Konflik Digital, Trauma Komunitas, dan Kebijakan Publik: Analisis Program

Authors

Rulinawaty Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta
Lukman Samboteng Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta

DOI:

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the dynamics of social conflict in Manggarai and assess the suitability of the Reconciliation and Peace Village Program, or Kampung Redam, as a community-based public policy response. This study employed a mixed-methods policy analysis with a predominantly qualitative design. Data were obtained from resident surveys, interviews, monitoring minutes, and program documents. The analysis was conducted using a framework analysis to map the roots of the conflict based on the social-ecological model, conflict transformation, collaborative governance, and policy instrument mix, as well as a simple realist evaluation to understand the relationship between context, policy mechanisms, and expected outcomes. The results indicate that the conflict in Manggarai was formed through the interaction of unemployment, school dropouts, residential density, weak family supervision, youth group solidarity, external provocation, regional stigma, and conflict escalation through social media. Each region exhibited a different configuration of problems. RW 02 was relatively conducive due to strong community coordination, while RW 03, RW 04, RW 05, and RW 012 exhibited a variety of economic, family, security, digital, and psychosocial issues. The most dominant trend in these results is the emergence of a transformation of conflict from physical violence to digital conflict through live broadcasts and the monetization of violent content. The conclusion suggests that Kampung Redam needs to be designed as a context-based, adaptive policy. The implication is that conflict management requires a combination of security instruments, alternative education, trauma recovery, economic empowerment, digital literacy, housing improvements, and cross-sectoral collaborative governance.

Keywords: Collaborative Governance, Conflict Transformation, Public Policy, Urban Social Conflict.

References

Adhikari, R., & Timsina, T. P. (2024). An educational study focused on the application of mixed method approach as a research method. OCEM Journal of Management, Technology & Social Sciences, 3(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.3126/ocemjmtss.v3i1.62229

Agustian, H. Y. (2024). Methodological rigor in laboratory education research. Laboratories, 1(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1010006

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Béland, D., Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2017). Instrument constituencies and public policy-making: An introduction. Policy and Society, 37(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1375249

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Buchholtz, N. (2019). Planning and conducting mixed methods studies in mathematics educational research. In Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (pp. 131–152). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_6

Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Feeney, H., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2018). Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: The joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018804195

Dewasiri, N. J., Weerakoon, Y. K. B., & Azeez, A. A. (2018). Mixed methods in finance research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918801730

Edwards, D. J., & Holt, G. D. (2010). The case for “3D triangulation” when applied to construction management research. Construction Innovation, 10(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171011018292

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011

Farquhar, J. D., Michels, N., & Robson, J. (2020). Triangulation in industrial qualitative case study research: Widening the scope. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.001

Gammon, A. R., Zhu, Q., Streiner, S., Clancy, R. F., & Thorpe, R. (2022). Developing conceptual and methodological foundations for a cross-cultural, multi-institutional study of ethical reasoning and moral dispositions of engineering students. 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie56618.2022.9962559

Ganassali, S. (2016). Presenting online multi-image elicitation: The contributions of a hybrid protocol. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 31(4), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051570716658464

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870

González-Díaz, R. R., & Cabrera, G. I. B. (2021). Predictive sequential research design to study complex social phenomena. Entropy, 23(5), 627. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23050627

Grafton, J., Lillis, A. M., & Mahama, H. (2011). Mixed methods research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111124676

Guetterman, T. C., Babchuk, W. A., Smith, M. H., & Stevens, J. (2017). Contemporary approaches to mixed methods-grounded theory research: A field-based analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817710877

Han, H., Youm, J., Tucker, C., Teal, C. R., Rougas, S., Park, Y. S., Mooney, C. J., Hanson, J. L., & Berry, A. (2022). Research methodologies in health professions education publications: Breadth and rigor. Academic Medicine, 97(11S), S54–S62. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004911

Hong, Q. N., Rees, R., Sutcliffe, K., & Thomas, J. (2020). Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(6), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1437

Kinnebrew, E., Shoffner, E., Farah-Pérez, A., Mills-Novoa, M., & Siegel, K. (2020). Approaches to interdisciplinary mixed methods research in land-change science and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 35(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13642

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.

Lorenzini, E., Galeano, S. P. O., Schmidt, C. R., & Cañón-Montañez, W. (2024). Practical guide to achieve rigor and data integration in mixed methods research. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v42n3e02

McKinley, K. M. (2019). Assessing mixed methods research quality in the European student mobility literature. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919889216

Ozawa, S., & Pongpirul, K. (2013). 10 best resources on mixed methods research in health systems. Health Policy and Planning, 29(3), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czt019

Palinkas, L. A., & Zatzick, D. (2018). Rapid assessment procedure informed clinical ethnography in pragmatic clinical trials of mental health services implementation: Methods and applied case study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 46(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-018-0909-3

Reid, C., Keighrey, C., Murray, N., Dunbar, R., & Buckley, J. (2020). A novel mixed methods approach to synthesize EDA data with behavioral data to gain educational insight. Sensors, 20(23), 6857. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236857

Roest, J.-W. van der, Spaaij, R., & Bottenburg, M. van. (2013). Mixed methods in emerging academic subdisciplines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813508225

Schlunegger, M. C., Shaha, M., & Palm, R. (2024). Methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies: A scoping review. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 46(8), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459241263011

Shin, S., & Carpenter, S. (2022). A review of the participant observation method in journalism: Designing and reporting. Review of Communication Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.035

Silan, M. A. A. (2023). Rethinking multi-site studies: Can the cross-indigenous approach remedy common cross-cultural vulnerabilities? https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jsyca

Soares, R. F., & Filho, E. R. G. (2021). Anti-corruption enforcement and organizations: A narrative review. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25(6). https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021190149.en

Solano, M. A. (2020). Triangulation and trustworthiness: Advancing research on public service interpreting through qualitative case study methodologies. FITISPos International Journal, 7(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.37536/fitispos-ij.2020.7.1.249

Younas, A., & Durante, Á. (2023). The logics of and strategies to enhance generalization of mixed methods research findings. Methodology, 19(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.10863