small group of technologically savvy backpackers.

Specifically, the study set out to answer the following questions:

• Is there a shared or common cultural model among backpackers?

• Are there differences in the cultural models of flashpackers and non-flashpackers?

If so, what are the differences? What are the implications of these differences?

• What information and communication technologies are preferred by backpackers?

And how are these technologies used? How do they contribute to the backpacking

culture and experience?

 155

• What is the structure of the virtual space of backpacking? Where is the virtual

backpacking culture moored? What are the implications of the virtualization of

the backpacker culture?

This chapter will discuss results of this study with respect to the study objectives

and the questions it sets out to address. The discussion is broken up into four different

sections, each of which reflects on specific research questions.

Backpacker Culture and Emergence of Flashpacking

One of the main objectives of this study was to undertake an examination of the

contemporary backpacker culture and the emerging flashpacker sub-culture through an

application of Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA). The CCA of backpacking culture

complements the previous ethnographic studies, while also overcoming some of the

issues that have arisen due to the mainstreaming of backpacking in travel and tourism

(O’Reilly, 2006). An ethnographic approach as previously been used to examine a

specific of aspects of backpacking culture or backpacking culture in a specific physical

location, but researchers have found that there is difficulty in examining the backpacking

culture as a whole using ethnography. This has been attributed to the difficulty in

establishing the objective cultural boundaries of backpacking (Welk, 2004) using a

subjective method. Additionally, attention was paid primarily to ‘road culture’

(Sorensen, 2003), or a particular aspect of that road culture, such as the social interactions

of backpackers in hostels (Murphy, 2001). While the potential limitations of the

mainstreaming of backpacking can limit the use of ethnographic approaches when

 156

examining the backpacker culture as a whole, the application of CCA is not necessarily

negatively impacted. The issue of the mainstreaming of backpacking when applying the

CCA is in the sampling of a representative group. In chapter three of this dissertation, the

sampling procedure was discussed in detail. The combination of the online and offline

sampling procedure has allowed for greater coverage of various groups of backpackers.

Another benefit of the CCA is that it calculates the shared cultural understanding of the

individuals sampled, essentially calculating the cultural boundaries of backpacking. The

level of agreement of the group for each of the sixty cultural statements can help to

construct the ideological boundaries of the backpacker culture, and provide quantitative

support for or contradictory to the conceptualization of backpacking culture in the

literature.

The lineage of many of the commonly accepted backpacker cultural

characteristics can be traced back over the last 140 years, from the tramps of the 1880s

(Meriwether, 1886), through the drifters traveling the Hippie Trail in the 1970s, to the

contemporary form of backpacking. The findings the CCA in this study suggest that the

backpacker ideology and cultural norms described in previous ethnographic studies

(Sorensen, 2003; Welk, 2004; Anderskov, 2002) are confirmed within the international

sample of backpackers in this study. The proportion of agreement calculated through the

CCA for each of the cultural items in Table 9 and 10 reflects the commonly held

backpacker ideology: a desire to travel as long as possible, potential for social interaction

with other travelers and local people, freedom, independence, open-mindedness, and

opportunities to experience multi-cultural, exotic, exciting, and/or once-in-a-lifetime

 157

activities. CCA also tested for the existence of a shared cultural understanding of

backpacking among the respondents of the survey. The results of this study suggest that

there is in fact a quantifiable shared cultural understanding of backpacking. Additionally,

the boundaries of the culture are quantifiable, and represented by each individual’s level

of cultural competence of the shared model. The variance in the level of cultural

competence held by the respondents in this study (Figure 2) helps to understand that

backpacking culture is fluid. For the items used in the CCA in this study, some

individuals had a high level of agreement with the cultural model than others. The ability

to visualize and quantify this variance allows for the potential of understanding the

compounding or overlapping of individuals’ multiple cultures. An individual’s personal

values affect how they behave and participate in backpacker activities and culture (Paris,

2010b), and their personal values are impacted by the cultural backgrounds.

Understanding the aggregate impacts of the interaction of individuals’ multiple cultures

on their connection to the backpacking culture is potentially impossible using subjective

methods. CCA could potentially help to understand the relationships between the

backpacking culture and individuals’ latent cultures in future studies.

When viewed in the context of the literature on backpacking, these findings

provide several other interesting insights. There has been a recent call in some of the

backpacking literature for studies that provide insights into various segments of

backpackers (Scheyvens, 2002; Sorensen, 2003; Paris, 2008). The justification for

segmentation studies was based on the dramatic growth and mainstreaming of

backpacking, and came from the business and marketing studies of backpacking. At the
 158

same time, on the other side of the epistemological fence of backpacking research

(Ateljevic & Hannam, 2008; Richards & Wilson, 2004b), many studies have been

advancing the understanding of backpacking culture (Sorensen, 2003; Anderskov, 2002;

Ateljevic & Doorne, 2004; Riley, 1988; Spreitzhofer, 1998; Teo & Leong, 2006; Loker-

Murphy & Pearce, 1995). The two lines of research on backpacking differ, as one seeks

to develop understandings of sub-segments of backpackers, and the other examines, (or at

least attempts to do so), the backpacking phenomenon as a whole. This study did both.

The findings of this study suggest that there is in fact a shared cultural understanding of

backpacking. Further, this study examined the emerging flashpacker sub-culture and its

relationship to the backpacking culture as a whole. The flashpacker has received a lot of

focus lately because of assumed growth and affluence of this segment of backpackers.

This study has contributed an objective analysis of the shared cultural values of

flashpackers and found that there was not a significantly stronger shared cultural model

for flashpackers than that shared with non-flashpackers. These findings further develop

the critical understanding of backpacking culture, but at the same time provide insights

into a particular sub-segment of the backpacking industry, which seemingly is contrary to

the suggestion that the two epistemological lines of inquiry into backpacking are in

opposition to each other (Ateljevic & Hannam, 2008; Richards & Wilson, 2004b).

In addition to the contribution of the understanding of backpacking culture, this

study provides some unique insights for the backpacker industry, especially concerning

the flashpacker sub-segment. The results of the CCA and Quadratic Assignment

Procedure linear regression model suggest that while the flashpackers and non-
 159

flashpackers do each have a shared cultural understanding of backpackers within each

group; the shared understanding within each group is not significantly different then that

between groups. These results suggest that flashpackers are not a unique sub-culture,

mathematically, from other backpackers. The analysis of differences in the proportions

of agreement (Table 11) suggest that the biggest difference between flashpackers and

non-flashpackers did have to do with their perception and intensity of use of technology

and the backpacker experience with flashpackers having a more favorable view of

technologies. These findings echo the general conceptualization of flashpackers as being

more tech-savvy (Paris, 2010; Hannam & Diekmann, 2010) then other backpackers.

Further understanding of the progression of backpacker and flashpacker online behavior

is discussed later in this chapter using a socio-technographic typology.

In addition to being tech-savvy, the general notion in the literature and

backpacking industry is that flashpackers are more affluent. The findings of this study

suggest that while this may be true, that does not necessarily mean they always spend a

greater amount. Daily expenditures were one of the criteria used to cluster the

flashpacker group and the flashpackers had a high level of agreement (98%) that

spending extra money for once in a lifetime activities is OK; however, flashpackers had a

higher agreement (83%) than non-flashpackers (77%) that it is essential to pay local

prices and get the best deal. This suggests that flashpackers, even though are more

affluent, still maintain the traditional backpacker ideal of getting a good deal. They could

possibly put more emphasis on traveling on a budget, because they do so for experiential

factors rather than due to budgetary constraints. For businesses seeking to tap into the
 160

affluent flashpacker market, they should consider these findings. Many hostels have

developed more ‘flashy’ accommodation and services to target flashpackers with the

justification that because they do have more disposable income, they all want a nicer

accommodation. Future studies should examine this potential gap between the services

and products targeted to flashpackers and fulfill the needs and wants of flashpackers. By

creating a different infrastructure for flashpackers, businesses could potentially alienate

many of them. The chapter briefly introduced backpacker angst (Welk, 2004) which has

been discussed in the literature, and some of the interviewees responses suggest that

similar flashpacker angst could be developing. Businesses targeting flashpackers should

be careful to develop services and products within the backpacking industry landscape

that already exists by creating products that complement the current backpacking

industry, as well as the emerging flashpacker market. This trend can already be seen in

the development of some of the hostels that provide high tech, high amenity services such

as free wi-fi, free breakfast, single rooms and dorm rooms, key card access, chic bars,

modern designs, emphasis on cleanliness, and flat screen TVs. By adding amenities,

addressing high-tech needs, and providing ‘mixed-use’ facilities for both flashpackers

and other backpackers, a business could maximize the perceived value to their customers,

not alienate flashpackers, and differentiate from competition. Additionally, it is suggested

that companies should continue to provide experiences that are unique, authentic,

exciting, and social, as these are important for backpackers, and not try to create more

luxurious excursions for the sake of luxury. Flashpackers and non-flashpackers all had a
 161

very high agreement that they were willing to spend extra money for experiences they

deemed worthy.

This study contends that flashpackers do constitute an emerging sub-group of

backpacking and have a shared cultural understanding of backpacking that is not different

than non-flashpackers. Nevertheless, there were some unique qualities of flashpacker

group. The main distinguishing characteristic of flashpackers is how they participate in

the backpacking culture. Flashpackers have embraced innovations in information and

communication technology and mobile technologies earlier and to a greater extent, which

mediates their backpacker experience and interaction with the backpacker culture. Non-

flashpackers’ backpacking experience and interaction with the backpacking culture is

also increasingly mediated by ICT. The next section discusses this convergence in greater

detail.

Convergence of ICT and Backpacking

Many backpackers, not just flashpackers, have increasingly used technology

before, during, and after their travels (Paris, 2010a). In the Chapter 4, tables 4 through 8

reveals that a large percentage of backpackers are active users mobile and internet

technologies. Building an understanding of convergence of technology and backpacking

is one of the top items on a recent research agenda developed by tourism researchers and

business leaders (Pearce, Murphy, Brymer, 2009).

The study showed that the amount and type of technological devices that

backpackers are bringing with them is also increasing. More then 25% of the

respondents of the survey brought a laptop with them while traveling (Table 4), a steady
 162

increase from similar previous studies of separate samples of backpackers (Paris, 2008;

2010a). Additionally, many respondents also brought other wi-fi or 3G enabled devices

including international cell phones and wi-fi enabled devices (iPod-Touch), many of

which allow access to a growing number of mobile travel apps. Using the devices that

respondents brought with them on their trips and access points, such as internet cafes,

respondents frequently accessed Facebook and email to interact with their various social

networks, add new friends met while traveling, and to share their photos of their travel

experience during their trip with their networks. When combined with an almost constant

ability of connectivity in backpacker enclaves, this system of surveillance (Molz, 2006)

creates a situation in which experiences are shared across physical distances

instantaneously with multiple networks. This mobile sociality allows individuals to

connect to people they are physically distant from, such as friends and family at home, as

well as individuals, including other travelers and local backpacker businesses, they are in

close physical proximity with. The sharing of their photos during travel can increase the

level of interactivity of friends and families, offering nearly simultaneous two-way

interaction as experiences are happening. The boundaries between home and away are

further blurred (Mascheroni, 2007), allowing individuals to portray, construct (and

reconstruct) and relieve their trips interactively within their mobile sociality as they are

experiencing them. This instant mediation needs to receive more attention in future

studies, as it has in the reconstruction of experiences through social media after returning

home (Xiang & Gretzel, 2009; Pudliner, 2007). In addition to understanding the blurring

between home and away, the findings also suggest a need to re-conceptualize what it
 163

means to be connected and disconnected. The increasing convergence of information and

communication technologies and backpacking allows individuals to remain embedded in

their social networks while maintaining a state of physical mobility and localness. The

ease of connection and the multiple channels of connectivity mean that the constraints of

connecting are being quickly marginalized. Instead, the choice to connect, and more

specifically the social networks individuals choose remain embedded within provide a

more relevant topics of inquiry. Several of the most agreed upon cultural norms

statements for the respondents included those that revolve around maintaining

connections and developing new ones via social media and email. This same sentiment is

also echoed by the in-depth interviews. Many of the interviewees suggested that the

social media and other information technologies allow them to maintain connectivity,

enhancing the backpacking experience.

The interviewees’ responses suggest that developments of social media positively

affect the backpacker experience by allowing greater independence through the access to

information and the ability to let friends and family at home know they are fine, safe and

secure, enhancing their ability to have a more authentic experience by focusing on

building relationships with local people via social media, creating a greater ease of return

home and reducing reverse culture shock, and documenting a trip through more advanced

means. Essentially, being continually connected facilitates positive benefits allowing

individuals to embody the shared cultural understanding of backpacking to a greater

extent. Continual connection also empowers individuals with the ability to choose which

networks they maintain connection with. Additionally, the findings suggest that
 164

individuals might avoid particular technologies in order to create an artificial constraint to

connecting to certain social networks. For example, the results indicate that many

individuals chose to not maintain connection with work by leaving their cell phone at

home, not checking their work email, and not using ‘professional’ social networking sites

like LinkedIn. Alternatively, the study also found an incessant struggle resulting from

continually connectivity. Some of the interviewees suggested that the actual experience

of travel is impacted negatively because of the easy and instantaneousness of virtual

interactions with home social network, which supports the argument by some that

technology can detract from the tourist experience (Uriely, 2005). Several examples

were given of situations in which individuals were so tuned into their virtual networks

that they were not mindful of their physical location, experiences and social interactions.

Additionally, backpacking has often been seen as a time of ‘finding oneself’ or a rite-of-

passage, achieved through a period of detachment, which arguably is threatened by the

constant connectivity with friends, family and home (Clarke, 2004; Molz, 2010). The

convergence of backpacking and ICT reflects the contemporary incorporation of

technology into daily life. Information and communications technologies can have

positive and negative impacts for individual’s daily life and travel experience that can be

examined on a micro-level. The convergence of ICT and backpacking on a macro-level

indicates an emergences of a complex patterning of hybrid spaces ((Hannam, Sheller, &

Urry, 2006) that backpackers navigate and through which the backpacking culture is

embodied.
 165

Understanding connectivity is also important in understanding the complex

geographies (Molz, 2010) of backpacking, which are outlined by the backpacker

mobilities framework in Figure 1. The conceptualization of connectivity helps to

facilitate further examination into the virtualization of the backpacking culture, where

cultural knowledge is produced, consumed and shared. The virtual moorings and virtual

mobilities of backpacking culture are created and interacted with via mobile technologies.

On an individual level these electronic technologies allow individuals to access, create,

and share information and personal experiences. Each of the ‘online communities’

represent hybridized spaces of virtual and corporeal mobilities, social interactions and

knowledge generation. Participation and interaction with the online backpacker

communities thus implicate individual backpackers in the collective and collaborative

creation of cultural knowledge. It is important to note that a social context is needed to

give meaning to the various mobilities, knowledge, and technologies on which the online

communities are based (Molz, 2010). The backpacking culture provides the social

context for these online backpacker communities. Thus the virtualization of the

backpacker culture is a process in which the backpacking culture is manifested through

the various information and communication technologies, the knowledge creation

process, the social interactions, and the continued hybridization of the physical and

virtual spaces through the individual use of mobile technologies.

Considering the convergence of information and communication technologies and

backpacking allows for a greater understanding of the virtualization and hybridization of

backpacking culture from the corporeally constrained ‘road culture’. The virtual
 166

moorings of backpacking are based on a fluidity of networks and purposeful

collaborations (Molz, 2010) instead of a more hierarchical structure, as conventional with

the backpacker road culture (Anderskov, 2002). The convergence of information and

communication technologies has created a more decentralized and democratized space

where knowledge is collaboratively and collectively created, shared, filtered, contested,

and consumed. Virtual spaces and processes, which are described in much more detail in

the following section, can dramatically increase the time it takes for a piece of knowledge

to become integrated into the shared culture. In the past, the backpacking road culture

has been noted as experiencing very little or no change over many decades as a result of

limited time that backpackers would spend in the physical spaces of backpacking, and the

lack of access to the ‘road culture’ from home (Sorensen, 2003; Anderskov, 2002). The

rate of change and adaption could be argued to be much greater now because of the

virtual nature of the backpacking culture. One particular example given by one of the

interviewees illustrates this. The individual creates and sells podcasts online based on his

current experiences backpacking. According to him, he creates the podcast, uploads it,

promotes it through Facebook and Twitter, and usually within a week has a 1000 page

views on his blog, 2000 downloads of the podcast, and several comments about the

content from other backpackers. The virality of backpacker knowledge creates an

environment in which knowledge can be experienced, created, shared, contested,

reconstructed, and authorized in an extremely short amount of time.

The convergence of information technology and backpacking was in this study

examined from both a micro and macro level. On the macro-level this dissertation
 167

examined the structure and social processes of the virtual spaces of backpacking culture,

paying particular close attention to four types of social media. The next section continues

with the macro-level discussion and is followed by the micro-level discussion of

individual backpacker online behavior, backpacker technology use, and the emerging

flashpackers. The discussion of the micro-level implications of the virtualization of

backpacking culture provides insight into the interactivity of contemporary backpacking

and how individuals connect and participate in the hybridized spaces of backpacking

culture.

Virtual Spaces of Backpacking Culture

The mobile production of knowledge (Molz, 2010) contributes to the massive

volume of data in the backpacker blogosphere. Recent developments in internet and

mobile technologies allow for the creation of billions of times more information than the

traditional print and press method, exemplified by the staggering social media statistics

discussed in Chapter 2. The proliferation of information online has led to the need for

researchers to question how individuals make sense of it all (Molz, 2010).

This study addresses this question by suggesting that online backpacker culture is

anchored around two knowledge spaces: the blogosphere and the statusphere. Before a

discussion of the two virtual geographies, it is important to distinguish between the

concepts of information, knowledge, and culture. Information does not have meaning

with out a social context. All knowledge is a social phenomenon. Knowledge requires a

knower (Molz, 2010). Bach and Stark (2008) made the differentiation, that “knowledge,

unlike ‘information’, cannot exist independently of a subject and cannot be conceived of

 168

independent of the communication network in which it is both produced and consumed”

(p. 109). Any backpacker can upload content onto a blog or social media site, but it is

not knowledge unless the information is shared and has meaning placed upon it.

Backpacker knowledge can be considered synonymous with backpacking culture when

there is a shared understanding of that knowledge by members of the culture. When

considering the two virtual spaces, the blogosphere can be seen to represent the majority

of the backpacker knowledge online. This area includes the general websites, blogs,

photos, and videos. Specifically, the statusphere is the dynamic space in which the

knowledge is mediated, curated, contested, and authorized. This is primarily done

through ‘conversations’ among individuals in ‘micro-communities’ using Facebook and

Twitter, the two of which make up the majority of the statusphere activity (Solis, 2007).

The abundance of information and the increased participation in ‘micro-

communities’ and social networks has created a scarcity of personal attention (Simon,

1971), and as a result micro-communities have developed (Solis, 2007). These micro-

communities make up the statusphere, which Solis (2007) defined as “the state of

publishing, reading, responding to, and sharing micro-sized updates.” The statusphere

helps to focus attention and filter useful and accurate knowledge from what is dubious,

incomplete and/or not of value to the backpacking culture. Online reputation systems,

Digg, the mass re-tweeting are all examples. The term ‘going viral’ refers to expedited

process through the statusphere. The statusphere is a space in which collaboration occurs

organically. The mediators of online culture, made up mostly of tech-savvy flashpackers

(see following section), help act as a buffer between the blogosphere and statusphere, but
 169

the democratic nature of the statusphere means that a collaborative effort is needed to

authorize reputable cultural backpacker knowledge. The virtual backpacking culture is

the product of the body of knowledge that has emerged within the ‘statusphere of

backpacking’ and the knowledge that has emerged from the ‘road culture.’ There is

already an shared understanding of importance of the ‘micro-communities’ of

backpacking, as is evident by the proportion of respondents to the survey that agreed that

the use of Facebook and other online communications are an integral part of backpacking

culture and experience (see table 9). The statusphere brings together the social structures

and the knowledge networks (Bach and Stark, 2008). For backpackers, social networking

sites like Facebook and Twitter allow individuals to (re)share knowledge, the practice of

which is the basis of the backpacker culture. The complexity of personal interaction with

the virtual spaces, and the social processes that result within them can be understood

better by discussing the online behavior of backpackers. The next section discusses the

findings of online behaviors within socio-technographic typologies (Bernoff et al, 2007;

Bernoff, 2010; Li, 2010).

Social-Technographics of Backpackers

To examine backpackers’ online behavior, this study focused on four types of

social media in the survey of the full sample and the in-depth interviews eight key

informants. The results of the survey indicated that the majority of respondents were

active users of Facebook, including the uploading of photos, and that the majority were

not active contributors of content through of blogs, Youtube, or Twitter (Tables 5-8).

This helps to confirm that the information that is the basis of the blogosphere is created
 170

by a few individuals. The transformation of this information is therefore the result of the

social processes within the statusphere and individuals’ online behavior within the social

structure and between knowledge networks. A social-technographic hierarchy is useful

to understand the different online behaviors of backpackers and how they contribute to

the social collaborative processes in the statusphere.

Conclusively, the majority of backpackers can be classified as Joiners,

Spectators, and/or Conversationalists within the social technographic hierarchy (Bernoff

et al, 2007; Bernoff, 2010). Generally backpackers’ participation is focused upon the

online behaviors represented by these three types. As Joiners, they maintain social

networking profiles through sites like Facebook.com. Many also update their Facebook

status, detailing their travel experiences, and sometimes include a photo with their status,

typical of Conversationalists. They also consume content that is produced by others by

reading blogs, watching videos, and viewing pictures. This online behavior is important

to understand for backpacking businesses, as it can help businesses determine how to

build a virtual relationship based on actual behavior with their customers. For example, a

hostel could create Facebook pages to interact with backpackers, provide updates,

pictures and videos of the property, and interact with their followers by commenting on

and sharing their follower’s status updates. Many backpacker businesses have focused

on the creation of content through the development of blogs, multi-media, and websites,

but many have not aware of the nuances of the social processes that occur within the

statusphere. Many are developing Facebook Pages and Twitter accounts, and

understanding the spatial characteristics of the hybrid backpacker spaces and the
 171

behaviors of the backpackers within those spaces is critical. However, they need to go

beyond this because understanding the kind of relationship that customers are ready for is

very important for a successful and efficient virtual presence (Paris, Lee, & Seery, 2010;

Bernoff et al, 2007), and to maintain relevancy.

Taking this discussion a step further, the Engagement Pyramid (Li, 2010) also

provides a means for understanding online behavior. The pyramid suggests that there is a

hierarchy in online behavior, the base of which is called watching. The majority of

backpackers would belong to this level, as they use content created by other

backpackers, who participate in higher order online behaviors, to make decisions, be

entertained, and to learn. These backpackers would be considered spectators. While

many of the survey respondents uploaded photos, they contributed very little other

content. Backpackers who can be typified as Spectators, joiners and conversationalists,

play an important role in the statusphere as their collaborative behavior is the main driver

of the social processes of backpacker knowledge generation and authorization in the

statusphere. Understanding the general backpacker online behavior contributes to one of

the main objectives of this dissertation, which was to understand the online virtual

moorings of backpacking culture. These hybrid cultural-virtual spaces have formed as a

result of the convergence of ICT and backpacking. In order to understand these spaces

further, the in-depth study of the eight flashpackers was conducted using eInterviews and

a mobile-virtual ethnography. The spatial results of the mobile-ethnography were

discussed in the previous section, but understanding why these individuals were chosen,
 172

and their essential role in maintaining the virtual spaces of backpacking is essential to the

objectives of this study.

These eight individuals were targeted because of their online behavior. They all

could be classified, in addition to being joiners, spectators, and conversationalists, as

creators, collectors, and critics in the social technographic hierarchy (Bernoff et al, 2007;

Bernoff, 2010). In the interviews, the majority of the eight respondents mentioned how

they would often write a review on their own blog or a site like hostelworld.com.

Additionally, it was observed through the mobile-virtual ethnography, that many of these

individuals actively commented on each others content updates and responded to

comments onto their own content, thus creating formative discussions. These micro-

discussions are part of the processes in the statusphere that allow pieces of knowledge to

become a part of the backpacking culture. Additionally, the social interactions resulting

from the ‘commenting’ can contribute to what content is posted in the future, including

content that is more appealing to their followers or that which could garner more

comments. Comments seem to be one of the ‘badges’ of social status in the virtual space.

Similar to the story telling phenomenon that occurs in hostels and other physical

backpacker spaces where the interaction with the audience indicates the ‘success’ of the

story (Murphy, 2001). In the virtual spaces, the content creators can judge the audience

of their content in the blogosphere through statistics like page views of their blogs and

video views on Youtube (see Table 13), but actual interaction with the audience can only

occur through the posting and replying to of comments, the sharing of links, and the

Tweeting and Re-tweeting of status updates. Thus the behavior of the backpacker
 173

‘critics’ can have an important role in the socialization of the online backpacker culture

and the collaborative production of knowledge. On the Engagement pyramid,

commenting is a mid-level behavior in which individuals can actively contribute in the

understanding and influence of content that is uploaded. Additionally, businesses can

take on this role and use commenting as a tool to establish and build relationships with

their customers. The results of the interviews with the eight individuals also suggest that

they also fit the profile of collectors, as they actively tag interesting content using

websites like Stumbleon.com. They also used RSS feeds to keep up with their favorite

blogs and websites, and provided visitors of their sites the ability to syndicate their

websites using RSS. While the use of RSS feeds and similar ‘filtering’ mechanisms are

not as prevalent as social networking sites and email, the value is that they can help to

allocate individuals attention more efficiently, and thus will be an important aspect of

online behavior for the masses in the future. Backpacker businesses that update their

online content should provide an RSS feed for individuals to follow, which will

automatically update the backpackers of any additions.

Additionally, the collectors play an important role within the statusphere as they

create searchable socially constructed knowledge. The future of internet search is social

search, where terms are not the object of search algorithms, but the ordered knowledge

communities (Molz, 2010) that have been created by collectors. For example, an

individual might do a Google search for ‘authentic backpacker experience’, and Google

would return search results where the terms appear on websites. A social search on the

other-hand would return results of websites, pictures, videos, blogs, and other links that
 174

have been socially tagged, bookmarked or ranked by ‘backpacker collectors’. Future

studies should seek to examine the behavior of the joiners, spectators, conversationalists,

critics, and collectors, as they represent the vast majority of the online behaviors of

backpackers. New methods may have to be developed, as much of the online behavior

that falls within these types result more in socialization rather than the generation of

content. The online behavior of creators has probably received the most attention in the

literature, particularly the creators of travel blogs, even though creators represent one of

the smallest behavioral groups. Most of the studies have focused on the content of travel

blogs; this dissertation, however, examines role of these individuals in the maintenance of

virtual spaces and the bridging of the victual social structure and knowledge networks.

The criteria used to sample the eight individuals assured that they were what

Bernoff et al (2007) called Creators. This group represents the smallest percentage of

individuals and includes those that publish web pages, blogs, YouTube videos and other

online content. These individuals were targeted because they create the informational

foundation of the online backpacker culture. This content creates and a hybridization

between the ‘road culture’ and the virtual culture of backpackers by reconstructing

physical experiences and spaces through digital media. This digital media is usually

organized around virtual moorings (Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006). Participation in and

consumption within these virtual moorings occurs through the other online behaviors

discussed previously, which are performed using a variety of online portal to the

backpacking culture, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter,

and RSS. Furthermore, this virtual content also provides one part of the foundation and
 175

structure for the virtual backpacker culture, just as the early backpacker trails, enclaves,

and hostels/guesthouses did in the 1970s.

The content, particularly blogs, have been analyzed by many previous studies in

tourism (Pan, MacLaurin, & Crotts, 2007; Mack, Blose, & Pan, 2008; Litvin, Goldsmith,

& Pan, 2008; Pudliner, 2007; Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009) and in backpacking and

general independent travel (Hofstaetter & Egger, 2010; Molz, 2010; Mendes-Filho, Tan,

& Milne, 2010). The other part of the online backpacker culture is the virtual sociality

that is maintained through social media within the statusphere. Similarly, several studies

have also looked at online interactions, relationships and behavior within communities

for tourists (Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, 2009; Paris, Lee, & Seery, 2010) and backpackers

(Adkins & Grant, 2007; Paris, 2010; Lauterback, Truong, Shah, & Adamic, 2009;

Mascheroni, 2007). The findings of this study complement all these previous studies by

combining both micro- and macro-level insights into the blogosphere and statusphere and

the relationship between the virtual spaces within the socio-cultural context of

backpacking.

The results and contributions of this dissertation have been discussed in four main

sections in this chapter. The first section focused on the objective examination of the

backpacker culture and the flashpacker subculture using cultural consensus analysis. The

analysis of the backpacker culture in this way allows for the foundational understanding

of backpacker culture as the shared knowledge of backpackers. The concept of

backpacker culture was then used in a discussion of the implications of the convergence

of information and communications technology and backpacking. The third section

 176

discusses the complex geography of the virtual backpacking spaces including the role of

the blogosphere and statusphere. The fourth section continued the discussion of the

virtualization of backpacking culture on the micro-level using socio-technographic

typology to discuss backpacker’s online behavior. The next chapter concludes this

dissertation with a summary of the results, the practical and theoretical implications, and

recommendations for the future directions for research.

 177

Chapter 7

Conclusion

This dissertation examined the intersection between recent and on-going

developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) and the backpacker

culture. A principal objective of the study was to contribute better understanding of

some of he critical issues in tourism and backpacker studies. An objective analysis of

the backpacker culture and the emerging flashpacker subgroup provided the nexus

between the insights into the online behavior of backpackers, the hybridization of

backpacker spaces, and the complex geography of the virtual space of backpacking. This

chapter concludes this dissertation by briefly reviewing the results, discussing the

practical and theoretical implications, and suggesting future research trajectories.

Summary of Results

Backpacker Culture. A survey of backpackers was conducted both through

Facebook backpacker groups and destination-based surveys in hostels in Cairns,

Australia. The findings of the cultural consensus analysis indicate that there was a shared

knowledge structure among the respondents for the sixty cultural norm statements used.

The review of the previous literature on backpacking suggests that the backpacking

culture has endured major social, economic, geopolitical, geographical, and technological

changes. Similar traits can be traced from the tramps of the 1880s to the drifters of the

1960s, to the modern mainstream backpackers of the present. The results of this study

indicate that there is a shared pool of cultural knowledge for the individuals surveyed,

and that the most agreed upon individual cultural statements were ones that reflect these
 178

enduring themes of independence, desire for authentic cultural experiences, traveling on a

budget, and having social interactions.

The study also sought to examine the apparent divergence of the flashpacking sub

segment suggested in the literature and by the increased attention given to flashpackers

by the backpacker industry. The sample was divided into flashpacking and non-

flashpacking groups based upon their technology usage and daily expenditures. The

flashpacker and non-flashpacker groups were compared using QAP Linear Regression.

The findings indicated that the within-group consensus was not significantly different

from the between-group consensus. This suggests that while flashpackers have some

distinguishing characteristics, that they share a cultural model with the rest of the

backpackers in this study. There were several items in which the two groups had

different culturally correct answers. Primarily, the two groups disagreed on the impacts

of technology on the backpacking experience.

The findings also indicate that some of the characteristics commonly associated

with the popular image of backpacking are not agreed upon by the respondents. First,

while generally thought of as young budget travelers, the respondents highly agreed that

backpacking was not just for the young, and that many would spend larger amounts of

money for novel experiences. The results of the cultural consensus theory indicate that

while flashpacking is a growing sub-segment of the backpacking industry, flashpackers

still orientate themselves using the same cultural knowledge pool as the other

backpackers. The CCA was also applied to a small group of eight key informant

flashpackers who were the focus of the qualitative analysis, and the results indicate that
 179

these eight flashpackers are similar to both the flashpackers and non-flashpackers.

Additionally, the CCA findings indicate the potential influence of latent cultural values

on the individual cultural competence of the backpackers.

Backpackers and Technology. The review of the literature clearly established that

Flashpackers are different from other backpackers because of the integration of

technology in their lives. As mentioned before, flashpackers epitomize Bauman’s (2007)

new global elite. Flashpackers are physically, socially, and technologically mobile, living

digitally and physically nomadic lives. Some flashpackers are ‘gapers’ traveling between

career breaks, while others are short-term travelers. What they all have in common is the

fluidity of technology, travel, and their daily lives. Eight highly-connected individuals

were interviewed, virtually, and were the subjects of a mobile-virtual ethnography. The

eight individuals were sampled using a snowball sample, and are considered to be on the

virtual frontier. Backpackers have always been explorers, as people who sought out new

untouched locations, and often set the roots for mainstreamed mass tourism to develop.

Similarly, this group of flashpackers is on the digital frontier, laying the roots for future

backpackers and tourists by developing the structure and behavioral norms of the

backpacker culture. The eight individuals provided more detailed insights that

complemented the technology profiles of the larger sample of backpackers. The

combined results provide greater understanding of the convergence of ICT and tourism

and the virtualization of the backpacking culture.

The themes that emerged from the interviews provide a detailed account of the

importance of technological developments for mediating the tourism experience,

 180

promoting the ‘cultural’ identities of backpackers, as well as mainstreaming the

backpacking phenomenon to more people. All of the interviewees were very

technologically connected; however, the perception of connection by some of the

individuals provides interesting insight into the role technology plays in the daily lives of

backpackers. One of the individuals, even though he was continuously connected through

his social media outlets, left his phone home to be ‘disconnected.’

The co-mobility and close virtual proximity with their friends and family resulting

from constant connectivity contributed to the decreased perception of risk of

backpacking. Many respondents also indicated that they enjoyed being able to connect

with their friends and family while traveling. Doing so allows them to re-orientate

themselves and escape briefly from the stimuli of the destination. This is similar to the

role that enclaves play, as spaces of comfort, providing familiarity of home cultures. The

connectivity has also contributed to the safety and response in times of emergency. The

Chilean earthquake example shows the contemporary relevance of social media in travel

and tourism, how quickly social media and mobile communication technologies can be

mobilized in the event of an emergency, but contributing even more to the safety net of

backpackers, as well as other travelers.

It is also obvious that experiences are shared instantly through media, including

text, photos, videos, and podcasts, blurring the distance between home and away, and

allowing a traveler’s networks to participate imaginatively in their travel experiences

creating a hybrid local-virtual-home space. Technology also mediates the experience of

the backpackers interviewed. First,, just the carrying of the technological devices for
 181

some may affect how they travel. They adapt their behavior to transportation, in hostels,

at attractions, etc. Additionally, the interviewees’ use of ICT prior, during, and after the

trip echo some of the recent literature on the increasing integration of social media as a

mediator of the tourist experience.

The interviewees’ responses supported the suggestion that the information and

communication technologies provide a social infrastructure for backpacking to exist.

Several individuals indicated that without tools like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and

blogs they would be disconnected from the backpacking community when they are not

traveling. The virtual moorings of backpacking allow for individuals to maintain a

constant state of co-presence with the backpacking culture, and their other networks. The

second part of the study of these groups of backpackers provided insight into that virtual

structure of the backpacking culture.

Backpackers Virtual Mobilities and Moorings. The virtual mobilities of the eight

individuals were examined using a mobile-virtual ethnography. The virtual mobilities

between each individual’s virtual moorings (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and blog)

were observed and mapped (see Appendix 3). Several interesting things emerged. First,

there was a clear distinction between the ‘statusphere’ and ‘blogosphere’. Content

usually was created and posted to blogosphere through either the blog or YouTube, and

then was linked to and disseminated throughout the statusphere using Facebook and

Twitter. Often the link between these two spaces was integrated automatically, allowing

individuals to update their networks efficiently of any content they uploaded. The level

of automatic integration of the individual’s virtual moorings varied, some were not
 182

automatically automated, others were completely integrated including updates, content,

and comments between the statusphere and blogosphere.

Another important part of examining the virtual mobilities of these individuals is

understanding the influence and role of the content contributors to the blogosphere, and

the collaborative process of knowledge generation and verification that occurs in the

statusphere. Understanding backpackers’ social technographics and their online behavior

within the Engagement Pyramid demonstrates the role of backpackers with varying levels

of tech-savvyness and how they interact and participate with the virtual backpacking

culture. Most individuals, backpackers included, use technology, but are lower on both

hierarchies. They might interact socially, consume content, but do participate in higher

order behaviors like ‘curating’ and producing. Instead, the majority of individuals

contribute to the collective social engine through which information passes, knowledge is

generated, and culture is shared. The eight key informants in this study were all

producers of content, and the majority also could be considered curators. As the

producers of content, these individuals represent a powerful minority, who can greatly

influence the individuals that consume their content. Word-of-mouth has always been

very powerful, and now eWord-of-mouth has provided individuals with the ability not

only to ‘hear’ but also see and experience a ‘tip.’ Curators have even greater influence as

they are the managers and developers of the virtualization of backpacker culture. These

high influence individuals all have the ability not only to influence the backpacker culture

through the content they produce, but also by maintaining the virtual spaces from which

backpackers seek their information. The status and influence, however, is based upon the
 183

collective agreement of the utility, relevance, and authority of the content they provide

to the virtual backpacker community.

The results of this dissertation have many theoretical and practical implications.

Before these are discussed, some of the limitations of the study need to be addressed.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the study that should be taken into consideration

when considering some of the broader relevance, implications and contributions of the

results of this study. First, the cultural consensus analysis applied in this dissertation was

done so using a set of cultural norms statements. These statements were gathered from

the growing literature on backpacking, including several ethnographic studies from

around the world. The statements were also compiled from personal observations.

Basing the analysis upon these ‘secondary’ sources could result in using the wrong

statements to analyze the backpacking culture. This does not mean that the statements

used are wrong; they just might not be complete. One example of this that emerged was

the apparent difference in the perception of technology and the backpacking experience

between the flashpacking and non-flashpacking groups. Only a few of the statements

focused on the cultural knowledge of backpacking and technology. While it was the goal

of this study to examine the backpacking culture as a whole, there is potential for future

studies to employ CCA to examine specifically technology or other sub-domains of

backpacking culture.

The second potential limitation is the generalizability of the study to all

backpackers. The study employed a mixed-mode dual frame sampling procedure in order
 184

to reduce the coverage error (see Chapter 3 for more detailed discussion). Surveys were

administered through Facebook backpacker groups and in Cairns, Australia, and include

an international sample of respondents from 41 different nationalities. The survey was

only administered in English and in one physical location. The large number of

individuals of different nationalities that completed the survey could suggest an increased

internationalization of backpacking, and future backpacker surveys should consider

administering surveys in multiple languages. Additionally, future backpacker studies

need to take into account potential cross-cultural differences.

The third potential limitation is the narrowness of the qualitative analyses. The

sample size of eight individuals and the study of just four types of social media were

narrow in scope, but provided interesting qualitative insights to supplement the

quantitative information from the general backpacker survey. Information from the eight

informant interviews can be the basis for further exploration into the online behavior of

backpackers/tourists and the virtual spaces of backpacking culture. The findings can also

provide a foundation for future research consisting of larger samples, more types of

information and communication technologies, and for different populations. In addition

to these limitations, the use of the mobile-virtual ethnography could cause some concern

because of its newness.

The final limitation is in regard to the fact that information and communication

technology is more widespread in distinct geographical regions that are mostly in the

developed industrial regions. Most of the findings can not yet be generalized to the

relatively small backpacker market from developing countries. While efforts were made
 185

to be systematic and ethically considerate, this new method will need to be further

developed and strengthened. Although there were limitations, this dissertation makes a

significant contribution to the theoretical and practical understanding of backpackers,

flashpackers, and the continuing convergence between innovations in information and

communication technologies and tourism. Furthermore, these findings also contribute

more generally to the tourism literature, and the sociology, anthropology, geography, and

mobilities literature.

Contributions

Practical contributions. This study makes several practical contributions that can

be useful for the backpacking industry. Throughout the text of this dissertation practical

contributions of the research were described. This section provides a brief summary of

some of these contributions.

Cultural consensus analysis has been used primarily in the field of anthropology.

This study applied it to examine the backpacking culture to understand the cultural

knowledge models from which backpackers and flashpackers are operating. In doing so

this study was able to come to several conclusions that could be useful for the backpacker

industry. First, there was a shared cultural model among all backpackers, and the most

agreed upon items reiterated the enduring qualities that have persevered over time.

Second, flashpackers also operate from the same cultural model; however, they do differ

in terms of their technology usage. Third, the common perception of backpackers as

primarily young long-term travelers should be reexamined, as the respondents disagreed

with these characteristics. Instead, these findings suggest that backpacking is a cultural
 186

phenomenon built on social interactions, a desire for authentic tourist experiences, and

traveling on a budget when it contributes to those experiences. Cultural consensus

analysis can be further utilized in understanding marketing in the backpacking industry

and the tourism industry as a whole, as it can be useful for understanding consumer

culture, organizational culture, and national cultures.

The second major practical contribution of this study is the insights into the online

behavior of backpackers and the structure of the virtual spaces of backpacking. The

findings of this study provide a more complete understanding of the use and role that

social media has in the development of the backpacking experience. The distinction

between the statusphere and blogosphere is an important piece of knowledge for

backpacker businesses when developing their online presence. Having a place where

content can be developed, the social networks within the statusphere, and the spaces for

more intimate and familiar relationships to build with their customers all are very

important for the successful use of social media to target and build relationships with

backpackers. Further, the influence of the eight key informants through their current

networks should be of interest to backpacking businesses. Tourism businesses should

seek to leverage individuals like these eight that are curators and producers, by

connecting to them. Tourism businesses that connect to individuals like these through

tools like Twitter, will thus be able to have their information, link, deals, etc. re-Tweeted,

replied and hash tagged all over the statusphere, thus multiplying the potential of an

online campaign. In tandem to this virtual word-of-mouth interaction, companies should

seek to building deeper, reciprocal relationships with individuals through Facebook. In

 187

addition to the practical contributions, this dissertation makes several theoretical

contributions.

Theoretical and methodological contributions. Throughout the results and

discussion of the results of this study, many of the theoretical contributions of this

dissertation are discussed. This section provides a brief summary of some of these

contributions.

This study contributes to the academic literature in several ways. First, the

application of cultural consensus analysis to the backpacker culture provides an

introduction in the tourism literature to a potentially powerful analytical tool for

understanding tourism subcultures. The findings of this study contribute further to the

understanding of backpacker culture by providing objective answers to ethnographic

questions and complementing the previous ethnographic studies of backpacking

phenomenon. This study also provides more insights to the young literature on

flashpackers by suggesting that the flashpacker phenomenon is nested within the

backpacker culture. An updated definition of the flashpacker can be developed from the

findings of this study. In addition to being a population reflective of contemporary global

trends, flashpackers are individuals who are hypermobile, physically and virtually, that

embody both the backpacker culture and the ongoing convergence of technology and

daily life; they are embedded in complex hybrid virtual-physical spaces, which allows

them to maintain constant states of personal mobility. They can be considered the early

adopters, explorers, and creators of the virtual spaces of backpacking. In essence, they are

virtual ‘drifters,’ early trailblazers of the virtualization of backpacking culture,

 188

performing a similar role in virtual spaces as Cohen’s drifter in the physical spaces of

backpacking.

This study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the use and

meanings of information technology by backpackers. While the qualitative part of this

study focused on a relatively small sample, the insights are valuable as the sample is

made up of early adopters who symbolize the liquid modern world by living lives in

which technology, daily life, and travel are fluidly integrated. Building upon the

concepts of liquid modernity, mobilities, and attention economics, this study provides in-

depth insights into a particularly unique population. The examination of the virtual

personal mobilities of the small group also provides insight into the structure of the

virtual moorings of backpacking. Recent calls for research on technology and

backpacking were met by this study, as deeper insights into the usage of technology were

extracted.

This study attempted to contribute to the ‘critical’ turn of backpacker and tourism

studies particularly in regard to the convergence of backpacking and technology. This

study took a more critical approach to understanding this convergence of technology and

tourism by shifting from a focus on management, marketing, or consumer based research.

While the understanding of the business implications of recent technological

developments is important, they lack depth in understanding the deeper meanings, uses,

and structures surrounding the technologies. Additionally, this study employed a mobile-

virtual ethnography to examine the virtual moorings, by combining traditional virtual and

ethnographic methods. Mobile ethnography has been cited as an important tool for
 189

analyzing cultures on the move, such as tourists. Virtual ethnography emerged from the

need to analyze the interactions on the internet. Most virtual ethnographic methods,

however, were developed and employed in analyzing text based interactions, and fall

short in understanding the complexities of Web 2.0 and social media. By combining

parts of both ethnographic traditions, this study was able to virtually ‘follow’ individuals

as they ‘moved’ between their virtual spaces. The conceptualization of the virtual

spaces of backpacking in this study makes a unique contribution to tourism literature.

The blogosphere-statusphere representation of the virtual backpacking spaces will be a

useful point of departure for future studies. This dissertation provides several bases from

which future studies can emerge.

Future Research

This dissertation provides a basis for continuing research into the convergence of

technology and the backpacking culture, the social implications of technology and

tourism, and the mobilities research. CCA and its application to tourism can provide a

different way to approach the study of tourism populations. Possible applications of

CCA include complementing segmentation studies, examining tourism development from

multiple community stakeholder perspectives, and cross-cultural studies of tourism. The

results of the CCA and backpacking in this study lay the ground work for future CCA

studies on backpacking culture, specifically focusing directly on the role of technology as

a mediator to the backpacking experience. Two further applications by the author are

already underway. The first will employ CCA to examine the potential latent cultural

effects on individual’s backpacking cultural competence through a cross-cultural study of

 190

North America, Australian, Western European, and Southeast Asian backpackers. The

second will focus on the knowledge generation process that occurs in the backpacking

statusphere. CCA will be used to examine if the knowledge that is collaboratively

generated through the socialization in the statusphere is indeed culturally shared

knowledge for backpackers.

The findings also provide a basis for future critical research into the backpacking

culture. The findings from this study suggest that there are several aspects of

backpacking culture that have endured, even as far back as the late 19th century.

Similarly, the findings suggest that there is potential that the current advancements in

technology could conflict with some of the traditional norms of backpacking. This was

confirmed both through the interviews with the eight key informants on technology and

backpacking.

This study also provides a ‘new’ method for analyzing the role of social media

and the tourist experience. The mobile-virtual ethnographic method can provide a means

for greater understanding of the social importance and usage of current and future

technologies by tourists. Future studies could employ this method to the study of smart-

phone and smart-phone application usage and effectiveness of social media for

marketing.

The qualitative analyses in this dissertation focused mainly on individuals that

were producers and curators of online content. The majority of individuals out there are

the consumers of this content, and the use of a mobile-virtual ethnographic method could

provide insight into the role of ICT in mediating their tourism experience as well as their
 191

online behavior and consumption. Additionally, a detailed understanding of the online

behavior, while traveling, of the majority of tourists, who are not the creators of online

content, is largely unknown. Up until now the content has been the focus of tourism

researchers, as is evident by the large number of studies that have focused on the content

of travel blogs. Future studies should apply and develop methods that can allow the

researcher to understand the online behavior of tourists that are traveling. These methods

could include employing a diary method, where individuals document in detail their

online behavior, combined with a monitoring of their online behavior through websites

like Facebook and Twitter.

The dichotomy of the social media spaces discussed also provides a useful

conceptualization for future research. Future studies should seek to understand further the

statusphere-blogosphere dichotomy and the relationship and interactions between the two

spaces. Future studies can also examine how tourists employ and utilize the different

tools of each of these spaces before, during, and after travel. More critical examinations

of the role of technologies, particularly social media, can provide both social insight into

the convergence of technology, society, and corporeal travel and practical insight for

more efficient and effective utilization of emerging technologies by the tourism industry.

Conclusion

Backpackers and specifically flashpackers provide a unique population that shares

nomadic metaphor with the new global elite, the digital nomads. The intersection

between physical travel, society, and technology provided a point for inquiry for this

dissertation. This dissertation contributes a critical examination of the virtualization of

 192

backpacking culture, the emerging flashpacker sub-segment, and the mediation of the

tourist experience by social media and other mobile technologies.

 193

REFERENCES

Adkins, B. & Grant, E. (2007). Backpackers as a Community of Strangers: the Interaction

Order of an Online Backpacker Notice Board. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3(2).

Agar, M. (1996). Professional Stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New

York: Academic Press.

Anderskov, C. (2002). Backpacker Culture: Meaning and Identity Making Process in the
Backpacker Culture among Backpackers in Central America. Research report.
Denmark: Department of Ethnography and Social Anthropology, Ǻrhus
University.

Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J., (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case
study in reaching hard to involve internet users. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185-210.

Andrews, R. (2007, December 6). International hunt for missing backpacker harnesses
blog power. Wired.com. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/12/missing_backpacker

Ateljevic, I. & Doorne, S. (2004). Theoretical encounters: A review of backpacker

literature. In G. Richards, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Nomad: Backpacker
Travel in Theory and Practice (pp. 60-76). Channel View Publications: Clevedon.

Ateljevic, I. & Hannam, K. (2008). Conclusion: Towards a Critical Agenda for

Backpacker Tourism. . In K. Hannam, & I. Ateljevic (Eds.), Backpacker Tourism:
Concepts and Profiles (247-256). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). Critical turn in tourism studies:
Innovative research methodologies. Boston: Elsevier.

Attention Age. (2010, February 23). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Age.

Bach, J. and Stark, D. (2004). Link, search, interact: The co-evolution of NGOs and
interactive technology. Theory, Culture, & Society, 21(3): 101-117.

Bailey, C. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.

Batchelder, W. & Romney, A. (1988). Test theory without an answer key.

Psychometrika, 53(1), 71-92.
 194

Bachman, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of email versus
snail-mail. Marketing Research, 8(2), 31-35.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Work, consumerism and the new poor. London: Open University
Press.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Globalization: The human consequences. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.

Becker, H. (1974). Photography and sociology. Studies in the anthropology of visual

communication, 1, 3-26.

Bell, C. (2002). The Big ‘OE’: Young New Zealand Travellers as Secular Pilgrims.
Tourist Studies, 2(2), 143-158.

Bell, C. & Lyall, J. (2005). I was here: Pixilated evidence. In D. Crouch, R. Jackson, &
R. Thompson (Eds.), The media & the tourist imagination: Converging cultures
(135-142). London: Routledge.

Bennet, R. (2007). Moving off the beaten track: Developing a critical literacy in
backpacker discourse. (Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, 2007).
Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/313/.

Bernoff, J., Fiorentino, R., Glass, S. & Li, C. (2007). Social Technographics: Mapping Participa-
tion in Activities Forms the Foundation of a Social Strategy. Forrester Research.

Bernoff, J. (2010, January 19). Social Technographics: Conversationalists get onto the
ladder Retrieved March 10, 2010 from
http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2010/01/conversationalists-get-onto-the-
ladder.html.

Borgatti, S., Everett, M. & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET 6.0 version 6.232. Natick:
Analytic Technologies.

Boster, J. & Johnson, J.C. (1989). Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice
judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologists 91: 866-889.

Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data

collected in human subjects research on the internet. Ethics and Information
Technology, 4(3), 217-231.

Bughin, J. (2007, August). How companies can make the most of user-generated content.
McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from
 195

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_companies_can_make_the_most_of_us
er-generated_content_2041.

Burmann, C. & Arnhold, U. (2008). User generated branding: State of the art of
research. Berlin: LIT Verlag Munster.

Butler, R. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse. Journal of Travel
Research, 28(3), 40-45.

Carter, D. (2005). Living in virtual communities: An ethnography of human relationships

in cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 148-167.

Castells, M. (1996). The Information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol I: The rise
of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (1998). The Information age: Economy, society, and culture. Vol. III: End of
millennium. Oxford: Blackwell.

Caulkins, D. (1998). Consensus analysis: Do Scottish business advisers agree on models

of success? In V. DeMunck & L. Sobo (Eds.) Using methods in the field: A
practical introduction and casebook (179-195). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Caulkins, D. (2001). Consensus, clines, and edges in Celtic culture. Cross-Cultural

Research, 35(2), 109-126.

Caulkins, D. (2004). Identifying culture as a threshold of shared knowledge: A consensus

analysis method. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(3), 317-
333.

Caulkins, D. & Hyatt, S. (1999). Using consensus analysis to measure cultural diversity
in organizations and social movements. Field Methods, 1(1), 5-26.

Chick, G. (1997). Cultural complexity: The concept and its measurement. Cross-Cultural
Research, 31, 275-307.

Christodoulides, G. (2008). Breaking free from the industrial age paradigm of branding.
The Journal of Brand Management, 15(4), 291-293.

Clarke, N. (2004). Mobility, fixity, agency: Australia’s working holiday programme.

Population, Space and Place, 10(5): 411-420.

Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
 196

Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research, 39(1),

164.

Cohen, E. (1973). Nomads from Affluence: Notes on the Phenomenon of Drifter-

Tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 14(0), 89.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179-201.

Cohen, E. (2003). Backpacking: Diversity and change. Journal of Tourism & Cultural
Change, 1(2), 95-110.

Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-
836.

Cooper, M., O’Mahony, K., & Erfurt, P. (2004). Backpackers: Nomads join the
mainstream? An analysis of backpackers employment on the ‘harvest trail circuit’
in Australia. In G. Richards, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Nomad: Backpacker
Travel in Theory and Practice (pp. 180-196). Channel View Publications:
Clevedon.

Courtois, C., Mechant, P., De Marez, L., & Verleye, G. (2009). Gratifications and
seeding behavior of online adolescents. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 15, 109-137.

Cressey, P. (1932). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized

recreation and city life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

D’Andrade, R. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179-195.

Davenport, T. & Beck, J. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new
currency of business. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

de Leeuw, E. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of
Official Statistics, 21(2), 233-255.

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. (2003)

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2010). Tourism Industry Facts &
Figures: May 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from

Deutksens, E., Reyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oostervveld, P. (2004). Response rate and
response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing
Letters, 15(1), 21-36.
 197

Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative
Research, 6(1), 77-96.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dillman, D., Tortora, R., & Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing web surveys.
SERC Technical Report 98-50, Pullman, Washington.

Dobbin, M. (2008, September 26). Facebook plea for missing backpacker. The Age.
Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.theage.com.au/national/facebook-
plea-for-missing-backpacker-20080925-4o46.html

Domain Tools. (2010, March 23) Domain Counts and Internet Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/.

Facebook (2010, March 10). Statistics. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.

Facebook (2010, March 30). Factsheet. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet.

Fay, M. (2007). Mobile subjects, mobile methods: Doing virtual ethnography in a

feminist online network. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), article 14.
Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/.

Gasser, U. and Simun, M. (2010). Digital lifestyle and online travel: Looking at the case
of digital natives. In R. Conrady and M. Buck (Eds) Trends and Issues in Global
Tourism 2010 (83-20). Berlin: Springer.

Gatewood, J. & Cameron, C. (2009). Belonger perceptions of tourism and its importance
in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Report of the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Leigh University. Retrieved April 25, 2010 from
http://www.lehigh.edu/~jbg1/perceptions-of-tourism.pdf

Goodenough, W. (1957). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In P. Garvin (Ed) Report

of the 7th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study.
Monograph series on language and linguistics, no 9. (pp. 167-173). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.

Grant, K. & Miller, M. (2004). A cultural consensus analysis of marine ecological

knowledge in the Solomon Islands. SPC Traditional Marine Resource
Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin, 17, 3-13.
 198

Gretzel, U. (2006). Consumer generated content: Trends and implications for branding. e-
Review of Tourism Research, 4(3), 9-11.

Haldrup, M. & Larsen, J. (2003). The family gaze. Tourist Studies, 3(1), 23-45.

Handwerker, W. (2002). The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, cultural

theory, and a method for ethnography. American Anthropologist, 104: 106-122.

Handwerker, W. & Borgatti, S. (1998). Reasoning with numbers. In H. Bernard (Ed.)

Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (549-591). Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.

Hannam, K. & Diekmann, A. (2010). From backpacking to flashpacking: developments

in backpacker tourism research. In K. Hannam & A. Diekmann (Eds.), Beyond
backpacker tourism: Mobilities and experiences (1-7). Bristol: Channel View
Publications.

Hannam, K., Sheller, M., and Urry, J. (2006) Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and
moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), p 1-22.

Helft, M. (2009, October 9). YouTube: We’re bigger than you thought. New York Times
blog. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/youtube-were-bigger-than-you-
thought/?hp

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.

Hippie trail. (2010, March 10). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 29,
2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_trail.

Hoffman, C. (2008). The Battle for Facebook. Rolling Stone. Retrieved March 10, 2010,
from
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21129674/the_battle_for_facebook/2.

Hoffman, S. (2009, April 29). Twitter quitters outnumber those who stay, report finds.
United Business Media. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from
http://www.crn.com/security/217200834;jsessionid=QBWA3ONWFFGGJQE1G
HPCKH4ATMY32JVN.

Hofstaetter, C. and Egger, R. (2009). The importance and use of weblogs for
backpackers. In W. Hopken, U. Gretzel, and R. Law (Eds.) Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2009: Proceedings of the International
Conference in Amsterdam, Netherlands 2009 (99-110). Vienna: Springer.
 199

Hostelbookers.com. (2010). Travel Articles: Flashpacking. Retrieved on May 20, 2010

at: http://www.hostelbookers.com/article/travel-articles/flashpacking

Hottola, P. (2004). Cultural confusion: Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research, 31(2), 447-466.

Hottola, P. (2005). The metaspatialities of control management in tourism: Backpacking

in India. Tourism Geographies, 7(1), 1-22.

Hruschka, D., Sibley, L., Kalim, N., & Edmonds, J. (2008). When there is more then one
answer key: Cultural theories of postpartum hemorrhage in Matlab, Bangladesh.
Filed Methods, 20(4), 315-337.

Hughes, A., Palen, L., Sutton, J., Liu, S., & Vieweg, S. (2008). “Site-seeing” in disaster”:
An examination of on-line social convergence. In F. Fiedrich, and B. Van de
Walle (Eds), Proceedings of the 5th international ISCRAM conference. Retrieved
March 11, 2010, from
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~palen/Papers/iscram08/BackchannelsISCRAM08.pd
f.

Hurbert, L. & Schultz, J. (1976). Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis

strategy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 29(1), 190-
241.

Iannucci, A. & Romney, A. (1990). Consensus in the judgment of personality traits

among friends and acquaintances. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4, 279-
295.

Iyer, P. (2000). The global soul: Jet lag, shopping malls and the search for home. New
York: Vintage Books.

Jarvis, J. & Peel, V. (2010). Flashpacking in Fiji: Reframing the ‘global nomad’ in a
developing destination. In K. Hannam & A. Diekmann (Eds.), Beyond
backpacker tourism: Mobilities and experiences (21-39). Bristol: Channel View
Publications.

Johnson, J. (2007). Euro-railing: A mobile-ethnography of backpacker train travel. In K.

Hannam & A. Diekmann (Eds.), Beyond backpacker tourism: Mobilities and
experiences (102-113). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Johnson, J.C. & Griffith, D. (1996). Pollution, food safety, and the distribution of
knowledge. Human Ecology, 24(1), 87-108.
 200

Kazeniac, A. (2009). Social networks: Facebook takes over top spot, Twitter climbs.
Compete.com. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from
http://blog.compete.com/2009/02/09/facebook-myspace-twitter-social-network/.

Keesing, R.M. (1974). Theories of Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3,73-97.

Kehoe, C., & Pitkow, J. (1996). Surveying the territory: GVU’s five WWW user surveys.
The World Wide Web Journal, 1, 77-84.

Kellerman, A. (2006). Personal mobilities. New York: Routledge.

Kelly, R, (2009). Twitter study: August 2009. San Antonio, Texas: Pear Analytics.
Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.pearanalytics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/08/Twitter-Study-August-2009.pdf.

Kendra, J. & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Reconsidering convergence and converger:

Legitimacy in response to the World Trade Center disaster, Terrorism and
Disaster: New Threats, New Ideas: Research in Social Problems and Public
Policy, 11, 97-122.

Klauer, C. & Batchelder, W. (1996). Structural analysis of subjective categorical data.

Psychometrika, 61(2), 199-240.

Kozinets, R. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61-72.

Kroeber, A. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and

definitions. Cambridge: Peabody Museum.

Larsen, J. (2005). Families seen photographing: The performativity of tourist

photography. Space and Culture, 8(4), 416-434.

Larsen, J. (2008). Practices and flows of digital photography: An ethnographic

framework. Mobilities, 3(1), 141-160.

Lauterback, D., Truong, H., Shah, T., & Adamic, L. (2009). Surfing a web of trust:
Reputation and reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com. Proceedings of the 2009
International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver,
Canada, 4, 346-353.

Lepkowski, J. (1991). Sampling the difficult-to-sample. Journal of Nutrition, 121(3),

416-423.
 201

Li, C. (2010, January 20). Understanding your customers’ social behaviors. Retrieved
March 15, 2010, from http://www.altimetergroup.com/2010/01/socialgraphics-
webinar-slides-and-recording-now-available.html.

Li, C., Chick, G., Zinn, H., Absher, J., & Graefe, A. (2007). Ethnicity as a variable in
leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 514-545.

Litvin, S., Goldsmith, R., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458-468.

Loker-Murphy, L. & Pearce, P. (1995). Young budget travelers: Backpackers in

Australia. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 819-843.

Mack, R., Blose, J., & Pan, B. (2008). Believe it or not: Credibility of blogs in tourism.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 133-144.

Maffesoli, M. (1995). The Time of the Tribes. London: Sage.

Makimoto, T. & Manners, D. (1997). Digital Nomad. New York: Wiley.

Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A

handbook for researching online. London: Sage.

Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited
ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 94-117.

Mascheroni, G. (2007) 'Global Nomads' Network and Mobile Sociality: Exploring New
Media Uses on the Move'. Information, Communication, and Society, 10(4), 527-
546.

Matlab for Windows. (2007). Natick: Mathworks Inc.

Mavis, B. & Brocato, J. (1998). Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys. Evaluation
& the health professions. 21(3), 395-408.

McGiboney, M. (2009). Twitter's Tweet Smell of Success. Nielsen. Retrieved March 23,
2010, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/twitters-tweet-
smell-of-success/.

Mendes-Filho, L., Tan, F., & Milne, S. (2010). Backpacker use of user-generated content:
A consumer empowerment study. In U. Gretzel, R. Law & M. Fuchs (Eds.)
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010: Proceedings of
the International Conference in Lugano, Switzerland (455-466). Vienna:
Springer.
 202

Meriwether, L. (1886). A tramp trip: How to see Europe on fifty cents a day. St. Louis:
Harper & Brothers.

Miller, D. (1997). Capitalism: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.

Miller, M., Kanko, J., Bartram, P., Marks, J., & Brewer, D. (2004). Cultural consensus
analysis and environmental anthropology: Yellowfin Tuna fishery management in
Hawaii. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(3)-289-314.

Mobile Office. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2010, from

http://www.hobotraveler.com/mobileoffice/

Molz, G. (2004). Playing online and between the lines: Round-the-world websites as
virtual places to play. In M. Sheller & J. Urry (Eds.), Tourism mobilities. Places
to play, places in play (169-180). London: Routledge.

Molz, G. (2006). Watch us wander: Mobile surveillance and the surveillance of mobility.
Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 377-393.

Molz, G. (2010). Connectivity, collaboration, search: Interactive travel and the mobile
production of knowledge. In M. Buscher, K. Witchger, & J. Urry (Eds.), Mobile
Methodologies (in press). London: Routledge.

Murphy, L. (2001). Exploring Social Interactions of Backpackers. Annals of Tourism

Research, 28(1), 50-67.

Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies

for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.

Nomad. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Retrieved July 18, 2010, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomad

O’Regan, M. (2008). Hypermobility in Backpacker lifestyles: The emergence of the

internet café. In P. Burns and M. Novelli (Eds.) Tourism and mobilities: Local-
global connections (pp. 109-132). Walingford: CABI.

O'Reilly, C. (2006). From Drifter to Gap Year Tourist: Mainstreaming Backpacker

Travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 998-1017.

Palmquist, J. & Stueve, A. (1996). Stay plugged into new opportunities. Marketing
Research: A Magazine of Management and Applications, 8, 13-15.

Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. (2007). Travel blogs and the implications for
destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35-46.
 203

Paris, C. (2008) The Backpacker Market: Targeting a Mobile Population Through Online
Communities. VDM-Verlag: Berlin.

Paris, C. (2010a). The virtualization of backpacker culture: Virtual moorings, sustained

interactions, and enhanced mobilities. In K. Hannam & A. Diekmann (Eds.),
Beyond backpacker tourism: Mobilities and experiences (40-63). Bristol: Channel
View Publications.

Paris, C. (2010b). Backpackers’ values and activities: An SEM approach. Annals of

Leisure Research. 13(1-2), 239-259.

Paris, C., & Teye, V. (2010). Backpacker Motivations: A Travel Career Approach.
Journal of Hospitality Management and Marketing, 19(3), 244-259.

Paris, C., Lee, W., & Seery, P. (2010). The Role of Social Media in Promoting Special
Events: Acceptance of Facebook ‘Events’. In U. Gretzel, R. Law & M. Fuchs
(Eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010:
Proceedings of the International Conference in Lugano, Switzerland (531-541).
Vienna: Springer.

Parr, M. & Lashua, B. (2005). Students’ perceptions of leisure, leisure professionals and
the professional body of knowledge. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and
Tourism Education, 4(2), 16-26.

Paul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

Pearce, P. L. (1990). The backpacker phenomenon: Preliminary answers to basic

questions. Townsville: Department of Tourism, James Cook University.

Pearce, P., Murphy, L., & Brymer, E. (2009). Evolution of the backpacker market and the
potential for Australian tourism. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from CRC for
Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Web site:
http://www.crctourism.com.au/WMS/Upload/Resources/110017%20EvolBackpac
kerMarket%20WEB.pdf

Prideaux, B. & Coghlan, A. (2006). Backpacking shopping in the tropics: An overview of

the shopping behaviour of backpackers in Cairns. Research Report 2. Cairns:
James Cook University.

Prideaux, B., Falco-Mammone, F., & Thompson, M. (2006). Backpacking in the Tropics:
A review of the backpacker market in Cairns and their travel patterns within
Australia. Cairns: James Cook University.
 204

Pudliner, B. (2007). Alternative literature and tourist experience: travel and tourist
weblogs. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 5(1), 46-59.

Pultar, E. & Raubal, M. (2009). A case for space: Physical and virtual location
requirements in the CouchSurfing social network. Proceedings of the 2009
International Workshop on Location Based Social Networks, Seattle, USA, 88-91.

Ribeiro, N. (2010). Using concomitant free-listing to analyze perceptions of spring break

experience. Poster presented at the 41st Travel and Tourism Research Association
(TTRA) annual conference, June, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Richards, G., and Wilson, J. (2004a). Drifting towards the global nomad. In G. Richards,
& J. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Nomad: Backpacker Travel in Theory and
Practice (pp. 3-13). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2004b). Widening Perspectives in Backpacker Research. In

G. Richards, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Nomad: Backpacker Travel in
Theory and Practice (pp. 253-279). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Richards, G. (2005). ISTC/UNWTO survey on student and youth tourism among national
tourism administrations/organizations. Tourism Market Trends- World Overview
& Tourism Topics (pp. 95-123). Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Retrieved
May 28, 2010, from: http://www.wysetc.org/Docs/Res_Wrld05_en_YandS.pdf

Riley, P. (1988). Road Culture of International Long-Term Budget Travelers. Annals of

Tourism Research, 15(3), 313-328.

Romney, A., Batchelder, W., & Weller, S. (1987). Recent applications of cultural
consensus theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 163-177.

Romney, A., Boyd, J., Moore, C., Batchelder, W., & Brazill, T. (1996). Culture as shared
cognitive representations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
93(9), 4699-4705.

Romney, A., Moore, C., Batchelder, W., & Hsia, T. (2000). Statistical methods for
characterizing similarities and differences between semantic structures.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(10), 518-23.

Romney, A., Weller, S., & Batchelder, W. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of
culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313-338.

Ross, N.(2002) Cognitive aspects of intergenerational change: Mental models, cultural

change, and environmental behavior among the Lacandon Maya of Southern
Mexico. Human Organizations, 61(2), 125-138.
 205

Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a sociology of information technology. Current Sociology,

50(3), 365-388.

Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., & Bryant, A. (2003). Assessing response rates and non-response
bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432.

Schaefer, D. & Dillman, D. (1998). Development of a standard email methodology.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378-390.

Scheyvens, R. (2002). Backpacker Tourism and Third World Development. Annals of

Tourism Research, 29(1), 144-164.

Schrum, L. (1995). Framing the debate: Ethical research in the information age.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 311-326.

Sharf, B. (1999). Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research
on the internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and
methods for examining the net (243-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning
A, 38, 207-226.

Sills, S. & Song, S. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based

surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 22-30.

Simon, H. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M.

Greenberger (Ed), Computers, communication, and the public interest (pp. 37-72)
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Shim, J. (2004). The evolution of leisure studies in North America and South Korea: A
study of cultural consensus. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State
University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(09), 3565.

Smith, M. & Leigh, B. (1997). Virtual subjects: Using the internet as an alternative
source of subjects and research environment. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 29, 496-505.

Solis, B. (2009, March 10). Are blogs losing their authority to the statusphere?
TechCrunch. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/10/are-blogs-losing-their-authority-to-the-
statusphere/.
 206

Solis, B. (2009, May 27). Gazing into the Twitterverse. Retrieved March 22, 2010 from
http://www.briansolis.com/2009/05/gazing-into-twitterverse/.

Solis, B. (2010, March 22). Behaviorgraphics humanize the social web. Retrieved March
22, 2010, from http://www.briansolis.com/2010/03/behaviorgraphics-humanize-
the-social-web/.

Sørensen, A. (1992). Travellers i Sydøstafrika - en etnografisk introduction. Unpublished

thesis: Århus University, Moesgaard, Department of Ethnography and Social
Anthropology.

Sorensen, A. (1999). Travelers in the Periphery: Backpackers and Other Independent

Multiple Destination Tourists in Peripheral Areas. Nexo: Research Center of
Bornholm.

Sorensen, A. (2003). Backpacker Ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 847-

867.

Spreitzhofer, G. (1998). Backpacking tourism in South-East Asia. Annals of Tourism

Research, 25(4), 979-983.

Sutcliffe, W. (1998). Are you experienced? London: Penguin.

Tasci, A. & Knutson, B. (2003). Online research modes: Waiting for leisure, hospitality,
and tourism researchers. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10(3/4), 57-
83.

Tourism Research Australia (2007)

Teo, P. & Leong, S. (2006). A postcolonial analysis of backpacking. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33(1), 109-131.

Toulouse, C. (1998). Introduction to the politics of cyberspace. In C. Toulouse & T. Luke

(Eds.) The politics of cyberspace: A new political science reader (1-17). London:
Routledge.

Tribe, J. (2005). New Tourism Research. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 5-8.

Tussyadiah, I. & Fesenmaier, D. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences: Access to places

via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 24-40.

Twitter. (2010, March 23). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 30,
2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter.

Twitter. (2010). About. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://twitter.com/about.

 207

UNWTO (2009). Tourism Highlights: 2009 Edition. United Nations World Tourism
Organization: Madrid.

Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism

Research, 32(1), 199-216.

Urquahart, F. & Smith, Mark. (2010). Young Scots surfers found safe amid the Chile
quake chaos. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Young-Scots-surfers--.6114358.jp.

Urry, J. (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century.
Routledge: London.

Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and proximity. Sociology, 36(2), p. 255-274.

Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Van Selm, M. & Jankowski, N. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity,
40, 435-456.

Welk, P. (2004). The Beaten Track: Anti-Tourism as an Element of Backpacker Identity

Construction. In G. Richards, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Nomad: Backpacker
Travel in Theory and Practice (pp. 77-91). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Welk, P. (2008). The Lonely Planet Myth: ‘Backpacker Bible’ and ‘Travel Survival Kit’.
In K. Hannam, & I. Ateljevic (Eds.), Backpacker Tourism: Concepts and Profiles
(82-94). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Weller, S. (1987). Shared knowledge, intracultural variation, and knowledge aggregation.

American Behavioral Scientist, 31(2), 178-193.

Weller, S. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked

questions. Field Methods, 19(4), 339-368.

Weller, S. & Baer, R. (2001). Intra- and intercultural variation in the definition of five
illnesses: AIDS, diabetes, the common cold, empacho, and mal de ojo. Cross-
Cultural Research, 35(2), 201-226.

Weller, S., Romney, A., & Orr, D. (1986). The myth of a sub-culture of corporal
punishment. Human Organization, 46, 39-47.

Wheeler, T. & Wheeler, M. Unlikely destinations: the Lonely Planet story. Singapore:
Periplus.
 208

Wilson, J., & Richards, G. (2004). Backpacker Icons: Influential Literary 'Nomads' in the
Formation of Backpacker Identities. In G. Richards, & J. Wilson (Eds.), The
Global Nomad: Backpacker Travel in Theory and Practice (pp. 123-145).
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Witmer, D., Colman, R., & Katzman, S. (1999). From paper-and-pencil to screen-and-
keyboard. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods
for examining the net (pp. 145-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wright, K. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and

disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software
packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10(3), article 11. Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html.

WYSE Travel Confederation. (2010). Youth Travel Industry Monitor 2009 Summary
Report. Amsterdam: WYSE. Retrieved on June 1, 2010 at: http://www.
Wysetc.org/docs/Youth_Travel_Industry_Monitor_Issue_6.pdf

Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, U. (2009). Role of social media in online travel information
search. Tourism Management, 31, 179-188.

Young, T. (2009, October 11). Our Changing Information Diet. Retrieved March 30, 2010,
from http://knowledgeissocial.com/our-changing-information-diet/

YouTube. (2010, March 1). Fact Sheet. Retrieved March, 29 2010, from
http://www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet.
 APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT
 210

Backpacker Culture Survey

Location of Survey (hostel, city, country)

Gender: Country of residency: Age:
Country of birth: Ethnicity:

Jr. High High School/Secondary College/University Post

Graduate
Education (please circle the
6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17
orrect number of years)
8+

Employment (Please Student Employed fulltime Employed Part Time

ircle) Unemployed
JOB TITLE:
Please indicated whether or not you agree (YES) or disagree (NO) with the
tatements
Sex while backpacking is Backpackers like to brag about Y or
more free than when at Y or N their experiences. N
home
If you twitter or Facebook Y or N Backpacking alone is not Y or
all the time while risky. N
backpacking you diminish
the experience.
Its not a good idea to go Y or N Backpackers are more patient Y or
‘local’ and tolerant of people. N
Backpackers help each Y or N Its ok to go to Starbucks or Y or
other. McDonalds while traveling to N
get a break
The journey is more Y or N Locals don’t like backpackers. Y or
valuable than the N
destination.
The more countries the Y or N Backpackers want find Y or
better. themselves while traveling. N
There is something odd Y or N Backpackers develop an Y or
about backpacking when understanding of other N
older. cultures.
Its better to have sex with Y or N The internet provides a better Y or
other backpackers than with source of information than N
locals. guidebooks.
 211

A good backpacker does Y or N Major tourist attractions are Y or

lots of research before too touristy. N
leaving home.
The cheaper the trip, the Y or N Most backpackers are just like Y or
better the thrill. regular mass tourists. N
Eating weird food is all part Y or N Backpackers never carry Y or
of the experience. laptops with them. N
Sex with locals is sort of Y or N Backpackers arrange things Y or
gross. themselves. N
Backpackers who go to Y or N Taking local transportation is Y or
Australia are different than better than flying. N
backpackers who go to
Peru.
A good backpacker always Y or N Time doesn’t matter when Y or
goes with the flow. traveling. N
Backpacking is really for Y or N Sleeping in a park, on a bench, Y or
the young. or in an airport builds status. N
Backpacking is a better way Y or N The best travel tips are spread Y or
to interact with locals. by word of mouth. N
Backpackers seek extreme Y or N Backpacks are better than Y or
experiences when they suitcases. N
travel.
Going on organized tours Y or N Backpacking allows people to Y or
makes the travel experience see the world as it really is. N
less authentic.
Backpacking is a more free Y or N Real backpackers do not take Y or
way to travel. photos while traveling. N
Backpackers party too Y or N It’s essential to get the best Y or
much. deal and pay local prices. N
There are too many hippy Y or N Facebook is useful to stay in Y or
type backpackers contact with other people met N
during the trip.
Socializing with other Y or N Backpackers prefer to talk to Y or
backpackers is an important locals rather than to other N
part of the experience. backpackers.
Backpackers often share Y or N Real backpackers never use Y or
their experiences online guidebooks. N
through Facebook, Email,
and Blogs.
Lonely Planet is the Y or N Bad experiences make for Y or
backpacker bible. better stories. N
 212

It’s ok to spend extra money Y or N Exotic destinations are Y or

on once in a lifetime preferred. N
experiences.
To be considered a Y or N People who take short-term Y or
backpacker a person must trips can still be considered N
travel for a long time, like 1 backpackers.
year.
Most backpackers are from Y or N Posting a video on Y or
North America, Europe or Youtube.com is great way to N
Australia. display travel experiences.
It’s better to travel off the Y or N Backpackers shun technology Y or
beaten track. like Ipods, Cell phones, and N
Laptops while traveling.
Backpackers don’t need to Y or N Hostels are just for Y or
shower every day. backpackers. N
Traveling with other Y or N Drinking is apart of Y or
backpackers is a good way backpacking. N
to save money.
Please list any items that are missing about the backpacker culture.

1. Which of the terms do you identify with? More than one can be selected (Circle the Terms)
More than one can be selected.
Tourist Traveler Backpacker Drifter Explorer Nomad
Visitor

2. How many international trips have you been on? (Circle the correct range)
0 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14-16 More than 16

3. Please circle all the world regions that you have visited on previous trips?
Australasia/Pacific SE Asia China/Japan South Asia Africa ___
Central Asia/Middle East Europe North America South America
Central America/Caribbean

4. How many countries have you been to? (Circle the correct range) _____
1-4 5-8 19-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-30 More than 30
 213

5. On average, how long were your previous trips? (Circle the correct range)
0-2 weeks 2-6 weeks 6 weeks-11 weeks 3 months-6 months 6 months-year

6. On your current trip what is your total budget? (please circle correct currency)
___________ USD AUD GBP EURO
7. On your current trip what is your approximate daily budget? (please circle correct currency)
___________ USD AUD GBP EURO
8. How long are you traveling totally on your current trip? ( in weeks) ___________Weeks
9. How many people are you traveling with that came with you from city/town of origin?
(Circle the correct range)
0 1-3 4-8 8+

Please indicate how often you do Very

Never Sometimes Often Always
each of the following: Often
How often do you use Facebook?

How often do you use Facebook to

connect with the backpacker culture?
How often do you post pictures of
your trips on Facebook?
How often do you add people you met
on your trip to Facebook?
How often do you post pictures of
your trips on a different website?
How often do you blog while
traveling?
How often do you blog about your
travels?
How often do you visit youtube.com?

How often do you post videos from

your trip onto youtube.com?
How often do you view other
backpacker’s videos on youtube.com?
How often do you make comments on
other people’s videos on
youtube.com?
How often do you use Twitter?
 214

How often do you use Twitter while

traveling?
How often do you check you email
while traveling?
How often do you email friends and
family while traveling?
How often do you email work while
traveling?

Which of the following have you brought with you on your trip? (Please circle all
that apply)

Digital Camera Laptop Video camera International Cell Phone

Non-International Cell Phone

Ipod/mp3 player CD player PDA Personal GPS WI-FI PDA or

Cell Phone (Iphone, Blackberry)

How often do you log on to the internet on this TRIP? (Please Circle)

Never Several times a day once a day once every few days

When you visit internet cafes how long do you usually spend? (Please Circle)

Less than 30 mins 30mins-1 hour More than 1 hour

How often do you log on to the internet at HOME? (Please Circle)

Never Several times a day once a day once every few days

When you log onto the internet at HOME how long do you spend online? (Please
Circle)

Less than 30 mins 30mins-1 hour More than

1 hour

Do you prefer to stay at hostels with wi-fi access? Yes No

Do you have a personal blog? Yes No

Do you have a Youtube.com account? Yes No

Do you use twitter? Yes No

 215

APPENDIX B

VIRTUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE

 216

Backpacker Technology Questionnaire

1. Do you more closely identify yourself as a Backpacker or a Flashpacker? Why? Can

you please briefly tell me about your experiences as a backpacker or Flashpacker?

2. In your opinion, how have the innovations in mobile connective devices (laptops,
iPhones, etc), the Internet, Web 2.0, Social Media affected the backpacking experience?

3. How have these technological innovations affected the backpacking culture?

4. What types of social media (Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Blogs, Flikr, etc.) do you
currently use regularly while at home and while traveling, and are there any major
differences?

5. Who do you usually connect with through social media, and who is the audience that
the content you create is aimed at?

6. If you use social media when traveling, why do you use it? Please walk me through
how you use it? When you use it?

7. What social connections to you mostly maintain while traveling? Home, friends, work?

8. How have recent technological developments made backpacking ‘easier’, and

increased the independence and mobility of backpackers while traveling? Do you think
this is a positive or negative development and why?

9. Do you carry a laptop, mini, internet capable phone, standard cell phone, digital
camera, digital video, HD video, GPS with you when you travel? Any other devices that
you must have when you travel? How long have you carried each type of device with
you?
 217

10. When traveling, do you worry about the security off your tech devices? What steps
for security do you take if any?

11. If possible can you describe what your backpacking experience was like pre-
Facebook, and pre-iPhone? How has it differed from the backpacking experience and
culture now?

12. Are there any differences between virtual friendships and physical friendships?

13. How has the ability to stay connected affected the backpacking experience?
Previously the ability to maintain a level of anonymity and fleetingness in relationships
on the road could have been considered part of the excitement, but rarely did those
relationships extend home and over time. Has this changed? Have you maintained
relationships with people met on the road as a result of information and communication
technologies?

14. Please discuss any ways in which you’ve used technology to overcome language or
cultural barriers to social interaction? For example, use of Google scholar to translate
foreign friends Facebook status or blog posts, or the use of translator apps on 3G cell
phones, etc.

15. Please let me now of any other insights you would like to share concerning recent
technological innovations and society, backpacking, traveling or anything in general?
 218

APPENDIX C

SOCIAL MEDIA MAPS

 219

Status 4444 Following 8112 Followers

Photos
updates

RT, # Tags, @
Content Twitter Reply

tion
lica
App

Application
Facebook
Page YouTube

1888 Fans

Blog

Mike Commercial
Content
Content

eBooks

Travel 3325 Following 3302 Followers

Photos
updates

RT, # Tags, @
Content Twitter Reply

Facebook
Page YouTube
Automated
Updates
814 Fans

Blog

Don Commercial
Content
Content

Contributors
content
 220

News Tips

Status 308 Following 560 Followers

Deals
Photos
updates

RT, @ Reply
Content Twitter

Facebook
Personal

473 Friends

Blog

Brandon
Content
 221

924Following 1780 Followers

RT, @ Reply,
Twitter # Tags.

Facebook
Page
Automated
Updates
162 fans

Blog

Sara
Content

522 Following 54 Followers

.
Twitter
Photos

Facebook
Page
Automated
Updates
217 fans

Blog

Tara
Content
 222

Life Commentary
News

922 Following 1295 Followers

Photos

RT, # Tags, @
Content Twitter Reply (Travel
Community,
Friends)
Status
updates

Facebook
Personal Automated YouTube
Content
Updates
888 Friends

Blog
Integrated
Comments
Alan Non-Travel
Content
Content

Podcasts on 5182 Following 5403 Followers

Status iTunes
updates

RT, # Tags
Content Twitter

Videos
Photos

Facebook
Page Automated YouTube
Content
Updates
527 Fans

Blog

Chris Commercial
content
Content

Podcasts on
iTunes Contributors
content
 223

Status 10 Following 31 Followers

updates

Content Twitter
223
Photos

Facebook
Profile Automated YouTube
Content
Updates
141 Friends

Blog

Jess
Content
 224

APPENDIX D

IRB EXEMPTION
225
226