Digital Nomads as Transcultural Cultural Intermediaries: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of ICH Mediatization on Short-video Platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/984d2r85Keywords:
Mediatization, digital nomads, intangible cultural heritage, short-video platforms, cross-cultural comparisonAbstract
The rapid proliferation of digital nomadism, accelerated by post-pandemic remote work, has generated a novel cultural intermediary: the location-independent content creator who documents, interprets, and disseminates local intangible cultural heritage (ICH) through short-video platforms. Drawing on mediatization theory and applying a mixed-methods comparative research design, this study investigates how digital nomads engage with ICH transmission across contrasting cultural and platform ecosystems. Fieldwork was conducted from January to March 2025 in Bali (Indonesia) and Chiang Mai (Thailand), and from April to September 2025 in the Miao-Dong ethnic region of Qiandongnan, Guizhou Province, China. The study supplemented fieldwork with in-depth interviews with 27 cross-cultural informants (n=27), including digital nomads, ICH inheritors, and local cultural workers from both Asian contexts. Quantitative content analysis examined 800 platform samples (N=800)-comprising 420 Chinese platform posts (Douyin, Kuaishou, Bilibili) and 380 international platform posts (TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels)-collected between October 2024 and September 2025. The findings reveal three patterns of "mediatized cultural intermediation" shared across cultural contexts: cultural recontextualization, de-territorialized dissemination, and participatory authenticity negotiation. Meanwhile, comparative analysis uncovers significant cultural variations in how platform affordances interact with local heritage logics. This study contributes to mediatization scholarship by introducing the concept of "transcultural cultural intermediation" as a framework for understanding how geographically mobile agents reshape ICH circulation in the platform era.
Downloads
References
[1] B. Wang and Q. Fu: Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 45 (2020) No. 3, p. 78.
[2] J. Strömbäck: International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 13 (2008) No. 2, p. 115.
[3] M. Korpela: Sustainability, Vol. 14 (2022) No. 20, p. 1.
[4] B. Wang and Q. Fu: SAGE Open, Vol. 15 (2025) No. 2, p. 1.
[5] J. Strömbäck: Chinese Journal of Communication, Vol. 5 (2012) No. 3, p. 245.
[6] V. Braun and V. Clarke: Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3 (2006) No. 2, p. 77.
[7] K. Frandsen: Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 41 (2019) No. 3, p. 345.
[8] S. Hjarvard: Nordicom Review, Vol. 29 (2008) No. 2, p. 105.
[9] N. Couldry: Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice (Polity Press, UK 2012), p. 1.
[10] T. Moores: Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self (Routledge, UK 2012), p. 1.
[11] MBO Partners: State of Independence in America: Digital Nomad Statistics Report (MBO Partners, USA 2023), p. 3.
[12] M. Korpela, A. Tóth and L. Antal: Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 42 (2022) No. 1, p. 45.
[13] A. D'Andrea: Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 (2007) No. 1, p. 41.
[14] W.B. Chiou, J.S. Chen and D.Z. Liao: Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 (2020) No. 2, p. 112.
[15] B.Y. Thompson: Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 21 (2018) No. 2, p. 100.
[16] S. Hjarvard: The Mediatisation of Culture and Society (Routledge, UK 2013), p. 65.
[17] X. Zhang and J. Wang: Modern Communication, Vol. 5 (2020) No. 1, p. 130.
[18] J.W. Creswell and V.L. Plano Clark: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Sage, USA 2018), p. 70.
[19] P. Liu: Ethnic Arts Studies, Vol. 34 (2021) No. 3, p. 45.
[20] C. Geertz: The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, USA 1973), p. 3.
[21] L. Smith: Uses of Heritage (Routledge, UK 2006), p. 29.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
