The Science Openness Movement in Indonesia: An Introduction For Re-Reading Civil Society in Policy Discourse

Cahyo Seftyono, Purwo Santoso, Muhadjir Muhammad Darwin, Agus Heruanto Hadna


Today, civil society is identical to non-government organization (NGO) or Civil Society Organization. Institutional perspective causes the society to always be seen as an organizational entity: as a complete organization with its structure. Consequently, analysis on society will always be nuanced with relation to other institutions: coordination, subordination, opposition, or being attached to each other. This article proposes a new idea on civil society, which is suspected not always working within the institution framework, but instead with a more basic foundation that is ideational thrust. This situation is traceable through Vosviewer tools with Scopus data and Google Scholar database, by selecting one community as a representation. Activities that civil society does are, substantially, ideational discourse from inter-institution actors. Civil society movement is based on ideas, not on institutional administration coordination. This research analyzes Indonesia Open Science Epistemic Community, a community that actively promotes science openness and publication in fulfilling the academic and policy needs. This community transcends institutional division because it involves governmental actors by focusing on ideas. Therefore, this community’s existence could be the new alternative in reading civil society activity.

Saat ini, masyarakat sipil sangat identik dengan Non-Government Organisation (NGO) atau Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM). Pendekatan institusional menyebabkan masyarakat selalu dilihat secara organisatoris: sebagai sebuah organisasi lengkap dengan struktur. Sehingga amatan atasnya juga diwarnai dengan relasi dengan institusi lainnya: koordinatif, subordinatif, oposan atau juga melekat satu sama lain. Artikel ini hendak mengajukan gagasan baru terkait masyarakat sipil, yang ditengarai tidak melulu bekerja dengan kerangka institusi, melainkan yang lebih mendasar adalah dorongan ide. Hal yang terlacak melalui tools Vosviewer dengan data Scopus dan database Google Scholar, dengan mengambil satu komunitas sebagai representasi. Aktivitas yang dilaksanakan oleh masyarakat sipil sesungguhnya merupakan diskursus ide dari aktor lintas lembaga. Masyarakat sipil yang geraknya berbasis pada ide, bukan pada koordinasi administrasi institusional. Penelitian ini mengambil amatan pada Komunitas Epistemik Sains Terbuka Indonesia, yang aktif mempromosikan keterbukaan sains dan publikasi dalam kebutuhan akademik dan juga kebijakan. Komunitas ini melampaui sekat kelembagaan karena juga melibatkan aktor dari pemerintahan dengan fokus pada gagasan. Oleh karenanya, keberadaan komunitas ini bisa menjadi alternatif baru dalam membaca aktivitas masyarakat sipil.


New Civil Society; Actor; Non-Institution; Idea.

Full Text:



Baker, G. (2003). Civil society and democratic theory: Alternative voices. Routledge.

Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and political institutionalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 562–574.

Campbell, J. T., Lobao, L. M., & Betz, M. R. (2017). Collaborative Counties: Questioning the Role of Civil Society. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(3), 228–243.

Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.

Chandhoke, N. (1995). State and civil society: Explorations in political theory. SAGE Publications Pvt. Limited.

Clarke, A., & Francoli, M. (2014). What’s in a name? A comparison of “open government”definitions across seven open government partnership members. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 6(3), 248–266.

Cohen, J., & Arato, A. (1992). Politics and the Reconstruction of the Concept of Civil Society. Cultural-Political Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, 121–142.

De Tocqueville, A. (1982). Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution, and society. University of Chicago Press.

Dodds, F. (2019). Stakeholder democracy: Represented democracy in a time of fear. Routledge.

Encarnacion, O. G. (2000). Tocqueville’s Missionaries: Civil Society Advocacy and the Promotion of Democracy. World Policy Journal, 17(1), 9–18.

European Economic and Social Committee. (2018). The Future Evolution of Civil Society in the European Union by 2030.

Fakih, M. (1996). Masyarakat Sipil. InsistPress.

Foley, M. W., Edwards, B., & Diani, M. (2001). Social capital reconsidered. Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective, 266–280.

Fonseca, M. (2016). Gramsci’s Critique of Civil Society: Towards a New Concept of Hegemony. Routledge.

Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, (3), 49–55.

Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies, 24(3), 355–381.

Hohendahl, P. U., & Silberman, M. (1979). Critical theory, public sphere and culture: Jürgen Habermas and his critics. New German Critique, 16(1), 89–118.

KemenristekDIKTI. (2019). Pedoman Publikasi Ilmiah 2019.

Kidd, A. (2002). Civil society or the state?: Recent approaches to the history of voluntary welfare. Journal of Historical Sociology, 15(3), 328–342.

Kingston, C., & Caballero, G. (2009). Comparing theories of institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics, 5(2), 151–180.

Klein, S., & Lee, C.-S. (2019). Towards a dynamic theory of civil society: The politics of forward and backward infiltration. Sociological Theory, 37(1), 62–88.

Mallapaty, S. (2020). Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles. Nature, 578(7795), 349.

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.

Mingers, J., & Meyer, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111–1121.

O’Byrne, D. (2017). Global ethics and civil society. Routledge.

Olsen, J. P. (2009). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change. West European Politics, 32(3), 439–465.

Orjuela, C. (2003). Building peace in Sri Lanka: A role for civil society? Journal of Peace Research, 40(2), 195–212.

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton university press.

RistekBRIN. (2020). Panduan Editor Jurnal Ilmiah.

Seftyono, C. (2019). Membuka Ruang Teorisasi Kepemimpinan Masyarakat Sipil: Komunitas Epistemik Sains Terbuka.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070.

Vogel, B. (2016). Civil Society Capture: Top-Down Interventions from Below? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10(4), 472–489.

Vosviewer. (2020). Civil society, Organization, Actors and Institution.

World Bank. (2013). World Bank-Civil Society Engagement.

World Economic Forum. (2013). The Role of Future Civil Society.

Zayani, M. (2018). Digital Middle East: State and Society in the Information Age. Oxford University Press.


Article Metrics

Abstract - 1581 PDF - 822


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Government and Civil Society

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


Journal of Government and Civil Society is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License