Meta-Analysis: Trends of Digital Democracy Research Publications

Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Aprian Jailani, Rendi Eko Budi Setiawan, Cahyadi Kurniawan

Abstract


Digital democracy has become a contemporary study in social and political science, but theoretically the term digital democracy does not yet have a definite pattern, this makes digital democracy fail to be understood both theoretically and practically. Therefore, this research has basic questions about; how the theoretical development of digital democracy through the trend of research publications based on the Scopus index. This article uses a qualitative description methodology, and data analysis techniques using research software; Vosviewer and NVivo 12 plus. The findings in this study see that scholars focus on the theme of e-government and digital political participation, in e-government the research theme focuses on government services through open government data and studies on the function of official government social media for public communication. While the research theme of digital political participation focuses on the study of e-voting and digital social movement. Digital democracy in a positive perspective can also encourage the character of a deliberative democratic system. Referring to the data of research publications that have been analyzed, the researcher concludes a new finding: that digital democracy can theoretically be categorized into two. First, the electoral aspect, which understands that digital democracy creates a digital transformation of government work, which is marked by open government data, digital services, and digital information. Second, the-non electoral aspect, which sees digital democracy as an opportunity for civil society to be involved in political participation in a country, such as electronic elections, online political participation, and digital activism. 


Demokrasi digital menjadi suatu kajian yang kontemporer dalam ilmu sosial dan politik, namun secara teoritis term demokrassi digital belum mempunyai pola yang pasti, hal ini menjadikan demokrasi digital gagal dipahami baik secara teoritis maupun praktis. Karena itu penelitian ini mempunyai pertanyaan dasar tentang; bagaimana perkembangan teoritis demokrasi digital melalui trend publikasi penelitian berbasis indeks scopus. Artikel ini menggunakan metodologi deskripsi kualitatif, dan teknik analisis data menggunakan software penelitian; Vosviewer dan NVivo 12 plus. Temuan dalam penelitian ini melihat para sarjana fokus pada tema e-government dan partisipasi politik secara digital, dalam e-government tema penelitian fokus kepada pelayanan pemerintah melalui open data government dan kajian fungsi media sosial resmi pemerintah untuk komunikasi publik. Sedangkan tema penelitian partisipasi politik digital fokus pada kajian e-voting dan digital sosial movement. Demokrasi digital dalam perspektif positif juga dapat mendorong karakter sistem demokrasi yang deliberatif. Merujuk data publikasi penelitian yang telah dianalisis, peneliti menyimpulkan temuan baru: bahwa demokrasi digital secara teoritis dapat dikategorikan menjadi dua. Pertama, aspek elektoral yang memahami bahwa demokrasi digital membuat transformasi kerja pemerintahan secara digital, yang ditandai dengan open data government, pelayanan digital, dan informasi digital. Kedua, aspek non elektoral, yang melihat demokrasi digital menjadi peluang untuk masyarakat sipil terlibat dalam partisipasi politik dalam suatu negara, seperti pemilu elektronik, partisipasi politik onlline, dan aktivisme digital.

 


Keywords


Digital Democracy, Bibliometric, Research Publication.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Nurmandi, A. (2020). Teknologi Informasi Pemerintahan (A. Nurmandi, Ed.). Yogyakarta: UMY PRESS.

Ambardi, K. (2021). Demokrasi Tanpa Demos (1st ed., Vol. 1; Wijayanto, Ed.). Depok: LP3ES.

Andriadi, F. (2017). Partisipasi Politik Virtual. Jakarta: RMBOOKS.

Asenbaum, H. (2021). Rethinking Digital Democracy: From the Disembodied Discursive Self to New Materialist Corporealities. Communication Theory, 31(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz033

Asy’ari Muthhar, M. (2016). Membaca Demokrasi Deliberatif Jurgen Habermas Dalam Dinamika Politik Indonesia. USHULUNA, Jurnal Ilmu Ushuluddin.

Bimber, B. (1998). Northeastern Political Science Association The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism, Community, and Accelerated Pluralism. In Source: Polity (Vol. 31). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.orgURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235370http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235370?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

Counsell, S., Laplante, P., Kshetri, N., & Voas, J. (n.d.). Blockchain-Enabled E-Voting. Retrieved from http://blockchain.ieee

Davidson, S., & Elstub, S. (2014). Deliberative and participatory democracy in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12001

Economist, T. (2021). The world leader in global business intelligence DEMOCRACY INDEX 2020 IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH?

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis (Second Edition). New York: Routledge.

Fishkin, J. S. (2011). Deliberative democracy and constitutions. Social Philosophy and Policy, 28(1), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052510000129

Fishkin, J. S., Mansbridge, J., Offe, C., Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., … Trahant, M. (n.d.). The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy Daedalus Ending Civil Wars: Constraints & Possibilities edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner. Retrieved from www.amacad.org;

Flew, T. (2019). Populism , globalisation and social media. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519880721

Hardiman, F. B. (2009). Demokrasi Deliberatif. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Idris, I. K. A. K. (2018). Government Social Media in Indonesia : Just Another Information Dissemination Tool. 34(4), 337–356.

Juditha, C. (2018). New Media & Komunikasi Politik. Yogyakarta: Mbridge Press.

Keane, W. (2018). On Semiotic Ideology. The University of Chicago Press Journal, 6(1).

Khutkyy, D. (2019). Electronic Democracy in Belarus , Moldova , and Ukraine . Patterns and Comparative Perspectives The Belarus government ’ s National Center for Electronic Services ( Natsio-. 67(2), 264–284.

Kostoska, O., & Kocarev, L. (2019). A novel ICT framework for sustainable development goals. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071961

Lee, F. L. F., Chen, H. T., & Chan, M. (2017). Social media use and university students’ participation in a large-scale protest campaign: The case of Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.005

Leston-Bandeira, C., & Thompson, L. (2017). Integrating the view of the public into the formal legislative process: public reading stage in the UK House of Commons. Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(4), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2017.1394736

Lim, M. (2013). Many Clicks but Little Sticks: Social Media Activism in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(4), 636–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.769386

Weiss, M. (2014). New media, New activism : Trends and Trajectories in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Internatitional Development Planning Review, 36.

Plafrey, J. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books .

Priyono, A. (2014). Media Sosial Alat Gerakan Sipil. Jakarta: Public Virtue Institute.

Royo, S., Pina, V., & Garcia-Rayado, J. (2020). Decide Madrid: A critical analysis of an award-winning e-participation initiative. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674

Ruth-Lovell, S. P., Lührmann, A., & Grahn, S. (2019). Democracy and Populism: Testing a Contentious Relationship. Retrieved from www.v-dem.net.

Simon, J., & Bass, T. (2017). Digital Democracy political engagement. (February).

Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019, April 1). The public value of E-Government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 167–178. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001

Völker, T. (2019). Deliberative democracy in the age of social media . Publicum, 5(2), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.12957/publicum.2019.47202




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v7i1.5723

Article Metrics

Abstract - 484 PDF - 493

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Government and Civil Society

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


 

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