THE NARRATION OF DIGITAL LITERACY MOVEMENT IN INDONESIA

Mery Yanti, Yusnaini Yusnaini

Abstract


This article aims to analyze the digital literacy movement in Indonesia and its determinant using the narrative approach. Empirical research is carried out with qualitative content analysis methods. The primary data of the study came from 255 online news which contained digital literacy keywords that were detected by Google search engines and published in trusted online media. Secondary data collected from publications of government, private, and civil society organizations related to digital literacy. We use an interactive model and Atlas.ti 8 to analyze research data. The results showed that each actor had a variety of views about the definitions and situations that underlie digital literacy problems. The digital literacy movement narrative in Indonesia can be explained using the logic of the problem - solution - results. Problem narratives tend to be based on data from a variety of data sources on the profile and behavior of internet users, the development of e-commerce, digital security and crime, digital radicalism, basic competencies of digital literacy, national competitiveness, and the online mass media industry. Starting from the problem narrative, the actors proposed the same solution, namely strengthening digital literacy of internet users, although they differed in identifying target groups. The goals of this solution are a reduction in digital crime, an increase in the digital economy, knowledge, digital skills, and digital governance, as well as the birth of practices in the use of information and communication technology that refers to three principles, namely: security principle, economic principles, and social-cultural principle. We identified four actors who acted as victims in the digital literacy movement narrative in Indonesia: society as a whole, religious institutions, state institutions, population, economic commodities, and market participants. The criminal's character includes internet users, legal players, government institutions, and politicians. Meanwhile, heroes are all actors acting in the digital literacy movement in Indonesia. Fours factors contributed to digital literacy movement: public participation, commitment and togetherness, shared goals and interests, and a massive, systematic, and synergistic strategy, movement management, and learning process. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.


NARASI GERAKAN LITERASI DIGITAL DI INDONESIA

Artikel ini bertujuan menganalisis gerakan literasi digital di Indonesia dan determinannya dengan pendekatan naratif. Riset empiris dilaksanakan dengan metode analisis isi kualitatif. Data primer penelitian berasal dari 255 berita online yang mengandung kata kunci “literasi digital” yang di deteksi mesin pencari Google dan dipublikasikan di media online terpercaya. Data sekunder dikumpulkan dari publikasi organisasi pemerintah, swasta, dan/atau masyarakat sipil yang berhubungan dengan literasi digital. Analisis data penelitian menggunakan model interaktif dengan bantuan software Atlas.ti 8. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan setiap aktor memiliki keragaman pandangan tentang definisi dan situasi yang melatari masalah literasi digital. Alur cerita gerakan literasi digital di Indonesia bisa dijelaskan menggunakan logika masalah – solusi – hasil. Narasi masalah cenderung berbasis data dari beragam sumber data tentang profil dan perilaku pengguna internet, perkembangan e-commerce, keamanan dan kriminalitas digital, radikalisme digital, kompetensi dasar literasi digital, daya saing bangsa, dan industri media massa daring. Bertolak dari narasi masalah, para aktor mengusulkan solusi yang sama, yakni penguatan literasi digital pengguna internet, meski berbeda dalam identifikasi kelompok sasaran. Hasil akhir solusi ini adalah berkurangnya kriminalitas digital, meningkatnya perekonomian digital, pengetahuan, keterampilan digital, dan digital governance, serta melahirkan praktik-praktik penggunaan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi yang mengacu ke tiga prinsip, yakni: prinsip keamanan, prinsip ekonomi, dan prinsip sosio-kultural. Peneliti mengidentifikasi empat aktor yang berperan sebagai korban dalam narasi gerakan literasi digital di Indonesia, yakni: masyarakat secara keseluruhan, institusi agama, institusi negara, populasi penduduk, komoditas ekonomi, dan para pelaku pasar. Para penjahatnya meliputi pengguna internet, para pelaku pasar berbadan hukum, institusi pemerintah, dan oknum para politisi. Sedangkan, pahlawannya adalah semua aktor yang bertindak nyata dalam gerakan literasi digital di Indonesia. gerakan literasi digital dipengaruhi empat faktor yakni: partisipasi publik, komitmen dan kebersamaan, tujuan dan kepentingan bersama, dan strategi yang masif, sistematis, dan sinergis, manajemen gerakan, dan proses pembelajaran. Peneliti implikasi teoretis dan praktis temuan ini.


Keywords


gerakan sosial, internet, kompetensi digital, literasi digital, pendekatan naratif

Full Text:

PDF

References


Affan, H. (2018). Seputar Muslim Cyber Army: sebarkan isu PKI bangkit, pembunuhan ulama, hingga tim sniper. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-43287955

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x

Anonymous, A. (2017). Kasus Saracen: Pesan kebencian dan hoax di media sosial “memang terorganisir” - BBC News Indonesia. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/trensosial-41022914

Anonymous, A. (2018). Blokir Tak Efektif,Kominfo Didesak Buat Aturan Konten Negatif. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20180710081813-192-312870/blokir-tak-efektifkominfo-didesak-buat-aturan-konten-negatif

Aprizal, A., & Purba, J. R. T. (2013). Akuntabilitas Pelayanan Publik dalam Pelaksanaan E-Procurement di Kota Pangkalpinang. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Administrasi Publik), 17(1), 15–28.

Ardiansyah, M. K. I., Yunizar, Y., & Harsanto, B. (2016). Shari’ah-Compliant E-Commerce Models and Consumer Trust. Al-Iqtishad: Journal of Islamic Economics, 8(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.15408/aiq.v8i2.2913

Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (APJII). (2016). Laporan Survey Penetrasi Internet Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (APJII).

Astuti, N. C., & Nasution, R. A. (2014). Technology readiness and E-commerce adoption among entrepreneurs of SMEs in Bandung city, Indonesia. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 16(1), 69–88.

Asyari, Y. (2018). Mengejutkan! Admin Muslim Cyber Army Ternyata Dosen Kampus Ini. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.jawapos.com/nasional/hukum-kriminal/28/02/2018/mengejutkan-admin-muslim-cyber-army-ternyata-dosen-kampus-ini

Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781

Bayat, A. (2005). Islamism and Social Movement Theory. Third World Quarterly, 26(6), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500089240

Blom-Hansen, J. (1997). A ‘new institutional’ perspective on policy networks. Public Administration, 75, 669–693.

Buechler, S. M. (1993). Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00388.x

Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., & Metzger, M. J. (2014). Knowledge and processes that predict proficiency in digital literacy. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1567–1583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9507-2

Clark, R. (2016). “Hope in a hashtag”: the discursive activism of #WhyIStayed. Feminist Media Studies, 16(5), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235

Coleman, A. (2014). Migration from resource based to knowledge based strategy for e-health implementation in developing countries. Journal of Communication [Delhi], 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0976691X.2014.11884819

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044

Crouch, C. (2001). Industrial Society/Post-industrial Society: History of the Concept. In N. J. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 7347–7351). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00126-1

Dowding, K. (1995). Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach. Political Studies, 43(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb01705.x

Drori, G. S. (2014). The Internet as a Global Social Problem. Handbook of Social Problems: A Comparative International Perspective. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412973526.n25

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452263. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633

Emejulu, A., & McGregor, C. (2016). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. Critical Studies in Education. Paterson’s Land, Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494

Erstad, O. (2010). Conceptions of Technology Literacy and Fluency. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 34–41). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00694-1

Gamire, E., & Pearson, G. (2006). Tech tally: approaches to assessing technological literacy. (E. Gamire & G. Pearson, Eds.), Literacy. Washington D.C., USA: The National Academics Press.

Godwin, P. (2006). Information Literacy in the Age of Amateurs. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040268

Gruszczynska, A., & Pountney, R. (2013). Developing the Concept of Digital Literacy in the Context of Schools and Teacher Education. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 5(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.11120/elss.2013.05010025

Harjito, Y., Achyani, F., & Payamta. (2015). Implementasi E-Procurement Ditinjau Dari Kesuksesan Sistem Teknologi Informasi Dengan Menggunakan Model DeLone Dan McLean. Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, XVIII(1), 61–82.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113

Hidayat, A. N. (2017). E-Learning Implementation in Islamic Education Innovation. HUNAFA: Jurnal Studia Islamika, 14(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.24239/jsi.v14i1.460.17-36

Hilbert, M. (2009). The maturing concept of E-democracy: From E-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 6(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680802715242

Huang, V. G. (2016). Speaking out: Testimonial narratives of Chinese cyberpetitioners under networked authoritarianism. Discourse, Context and Media, 14, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.09.002

Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4

Islam, S. (2018). Ini Pengakuan Anggota Muslim Cyber Army Sebar Info Hoax. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://news.okezone.com/read/2018/03/02/525/1867097/ini-pengakuan-anggota-muslim-cyber-army-sebar-info-hoax

Jordana, T. A., & Suwarto, D. H. (2017). Pemetaan Program Literasi Digital di Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. INFORMASI: Kajian Ilmu Komunikasi, 47(2), 167–180.

Kahani, M. (2006). Experiences in e-Voting. Journal of E-Government, 2(3), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1300/J399v02n03_06

Kalman, J. (2008). Beyond defenition: central concepts for understanding literacy. International Review of Education, 54(5–6), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-008-9104-1

Kapucu, N., & Demiroz, F. (2011). Measuring Performance for Collaborative Public Management Using Network Analysis Methods and Tools. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340406

Kellner, D. (2001). New Technologies/New Literacies: Reconstructing Education for the New Millennium. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011270402858

Knox, J. (2014). Digital culture clash: “massive” education in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC. Distance Education, 35(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917704

Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society , 33(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382

Krohn, W. (2001). Knowledge Societies. In N. J. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 8139–8143). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03190-9

Kurnia, N., & Astuti, S. I. (2017). Peta Gerakan Literasi Digital di Indonesia: Studi tentang Pelaku, Ragam Kegaitan, Kelompok Sasaran dan Mitra. Informasi: Kajian Ilmu Komunikasi, 47(2), 149–166.

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040249

McBeth, M., Jones, M., & Shanahan, E. (2014). The Narrative Policy Framework. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (Third, pp. 225–266). Philadelphia, USA: Westvew Press.

McNall, S. G. (1986). Class Analysis and Social Movement Theory: Toward A Synthesis. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 11(2), 3–28.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Guide to Paths not Taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107

Mueller, C. M., & Judd, C. M. (1981). Belief Constraint and Belief Consensus: Toward an Analysis of Social Movement Ideologies - A Research Note. Social Forces, 60(1), 182–187.

Nielsen, K. B. (2009). Four narratives of a social movement in West Bengal. South Asia: Journal of South Asia Studies, 32(3), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400903374335

Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. London, U.K: Harvard University Press.

Pinto, M., Pulgarín, A., & Escalona, M. I. (2014). Viewing information literacy concepts: a comparison of two branches of knowledge. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2311–2329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1166-6

Refle, J.-E. (2016). What is a Social Movement? Social Movement Studies, 15(2), 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1027765

Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring “social constructivist digital literacy” development in learners: a proposed framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4

Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., … Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

Santosa, S. (2001). The Application of E-Commerce in Shipping Warehousing Industri. Jurnal Akuntansi & Keuangan, 3(2), 126–141.

Santoso, A. (2017). Saracen, Penyebar Konten SARA yang Dapat Memecah Belah Bangsa. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://news.detik.com/berita/3616459/saracen-penyebar-konten-sara-yang-dapat-memecah-belah-bangsa

Saraswati, P. (2017). Saracen dan “Bisnis Kebencian” di Era Jokowi. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20170825093304-20-237190/saracen-dan-bisnis-kebencian-di-era-jokowi

Saubani, A. (2018). Hakim: Saracen tak Terbukti Sebarkan Ujaran Kebencian. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/hukum/18/04/06/p6rhlj409-hakim-saracen-tak-terbukti-sebarkan-ujaran-kebencian

Scott, J. (1988). Social Network Analysis. Sociology, 22(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038588022001007

Sterling, C. (2009). Encyclopedia of Journalism. Encyclopedia of Journalism. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412972048

Stokes, W. (2008, December). Literacy. In N. J. Salkind & K. Rasmussen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 608–616). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Travaglino, G. A. (2014). Social sciences and social movements: The theoretical context. Contemporary Social Science, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.851406

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, F. (2010). The Information Society Revisited. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs (pp. 307–327). London: SAGE Publication Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211304

Wentink, M. M., Prieto, E., de Kloet, A. J., Vliet Vlieland, T. P. M., & Meesters, J. J. L. (2017). The patient perspective on the use of information and communication technologies and e-health in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 0(0), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1358302

Zulkarnain, Z. (2018). MCA Asli Membela Islam tanpa Ujaran Kebencian. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.hidayatullah.com/berita/nasional/read/2018/02/28/136697/mca-asli-membela-islam-tanpa-ujaran-kebencian.html




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/informasi.v48i2.21148

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Mery Yanti, Yusnaini Yusnaini

Supervised by

RJI Main logo


Our Journal has been Indexed by:

           

 

 Creative Commons License

Informasi by http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/informasi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


View My Stats