This is an increasingly globalized society immersed in an on-going digitalization (Pettersson, 2018); a networked society, in which, anyone can instantly spread their ideas and messages and connect with other people (Castells, 2012). In parallel, the world is also witnessing a time of rising inequalities and enormous disparities of opportunity (UN, 2015, p.8) and an ever-growing social stratification due to unequal ability to access and use digital technologies (Warschauer, 2011). Such inequalities are said to be the root of the digital divide, which consequently, seems to be widening (Dolan, 2016). Educational processes are an important part in the development of the necessary skills to change the existing exclusion, inequality and social injustice. Education youth in these topics and developing active citizens can be defined as a process through which people develop their abilities, skills and knowledge in order to get involved in their social environment, participate in it and develop recognition links with others from anywhere in the world (Ramírez Iñigue, 2016). Thus, Digital citizenship is rapidly becoming a priority for formal and non-formal education institutions (Hennig, Vargas & Duque, 2019), not to mention becoming a highly interesting research topic; specially when trying to bridge the digital gaps in the use and access of digital technologies (Onye & Du, 2016). However, the conceptualization of Digital Citizenship is an on-going discussion. On the one hand, Sanabria & Cepeda (2016) refer to a set of social and democratic values and attitudes that guide a person’s actions in digital environments. On the other hand, Hintz, Dencik & Wahl-Jorgensen (2017) interpret Digital Citizenship as the enactment of a person’s role in society via the use of digital technologies. Similar studies (Henning, Vargas & Duque, 2019; Cantabrana, Minguell and Tedesco, 2015) also refer to the necessary skills to be developed by people to participate and engage in digital citizenship (Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Drawing on the conclusions of Hennig, Vargas & Duque (2019), they establish three pillars of training required to exercise digital citizenship: 1) democratic knowledge and behaviours for citizen participation; 2) social skills that include communicative abilities, critical and axiological attitudes and creativity, finally 3) digital literacy that include management and handling of information. In order to reduce the digital gap, researchers and educators must improve the development of digital and social skills. Moreover, a higher degree of digital inclusion must improve the capacity of society to meet the needs of access to digital services, along with digital literacy and equal opportunities (Cantabrana, et al. 2015) by developing a solid digital literacy for citizens.

Based on these arguments, research questions could be asked relating to what the current status of youth is, in regard to these skills and how are educational actors developing them in order to promote digital citizenship. This paper presents an on-going study that is part of a doctoral thesis that aims to identify and understand the relationship between youth participation in social and political spheres and digital and socio-civic skills development and ultimately, to understand what role formal and non-formal education has on their development.

This is an on-going mixed-methods study with a concurrent parallel design. In this paper we address the quantitative data stand in a descriptive and explanatory way, derived from the application of a questionnaire on the development of digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) (Peart, et al., 2020), in order to explore the relationship between the participatory profile of young people and digital and socio-civic skills. Based on this objective, the following working hypotheses were formulated: H1: People who participate in political and/or social organizations will have a higher level of digital skill than the rest of the participatory profiles. H2: People who participate in political and/or social organizations will have a higher level of socio-civic skill than the rest of the participatory profiles. The instrument used to carry out the research is the DIGISOC questionnaire. First, an extensive review of the literature was performed. Second, the tool was submitted through a content validation process by a group of nine experts from various Spanish and Portuguese universities who evaluated the content and structure of the questionnaire. Next, the questionnaire was piloted with a sample of 205 participants and the construct validity was analysed by means of a confirmatory factor analysis based on the emerging subdimensions from the analysed theory. The final design of the DIGISOC questionnaire is made up of seven sociodemographic questions and 59 items based on a 5-point Likert-type response scale where 1 represents “never” and 5 “always”, grouped in two dimensions and eleven subdimensions. Finally, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was analysed through the reliability coefficient of Cronbach's α: digital skills (α= 0.906) and socio-civic skills (α= 0.902). This was followed by a translation and validation of the questionnaire in English. The study sample consists of 317 participants. A non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used, and it was developed during 2020. The questionnaire was applied over the Internet using the Microsoft Office Forms platform and informed consent was obtained from all the participants. The procedure for applying the tool was carried out by contacting key people from educational centres, universities and with the support of associations and territorial youth councils. From the collected data from both Spain and the UK, a descriptive analysis was carried out.

The results provide information on digital and socio-civic skills development and we address how they can influence levels of social and political engagement. Through the use of Kruskal-Wallis’s H, results show significant differences between those young people who actively participate in social and political organizations in regard to other types of participation and even, those who do not participate, and digital and socio-civic skills. Results highlight that meaningful youth participation implies participation under equal conditions between adults and youth. Among the various proposals and metaphors on how to conceptualize youth participation, the importance of establishing an enabling environment to empower youth and grant them greater agency is underlined (Youth Do it, 2016). For this, it is not only necessary to alleviate the possible social and digital gaps in access to digital spaces and the exercise of citizenship, but also it is necessary to attend to the strengthening of capacities such as digital and socio-civic skills. The findings indicate that people who participate in political and social organizations have greater skills regarding the treatment and use of information and data compared to people who do not participate in political and social organizations. The data show that the fact of participating, and multi-activist participation, encourages further development of the treatment and use of information and data. The results can also help European policymakers to shape the skills development of youth and provide insights into how young people are participating throughout Europe. This can be fundamental in seeking a solution to the flooding of disinformation, fake news, and consequently, in achieving a critical, democratic and informed citizenry.

Cantabrana, J. L. L., Minguell, M. E., & Tedesco, J. C. (2015). Inclusion and Social Cohesion in a Digital Society. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(2), 44-58. Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity. The information age: economy, society and culture (2nd Ed). Oxford, United Kingdom. Blackwell Publishing Ed. Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16-37. Hennig-Manzuoli, C., Vargas-Sánchez, A. & Duque-Bedoya, E. (2019). Digital Citizenship: a theoretical review of the concept and trends. The turkish online Journal of Educational Technology, 18 (2), 10-18. Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017). Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 11, 731-739. Onye, U. U., & Du, Y. (2016). Digital Natives and Digital Divide: Analysing Perspective for Emerging Pedagogy. International Association for Development of the Information Society. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571397.pdf Peart, M., Gutiérrez-Esteban, P. & Cubo-Delgado, S. (2020). Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire. Education Technology Research Development, 68, 3327–3351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y Pettersson, F. (2018) On the issue of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature. Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 23 (3), 1005-1021. Ramírez-Iñiguez, A. A. (2016). The meaning of citizenship in social inequality contexts: Guidelines for a comprehensive education. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, (28), 161-182. Sanabria, A. & Cepeda, O. (2016). Education for digital competence in schools: digital citizenship. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa-RELATEC, 15 (2), 95-112. United Nations General Assembly (2015). Sustainable Development goals (SDGs), Transforming our world: the, 2030. Available at: http://www.igbp.net/download/18.62dc35801456272b46d51/1399290813740/NL82-SDGs.pdf Warschauer, M. (2011). A literacy approach to the digital divide. Cuadernos de Letras, 28, 5–18. Youth Do It (2016). The flower of Participation Handbook. Youth Do It Online Publications. https://www.youthdoit.org/