No abstract

This research is intended to answer the question of the discourses developed in association with Covid-19 management. Discourse in this regard is understood within the context of public policy, i.e. a set of concepts or ideas conveyed by actors to influence public policies. This study employed a discourse coalition theory. In addition, this study applied a discourse network analysis (DNA) method, combining discourse analysis (qualitative contents) and social network method. The DNA method maps any developing discourses on an issue (what) and also actors stating such discourses (who). The research was carried out for five months, starting from 17th November 2019 to 30th April 2020 and it included 1,123 statements of actors that were published in the media. The results of this study show that a coalition of discourse also occurs in health issues. The study reinforces the findings of Leifeld and Haunss (2011) on how actors attempt to present discourse to dominate the public conversation. This research shows the efforts of government actors, i.e. central government, regional governments, and the Ministry of Health, to conduct a coalition between two opposing discourses. The government efforts are not entirely successful. The government is also less successful in using communication channels and social media to form a single discourse.

This study analyses two communication practices for rural data collection in Indonesia: top-down, carried out by the state, and bottom-up, initiated by collective intellectuals. This research is to reveal how to communicate rural data collection actions. The differences in data manifest the practice of communicating rural data collection actions; and Doxa, habitus, and symbolic violence that is ‘hidden’ in the procedures and mechanisms of data collection run by the state. The study area is Tegallalang Village, Gianyar Regency, Bali. Quantitative data in Prodeskel from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Precision Village Data (DDP) with a Drone Participatory Mapping approach were obtained independently by researchers. The research used Mixed Methods Research. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews using the Nvivo R1 application analysis. Knife analysis using Pierre Bourdieu and Nick Couldry. The study results found two differences in the practice of rural data collection, namely; first, the difference in data collection actors. The state represents Prodeskel, and collective intellectuals represent DDP; second, the difference in data is due to differences in the practice of communication actions (procedures and mechanisms) of data collection. Prodeskel data with a top-down approach produces low-accuracy data and vice versa for DDP. This research also reveals the opus operatum of communication actions in the form of Doxa, habitus, and symbolic violence in data collection of the country’s countryside and digital technology to build a space for communication and citizen participation which is the key to the birth of DDP.

No abstract

No abstract