Work Practices, Nomadicity and the Mediational
Role of Technology
Luigina Ciolfi*, Aparecido Fabiano Pinatti de Carvalho**
* Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom, L.Ciolfi@shu.ac.uk
** Vienna University of Technology, Austria, Fabiano.Pinatti@tuwien.ac.at
Corresponding author: Luigina Ciolfi, Communication and Computing Research Centre
C3RI, Sheffield Hallam University, Cantor Building, 153 Arundel Street, Sheffield S1 2NU –
UK, Tel +44 114 225 6826
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
1
Abstract
This special issue features a collection of articles exploring the relationship between
nomadicity, work practices and technology mediation. In particular, it advances the
state of the art of the scholarship on technologically‐mediated nomadicity by drawing
attention to several nuances involved in its understanding that have not yet been fully
explored within CSCW and related disciplines. In human‐centred computing literature,
nomadicity is often presented as a work condition, or as a strategy used by people to
accomplish work in several locations. However, recent research on the matter calls for a
more thorough perspective on the subject, including the connectedness between several
different aspects of it. The articles in this special issue explore further the nature of
nomadic work practices, the meditational role that technologies play in the making of
nomadic work, and the blurring of work and non‐work boundaries often happening in
the lives of those who engage in nomadicity. This editorial elaborates on the call for
more nuanced accounts of nomadicity by providing an overview of the state‐of‐the art
on nomadicity research, and by introducing the articles of this special issue and their
contributions within such context.
1
Advancing the Understanding of Nomadicity
Over the past number of years new forms of work have emerged and developed,
particularly in the service and education sector, and, more broadly, with regards to
information work. One of the key characteristics of such forms of work, and
particularly information work, is the potential (and often the need) for nomadic
practices, since workers mainly deal with something that can be represented digitally
and taken to or accessed from different locations. In other words, work activities in
certain professional contexts can and often must be detached from stable premises,
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
2
and performed when and where it suits the workers’ needs (Davis 2002). In fact,
increasing attention is being paid to what is here called modern nomadicity and that
involves engaging with work activities across different locations based on the
availability of the resources that are necessary for accomplishing them (de Carvalho
et al. 2011). Several studies have addressed issues related to nomadic practices and
the design of technologies to support those involved with them, addressing a broad
range of issues varying according to the particular field of enquiry within which they
were conducted. For instance, in Ubiquitous Computing and Business Information
Systems, researchers have been addressing the development of mobile and pervasive
technologies and technological affordances, which can be translated into specific
performances when used in individual and organisational practices (Weiser 1993;
Kleinrock 1996; Gorlenko and Merrick 2003; Sørensen 2011). In turn, HCI researchers
have been concerned with the usability of portable devices and the development of
methods for accurately assessing it (Weiss 2002; Coursaris and Kim 2006; Johansson et
al. 2006). In CSCW, the focus has been directed towards the use of computing
technologies to mediate social and collaborative activities in and across different
locations and an understanding of how different spaces are inhabited and transformed
in places as work gets accomplished, i.e. a concern with issues to do with articulation
and mobilisation work as well as with place‐making activities (Perry et al. 2001; Ciolfi et
al. 2005; Bogdan et al. 2006; Rossitto 2009).
Notwithstanding this body of research on the topic, there is room still for in‐depth
investigation of nomadic work/life practices. As previously noted, there are several
nuances involved in understanding the notion of nomadicity, and the different
definitions of nomadicity found in the literature are proof of that. For instance, Su and
Mark (2008) define nomadicity as an extreme form of mobile work that encompasses
people being constantly on the move, usually travelling long distances, working
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
3
wherever they happen to be, and carrying their resources with them so that they can set
up temporary workplaces. Rossitto and colleagues (2007) characterise the concept as a
work condition that entails (a) the absence of a stable workplace where work activities
can be carried out and (b) the experience of a complex system of environmental,
temporal and technological discontinuities. Bean and Eisenberg (2006) consider
nomadicity as a “radical new form of work” that is based on the workers’ mobility both
at and away from their company, on paperless operations (i.e. use of digital resources
for work) and on integrated technological platforms. Kleinrock (1996) conceptualises it
in terms of access to technological resources anytime/anywhere.
As evident in the aforementioned definitions, nomadicity is frequently associated with
mobility and work at multiple locations. Thus “nomadicity” and “mobility”, as well as
their adjective forms, e.g. “nomadic work” and “mobile work”, often end up being used
interchangeably (Rossitto 2009). In addition to these terms, expressions such as
“flexible work”, “fluid work” and “mobile telework” (among others) can also be found in
the literature (Kleinrock 1996; Perry et al. 2001; Kakihara et al. 2002; Bødker et al.
2003; Hislop and Axtell 2007; Meerwarth 2008); all these terms are somehow
associated with the same thing: developing work activities in and across several
locations besides the “official”, stable workplace (e.g. the office) with the help of
computing technologies to mobilise work resources (de Carvalho 2013).
Another reason to make a distinction between these two terms is linked to their
analytical and methodological implications (Rossitto 2009). One possible way to
differentiate the two notions is to regard mobility as the physical movement of people
between locations (Sørensen et al. 2005). Thus, mobile work would refer, for example,
to jobs that encompass people’s moving across locations as part of the accomplishment
of their work assignments, i.e. they do not stop somewhere to accomplish their tasks,
their work is accomplish as they move through different sites (e.g. sailors, drivers, pilots,
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
4
postmen, and so forth) (ibid). On the other hand, nomadicity refers to something that
encompasses a complexity that goes beyond the simple movement of people (Bogdan et
al. 2006): it spans over the mobility of resources that allow workers to set up their
workplaces in different locations and to perform their productive activities. Thus it
involves both the movement of people and things but also the work in preparing for
such movement and following the movement in creating conditions to engage with work
and life activities.
In fact, nomadicity is directly related to the notion of fluidity discussed by Kakihara et al.
(2002). What de Carvalho terms the “mobility of the workplace” (de Carvalho 2013: p.
3), which is central to nomadicity, happens as a result of the frequent negotiations of on‐
going fluid interactions in and across different sites where work gets accomplished.
Here we establish a clear parallel between nomadism and nomadicity:
(...) Like pastoral nomads move their households to locations where they can find
green pasture for their herds of water for their crops, modern nomads move
their workplace to locations where they can find resources such as time, space,
privacy, other people, to name but a few. (de Carvalho 2013: p. 138, emphasis
added)
In order to avoid confusion, we point out that, here, the mobility of the workplace does
not infer the relocation of the complete workplace setting to another site: instead, the
mobility of the workplace is understood as the result of the mobilisation of different
work resources, e.g. laptops, mobile phones, printouts, and other assets that are used to
set up temporary workplaces in assorted locations where work is achieved. Therefore,
the notion of workplace as something bound to a single location is extended to include a
more fluid facet, which can particularly be observed in knowledge‐based work
(Kakihara et al., 2002; Meerwarth, 2008; Rossitto, 2009; de Carvalho, 2013). This
becomes evident in the articles featured in this special issue.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
5
Whilst the articles of this special issue confirm that there are some jobs which demand
that people move to different locations and accomplish their work tasks from these
locations, i.e. inherent multi‐located work (e.g. Humphry, 2014), they suggest that there
are also certain types of work that are not strictly nomadic but that allow people to
engage in work activities in different locations, i.e. the flexible work (e.g. Liegl, 2014),
and there are different motivations that lead people to articulate work practices in
different locations (e.g. Rossitto et al, 2014 and Liegl,2014). This illustrates how
nomadicity, as a notion, can be associated with a spectrum of motivational forces
ranging from choice (e.g. when one decides to go somewhere to work because the venue
would offer her/him comfort), through opportunity (e.g. when one decides to engage in
work in locations where they have not planned to do so because resources such as time
or collaborators become conveniently available), to obligation (e.g. when one must
relocate to a specific site to conduct work, because certain resources – such as a
particular piece of equipment – can only be found there). This association has been
explored in detail by de Carvalho (2013), whose findings suggest that nomadicity is not
to do with a single category of work, but with a dynamic and emergent process that
leads to the accomplishment of work at assorted locations. This process is reconfigured
according to the ways in which people think of their work/life, strategise about it and
react in situations where tasks cannot be accomplished as planned.
In this introduction, we aim to provide an overview of current perspectives on
nomadicity and to elaborate on what we suggest to be a more nuanced account of the
notion, which the articles in the special issue contribute to. We do so by reviewing
relevant literature on the matter and by introducing and linking the articles in this
special issue. Our goal is to provide a clearer understanding of past and present
contributions on the matter and to raise questions to be addressed by future research
on it.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
6
2
Framing Nomadicity
Different frames may be applied to understanding nomadicity (Rossitto 2009). Four
prominent perspectives can be found in the literature, and they are to do with a
technology‐centred, a practice‐centred, a place‐centred and a work‐life boundary‐
centred approach to define, explore and understand nomadicity and the issues
surrounding it (de Carvalho 2013). These frames are not mutually exclusive: there are
overlaps between them and studies that prioritise one of these views may address
issues of the other three. However, the important thing is that all of them address
nomadicity in the same sense, i.e. that of accomplishing work in and across different
locations with the help of computing technologies, even though not all of them use
“nomadicity” as the overall term to describe this. The frames we identified are practical
categories that represent the variety of concerns that characterise the study of
nomadicity and the issues that have been privileged in particular subsets of the
literature.
2.1
Technology‐centred Frame: Nomadicity as “System Support”
The technology‐centred approach is probably the earliest perspective found in the
literature framing nomadicity. In his seminal paper “Nomadicity: Anytime, Anywhere in
a Disconnected World”, Kleinrock (1996) discussed the development of a technological
architecture that would allow for anytime/anywhere access to information and
technological resources, coining the term nomadic computing alluding to all technologies
that could enable or empower the mobility of people and of digital artefacts.
A common definition for nomadicity in studies that conform to this perspective is that of
activities made possible by a “support system” that provide computing and
communication capabilities and services to people as they move from place to place and
engage in work at those places. According to Kleinrock (2001), such a support must be
provided in a way that is “transparent, integrated, convenient and adaptive” (p.42).
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
7
The technology‐centred perspective on nomadicity is directly related to and somehow a
progeny of studies in Ubiquitous Computing that aim at the development of mobile and
pervasive computing technologies to be used in different contexts (Weiser 1993;
Makimoto et al. 2001; Lyytinen and Yoo 2002; Sørensen 2011). Thus, the research
agenda of those who adopt this perspective is the development of computerised tools
and nomadic computing environments to support people who work in and across
different locations (see the research commentary by Lyytinen and Yoo 2002). The
assumptions here are that computer technologies can offer people location
independence; reduce the number of tangible artefacts to be carried; provide instant
information retrieval; allowing for swifter data processing and reduce the cost
associated with engaging in work in multiple locations (Makimoto and Manners 1997;
Kleinrock 2001). Studies within this frame usually approach technical issues of
connectivity, networked‐based applications, context‐aware systems, technological and
environmental infrastructure, technology pervasiveness, mobile technology use and so
forth. Most importantly, they discuss how these elements may serve the purpose of
supporting people who work in and across different locations (Kindberg and Barton
2001; Breure and van Meel 2003; Kakihara and Sørensen 2004; Pica et al. 2004; Cousins
and Robey 2005; Demiris and Ioannidis 2005; Oulasvirta and Sumari 2007).
Two major concerns for these researchers are the usability of the computer
technologies available for nomadicity and the user experience that they provide
(Gorlenko and Merrick 2003; Harper 2003; York and Pendharkar 2004; Murray‐Smith
2009). A common finding is that, when issues inherent to nomadicity are not well
understood and considered during the design phase, new technologies will not work in
the way they were intended to (Luff and Heath 1998).
Beside the development and evaluation of computer technologies for nomadicity,
studies within this frame also pay attention to issues such as the use and management of
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
8
different technologies available for different contexts of interaction and different
activities (Vartiainen 2006; Rossitto and Eklundh 2007). For instance, people may want
to use different technologies for maintaining the boundaries between personal and
professional lives (Cousins and Robey 2005). Moreover, keeping data scattered across
multiple devices may also be a strategy for data security, i.e. for avoiding data to be
accessed by unwanted people, or for operational safety, i.e. for being able to continue
working in case one device fails (Oulasvirta and Sumari 2007). However, as Oulasvirta
and Sumari (2007) observe, management of different devices may be problematic,
demanding physical and mental effort with activities that are not the focus of the work.
Whilst studies conducted under this perspective are concerned with developing and
providing technological support, they do not take into account the fact that nomadicity
is not limited to the system support used by people in different places and in different
contexts of interaction. Even though some authors go on to investigate and understand
how specific tasks are accomplished on the move so that they can elicit the
requirements for system development, they do not investigate and examine how the
other activities that people develop as they are working on a specific task are related to
or affect the task in hand, which motivations people have to engage in an activity in a
location rather than in another, and so on. In summary, many of the contextual aspects
as well as the social aspects regarding the use of the proposed technologies are left out
of such analyses.
2.2
Practice‐centred Frame: Nomadicity as a Multifocal Strategy
The second frame we identify abstracts the use of technologies and the practices
involved in nomadicity into a nomadic strategy. Researchers adopting this position pay
attention not only to the structured work activities that people have to perform and get
paid for, but also to all the activities they need to complete in order to mobilise their
work and to get work accomplished in and across different locations.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
9
Since nomadicity is inherently mediated by computer technologies, their role in the
development of these activities emerges strongly from these studies. Here we use the
term “mediate” in reference to the process of acting as a medium or a support for an
activity (De Boever & De Grooff, 2009:79). As discussed in the previous section, such
mediation is usually achieved by means of mobile and/or networked systems that allow
people to be in contact with each other in order to carry out their activities. However,
this perspective is not concerned about developing a new piece of technology, but rather
with investigating how current technologies fit within the context of human activities.
Technologies are seen as tools that serve a greater goal (i.e. accomplishing work at
different locations). Eventually, implications for design are drawn with suggestions for
the development of new technologies. Hence, this perspective is particularly relevant to
CSCW, since one of the main concerns of the field is to understand the mediational role
that computer technologies have in work practices and cooperative activities such as
collaboration, coordination, awareness mechanisms and information sharing (Schmidt
and Bannon 2013).
Within this frame, special attention is paid to the strategies employed by people as they
go on to carry out their activities. For instance, drawing on the analysis of the strategy of
pastoral nomads in doing their nomadicity, Su and Mark (2008) depict an insightful
representation of the strategies employed by people involved in nomadicity. The
authors argue that such a strategy can be divided into three categories of practices:
assembling actantsi, seeking resources, and integrating with others. In another study
within this frame, Perry et al. (2001) identify four key factors related to nomadicity:
planning for the unpredictable; working in “dead time”ii; accessing remote human,
technological and informational resources; and monitoring the activities of remote
colleagues. Those four key factors are directly related to the three foci of the nomadic
strategy proposed by Su and Mark (2008). For example, when it comes to the
assemblage of actants, deciding which resources should be taken when moving the
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
10
workplace to a different site can be also related to the key factor of preparing for the
unpredictable (Perry et al. 2001).
Regarding the search for resources, access to remote technological and informational
resources (Perry et al. 2001) is a key factor since a resource must be available in order to
be found. In this regard, network connection, different Internet protocols, the World
Wide Web and several web‐based tools allow people to access digital resources, both
technological and informational, that are made available. The spread of broadband
connection and the existence of high capacity servers, such as Google Drive accounts and
other similar services, made it easy to upload large amount of data that can be, in the
same way, downloaded afterwards. Connectivity, as foreseen by Kleinrock (1996), now
plays a central role because it makes possible the access of resources
anytime/anywhere.
In terms of integrating with others, many technologies allow people to be in contact
with other people independently of location. These technologies have made more
flexible the choice between synchronous and asynchronous interaction: on the one
hand, somebody can have a synchronous chat through an instant messenger or call
someone on the other side of the world using a mobile phone. On the other hand,
communication can be conducted asynchronously through e‐mail. This is an example of
how technology can allow for the temporal mobility mentioned by Kakihara and
Sørensen (2001).
Integrating with others can refer both to the contact that people working remotely
establish with locals in order to be able to make proper use of the infrastructures
available on site and to monitoring activities of remote colleagues identified by Perry et
al. (2001) as one of the key factors of nomadicity. In regard to the latter, one can keep
track of activities in the office asking for daily report e‐mails. Another possibility is to
use an on‐line interactive tool where people can report their activities.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
11
Although the practice‐centred perspective goes further than the technology‐centred
perspective in investigating the issues surrounding nomadicity, there is still a downside
in this approach: it does not fully account for the different locations where work gets
accomplished. The difficulties that working in different locations can cause are
examined, but movement from and to multiple sites and the implications of moving to
different locations to work and the influences of those locations on the work activities
are not clearly explored.
2.3
Place‐centred Frame: Nomadicity as Situated Work in Multiple Locations
The third approach is related to understanding nomadicity as a matter of “work bound
to different places” (Rossitto 2009, p.14). This perspective is closely associated with
CSCW’s tradition of investigating the role that spaces and placesiii play in the
development of collaborative work (Harrison and Dourish 1996; Ciolfi et al. 2008).
The focus is on how places are created and experienced as nomadicity unfolds and how
work activities are situated: people who engage in nomadicity are constantly making
places for their activities out of physical spaces that offer them certain support, in order
to carry out their work. This has direct implications on the accomplishment of work
(Ciolfi et al. 2005; Murphy et al. 2006; Rossitto and Eklundh 2007).
In fact, place has been considered a practical concern for nomadicity for a long time
(Brown and O'Hara 2003; Felstead et al. 2005). As Brown and O’Hara (2003) discuss in
their seminal article, place can influence the development of work activities depending
on the affordances it provides workers with. At the same time, work can also impact on
the construction and experience of place as people go on to modify and configure
generic spaces according to their needs so that work can be accomplished there.
Noting such importance, many researchers have invested in advancing the
understanding of the relationship between nomadicity and place (e.g. Churchill and
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
12
Munro 2001; Breure and van Meel 2003; Murphy et al. 2006; Rossitto 2009). Rossitto
(2009), for instance, goes on to show how place can be used as a framework to
understand nomadicity using the notion of place to guide the data collection and data
analysis processes of her study on the effects of nomadicity on collaborative writing
activities within groups of students.
Churchill and Munro’s (2001) findings, for instance, showed that people tend to
appropriate the physical space where they are working by spreading photos and files
over it. In the same way, Brown and O’Hara’s (2003) observations show people
appropriating and transforming spaces by using low and high tech artefacts such as
laptops, phones, cups, family photos and so forth before starting the actual work.
Actual place‐making activities associated with nomadicity and the role of the
environment have also been investigated (Harrison et al. 2004; Felstead et al. 2005;
Rossitto 2009). Within this literature, it is common to find arguments for the importance
of considering the differentiation between the concepts of space and place as such a
differentiation impacts on the way tools should be designed to allow for specific kinds of
interactions (Harrison and Dourish 1996; Dourish 2006; Ciolfi et al. 2008).
With regard to establishing workplaces across several locations, Perry and Brodie
(2006) highlight the importance of taking into consideration the development of tools to
allow people to set up their temporary workplaces. In fact, a lot of effort is put into
organising and packing things that will be necessary to conduct work at a new location,
since such work usually is dependent on information, technological or even human
resources that should be assembled, and brought along to the new location. Also,
considerable effort is invested in discovering the resources needed to lay the supportive
apparatus down and to make it work (Mark and Su 2010). All these activities developed
prior to the formal work is called mobilisation work by Perry and Brodie (2006), i.e. the
work done to get nomadicity started.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
13
It is broadly accepted that computer technologies can make mobilisation work easier
and more effective (Harrison et al. 2004; Felstead et al. 2005). Actually, several authors
mention that the advent and spread of mobile and networked technologies such as
laptops, PDAs, mobile and smart phones and so forth, is one of the foundations to the
proliferation of nomadic practices, because it allows for the mobility of the workplace to
new locations where necessary resources to conduct the work can be found (Kleinrock
1996, 2001; Perry et al. 2001; Wiberg and Ljungberg 2001; Green 2002; Lyytinen and
Yoo 2002; Brown and O'Hara 2003; Lilischkis 2003; Kakihara and Sørensen 2004;
Demiris and Ioannidis 2005; Su and Mark 2008; Murray‐Smith 2009). However, some
authors call for caution by pointing to the drawbacks that relying too much in
technology can cause (York and Pendharkar 2004; Pica et al. 2004). As York and
Pendharkar (2004) put it: “[w]orkers lose time and productivity when they have to
reconfigure their work setting and processes to allow mobile technology to support
their work” (p.776).
In terms of the role of the environment and the infrastructure available, it is often
highlighted that each environment is endowed with specific qualities that may impact
upon nomadicity (Brown and O'Hara 2003; Mark and Su 2010) or that may influence the
choice for an environment over another (Bogdan et al. 2006). For instance, Rossitto and
Eklundh (2007) stress how places are associated with different meanings and how they
can afford different interactions and the establishment of specific social relations.
Certain attributes of the environment (e.g. noise level, comfort, public or private space,
etc.) are often discussed, and so are the availability of certain resources (e.g. Wi‐Fi
connectivity, power supply, co‐workers, food, among others) and the visibility of the
available infrastructure may impact upon nomadicity (Breure and van Meel 2003;
Brown and O'Hara 2003; Lilischkis 2003; Rossitto and Eklundh 2007; Mark and Su
2010).
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
14
Although the place‐centred approach introduces the role of different locations in
nomadicity, which is usually not present in studies framed within the technology‐
centred or practice‐centred approaches, place‐centred studies, similarly to the other
two perspectives, treat nomadicity as a matter to do exclusively with work, whilst some
research suggests that nomadicity is not only to do with the work dimension of life
(Goldmacher 2008; Jordan 2008; Meerwarth 2008).
2.4
Work‐life Boundary Frame: Nomadicity as a Blurring Element of Work‐Life
Boundaries
As nomadic practices become more widespread and easier to accomplish, the
boundaries between work and non‐work lives are increasingly blurred: it becomes
easier to “bring work home” and “home to work”. Therefore, in order to accurately
understand nomadicity, it is often necessary to consider it as something that goes
beyond work, something that blurs the distinctions between work and non‐work lives
(de Carvalho 2013).
Indeed, changes in certain work practices, such as those of knowledge workers, point to
a shift from work that is bound to one location and to a fixed temporal structure (for
example, the “9 to 5” model, or a shifts system that establish which hours one should be
at work) to more flexible and multi‐located nomadic practices (Meerwarth et al. 2008b;
Duxbury and Smart 2011; Ciolfi et al. 2012). There is some evidence that this in turn
impacts on how people manage the separation or the blurring between work and non‐
work. Therefore, some researchers have set out to investigate the impacts of engaging in
nomadicity in work‐life boundaries, making use of a work‐life boundary frame to orient
their research. Already in 2001, a study by Brodie and Perry (2001) introduced the issue
of work‐life boundaries. Although the study focused on blue collar workers and the
mobility of their work activities, the authors mention that their ‘research into mobile
professionals identified a slackening off of the traditionally boundaries between home
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
15
life and work life’ (ibid, p. 26). According to the authors, such workers tended to
consider being working wherever they opened their laptop and started to deal with
work‐related information and communication. While this study was not explicitly
focused on this issue, the authors suggest in the conclusions that further research on
this issue may be needed. Churchill and Munro (2001) made a similar observation
during their investigation about the locations where work was usually carried out by
those engaging in nomadicity. More recent studies have noted similar phenomena: for
example, Sadler et al’s study of freelancers (2006), Ciolfi et al’ s interview study of ICT
company managers (Ciolfi et al, 2012) and Lindley et al’ s (2012) study of web use for
work and personal purposes.
Although celebrated by some workers, given the flexibility of the work tasks and the
perceived possibility of making the most of both personal and professional lives, these
changes are not so easy or welcome for some other workers (Duxbury and Smart 2011).
Bean and Eisenberg (2006), for instance, investigated how people who were used to
conduct work in a traditional fashion perceived changes in their work‐life when their
company decided to change its organisational scheme promoting nomadicity among
their employees. Their findings point out an ambivalent relationship between engaging
in nomadicity and the blurring of work‐life boundaries.
Many others note that by engaging in nomadicity workers can potentially have more
flexible work‐life arrangements and, therefore, engaging in nomadicity may increase job
satisfaction and productivity (Chen and Nath 2005; Gluesing et al. 2008; Su and Mark
2008; Hislop and Axtell 2009). However, while such flexibility may be beneficial, it can
be also overwhelming (Chen and Nath 2005; Bean and Eisenberg 2006; Mazmanian et
al. 2006). People who engage in nomadicity are often prone to think that they must be
available all the time and keep a high responsiveness rate (Lal and Dwivedi 2010). This
leads to the need for renegotiation of the spatial‐temporal boundaries regarding work
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
16
and domestic life (Hislop and Axtell 2009). Some people even try to establish work‐life
boundaries, but they end up with crossing them accidentally (Salazar 2001; Lal and
Dwivedi 2010; Duxbury and Smart 2011) and, sometimes, even developing conflicting
work‐life balance relationship (Shumate and Fulk 2004; Chesley 2005).
Cousins and Robey’s (2005) study illustrates some of the renegotiation done to
conciliate work and domestic lives. As the study suggest, there comes a time where
people want to draw the line between work and domestic lives spheres.
Although studies within the work‐life boundary frame addresses nomadicity as
something beyond a work condition, they usually do not address how the process
permeates these two dimensions of life (de Carvalho 2013). In addition to that, these
studies often develop a home/work life dichotomy and do not address the
accomplishment of work in other locations (Hislop and Axtell 2007).
All these issues expose the need for research that advances the understanding of the
notion of nomadicity.
3
Deepening Accounts of Nomadicity
As we have noted, nomadicity tends to be understood as a work condition characterised
by the lack of a stable location where work is accomplished (Rossitto 2009), or a work
strategy that encompasses the mobilisation of resources to distinct locations where
temporary workplaces are established (Perry et al. 2001; Su and Mark 2008). A third
perspective associates nomadicity with the technological infrastructure that allows
people to access the informational and technological resources needed to accomplish
their work on a anytime/anywhere basis (Kleinrock 1996). And, finally, a fourth
perspective analyses the blurring of work‐life boundaries in the lives of people who
engage with it (Salazar 2001; Meerwarth et al. 2008a).
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
17
Although these perspectives are highly relevant for the understanding of the notion of
nomadicity, all these nuances must be simultaneously taken into account and delved into
in order to understand nomadicity more thoroughly (as noted by de Carvalho (2013)).
When the aforementioned frames are combined in a single lens to observe nomadicity
as a complex phenomenon, the notions turns out as a dynamic process that emerges
from people’s engagement with an ecology of practices, involving a dialogue between
human bodies and technologies as work gets accomplished in and across different sites
(de Carvalho 2013). The complexity of such practices, where activities and processes are
reconfigured according to the ways in which people think and strategize about their
work and react to a number of influencing factors demands for further empirical and
conceptual investigations of the notion of nomadicity.
The contributions included in this special issue significantly contribute to deepening the
current understanding of nomadicity as a frame, as an ecology of practices and as a
social, cultural and organisational condition of work. They also provide a nuanced
account of how practices of nomadicity are performed by different actors: freelancers,
students, public sector employees and corporation workers. Therefore, in these studies
we see multiple configurations of movement, fluidity and nomadic identities, as well as
an account of the complex motivations for nomadicity – instances of what Büscher in her
contribution calls the “romance and reality of nomadic work” (Büscher, 2014), where
organisational and societal aspirations and demands interplay with personal and
practical strategies for embracing and managing nomadicity.
Rossitto et al. present a study of people making sense of constellations of technologies in
a nomadic setting. Their notion of “constellation” describes particular configurations of
applications, devices and services available to nomadic users that become essential part
of nomadic group practices. Constellations of technologies emerge and dissolve as
needed, often in ways that are unique to a particular situation, assemblage of people and
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
18
physical location: “The concrete instantiation [is] also determined by the people
involved, their current activities and the specific technologies they brought to the group,
which makes it difficult to predict whether an aligned constellation will reoccur in the
same instantiation, and whether it will become a consolidated practice.” (Rossitto et al.,
2014).
The authors’ description of how constellations of technologies are orchestrated and
managed is entwined with an understanding of place, time and suitable working
conditions. The vision of constellations as re‐negotiated configurations of technological
support questions the “ ‘technological optimism’ underlying the ‘anytime, anywhere’
vision of nomadic work” (Rossitto et al., 2014).
Liegl adopts a place focus in his study of freelance creative workers. His proposed lens –
the care of place – identifies a nexus of practices linked to the motivations for movement
(e.g. obligation vs. opportunity) that often for this particular category of workers have to
do not with organizational and functional requirements but with the choice of moving in
order to improve the process of creative work. In Liegl’s study, the workers embrace
nomadicity to accomplish solitary work, albeit often working in the presence of others –
what Büscher (2014) identifies as the “working alone together” register of nomadicity.
The author identifies how a particular combination of social, technical and atmospheric
features of an environment is supportive of the affective and aesthetic side of nomadic
work the creative freelancers enact. Such affective and aesthetic issues are equally
practical and crucial to the freelancers’ practices as the logistic and organizational
aspects of nomadicity studied in past CSCW work (Liegl, 2014). Moving themselves and
their work apparatus from one place to another is essential for the creative freelancers
not only as a way to rhythmically separate tasks, but also to find inspiration in their
work.
In her paper, Humphry presents studies of two cohorts of nomadic workers (public
servants at a local council office and employees of an ICT company) through the concept
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
19
of “officing”, which describes a form of infrastructure work mediating and structuring
social relations (Humphry, 2014). Humphry argues that officing is not only a frame to
understand work practices, but also how the workers’ sense of identity and professional
self are constructed, linking the study of nomadic activities to broader issues of societal
and cultural understanding of mobile work “including the casualisation and
flexibilisation of labour, increased time pressure and transformation of the boundaries
between work and life" (Humphry, 2014).
Through connecting, configuring and synchronizing, nomadic workers realise officing as
a practical approach to cope with the demands of mobility, including the “mobilisation
work” (as defined by Perry and Brodie (2006)) that is often unseen by them and by
employers, but also as a performative strategy of their identity of “ever‐connected”
workers: for example when participants describe replying to a query by text message or
email, rather than with a phone call, to appear as if they were responding from the office
rather than from another place. Humphry notes how the expectation of "ever‐presence"
for these workers is not confined to work, but extended to friends and family: thus,
synchronizing becomes part of the strategy of coping with work and non‐work demands
of nomadic life.
These three papers further the reflection on the conceptual and practical understanding
of nomadicity and contribute to the debate on the set of personal, organisational and
cultural values associated with it, all of them arguing for the need to overcome the
limited vision of nomadicity as “anytime, anywhere” work and to present a more holistic
and dynamic set of phenomena.
The final two contributions to this special issue provide the broader contextualisation of
nomadic practices within the wider social and economic context and within the CSCW
tradition. In her invited paper, Barbara Czarniawska presents the working life‐stories of
nomadic workers indicating how this life plot is related to a number of matters,
including labour market demands and generational perceptions of the necessity of
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
20
embarking in nomadic professional lives. In particular, from recounting the lives of
Anselm and Bernard, she states that their life plots do not exhibit “either the euphoria of
freedom of choice nor the gloom of the forced movement” (Czarniawska, 2014), but
rather a complex “to‐and fro‐ing” linked to larger economic and societal concerns.
In her response to Czarniawska’s article, Monika Büscher proposes a review of the
multi‐faceted phenomena surrounding nomadic work an of the tension between the
“romantic” interpretations of nomadicity (as characterized either by freedom and
fluidity, or by constant demands and dissolving organizational support mechanisms),
and the actual conditions, demands and strategies of work in the “brave new world” of
work on the move (Beck 2000).
Büscher argues that Czarniawska's focus on individual career choices rationalises and
romanticises these choices and does not bring to the fore other powerful forces that
shape nomadic lives, glossing over “an imbroglio of technology, social practices and
intersecting social, physical, virtual, communicative and imaginative mobilities of
nomadic work" (Büscher, 2014). Büscher goes on to review key accounts of nomadicity
and nomadic practices that have emerged in CSCW, identifying different registers of
mobility: network society practices building social and cultural capital from the “weak
ties” of frequent and lightweight social interactions; “plastic” amalgamation of
technologies into everyday life practices; deliberate interactions underpinning
collaborative interactions online; choosing and making places, and – particularly –
homing practices; different forms of remote and co‐located solitary and cooperative
activities (“working together apart” and “working alone together”) (Büscher, 2014).
The rich corpus of material offered by the five articles in this issue extend in several
ways our understanding nomadicity and goes beyond the categorisation of studies of
nomadicity into frames that we used in this introduction to review prior nomadicity and
mobility research in CSCW and related disciplines. It supports our view on the need to
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
21
see nomadicity as a dynamic and emergent concept, where technologies, infrastructures,
locations, organisational needs and constraints and personal strategies are intertwined
in complex ecologies of practice. Rossitto et al.’s concept of “constellations” of
technologies as particular assemblages of systems, devices and services to serve specific
instantiations of nomadic collaborative work goes beyond a “system‐centred” view and
is entwined with understandings of collaborative practices, place‐making and time
management. Liegl’s “care of place” and Humphry’s “officing” are both constructs based
on place, personal identity, motivational forces and technological mediation, as well as
recognising the blurring between work and non‐work in nomadic lives. Czarniawska’s
nomadic life story plots and Büscher’s response articulating “registers” of nomadicity
both extend the discussion to include wider social, economic and political issues around
the romance and reality of nomadicity and mobility.
Overall, this special issue provides the CSCW community with an insight into the
complexity of nomadicity in terms of motivations and practices, proposing the metaphor
of “ecology” as a way to approach further studies of the multi‐faceted set of constraints,
opportunities and values that characterise nomadic work lives.
Acknowledgements
This publication stems from seminar proceedings and research activities within the
“Nomadic Work/Lives in the Knowledge Economy” project sponsored by the Irish Social
Science Platform (ISSP) with funds from Ireland’s Higher Education Authority (HEA
PRTLI) and EU Regional Development Funds, conducted by the special issue guest
editors at the University of Limerick (Ireland) between 2008 and 2012. We are grateful
to our project colleagues Breda Gray, Anthony D’Andrea and Lisa Wixted. We also thank
all the JCSCW reviewers and the JCSCW Editor in Chief Kjeld Schmidt for their thoughtful
feedback on the articles submitted to this special issue and on this editorial.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
22
References
Bean, C. J. and E. M. Eisenberg (2006). Employee Sensemaking in the Transition to Nomadic
Work Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 210 - 222.
Beck, U. (2000). The Brave New World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bødker, S., Kristensen, J. F., Nielsen, C. and W. Sperschneider (2003). Technology for
Boundaries. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on
Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, USA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 311-320.
Bogdan, C., Rossitto, C., Normark, M., Adler, P. J. and K. S. Eklundh (2006). On a Mission
without a Home Base: Conceptualizing Nomadicity in Student Group Work. In
Hassanaly, P., Herrmann, T., Kunau, G. and M. Zacklad (eds): Cooperative Systems
Design: Seamless Integration of Artifacts and Conversations. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 23-38.
Breure, A. and J. van Meel (2003). AirportOffices: Facilitating Nomadic Workers. Facilities, vol.
21, no.7/8), pp. 175-179.
Brodie, J. and M. Perry (2001). Designing for Mobility, Collaboration and Information Use by
Blue-collar Workers. SIGGROUP Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 22-27.
Brown, B. and K. O'Hara (2003). Places as Practical Concern for Mobile Workers. Environment
and Planning, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1565-1578.
Büscher, M. (2014). Nomadic Work: Romance and Reality. A response to Barbara Czarniawska's
'Nomadic Work as Life Story-Plot'. CSCW Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, DOI 10.1007/s10606013-9194-6.
Chen, L. and R. Nath (2005). Nomadic Culture: Cultural Support for Working Anytime,
Anywhere. Information Systems Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 56-64.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring Boundaries? Linking Technology Use, Spillover, Individual Distress,
and Family Satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1237-1248.
Churchill, E. F. and A. J. Munro (2001). Work/place: Mobile technologies and Arenas of
Activity. SIGGROUP Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 3-9.
Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding Spaces as Places: Extending Interaction Design Paradigms.
Cognition, Technology & Work, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-40.
Ciolfi, L., Bartolucci, I. and D. Murphy (2005). Meaningful Interactions for Meaningful Places:
Investigating the Relationships between Nomadic Work, Tangible Artefacts and the
Physical Environment. In Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference on European Association
of Cognitive Ergonomics. Athens: University of Athens, pp. 115 - 121.
Ciolfi, L., Fitzpatrick, G. and L. Bannon (2008). Settings for Collaboration: the Role of Place,
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 17, no.2-3, pp. 91-96.
Ciolfi, L., Gray, B. and A. D'Andrea (2012). Social Aspects of Place Experience in Nomadic
Work/Life Practices. In Dugdale, J., Masclet, C., Grasso, A. and J.-F. Boujut (eds):
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Marseille,
30 May - 1 Jun 2012. London: Springer, pp. 183-196.
Coursaris, C. K. and D. J. Kim (2006). A Qualitative Review of Empirical Mobile Usability
Studies. In Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems. AIS Electronic
Library.
Cousins, K. C. and D. Robey (2005). Human Agency in a Wireless World: Patterns of
Technology Use in Nomadic Computing Environments. Information and Organization, vol.
15, no. 2, pp. 151-180.
Czarniawska, B. (2014). Nomadic Work as Life Story-Plot. CSCW Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, DOI
10.1007/s10606-013-9189-3.
Davis, G. B. (2002). Anytime/anyplace Computing And the Future of Knowledge Work.
Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 67-73.
De Boever, J. and D. De Grooff (2009). Activity Theory as a Framework for Contextual Inquiry:
A Case Study. In Blashki, K. (ed): Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Interfaces
and Human-Computer Interaction, Algarve (Portugal), June 2009, pp. 78-86.
de Carvalho, A. F. P. (2013). Technologically-mediated Nomadicity in Academic Settings: Tm-N as a
Dynamic and Emergent Process. Doctoral Thesis, University of Limerick, Limerick
(Ireland).
de Carvalho, A. F. P., Ciolfi, L. and B. Gray (2011). The Making of Nomadic Work:
Understanding the Mediational Role of ICTs. In Cruz-Cunha, M. M. and F. Moreira
(eds): Handbook of Research on Mobility and Computing: Evolving Technologies and Ubiquitous
Impacts. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, pp. 381-396.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
23
Demiris, A. M. and N. Ioannidis (2005). Context Awareness and Nomadic Devices Featuring
Advanced Information Visualization in Clinical Routine. Journal of Telecommunications
and Information Technology, vol. 4(2005). pp. 121-128.
Dourish, P. (2006). Re-space-ing Place: "Place" and "Space" Ten Years On. In Proceedings of the
2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta,
Canada. New York, USA: ACM, pp. 299-308.
Duxbury, L. and R. Smart (2011). The "Myth of Separate Worlds": An Exploration of How
Mobile Technology has Redefined Work-Life Balance. In Kaiser, S., Ringlstetter, M. J.,
Eikhof, D. R. and M. Pina e Cunha (eds): Creating Balance?. Berlin and Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, pp. 269-284.
Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and S. Walters (2005). Changing Places of Work. New York: Palgrave
Macmillian.
Gluesing, J. C., Meerwarth, T. L. and B. Jordan (2008). Patterns of Mobile Work and Life. In
Meerwarth, T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan (eds): Mobile Work, Mobile Lives: Cultural
Accounts of Lived Experiences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc., pp.148-155.
Goldmacher, A. (2008). Located Mobility: Living and Working in Multiple Places. In Meerwarth,
T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan (eds): Mobile Work, Mobile Lives: Cultural Accounts of
Lived Experiences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc., pp. 118-127.
Gorlenko, L. and R. Merrick (2003). No Wires Attached: Usability Challenges in the Connected
World. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 639-651.
Green, N. (2002). On the Move. Technology, Mobility, and the Mediation of Social Time and
Space. The Information Society, vol. 18, no. 28, pp. 281-292.
Harper, R. (2003). People versus Information: The Evolution of Mobile Technology. In Chittaro,
L. (ed): Mobile HCI 2003.Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer, pp. 1-14.
Harrison, A., Wheeler, P. and C.Whitehead (eds) (2004). The Distributed Workplace: Sustainable
Work Environments. London and New York: Spon Press.
Harrison, S. and P. Dourish (1996). Re-place-ing Space: the Roles of Place and Space in
Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. New York: ACM, pp. 67-76.
Hislop, D. and C. Axtell (2007). The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary studies of work:
the case of telework. New Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 34-51.
Hislop, D. and C. Axtell (2009). To Infinity and Beyond?: Workspace and The Multi-location
Worker. New Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 60-75.
Humphry, J. (2014), Officing: Mediating Time and the Professional Self in the Support of
Nomadic Work. CSCW Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, DOI 10.1007/s10606-013-9197-3.
Johansson, N., Lind, T. and B. Sandblad (2006). Usability in IT Systems for Mobile Work. In
Andriessen, J. H. E. and M. Vartiainen (eds): Mobile Virtual Work: A New Paradigm?.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 177-202.
Jordan, B. (2008). Living a Distributed Life: Multilocality and Working at a Distance. In
Meerwarth, T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan, B. (eds): Mobile Work, Mobile Lives:
Cultural Accounts of Lived Experiences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc., pp. 28-55.
Kakihara, M. and C. Sørensen (2001). Expanding the 'Mobility' Concept. ACM SIGGROUP
Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 33-37.
Kakihara, M. and C. Sørensen (2004). Practising Mobile Professional Work: Tales of Locational,
Operational, and Interactional Mobility. info, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 180-187.
Kakihara, M., Sørensen, C. and M. Wiberg (2002). Fluid Interaction in Mobile Work Practices.
In Proceedings of the First Global Mobile Roundtable, Tokyo, Japan, May 29 - 30, 2002. Tokyo,
Japan: Institute of Innovation Research.
Kindberg, T. and J. Barton (2001). A Web-based Nomadic Computing System. Computer
Networks, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 443-456.
Kleinrock, L. (1996). Nomadicity: Anytime, Anywhere in a Disconnected World. Mobile Networks
and Applications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 351-357.
Kleinrock, L. (2001). Breaking loose. Communications of the ACM, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 41-46.
Lal, B. and Y. K. Dwivedi (2010). Investigating Homeworkers' Inclination to Remain Connected
to Work at “Anytime, Anywhere” Via Mobile Phones. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 759 - 774.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
24
Liegl, M. (2014). Nomadicity and the Care of Place - On the Aesthetic and Affective Organisation
of Space in Freelance Creative Work. CSCW Journal, vol. 23, no. 2.
Lilischkis, S. (2003). More Yoyos, Pendulums and Nomads: Trends of Mobile and Multilocation
Work in the Information Society, Issue Report 36, IST Project STAR - Socio-economic
Trends Assessment for the digital Revolution, June 2003. Bonn: empirica.
Lindley, S., Meek, S., Sellen, A., and R. Harper (2012). ‘It’s simply integral to what I do’: Enquiries
into how the web is weaved into everyday life. In Proceedings of the 2012 international
conference on World Wide Web, International World Wide Web Conference, April 2012.
Luff, P. and C. Heath (1998). Mobility in Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Nov 14-18 1998. New York: ACM Press,
pp. 305-314.
Lyytinen, K. and Y. Yoo (2002). Research Commentary: The Next Wave of Nomadic
Computing. Information Systems Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 377-388.
Makimoto, T., Eguchi, K. and M. Yoneyama (2001). The Cooler the Better: New Directions in
the Nomadic Age. Computer, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 38-42.
Makimoto, T. and D. Manners (1997). Digital Nomad. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mark, G. and N. M. Su (2010). Making Infrastructure Visible for Nomadic Work. Pervasive and
Mobile Computing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 312-323.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J. and J. Yates (2006). CrackBerrys: Exploring the Social
Implications of Ubiquitous Wireless Email Devices. In Proceedings of the EGOS 2006.
European Group for Organizational Studies Symposium.
Meerwarth, T. L. (2008). Disentangling Patterns of a Nomadic Life. In Meerwarth, T. L.,
Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan (eds): Mobile Work, Mobile Lives: Cultural Accounts of Lived
Experiences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc., pp. 102-117.
Meerwarth, T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan, (eds) (2008a). Mobile Work, Mobile Lives: Cultural
Accounts of Lived Experiences. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Meerwarth, T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan (2008b). Tracking the Context of Mobile Lives.
In Meerwarth, T. L., Gluesing, J. C. and B. Jordan (eds): Mobile Work, Mobile Lives:
Cultural Accounts of Lived Experiences, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1-11.
Murphy, D., Bartolucci, I. and L. Ciolfi (2006). Understanding Real World Practices: a PlaceCentred Study of Mobile Workers. in Proceedings of the 2006 Mobile Interaction with the Real
World Workshop, Espoo, Finland, Sep 12 2006.
Murray-Smith, R. (2009). Empowering People Rather Than Connecting Them. International
Journal of Human Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 18-28.
Oulasvirta, A. and L. Sumari (2007). Mobile Kits and Laptop Trays: Managing Multiple Devices
in Mobile Information Work. In Proceedings of CHI 2007, SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA. New York: ACM, pp. 1127-1136.
Perry, M. and J. Brodie (2006). Virtually Connected, Practically Mobile. In Andriessen, J. H. E.
and M. Vartiainen (eds): Mobile Virtual Work: A New Paradigm?. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer, pp. 97-128.
Perry, M., O'Hara, K., Sellen, A., Brown, B. and R. Harper (2001). Dealing with Mobility:
Understanding Access Anytime, Anywhere. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (TOCHI), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 323-347.
Pica, D., Sørensen, C. and D. Allen (2004). On Mobility and Context of Work: Exploring Mobile
Police Work. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, 5-8 Jan 2004. New York, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1-11.
Rossitto, C. (2009). Managing Work at Several Places: Understanding Nomadic Practices in Student
Groups. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Tecnology.
Rossitto, C., Bogdan, C. and K.S. Eklundh (2014). Understanding Constellations of Technologies
in Use in a Collaborative Nomadic Setting. CSCW Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, DOI
10.1007/s10606-013-9196-4.
Rossitto, C. and K. S. Eklundh (2007). Managing Work at Several Places: A Case of Project
Work in a Nomadic Group of Students. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on
Cognitive Ergonomics, London, UK, Aug 28-31, 2007. New York: ACM, pp. 45-51.
Sadler, K., Robertson, T., Kan , M. and P. Hagen (2006). Balancing work, life and other
concerns: a study of mobile technology use by Australian freelancers. In Proceedings
of NordiCHI 2006.
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
25
Salazar, C. (2001). Building Boundaries and Negotiating Work at Home. In Proceedings of the 2001
International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Boulder, Colorado. New
York: ACM Press, pp. 162-170.
Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (2013). Constructing CSCW: the First Quarter Century. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 22, no. 4-6, pp. 345-372.
Shumate, M. and J. Fulk (2004). Boundaries and Role Conflict When Work and Family are
Colocated: A Communication Network and Symbolic Interaction Approach. Human
Relations, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 55-74.
Sørensen, C. (2011). Enterprise Mobility: Tine Technology with Global Impact on Work. New York,
USA: Palgrave Macmillian.
Sørensen, C.-F., Wang, A. and R. Conradi (2005). Support of Smart Work Processes in Context
Rich Environments. In Krogstie, J., Kautz, K. and D. Allen (eds): Mobile Information
Systems II, Boston: Springer, pp. 15-30.
Su, N. M. and G. Mark (2008). Designing for Nomadic Work. In Proceedings of DIS 2008, the 7th
ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Cape Town, South Africa, Feb 25-27, 2008.
New York: ACM Press, pp. 305-314.
Vartiainen, M. (2006). Mobile Virtual Work - Concepts, Outcomes and Challenges. In
Andriessen, J. H. E. and M. Vartiainen (eds): Mobile Virtual Work: A New Paradigm?,
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 13-44.
Weiser, M. (1993). Ubiquitous Computing. Computer, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 71-72.
Weiss, S. (2002). Handheld Usability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wiberg, M. and F. Ljungberg (2001). Exploring the Vision of "Anytime, Anywhere" in the
Context of Mobile Work. In Wiberg, M. (ed): In Between Mobile Meetings: Exploring
Seamless Ongoing Interaction Support for Mobile CSCW, Umeå: Umeå University, pp. 112128.
York, J. and P. C. Pendharkar (2004). Human-Computer Interaction Issues for Mobile
Computing in a Variable Work Context. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
vol. 60, no. 5-6, pp. 771-797.
i
Actant is a term borrowed by Su and Mark (2008) from Actor‐Network Theory (Latour
2007) to refer to any asset carried, accessed or contacted by TNomads as they go on to set
up their temporary workplaces and proceed to conduct their work activities. Mobile phones,
laptops, work documents and people are some examples of actants.
ii
“Dead time” refers to the time spent in airports, buses, hotels, between work sections.
iii
Space and place are often treated as different elements. Whilst the former is associated
with physical environments (e.g. a room delineated by walls), the latter is usually
interpreted according the views of the phenomenological tradition in which place
considered a physical space invested with human experiences and values where actions and
interactions unfold (Brown and O'Hara 2003; Ciolfi 2004; Dourish 2006)
Pre‐Publication Version of: Ciolfi, L. and de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014), “Work Practices,
Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology”, CSCW Journal, Vol 23, No. 2, March 2014.
London: Springer.
26