1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
  4. Volume 28, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0957-6851
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9838
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Everyday political talk, a significant type of political participation, is an important democratic activity. In this regard, the primary objective of this paper is to investigate the level of justification and knowledge in Indonesians’ informal political talk on Facebook. While previous studies addressed different aspects of informal political discussions such as their impact on political knowledge, influence on public opinion expression and relationship with news media use, they do not provide guidelines for analysing the modality of them. This study proposes an analytical framework for examining the users’ level of justification and knowledge. A qualitative content analysis reveals that only a small number of comments had a high level of justification and knowledge. In addition, some indications of the influence of Indonesian mainstream news media content were found on people’s arguments in discussions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
2018-08-10
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bailenson, J. N. & Rips, L. J.
    (1996) Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S3–SI6.10.1002/(SICI)1099‑0720(199611)10:7<3::AID‑ACP434>3.0.CO;2‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7<3::AID-ACP434>3.0.CO;2-7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ball, W. J.
    (1994) Using virgil to analyze public policy arguments: A system based on Toulmin’s informal logic. Social Science Computer Review, 12(1), 26–37.10.1177/089443939401200102
     https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939401200102 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brem, S. K.
    (2003) Structure and pragmatics in informal argument: circularity and question-begging. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 147–149.10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00026‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00026-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Campus, D.
    (2012) Political discussion, opinion leadership and trust. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 46–55.10.1177/0267323111434580
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111434580 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, S. N. , & Chiu, M. H.
    (2008) Lakatos’ Scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773.10.1080/09500690701534582
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ekström, M.
    (2016) Young people’s everyday political talk: A social achievement of democratic engagement. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(1), 1–19.10.1080/13676261.2015.1048207
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1048207 [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans, J. S. B. T. & Thompson, V. A.
    (2004) Informal reasoning: Theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 69–74.10.1037/h0085797
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085797 [Google Scholar]
  8. Graham, T.
    (2008) Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifying and assessing political talk in nonpolitical discussion forums. Javnost-The Public, 15(2), 17–36.10.1080/13183222.2008.11008968
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2008.11008968 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) The use of expressives in online political talk: Impeding or facilitating the normative goals of deliberation?In E. Tambouris , A. Macintosh & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic Participation (Vol.6229, pp.26–41): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.10.1007/978‑3‑642‑15158‑3_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15158-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Jensen, J. L.
    (2003) Public spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or government-sponsored- a comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(4), 349–374.10.1111/j.1467‑9477.2003.00093.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2003.00093.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Kenski, K. & Stroud, N. J.
    (2006) Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2) 2006, pp.173–192.10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Khumaini, A.
    (2009, November 25) Hakim akui ada upaya kriminalisasi terhadap KPK. Detiknews. Retrieved23 March 2013fromnews.detik.com/read/2009/11/25/170636/1248798/10/hakim-akui-ada-upaya-kriminalisasi-terhadap-kpk?nd992203605.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kies, R.
    (2010) Promises and limits of web deliberation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230106376
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106376 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kligler-Vilenchik, N.
    (2017) “Imagine we’re all in the living room talking about politics”: Israeili WhatsApp groups devoted to informal political talk. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 6.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kushin, M. J. & Kitchener, K.
    (2009) Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14 (11). Retrieved18 March 2013fromfirstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2645/2350.10.5210/fm.v14i11.2645
     https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i11.2645 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, F. L. F.
    (2005) The impact of ordinary political conversation on public opinion expression: Is existence of discord necessary?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 891–909.10.1177/107769900508200409
     https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200409 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2009) The impact of political discussion in a democratizing society: The moderating role of disagreement and support for democracy. Communication Research, 36(3), 379–399.10.1177/0093650209333027
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333027 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lim, M.
    (2011) Facebook nation: The politics and culture of social media in Indonesia. Retrieved16 February 2014fromwww.usindo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Lim-Merlyna-3-7-2011-Brief.pdf.
  19. (2013) Many clicks but little sticks: Social media activism in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(4), 636–657.10.1080/00472336.2013.769386
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.769386 [Google Scholar]
  20. Marti¬nez Guillem, S.
    (2009) Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727–746.10.1177/0957926509342368
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509342368 [Google Scholar]
  21. Means, M. L. , & Voss, J. F.
    (1996) Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mendez, J. M. , & Osborn, T.
    (2010) Gender and the perception of knowledge in political discussion. Political Research Quarterly, 63(2), 269–279.10.1177/1065912908328860
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908328860 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nugroho, Y. & Syarief, S. S.
    (2012) Beyond click-activism? New media and political processes in contemporary Indonesia. Retrieved fromlibrary.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/asia-media/09240.pdf, 6 November 2013.
  24. Pasandaran, C. & Hutapea, F.
    (2009, November 28) Indonesian corruption fighters’ careers hanging in legal limbo. The Jakarta Glob. Retrieved23 March 2013fromwww.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesian-corruption-fighters-careers-hanging-in-legal-limbo/344208.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Pasandaran, C. & Rayda, N.
    (2009, November 26) Indonesian corruption fighters ready to climb back in the saddle. The Jakarta Glob. Retrieved23 March 2013fromwww.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesian-corruption-fighters-ready-to-climb-back-in-the-saddle/343901.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Popkin, S. L. & Dimock, M. A.
    (1999) Political knowledge and citizen competence. In S. L. Elkin & K. E. Sołtan (Eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (pp.117–146). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania state University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Quinn, G.
    (2001) The Indonesian Language. Retrieved5 September 2017fromwww.hawaii.edu/sealit/Downloads/The%20Indonesian%20Language.doc
  28. Resnick, L. B. , Salmon, M. , Zeitz, C. M. , Wathen, S. H. , & Holowchak, M.
    (1993) Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 347–364.10.1080/07370008.1993.9649029
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649029 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rips, L. J.
    (1998) Reasoning and conversation. Psychological review, 105(3), 411–441.10.1037/0033‑295X.105.3.411
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.411 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rips, L. J. , Brem, S. K. , & Bailenson, J. N.
    (1999) Reasoning dialogues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 172–177.10.1111/1467‑8721.00041
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00041 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sani, M. A. M. & Hara, A. B. E.
    (2007) Deliberative democracy in Malaysia and Indonesia: A comparison. Retrieved6 November 2013fromjati.um.edu.my/iconsea2007/download/paper/azizuddinb.pdf.
  32. Scheufele, D. A.
    (2000) Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 727–743.10.1177/107769900007700402
     https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700402 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sebeok, T. A.
    (1986) Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith‐Hefner, N. J.
    (2007) Youth language, gaul sociability, and the new Indonesian middle class. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), 184–203.10.1525/jlin.2007.17.2.184
     https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2007.17.2.184 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Language shift, gender, and ideologies of modernity in Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1), 57–77.10.1111/j.1548‑1395.2009.01019.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01019.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Steenbergen, M. R. , Bächtiger, A. , Spörndli, M. & Steiner, J.
    (2003) Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21–48.10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
     https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stromer-Galley, J.
    (2007) Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Suzuki, S.
    (2006) Gender-linked differences in informal argument: Analyzing arguments in an online newspaper. Women’s Studies in Communication, 29(2), 193–219.10.1080/07491409.2006.10162498
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2006.10162498 [Google Scholar]
  39. Syafirdi, D.
    (2009, November 25) MK kabulkan permohonan Bibit-Chandra. Retrieved23 March 2013fromnews.detik.com/read/2009/11/25/142454/1248646/10/mk-kabulkan-permohonan-bibit-chandra.
  40. Tanuhandaru, P.
    (2010, February 27) The Barack Obama statue: The lessons to be drawn. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved26 March 2013fromwww.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/27/the-barack-obama-statue-the-lessons-be-drawn.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, N. , & Bell, D. R.
    (2006) Articulating political knowledge in deliberation. Contemporary Politics, 12(3-4), 287–300.10.1080/13569770601086196
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13569770601086196 [Google Scholar]
  42. Valenzuela, S. N. , Kim, Y. , & Gil de Zúñiga, H.
    (2011) Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184.10.1093/ijpor/edr037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr037 [Google Scholar]
  43. Walsh, K. C.
    (2004) Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wright, S. , Graham, T. , & Jackson, D.
    (2016) Third space, social media and everyday political talk. The Routledge companion to social media and politics. New York: Taylor & Francis, 74–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2017) Third Space and Everyday Online Political Talk: Deliberation, Polarisation, Avoidance. In: The 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 25-29 May 2017, San Diego, CA, USA. (Unpublished).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wyatt, R. O. , Katz, E. , & Kim, J.
    (2000) Bridging the spheres: political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71–92.10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2000.tb02834.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhou, X. , Chan, Y. -Y. , & Peng, Z. -M.
    (2008) Deliberativeness of online political discussion. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 759–770.10.1080/14616700802207771
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802207771 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
Loading
Justification and knowledge
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 28, 323 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
/content/journals/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
/content/journals/10.1075/japc.00015.mol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bahasa gaul; Indonesia; informal political discussion; justification; political knowledge; social media

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error