DECLARATION
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application
for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning
COPYRIGHT
Copyright in text of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) rests
with the author. The author has given The University of Manchester the right to use such
Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes.
Copies of this thesis (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance
with instructions given by the author and lodged in the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such
copies made
The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all other intellectual property
rights except for the Copyright (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) and any reproductions of
copyright works, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in
this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual
Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the
prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or
Reproductions.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and exploitation of this
thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions described in it
may take place is available from the Head of Manchester Business School.
11
To my wife
Dominika Oktavira Arumdati
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many people deserve thanks and appreciation for this thesis. Ian Miles and Lawrence Green are
the first on the list for their guidance and support as my supervisors. Had Lawrence not patiently
responded to all my emails while I was desperately waiting for financial support in the deferral
period of my PhD admission between 2002‐2004, I would have been discouraged and maybe
never returned to Manchester. Lawrence together with Ian, had been an invaluable source for my
research by being available at anytime, despite their hectic schedule. Ian endlessly encouraged
me to finish my PhD on time and provided many interesting ideas how that could be achieved.
I owe great gratitude to two Indonesian scholars for their precious contributions and continuous
encouragement as well as solidarity. In Manchester, Gindo Tampubolon introduced me to some
methodological approaches to help my exploration to this research area. In Jakarta, Bernardino
Herry‐Priyono helped me understand some complicated issues within the philosophy of social
science. Their thoughts and input were always meaningful. I also feel thankful to Kate Barker
who continuously supported my study and Maria Nedeva who was always a good friend and
‘informal mentor’ during my PhD. Also to Jeremy Howells, Deborah Cox, Jeff Butler, John Rigby,
Duncan Thomas, and Dimitri Gagliardi, from whom I had the opportunity to learn as I worked
with them in a number of projects in PREST. I feel grateful that PREST (especially through Ian,
Jeremy and Debbie) had given me a job as a Research Assistant during my PhD, on which the
survival of my family depended. Lesley Price also deserves thanks as she always helped me with
many administrative matters, both for my study and my work, during my PhD research.
It felt weird when I recalled that eight years ago I neither spoke nor wrote in English and yet now
had to write a PhD thesis in English. That was why the help in improving my written English had
always been highly valuable. I thank particularly Jillian Yeow, Kathryn Morrison, and Adam
McGovern for their huge help, as well as Armin Bobsien, Adriana Sri Adhiati, Sovyana Putranti,
and Isdiana Akmiranda for their ‘collective’ help in spotting mistakes in the chapters and
increasing the readability of this thesis. Lawrence, too, spent some of his valuable time not only
to supervise my work but also to correct my English.
My fieldwork received enormous assistance from many fellow CSO activists in Indonesia. It is
impossible to mention all of them here, but I would like to thank Idaman Andarmosoko for his
help in running three workshops during my fieldwork; Yayasan Air Putih in Aceh who provided
accommodation for me while I was carrying out FG in the area; Budi Susanto who allowed me to
use Realino Hall for the workshop in Yogyakarta; and Margaretha Sulistyawati who liaised with
the University Surabaya in hosting the workshop in Surabaya. Also special thanks to my
colleagues in the Business Watch Indonesia (BWI) and Uni Sosial Demokrat (Unisosdem) for their
lasting solidarity.
I have received huge financial support from some institutions during this research: Porticus,
Benevolentia, and ‘John Paul II 100 Scholarship’ Vatican. The rector of Atmajaya Catholic
University in Jakarta, Bernadette Setiadi, had played an important role here. I also received a
grant from FES Germany thanks to Hans‐Joachim Esderts. Later on, HIVOS, AoIR, and
EUROSEAS, together with PREST, funded me to attend some conferences in Europe, Asia, and
Australia during the course of this study.
Without camaraderie of my fellow students at PREST, this PhD research would have been
unbearable. So, I would like to thank Hong‐Tak Lim, Graciela Sainz, Barakat Al‐Otaibi, Abdullah
Gok, and Jong‐Seok Kim from 7.09. Also some friends in the corridor with whom I shared the
misery during the research: Jillian Yeow, Sally Gee, Sawitree Sutthijakra, Alger Lee, Raimondo
Guerra, Joana Almodovar. In particular Marco Jaso helped me with the design of the survey.
My family have been a long lasting source of energy during this exhaustive research. Not only
those in Indonesia (Solo, Pontianak and Surabaya), but mainly, and most importantly, those who
are around: my wife Ira, my daughter Aruna, and my son Nara –who have always been the
inspiration and motivation in my life.
13
THE AUTHOR
Yanuar Nugroho is an activist‐scholar, born in Indonesia in 1972. Prior to his doctoral study, he
had been quite active in three Indonesian NGOs: Business Watch Indonesia (BWI,
www.watchbusiness.org, Executive Director), Uni Sosial Demokrat (Social Democracy Union,
Unisosdem, www.unisosdem.org, General Secretary), and ELSPPAT (Institute for Rural
Development and Sustainable Agriculture, www.elsppat.or.id, Head of the Board Member). He
still retains these activities and roles, although in a very limited capacity, whilst he is residing in
the UK, pursuing his PhD (in the Internet and dynamics of civil society organisations) and working
as a Research Assistant (in Innovation Research) at the University of Manchester since 2004.
Besides being active in Indonesian civil society movement, Yanuar was also a visiting lecturer in
some private universities (1998‐2000, 2001‐2004) and a regular contributor to The Jakarta Post,
English Language Daily (2002‐2004). He has written a number of articles for various media in
Indonesia, including the daily news sources Kompas, Media Indonesia and Suara Pembaharuan
(2001‐2005). His writing, including three books, covers a wide range of themes –from topics like
information technology and development, democratisation of market power, and the social
responsibility of business sector to those on democracy, globalisation and neo‐liberalisation and
electoral politics. All of his articles are archived in his blog http://audentis.wordpress.com.
Before embarking on PhD study, Yanuar was formally trained as an Industrial Engineer from the
Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB) in Indonesia (1990‐1994). He was awarded British
Council’s Chevening Award to obtain his Master of Science (with distinction) on Information
Systems Engineering at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
(UMIST) (2000‐2001). During his PhD research he received various awards: ORS scheme, Porticus
grant, Benevolentia grant, John Paul II 100 scholarships, FES grant, and a number of conference
grants including the University of Manchester, Association of Internet Researcher (AoIR),
Queensland University, L’Orientale University and HIVOS. His PhD research has benefited from
his experience in Indonesian civil society movement, fascination about social science, interest in
information technology, particularly the Internet, and knowledge in innovation research.
Some of his recent writings are (all downloadable from http://audentis.wordpress.com/pub):
Nugroho, Y., and Tampubolon, G. (2007) Network dynamics of global CSOs in the transition to democracy in
Indonesia, 5th International Conference of the European Association for Southeast Asian Studies
(EuroSEAS), 12‐15 September 2007, Napoli: L’Orientale.
Nugroho, Y. (2007) Adoption of the Internet in rural NGOs in Indonesia ‐ A study on Internet appropriation for rural
sector reform, Proceeding of the 1st Rural‐Information and Communication Technology (r‐ICT)
Conference, 6‐7 August 2007, Bandung: ITB, pp.17‐34.
Nugroho, Y. (2007) Spreading the word, broadening perspectives: Internet, NGOs and globalisation discourse in
Indonesia, 5th International Convention of Asian Scholars (ICAS) Conference, 2‐5 August 2007, Kuala
Lumpur: University Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Kurniawan, S., Mahmud, M., and Nugroho, Y (2006) A study of the use of mobile phones by older persons In GM.
Olson, R. Jeffries (Eds.) Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, CHI 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22‐27, 2006. ACM 2006, pp. 989‐
994.
Nugroho, Y., and Tampubolon, G. (2006) Mapping the network society: Network dynamics in the transition to
democracy in Indonesia, 11th Alternative Futures and Popular Protest – International Social
Movement Conference, 19‐21 April 2006, Manchester: MMU.
Julian, K., Rigby, J., Ball, DF., and Nugroho, Y. (2006) The Management of Technology Literature, Island or
Mainland: The Way Forward? The R&D Management Conference, Windermere, Cumbria.
Nugroho, Y. (2004) Anonymity in Computer‐Mediated Communication: A Case Study of Groupware Communication
among Indonesian NGO Activists, Antropologi Indonesia 28 (73):58‐75, Jakarta: University of
Indonesia.
Watts, L.A.; Nugroho, Y. & Lea, M. (2003) Engaging in Email Discussion: Conversational Context and Social
Identity in Computer‐Mediated Communication In Rauterberg, M.; Menozzi, M. & Wesson, J. (eds.)
Human‐Computer Interaction INTERACT’03, pp.559‐566, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
And a number of reports he produced during his work as RA at the University of Manchester.
14
PUBLICATION NOTE
Some parts of this thesis have been presented previously as a working paper, a conference paper,
or talks on different occasions.
A major part of Chapter Three (on methodology and approach) was presented as a talk during
the Methodology Festival at Oxford University in July 2006.
Some initial findings of the research (later on assembled Chapter Four and Five on the role of the
th
Internet in civil society) were presented as a doctoral colloquium paper at the 7 Conference of
the Association of the Internet Researcher (AoIR) in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia in October
2006.
A substantial part of Chapter Four (on network analysis and the role of global CSOs in the
transition to democracy) was published as CRESC Working Paper No. 15, March 2006 and also
th
presented in the 11 International Social Movement Conference at Manchester Metropolitan
University in April 2006.
This part was again presented as a conference paper in the Panel 7 “Social Networks and
th
Transition in Southeast Asia: Empirical, Methodological and Theoretical Issues” in the 5
EUROSEAS Conference at L’Orientale University at Naples, Italy, in September 2007. The papers
of this panel were to be published in a special edition of the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies,
or as an edited book.
The diffusion analysis (Chapter Five) with some case studies (three cases from Chapter Six) were
th
presented as a conference paper in the Panel “Internet and Politics in Pacific Asia” during the 5
International Convention of Asian Scholars (ICAS) at Kuala Lumpur. Although there was a joint
publication plan for all papers from this panel, the paper was later submitted as a working paper
at Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.
Similarly, but from different perspectives, some part of the diffusion analysis (Chapter Five) and a
case study (Chapter Six) were used to explain the stages of adoption and implementation
st
(discussed in Chapter Eight) of the Internet in rural NGOs. This was presented in the 1 rural‐ICT
International Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. The paper has been published by the
conference organiser as a proceeding paper (p.17‐34). The paper is now under review of the
Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester to be published as a working
paper.
The research as a whole has been presented in some CSOs’ workshops in Indonesia in August
2007, during which HIVOS hosted one of them in Jakarta. The research was presented to a
limited audience at Ashoka Indonesia in Bandung and Perkumpulan Prakarsa in Jakarta, also in
August 2007.
The papers or slides are downloadable from http://audentis.wordpress.com and are mentioned in
the thesis where they are referred to.
15
You see things and you say, 'Why?'
But I dream things that never were and I say, ‘Why not?’
George Bernard Shaw, "Back to Methuselah" (1921), part 1, act 1.
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 ‐ 1950)
It helps, now and then, to step back and take the long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent
enterprise that is the Lord’s work. Nothing we do is complete, which is
another way of saying that the Kingdom always lies beyond us. …
We cannot do everything and there is a sense of liberation in realising
that. This enables us to do something and to do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way …
We may never see the results …
We are only prophets of a future that is not our own.
Oscar Romero, SJ. (1917‐1980), “The Prayer of Romero”, undated.
He was the Archbishop of San Salvador, El Salvador, assassinated by the military junta in 1980
16
Introduction
Adopting technology, reshaping society
Diffusion and impacts of the Internet in civil society
The Internet offers extraordinary potential for the expression of citizen rights
and for the communication of human values. Certainly, it cannot substitute for
social change or political reform. However, by relatively levelling the ground of
symbolic manipulation, and by broadening the sources of communication, it
does contribute to democratisation. The Internet brings people into contact in a
public agora, to voice their concerns and share their hopes. This is why people’s
control of this public agora is perhaps the most fundamental political issue
raised by the development of the Internet
(Manuel Castells, “The Internet Galaxy”, 2001:164‐165)
Perhaps because of its revolutionary features, Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
has, since its advent, possibly been among many sectors the one thing that has attracted huge
attention in research. There has been a lot of work about how ICTs, particularly the Internet, have
been changing personal, social and business life. There have been some studies of Internet use in
the home; there has been a lot more research into Internet use in business and government.
Studies at home tend to suggest that there is not much change going on, while those in business
and government often talk about the need for transformation of processes. However, there has
been very little attention of Internet studies on other types of organisations such as civil society
organisations (CSOs). As a result, not only do we not know much about their patterns of uptake
and use; we do not know whether they exhibit the same sort of process for transformation that
has been seen in other sectors. We do not know whether they respond to the process in the same
way, and we do not know the implication for their functions in civil society. This thesis attempts
to address these problems.
This research looks at the adoption, appropriation, and impacts of Internet use in civil society
organisations (CSOs) in Indonesia. At a theoretical level, it is concerned with the ideas of the
diffusion of the Internet as a technological innovation and the effects those ideas have on the
practice of CSOs and the social movement. These concerns are explored by examining two
related empirical issues. The first is the link between the Internet use in CSOs and organisational
performance, as well as the use and dynamics of civil society. The second is the construction of
Internet diffusion and impacts in organisations that define those links. The argument presented
in this thesis is three‐fold.
a. Firstly, while the increasingly pivotal positions that Indonesian CSOs achieve in the social,
economic and political landscape of the country today mainly stems from CSOs’ capacity
17
1
as institutions that foster civic engagement, their use of the Internet has contributed
considerably in building these capacities.
b. Secondly, likewise, it is also the appropriation of Internet technologies which enables
more effective networking between Indonesian CSOs and their local, national, and global
partners, which in turn is also an important factor in building CSOs’ capacities as a social
movement.
c. Thirdly, despite the first two arguments, such an appropriation is not straightforward:
effective, strategic and political use of the Internet in CSOs is only possible when an
organisation realises the potentials of the technology, adopt it, then integrate its use into
their organisation’s routines as part of their strategy.
In building these arguments, the study makes no attempt to privilege Internet diffusion (and
implementation) theories over civil society (and CSO) concepts. Rather, it sets forth cases for
redrawing the traditional boundaries of the concept of ‘technological diffusion in organisations’
to incorporate other courses of action in the adoption and implementation of the Internet
technologies in civil society groups and organisations. By demonstrating that appropriation of
the Internet in Indonesian CSOs plays an important role in building CSOs’ capacities and
capabilities as institutions and as a social movement, it paves the way for Internet diffusion and
implementation to be recognised as contributing to the dynamics of civil society and reshaping
politics in the country in its broadest sense.
Theoretical standpoint
Diffusion theory may have a convenient way of explaining why organisations adopt technological
innovations: the former cannot but yield to the advancement of the latter. Through innovation‐
decision process, perceptions about an innovation are mediated, which then impact on the
diffusion of the innovation in organisations (Rogers, 2003). Since in the technology‐society
relationship technology developers are often deemed to be superior to technology users,
diffusion of innovations is sometimes perceived as technological intrusion upon users (e.g. in
Davis, 2003). This is why technological innovation is seen as patron, adopter the client and
diffusion/adoption process a patron‐client relationship; and this is what mainly has been
1
The term ‘civic engagement’, instead of ‘public engagement’, is used to emphasis the importance of the
opportunity for different actors within civil society to engage. From political perspective, such engagement is
fundamental for democratisation process as famously suggested by Putnam when introducing ‘social capital’
as a component to ‘make democracy work’ (Putnam, 1993).
18
characterising diffusion of innovation. However, there is a drawback in this logic: the explanation
for successful diffusion/adoption lies mostly in the assumption of technological determinism, or,
innovation bias (Rogers, 2003). Not only is such perspective weak in its logic, it also lags behind
the empirical process it aims to explain.
At the conceptual level, the notions of technological intrusion and patron‐client relationship (e.g.
in Einstadter, 1992; Silverstone, 2002) contribute to philosophical monism, resulting in the
monolithic idea that technology (and technological innovation) is central and omnipotent in the
course of social change. This view rules out the possibility that in all significant respects
technology and user can be equal parties, in accord as well as in discord. This has significant
impact on innovation diffusion research. As the relations between technological innovation and
adopters are always subject to continuous changes, technology‐push diffusion (which reflects
technological intrusion on users) is only one possible story, the other being user‐pull adoption.
The fact that the authority of the user is based on its ability to use and adopt technology while
the influence of technological innovation is sourced from the ability to create and diffuse
technological artefacts does not make the former less significant than the latter. If this clear‐cut
reasoning sounds strange to us, it may be because we are captive to the monolithic conception of
innovation diffusion and to the technology‐centred idea of change. The truth is that the arsenal
of diffusion of innovation goes beyond the control centre of technology.
At the empirical level, the notions of technological intrusion and patron‐client relationship can
hardly accommodate the phenomenon of stalemate in the mutual hostage situation that
characterises technology‐user diffusion/adoption relations. One may argue that such a situation
stems from the subservient attitudes of the user to technological innovation as the only way to
survive. Still, this view portrays the user as a sheer loser, with no gains whatsoever appropriated
from the practices. As noted, this is simply not the case. This whole research is therefore directed
to look into the mutual hostage situation that characterises technology‐user diffusion/adoption
relations, with special attention given to the issue of change and transformation. In particular,
this study suggests that any concept of change has to take into account the enduring legacy of
the ‘gain‐gain’ relations generated by the practices. From there it is argued that the impetus of
change is unlikely to come from within the relations, but from societal forces external to both.
This theoretical standpoint is the basis for the empirical ground toward which this research is
orientated: the adoption of the Internet in Indonesian civil society organisations.
19
The general context: Innovation in civil society
Research concerning organisations within civil society has become more relevant today as such
organisations play increasingly important roles in society (Anheier et al., 2004a; Glasius et al.,
2005). These roles are not limited to traditional activism –like mobilisation of aid and
humanitarian relief, improvement of livelihood or protection of rights and promotion of
democracy—which has continuously characterised the dynamics of this sector vis‐à‐vis state in
the modern world. Additionally, these organisations have also shaped, or at least influenced, the
dynamics of the business sector. Such activity, for instance, drives consumers in ethical and fairer
trading, ethical investment, ‘green’ banking, provision of organic or healthier products, among
others, and demand more socially and environmentally responsible business practices such as in
the instance of CSR campaign.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) are important for business management, then, but their own
management and innovation is very interesting in their own right. CSOs have innovated in many
ways because unless they innovate in order to build a sustainable base of supporters (e.g.
beneficiaries, donors, partners networks, among others) they will not remain ‘cutting edge’ and
relevant. However, innovation in civil society sectors seems to be under‐studied compared to, for
example, innovation in private or public sectors. This topic has the potential to become of
increasing interest given the current evolution of civil society. Networks of organisations in civil
society have promoted partnerships among different actors, both within and between
economies. Undoubtedly, a more genuine global voluntary movement has now been provided
with an excellent opportunity to advance its agenda. This has put more weight on the relevance
and importance of innovation study in CSOs. This is why this research anchors its empirical
ground on how CSOs innovate by adopting information technologies, particularly the Internet, to
achieve their goals and missions, in the Indonesian context.
The particular context: Internet adoption in Indonesian CSOs
Indonesia has a long and rich history of civil society and CSOs. With no intention to discard the
importance of this history, the focus of this study is the development in Indonesian civil society in
the past fifteen years, i.e. since the late period of Soeharto’s militaristic New Order regime (early
1990s) up to recently (early 2000s). This is done to take into account the impact of the Internet
use in Indonesian CSOs, which started at about the same time (Purbo, 1996; 2000). Following
this, Indonesia is taken as the site of this study for two main reasons. Not only has Indonesia’s
civil society, including its CSOs, experienced a heightened transformation, and transition to
20
democracy (Bird, 1999), but various CSOs in the country had also started using the Internet to
support their work, including fostering social reform (Uhlin, 2000).
This study argues that the dynamics of Indonesian CSOs today cannot be separated from their
adoption of the Internet. First, it is observable that issues including democratisation, good
governance, human rights, gender equality and women’s rights, amongst others are blended
together with the more general, localised concerns of empowerment, education, environment,
development, poverty eradication, justice and peace. These are issues similarly embraced and
fought for by CSOs all over the world (Anheier et al., 2005). Second, this study also believes that
it is also because of the use of the Internet that Indonesian CSOs found their networks with
partner organisations growing significantly, both nationally and internationally, despite the fact
that there has been no particular research done into it (an attempt has been made, however, by
Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2006b). Third, Internet use is also believed to have affected the way
Indonesian CSOs organise their activities including networking, coalition coordination, public
opinion building, and even collective campaigning, and in some cases influencing state policies
(as has been shown by Surman and Reilly, 2003, but in very different context). Overall, the use of
the Internet has apparently facilitated the achievement of CSOs’ mission and goals and thus
fostered a further social transformation. It is all these beliefs that constitute this particular
context of the study. However, the context is not only about civilised groups of civil society using
the Internet for civil purposes above. It is important that this study should also be aware of,
although it is not the central attention of this research, the use of the Internet for uncivil purposes
carried out by ‘uncivil’ society groups.
Research questions and hypotheses
That there is a relationship between the dynamics of Indonesian CSOs and their engagement in
networked society –both with local/national and international/global partners—through the
adoption and use of information technology like the Internet is certainly obvious. What matters
are the questions revolving around the big theme of the Internet diffusion in CSOs:
a. To what extent, in what ways, and for what purposes have Internet technologies been
appropriated by Indonesian CSOs? How do they perceive the impact of the technology
to their work; what do they expect from the use of the technology in the organisation
and in the network of social movement?
21
b. What are the processes by which Internet technologies (and ICTs more generally) are
imported into and adopted by Indonesian CSOs? What factors affect the adoption; what
makes leaders and laggards in the adoption of technology; is there a sequence in the
adoption of different technologies and applications; is there any revision in the diffusion
stages?
c. How do Indonesian CSOs implement ICTs, and how are Internet technologies deployed
strategically in the operations (and in an effort to further the aims) of such
organisations? Is there any revision in the implementation stages; how do the stages of
Internet use look like; how can implementation and learning processes be
conceptualised; what strategic areas of implementation can be mapped?
d. What are the implications, potentials and challenges ahead such appropriations? What
has changed with the CSOs adopting the Internet at the organisational level, at the
network level, and at the social movement level?
Without trying to post some speculations far too prematurely, the study anticipates several
conjectures in responding to the above research questions.
a. First, given the dynamic nature of contemporary civil society in Indonesia (as addressed
in, e.g. Ganie‐Rochman, 2002; Hadiwinata, 2003), and how civil society actively uses the
Internet (e.g. Hill and Sen, 2002; 2005; Lim, 2002; 2003d), it should not be too difficult to
suggest that there is a positive link between the use of the Internet in CSOs and the
development of their activism.
b. Second, being ontologically different from other types of organisations (i.e. business
entities and government agencies), CSOs are expected to perceive the Internet as a
technological innovation differently. Consequently, it is also anticipated that CSOs would
adopt and implement the Internet in a different trajectory, with different drivers and
motivations for adoption and different stages of implementation (and thus modifying
classical theories in adoption and implementation of information systems like Galliers,
2004; 2007; Rogers, 1995; 2003).
c. Third, with the scale and speed the Internet is being adopted in civil society, the study
anticipates to see some affirmative correlations between the impact of Internet use at
the organisation level as well as at the network level (as suggested by some applications
of structuration theory in examining implementation of information systems, i.e.
DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992; 2000).
22
d. Furthermore, it is expected that, following Castells’ notion of identity formation
(Castells, 1997) such technological use would link positively with the reinforcement and
transformation of identity, again, both at the organisational as well as at the network
level.
Following the concept of social shaping of technology as a critic to technological determinism
(MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985) particularly concerning information technology (Clausen and
Williams, 1997), the study also expects to offer a more detailed picture of how social shaping
works in the context of Internet adoption/diffusion in civil society organisations.
Scope of investigation
No attempt is made in this study to replicate the wide‐ranging accounts of the development of
Indonesian civil society through the investigations of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) by
Hadiwinata (2003) and Ganie‐Rochman (2002), or the detailed systematic histories of civil society
dynamics by Eldridge (1995), as well as Sinaga (1994), Billah (1995) and Fakih (1996). Neither
does this study endeavour to reproduce the extensive research on the Internet and public sphere
(including polarisation of identity, cyber‐civic space and democratisation) in Indonesia by Lim
(2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2003d; 2004a; 2004b; 2005; 2006), or by Hill and Sen (2002; 2005). Rather,
this study builds on the insights provided by these scholars to examine the diffusion of the
Internet in CSOs – a ‘building block’ of organisational practice whose contribution to the social
movement and dynamic of civil society has yet to be fully analysed.
Considering some practical and theoretical constraints, this study limits the venture of
investigation in several accounts. One, the diffusion analysis is conducted mainly based on the
classical diffusion theory laid down by Rogers (1995; 2003); in an attempt to analyse
implementation of the Internet, the information systems strategising perspective (Galliers, 2004;
2007) is used to inform the research; and to assess the implication of Internet use, adaptive
structuration theory, or AST (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992; 2000), is employed.
Two, the unit of analysis in this research is the organisation, not individual members of the
organisation. Three, the study only investigates CSOs who directly participate in this study and
who have been studied before by previous researchers. The empirical findings and explanation
on the diffusion of the Internet and its impacts to the organisation are based on the data
collected in the fieldwork carried out between October 2005 and April 2006. This result can only
be safely generalised to Indonesian CSOs under investigation within this period. However,
23
limited and careful generalisation to Indonesian CSOs who have adopted and use the Internet, or
beyond, might also be possible, although only suggestive.
Methodological approach
By and large, this study applies Giddens’ structuration theory (1984), which is used to inform the
research in investigating emergent practices in Internet adoption in CSOs, and relating it with the
impacts both at organisational level and at network, or social movement, level. For this purpose,
adaptive structuration theory (AST) (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992; 2000) is used
considerably throughout the research, particularly in explaining the nature of the CSOs’
dynamics both as a result and medium of Internet use in organisations. It is within the framework
of structuration theory, and specifically AST, that theories and perspectives in diffusion of
gers, 1995; 2003) and information systems strategising (Galliers, 2004; 2007) –as
innovations (Ro
well as other complementary theories and perspectives—are applied. Likewise, a theory of
structuration is also used to explain the relation between CSOs as actors and social movements
as structure in the social practice of civic engagement, and serves as a framework to put other
theories, particularly in civil society (Deakin, 2001; Edwards, 2004; Keane, 1998) and global civil
society (Anheier et al., 2001a; Anheier et al., 2004b; Glasius et al., 2002; Glasius et al., 2005;
Kaldor, 2003; Kaldor et al., 2003), into perspective.
ly exploratory, either a quantitative or
Taking into account that the nature of this study is main
qualitative method might be inadequate to be deployed on its own. Quantitative study may
suffice to understand statistics, figures and trends as well as pointing out benefits, usefulness and
problems and difficulties in Internet adoption in Indonesian CSOs. But it cannot explain why
certain strategies, approaches or policies of technology adoption in the organisation work or fail.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, may provide detailed views and perspectives of the
works of Indonesian CSOs, but it is very difficult to derive characteristics of today’s CSOs’
gulation methods or combined quantitative
activities in Indonesia. Therefore this study uses trian
and qualitative approaches (Gilbert, 1992), which involves a complex research design, usually
with stages of research that may iterate (Danermark et al., 2002), such as this research.
Triangulation may enable better measurement and may also reveal differences of interpretation
and meaning (Olsen, 2003). By combining the methods, the study expects to reach a more
comprehensive, nuanced understanding of the nature of the adoption and use of Internet in
Indonesian CSOs, the experience and the ways the organisations adopt and use technology to
meet their strategic needs. Through a combination of methods, this research is in a position to
elucidate these processes because triangulation prevents it from missing complementary
24
pictures provided by either method. The study realises that by deploying such an approach, the
generalisation of other CSOs elsewhere in Indonesia and beyond can be no more than
suggestive.
Chapter outline
This thesis is a cross‐disciplinary study, which engages with diffusion analysis, Internet research,
and civil society study. Its early chapters trace the history of both the Internet as technological
innovation and civil society in Indonesia. As suggested previously, this part neither incorporates
2
the history of Indonesian civil society that has been investigated before, nor features the general
3
account of the Internet in civil society that has been researched previously. Instead, it examines
a single thread in the use of the Internet in Indonesian CSOs in order to explore how the use came
to be constituted in such a way that it affects the organisation of civil society and the dynamics of
the social movement. Having established the discursive context in which the adoption and use of
the Internet in Indonesian CSOs emerged, the study returns to the landscape of Indonesian CSOs
to explain its constantly changing terrain. The remaining chapters contain empirical explorations
of the adoption, implementation and impacts of the Internet use in Indonesian CSOs. Data used
in these chapters were drawn from a country‐scale survey, a large number of semi‐structured
interviews, a number of case studies based on in‐depth interviews and the author’s observation,
and a vast amount of collective reflections through a series of workshops. These chapters show
that the adoption, use and implementation of the Internet in CSOs are not straightforward, but
traverse different paths, with different patterns, drivers, motivations and phases, and that the
implication is also multifaceted.
Chapter One and Two provide the base on which the thesis’ argument is built. Chapter One looks
at the transformation that the Internet brings by examining its diffusion, use, and impacts in
organisations. It reviews some literature and statistics, including Internet diffusion in general
with a particular focus in the Indonesian context. It also discusses how Internet adoption in
organisations is understood as a structured practice using an adaptive structuration theory (AST)
approach, and takes the impacts and implications of the adoption into account. This chapter
hypothesises that different types of organisations adopt the Internet in different ways.
2
See Hadiwinata (2003), Ganie‐Rochman (2002), Eldridge (1995), Sinaga (1994), Billah (1995) and Fakih (1996).
3
See Lim (2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2003d; 2004a; 2004b; 2005; 2006), Hill and Sen (2002; 2005).
25
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.
