Legitimasi Praktis dalam Lingkup Sosial Politik: Sebuah Analisis Bibliometrik
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70214/bghvj221Keywords:
Demokrasi; legitimasi; masyarakat; politik; Pemerintahan; sipil.Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi perkembangan kajian topic tentang legitimasi praktis di berbagai negara di dunia dalam periode tahun 2019-2023. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk menjelaskan definisi dan fenomena legitimasi dalam perspektif ilmu politik, dan menemukan adanya analisis perbandingan atau komparatif tentang definisi legitimasi serta indikatornya, sehingga dapat memunculkan research gap dan question problem tentang legitimasi praktis yang berperan bagi riset yang akan dilakukan dimasa yang akan datang. Metode penelitian yang diterapkan pada penelitian ini adalah systematic literature review yang menggunakan 310 artikel ilmiah bersumber dari database scopus. Review artikel menggunakan aplikasi Vosviewer. Hasil penelitian mengungkapkan bahwa topic kajian tentang legitimasi praktis dalam periode tahun 2019-2023 dapat dibagi menjadi empat klaster yaitu; kluster 1 didominasi oleh topic perception, klaster 2 didominasi topic democracy, Klaster 3 didominasi oleh kajian topic tentang framework, dan kluster 4 secara dominan membahas konsep legitimasi praktis yang berkaitan dengan politic dan decision making. Selain itu, hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan Konsep/tema dominan yang sering dibahas oleh peneliti sebelumnya antara lain demokrasi, decision making, debate, argument, view, effect, support, experience, trust, perception, community, gap, survey, attitude, police, power, practice, accountability, framework, interest, dan legitimation. belum banyak artikel yang membahas tentang relasi ilmu politik dengan legitimasi, terutama legitimasi praktis, penyebab, serta dampak buruknya. Sehingga, Hasil penelitian dapat ini berkontribusi pada pengembangan roadmap penelitian tentang Kontradiksi Legitimasi Praktis Dalam Tinjauan Ilmu Politik. Keterbatasan penelitian ini adalah artikel yang digunakan hanya bersumber dari database scopus sehingga temuan penelitian tidak dapat menggambarkan secara komprehensif tentang isu legitimasi. Penelitian berikutnya perlu menggunakan artikel ilmiah yang bersumber dari database internasional bereputasi lainnya, seperti Web of Science dan Dimensionds Scholars.
References
Afieroho, U. E., Li, Y., Han, Y., & Radujkovic, M. (2023). Exploring the social legitimacy of urban road PPPs in Nigeria. Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, 15(1), 23–33. doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0004
Aronson, O., Elad-Strenger, J., Kessler, T., & Feldman, Y. (2023). Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking. Regulation and Governance, 17(3), 833–850. doi.org/10.1111/rego.12495
Chand, A., Karan, M. F., & Goundar, P. (2022). Public Perceptions of Police in Fiji. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 38(3), 295–310. doi.org/10.1177/10439862221096942.
Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2019). Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 72(3), 637–652. doi.org/10.1177/1065912918794906
Córdova, A., & Kras, H. (2020). Addressing Violence Against Women: The Effect of Women’s Police Stations on Police Legitimacy. Comparative Political Studies, 53(5), 775–808. doi.org/10.1177/0010414019879959
Daradjat, A. (2020). Better quality of education in Asia: Taking panel data of state legitimacy, democracy and public services. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(6), 1685–1697. doi.org/10.18844/CJES.V15I6.5326
Eabrasu, M., Brueckner, M., & Spencer, R. (2021). A social licence to operate legitimacy test: Enhancing sustainability through contact quality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126080
Farazmand, A., Danaeefard, H., & Kazemi, S. H. (2023). The Nexus of Policy Legitimacy and Crisismanship Performance: Examining the Harmonizing Role of Value-Based Decision Making. Public Organization Review. doi.org/10.1007/s11115-023-00720-6
Fröhlich, C., & Skokova, Y. (2020). Two for One: Public Welfare and Regime Legitimacy Through State Funding for CSOs in Russia. Voluntas, 31(4), 698–709. doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00203-y
Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Valdez-Juárez, L. E., & Lizcano-álvarez, J. L. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and intellectual capital: Sources of competitiveness and legitimacy in organizations’ management practices. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(20). doi.org/10.3390/su11205843
Godinho, M. A., Borda, A., Kariotis, T., Molnar, A., Kostkova, P., & Liaw, S.-T. (2021).Knowledge co-creation in participatory policy and practice: Building community through data-driven direct democracy. Big Data and Society, 8(1). doi.org/10.1177/20539517211019430
Haggart, B., & Keller, C. I. (2021). Democratic legitimacy in global platform governance. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6). doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102152
Holmgreen, L.-L. (2021). Is being right legitimate? Addressing public outcries on social media. Discourse, Context and Media, 39 (4). doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100458
Konecny, S. (2020). Legitimacy of public interests in public policy. Public Policy and Administration, 19(2), 161–171. doi.org/10.13165/VPA-20-19-2-01
König, P. D., & Wenzelburger, G. (2021). The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it. Technology in Society, 67. doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101688
Kyprianides, A., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., Yesberg, J., Stott, C., & Radburn, M. (2021). Identity, Legitimacy and Cooperation With Police: Comparing General-Population and Street-Population Samples From London. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4), 492–508. doi.org/10.1037/law0000312
Lucciarini, S., & Galdini, R. (2023). Bridging the “consent gap”: Mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject. Policy and Society, 42(2), 212–225. doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad007
Maggetti, M., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2023). Happily unaccountable? Perceptions of accountability by public managers. Public Policy and Administration, 38(4), 381–404. doi.org/10.1177/09520767221074487
Martí, J. (2022). Crowdsourcing Crisis Management and Democratic Legitimacy. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 3(2). doi.org/10.1145/3532670
Mättö, T., Anttonen, J., Järvenpää, M., & Rautiainen, A. (2020). Legitimacy and relevance of a performance measurement system in a Finnish public-sector case. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 17(2), 177–199. doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-04-2018-0027
Mende, J. (2021). The contestation and construction of global governance authorities: A study from the global business and human rights regime. Global Constitutionalism, 10(3), 377–399. doi.org/10.1017/S2045381721000113
Mende, J. (2023a). Business authority in global governance: Companies beyond public and private roles. Journal of International Political Theory, 19(2), 200–220. doi.org/10.1177/17550882221116924
Mende, J. (2023b). Public Interests and the Legitimation of Global Governance Actors. Politics and Governance, 11(3), 109–119. doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6778
Mladenović, I. (2022). Considerations on democracy in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. Prolegomena, 21(1), 9–24. doi.org/10.26362/20220102
Nath, N., Othman, R., & Laswad, F. (2020). External performance audit in New Zealand public health: a legitimacy perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 17(2), 145–175. doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-11-2017-0110
Noori, R. (2023). A Comparative-Historical Study of Accountability in the Persian Public Administration: Is There a Paradox?. Public Organization Review, 23(1), 285–303. doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00619-8
Peyton, K., Sierra-Arévalo, M., & Rand, D. G. (2019). A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(40), 19894–19898. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910157116
Plettenburg, S. G. J., Hoppe, T., van der Heijden, H. M. H., & Elsinga, M. G. (2021). Performance agreements to ensure societal legitimacy in the social housing sector; an embedded case study of implementation in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 36(4), 1389–1415. doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09818-5
Poelzer, G. (2019). A view from the top: State perspectives on legitimacy and the mine development process. Environmental Science and Policy, 94, 32–38. doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.002
Schafer, D. (2021). A Popular Mandate for Strongmen: What Public Opinion Data Reveals About Support for Executive Aggrandizement in Turkey, 1996-2018. South European Society and Politics, 26(3), 355–382. doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2022.2034689
Taylor, L. (2021). Public Actors Without Public Values: Legitimacy, Domination and the Regulation of the Technology Sector. Philosophy and Technology, 34(4), 897–922. doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00441-4
Yang, Z. (2023). Who should be a science communicator? The struggle for ‘legitimate’ status as science communicators between Chinese scientists and citizens on a Chinese knowledge-sharing platform. Public Understanding of Science, 32(3), 357–doi.org/10.1177/09636625221118180
Zapp, M. (2022). The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: Cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 31(7), 885–902. doi.org/10.1177/09636625221093897
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Penulis yang menerbitkan karyanya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut.
1. Penulis memegang hak cipta dan memberikan jurnal hak penerbitan pertama dengan karya yang dilisensikan secara bersamaan di bawah Lisensi Internasional Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 . yang memungkinkan orang lain untuk berbagi karya tersebut dengan pengakuan atas kepengarangan karya dan penerbitan awal dalam jurnal ini.
2. Penulis dapat membuat pengaturan kontraktual terpisah dan tambahan untuk distribusi non-eksklusif versi terbitan jurnal dari suatu karya (misalnya, mengunggahnya ke repositori institusi atau menerbitkannya dalam sebuah buku), dengan pengakuan penerbitan awal dalam jurnal ini.
3. Penulis diizinkan dan didorong untuk mengunggah karya mereka secara daring (misalnya, di repositori institusi atau di situs web mereka) sebelum dan selama proses penyerahan, karena hal ini dapat mengarah pada pertukaran yang produktif, serta kutipan yang lebih awal dan lebih banyak dari karya yang diterbitkan (Lihat Dampak Akses Terbuka).
:strip_icc():format(webp)/kly-media-production/medias/4550198/original/016488700_1692862388-cover.jpg)
.png?raw=true)
.png?raw=true)
