MAINSTREAMING IDEA: ALTERNATIVE READING OF STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY RELATION IN POLICY MAKING
Abstract
Scientific climate as the unity of ideas and the activator of an organization is suspected to be a form of civil society leadership. It moves from the personification of actors to the debate of ideas. Civil society as a political movement is a study that still being debated because of its position when faced with the state and policy. This article provides a different review, by carrying out the phenomenon of research-based policy in Indonesia. Through qualitative data tracking, it was shown that some civil society did not put themselves in these two positions, namely as the opponent or the partner for the government. Furthermore, the reality showed that both of them, in this case civil society and the state were more concerned with the realization of their ideas, the openness, and the professionalism of publications to support policy making. More specifically, the existence of openness and implementation of science and information as a collaborative arena appeared from the interaction of the National Development Planning Agency and Knowledge Sector Initiative which had been running since 2011 in building the ecosystem of Research- Based Policy. Then, it was followed by the presence of Open Science community in 2017 and the establishment of National Research and Innovation Agency in 2019. Therefore, both collaborations encouraged the creation of a data openness climate in policy making. This was a general 'norm', but it did not work fully. Moreover, this article provides a space that the opportunities to strengthen the ecosystem of research-based policy can be optimized by setting out the idea approach and makes the civil society goes beyond the institutional barrier
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Andreadis, N. A. (2002). Leadership for civil society: Implications for global corporate leadership development. Human Resource Development International, 5(2), 143–149.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
Baker, G. (1998). Civil society and democracy: the gap between theory and possibility. Politics, 18(2), 81–87.
Bank Dunia. (2013). World Bank-Civil Society Engagement.
Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and political institutionalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 562–574.
Bower, Joseph B. dan Christensen, C. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Cathing the Wave. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-cathcing-the-wave
Burns, J. M., & Rechy, J. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness (Vol. 213). Grove Press.
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). Benturan Negara dan Masyarakat Sipil. Institut Tafsir Wacana (ISTAWA).
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.
Cosgrove, S. (2010). Leadership from the margins: Women and civil society organizations in Argentina, Chile, and El Salvador. Rutgers University Press.
Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 77–86.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development:: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
Deans, F., Oakley, L., James, R., & Wrigley, R. (2006). Coaching and mentoring for leadership development in civil society. Praxis Paper, 14, 1–37.
De Tocqueville, A. (1982). Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution, and society. University of Chicago Press.
Economic Intelligent Unit. (2019). Democracy index 2018: Me too? Political Participation, Protest and Democracy.
Edwards, B., Foley, M. W., Foley, M. W., & Diani, M. (2001). Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective. Upne.
Encarnación, 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.
Fonseca, M. (2016). Gramsci’s Critique of Civil Society: Towards a New Concept of Hegemony. Routledge.
Forum Ekonomi Dunia. (2013). The Role of Future Civil Society.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, (3), 49–55.
Hass, Peter M. (1992), Intoduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, International Organization, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pp. 1-35.
Hohendahl, P. U., & Silberman, M. (1979). Critical theory, public sphere and culture: Jürgen Habermas and his critics. New German Critique, 16(1), 89–118.
Huntington, S. P. (2006). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
Kidd, A. (2002). Civil society or the state?: Recent approaches to the history of voluntary welfare. Journal of Historical Sociology, 15(3), 328–342.
Kindon, Sara, Rachel Pain, Mike Kesby (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. Routledge.
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.
Knouse, S. B., & Carson, K. D. (1993). W. Edwards Deming and Frederick Winslow Taylor: A comparison of two leaders who shaped the world’s view of management. International Journal of Public Administration, 16(10), 1621–1658.
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.
Miller, Hugh T. and Charles J. Fox (2001), The Epistemic Community, Administration and Society, Vol. 32 no. 6, pp. 668-685.
Olsen, J. P. (2009). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change. West European Politics, 32(3), 439–465.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton university press.
Raelin, J. A. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. sage.
Sutherland, N. (n.d.). Leadership without leaders? Paper Presented at International Conference in Critical Management Studies.
Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management. Routledge.
Vogel, B. (2016). Civil Society Capture: Top-Down Interventions from Below? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10(4), 472–489.
Widjajanto, A. (2007). Transnasionalisasi masyarakat sipil. PT LKiS Pelangi Aksara.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/cosmogov.v6i1.25474
DOI (PDF): https://doi.org/10.24198/cosmogov.v6i1.25474.g13336
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.