FLASHPACKERS: An Emerging Sub-Culture?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.12.001Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the emerging flashpacker sub-culture in relation to the backpacker culture. Cultural Consensus Analysis is employed to examine the potential cultural divergence between flashpackers and non-flashpackers. A mixed-mode dual-frame sampling procedure was employed for data collection, as surveys were administered through Facebook backpacker-groups and in hostels in Cairns, Australia. The results indicate that flashpacker and non-flashpacker groups have a shared cultural understanding of backpacking. In addition to the conceptual clarity of the emerging flashpacker, this study also provides some interesting insights into contemporary backpacker culture and the continuing convergence of physical travel with information and communication technologies.

Highlights

► In this study, the emerging flashpacker is examined. ► Cultural Consensus Analysis is employed to study flashpacker and backpacker culture. ► The convergence of backpacking, ICT, and mobile technology is discussed.

Introduction

The recent convergence of information technology and physical travel has been embraced by backpackers. Advancements in communications allow individuals to connect instantly with their social networks, thus overcoming isolation and physical distance (Mascheroni, 2007). Communication technology allows 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 is a major area for future backpacker research. Findings from Pearce, Murphy, and Brymer (2009) suggest that not enough is understood about how technology is impacting the backpacking experience and industry. This article explores one such impact new technologies, the emergence of the ‘flashpacker.’

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’ tourist experience is mediated by communications technology often through mobile devices (Hannam and Diekmann, 2010, Paris, 2010a). Flashpackers, seemingly, embody both the backpacker culture and that of the ‘digital nomad’, individuals that embrace mobile technologies allowing them a live a location independent lifestyle by working from anywhere they have an internet connection (Makimoto & Manners, 1997). Flashpackers could also be considered part of a new global elite (Bauman, 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’ (including transportation systems, credit cards, accommodations, travel agents, travel booking and information websites), and they have the ability to connect instantly with multiple networks from virtually anywhere through an array of mobile technologies (O’Regan, 2008, p. 111).

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). In industry backpackers are classified as flashpackers if they are affluent and/or tech-savvy. For example, 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 notion of the flashpacker is representative of changing demographics and trends 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 backpack with ‘style,’ and ‘bucks and toys.’ Hannam and Diekmann (2010) define the flashpacker as,

 the older twenty to thirty-something backpacker  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)

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 tourism academics, suggest that there needs to be further understanding of the potential divergence of these two groups. Several recent studies have examined the interaction of backpackers and innovations in information and communication technology (Mascheroni, 2007, Paris, 2008, Paris, 2010a, Sorensen, 2003). The two key characteristics that are used to differentiate backpackers from flashpackers are travel expenditure and technology use.

The purpose of this study is to examine the emerging flashpacker sub-culture in relation to the backpacker culture with a particular focus on the differences between flashpackers and non-flashpackers. In order to do this, Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA) is employed to examine the potential cultural divergence between flashpackers and non-flashpackers by determining if there is a shared cultural understanding among backpackers and if flashpackers and non-flashpackers have a shared cultural understanding of backpacking.

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, Weller, & Batchelder, 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” (p. 167).

Culture is often defined by cognitive anthropologists in terms of shared knowledge (D’Andrade, 1981, Romney et al., 1996, Weller, 1987). Chick (2009) suggests that CCA provides a means of defining and operationalizing culture, thus allowing researchers to, “actually measure and compare cultural content of different groups rather than simply assume that because groups have different names, they also have different cultures” (p. 308). In this study, CCA is applied to determine if there is homogeneity in the backpacker cultural domain for the whole group as well as for flashpacker and non-flashpacker subgroups. Additionally, instead of assuming cultural homogeneity of the flashpacker and non-flashpacker subgroups and then testing for differences using more traditional statistics, CCA provides a basis from which differences between the two groups can be tested.

CCA makes the assumption that there is a fixed answer key and that individuals come from 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). Taking both of these arguments into consideration, CCA can be useful for examining the cultural models of sub-cultural groups to see if there are multiple cultural models for an overall group.

CCA is a useful tool for cultural domain analysis, which is the empirical determination that a set of items are related according to an informant group (Borgatti, 1994). When applied to a set of cultural norm statements related to 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 does not require the knowledge of culturally correct answers in advance because of the robustness of the mathematical model that has been developed (Romney et al., 1996). CCA is often applied to natural or common categories of items such. The backpacker cultural domain that is being examined in this study is better understood as an ad-hoc category (Barsalou, 1983). Ad-hoc categories are made up of specialized lists of items for specialized context and are not commonly or naturally categorized together.

CCA has been employed in several sub-fields of anthropology to study diverse populations and knowledge domains. CCA has also been suggested as a useful method for gaining a more complete and deeper understanding of leisure behavior (Chick, 2009). Li, Chick, Zinn, Absher, and Graefe (2007) used CCA to examine the usefulness of ethnicity as a construct in leisure research. Students’ perceptions of leisure, leisure professionals and the professional body of knowledge were examined using CCA by Parr and Lashua (2005). Recently, CCA has been applied to a tourism context. Gatewood and Cameron (2009) employed CCA to examine the extent to which respondents in the island country of the Turks and Caicos had a common cultural understanding of tourism. Ribeiro (2011) employed CCA to examine spring break tourist behavior. Paris, Musa, and Thirumoorthi (2010) used CCA to examine the differences in cultural understanding of backpackers from Australia and New Zealand and backpackers from South East Asia. CCA was also applied to the study of sense of place meanings among Fijian Highlanders in the midst of nature-based tourism development (Kerstetter, Bricker, & Li, 2010).

A questionnaire was designed to gather respondents’ demographic information including age, gender, education, employment status, nationality, previous travel experience, and a set of cultural norm statements concerning the backpacker cultural domain. To develop the statements results were first compiled from a previous survey of 217 respondents conducted by the author in 2008 in which respondents were asked to list ten items they felt best represented “backpacking culture.” An initial set of statements were formed and then revised based upon participant observations made by the author during fieldwork in the last three years, informal interviews with backpackers, and an analysis of the backpacker literature (Hannam and Diekmann, 2010, Jarvis and Peel, 2010, Mascheroni, 2007, Molz, 2006, Murphy, 2001, O’Regan, 2008, O’Reilly, 2006, Paris, 2008, Paris, 2010a, Paris, 2010b, Prideaux and Coghlan, 2006, Richards and Wilson, 2004, Scheyvens, 2002, Sorensen, 2003, Spreitzhofer, 1998).

Cultural domain analysis usually starts with the selection of the set of cultural norm statements. Borgatti (1994) argues that employing a free listing method is most appropriate way to elicit items directly from informants. While a strict free listing procedure was not employed in this study, the starting point for selecting the cultural norm statements was based upon input from a group of backpacker informants. Borgatti (1994) also mentions that free listing is best suited for categories that have one-word names. Because of the ad-hoc nature of the category, the additional revisions of the items based upon the previous fieldwork by the author and the literature was necessary to form a more complete set of items including items related to technology use. Reflecting back on the compilation of the items for this study, a more optimal approach could have been to employ a free listing method with a small subset of the overall sample of respondents shortly before the full survey was administered, and then refine them. Whether the items constitute the backpacker cultural domain, is an empirical question (Borgatti, 1994), which is analyzed using CCA in this study. Sixty dichotomous (Yes/No) cultural norms statements representing the backpacker cultural domain were used in this study are included in Table 3.

Targeting backpackers for survey research entails some unique issues and considerations (Paris, 2008). This study used a mixed-mode dual frame sampling procedure combining self administered surveys through ten backpacker specific groups on Facebook.com and self-administered surveys at backpacker hostels in Cairns, Australia. 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 included 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.

The surveys were designed using principles outlined by Dillman (2007). The survey was pre-tested with a small group of individuals through a Facebook backpacker group and a small group of ten graduate and undergraduate students at Arizona State University in the U.S.A. Taking into account recommendations from both pre-tests, particularly with respect to any compounding issues, the survey instrument was revised.

To select the Facebook backpacker groups, first a search was conducted using the internal search engine on Facebook, and the first twenty five backpacker groups that fit the criteria for the study were selected. In order to be selected the group had to have recent activity among members, and the groups’ content was reviewed to sure that they were not aimed at hikers and trekkers. While every effort was made to limit potential biases in the selection of the Facebook groups, some were unavoidable. First, the primary language of each group was English, although some groups’ members interacted in a multitude of languages. While geographical bias cannot be completely ruled out, it does appear to be limited based upon the variety of respondents’ nationalities. The administrator for each of the twenty five groups was contacted of which 15 responded. Ten of these administrators made the researcher an administrator of the group, allowing complete access to the group. This allowed direct messages to be sent to members of the Facebook Groups. A link to the ‘backpacker survey’ and a short message explaining the purpose were sent to members. Two follow-up/reminder messages were sent after one week and two weeks.

In Cairns, Australia, surveys were administered at fifteen backpacker hostels in June 2009, which were selected after considering past backpacker surveys administered in Cairns (Prideaux & Coghlan, 2006). Cairns is 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. Using a purposive sampling method, respondents were approached in common areas of each hostel and asked if they could take a few minutes to complete the ‘backpacker survey’. Local residents were excluded from 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.

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 83.6%. The online survey was distributed via ten Facebook backpacker groups to a total of 1453 individuals, of which 283 were completed for a response rate of 19.5%. Response rates for email surveys are commonly under 20% (Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003). The data analysis for this study included several parts. First, descriptive analyses, using SPSS 16.0, were used to provide background information of the respondents. Then UCINET version 6.232 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) was used to conduct the Cultural Consensus Analysis. Third, A Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) Linear Regression Model (Krackhardt, 1987) was used to test for differences between cultural models using UCINET.

The sample of this study was divided into two a priori groups: non-flashpackers and flashpackers. The selection criterion for the flashpacker group was based upon recent literature (Hannam and Diekmann, 2010, Jarvis and Peel, 2010, Paris, 2010a) and included individuals who met at least two of the following criteria: 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 three (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, tweeting, and uploading videos to YouTube while traveling. Overall there were 99 individuals who fit the criterion and were separated into the flashpacker group. The non-flashpacker group was composed of the rest of the 394 individuals. Differences between the two groups were examined including their demographic profiles, technology use, and responses to the cultural norm statements.

Section snippets

Profile of Respondents

Table 1 presents the profile of respondents (n = 493) and the two subgroups (flashpackers = 99 and non-flashpackers = 394). 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 and nearly 30% of the respondents indicating that they are currently students. The sample surveyed included individuals of 41

Discussion and conclusion

One of the main objectives of this study was to undertake an examination of the contemporary backpacker culture and the apparent emergence of a flashpacker sub-culture. 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 allow them to

Cody Morris Paris is Senior Lecturer in Social Science, and Programme Coordinator for the Social Science Programmes at Middlesex University-Dubai (Knowledge Village, Block 16, P.O. Box 500697, Dubai, UAE. Email <[email protected]>). He is also a Research Affiliate of the School of Tourism & Hospitality in the Faculty of Management at the University of Johannesburg. His main research interests include technology and tourism, sustainable community development and quality of life, tourism mobilities,

References (56)

  • H. Becker et al.

    Latent culture: A note on the theory of latent social roles

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1960)
  • S. Borgatti

    Cultural domain analysis

    Journal of Quantitative Anthropology

    (1994)
  • S. Borgatti et al.

    UCINET 6.0 version 6.232

    (2002)
  • P. Burns et al.

    Everyday techno-social devices in everyday travel life: Digital audio devices in solo travelling lifestyles

  • D. Caulkins

    Consensus, clines, and edges in Celtic culture

    Cross-Cultural Research

    (2001)
  • D. Caulkins et al.

    Using consensus analysis to measure cultural diversity in organizations and social movements

    Field Methods

    (1999)
  • G. Chick

    Culture as a variable in the study of leisure

    Leisure Sciences

    (2009)
  • E. Cohen

    Nomads from affluence. Notes on the phenomenon of drifter-tourism

    International Journal of Comparative Sociology

    (1973)
  • E. de Leeuw

    To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys

    Journal of Official Statistics

    (2005)
  • D. Dillman

    Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method

    (2007)
  • Gatewood, J., & Cameron, C. (2009). Belonger perceptions of tourism and its importance in the Turks and Caicos Islands....
  • Gatewood, J., & Cameron, C. (2010). Consensus analysis and subcultural variation: Examining the second consensus...
  • W. Goodenough

    Cultural anthropology and linguistics

  • W. Handwerker

    The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, cultural theory, and a method for ethnography

    American Anthropologist

    (2002)
  • K. Hannam et al.

    From backpacking to flashpacking: Developments in backpacker tourism research

  • Hostelbookers.com. (2010). Travel articles: Flashpacking....
  • D. Hruschka et al.

    When there is more than one answer key: Cultural theories of postpartum hemorrhage in Matlab, Bangladesh

    Filed Methods

    (2008)
  • L. Hurbert et al.

    Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy

    British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

    (1976)
  • Cited by (109)

    • Introduction - Low-cost aviation: Society, culture, and environment

      2022, Low-Cost Aviation: Society, Culture and Environment
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Cody Morris Paris is Senior Lecturer in Social Science, and Programme Coordinator for the Social Science Programmes at Middlesex University-Dubai (Knowledge Village, Block 16, P.O. Box 500697, Dubai, UAE. Email <[email protected]>). He is also a Research Affiliate of the School of Tourism & Hospitality in the Faculty of Management at the University of Johannesburg. His main research interests include technology and tourism, sustainable community development and quality of life, tourism mobilities, and backpacker tourism.

    View full text