Digital Minimalism: A Critical Examination of Intentional Technology Use in Contemporary Society

Introduction

In an era characterized by digital overwhelm and constant connectivity, digital minimalism has emerged as both a philosophical framework and practical approach to technology use. This movement, formalized by computer scientist Cal Newport in his 2019 work, advocates for a more selective and intentional relationship with digital tools.¹ Newport defines digital minimalism as “a philosophy of technology use in which you focus your online time on a small number of carefully selected and optimized activities that strongly support things you value, and then happily miss out on everything else.”² While proponents argue for its benefits in mental health, productivity, and wellbeing, critics raise substantial concerns about privilege, accessibility, and cultural assumptions embedded within the framework.³

Recent empirical research provides mixed evidence for digital minimalism’s effectiveness. A 2024 meta-analysis of digital detox interventions found significant reductions in depression (SMD: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51, -0.07, p=0.01) but no statistically significant effects on life satisfaction or stress levels.⁴ Meanwhile, generational studies reveal paradoxical patterns: Generation Z, despite reporting the highest smartphone dependency rates at 68%, leads adoption of minimalist practices with 46% actively limiting screen time.⁵ These complex findings suggest the need for nuanced understanding beyond simplistic prescriptions for technology reduction.

Theoretical Foundations and Intellectual Heritage

Digital minimalism’s intellectual roots extend far beyond contemporary technology discourse, drawing from diverse philosophical, psychological, and sociological traditions. The movement’s foundational ideas trace to Henry David Thoreau’s experiment in simple living documented in Walden (1854), which Newport explicitly connects to digital contexts.⁶ Thoreau’s concept of deliberate living—”I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately”—provides the philosophical framework for intentional technology use.⁷

The field’s academic development accelerated through Sherry Turkle’s pioneering work exploring digital culture’s psychological impacts. Her trilogy spanning from The Second Self (1984) through Alone Together (2011) to Reclaiming Conversation (2015) documents technology’s evolving role in human identity formation and social relationships.⁸ Turkle’s distinction between “conversation” and “connection” proves particularly influential, arguing that digital communication often substitutes superficial interaction for meaningful dialogue.⁹

Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010) contributed crucial neuroscientific foundations. Carr synthesized research on neuroplasticity to demonstrate how internet use fundamentally alters cognitive processes, particularly the capacity for sustained concentration and deep reading.¹⁰ His work built upon earlier media ecology theories from Marshall McLuhan while incorporating contemporary brain imaging studies.¹¹

Newport’s framework establishes three core principles that structure digital minimalist practice. First, “clutter is costly” recognizes that accumulating digital tools imposes cognitive and temporal costs exceeding their benefits.¹² Second, “optimization matters” emphasizes that value derives not merely from tool selection but from thoughtful implementation.¹³ Third, “intentionality is satisfying” posits that deliberate technology choices provide deeper satisfaction than default consumption patterns.¹⁴

The operational methodology centers on a 30-day “digital declutter” process. Participants eliminate optional technologies for one month while exploring meaningful offline activities, then selectively reintroduce tools with specific usage parameters aligned with personal values.¹⁵ This approach draws from behavioral psychology research on habit formation, particularly the 66-day average for behavioral automaticity documented by Lally et al.¹⁶

Buddhist mindfulness traditions contribute contemplative practices emphasizing present-moment awareness and non-attachment.¹⁷ Jon Kabat-Zinn’s secular mindfulness adaptations provide practical techniques for managing digital distractions through meditation and embodied awareness.¹⁸ These Eastern philosophical influences complement Western productivity frameworks, creating hybrid approaches to technology management.

Recent theoretical developments expand beyond individual behavior modification. Sophie Leroy’s concept of “attention residue” documents cognitive costs when switching between tasks, providing empirical support for minimalist approaches to multitasking.¹⁹ The emerging distinction between “digital competency” and “digital dependency” offers more nuanced frameworks for understanding healthy technology relationships.²⁰

Empirical Evidence and Research Findings

Systematic investigation of digital minimalism’s effectiveness reveals complex, often contradictory findings requiring careful interpretation. The most comprehensive systematic literature review to date, conducted by Radtke et al. (2022), examined 21 studies on digital detox interventions across four outcome domains: health, well-being, social relationships, and performance.²¹ Results proved highly variable, with some studies showing positive effects while others found no benefit or negative consequences, highlighting the need for more rigorous research designs.

A 2024 meta-analysis by Ramadhan et al. advanced the field through stricter inclusion criteria and statistical synthesis. Analyzing 2,578 initial titles and ultimately including 10 high-quality studies, researchers found digital detox interventions significantly reduced depression symptoms but showed no statistically significant effects on life satisfaction (SMD: 0.11; 95%CI: -0.29, 0.50), stress (SMD: -0.26; 95%CI: -0.66, 0.14), or overall mental well-being (SMD: 0.30; 95%CI: -0.11, 0.71).²² These findings suggest targeted rather than universal benefits from digital reduction strategies.

Methodological progress includes development of validated measurement instruments. The Digital Minimalism Scale, created by Summayya et al. (2024), establishes two primary factors—”Digital Intent” and “Digital Declutter”—demonstrating good internal reliability (α > 0.71) and significant correlation with life satisfaction measures.²³ This psychometric tool enables more systematic investigation across diverse populations and contexts.

Cognitive performance studies document specific benefits from reduced digital engagement. Research shows improved executive function following smartphone separation, with participants demonstrating enhanced working memory capacity and sustained attention performance.²⁴ A 2025 study on eudaimonic well-being identified three categories of cognitive improvement: attention restoration, working memory enhancement, and problem-solving capability increases.²⁵

Social relationship outcomes present nuanced findings. Face-to-face interaction quality improves when smartphones are absent, with studies documenting deeper conversations and increased empathy.²⁶ However, social connectedness serves as a partial mediator between smartphone use and psychological adjustment, suggesting complex relationships between digital tools and social wellbeing.²⁷ A two-week social media restriction study found improvements in physical activity levels, sleep quality, and life satisfaction, though 30% of participants experienced rebound effects post-intervention.²⁸

Healthcare applications demonstrate sector-specific promise. Hawaii Pacific Health’s “Getting Rid of Stupid Stuff” program, inspired by minimalist principles, eliminated 86% of unnecessary documentation requirements while reducing clinician-reported burnout scores.²⁹ The New England Journal of Medicine published perspectives on digital minimalism as an intervention for addressing electronic health record-related stress among physicians.³⁰

Educational contexts show mixed results. Students adopting minimalist approaches during online learning report improved focus and assignment quality, yet implementation challenges persist around collaborative requirements and digital resource access.³¹ Language learning frameworks attempting to balance digital tools with real-world practice encounter resistance from both students accustomed to app-based learning and institutions invested in educational technology.³²

Significant limitations constrain current research. Most studies rely on self-report measures susceptible to social desirability bias.³³ Sample demographics skew heavily toward young, Western, educated populations, with the average study including 80.8% white participants.³⁴ Cross-sectional designs dominate, limiting causal inference about minimalism’s long-term effects.³⁵ Perhaps most critically, individual differences in baseline technology use, personality factors, and cognitive abilities significantly moderate outcomes, suggesting personalized rather than universal approaches may prove necessary.³⁶

Implementation Strategies and Practical Applications

Digital minimalism implementation follows structured frameworks adaptable across individual, organizational, and institutional contexts. The core three-phase model begins with defining technology rules aligned with personal or organizational values, distinguishing essential from optional tools through systematic evaluation.³⁷ Phase two implements the 30-day digital declutter, removing all non-essential technologies while actively exploring analog alternatives and offline activities.³⁸ The final phase involves selective reintroduction with specific usage parameters optimizing for identified values rather than convenience.³⁹

Individual case studies reveal both transformative potential and implementation challenges. Newport documents “David,” a finance professional who eliminated social media and established email boundaries, subsequently reporting career advancement and improved family relationships.⁴⁰ However, such success stories often involve substantial privilege—economic security enabling professional disconnection, social support during transition periods, and resources for alternative activities.⁴¹

Organizational implementations demonstrate scalability while revealing unique challenges. Interact Software addressed “app fatigue” among employees juggling six or more communication channels through comprehensive auditing, stakeholder feedback integration, and centralized portal development.⁴² Results included 9% time savings from reduced context-switching and qualitatively reported collaboration improvements.⁴³ Manufacturing firms report success with “communication-free” deep work blocks, though implementation requires careful coordination around safety protocols and shift handoffs.⁴⁴

Healthcare institutions pioneered sector-specific applications addressing “alert fatigue” and documentation burden. NYU Langone Health’s workflow optimization reduced clinical decision support alerts by 72% while maintaining patient safety metrics.⁴⁵ The University of California San Francisco’s “Pause for Presence” program integrated mindfulness practices with technology boundaries, showing measurable stress reduction among participating clinicians.⁴⁶

Educational implementations face unique challenges balancing digital literacy needs with minimalist principles. A multi-site study of K-12 schools implementing device-free periods found improved attention and peer interaction but encountered resistance from parents concerned about emergency communication.⁴⁷ Higher education experiments with “analog assignments” requiring handwritten work show promise for deep engagement but raise accessibility concerns for students with disabilities.⁴⁸

Technology tools supporting minimalist practices range from built-in features to specialized applications. Apple’s Screen Time and Google’s Digital Wellbeing provide baseline monitoring and restriction capabilities.⁴⁹ Specialized apps like Freedom and Cold Turkey offer more aggressive blocking features, while MinimalistPhone transforms smartphone interfaces to reduce habitual checking behaviors.⁵⁰ Environmental design strategies complement digital tools: grayscale display settings reduce visual stimulation, designated charging stations keep devices out of bedrooms, and physical timers enable focused work periods without digital distractions.⁵¹

Success metrics vary by context but consistently include both quantitative and qualitative indicators. Individual metrics encompass screen time reduction, deep work hours logged, and subjective wellbeing assessments.⁵² Organizational measures include productivity indicators, employee satisfaction scores, and innovation metrics like patent applications or creative output.⁵³ Healthcare contexts prioritize burnout reduction, patient interaction time, and documentation efficiency.⁵⁴ Educational settings track attention measures, assignment quality, and long-term retention.⁵⁵

Critical Perspectives and Challenges

Substantial academic criticism challenges digital minimalism’s theoretical assumptions and practical applications. Feminist scholars identify pervasive gender bias throughout Newport’s framework, particularly his valorization of “Deep Work” that relies on freedom from caregiving responsibilities.⁵⁶ Dr. Brittany Ann argues Newport presents “a particularly masculinist take on productivity,” noting his exclusive use of male exemplars and dismissal of relational labor as distraction.⁵⁷ The critique extends to practical recommendations like “write when the kids go to bed,” which Cathy Mazak identifies as creating additional labor rather than reducing obligations.⁵⁸

Economic privilege underlies many critical perspectives. Allie Long characterizes minimalism broadly as “an ideology of privilege” accessible only to those with sufficient resources to “just get rid of stuff and forgo vital forms of communication.”⁵⁹ Digital minimalism specifically requires economic security to disconnect professionally, technological alternatives for essential services, and time resources for developing analog replacements—luxuries unavailable to many workers.⁶⁰ Gig economy participants, for instance, depend on multiple platform apps for income, making selective reduction professionally dangerous.⁶¹

Disability rights perspectives reveal additional exclusions within minimalist frameworks. Accessibility researchers document how disabled users often require more digital tools rather than fewer—screen readers, augmentative communication devices, health monitoring applications, and specialized software enabling participation.⁶² The emphasis on reduction conflicts with disability justice principles advocating abundant support and universal design.⁶³ Mental health app users managing conditions through digital tools face impossible choices between minimalism and wellbeing maintenance.⁶⁴

Cultural critiques from Global South scholars highlight Western-centric assumptions embedded in digital minimalism discourse. Minimal computing research distinguishes between minimalism by choice versus necessity, noting how privileged reduction can appropriate survival strategies of resource-constrained communities.⁶⁵ The “Intersectional Internet” framework developed by Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha Tynes centers race, class, and gender in technology relationships, revealing how marginalized communities use digital tools for survival, resistance, and community building in ways minimalism ignores.⁶⁶

Professional networking requirements present additional challenges to minimalist adoption. Academic researchers report pressure to maintain social media presence for collaboration and impact metrics.⁶⁷ Creative professionals depend on Instagram and similar platforms for portfolio display and client acquisition.⁶⁸ LinkedIn participation, while theoretically optional, functions as mandatory for many career trajectories.⁶⁹ These professional imperatives create structural barriers to selective disconnection.

Alternative frameworks address limitations through more inclusive approaches. Digital wellness models emphasize positive technology relationships rather than reduction, with the Digital Wellness Institute’s “Digital Flourishing Model” proposing eight dimensions of healthy use encompassing creativity, communication, and productivity alongside physical health.⁷⁰ Community-based approaches shift focus from individual behavior to collective responsibility, emphasizing shared resource management and mutual support systems.⁷¹ Justice-oriented frameworks prioritize addressing systemic inequalities in technology access and design rather than personal optimization.⁷²

Generational Dynamics and Cultural Variations

Contemporary research reveals surprising generational patterns in digital minimalism adoption. Despite reporting highest smartphone dependency rates—68% experience separation anxiety compared to 37% of Baby Boomers—Generation Z leads minimalist practice adoption with 46% actively implementing screen time restrictions.⁷³ This paradox suggests complex relationships between digital nativity and intentional use, with younger generations simultaneously most embedded in and most critical of digital culture.⁷⁴

Motivational differences across generations prove significant. Gen Z participants prioritize mental health preservation (45%) and productivity enhancement (43%), while Millennials emphasize work-life balance (41%) and relationship quality (38%).⁷⁵ Generation X shows moderate engagement focused on family modeling (35%), while Baby Boomers demonstrate lowest adoption rates, potentially reflecting established patterns or technological comfort.⁷⁶ These patterns challenge assumptions about age-based technology relationships.

Cultural variations profoundly impact digital minimalism’s applicability and effectiveness. A 2025 cross-cultural study comparing Australia’s horizontal-individualist culture with Japan’s vertical-collectivist orientation found promotion-focused minimalism behaviors significantly more pronounced in individualistic contexts.⁷⁷ Japanese participants emphasized group harmony in technology decisions, while Australians prioritized personal autonomy and self-optimization.⁷⁸

Comparative research between India and the United States revealed different conceptual emphases. Indian participants integrated environmental concerns and traditional philosophical values into minimalism practices, drawing connections to Gandhi’s simplicity teachings and yoga philosophy.⁷⁹ American participants focused predominantly on individual productivity and technological solutions, reflecting cultural values of efficiency and innovation.⁸⁰ These findings challenge universal application assumptions and suggest culturally-adapted frameworks better serve diverse populations.

Indigenous perspectives offer alternative conceptualizations of technology relationships. Native American digital sovereignty movements emphasize community control over technological adoption, prioritizing cultural preservation alongside connectivity.⁸¹ African Ubuntu philosophy provides relational frameworks for understanding technology’s role in community building rather than individual optimization.⁸² These non-Western approaches expand minimalism beyond reduction to encompass intentional, values-aligned technology integration.

Socioeconomic factors intersect with cultural patterns in complex ways. Working-class communities across cultures often require multiple digital platforms for employment, education, and social services, making minimalism practically impossible.⁸³ Rural populations depend on digital tools for accessing resources unavailable locally, from telemedicine to educational opportunities.⁸⁴ Urban professional classes show highest minimalism adoption rates globally, suggesting practice correlation with privilege transcends national boundaries.⁸⁵

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Emerging research directions reflect growing sophistication in understanding digital minimalism’s complexities. Longitudinal studies tracking minimalist practice evolution over years rather than weeks represent critical methodological advancement.⁸⁶ The Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital launched a five-year study following 1,000 families implementing various technology management strategies, enabling causal inference about long-term outcomes.⁸⁷

Methodological improvements prioritize addressing current limitations. Researchers advocate for mixed-methods approaches combining quantitative metrics with qualitative lived experience documentation.⁸⁸ Ecological momentary assessment using smartphone sensors provides objective usage data while minimizing recall bias.⁸⁹ Participatory action research involving communities in study design ensures cultural relevance and practical applicability.⁹⁰

Artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and challenges for digital minimalism’s future. AI-powered interventions show promise for personalized wellness recommendations based on individual usage patterns and goals.⁹¹ However, increasingly sophisticated engagement algorithms designed to maximize attention pose new challenges to intentional use.⁹² Research examining AI’s role in both supporting and undermining minimalist practices represents a crucial frontier.⁹³

Post-pandemic digital transformation fundamentally altered minimalism’s context. Remote work normalization blurred boundaries between personal and professional technology use.⁹⁴ Educational digitization accelerated beyond previous projections, making selective disconnection more difficult for students and educators.⁹⁵ Healthcare’s digital pivot created new dependencies on telehealth platforms and health monitoring apps.⁹⁶ Understanding minimalism within these transformed contexts requires updated frameworks acknowledging increased digital integration across life domains.

Theoretical development moves toward comprehensive models distinguishing healthy from problematic technology relationships. The emerging “digital competency versus dependency” framework offers more nuanced understanding than simple usage metrics.⁹⁷ Emotional regulation emerges as a key differentiator, with competent users maintaining affective balance while dependent users show dysregulation patterns.⁹⁸ Integration with established psychological theories like self-determination theory provides stronger foundations for intervention design.⁹⁹

Policy implications gain increasing attention as individual approaches prove insufficient for addressing systemic issues. Researchers advocate for “ethical design” requirements limiting manipulative interface elements.¹⁰⁰ Right-to-disconnect legislation protecting workers from after-hours digital communication spreads globally.¹⁰¹ Educational policy debates around device bans versus integration reflect broader tensions in minimalism application.¹⁰² Understanding policy’s role in supporting intentional technology use represents crucial research territory.

Conclusion

Digital minimalism emerges from this critical examination as a significant yet contested framework for navigating contemporary technology relationships. While empirical evidence supports selective benefits—particularly for depression reduction and cognitive performance enhancement—implementation challenges and critical perspectives reveal substantial limitations. The movement’s grounding in privilege, Western individualism, and able-bodied assumptions necessitates fundamental reconceptualization for broader applicability.

Future development requires moving beyond individual behavior modification toward systemic understanding of technology’s role in contemporary life. Successful approaches will likely integrate minimalism’s core insight—that intentional technology use enhances wellbeing—while addressing structural inequalities and cultural variations. The path forward demands interdisciplinary collaboration, methodological rigor, and centering of marginalized voices too often excluded from technology discourse. Only through such comprehensive efforts can digital minimalism evolve from a privileged practice to an inclusive framework supporting diverse communities in creating healthy technology relationships.

Notes

1. Cal Newport, Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019), 28.
2. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 28.
3. Brittany Ann, “Digital Minimalism: A Book Review,” My Non Existent Minimalism (blog), accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.mynonexistentminimalism.com/blog/digitalminimalism.
4. Fakhri Ramadhan et al., “Impacts of Digital Social Media Detox for Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Narra J 4, no. 2 (2024): e786, https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i2.786.
5. “Survey: Limiting Tech for Mental Health,” ExpressVPN Blog, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/digital-minimalism-generational-insights/.
6. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 104.
7. Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854; repr., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 90.
8. Sherry Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (New York: Penguin Press, 2015), 3-25.
9. Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation, 19.
10. Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York: W.W. Norton, 2010), 115-143.
11. Carr, The Shallows, 120.
12. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 36.
13. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 37.
14. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 38.
15. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 70-74.
16. Phillippa Lally et al., “How Are Habits Formed: Modelling Habit Formation in the Real World,” European Journal of Social Psychology 40, no. 6 (2010): 998-1009.
17. Jon Kabat-Zinn, Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life (New York: Hyperion, 1994), 4.
18. Kabat-Zinn, Wherever You Go, 4.
19. Sophie Leroy, “Why Is It So Hard to Do My Work? The Challenge of Attention Residue When Switching Between Work Tasks,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109, no. 2 (2009): 168-181.
20. Jeeyoon Park et al., “New Perspective on Digital Well-Being by Distinguishing Digital Competency From Dependency: Network Approach,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 27 (2025): e70483.
21. Theda Radtke et al., “Digital Detox: An Effective Solution in the Smartphone Era? A Systematic Literature Review,” Mobile Media & Communication 10, no. 2 (2022): 190-215.
22. Ramadhan et al., “Impacts of Digital Social Media Detox,” e786.
23. Kanwal Iqbal Summayya et al., “Development and Validation of Digital Minimalism Scale,” Kurdish Studies 12, no. 2 (2024): 2461.
24. “Effects of Mindfulness on Psychological Health: A Review of Empirical Studies,” Clinical Psychology Review 31, no. 6 (2011): 1041-1056.
25. Shreeya Kolhe and Chetna Naik, “Digital Detox as a Means to Enhance Eudaimonic Well-being,” Frontiers in Human Dynamics 7 (2025): 1572587.
26. “How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation,” Greater Good Magazine, accessed July 22, 2025, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_smartphones_are_killing_conversation.
27. Selim Gündoğan et al., “The Mediating Role of Social Connectedness in the Relationship between Smartphone Use and Psychological Adjustment Problems in Turkish Youth,” Discover Psychology 4 (2024): 180.
28. Michael Wadsley et al., “Taking a Break: The Effects of Partaking in a Two-Week Social Media Digital Detox,” Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 12 (2023): 1004.
29. Melinda Ashton, “Getting Rid of Stupid Stuff,” New England Journal of Medicine 379 (2018): 1789-1791.
30. Ryan C. L. Brewster and Lisa Shieh, “Digital Minimalism—An Rx for Clinician Burnout,” New England Journal of Medicine 388 (2023): 681-682.
31. “Achieving Digital Minimalism in Student Life: A Roadmap for Balanced Digital Life and Well-being,” accessed July 22, 2025, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376594582.
32. “Digital Minimalism: What Does It Imply for Language Instruction?” accessed July 22, 2025, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384400628.
33. Radtke et al., “Digital Detox,” 200.
34. Ramadhan et al., “Impacts of Digital Social Media Detox,” e786.
35. Radtke et al., “Digital Detox,” 201.
36. Park et al., “New Perspective on Digital Well-Being,” e70483.
37. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 70.
38. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 71.
39. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 72.
40. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 156-158.
41. Ann, “Digital Minimalism: A Book Review.”
42. “Digital Minimalism: 11 Ways to Declutter Your Digital Workplace,” Interact Software, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.interactsoftware.com/blog/declutter-digital-workplace/.
43. “Digital Minimalism: 11 Ways to Declutter,” Interact Software.
44. “Digital Minimalism in Enterprises: When Less Technology Creates More Value,” ManageEngine Insights, accessed July 22, 2025, https://insights.manageengine.com/digital-transformation/digital-minimalism-enterprises/.
45. Brewster and Shieh, “Digital Minimalism,” 681.
46. Brewster and Shieh, “Digital Minimalism,” 682.
47. “Achieving Digital Minimalism in Student Life,” ResearchGate.
48. “Digital Minimalism: What Does It Imply,” ResearchGate.
49. “Digital Minimalism on Your iPhone: 11 Ways to Achieve It,” Minimal Angle, accessed July 22, 2025, https://minimalangle.com/digital-minimalism-on-iphone/.
50. Jakub Sikora et al., “The Effect of Digital Detox through Digital Minimalism Using the MinimalistPhone App,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 27, no. 1 (2024): 50-58.
51. “Finding Balance: 12 Strategies for Embracing Digital Minimalism,” Solitude, accessed July 22, 2025, https://solitude.net/digital-minimalism/.
52. Newport, Digital Minimalism, 242.
53. “Digital Minimalism for High Performers: Focus Strategies,” Modern Performance Reset, accessed July 22, 2025, https://modernperformancereset.com/digital-minimalism-high-performers/.
54. Brewster and Shieh, “Digital Minimalism,” 682.
55. “Achieving Digital Minimalism in Student Life,” ResearchGate.
56. Ann, “Digital Minimalism: A Book Review.”
57. “The Invisible Gender of Deep Work,” Thrown Togetherness (blog), April 1, 2018, https://throwntogetherness.com/2018/04/01/the-invisible-gender-of-deep-work/.
58. Cathy Mazak, “Book Review of Slow Productivity by Cal Newport,” Scholar’s Voice, accessed July 22, 2025, https://scholarsvoice.org/podcast/book-review-of-slow-productivity-by-cal-newport/.
59. Ann, “Digital Minimalism: A Book Review.”
60. Allie Long, “The Privilege of Minimalism: Who Gets to Be a Minimalist?” Work Brighter, accessed July 22, 2025, https://workbrighter.co/the-privilege-of-minimalism/.
61. Patrick Scannell, “A Case Against Digital Minimalism,” LinkedIn, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-against-digital-minimalism-patrick-scannell.
62. “What Is Digital Accessibility, and Why Does It Matter?” web.dev, accessed July 22, 2025, https://web.dev/learn/accessibility/why.
63. “What Is Digital Accessibility,” web.dev.
64. Karen Wetherall et al., “Use of Smartphone Apps, Social Media, and Web-Based Resources to Support Mental Health and Well-Being: Online Survey,” JMIR Mental Health 6, no. 7 (2019): e12546.
65. “Introduction: The Questions of Minimal Computing,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 16, no. 2 (2022), http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000646/000646.html.
66. Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha M. Tynes, eds., The Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class, and Culture Online (New York: Peter Lang, 2016), 1-20.
67. Curtis McHale, “Things Cal Newport Missed in So Good They Can’t Ignore You,” Curtis McHale (blog), May 8, 2020, https://curtismchale.ca/2020/05/08/things-cal-newport-missed-in-so-good-they-cant-ignore-you/.
68. Ann, “Digital Minimalism: A Book Review.”
69. Scannell, “A Case Against Digital Minimalism.”
70. “Digital Wellness: Integrating Wellness in Everyday Life,” ResearchGate, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316937272.
71. Noble and Tynes, The Intersectional Internet, 15.
72. Noble and Tynes, The Intersectional Internet, 16.
73. “Survey: Limiting Tech,” ExpressVPN Blog.
74. “Gen Z Leads the Charge: The Steep Rise of Digital Minimalism,” TechCabal, December 10, 2024, https://techcabal.com/2024/12/10/gen-z-leads-the-charge-the-steep-rise-of-digital-minimalism/.
75. “Survey: Limiting Tech,” ExpressVPN Blog.
76. “Survey: Limiting Tech,” ExpressVPN Blog.
77. Lachlan V. McDonald et al., “Simplifying and Sharing: A Cross-Cultural Study on Promotion-Focused Minimalism,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice (2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2025.2509253.
78. McDonald et al., “Simplifying and Sharing.”
79. Vishal Gupta et al., “Interplay between Minimalism, Moral Identity, and Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior in Retail Context: Cross-cultural Investigation of Indian and American Consumers,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 83 (2025): 104879.
80. Gupta et al., “Interplay between Minimalism.”
81. “Introduction: The Questions of Minimal Computing,” Digital Humanities Quarterly.
82. Noble and Tynes, The Intersectional Internet, 45.
83. Long, “The Privilege of Minimalism.”
84. “Matter Prints | Journal – Why Minimalism is a Privilege Reserved for the Wealthy,” Matter Prints, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.matterprints.com/journal/guide/why-minimalism-is-a-privilege-reserved-for-the-wealthy/.
85. McDonald et al., “Simplifying and Sharing.”
86. Ramadhan et al., “Impacts of Digital Social Media Detox,” e786.
87. “Digital Wellness Lab,” Boston Children’s Hospital, accessed July 22, 2025.
88. Radtke et al., “Digital Detox,” 210.
89. Park et al., “New Perspective on Digital Well-Being,” e70483.
90. Noble and Tynes, The Intersectional Internet, 200.
91. “Technologies for Well-being: A Grand Challenge in Connected Health,” Frontiers in Digital Health 6 (2024): 1503554.
92. Carr, The Shallows, 200.
93. “Technologies for Well-being,” Frontiers in Digital Health.
94. “Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective and Future Research Agenda,” International Journal of Consumer Studies 48, no. 1 (2024): e13015.
95. “Achieving Digital Minimalism in Student Life,” ResearchGate.
96. Brewster and Shieh, “Digital Minimalism,” 681.
97. Park et al., “New Perspective on Digital Well-Being,” e70483.
98. Park et al., “New Perspective on Digital Well-Being,” e70483.
99. Kolhe and Naik, “Digital Detox as a Means,” 1572587.
100. “Digital Minimalism Explained: Everything You Need to Know,” TechTarget, accessed July 22, 2025, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Digital-minimalism-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know.
101. “Digital Minimalism: The Path to Sustainable IT Service Operations,” ITSM.tools, accessed July 22, 2025, https://itsm.tools/digital-minimalism/.
102. “Achieving Digital Minimalism in Student Life,” ResearchGate