Identity, practice, and place

This paper introduces a conceptual framework for understanding post-pandemic digital nomadism (2020-present), theorizing the dynamic interdependencies between three dimensions: (i) identity formation through continuous negotiation (extending Cook, D. (2023). What is a digital nomad? Definition and taxonomy in the era of mainstream remote work. World Leisure Journal, 65(2), 256– 275. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2023.2190608), (ii) practice repertoires beyond workation including crisis management and hidden labour (building on Voll, K., Gauger, F., & Pfnür, A. (2023). Work from anywhere: Traditional workation, coworkation, and retreats. World Leisure Journal, 1–25), and (iii) multi-scalar spatial configurations from micro workspaces to macro regulatory regimes (advancing Vogl, T., & Micek, G. (2023). Work-leisure concepts and tourism. World Leisure Journal, 65(2), 276–298. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/16078055.2023.2208081). The Identity–Practice–Place framework explicates six directional flows through which these dimensions mutually constitute each other: identity validation, embodied transformation, symbolic alignment, environmental affordances, spatial production, and material constraints. Rather than presenting digital nomadism as seamless lifestyle design, the framework reveals how practitioners navigate inherent tensions– autonomy versus control, flexibility versus precarity, mobility versus belonging–as constitutive contradictions that manifest differently across the six directional flows, requiring continuous negotiation with structural constraints that can never be exhaustively resolved. The paper demonstrates how success requires alignment across all six flows, with misalignment creating cascading failures that explain why many cannot sustain nomadic lifestyles, contributing theoretical clarity to this increasingly significant yet contested phenomenon