DIGITAL MOBILITY AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION: FORMS OF PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES AMONG ROMA YOUTH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35120/sciencej0402101pKeywords:
digital mobility, Roma youth, digital inequalities, social inclusion, intersectionalityAbstract
Based on qualitative empirical research conducted within the framework of the project "Digital Divide and Social Inequalities: Levels, Actors, and Interactions," funded by the National Science Fund at the Ministry of Education and Science (contract No. КП-06-ПН55/16, 2021), this article explores the role of digital practices in promoting the social inclusion of Roma youth by expanding their opportunities for participation, mobility, and empowerment. The main objective of the study is to examine how access to and engagement with digital technologies can serve as a resource for overcoming structural inequalities and achieving greater social visibility. The theoretical framework combines the concepts of digital inequality, digital capital, intersectionality, and agency, offering a nuanced perspective on digital engagement within contexts of social vulnerability. Drawing on twenty in-depth interviews with Roma youth aged between 18 and 35, selected through an intersectional approach that considers gender, educational attainment, employment status, and place of residence, the study adopts a thematic analysis focused on subjective experiences, individual strategies, and the social meanings attributed to the digital environment. The findings reveal that digital mobility among young Roma is neither linear, universal, nor homogeneous. Instead, it is fragmented, context-dependent, and varies significantly in terms of intensity, usage patterns, and forms of participation—ranging from limited access and passive use, through adaptive and pragmatic digital practices, to transformative engagement characterized by empowerment and active agency. Based on the empirical data, the article proposes a typology of three main types of digital mobility—limited, adaptive, and transformative—visually represented through a triangular model. Particular attention is paid to young Roma women who do not conform to traditional family roles and instead leverage digital technologies for learning, self-expression, professional development, and social participation. The study concludes that digital mobility can act as a significant driver for building autonomy, resilience, and inclusion among marginalized groups. However, it also emphasizes that persistent barriers such as material deprivation, limited institutional support, and enduring stereotypes continue to inhibit equitable access to digital resources. The article calls for the development of targeted educational and social policies that address these disparities, recognize the internal heterogeneity of Roma youth, and promote sustainable pathways to digital empowerment through expanded access, tailored training programs, mentorship initiatives, and active engagement opportunities.
Downloads
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, Greenwood, 241–258.
British Sociological Association (BSA). (2017). Statement of ethical practice. https://www.britsoc.co.uk/ethics
Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (Eds.). (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Polity Press.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2020). Roma and Travellers in six countries: Roma and Travellers survey 2019. Publications Office of the European Union. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/roma-travellers-survey
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
Heinz, W. R., Huinink, J., & Weymann, A. (Eds.). (2009). The life course reader: Individuals and societies across time. Campus Verlag.
Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01416.x
Helsper, E. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. SAGE.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335
Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. Routledge.
Mascheroni, G., & Siibak, A. (2021). Datafied childhoods: Data practices and imaginaries in children’s and young people’s lives. Peter Lang.
Ragnedda, M. (2018). Conceptualizing digital capital. Telecommunications Policy, 42(9), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.06.002
Ragnedda, M. (2022). The third digital divide: A Weberian approach to digital inequalities. Routledge.
Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (Eds.). (2013). The digital divide: The Internet and social inequality in international perspective. Routledge.
Seale, J. (2009). Digital inclusion: A research agenda. Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Stoilova, R., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2023). Social and Economic Inequalities in Online Communication. Sociological Problems, 2023(2), 583–604.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
