Email this article 
Strategi pemeliharaan relasional dalam kegiatan public relations online badan publik di Indonesia
Abstract
Praktik humas di negara demokratis harus menyajikan informasi yang akurat dan dalam bentuk komunikasi dua arah. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis implementasi strategi public relations online dalam website resmi yang dijalankan oleh lembaga-lembaga publik di Indonesia menggunakan analisis strategi pemeliharaan relasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis strategi pemeliharaan relasional dari Grunig dan Huang, 1999, dengan pendekatan positivisme dan metode penelitian kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Dengan menggunakan analisis isi berupa fitur strategi pemeliharaan relasional pada website dan proporsional stratified random sampling berdasarkan hasil pemeringkatan penghargaan keterbukaan informasi badan publik di Indonesia tahun 2016. Hasil penelitian ini dapat digunakan sebagai bahan evaluasi, rekomendasi, dan bimbingan teknis oleh badan publik dalam membangun fitur yang mendukung transparansi dan akuntabilitas informasi kepada publik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa humas badan publik di Indonesia lebih cenderung menggunakan platform media sosial untuk pemeliharaan relasional dengan publik daripada memanfaatkan fitur strategi pemeliharaan hubungan di website resmi mereka. Masih terdapat kesalahpahaman cara pandang humas badan publik di Indonesia dalam mendefinisikan aktivitas public relations online identik dengan pemanfaatan media sosial dalam kegiatan kehumasan. Selain itu, peraturan keterbukaan informasi publik belum cukup untuk memastikan transparansi dan akuntabilitas informasi dilihat dari penggunaan fitur pemeliharaan relasional. Dibutuhkan kerangka acuan, pengetahuan dan pengalaman di bidang kehumasan dalam meningkatkan pengelolaan website yang informatif dan dialogis serta mampu menjalin hubungan baik dengan publik untuk mewujudkan transparansi dan akuntabilitas informasi.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bennett, W. & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication, & Society, 15(05), 739–768.
Bungin, B. (2014). Metodologi penelitian kuantitatif: Komunikasi, ekonomi, dan kebijakan publik serta ilmu sosial lainnya. Jakarta: Prenadamedia.
Boczkowski, P. J. & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 1e22.
Brown, B., Sikes, J., & Willmott, P. (2013). Bullish on digital: McKinsey global survey results. McKinsey Quarterly, 12, 1-8.
Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. John Wiley & Sons.
Caywood, C. L. (1997). The handbook of strategic public relations and integrated communications. McGraw-Hill.
Coombs, W. T. (2014). State of crisis communication: Evidence and the bleeding edge. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 1(1), 1-12.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2006). Effective public relations. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Demetrious, K. (2013). Public relations, activism, and social change: Speaking up. Routledge research in public relations. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Duhé, S. (2015). An overview of new media research in public relations journals from 1981 to 2014. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 153-169.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellence in public relations and communication management: A study of communication management in tree countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. & Huang, Y. H. (1999). Od kazalcev organizacijske uspesnosti h kazalcem odnosov: Povodi, strategije in resultati odnosov z javnostmi (From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes). Teoriji in Praksa. 36, 644-667.
Holzschlag, M. E. (2001). Freedom in structure. Web Techniques, 6(7), 26-30.
Hon, C. L. & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public relations, University of Florida. Diakses tanggal 16 Mei 2019. http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships (accessed November 6, 2006).
Hon, L. (2015). Digital social advocacy in the Justice for Trayvon Campaign. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(4), 299-321.
Ishak, A. (2011). Revitalisasi Public Relations Organisasi Pemerintah dalam Upaya Pencapaian Penguatan Masyarakat. Aswad Ishak dan Setia Budi HH (ed).Public Relations dan Corporate Social Responsibility. Jakarta: ASPIKOM, Buku Literas, BPC Humas Yogyakarta.
Jin, Y. & Liu, B. F. (2010). The blog-mediated crisis communication model: Recommendations for responding to influential external blogs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 429-455.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Kelleher, T. (2007). Public relations online lasting concept for changing media. London: Sage Publications.
Kent, M. L., & Saffer, A. J. (2014). A Delphi study of the future of new technology research in public relations. Public relations Review, 40(3), 568-576.
Ki, E.J. (2006). Linkages among relationship maintenance strategies, relationship quality outcomes, attitude and behavioral intentions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Kriyantono, R. (2012). Teknik praktis riset komunikasi: Disertai contoh praktis riset public relations, komunikasi organisasi, media massa dan pemasaran. Jakarta: Prenada media.
Kriyantono, R. (2014). Teori public relations perspektif barat dan lokal: Aplikasi penelitian & praktik. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Maulina, N. (2015). Dalam upaya meningkatkan komunikasi dua arah antara humas pemerintah dengan publik eksternal. Meta Communication Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi. ISSN 2356-4490.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory. Los Angeles, London, Singapore: Sage.
Nahon, K. & Hemsley, J. (2013). Going viral. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Peraturan Komisi Informasi No. 1 tahun 2010 tentang Standar Layanan Informasi Publik
Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara Dan Reformasi Birokrasi Republik Indonesia Nomor 83 Tahun 2012 tentang Pedoman Pemanfaatan Media Sosial Instansi Pemerintah.
Permenpan Nomor 30 Tahun 2011 tentang Pedoman Umum Tata Kelola Kehumasan di Lingkungan Instansi Pemerintah.
Petrovici, M. A. (2014). E-Public relations: Impact and Efficiency. A case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 79-84.
Pina, V., L. Torres & Acerete, B. (2007a). ‘Are ICTs promoting government accountability? a comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 oecd countries’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 18(5), 583–602.
Pratchett, L. (1999). ‘New technologies and the modernization of local government: An analysis of biases and constraints’. Public Administration. 77(4), 731–50.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sala. (2003). E-democracy in practice 2003. Swedish experiences of a new political tool. Stockholm: Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Swedish Federation of County Councils and Regions.
Stafford, L. & Canary, D.J. (1991). “Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. (8)217-42.
Sunarto. (2011). Public relations untuk Pelayanan Publik. 2011. Wacana, Volume X, Nomor 2.
Smith, M. F. & Ferguson, D. P. (2010). Activism. In Heath, R. (Ed.) Handbook of public relations, pp. 291-300. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384-398.
Torres , L., Pina, V., and Acerete, B. (2006). E-governance developments in EU cities. Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens’ governance. Online Information Review. 12(9), 277 – 302.
Undang-Undang Nomor 14/2008 Tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik
Undang-undang Nomor 25/2009 Tentang Layanan Publik.
Voorveld, H. A., Van Noort, G., & Duijn, M. (2013). Building brands with interactivity: The role of prior brand usage in the relation between perceived website interactivity and brand responses. Journal of Brand Management, 20(7), 608-622.
Welch, C. H. & Moon, M.J. (2005). ‘Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 15 (3), 371–91.
Welch, Eric, & Wilson, W. (1998). Public administration in a global context: Bridging the gaps of theory and practice between western and non-western nations. Public Administration Review. 58,40–49.
Welch, Eric, & Wilson, W. (2001). Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of the domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research. 11, 509–538.
White & Raman. (2000). ”The world wide web as a public relations medium: The use of research, planning, and evaluation in website development.” Public Relations Review. 25(4), 405-419.
Wood, A. F. & Smith, J. M. (2005). Online communication: linking technology, identity and culture. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Yang, A. & Taylor, M. (2015). Looking over, looking out, and moving forward: Positioning public relations in theorizing organizational network ecologies. Communication Theory, 25(1), 91–115.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/prh.v4i2.19558
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Syaiful Azhary
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
PRofesi Humas Indexed by:
Editorial Office of PRofesi Humas:
Faculty of Communication Science, Universitas Padjadjaran
Jl. Raya Bandung-Sumedang Km. 21 Jatinangor, Sumedang, Indonesia 45363
WA: +6282316731181 (Chat Only)
Telephone: +62227796954
Faxmile: +62227794122
Email: jurnal.profesihumas.fikom@unpad.ac.id
PRofesi Humas Supervised by:
