Towards a Framework for Digital Governance Curricula: What Skills and Knowledge do Governance Students Need?

Key Points for Practitioners

1. Introduction

The use of digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Big (Open) Data, brings changes to the public sector and public governance (e.g., Schäfer, 2024). These technologies not only impact the inner workings of public organizations but also government-business relationships, democratic processes, and social interactions between governments and citizens (e.g., Duberry, 2022; Luna-Reyes, 2017; O'Neil, 2016; Ravšelj et al., 2022). While digital technologies are increasingly used in different domains, society is yet to fully grasp the ethical and economic implications on human life (Dwivedi et al., 2021). The capability of effectively using these technologies offers opportunities across various policy domains. Technologies can contribute to poverty alleviation, better health and well-being, and offer opportunities for sustainable development, education, employment, and entrepreneurship (Cordella et al., 2024). It enables public organizations to allocate scarce resources to tasks at which human workers perform better than machines, such as problem-solving activities that require empathy, creativity, and innovation. At the same time, these technologies pose challenges such as algorithmic bias, algorithmic opacity, misinformation, fake news, and filter bubbles (Aïmeur et al., 2023; Peeters & Widlak, 2023; Ruijer et al., 2023). Digital technologies also come with organizational challenges, such as insufficient knowledge and expertise of these technologies, moral dilemmas, and a lack of strategy relating to the implications of these technologies (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Ruijer et al., 2023).

In this study, we connect these two views of techno-optimism and pessimism (Vydra & Klievink, 2019) for the development of academic digital governance curricula and the skills students need. We distinguish two broad categories of skills: operational and reflective skills (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2009; van Deursen & Helsper, 2020). Operational skills include a practical understanding of the relevant developments in digital technology and the possibilities they provide. Reflective skills include the capacity to (critically) reflect on and have knowledge of the implications of digital technologies. Civil servants’ digital skills and knowledge are prerequisites for digitalization in the public sector. It requires that public professionals possess digital skills to use digital technologies, and that they can (critically) reflect on the usage and impact of these technologies. There has been attention to digital skills in general (e.g., Cordella et al., 2024; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2009; van Laar et al., 2017), but the research on digital skills is fragmented, and an understanding is lacking of what “digital skills are made of and how they can be used in everyday life” (Audrin & Audrin, 2022). Furthermore, Kausch-Zong and Schenk (2022) demonstrate that there is a clear digital skills gap between governance education and the duties required by professionals in public organizations. They conclude that digital skills need to play a key role in digital governance curricula to prepare future public professionals.

The technological developments and the digital skills gap make it necessary to rethink digital governance curricula to deliver the knowledge and skills needed for participation in society, and for employment (European Commission, 2019). Digital governance refers to the effects of information technologies on the systems of rules, norms, institutions, and practices, and is especially used in the context of public-private networks of collaboration in public administration and government-citizen interactions (Luna-Reyes, 2017; Idzi and Gomes, 2022). In this study, we use a broad definition of digital governance that encompasses both structural governance (institutional structures and processes) and normative governance (value-related features of structural governance) (Bannister and Connolly 2012). Hence, by digital governance curricula, we mean curricula in higher education that focus on both structural and normative digital governance. So far, limited attention has been paid to which digital skills need to be incorporated in digital governance curricula and how. In this study, we aim to address this gap by examining what skills students need to fully grasp the opportunities and challenges raised by digitalization in the public sector and society at large. We focus on general skills and knowledge that students need to develop in bachelor, master, and professional Digital Governance programs.

By using a design approach, we aim to contribute to both academic knowledge and knowledge for education practitioners by developing a framework for teaching digital governance curricula that identifies a variety of digital skills (Meijer, 2025). Design approaches aim to generate concrete solutions for practice (Romme & Meijer, 2020). This approach fits well with our study that aims to identify what digital skills need to be incorporated in digital governance curricula, so that digital governance students are prepared for their role as professionals in practice (Kausch-Zongo and Schenk, 2022).

The structure of the paper follows our design approach (Brown, 2019; Meijer, 2025; Romme & Meijer, 2020; van Hout et al., 2024). First, we analyze the academic literature, followed by interviews among stakeholders and experts. Based on the literature and interviews, we develop a framework for digital governance curricula. Our framework identifies operational and reflective skills based on (future) roles of students as a) engaged citizens, b) professionals, and c) academics. Following, we test and further refine our framework based on three illustrative cases of digital governance curricula. Our framework can provide input for public sector scholars and practitioners who would like to develop new digital governance curricula or would like to assess and redesign existing curricula.

2. Design Approach

In our study, we use a design approach (Brown, 2019; Hermus et al., 2020) to develop and test a Framework for Digital Governance Curricula that is embedded in both theory and practice (see Table 1). Design approaches aim to create concrete solutions to existing complex problems in practice, thereby using abductive sensemaking (Dorst, 2011; Van Hout et al., 2024). Our design approach, consists of four steps in which we pass through the inspiration space which concerns the exploration of the problem, the space of ideation which refers to the development of ideas, and the implementation space in which the designed solution is applied in the educational context (Bason & Austin, 2022, Brown, 2019; Meijer, 2025; van Hout et al., 2024).

First, we explore the problem that motivates the search for solutions (Brown, 2019; Bason and Austin, 2022) by analyzing the academic literature. Second, to explore the problem in practice, we analyze a digital governance practice in a Dutch University by conducting 19 expert interviews. Third, based on the previous two steps, we generate ideas for the design of a framework that identifies skills and knowledge students need in the digital society, which can provide input for the development of digital governance curricula. Fourth, we test the framework based on three cases (Meijer, 2025): the implementation of a bachelor and master student program, the assessment of an existing program for public professionals, and the development of a program for professionals (implementation). Based on this step, we refine our framework by providing concrete examples of digital skills and knowledge that practitioners can use to design or improve their digital governance curricula (ideation and implementation). Our design approach also enhances our academic understanding of digital skills and knowledge needed in the digital era by demonstrating how two views in the digital governance literature regarding techno-optimism and pessimism (Vydra & Klievink, 2019) can be aligned in digital governance curricula.

Students are citizens of the Digital Society and are expected to engage in online public services and democratic processes, which increasingly require digital skills and knowledge. In the 1990s the European Commission already stressed the importance of digital skills in education and for EU citizens, with an emphasis on computer skills (Leahy & Dohlan, 2010). In light of the new technological developments, the European Commission developed the Digital Competence Framework (DigComp 2.2) that focuses on twenty-first-century skills, such as the confident, critical, and creative use of technology to achieve goals related to work, learning, innovation, leisure, and participation in society (Marinič & Válek, 2024; Vuorikari et al., 2022b). A recent systematic literature review (Zhao et al., 2021) on digital skills in higher education concluded that the five dimensions of this DigComp framework were most used in higher education. The DigComp framework contains five dimensions that refer to both practical and critical problem-solving skills: 1) information and data literacy (e.g., searching and filtering data but also evaluating data and information content), 2) communication and collaboration through digital technology (e.g., interacting through digital technologies, collaboratively creating knowledge through digital technologies), 3) digital content creation (e.g., programming, but also creating new information and knowledge), 4) safety (protecting personal data and privacy) and 5) problem solving (e.g., understanding conceptual problems and problem situations related to digital environments) (Vuorikari et al., 2022b). These competencies are in themselves not new; however, the importance of their role seems to have changed in the digital society. Scholars also highlight the digital divide: the differential possession of digital skills among citizens (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2009). The problem of being short of digital skills seems quite pervasive; for example, without the ability to critically reflect on digital content, citizens may be vulnerable to digital misinformation. Digital misinformation may have a weakening effect on both the rule of law and democracy (e.g., O'Neil, 2016; Redden, 2018).

Remarkably, only recently have scholars focused on digital skills required by professionals in the public sector (Bilan et al., 2023; Cordella et al., 2024, Dingelstad et al., 2022; Edelmann et al., 2023; Lopes et al., 2023). These studies often build on the five DigComp dimensions mentioned above (cf. Bilan et al., 2023; Vuorikari et al., 2022a). Dingelstad et al. (2022) derive digital skills based on an empirical study among public servants and identify eight competencies: data literacy, data analytical skills, critical thinking, teamwork, domain expertise, engaging stakeholders, innovativeness, and political astuteness. What this study adds to the existing literature is that the digital society requires hybrid competencies, that is, some competencies concern traditional public service competencies (teamwork, engaging stakeholders, domain expertise, and political astuteness), while other identified competencies concern new competencies (data literacy, data analytical skills, innovativeness). Furthermore, Dingelstad et al. (2022) stress that, in fact, every public professional must possess at least a basic level of data literacy skills, critical thinking, and teamwork. The other competencies (engaging stakeholders, domain expertise, political astuteness, data analytical skills, and innovativeness) can be represented at the team level. Another recent study by Edelmann et al. (2023) focuses on the competencies internal and external stakeholders need for the digital transformation in the public sector. They take a holistic meso-level perspective and do not focus on what individual professionals need.

Thus, these studies focus on what skills public organizations and their professionals need, but not on what governance students as future professionals need. Recently, Kausch-Zongo and Schenk (2022) conducted a survey of public administration students to assess the digital skills of students. However, their survey focused on digital skills related to the opportunities of technology, such as technical, informational skills, and social (media) skills, but not on the challenges of technologies that require critical thinking and political astuteness, as pointed out by Dingelstad et al. (2022). Even so, Kausch-Zongo and Schenk (2022) conclude that there is a digital skills gap between. In governance education and the skills required by professionals in public organizations need to be addressed. This study aims to fill this gap.

Furthermore, it can be observed that there is an overlap in the types of skills identified in the literature. Some studies focus on functional or operational skills, such as technical skills, data literacy, and information management, while other studies also name reflective skills, consisting of critical thinking and ethical awareness. van Deursen and Helsper (2020) summarize the diverse types of skills in two broad categories of digital skills: functional skills and critical or reflective skills. The authors indicate that having functional skills makes developing reflective skills possible. Similarly, van Laar et al. (2017) make a distinction between core and context skills. Finally, in its most recent Skills Outlook report, the OECD stresses operational skills and the increasing importance of metacognitive or critical thinking skills (OECD 2023, p. 31). In this study, we build on these studies and distinguish operational and reflective skills as two broad categories for teaching digital governance.

Operational skills imply that governance students have a practical understanding of the relevant developments in digital technology and their opportunities for the internal workings of the public sector, but also for government-citizens interactions and public-private collaborations (van Deursen & Helsper, 2020; van Laar et al., 2017). This includes, for example, basic programming skills, making infographics, interacting through technology, and creating knowledge out of (Big) datasets. Operational skills also include searching for information, being able to search, find, and use information for a specific goal (van Deursen & Helsper, 2020; Cordella et al., 2024). It includes using technologies for collaboration and communication with citizens and other stakeholders, such as transmitting information via social networks, exchanging messages online, and making an online profile (Dingelstad et al. 2022; van Deursen & Helsper, 2020). Operational skills imply using technologies for innovation, problem solving, and creativity, such as making content with technologies (Dingelstad et al., 2022; van Deursen & Helsper, 2020; van Laar et al., 2017). Finally, operational skills are strongly embedded in recent developments of the literature on statistical methods. It is about the recognition of the types of data used and the understanding of Large Language Models based on data from websites (Oberski et al., 2024). In addition, there are many methodological issues that students must be aware of. Despite the new statistical developments, major classical issues remain that students need to be aware of, such as internal and external validity (Schram, 2005), selectivity (Tam & Kim, 2018), missing data (Graham, 2012), measurement error (Ree and Carretta, 2006), and correlation versus causation (Angrist & Pischke, 2009).

Reflective skills include that governance students can (critically) reflect on and have knowledge of the challenges and effects of digital technologies on the internal workings of the public sector, government-citizen interactions, public-private collaborations, and society at large (e.g., European Commission, 2019). It includes that students have a grasp of the legal and ethical justifiability of using certain techniques and knowledge of the risks that are associated with various technologies, such as bias, racial profiling in algorithms, or sharing and tagging content or pictures (Dingelstad et al., 2022; van Deursen & Helsper, 2020; van Laar et al., 2017). It implies being aware of and dealing with values that might be under pressure, and the related ethical dilemmas associated with the usage of technologies in the public sector. Reflective skills also include awareness and informed judgments on how technologies such as AI, LLMs, and algorithms create information and content and how algorithms influence search results (van Deursen & Helsper, 2020; van Laar et al., 2017). Reflection also includes lifelong learning skills aimed at continuously improving one's capabilities (Van Laar et al., 2017). These reflective skills are more than solely analytical skills, but include creativity as well (Donoghue, Voytek & Ellis, 2021). Finally, reflective skills are important because university students need to be aware that Faculty ethical boards require them to safeguard against unethical research designs and their impact on investigation subjects. Data handling in the European context should also be GDPR- proof. A data management plan (DMP) needs to be written before the analysis, which includes a description of how to store the data for replication purposes (Burnette et al., 2016). Furthermore, data must be FAIR–findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009; Abiteboul & Stoyanovich, 2019). In addition, it may be useful to have preregistration to document the research plan before the study starts in a read-only public repository (Nosek et al., 2018).

In conclusion, the literature on digital skills is fragmented and identifies a broad range of skills for professionals and citizens, but remarkably not on the skills that digital governance students need. Based on the literature, we distinguish two broad categories that are relevant for digital governance curricula: operational and reflective skills that, if incorporated, both in Digital Governance Curricula, align with the opportunities and challenges of digital technology practices in the public sector.

4. Step 2: Assessing a Digital Governance Practice

To further explore the design problem at hand in practice, we conducted 19 semi-structured expert interviews with faculty members and stakeholders within and outside the Governance ¹ , Law, and Economics Faculty of a Dutch university. This allowed us to analyze what digital skills are currently part of the curriculum and which skills and knowledge need to be developed. The Dutch context is relevant to our study because Dutch universities have jointly expressed their aspiration to create a new international profile for the Netherlands in the Research Agenda: “The Digital Society” (VSNU, 2017). Dutch universities aim to be leading in the field of digital technology oriented towards people and society. Within this context, we interviewed innovation external experts, department heads, and education directors about their vision on the Digital Society and what it implies for the curriculum (see Appendix A). We selected them as leading figures regarding governance, educational curricula, or because of their knowledge of digital governance aspects. More specifically, we asked them whether the current bachelor's and master's digital governance curriculum of the Faculty sufficiently prepares their students for their future positions in a Digital Society and what digital skills and knowledge students need. See Appendix B. The interviews were transcribed, analyzed, and coded using a thematic analysis. The answers were coded concerning active and passive skills, the importance of the skill, and whether it was applied in the current Digital Governance curricula. In addition, we conducted a document analysis of syllabi of the department to assess whether there was attention to digital governance and what skills students learned in these courses. In the interviews and document analysis, we interpreted digital governance broadly in line with our definition. We focused on both normative aspects of digital governance (Bannister & Connolly, 2012) in terms of whether knowledge and skills related to values, norms, and ethics about digital technologies and structural aspects of digital governance (Bannister & Connolly, 2012) such as regulation and the use of technology, or the use of digital technologies in public-private partnership, and the actual use of technology by students. Furthermore, we examined the programs at different levels. We assessed whether programs at the bachelor and master level had a course focused on digital governance-related topics or if digital governance was addressed within general bachelor and master courses, such as “public administration, policy and organization” or developments in Dutch society.”

5. Step 3: Designing a Framework of Skills and Knowledge for Digital Governance Curricula

Based on the outcomes of the previous two steps and within the design logic, we now move from the inspiration to the ideation space (Brown, 2019). In this section, we develop a framework for digital governance curricula. In the academic literature, we identified reflective and operational skills as two broad categories of digital skills and knowledge. Furthermore, we highlighted the importance of aligning reflective and operational skills, so that students can deal with the opportunities and challenges of digital technologies that public organizations face. Next, through the assessment of digital governance curricula in practice, we identified different roles for students as citizens, future public professionals, and academics. These roles are important for addressing the gap in current curricula and what is required from students in practice (Kausch-Zongo and Schenk, 2022). Combining these outcomes allows us to design a first framework of skills and roles needed for Digital Governance Curricula (Table 2). Each of the six cells of Table 2 gives an integration of the skills and roles students need that can provide input for digital governance curricula. For each of the cells, we included examples that we came across in our assessment in Step 2.

Following the design logic of our methodology (Brown, 2019; Van Hout et al., 2024), we now move from the ideation to the implementation space in which we test the framework in different digital governance education programs. We provide examples of three cases at a University in the Netherlands. The selected cases were obtained as a convenience sample (Yin, 2013). To investigate how digital governance curricula can be better tailored to practice, addressing the gap between academic programs and practice, we selected programs for both future professionals and current professionals. The first case concerns the development of a multidisciplinary Skills Academy for bachelor's and master's students. The second case concerns the assessment of a data science program for public professionals, and the third case is about the development of a micromaster's Applied Data Science for professionals. The cases are based on internal reports such as student evaluations, course syllabi, course descriptions, and academic literature.

7. Discussion and Conclusion

Digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), including Large Language models (LLMs) and the increasing availability of Big (Open) Data, provide opportunities in terms of efficiency and effectiveness for the inner workings of public organizations and democratic processes. At the same time, these technologies pose challenges for public organizations and society at large. According to Vydra and Klievink (2019), a rejoinder between techno-optimism and pessimism requires a balancing act. Therefore, public professionals need to possess digital skills that allow them to take advantage of the possibilities digital technologies offer while also being able to (critically) reflect on the implications of these technologies. At the same time, there is currently a clear gap between governance education programs and the duties required from professionals in public organizations (Kausch-Zongo and Schenk, 2022; Edelmann et al., 2023). This study has tried to fill this gap by following a design approach to develop an academically grounded, yet practice-oriented framework for Digital Governance Curricula.

Following our design approach, we first explored the problem–the gap between digital governance curricula and the skills needed in the workplace – via academic literature and interviews in practice (inspiration). This led us to take steps towards a framework for Digital Governance Curricula (ideation). Our heuristic framework is built on two categories of skills: operational and reflective skills, and on three future roles of students: as engaged citizens in society, as professionals in the public or private sector, and as governance academics. Following, we validated and refined the framework by assessing it in government practices (implementation). Based on our findings, we conclude that the two categories of skills and the three future roles form an overarching stable foundation for digital governance curricula. Course designers could use our framework, and the examples provide to assess whether the different categories of skills and roles are addressed in the course objectives, study materials and assignments of their digital governance curricula. Furthermore, in line with the aptitude of students, the rapidly evolving technological landscape and the continuous development of tech regulations (see for example the EU AI act) requires that course designers continuously reflect upon, update and modify their courses.

Our design study contributes to existing frameworks for curricula, such as the Digital Competence Framework (Vuorikari et al., 2022b) and the EDISON (Schmitt et al., 2023) framework, by demonstrating the importance of reflective skills next to operational skills. In addition, we have shown that these frameworks could also be extended by taking into consideration the different roles future students may have. Furthermore, our framework highlights that skills and roles should not be considered separately. Barnett (2011) discusses how these different roles overlap in the context of lifelong learning, and that integrating different roles and different contexts of learning is important. Institutes of higher education and research should help to develop such ideas into their existing paradigms of what higher education means (e.g., Barnett, 2011, p. 12; Biesta, 2015), and how value is created for academics, professionals, and citizens in the Digital Society. Such value seems evident for employability, though we also found that in co-creating programs, this does not follow naturally. Integrating roles and skills should be a deliberate effort, enabling learners to deal with new situations and technologies in a complex and changing world.

Finally, we point out some limitations of our study. First, this study was conducted in a university in a Dutch context, which may have limited the outcomes of the application of our heuristic framework. Future research could apply the framework for Teaching Digital Governance in other countries across the globe. This may result in different concrete examples of operational and reflective skills and the different roles. Second, we tested our framework in three cases, but we did not, for pragmatic reasons, conduct a longitudinal study of how students apply the acquired skills in their future roles and practices. A follow-up study is needed to validate the framework by assessing the impact of the programs on the development of digital skills of governance students over time. Third, our study focused on Digital Governance students with a strong focus on the public sector. Yet, students might also become professionals in industry and consultancy companies. This context might also require an adaptation of the skills and knowledge needed from students in these specific contexts. Finally, our study touches upon many different literatures, from the role of the university and pedagogy to the development of (adaptive) expertise and professional learning. These literatures provide valuable lenses to look at our case studies from different fields and angles. Though we have lightly touched upon a selection of these fields, a more in-depth approach is left open for future research.