Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 27, 2021
Accepted
April 29, 2022
Published
April 30, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1062 Download : 1822

Main Article Content

Abstract

Digital advocacy is a growing and interesting area of research. This study aims to analyze the actors, processes, and effectiveness of digital advocacy regarding the postponement of the local elections in Indonesia in 2020 carried out by collective action using Twitter hashtags. Data in this study is the tweet related to the hashtag “Tunda Pilkada” from March 15 to December 8, 2020. The author argues that despite social media facilitating advocacy, not all digital advocacies provide effectiveness in influencing public policy. This study uses mixed research methods by combining a social network analysis approach to identify the actors. Hence, this study uses a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze social media-based advocacy models and identify failures in digital advocacy. The research findings found that individuals, not advocacy groups drove collective action. Furthermore, research also proves that hashtags are effective in reaching, building connections in public, and mobilizing. Finally, this study found that the failure of digital advocacy was caused by various factors that came from internal and external collective action. Our research contributes to the development of studies on digital advocacy.

Keywords

Digital Advocacy Policy Formulation Social Network Analysis Content Analysis Tunda Pilkada Tahun 2020

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Firda Aulia, Bevaola Kusumasari

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Aulia, F., & Kusumasari, B. (2022). Tunda Pilkada: Apakah Advokasi Digital Berhasil Memengaruhi Proses Pembuatan Kebijakan?. Jurnal Komunikasi, 16(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.20885/komunikasi.vol16.iss2.art4
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Agur, C., & Frisch, N. (2019). Digital disobedience and the limits of persuasion: Social media activism in Hong Kong’s 2014 Umbrella Movement. Social Media+ Society, 5(1), 2056305119827002.
  2. Alasadi, S. A., & Bhaya, W. S. (2017). Review of data preprocessing techniques in data mining. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 12(16), 4102-4107.
  3. Alifiarry, M. A., & Kusumasari, B. (2021). The Application of Social Movement as a Form of Digital Advocacy: Case of# TolakRUUPermusikan. Journal of Government and Civil Society, 5(1), 1-30.
  4. Ammann, S. L. (2010, Desember 14). A political campaign message in 140 characters or less: The use of Twitter by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725477
  5. Arvidson M, Johansson H, Meeuwisse A, et al. (2018) A swedish culture of advocacy? civil soci- ety organisations’ strategies for political influence. Sociologisk Forskning 55(2–3): 341–364.
  6. Ashenden, S. K. (Ed.). (2021). The Era of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Science in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Academic Press.
  7. Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bihari, A., & Pandia, M. K. (2015, February). Eigenvector centrality and its application in research professionals' relationship network. In 2015 International Conference on Futuristic Trends on Computational Analysis and Knowledge Management (ABLAZE) (pp. 510-514). IEEE.
  9. Bliss, D.L. (2015). Using the social work advocacy practice model to fnd our voices in service advocacy. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2014.978060
  10. Boland, K.M. (1998) Electronic Advocacy: An Introduction to the Use of Electronic Techniques for Social Change. Boxboro, MA: New England Network for Child, Youth and Family Services. http://www.nenetwork.org/infopolicy/ElecAdvo/index.html
  11. Brady, S. R., Young, J. A., & McLeod, D. A. (2015). Utilizing digital advocacy in community organizing: Lessons learned from organizing in virtual spaces to promote worker rights and economic justice. Journal of Community Practice, 23(2), 255-273.
  12. Can, U., & Alatas, B. (2019). A new direction in social network analysis: Online social network analysis problems and applications. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 535, 122372.
  13. Cherven, K. (2015). Mastering Gephi network visualization: Produce advanced network graphs in Gephi and gain valuable insights into your network datasets. Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.
  14. Chester, G., &Welsh, I. (2006). Complexity and social movements: Multitudes at the edge of chaos. Boston, MA: Routledge.
  15. Clark, R. (2016). “Hope in a hashtag”: The discursive activism of# WhyIStayed. Feminist media studies, 16(5), 788-804.
  16. Clay, S. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.
  17. Colangelo, M. (2020, April 13). Deep Analysis Of Global Pandemic Data Reveals Important Insights. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2020/04/13/covid-19-complexity-demands-sophisticated-analytics-deep-analysis-of-global-pandemic-data-reveals-important-insights/?sh=2fb8014a2f6e.
  18. Dahlgren, P. (2015). The internet as a civic space. In Handbook of digital politics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2020). Social movements: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
  20. Dewi, R. K. (2020, Sep 24). Pro dan Kontra Menanggapi Pilkada di Tengah Pandemi Corona. Kompas. https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2020/09/24/061500865/pro-dan-kontra-menanggapi-pilkada-di-tengah-pandemi-corona-?page=all
  21. Dolson, J., & Young, R. (2012). Explaining variation in the e-Government features of municipal websites: An analysis of e-Content, e-Participation, and social media features in Canadian municipal websites. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 21(2), 1–24.
  22. DuBois, B. & K. K. Miley. (2005). Social Work: An Empowering Profession. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
  23. Fitzgerald, E. and J.G. McNutt. (1999). Electronic Advocacy in Policy Practice: A Framework for Teaching Technologically Based Practice. Journal of Social Work Education 35(3): 331-341.
  24. Fuchs, C. (2016). The self-organization of social movements. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(1), 101–137.
  25. Galer-Unti, R. A. (2010). Advocacy 2.0: Advocating in the digital age. Health promotion practice, 11(6), 784-787.
  26. Gil, P. (2016). What is a Meme?: What Are Examples of Internet Memes. http.//netforbeginners.about.com/od/weirdwebculture/f/What-Is-an-Internet-Meme.html
  27. Global Health Advocacy Incubator. (2020, Juni 22). Ghai Realeses New Digital Tools for Advocacy Campaign Planning. Advocacy Incubator. https://advocacyincubator.org/2020/06/22/ghai-releases-new-digital-tools-for-advocacy-campaign-planning/
  28. Golbeck, J. (2015). Introduction to social media investigation: A hands-on approach. Syngress.
  29. Grandjean, M. (2015). Gephi: Introduction to network analysis and visualisation.
  30. Guha, P. (2017). Mind the gap: Connecting news and information to build an anti-rape and sexual assault agenda in India [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park].
  31. Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010, November). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. In Nonprofit policy forum (Vol. 1, No. 1). De Gruyter.
  32. Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 43(1), 57-79.
  33. Gurajala, S., Dhaniyala, S., & Matthews, J. N. (2019). Understanding public response to air quality using tweet analysis. Social Media+ Society, 5(3), 2056305119867656.
  34. Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.
  35. Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2020). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world (second edition). Morgan Kaufmann.
  36. Hick, S., & McNutt, J. G. (Eds.). (2002). Advocacy, activism, and the Internet: Community organization and social policy. Lyceum Books, Incorporated.
  37. Horn, J. (2013). Gender and social movements: Overview report. Brighton, England: Institute of Development Studies.
  38. Kent, M. L., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Saffer, A. J. (2016). Social networks, power, and public relations: Tertius Iungens as a cocreational approach to studying relationship networks. Public relations review, 42(1), 91-100.
  39. Kimball, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Virtual boundaries: Ethical considerations for use of social media in social work. Social Work, 58(2), 185-188.
  40. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. The Sage Commtext Series. Sage Publications Ltd., London
  41. Lei, Z., Chen, Y., & Lim, M. K. (2021). Modelling and analysis of big data platform group adoption behaviour based on social network analysis. Technology in Society, 65, 101570.
  42. Liu, R., Feng, S., Shi, R., & Guo, W. (2014). Weighted graph clustering for community detection of large social networks. Procedia Computer Science, 31, 85-94.
  43. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353.
  44. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public relations review, 38(2), 313-318.
  45. M.P. Venkatraman. (1989). Opinion leaders, adopters, and communicative adopters: A role analysis. Psychol. Mark, 6, 51–68.
  46. Margaux Rundstadler. (2019, Okt 14). The Pros & Cons of Digital Advocacy. Boardroom. https://boardroom.global/the-pros-cons-of-digital-advocacy
  47. Margetts, H. Z., John, P., Hale, S. A., & Reissfelder, S. (2015). Leadership without leaders? Starters and followers in online collective action. Political Studies, 63(2), 278-299.
  48. Mashabi dan Ihsanuddin. (2020, Sep 24). Alasan Pro dan Kontra Pilkada Serentak di Tengah Pandemi Covid-19. Kompas. https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2020/09/24/072900565/alasan-pro-dan-kontra-pilkada-serentak-di-tengah-pandemi-covid-19?page=all
  49. McNutt, J.G. and K.M. Boland. (1999). Electronic Advocacy by Non-Profit Organizations in Social Welfare Policy. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 432-451.
  50. Miranda, S. M., Young, A., & Yetgin, E. (2016). Are social media emancipatory or hegemonic? Societal effects of mass media digitization in the case of the SOPA discourse. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 303–329.
  51. Mubarok, A. M. (2020, Agustus 1). Dukung Pilkada Serentak 2020 Jadi Gerakan Melawan Covid-19. Sindonews. https://nasional.sindonews.com/read/119868/12/dukung-pilkada-serentak-2020-jadi-gerakan-melawan-covid-19-1596265686
  52. Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of information policy, 2, 1-25.
  53. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
  54. Puspita, R. (2020, Des 14). Mahfud MD: Belum Ada Klaster Covid-19 Terkait Pilkada. Republika. https://www.republika.co.id/berita/qlbv43428/mahfud-md-belum-ada-klaster-covid19-terkait-pilkada
  55. Queiro-Tajalli, I., Campbell, C., & McNutt, J. (2003). International social and economic justice and on-line advocacy. International Social Work, 46(2), 149-161.
  56. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 237-281.
  57. Ratnasari, E., Sumartias, S., & Romli, R. (2020). Penggunaan Message Appeals dalam Strategi Pesan Kampanye Anti Kekerasan Berbasis Gender Online. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 18(3), 352-370.
  58. Rim, H., Lee, Y., & Yoo, S. (2020). Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101869.
  59. Rothman, J. (2007). Multi modes of intervention at the macro level. Journal of Community Practice, 15, 11–40. doi:10.1300/J125v15n04_02
  60. Sanders, C. K., & Scanlon, E. (2021). The digital divide is a human rights issue: Advancing social inclusion through social work advocacy. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1-14.
  61. Sawmiller, A. (2010). Classroom blogging: What is the role in science learning? Clearing House, 83(2), 44-48.
  62. Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 270-295.
  63. Saxton, G. D., Niyirora, J., Guo, C., & Waters, R. (2015). # AdvocatingForChange: The strategic use of hashtags in social media advocacy. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 154-169.
  64. Scaramuzzino G and Scaramuzzino R. (2017). The weapon of a new generation? swedish civil society organizations’ use of social media to influence politics. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 1, 46–61.
  65. Scott, J. B. (2021). Digital Failures in Twenty-First-Century Abolitionist Ethnography. Social Analysis, 65(1), 123-132
  66. Sheafor, W., Bradford, Charles R. Horejsi, & Gloria A. Horejsi. (2000). Techniques and Guidelines for Social Work Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
  67. Shirky C (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press.
  68. Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell companion to social movements. John Wiley & Sons
  69. Steinberg, S. B. (2016). # Advocacy: Social Media Activism's Power to Transform Law. Ky. LJ, 105, 413.
  70. Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political communication, 35(1), 50-74.
  71. Suharto, E. (2006). Filosofi dan Peran Advokasi dalam mendukung program Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. 1–8
  72. Susanto, N., & Thamrin, M. H. Environmental Activism and Cyber-advocacy on Social Media: A Case Study from Indonesia. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik), 25(2), 148-166.
  73. Suwitri, S. (2008). Jejaring Kebijakan Dalam Perumusan Kebijakan Publik: Suatu Kajian Tentang Perumusan Kebijakan Penanggulangan Banjir dan Rob Pemerintah Kota Semarang. Jurnal Delegasi, Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi, STIA Banjarmasin, 6(3), 01-32.
  74. Taylor, M. P. (2021). All Talk and No Action? A Comparative Analysis of Nonprofit Twitter Chats. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1-16.
  75. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of public relations research, 26(5), 384-398.
  76. Tsai, W. H. S., Tao, W., Chuan, C. H., & Hong, C. (2020). Echo chambers and social mediators in public advocacy issue networks. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101882.
  77. Tuhuteru, H., & Iriani, A. (2018). Analisis Kolaborasi Penelitian Ilmiah Dosen Fakultas X dengan Social Network Analysis (SNA). JuTISI (Jurnal Teknik Informatika dan Sistem Informasi), 4(1), 149-158.
  78. Van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2016). Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups. European journal of communication, 31(2), 120-135.
  79. Waters, R.D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: Acontent analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321-324.
  80. Willems, L. G., & Alizadeh, T. (2015). Social media for public involvement and sustain- ability in international planning and development. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 4(4), 1–17.
  81. Williams, S. (2016). #SayHerName: using digital activism to document violence against black women. Feminist Media Studies 16(5): 922–925
  82. Ye, Y., Xu, P., & Zhang, M. (2017). Social media, public discourse and civic engagement in modern China. Telematics and Informatics, 34(3), 705-714.
  83. Young, A., Selander, L., & Vaast, E. (2019). Digital organizing for social impact: Current insights and future research avenues on collective action, social movements, and digital technologies. Information and Organization, 29(3), 100257.
  84. Zhou, S., & Kuo, C. (2018). How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy: Evidence from the crowdfunding platform in Taiwan. The China Nonprofit Review, 10(2), 349-370.