CRF FINAL REPORT 2015 SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE VS POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Revision English

S W I S S G E R M A N U N I V E R S I T Y

CENTRAL RESEARCH FUND

FINAL REPORT

ROLE of SOCIAL MEDIA toward

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION of EARLY VOTERS In ELECTION 2014

Loina L.K. Perangin-angin, S.Sos., MSiAlva Erwin, ST., MSc., MTi

Research Center for Novel and Creative Solutions in Businessand Technology

Academic Research and Community Service (ARCS)Department

2014

3

A. Title Page

Title of Proposal : Role of Social Media towardPolitical participation

of Early Voters in Election 2014

Name of Team Leader : Loina L.K. Perangin-angin.,S.Sos., MSi

Research Center : Research Center for Novel andCreative Solutions

in Business and Technology

E-mail : [email protected]

Mobile phone : 0817 - 149171

Duration of CR Program : 8 months; from April to November2014

Proposed Budget : Rp. 48,468,000

Budget from Other Source : Rp. (please attach thevalidity proof)

EduTown, BSDCity, Tangerang

Date: 28 Januari 2014

Team Leader HeadResearch Center for Noveland Creative Solutions inBusiness and Technology

Signature Signature

4

Name : Loina L. K. Perangin-angin., MSi

Name

NIK 11111225 NIK

SUMMARY

ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA toward POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF EARLYVOTERS

in ELECTION 2014

Loina Lalolo Krina Perangin-angin, S.Sos., MSi

Alva Erwin, ST., MSc., MTI

vii + 43 pages + 19 tables + 5 attachments + bibl 43 (1976-2013)

This research is conducted (1) to identify the contentand the usage of social media for early voters to interactpolitically, (2) to identify the political participation earlyvoters took part in Election 2014, and (3) to identify therole of social media for increasing the politicalparticipation of early voters in Election 2014.

This research used quantitative approach. Surveys wereconducted in 6 big cities in Indonesia; Jakarta, Serang,Bandung, Surabaya, Jogja, and Solo. Data was collected bydistributing a questionnaire to senior high school students,especially students in Grade 12, from private and state

5

schools in those cities. 1027 samples were drawn by usingrandom sampling. Data was analyzed descriptively. Forcorrelation analysis, the Pearson formula was used.

The research results show young voters moderately usesocial media for interacting and networking in Election 2014,however, they have low political participation. Facebook andTwitter were the two most popular and longer social medianetwork used by early voters, however the voters tend toconnect more on newer social media network such as Line, Pathand Instagram. Clicking a like sign on information, news, orcomments is an easier way to participate online in politics.Offline, young voters only share information about politicalevents and voting for the president. There is a slightly weakcorrelation between social media usage and politicalparticipation with coefficient of correlation is 0.423 ormoderate. It means that only 42.3% of the politicalparticipation can be influenced by social media usage, therest is influenced by other factors.

it is strongly recommended to have further research forstudying the other factors which influence the role of socialmedia toward political participation. Since the politicalparticipation of early voters in Election 2014 is very low,for the Election in the future, it is strongly recommended forevery parties involved with political issue to empower thesocial media for attracting youth to participate more byprovide them with attractive message about politics.

FOREWORD

We would like to thanks Swiss German University,

especially our colleagues in ARCS and Rector Office, for

facilitating and giving a supportive funding to conduct this

research.

6

Especially, I would like to thank Prof. Dr (phil) Martin

Loffelholz for his support and supervision toward this

research project.

We would like to thank Dean and colleagues of Faculty of

Business Administration and Humanities for supporting this

research.

We would like to thank every parties involved with this

research; the Principals of Senior High School in Jakarta,

Serang, Bandung, Surabaya, Jogja and Solo, the students, the

surveyor, and else.

Jakarta, January 2015

Researcher

7

TABLE OF CONTENT

Approval Page iiSummary iiiForeword ivTable of Content vList of Table viList of Attachment vii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY 6CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROBLEM, OBJECTIVE, AND OUTCOMES 15

3.1. Research Problem 153.2. Research Objectives and Outcomes 16

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHOD 18CHAPTER V RESULTS ACHIEVED 21

5.1. Media Social Usage 235.2. Political Participation 295.3. Correlation Between Social Media Usage

and Political

Participation

33

CHAPTER VI PLAN FOR NEXT STAGE OF RESEARCH 37CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 38

7.1. Conclusion 387.2. Recommendation 38REFERENCES 40ATTACHMENTS 441. QUESTIONNAIRE

8

2. LOG-BOOK3. CODING SHEET

4. STATISTICAL RESULTS

5. CONTRACT AGREEMENT

6. CURICULLUM VITAE

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Tabel

2.1.

The Spread of the Internet 7

4.1.

Location and Number of Respondents 19

5.1.

Religion 21

5.2.

Gender 21

5.3.

Money for Phone Credit per Month 22

5.4 Money Pocket per Month 22

5.5 Social Media Account Ownership 23

5.6 Length of Ownership (Years) 24

5.7.

Frequency of Accessing the Account 25

5.8 Activity Doing After Being Exposed To Social 26

9

. Media Content

5.9 Category of Social Media Usage 27

5.10

Content in Social Media 28

5.11

Online Participation 30

5.12

Category of Online Participation 31

5.13

Offline Participation 31

5.14

Category of Offline Participation 32

5.15

Category of Political Participation 32

5.16

Reliability Test 33

5.17

Correlation Test 36

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The development of communication technology has offered

the world to experience a radical shift in the way of

communicating occur among people and societies. The digital

10

revolution resolved, triggered by the connectedness of a

computer-driven and electronic based system which allows the

Internet and the World Wide Web. These advancements change

some aspects of the communication processes. Walther (2011)

explain these aspects as a state of individuated mass media,

the potential for simultaneous communication via computers of

both conceptually mass and interpersonal channels; one can

watch movies on one’s computer, at the same time of examining

detik.com while chatting about its content with a friend via

Instant Messenger, other can draw political news from a

blogger, and post an individual reaction on that blog as a

comment. In just the last few years, Web sites like Facebook,

MySpace, YouTube, and Flickr have become commonly used by

hundreds of millions of people. Services like Twitter, RSS

feeds, blogs and LinkedIn connect us in real time to the

thoughts and lives of thousands of people at once so that we

can assemble rivers of information in ways we simply never had

before.

More specifically, new communication technologies are

changing the manner of reception by which individual acquire

information from institutional, Interpersonal, and peer

information sources. The network society allowed individuals

for true interactivity whereby people could communicate more

easily across boundaries and other barriers than ever before.

Everyone would be connected to a network of interactive

communication in which everyone can be a communicator whom

capable of originating, retrieving, storing, and disseminating

messages. Technology changes the temporal and adjoining

11

presentations of these sources, and may in fact change the

information processing and social influence dynamics among

these sources. New communication technology has made

incredibly salient another information source, virtual

communities and other forms of peer-generated information,

which is accessible at a previously impossible level. This

addition may further affect the balance of sources of social

influence in several settings.

Dennis and DeFleur (2010) explain about how the role of

media in a society dominated by digital influence. The

technology driving so much of today does not operate in

vacuum, nor is it the only profound influence. Instead,

technology is part of an amalgam of forces –cultural, social,

political, and economic- that shape and influence all aspect

of communication. The capacity for interactivity and precise

targeting of new recruits for one’s personal communication

space, or community, offered by many digital media can provide

the mechanism to move from personal to intermediate

communication. Intermediate communication uses technology to

create communities for like-minded people with similar

interests or the same political or social views. These

communities can be closed systems, such as a kind of virtual

“private club” with an encoded website or a specific network

in MySpace. Alternatively, they can be open systems,

accessible to anyone who cares to connect with them, such as a

political movement that uses new technologies to reach its

followers and affords them a communicative role.

12

The consequence of being “networked” is more than

interaction with other users of the system and exchange

information. The decision on how to use the new interactivity

technologies are much more complex than simply deciding on

whether to operate the on-off button on our telephone set. We

are making highly individual personalized choices to become

not only the receivers of communication but also the senders

and the gatekeepers. As these new technologies make an

increasing impact on our lives, Bittner (2010) alert us on how

to “mass” media change, but also to how we use these “new”

media. Cathcart and Gumpert’s (1986) initially give termed the

“new typology” as “mediated interpersonal communication” which

defined as “any person-to-person interaction where a medium has been

interposed to transcend the limitation of time and space”. They argued that

new analytical are needed for such forms since the

interposition of media changes the quality and quantity of

information exchanged, influences personal behaviors and

attitudes, and shapes an individual’s self image.

Whatever its effects on information might be, it is

likely that the Internet has consequences on politics.

Irwansyah (2012) explain that for first the Internet enables

the creation and recreation of “spaces” where discussion and

deliberation on issues of common interest is possible. Next,

the use of the Internet enables traditional participation

activities to be undertaken more easily (such as contacting a

politician, signing a petition, making a donation, and others)

and reduces the costs of organizing and coordinating

collective action. Further, the Internet is an interactive

13

medium which increases contact options extremely efficiently

in terms of time investment and creates a communication-

intensive. Talking about politics and public affairs helps

citizens overcome uncertainty as they filter and make sense of

the macro-level political environment. Political talk also

enhances the value of mass-mediated news and information. Much

of the work on political work before has assumed it takes

place in a face-to-face context, however, with the uptake of

new media; scholars have begun to examine the links between

political discourse online and its relationship to

participation offline. Recent studies of mobile communication

report a positive association between using the technology to

discuss politics and public affairs (with anyone) and offline

participation. Democracy nowadays is so different since the

virtual public sphere gives us more open, tolerant, dynamic,

and flexible world to discuss.

In the context of Indonesia, since the Reformation Order

on 1998, Indonesians have enjoyed better freedom of press and

freedom of voice compare with previously New Order (1966-

1998). Indonesians became politically better informed; more

educated and had more choices. But since the Reformation Era,

direct election has been perceived as a celebration only for

the “haves” due to high-cost of campaigning. Existence of

Jokowi as governor candidate in Jakarta has changed the

phenomenon. Jokowi once was social media savvy. The

Awesometrics reputation monitoring tool reported that he was

the first candidate who effectively communicated through

social media. All campaign materials were uploaded to YouTube

14

and other social media channels. His campaign teams

successfully managed various campaign issues through social

media and built strong electability. An Awesometrics report

clearly showed that with the lowest budget, he successfully

climbed to be the most endorsed, credible and loved. Yoze

Rizal (2013), founder and director of Political Wave and Media

Wave counted that on the respective election, there are

562,000 tweets mention Jokowi compare to 395,000 tweets

mention to Fauzi Bowo, his rivalry. Those digital natives

created a theme song of Jokowi-Ahok and Flashmob to be

distributed in virtual space. All activity in social media was

initiated and funded personally.

Enda Nasution, the godfather of Indonesian bloggers,

declare that social media is Indonesia’s Fifth Estate, where

civil society can challenge well-established powers. Wasesa

(2013) appointed that in 2013, Indonesia has about 75 million

of the Internet users. For the Election 2014, 63% of the

voters are live in Java Island and 57% of them are young

people who familiar with media usage (media literacy). The

possibility of winning is bigger for the political candidates

who focus their campaign through social media.

By late February 2012, the number of Facebook users in

Indonesia has surpassed 43 million, third behind United States

and India. Indonesia is also among the most active Twitter

users in the world, making the country among the top five

globally. Still, this number does not guarantee the

increasing of political participation, even though Luengo

(2006) found out that general use of Internet is profoundly

15

connected to political activism and in a positive way. Hamid

(2013) from Change.org predict that political interest and

participation of netizen will divide unto 2 group, on one hand

a group of netizen who active politically in social media that

will participate actively in the election. In the other hand,

there is a group of active netizen in social media who

actively participated in other form of political activity. The

second group may hold their participation in the election due

to their mistrust of the current politicians. As an activist

and practitioner of social media, Usman Hamid observed that

they who actively participated, especially for politics, in

social media generally act differently when facing the real

politics due to their bad perception of politics as dirty and

corrupt. Political participation is the citizen’s activity for

influencing decision making process politically, based on the

position as a citizen, not as a politician or a public

servant. It should be done voluntarily, not be mobilized by

other individual or organization such as the ruling party.

Citizen’s political participation then depends on the

willingness of the person to involve politically.

The competition for presidency at the time will become an

interesting one to explore more. The incumbent cannot be

elected anymore, but it seems that Indonesia nowadays lack of

prospective candidate for presidency. Research results by some

research centers show that electability still dispersed

between previous candidates, such as Megawati, Prabowo.

Wiranto, and other. Jokowi’s name now smoothly is coming up,

but the rest comes from older generation. Younger generations

16

seem to be alienated from the political stage, nevertheless in

reality the older politicians show bad reputation according to

corruption and domination of capital oligarchy.

A study by Forrester Research found that the youth

incorporate digital media into their lives at a more rapidly

rate than any other generation (Irwansyah, 2012). All

generations adopt devices and Internet technologies, but

younger consumers are Net Natives. Therefore, while politics

comes to the Internet, new media and social media, the younger

generation have engaged in politics in interactive media and

developed digital democracy. For Indonesia case, this

generation born after the New Order collapsed, so their

behavior toward politics rather different than the older

generation; they are open, dynamic, and spontaneous, but

sometime very critical.

17

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE STUDY

The basic purpose of communication is the transfer of

meaning. During the entire life, individual is preoccupied

with the necessity of making himself or herself understood and

of attempting to understand others. Indeed, the character and

nature of individual’s personality, the attitudes he develops,

the opinions he expresses, and his success or failure in life

probably depend upon his mastery of the art of communication.

Individuals must effectively convey not only facts, ideas, and

ideals but also his or her emotions, hopes, fears, anxieties,

loves, achievements, and frustrations. He or her must evaluate

18

and represent both the mental and physical environments in

which he lives, and he must accurately describe, explain,

appreciate, and capitalize upon his life experiences. Failure

to effect at least a minimal orientation to life through the

communication process will probably result not only in failure

to establish a proper social adjustment but possibly also in a

breakdown in personality.

The development of the media for mass communication has

opened all possibilities for the transmission of information

(and mis-information) and the conveyance of influence

throughout the polity. In a political sense the elite at the

fulcrum of the decision-making process may speak to the mid-

elite, and the mid-elite to the public as a whole, on matter

of public policy. Not only has the potential for leadership

been greatly enhanced, but the relationship between candidate

and voter in the campaign process has also been permanently

altered.

The role the media play in the political system has been

steadily growing during the twentieth century. Also increasing

through the century has been the effective and controversial

use of political advertising in the media. Although television

has emerged as one of the most powerful political tools in

electronic campaigns, it has been by no means the only one. By

the 1990s, three forms of media were being used effectively by

political consultants; vote videos, direct mail and TV ads.

All three of these approaches are extremely expensive and have

driven the cost of political campaigns sky high. Vote videos

are professionally produced videotapes glorifying candidates.

19

The tapes can be shown at political convention or on cable TV

as infomercial and are often distributed to campaign workers

and voters. Direct mails are a letter from the candidate to

the voters.

The Internet brought more developments, especially in its

evolving with remarkable speed on delivering and sharing the

information and communication. The growing popularity of

social-networking systems like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook

just do make it easier for people everywhere to receive

information on their computers and cell phones, they also let

users broadcast information and communicate with friends or

strangers, be it text, still photographs, audio, or video.

The social media are tools that facilitate networking. As

tools, their emergence has been one example of something going

viral. Facebook was launched in February 2004, and as of

January 2011, the number of users has grown from zero to more

than 600 million persons. YouTube was founded in February

2005, and in May 2010, it was reported that YouTube was

serving more than two billion videos a day. Table below shows

the spread of the Internet and the Facebook penetration along

the total population of some countries, including Indonesia.

Table 2.1.The Spread of the Internet

(Percentage of totalpopulation) Internet

penetration

Cell phonepenetratio

n

Facebookpenetrat

ionChina 33.6% 62.8% 0.1% Egypt 24.3% 76.8% 6.5% Hong Kong 69.4% 150.5% 52.4% India 5.1% 63.2% 1.8%

20

Indonesia 8.7% 73.1% 14.2% Japan 78.0% 90.0% 1.7% Malaysia 55.9% 106.0% 38.5% Philippines 9.0% 73.6% 22.3% Singapore 68.3% 74.5% 47.1% South Korea 81.6% 97.2% 7.8% Taiwan 69.9% 110.6% 51.1% Thailand 25.8% 81.0% 11.8% USA 78.0% 91.0% 48.0% Vietnam 26.6% 38.8% 2.1%

(Source : Asean Intelligence, 2011)

Social media can be defined as “a way to transmit, or share

information with a broad audience, while social networking is an act of

engagement”(Hartshorn, 2010). For social media, all we really

need is an internet connection, a tool for delivering the

message. In social networking, we have to be grouped and tied

by the same likeness or common interest, communication is two-

way with the conversation and discussion as the core of

networking.

Wigmore (2012) define social media as “the collective of online

communications channels dedicated to community-based input, interaction,

content-sharing and collaborations. Websites and applications dedicated to

forums, microblogging, social networking, social bookmarking,

social curation, and wikis are among the different types of

social media.” Social media can be characterized by some

characteristics below :

1. ParticipationSocial media encourages the contribution and feedback frominterested participant. No one can blockade other for beinga participant in social media. Everyone can participate bytheir own intention.

21

2. OpennessSocial media services are open to feedback andparticipation, it encourages voting, comments or sharing ofinformation. There are rarely any barriers for accessing andmaking use the content.

3. ConversationRegarding of the content transmitted of distributed to anaudience, social media is better seen as a two wayconversation.

4. CommunitySocial media allows communities to form quickly andcommunicate effectively to share common interests inrelation with occupation, ethnic, education, profession orothers.

5. ConnectednessSocial media thrive on their connectedness, making use oflinks to other sites, resources and people. (Mayfield, 2008).

Research has provided some insights into the possible

effects of online discussions about both political races and

public service announcements (PSAs). Price and Cappella (2002)

found that online political discussion promoted civic

engagement; 60 groups of citizens engaged monthly in real-time

CMC discussions about issues facing the country and the

ongoing 2000 presidential campaign. Price and Cappella found

that discussion participants recalled more pro and con

arguments over issues than they had held before the

discussions. This change correlated with increases in

participants’ political knowledge. As a result of

participants’ online discussions, attitudes and behaviors were

altered: Those who had engaged in online political discussion

22

were more likely to vote and perform civic duties than

individuals who did not participate in the discussions.

Whether these effects are due in any way to CMC rather than

discussion per se was not addressed (in Walther, et.al., 2011,

p. 24).

What does the term community mean? Conventionally, it

refers to a group of people who live close enough to one

another to interact on a regular basis. More and more people

in our era belong to virtual communities. In traditional

communities, people lived together and had to make compromises

and accommodations to get along. In contrast, we can visit our

virtual communities no matter where we are. We can also tap

out of these communities with a few clicks. We are free to

join communities when we want to and to leave when it is

suits. We need not accommodate people and topics that don’t

interest us. Virtual communities may offer many of the

benefits of community without most of the responsibilities

that go along with belonging to a physical community –

responsibility to adapt to and accommodate others and, most of

all, to remain part of the community.

Cyberspace is a unique environment that affect how and

what we communicate. states that “many people feel they have

more freedom to express themselves on the Internet. It allows

people to say what they want without being easily

identifiable. John Suler (1999) in Julia T. Wood (2008) states

that “on line, people are free to express aspects of

themselves that they wouldn’t in other kinds of encounters.”

Electronic communities have potential to promote narrow-

23

mindedness, because people may join communities that share

their values and views. People who visit only sites, blogs,

and chat rooms that support the perspectives they already have

risk never learning about other perspectives and encountering

useful questioning about their own views. Members of many

virtual communities maintain and police community norms and

ignore or oust anyone whose ideas or style transgress those

norms.

Irwansyah (2012) noted that political leaders send

thousands of messages, called tweets, to millions of people,

who choose to follow them on Twitter. The messages that are

tweeted give a glimpse of how Twitter is influencing

campaigns, governance, and the relationship between political

leaders and the public. Some politicians direct followers to

timely police information, while other politicians interact

with followers to improve government services or share

personal thoughts.

Internet usage has generated a widespread and

controversial debate on its effects on political

participation. The Internet is an interactive medium which

increases contact options extremely efficiently in terms of

time investment and creates a communication-intensive

environment. In addition, the Internet enables the creation

and recreation of “spaces” where discussion and deliberation

of issues of common interest is possible (Karakaya, in

Irwansyah, 2012). Finally, the use of the Internet enables

traditional participation activities, such as signing a

petition or making a donation, to be undertaken more easily

24

and cost-reduced of organizing and coordinating collective

action (Bonchek, in Irwansyah, 2012).

According to the usage of social media for politics, in

2012, 17% of all adults posted links to political stories or

articles on social networking sites, and 19% posted other

types of political content. That is a six-fold increase from

the 3% of adults who posted political stories or links on

these sites in 2008. In 2012, 12% of all adults followed or

make friend a political candidate or other political figure on

a social networking site, and 12% belonged to a group on a

social networking site involved in advancing a political or

social issue. That is a four-fold increase from the 3% of

adults who took part in these behaviors in 2008.1

There is no doubt that social media had a huge impact on

the recent elections. In 2008, there were about 1.5 million

election-related tweets. In 2012, there were 31 million. The

population of people using social media has changed since that

time as well. In 2008, much of social media was dominated by

younger demographics. Now it reflects the population as a

whole. More than half this population engaged in some sort of

election-related social media behavior2. Narnia Bohler-Muller

and Charl van der Merwe (March 2011) report that the 2010/2011

revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were largely organized,

supported, and driven through the use of social media-based

tools, such as Facebook and Twitter. Social media was used for1 http://elections.firedoglake.com/2013/04/25/is-the-growth-of-social-media-in-politics-driving-issues-like-marriage-and-marijuana/ accessed 11th May 2013.

2 http://thesocialmediamonthly.com/how-social-media-has-changed-politics-its-not-just-tactics/ accessed 11th May 2013.

http://thesocialmediamonthly.com/how-social-media-has-changed-politics-its-not-just-tactics/


http://elections.firedoglake.com/2013/04/25/is-the-growth-of-social-media-in-politics-driving-issues-like-marriage-and-marijuana/


25

allowing extensive political expression. Calls for socio-

political transformation, then, heard on the streets of Tunis

and Cairo, and echoed around the glob, gaining much

sympathetic support internationally (in Irwansayh, 2012).

Social action depends upon the flow of influence among

individuals and groups in the community through the process of

communication. It is through discussion, criticism,

negotiation, debate, compromise, and special pleading that

opinions are expressed (and decisions made) that will

eventually be marshaled into purposeful public policy.

Individuals also have choices among media channels. What

people seek to gain from a medium may affect how they use that

channel and its message. Jay Blumler and Elihu Katz (1974)

describe the “uses and gratifications” of media to explain why

the same message may affect people differently. People go to

the media with different expectations and demands. One person

may be seeking an explanation for the latest presidential

action, whereas another individual may be searching for some

light comedy to ease the tension of a busy day. A television

news story detailing the president’s activities may provide

useful information to the one viewer, while the other may be

amused or bored, depending on the nature of story. Whether or

not is gratified depends on the uses one expects to make of

the media experience.

Political cognition has taken the study of communication

process a step further, focusing on the active role of

individuals in making sense of political messages. D.A.

Graber, for example, suggests that people process information

26

based on schema for various concepts and objects which they

develop over time and out of their own individual experiences

(Graber, 1988). The more developed the schema, the more likely

the individual is to be able to process complex information on

the topic. Samuel Popkin further argues that people utilize

heuristic “shortcuts” to reason about politics and that even

when people do not remember specific information, they may

have used that information to modify their thinking about

candidate (Popkin, 1991). Both authors show how individual

cognitive activity “tames the information tide”.

Studies of what people learn from political communication

show that the audience’s interest in the topic makes a

difference. W. Russell Neuman, Marion Just and Ann Crigler

(1992) find that people are better informed about issue

accessible to them in their daily lives and are able to learn

more about issues with which they are already familiar. People

who interested in most topics can learn as much as those who

are more cognitively skilled but not as interested.

Other researchers emphasized that individual’s political

ideologies, interests, and sophistication affect what they

comprehend about politics (Neuman 1986, Converse 1964). Neuman

points out that many people are unaware of the political world

in spite of the plenitude of information channels. He argues

that the public can be differentiated based on their level of

sophistication in politics. Shawn Rosenberg also

differentiates individuals, but he does so according to their

level of psychological development. Rosenberg shows that

people at higher levels think about politics in more and more

27

complex ways than people at lower levels (Rosenberg 1988).

Clearly, these differences in the sophistication and

psychological development of individuals affect the meaning

they give to political message.

Although political preference probably does change for

some people during the period of campaign, and some of these

changes may be directly linked to the mass media, it is

possible to argue that long term social, political and

economic change between elections is more significant for

predicting the election result (Negrine, 1994).

The major form of political behavior is political

participation. Political participation can be defines as “the

extent to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, the right of free

speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity”

(Munroe, 2002). Other definition states political

participation as “any activity that shapes, affects, or involves the political

sphere. Political participation ranges from voting to attending a rally to committing

an act of terrorism to sending a letter to a representative.”3

Herbert McClosky defined political participation as:

Those voluntary activities by which members of a societyshare in the selection of rulers and, directly orindirectly, in the formation of public policy. The term“apathy” will refer to a state of withdrawal from, orindifference to, such activities. These activitiestypically include voting, seeking information, discussingand proselytizing, attending meetings, contributingfinancially, and communicating with representatives. Themore “active” forms of participation include formalenrollment in a party, canvassing and registering voters,

3 http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/political-science/political-culture-and-public-opinion/section4.rhtml as accessed by May 11th, 2013

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/political-science/political-culture-and-public-opinion/section4.rhtml


28

speech writing and speechmaking, working in campaigns,and competing for public and party office. We shallexclude from this discussion such involuntary activitiesas paying taxes, serving in the armed forces, andperforming jury duty 4

From the definitions above, political participation can

be sum up as the activities conducted by individual or group

for participating actively in politics hence directly or

indirectly influence the policy. Activity may range from

passively just watching the political debate on television

show to actively vote for a candidate on the Election Day.

Political participation should be done as voluntary

activity, pull up by the motives for doing something for their

environment. It should be done without any pressure from

other, even the ruling party who will act only as facilitator

for the people participation. As to Michael Bratton (2009),

individual’s democratic commitments are linked to various

aspects of political participation. Political behavior seems

to drive political attitudes. Some participation in politics

may range from interest in politics, discuss politics, belong

to voluntary organization, voted in last election, contacted

government official, to protested or demonstrated. The

interest in politics likely relate with the openness of

society interacts with the intensity of political grievances

in determining actual levels of political interest, which in

turn bring the people to engage in political discourse and

discussion, and finally to other activities.

4 http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Political_Participation.aspx as accessed by August 30th, 2013

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Political_Participation.aspx

29

Furthermore, Munroe (2002) emphasize that political

participation can be subdivided into two (2) categories, the

conventional political participation and second, the

unconventional political participation. Conventional political

participation takes place within the norms and traditions of a

particular country; therefore, we say it is as a normal,

conventional, and customary activity. Usually it is the less

aggressive of the two, activities that we expect as good

citizens. The best example is the act of voting that occurs

every few years at election time. Others include attending a

political meeting, being a member of a political group or a

political party, volunteering for a political campaign, making

a campaign donation, belongs to activist group, and serving in

public office. People strongly committed to politics are more

likely to participate on a regular basis.

Second, unconventional political participation tends to

move outside the norms, move outside the traditional, and be

more aggressive, more assertive, and may even break the law.

Activities that are legal but often considered inappropriate.

It is also more radical. The best examples are protests and

staging demonstrations that are confrontational rather than

peaceful. Other activities include signing petitions,

supporting boycotts. Young people, students, and those with

grave concerns about a regime’s policies are most likely to

engage in unconventional participation.

Other mentions another type of political participation,

the illegal participation. This type includes the activities

that break the law. Most of the time, people resort to illegal

30

participation only when legal means have failed to create

significant political change. Some examples of illegal

political participation include political assassination,

terrorism, and sabotaging an opponent’s campaign through theft

or vandalism.

Political participation may be influenced by several

factors. Discussion networks characteristics, namely size and

heterogeneity, may have significant impact on political

participation. With regard to size, research consistently

shows that members of larger discussion network tend to more

politically engaged. Frequency of political discourse, number

of network ties, and the extent to which those ties are

likeminded can all affect political participation (Campbell &

Kwak, 2011). The openness of society interacts with the

intensity of political grievances in determining actual levels

of political interest (Bratton, 2009). Interest in politics

usually prompts people to engage in political discourse.

Further this will pull the person to participate actively in

politics.

Nevertheless, the present study examines the influence of

exposure to media on political participation shows that

negative media content leads to political disaffection,

further to political in-activism. Other study also shows that

exposure to political media content –regardless of its tone-

leads to informed and mobilized citizens (Luengo, 2006).

31

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROBLEM, OBJECTIVE & OUTCOMES

3.1. Research Problem

In many countries, young people participate less than

older citizens in most formal political process. In Indonesia

case, the number of non-voters, which are dominated by young

people, is increasing from election to another election, 10,21

% in Election 1999, to 23,34 % in Election 2004, and the last

39,10 % in Election 2009 (Sodikin, Amir and Nina Susilo. (2013).

This trend arise a great concern that the number of non-voters

for Election 2014 will be increasing, especially for the

younger generations. For young people, politics seem to be too

formal for involving; some even are trying to refuse of

talking about politics.

Traditionally, mass communication processes have been

conceptualized as one-way-message-transmission from one source

to a large, relatively undifferentiated and anonymous

32

audience. In other side, interpersonal communication processes

involve smaller numbers of participants who exchange messages

designed for, and directed toward, particular others.

Interpersonal communication has been considered as two-way

message exchange between two or more individuals in which

communication strategies are shaped by the instrumental and

relational goals of the individuals involved, and knowledge

about one another’s particular preferences. Katz & Lazarfeld

(1955) state that the manner in which most people form and

change opinions of politics, style, and other cultural issues

is well-known to involve mass media messages and interpersonal

discussions. This face-to-face interaction is less flexible

than social media in that it is place-based even more so

considering individuals must occupy shared space. Individuals

must either make prior arrangements to talk in person or rely

on the chance encounter.

But, social media blogs and other online tools can give

educated young citizens a voice for political activism, an

open channel for direct feedback between government officials

and youth. Social media has enjoyed an exponential increase in

popularity around teenager and young people. Social media has

become a place where the teenager and young people can express

their opinion and feeling overtly. Internet usage has

generated a widespread and controversial debate on its effects

on political participation. Early research (Campbell & Kwak,

2011) suggest that political communication on social

networking sites relate with political participation; a

significant moderating effect for like-mindedness of strong

33

ties, but not for weak ones, on associations between online

and offline political participation. Social media afford

heightened flexibility for discussing politics and public

affairs by allowing users to connect virtually anytime-

anywhere.

Social media afford heightened flexibility for discussing

politics and public affairs by allowing users to connect

virtually anytime-anywhere. Bucy, D’Angelo & Newhagen (in

Mustaqim, et.al., 2006) found that media usage, including the

Internet, encourage political participation rather than

political alienation. Of course, “promoting active citizenship

is a social, not a technological activity”; making aspects of

which one is connected with as important as the medium itself.

A research reported a significant moderating effect for like-

mindedness of strong ties, but not for weak ones, on

associations between online and offline political

participation (Campbell, et al., 2011).

In the past years, social media has enjoyed an

exponential increase in popularity in teenager and young

people. Social media has become a place where the teenager and

young people can express their opinion and feeling overtly.

Early research suggests that political communication on social

networking sites has a relationship with political

participation. The youth incorporated digital media into their

lives at a faster rate than any other generation. All

generation adopt devices and Internet technology, but younger

consumers are Net Natives (Brown, in Irwansyah, 2012).

According to National Census, there will be 19,7 million of

34

early voters for Election 2014, aged between 17-21 years old

(Sodikin, et.al., 2013). They are digital natives. As the

sovereign of social media; they fill the public sphere with

scorching, high-speed, and hasty comment for every attractive

issue; just a moment before moving to other issue abruptly.

Hence, while politics comes to the Internet, new media, and

social media, younger generation have engaged in politics in

interactive media and developed digital democracy (Montgomery,

Nold, in Irwansyah, 2012). It is interesting then to study the

usage of social media by the teenager and young people for

politics.

3.2. Research Objectives & Outcomes

This research is conducted especially to achieve some

purposes, mainly as follow :

a. To identify the content and the usage of social media,

based on pattern of ties and network size for early voter

in interacting for politics.

b. To identify the type of participation that early voters

take apart in politics

c. To identify the role of social medua usage toward political

participation of early voters, especially in Election 2014.

Academically, this research will show the role of social

media as medium for interaction between teenager and young

people in Indonesia. Further, the study will reveal kind of

political activities of teenager and young people when they

take participation politically. The result will enrich

theories and concepts in political communication field.

35

Practically, this research will support the usage of

social media by political candidates and activists in order to

maximize the dissemination of their idea and opinion. Further,

the candidate and activist can increase the empowerment of

social media in maintaining their relationship with their

supporters.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH METHOD

36

Based on research problem above, research questions of

this study can be summarized as follow:

1. What kind of social media content and usage the early voters

do in social media, especially for discussing politics?

2. What kind of participation the early voters do for politics?

3. What and how is the relationship between social interaction

through social media and political participation of early

voters?

Considering that question Number 1 and 2 are descriptive,

the research hypothesis for question number 3 for can be

derived as follow:

“Social media usage have a positively relationship toward political participation of

early voters in Election 2014”

H1 : There is a correlation between social media usage

and the political participation of

early voters in election 2014

H0 : There is no correlation between social media usage


early voters inn election 2014

To answer the previously-stated research questions, there

will be two (2) methods used in this research as follow:

1. To answer the social media content, especially Twitter, data

mining will be used by exploring all the tweets and

discussions in the Twitter. Data mining will be conducted

37

for every month starting from April 2014 until October 2014

(7 months).

2. To answer the social media usage and kind of participation

of early voters, a survey will be conducted. Survey is “a

structured questionnaire given to a sample of a population and designed to elicit

specific information from respondents”5 Survey has been conducted in

6 provinces, based on the total number of voters. The

provinces which have highest total number of voters for

Election 2014 are (1) Jawa Barat, (2) Jawa Timur, and (3)

Jawa Tengah. Combine with 2 other provinces in region, DKI

Jakarta and Banten, there will be 5 provinces as the

location of research. Thus, the cities that will be chosen

are (1) Jakarta, (2) Serang, (3) Bandung, (4) Surabaya, (5)

Di Jogjakarta, and (6) Solo. For each city, questionnaires

have been distributed to third grade (kelas 3) of senior

high school students, both for public and private school.

Number of respondents can be read on the table 4.1.

Table 4.1.Location and Number of Respondents

Frequency

Percent ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

Bandung 237 23.1 23.1 23.1Jogjakarta

127 12.4 12.4 35.4

Solo 80 7.8 7.8 43.2Serang 79 7.7 7.7 50.9Surabaya

227 22.1 22.1 73.0

Jakarta 277 27.0 27.0 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

5 Malhotra, ibid. p. 179

38

Unit analysis for this research is individual. Usage of

social media will be explained by four-item index; number of

social media account and duration of ownership. Their

frequency in accessing the social media, and activities the do

while they are accessing it. Scaling techniques that will be

used for measuring the social interaction is interval scale.

Political activity will be explained by a two-item index;

online and offline participation. Respondent were asked

whether they had voted in the past presidential election, had

contributed money to a political organizations or candidate,

had worked for a campaign, or had attended a political rally

or meeting (Iyengar, 1991). Interest in politics was tapped with

three questions. Respondents indicated how often they

discussed “politics and public affairs” with people they knew,

how often they “follow what’s going on in government” and how

much attention they “usually give” to news about government

and politics. Political information was defined in issue-

specific terms. That is in any particular experiments,

participant’s information scores reflect information about the

issues.

4 types of involvement in traditional forms of political

participation are (1) attending a political meeting, rally, or

speech, (2) working for a candidate or a party, (3) contacting

a public official or a political party, (4) contributing money

to a candidate or a political party, and (5) voting. Scaling

techniques that will be used for measuring is interval scales.

39

For data analysis, this research will use formula Pearson

to measure the correlation.

40

CHAPTER V

RESULTS ACHIEVED

As discussed before, this study explored the role of

social media toward political participation of early voters in

Election 2014. Thus, the research result will be divided into

three sub-chapter in explaining (1) The social media usage of

early voters in Election 2014, (2) the type of participation

they take apart in politics, and (3) Role of social media

usage toward political participation of early voters in

Election 2014.

As an introduction, there are below tables of

respondents’ profile of religion, gender, monthly pocket money

and money they spent for buying phone credit per month.

Table 5.1.Religion

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

No answer

4 .4 .4 .4

Moslem 700 68.2 68.2 68.5Christian

241 23.5 23.5 92.0

Catholic 82 8.0 8.0 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

41

Just to reflect the composition largely, majorly the respondents are Moslem, followed by Christian and Catholic.

Table 5.2.Gender

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

No answer 22 2.1 2.1 2.1Male 415 40.4 40.4 42.6Female 590 57.4 57.4 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

For the gender, mostly the respondents are female, even

though the percentage fairly balance for the female and male.

Table 5.3.Money For Phone Credit Per Month

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

No answer 8 .8 .8 .8Less than Rp.50.000 342 33.3 33.3 34.1Rp.50.000 - <Rp.100.000

427 41.6 41.6 75.7

Rp.100.000 - <Rp.150.000

197 19.2 19.2 94.8

Rp.150.000 - <Rp.200.000

40 3.9 3.9 98.7

Rp. 200.000 or more 13 1.3 1.3 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

Table 5.3. shows that almost three quarter of the

respondents spent less than Rp. 100.000 per month for buying

phone credit. 41,6 % of them spent between Rp. 50.000 to Rp.

100.000. Providers indeed give their customers a possibility

42

to enjoy social networking through social media by buying a

credit package as their customers preference; daily, weekly,

or monthly. Respondent then can choose suitable package that

do not harm their monthly money pocket.

Table 5.4.Money Pocket Per Month

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

No answer 12 1.2 1.2 1.2less than Rp.250.000 185 18.0 18.0 19.2Rp.250.000 - <Rp.500.000

404 39.3 39.3 58.5

Rp.500.000 - <Rp750.000

220 21.4 21.4 79.9

Rp.750.000 - < Rp.1.000.000

108 10.5 10.5 90.5

Rp.1.000.000 or more 98 9.5 9.5 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

Table 5.4. shows that respondents mostly (39,3%) got Rp.

250.000 – Rp. 500.000 per month for their monthly pocket.

Considering of daily needs, it can be stated that most of the

respondents got adequate money for their daily living.

5.1. Media Social Usage

The first objective of this research is to identify the

content and the usage of social media, based on pattern of

ties and network size for early voter in interacting for

politics. The social media usage will be measured by the

43

number of social media account owned by respondents, duration

of owning, frequency in accessing the account and kind of

activities respondents do while they connected with the social

media.

Table 5.5.Social Media Account Ownership

SocialMedia

Yes No NoAnswer

Total

Account f % f % f % f %Facebook 980 95.

415 1.5 32 3.1 1027 100

Twitter 909 88.5

29 2.8 89 8.7 1027 100

LinkedIn 98 9.5 320 31.2

609 59.3

1027 100

Line 834 81.2

33 3.2 160 15.6

1027 100

YouTube 720 70.1

51 9.0 256 24.9

1027 100

Path 657 64.0

99 9.6 271 26.4

1027 100

Instagram 735 71.6

84 8.2 208 20.3

1027 100

Blog 309 30.1

256 24.9

462 45.0

1027 100

MailingList

108 10.5

300 29.2

619 60.3

1027 100

Others 89 8.7 63 6.1 875 85.2

1027 100

Table 5.5. shows the most owned social media account is

Facebook (95,4%), followed by Twitter (88,5%). As launched in

44

Februari 2004, the number of Facebook account has reached

about more than 600 million person in 2011 (Asean

Intelligence, 2011) and appointed in first position on social

media networking. Compare with Table 2.1. of The Spread of the

Internet, Indonesia have 14,2 % of Facebook penetration. As

with Twitter itself has become a popular social media, too, in

Indonesia.

Other relative newer social media; Line, Path, Instagram,

are getting their roots, too along the youth. Each social

media have its own unique attributes, hence users usually have

several social media account to accommodate their needs and

wants in social networking. Even though respondents’ ownership

on these three social media network relatively less than

Facebook and Twitter, but all media work well together for

facilitating the networking between youth.

The other social media network, Line and MailingList

attracted less users due to its uniqueness as one for

accommodating work and professional relationships. Respondents

have not considered to have an account on both network, yet

around 10% of them considered to starting early in their

professional networking.

Table 5.6.Length of Ownership (Years)

SocialMedia

1 2 3 4 < 4 NoAnswer

Total

Account f % f % f % f % f % f % f %

45

Facebook

12 1.2

51 5.0

110

10.7

142

13.8

651

63.4

61 5.9

1027

100

Twitter 50 4.9

153

14.9

224

21.8

254

24.7

220

21.4

126

12.3

1027

100

LinkedIn

45 4.4

25 2.4

11 1.1

- - - - 946

92.1

1027

100

Line 319

31.1

354

34.5

107

10.4

24 2.3

10 1.0

213

20.7

1027

100

YouTube 102

9.9

140

13.6

83 8.1

55 5.4

78 7.6

569

55.4

1027

100

Path 371

36.1

175

17.0

36 3.5

12 1.2

7 0.7

426

41.5

1027

100

Instagran

374

36.4

206

20.1

72 7.0

17 1.7

12 1.2

346

33.7

1027

100

Blog 66 6.4

56 5.5

40 3.9

50 4.9

92 9.0

723

70.4

1027

100

MailingList

10 1.0

11 1.1

8 0.8

8 0.8

71 6.9

919

89.5

1027

100

Others 40 3.9

22 2.1

8 0.8

7 0.7

12 1.2

938

91.3

1027

100

Table 5.6. shows that most respondents (63.4%) own

Facebook longer than other social media. For Twitter, the

duration of ownership rather varied from 3 years, 4 years and

more than 4 years. Due to the late launching, newer social

media are owned less than the other two, only 1 or 2 years

before. Most of the respondents give no answer for the

duration since they might not aware of the time when they

engaged with the social media network.

46

Table 5.7.Frequency of Accessing the Account

Frequencyto Access

Never VeryRarely

Sometimes

AlmostEveryda

y

Everyday

Regularly

NoAnswer

Total

TheAccount

f % f % f % f % f % f % f %

Facebook 95 9.3 - - 794 77.3

69 6.7 40 3.9 29 2.8 1027

100

Twitter 64 6.2 231

22.5

485 47.2

130

12.7

56 5.5 61 5.9 1027

100

LinkedIn 339

33.0

23 2.2 8 0.8 - - 1 0.1 656

63.9

1027

100

Line 42 4.1 76 7.4 218 21.2

164

16.0

331

32.2

196

19.1

1027

100

YouTube 62 6.0 102

9.9 362 35.2

174

16.9

45 4.4 282

27.5

1027

100

Path 118

11.5

59 5.7 188 18.3

195

19.0

186

18.1

281

27.4

1027

100

Instagran 101

9.8 70 6.8 191 18.6

232

22.6

221

21.5

212

20.6

1027

100

Blog 253

24.6

160

15.6

114 11.1

14 1.4 12 1.2 474

46.2

1027

100

MailingList

10 1.0 11 1.1 8 0.8 8 0.8 71 6.9 919

89.5

1027

100

Others 51 5.0 4 0.4 23 2.2 25 2.4 63 6.1 861

83.8

1027

100

47

For accessing the social media network, the highest

percentage (77,3%) goes to Facebook, but only sometime> for

everyday accessing, most respondents (32,2%) use Line. For

other social media network, the frequency of accessing rather

varied.

48

Table 5.8.Activity Doing After Being Exposed to Social Media Content

No.

Never VeryRarely

Sometimes

AlmostEveryday

Everyday

Regularly

NoAnswer

Total

f % f % f % f % f % f % f %1 If it is news sharing, I

will look for officialsource online

109

10.6

163

15.9

476

46.3

185

18.0

66 6.4

28

2.7

1027

100

2 Looking for deeperexplanation in printedand electronic media

61 5.9

119

11.6

521

50.7

239

23.3

60 5.8

27

2.6

1027

100

3 I always follow then share political news through my account

250

24.3

339

33.0

337

32.8

57 5.6

17 1.7

27

2.6

1027

100

4 I only look for an interesting news and discussion of politics

95 9.3

125

12.2

468

45.6

239

23.3

73 7.1

27

2.6

1027

100

5 I discuss the political news with my friends andfollowers

342

33.3

329

32.0

261

25.4

52 5.1

16 1.6

27

2.6

1027

100

6 I always follow the political comments sharing by the experts

336

32.7

295

28.7

283

27.6

68 6.6

18 1.8

27

2.6

1027

100

49

7 I consider the expert comment for decision making

256

24.9

251

24.4

355

34.6

107

10.4

28 2.7

30

2.9

1027

100

8 I discuss with my familyin decision making, ex. Vote for president

129

12.6

154

15.0

448

43.6

201

19.6

66 6.4

29

2.8

1027

100

9 I debate the other for their opposite opinion

153

14.9

212

20.6

436

42.5

166

16.2

33 3.2

27

2.6

1027

100

10 I discuss with my friends in decision making, ex. Vote for president

164

16.0

206

20.1

436

42.5

148

14.4

46 4.5

27

2.6

1027

100

50

Table 5.8 shows the activities done by respondents while

they connected with social media. When be exposed by a

political news, only 50.7 % respondent claimed for looking

deeper explanation in other media, both printed and

electronic. Less than half, 46,3% looked for an official

source and only 32,8% shared the information with their

friends or followers.

Less than half of the respondents, 45.6 % only look for

interesting political news or discussion. They do not discuss

the political news with their friends and followers. They do

not follow any expert comment shared by others.

The favorable activities respondents sometimes do discuss

with their family (43.6%) and their friends (42.5 %) when they

have to make a decision toward politics. Sometimes they do

debate whenever others have opposite opinion.

Respondents’ answer to 20 questions then are added for

calculating the score of respondents’ social media usage. The

highest expected value is 100. The observed value then be

categorized unto 3 category; Low - Moderate – High with the

score of each category is as follow :

Less than 45 = Low

46 – less than 74 = Moderate

74 – 100 = High

The scale then converted from Interval to Ordinal, Low =

1, Moderate = 2, High = 3. The category can be read in the

table 5.9.

51

Table 5.9.Category of Social Media Usage

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

Low 253 24.6 24.6 24.6Moderate

600 58.4 58.4 83.1

High 174 16.9 16.9 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

Table 5.9 shows that respondent’s social media usages

are on Moderate category, means they have been connected with

the social media but only use it moderately or whenever they

available to access it.

Second research question in this research is to identify

the content that respondents read or are exposed mostly in

social media. Due to some difficulties to explore the content

in closed network, this research will explore the contents

that are broadcasted in open social media, such as Twitter.

Data mining was conducted for 7 months, from April – October

2014 when Indonesia has 2 times of election; Legislative

election in April and Presidency election in July. The

trending topics pooled on some issue, the mostly commented and

shared are tweets on the candidate (Prabowo and Jokowi), the

election process, Indonesian government, political parties,

and legislative house. Total data can be read in the table

5.10.

Table 5.10.Content in Social Media

52

April May June July August September

October

The candidates

>3.700.000

3.100.000

>14.000.000

<13.000.000

>13.000.000

>11.000.000

Election >4.000.000

>3.000.000

>16.000.000

>14.000.000

<13.000.000

>11.000.000

>10.000.000

Indonesian Government

>3.000.000

<3.000.000

>4.000.000

>4.000.000

<2.000.000

>11.000.000

<5.000.000

Political Parties

154.829 167.744 174.720 106.736 90.464 73.852 36.554

Legislative House

2616 3246 2730 3074 3076 10.678 10.922

5.2. Political Participation

The second research question in this study is to identify

the type of participation that early voters take apart in

politics. Political participation can be held online or

offline. To measure political participation, there are some

questions to be answered for measuring respondents’

participation; 6 questions for online participation and 11

questions for offline participation.

53

Table 5.11 shows data regarding of the online activities

done by respondents while connected with social media in

Election 2014. In social media, people usually do kinds of

activities, such as mentioning, forwarding, liking, or

donating online for candidate or political party activity.

For 6 activities stated in Table 5.11, the highest

percentage (39.3 %) goes to “give a like sign to political

information or news”, followed by (35.6 %) for “liking a

political comment”. Giving a like sign to information, news or

comments become an easier way for respondents to do their

participation in politics.

Other activities such as mentioning an information from

expert, forwarding the news and information to group or

friends’ account, commenting a political information and news,

or donating electronically to political events do not become a

participation for most respondents, since their highest

responses to the question are never (around 40% or more).


calculating the score of respondents’ online political

participation. The highest expected value is 30. The observed

value then be categorized unto 3 category; Low - Moderate –

High with the score of each category is as follow :

Less than 14 = Low


23 – 30 = High


1, Moderate = 2, High = 3. The category can be read in table

5.12.

54

55

Table 5.11.Online Participation

No.

Online Participation Never VeryRarely

Sometimes

AlmostEveryda

y

Everyday

Regularly

NoAnswer

Total

f % f % f % f % f % f % f %1 Mentioning an information from expert 40

639.5

263

25.6

267 26.0

39 3.8 15 1.5 37

3.6

1027

100

2 Forwarding the news and information to group or friends’ account

373

36.3

272

26.5

288 28.0

50 4.9 9 0.9 35

3.4

1027

100

3 Liking a political information or news 219

21.3

208

20.3

404 39.3

122

11.9

39 3.8 35

3.4

1027

100

4 Commenting a political information or news in website,group or account

379

36.9

259

25.2

288 28.0

48 4.7 14 1.4 39

3.8

1027

100

5 Liking a political comment from friends 270

26.3

248

24.1

366 35.6

78 7.6 31 3.0 34

3.3

1027

100

6 Donating online to candidate or political partyactivity

617

60.1

185

18.0

157 15.3

20 1.9 10 1.0 38

3.7

1027

100

56

Table 5.12.Online Participation

Frequency

Percent

ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid

Low 704 68.5 68.5 68.5Moderate 301 29.3 29.3 97.9High 22 2.1 2.1 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

Table 5.12 shows that for online political participation,

the category is low (68.5%), means that respondent have not

put their political action as needed for become a good

citizen.

Table 5.13.Offline Participation

No.

Yes Never NoAnswer

Total

f % f % f % f %1 Being a volunteer in campaign - - 46 4.5 98

195.5 102

7100

2 Being a member of success team 34 3.3 827

80.5

166

16.2 1027

100

3 Attending a political meeting 12 1.2 843

82.1

172

16.7 1027

100

4 Participating in campaign 74 7.2 789

76.8

164

16.0 1027

100

5 Being a member of political party or organization

15 1.5 840

81.8

172

16.7 1027

100

6 Donating to a candidate 24 2.3 836

81.4

167

16.3 1027

100

7 Donating for political party 28 2.7 835

81.3

164

16.0 1027

100

8 Sharing information about political events

498

48.5

397

38.7

132

12.9 1027

100

9 Voting for legislative member (DPR, DPRD, DPD)

276

26.9

614

59.8

137

13.3 1027

100

10 Voting for president 45 44. 45 44. 11 11.5 102 10

6 4 3 1 8 7 011 Put the sticker of candidate or party

at house or car159

15.5

734

71.5

134

13.0 1027

100

Respondents only do sharing information about political

events (48.5%) and voting for the president (44.4%). Other

activities in offline political participation, such as being a

volunteer in campaign, being a member of success team,

attending a political meeting or even became political member,

are not conducted by the respondents. Few respondents (15.5%)

do a little action by putting the sticker of candidate or

party at house or car.


calculating the score of respondents’ offline political

participation. The highest expected value is 33. The observed

value then be categorized unto 3 category; Low - Moderate –

High with the score of each category is as follow :

Less than 18 = Low


27 – 33 = High



table 5.14.

Table 5.14.Category of Offline Participation

Frequency

Percent ValidPercent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Low 983 95.7 95.7 95.7Moderate 39 3.8 3.8 99.5

High 5 .5 .5 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

For offline political participation, the category is low

(95.7%), means that respondents took less active action in

politics.

Respondents’ answer to all 17 questions for political

participation then are added for calculating the score of

respondents’ political participation. The highest expected

value is 63. The observed value then be categorized unto 3

category; Low - Moderate – High with the score of each

category is as follow :

Less than 33 = Low


49 – 63 = High



table 5.15.

Table 5.15.Category of Political Participation

Frequency Percent ValidPercent

CumulativePercent

Valid Low 905 88.1 88.1 88.1Moderate

114 11.1 11.1 99.2

High 8 .8 .8 100.0Total 1027 100.0 100.0

Overall, the political participation of early voters in

Election 2014 can be categorized as low (88.1%). It means that

most of the respondents do not take apart in politics.

5.3. Correlation between Social Media Usage and Political

Participation

This research aims to measure the correlation between

social media usage and political participation. Hypothesis for

question number 3 for can be derived as follow:

“Social media usage have a positively relationship toward political participation of

early voters in Election 2014”

H1 : There is a correlation between social media usage


early voters in election 2014

H0 : There is no correlation between social media usage


early voters inn election 2014

Before measure the correlation, the reliability of data

should be analyzed first by using formula alpha from Cronbach.

The results are presented on Table 5.16.

Table 5.16.Reliability Test

Cronbach'sAlpha

N ofItems

.907 57

Scale StatisticsMean Variance Std.

DeviationN ofItems

92.68 598.484 24.464 57

Case Processing SummaryN %

Cases Valid 1026 99.9

Excludeda 1 .1Total 1027 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Item-Total StatisticsScale Meanif ItemDeleted

ScaleVariance ifItem Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if

Item DeletedSocial Media Account - Facebook

90.76 594.795 .199 .906

Years of Ownership - Facebook

88.53 577.605 .280 .906

Frequency of Accessing - Facebook

90.58 593.652 .091 .907

Social Media Account - Twitter

90.88 587.239 .389 .905

Years of Ownership - Twitter

89.62 560.493 .468 .904

Frequency of Accessing - Twitter

89.98 581.801 .283 .906

Social Media Account - LinkedIn

92.18 588.884 .284 .906

Years of Ownership - LinkedIn

92.56 594.842 .149 .906

Frequency of Accessing - LinkedIn

92.28 588.709 .327 .906

Social Media Account - Line

91.03 584.735 .372 .905

Years of Ownership - Line

91.23 577.913 .380 .905

Frequency of Accessing - Line

89.61 563.982 .355 .906

Social Media Account - YouTube

91.23 579.968 .427 .905

Years of Ownership - YouTube

91.47 566.058 .383 .905

Frequency of Accessing - YouTube

90.47 564.216 .419 .905

Social Media Account - Path

91.31 577.189 .489 .904

Years of Ownership - Path

91.80 574.322 .503 .904

Frequency of Accessing - Path

90.24 553.836 .460 .904

Social Media Account - Instagram

91.17 579.541 .469 .904

Years of Ownership - Instagram

91.58 574.456 .446 .904

Frequency of Accessing - Instagram

89.91 559.807 .407 .905

Social Media Account - Blog

91.83 578.588 .467 .904

Years of Ownership - Blog

91.75 564.791 .390 .905

Frequency of Accessing - Blog

91.68 573.744 .416 .904

Social Media Account - MailingList

92.18 586.139 .361 .905

Years of Ownership - MailingList

92.25 580.555 .250 .906

Frequency of Accessing - MailingList

91.96 578.368 .337 .905

Social Media Account - Others

92.45 592.587 .191 .906

Years of Ownership - Others

92.49 590.406 .207 .906

Frerquency of Accessing - Others

92.15 584.197 .185 .907

Activity-1 89.83 568.910 .532 .903Activity-2 89.65 571.846 .520 .903Activity-3 90.49 574.110 .485 .904Activity-4 89.69 571.936 .474 .904Activity-5 90.67 573.110 .499 .904Activity-6 90.60 573.676 .466 .904Activity-7 90.36 571.872 .471 .904Activity-8 89.85 570.359 .486 .904Activity-9 90.04 573.669 .450 .904Activity-10 90.05 571.069 .486 .904

Online Participation - 1

90.77 571.000 .532 .903


90.71 571.390 .530 .903


90.22 568.375 .520 .903


90.71 570.948 .524 .903


90.41 569.150 .525 .903


91.14 580.233 .389 .905

Offline Participation- 1

92.64 597.166 .126 .907


91.78 589.404 .339 .906


91.83 590.951 .343 .906


91.70 590.078 .245 .906


91.82 590.549 .349 .906


91.80 591.021 .301 .906


91.79 590.838 .299 .906


90.84 578.310 .335 .905


91.28 584.641 .259 .906


90.91 584.297 .234 .906


91.50 589.762 .194 .906

For reliability test, only 57 out of 62 questions be

analyzed due to the significance of the question for the study

itself. The analysis shows that all 57 questions have score

above 0.9, means that all question reliable and can be used

for measuring the correlation.

Table 5.17Correlation Test

SocialMediaUsage

PoliticalParticipat

ionSocial Media Usage

Pearson Correlation

1 .423**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 1027 1027

Political Participation

Pearson Correlation

.423** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 1027 1027

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

This research use formula Pearson for measuring the

correlation since the data used is interval. Table above

shows that with total sample 1027, alpha score is o.ooo means

significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation can be

accepted with coefficient of correlation is 0.423 or moderate.

It means that only 42.3% of the political participation can be

influenced by social media usage, the rest is influenced by

other factors.

CHAPTER VI

PLAN FOR NEXT STAGE OF RESEARCH

Based on current results and progress, there are two (2)

ways of action needed for following up this research. There

are:

1. In the case of social media usage variable, the dimension

can be extended to the way of respondents connected with

social media, in term of hardware and its utility.

2. In the term of data analysis techniques, it will be good for

next stage to analysis it by using Path Analysis for

Sequential Equation Model, thus a modeling of social media

networking can be developed.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1. Conclusion

Based on this research accomplishment, there are some

conclusions that can be noted as follow :

1. The social media usages are on Moderate category, means they

have been connected with the social media but only use it

moderately or whenever they available to access it. Facebook

and Twitter become two most popular and longer social media

network owned by early voters, however they tend to connect

more on newer social media network such as Line, Path and

Instagram. Most of the respondents have more than one

account to accommodate their needs in maintaining their

relationship and networking. While they are connecting with

a social media and be exposed by political information, only

half of them are doing something actively, such as looking

deeper explanation in other source or going to the official

source. Mostly do not discuss the political news with their

friends and followers. They do not follow any expert comment

shared by others. However, half of them admit for having

discussion with their family and/or friends when they have

to make a decision toward politics.

2. The political participation of early voters in Election 2014

can be categorized as low. It means that most of the

respondents do not take apart in politics, online and

offline. Giving a like sign on information, news, or

comments become an easier way to participate online-ly in

politics. Offline, young voters only do sharing information

about political events and voting for the president.

3. Research results show that there is a slightly weak

correlation between social media usage and political

participation. Correlation can be accepted with coefficient

of correlation is 0.423 or moderate. It means that only

42.3% of the political participation can be influenced by

social media usage, the rest is influenced by other factors.

7.2. Recommendations

Based on this research results, there are some

recommendations can be noted as follow :

1. it is strongly recommended to have further research for

studying the other factors which influence the role of

social media toward political participation.

2. Since the political participation of early voters in

Election 2014 is very low, for the Election in the future,

it is strongly recommended for every parties involved with

political issue to empower the social media for attracting

youth to participate more by provide them with attractive

message about politics.

REFERENCES

Abidin, Indira. (2013). “A New Style of PoliticalCommunication; Engaging With the People of Indonesia”,http://www.ipra.org/itl/03/2013/a-new-style-of-political-communications-engaging-with-the-people-of-indonesia

Alexander, Alison & Jarice Hanson, (2001), Taking Sides;Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Mass Media andSociety, sixth edition, USA : McGraw-Hill.

Arifin, Anwar. (2003). Tujuan Komunikasi Politik. Jakarta :Lembaga Pendidikan Kader (LPK) DPP Partai Golkar.

Bittner, John R. Mass Communication; an Introduction. 5th

edition. USA : Prentice Hall.

Bratton, Michael. (2009). “Democratic Attitudes and PoliticalParticipation: an Exploratory Comparison across WorldRegions”. Paper prepared for the Congress of theInternational Political Science Association, Santiago,Chile.

Budiardjo, Miriam. (1998). Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik. Jakarta :PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Budiharsono, Suyuti. (2003). Politik Komunikasi. Jakarta : PT.Grasindo.

Campbell, Scott W. & Nojin Kwak. (2011). “Political Involvement in‘Mobilized’ Society: The Interactive Relationships among MobileCommunication, Network Characteristics, and Political Participation”, inJournal of Communication 61 (2011) 1005-1024 @2011International Communication Association.

Chebib, Nadine Kassem & Rabia Minatullah Sohail (2011). “TheReasons Social Media Contributed to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution”.International Journal of Business Research and Management(IJBRM). Volume (2) : Issue (3), 2011.

Crigler, Ann N. editor. (1998). The Psychology of PoliticalCommunication. USA : University of Michigan Press.

Denis, Everette E. & Melvin DeFleur. (2010). UnderstandingMedia in the Digital Age. USA : Pearson Education. Inc.

Graber, Doris A. “Whiter Research on the Psychology of PoliticalCommunication?”. In Crigler, Ann N. editor. (1998). ThePsychology of Political Communication. USA : Universityof Michigan Press.

Hamid, Usman. (2013). “Minat Politik Terbelah: PartisipasiPolitik Anak Muda Berpotensi Lewat Media Sosial”,http://m.facebook.com/notes/changeorg/minat-politik-terbelah-partisipasi-partisipasi-politik-nak-muda-berpotensi-lewat-media-sosial, August 5th, 2013, asaccessed by August 23rd, 2013.

Hartshorn, Sarah. (2010). 5 Differences Between Social Mediaand Social Networking.http://socialmediatoday.com/SMC/194754, as accessed bySept 17th, 2013.

Irwansyah. (2012). “Social Media and Political Participation: Youth Activists’Perspective” in Communicare: Journal of CommunicationStudies. Vol. 5 No. 2 July – December 2012.

Iyengar, Shanto. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible ? HowTelevision Frames Political issues. USA : The Universityof Chicago Press.

Johnston, Larry. (2009). Politics: an Introduction to theModern Democratic State. Canada : University of TorontoPress.

Joseph B. Walther, et.al. (2011), “Interaction of Interpersonal, Peer,and Media Influence Source Online: A research Agenda for TechnologicalConvergence”, in A Networked Self: Identity, Community andCulture on Social Network Sites, edited by ZiziPapacharissi. New York : Routledge.

Just, Marion, et.al. “Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of PoliticalConceptualization”, in Crigler, Ann N. editor. (1998). ThePsychology of Political Communication. USA : Universityof Michigan Press.

http://socialmediatoday.com/SMC/194754

http://m.facebook.com/notes/changeorg/minat-politik-terbelah-partisipasi-partisipasi-politik-nak-muda-berpotensi-lewat-media-sosial



Lim, Merlyna. (2012). “Social Media and Political Mobilization” in TheIndonesia Journal of Leadership. Policy and World AffairsStrategic Review. April-June 2012/Volume 2/Number 2, p.52-60.

Luengo, Oscar Garefa. (2006). “E-activism: New Media &Political Participation in Europe”. Journal CONfines 2/4Agosto-Diciembre 2006, ISSN : 1870 – 3569.http://web2.mty.itesm.mx/temporal/confines/articulos4/OLuengo.pdf, as accessed by October 31th, 2013.

Mayfield, Antony. (2008). What is Social Media. E-book fromICrossing.co.uk as accessed by October 4th, 2013.

Malhotra, Naresh K. (1999). Marketing Research; an AppliedOrientation. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.

McNair, Brian. (2007). An Introduction to PoliticalCommunication, fourth edition. London : Routledge.

Munroe, Trevor. (2002). An Introduction to Politics: Lecturesfor First Year Students. Jamaica : Stephenson’s LithoPress.

Mustaqim, Asrul, et.al. (2006). “Hubungan Penggunaan Mediadan Partisipasi Politik” in Jurnal IISIP, Juli 2006,Jakarta, p. 89-106.

Negrine, Ralph. (1994). Politics and the Mass Media inBritain. Second edition. London : Routledge.

Nimmo, Dan. (2000). Komunikasi Politik : Khalayak dan Efek,translated by Tjun Surjaman. Bandung : PT. RemajaRosdakarya.

Parmalee, John H. & Shannon L. Bichard, (2012). Politics andthe Twitter Revolution; How Tweets Influence theRelationship Between Political Leaders and the Public.United Kingdom : Lexington Books.

Reinard, John C. (2008). Introduction to CommunicationResearch, fourth edition. New York : McGraw-Hill HigherEducation.

http://web2.mty.itesm.mx/temporal/confines/articulos4/OLuengo.pdf

http://web2.mty.itesm.mx/temporal/confines/articulos4/OLuengo.pdf

Rizal, Yose. (2013). Aktor Politik Wajib Manfaatkan MediaSosial, http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manfatkan.media.sosial. June 7th,2013, as accessed by August 23rd, 2013.

Rodee, Carlton Clymer , et.al., (1976). Introduction toPolitical Science, third edition. USA: McGraw Hill BookCompany.

Silverblatt, Art. (1995). Media Literacy: Keys to InterpretingMedia Messages. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Sodikin, Amir and Wisnu Nugroho (2013). “Demokrasi Era Digital:Mengejar Generasi Pedas, Lekas, dan Bergegas”, in Kompas Daily,edition Friday, October 25th, 2013, p. 54.

Stokes, Jane. (2003), How to do Media and Cultural Studies,London : Sage Publications.

Wasesa, Silih Agung. (2013). “Aktor Politik Wajib ManfaatkanMedia Sosial”. http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manfatkan.media.sosial. June 7th,2013, as accessed by August 23rd, 2013.

Wigmore, Ivy. (2012). “What is Social Media?”,http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/social-media, asaccessed on September 12th, 2013.

Wilson, Stan Le Roy, (1995). Mass Media/Mass Culture; anIntroduction, third edition, USA : McGraw-Hill.

Wood, Julia T., (2008). Communication Mosaics; an Introductionto the Field of Communication, USA : Thomson Wadsworth.

Other References

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2013/04/25/is-the-growth-of-social-media-in-politics-driving-issues-like-marriage-and-marijuana/ as accessed 11th May 2013.

http://thesocialmediamonthly.com/how-social-media-has-changed-politics-its-not-just-tactics/ as accessed 11th May 2013.






http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/social-media

http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manffatkan.media.sosial

http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manffatkan.media.sosial

http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manfatkan.media.sosial

http://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/7884-aktor.politik.wajib.manfatkan.media.sosial

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/political-science/political-culture-and-public-opinion/section4.rhtml as accessed by May 11th, 2013

“KPU Diminta Edukasi Pemilih Pemula”, http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/05/31/07221049/twitter.com May 31, 2013 as accessed June 3, 2013

http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/05/31/07221049/twitter.com%20May%2031

http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/05/31/07221049/twitter.com%20May%2031




ATTACHMENT 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES

Regards,Right now we just conducting a research, funding by

Central Research Fund – Swiss German University. The title ofthis research is “Role of Social Media Usage toward PoliticalParticipation of Early Voters in Election 2014.”

Questionnaires will be distributed in 6 cities inIndonesia, especially for SMU students as early voters inElection 2014. There is no right or wrong answers in thisquestionnaire, hence I expect you to give the answertruthfully and represent your own opinion. All answers only beanalyzed for the objectives of this research only. Thank youfor participating.

Jakarta, Juni 2014Loina Lalolo Krina Perangin-angin, S.Sos., M.Si

Ketua Jurusan Departemen Ilmu Komunikasi – Swiss GermanUniversity

EduTown BSDCity, Tangerang 15339

Guideliness :Please answer all questions. For open questions, fill in theavailable blank space. Others, please give (x) at theappointed letter that represent your opinion.

Provinces ............................................ City ......................................

7

Demographic Membership1. Religion : ................. 2. Gender : L / P

3. Money Pocket per Montha. less than Rp.250.000 d. Rp. 750.000 – lessthan Rp. 1.000.000b. Rp. 250.000 – less than Rp. 500.000 e. Rp. 1.000.000or morec. Rp. 500.000 – less then Rp. 750.000

4. Money Pocket for Phone Credit per Month :a. less than Rp.50.000 d. Rp. 150.000 – lessthan Rp. 200.000b. Rp.50.000 – less than Rp.100.000 e. Rp. 200.000 –morec. Rp. 100.000 – less than Rp.150.000

Social Interaction and Relationship through Social Media5. Please mention the social media accounts do you have? How

long have you been opened the account? Account Own the account since …

(years)2013

2012 2011 2010 <2010

a Facebook b Twitterc Linkedind Linee YouTubef Pathg Instagramh BlogI MailingListJ Other

…………….

No. Respondent

6. How frequent are you accessing the account ? Account Frequency of Accessing

Never VeryRarely

Sometimes

AlmostEveryday

Everyday Regularly

a Facebook b Twitterc Linkedind Linee YouTubef Pathg Instagramh BlogI MailingLi

stJ Other

…………

7.. What do you do after reading a political issue di social media ?

Never

VeryRarel

y

Sometimes

AlmostEveryd

ay

Everyday Regularly

a If it is news sharing, I will lookfor official source online

b Looking for deeper explanation inprinted and electronic media

c I always follow then share political news through my account

d I only look for an interesting newsand discussion of politics

e I discuss the political news with my friends and followers

f I always follow the political comments sharing by the experts

g I consider the expert comment for decision making

h I discuss with my family in decision making, ex. Vote for president

i I discuss with my friends in decision making, ex. Vote for president

Online Participation8. From activities below, which one do you do with social

media in Election 2014?

Online PoliticalParticipation

Never VeryRarely

Sometimes

AlmostEveryda

y

Everyday Regularly

a Mentioning an information from expert

b Forwarding the news and information to group or friends’ account

c Liking a political information or news

d Commenting a politicalinformation or news inwebsite, group or account

e Liking a political commentf Donating for a politicalevent or candidate

Offline Participation9. From activities below, which one do you do in Election 2014?

Offline Political participation Yes Doubt Noa Being a volunteer in campaignb Being a member of success teamc Attending a political meetingd Participating in campaigne Being a member of political party or organization

f Donating to a candidateg Donating for political partyh Sharing information about political eventsi Voting for legislative member (DPR, DPRD, DPD)

j Voting for presidentk Put the sticker of candidate or party at house or car

Attachment 2 – Log Book

DATE TIME PLACE ACTIVITY PERSON HOURSAPRIL

18 13-15 SGU First Meeting - Coordinationand job description

LoinaAlvaAndrew

222

15-17 SGU Questionnaire drafting Loina 225 13-17 SGU Questionnaire developing Loina

Andrew44

28 13-17 SGU Finishing the questionnaire LoinaAndrew

22

MAY2 Fund Transfer from SGU Loina7 16-18 SGU Constructing the code for

data miningLoinaAlva

22

9 10-16 SMAN 58 Jak-Tim

Pre-Testing the questionnaire

LoinaAndrew

66

14 16-18 SGU Constructing the code for data mining

LoinaAlva

22

16 09-17 SGU Data input for Pre-testing the questionnaire

LoinaAndrew

88

21 16-18 SGU Constructing the process of data mining from Twitter

LoinaAlva

22

23 09-17 SGU Processing and Analyzing Result for Pre-test

LoinaAndrew

88

28 16-18 SGU Constructing the process of data mining from Twitter

LoinaAlva

22

30 09-17 SGU Coding Book Developing LoinaAndrew

88

JUNE4 16-18 SGU Finishing the code Loina 2

construction for data mining Alva 25 07-10 SMAN 14 -

JaktimMeeting with the Principal for distribution permission and mechanism of the questionnaire

Loina 5

6 07-10 SMAN 88 Jak-Tim

Meeting with the Principal for distribution permission and mechanism of the questionnaire

Loina 5

13 07-17 SMAN 2 Serang


Loina 10

22 9-17 SGU Contacting Principal of someSchools in SurabayaFinishing the questionnaire

Loina 8

23-24 9-17 Alva’s Data Mining for April - May Alva 1626 7-17 SMUN 3 &

SMUN 5, SMK YahyaBandung


10

27 7-17 SMK Taruna Bakti & SMA Aloysius Bandung


10

30 9-17 SGU Contacting Principal of someSchools in Jogja

Loina 8

JULY 18 9-17 SGU Contacting Principal of some

Schools in SemarangLoina 8

25 9-17 SGU Contacting Principal of someSchools in Semarang

Loina 8

AUGUST22 7-17 SMU 3 & 5

BandungQuestionnaire distribution Loina 10

26 7-10 SMU 14 Jakarta

Questionnaire distribution Loina 6

27 7-10 SMU 88 Jakarta


28-30 9-17 SGU Data input to SPSS Andrew 2430-31 9-17 Alva’s Data Mining for June-July Alva 16

SEPTEMBER5 7-17 SMK

Yahya, Taruna Bakti - Bandung


12 7-17 SMUN 2 Serang


15-17 9-17 SGU Data input to SPSS Andrew 2418 7-10 SMU 58

JakartaQuestionnaire distribution Loina 6

19 7-10 SMK Slamet Riyadi - Jakarta


22-24 9-17 SGU Data input to SPSS Andrew 24OCTOBER11-12 9-17 Alva’s Data mining for August-

SeptemberAlva 16

20 7-21 Jogja Questionnaire distribution Loina 1421 7-21 Solo Questionnaire distribution Loina 14

22-24 9-17 SGU Data input to SPSS Andrew 24NOVEMBER25-26 7-21 Surabaya Questionnaire distribution Loina 2829-30 9-17 Alva’s Data mining for October-

NovemberAlva 16

DECEMBER1-3 9-17 SGU Data input to SPSS Andrew 244-5 9-17 SGU Data editing Loina 168-12 15-17 SGU Data processing Loina 1015-19 15-17 SGU Data analysis Loina 10

JANUARY’15

Report draftingReport writing

Documents

CRF FINAL REPORT 2015 SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE VS POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Revision English