Faktor teknologi menjadi faktor terakhir
272
INTRODUCTION
Group sustainability has become an important condition for the continuity of society-
empowerment programs in relation with poverty- reduction
programs. One
model of
group sustainability is the Mekar Jaya Group MJG, which
is located in Majalengka regency, West Java Province, Indonesia.
The MJG experienced four group leader successions, resulting in four group phases of life.
These leaders were involved in cooperating with the outer part. Along that time, the Mekar Jaya Group
MJG was a farmers group that accepted external aid. Since 1989, the Mekar Jaya Group accepted aid
from university and the local government. Cooperation with outer part demonstrated that there
was a communication process flowed from the outside to the inside of the group. It was then
delivered to all members in the group..
The following question remains: how did the group manage the communication network to
implement programs and solve conflict and then enter the latter phase? In order to answer this
question, it
is important
to observe
the communication network in each phase.
Therefore, the current work addresses the following questions:
1. What
was the communication
network structure within the group in each phase?
2. Did within group communication
patterns influence the group’s sustainability?
3. What was the role of the leader in the
within group communication flow in each phase?
A social network is a structure that is composed of a set of actors, some of whom are connected by a
set of one or more relations. Social structures can be represented as networks, sets of nodes or social
system members and sets of ties depicting their interconnections Wellman Berkowitz, 1988, p.4.
Historical overviews of the origins and diffusions of network principles have been presented by Freeman
2004, Scott 2000, and Knox, Savage, and Harvey 2006.
In Bavelas’ design Bavelas, 1950, each in-
group individual is given certain information. The group is given the task of assembling this
information, using it to make a decision, and then issuing orders based on this decision. The critical
feature of the design is that the group members are separated from one another and can communicate
only through channels that can be opened or closed by the member. This feature implies that the
communication network is the main element of the social network. Jacobson and Seashore 1951
proposed that the structure of an organization can be conceptualized and described in terms of the regular,
work-related, interpersonal communication patterns that are established between pair of individuals.
The methodology for the approach and a set of structural concepts for classifying network data was
described in detail by Weiss and Jacobson 1955 in a report on an application of the procedure in a
government agency. There are several steps in network analysis. The
first
step is to obtain a record of regular dyadic linkages by asking members to list
the names of persons in the organization with whom they work most closely.
Next
, the reported contacts are compared against each other in a matrix to
determine reciprocation of contact mutual choice among respondents. Only reciprocated contacts are
used to define the communication network.
The last
step in the process allows one to separate out the groups and to classify all members of the
organization into one of the following role types: group member, brokerage bridge, and isolate.
Rogers and Kincaid 1981 stated that a communication network is the pattern of varying
communication elements that are demonstrated by communication flow patterns in a system. The
analysis of a communication network may include the following: 1 identifying a clique in the system;
2 identifying the role of a person in the system; and 3 measuring communication network indicators,
such as the degree of openness and the integration of the system, including centrality degree.
In order to measure or analyze the network, the following process is conducted. As mentioned, the
first step is to obtain a record of regular dyadic linkages by asking members to list the names of the
persons in the organization with whom they work most closely. Next, the reported contacts are
compared against each other in a matrix to determine reciprocation of contact mutual choice among
respondents. This matrix is called the adjacency matrix with symmetric relationships. An example is
displayed in table 1.
Table 1. The adjacency matrix 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
1 -
1 1
1 1
2
1 -
1 1
1 1
3 1
1 -
1 1
4 1
1 1
- 1
1
5
1 1
1 -
0. 1
6 1
1 1
- 1
7 1
1 -
273
Table 1 shows the relationships among members. When one member has a reciprocal
relationship with another member, the line is coded as 1 for both individuals e.g., the relationship
between node 1 and 2 is a reciprocal relationship. However, if one member has no reciprocal
relationship with another member, the line is coded as 1 and 0 e.g., the relationship between node 1 and
node 4. From this matrix, we can display the digraph of the communication network. Every member is
symbolized by a node and connected with a line.
In relation to the nodes of relationships in the network structure, the concept of the star is also
typically used. Ognyanova, et al 2010 stated that the star is the actor or node that has many connections or
is highly central. In cliques, many stars should exist because there is a leader in a clique, and that leader
was the star. However, an absolute definition of the star for this paper is needed because numerous nodes
have many connections. Therefore, the number of connections that the star can have should be
determined. It can be seen from the adjacent table that several nodes could be stars.
Table 2. The Distribution Connections of Nodes
Number of reciprocal
connections Number of nodes
Phase I Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV 2
1 11
23 7
2 2
9 8
15 3
15 4
6 6
4 2
7 4
2 5
4 1
6 1
1 1
7 8
2 9
1 10
1 2
1 1
11 1
12 1
1 13
Total Number of
Stars 5
4 2
3
Source: Primary data, 2002 and 2011 Based on Table 2, the total number of stars in
each phase can be defined and reflect the opinion leader in each phase in reality after combining the
result of visual graph analysis in result section and qualitative research in the field. In phase I, there was
a leader of group node 1 and there were 4 opinion or sub leaders node 8,9,22, and 28. These leaders
have their own cliques. The leader has 8 mutual connections in group. The sub leader 8 has 10 mutual
connections, the sub leader 9 has 6 mutual connections, the sub leader 22 has 8 mutual
connections, the sub leader 28 has 9 mutual connections. Therefore, the total number of star is 5.
In phase II, there were still five opinion leaders and one of them became a group leader. The sub
leader 1 has 6 mutual connections, the sub leader 8 has 11 mutual connections, the sub leader 9 has 5
mutual connections, the sub leader 22 has 10 mutual connections, the sub leader 28 has 10 mutual
connections. However, only 4 cliques occurred in group because the opinion leader 1 and 9 united in
one clique in this phase and the sub leader 1 became the clique leader. The sub leader 9 tends to have a
function as coordinator or facilitator among the sub leaders. Therefore the total number of stars in phase
II is 4.
In phase III, there was a decrease of sub leader number which is reflected by the decrease of the
clique number. In this phase, only there are two cliques and two sub leaders. They were node 9 and
22. Node 1 and 8 were not the sub leaders again because the conflict between them and their follower
joined to another clique and in the reality, these ex- sub leaders reduced their activity in group, especially
the node 8, he started inactive at the end of phase III and became fully inactive in phase IV. The ex sub
leader 28 also has loss their followers because most of his followers are the free riders. The sub leader 9
has 10 mutual connections and the sub leader 22 has 12 mutual connections. It is clearly that these nodes
are the stars.
In phase IV, there were three sub leaders. They were the sub leader 9,22,28. The sub leader 9 has 6
mutual connections, the sub leader 22 has 12 mutual connections, and the sub leader 28 has 10 mutual
connections. These leaders are the leader of their cliques and became the stars.
Clique analysis to investigate group structures helps researchers understand how cohesion benefits
group members by providing advice and instrumental support and how an extensive reliance on cliques
restricts. A clique is a maximal complete sub-graph of three or more nodes, all of which are directly
connected to one another, with no other node in the network having direct ties to every member of the
clique Knoke Yang, 2008.
Rogers and Kincaid 1981 defined the clique as a subsystem whose elements interact with each
other relatively more frequently than with other members of the communication system. Individuals
are placed into cliques based on the following three criteria:
1. Each clique must have a minimum of three
members. 2.
Each clique member must have at least 50 percent of hisher links within the clique the
average number of links within the clique is
274 taken from the number of links and then divided
by the number of clique members. 3.
All clique members must be directly or indirectly connected by a continuous chain of
dyadic links within the clique. The current paper used the term clique
proposed by both Knoke and Yang and Rogers and Kincaid, but with modifications on the third criteria
that all clique members are directly or indirectly connected by reciprocal links or non-reciprocal links
within the clique. However, exceptions occur in real- life situations. If one criterion is not satisfied, but the
other criteria are satisfied, the network can be considered to be a clique.
The network analysis field has devoted considerable energy to developing methods for
identifying central nodes in a network that are important to diffusion and other actions that occur in
networks Borgatti and Everett, 2006. In contrast, Granovetter 1973 introduced the concept of
bridging, which emphasizes the importance of structural bridges for diffusion. According to
Granovetter 1973, 1982, bridges reduce the overall distance between individuals in a network, enabling
information to spread more rapidly throughout the network.
In the present paper, the bridge is the link, and the node is referred to as the cut-point. Furthermore,
the definition of the bridge is expanded to not only connect two cliques, but also to connect one node and
the network. The expansion is made because there were some nodes free riders in the phase III group
that connect to the group through members that functioned as cut-points. Thus, the types of bridge in
this paper are the following: 1 clique-bridges that connect between clique and clique and 2 node-
bridges that connect a node and network. Here, a node is an isolated member if it is disconnected from
the network. It can be concluded that a cut-point is a node that has the line that can connect between a
network and isolated node or clique and clique. A bridge is a line that belongs to a cut-point that can
connect between the network and isolated node or clique and clique.
The current paper also presents a description of the communication network in one group along its
life over the long term and explains the influence of the network on group sustainability. The specific
method used was some questions about the closeness of the relationship of members in each phase. This
study presents an explanation of the relationship between collective action and network change within
a group. It continues the previous study by Tacaks, Janky and Flache 2008. They studied network
change over time and its relationship with collective action through research on the connected theme and
proposed the model of social control and collective action. The previous paper was a secondary case
study, whereas the current paper is a field work study. In fact, none of the previous studies on network
change over the life span utilized field work.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This case study generates a descriptive explanation of a group communication network. The
location of research was Cangkring hamlet of Kadipaten
Village, Kadipaten
Subdistrict, Majalengka Regency, West Java Province. The
location was chosen because there were many programs and internal conflicts within the group that
were resolved by the communication network.
The research population included all 69 members of the Mekar Jaya Group. The research
sample included the entire population, which increased the significance of the results complete
enumeration. The number of members varied according to the phase to which they belonged. The
unit of analysis was the communication network in- group.
The data were collected through interviews, field work and focus group discussions. Surveys were
administrated as in-person interviews with an emphasis on the member
’s description or explanation on a questionnaire that was tested with selected
members in each leadership era the group experienced four leadership changes. Members were
asked to recall the relationship structure within the group. The primary questions were as follows: 1
Who were the people in the subgroup neighborhood with whom you often discussed matters important to
you? 2 Who were the people in another subgroup neighborhood with whom you often discussed
matters important to you? Respondents were also asked how often they talked to each individual, on
average, and the various types of role relations relative, neighbor, and friend present in those cases.
The reliability analysis was conducted using repeated method and produced Jaccard
’s coefficient. In the first interview, the informant who was checked
was 10 of the original sample i.e., 7 names. The second interview yielded 6 names, and 5 persons
were chosen at both interviews. Jaccard ’s coefficient
= 55+2+1 = 0.63. The reliability result also reflected the validity of items. The informants should
be weighted by their reliability Knoke Yang, 2008.
Furthermore, group discussions were held to gather qualitative information about the group. The
field work was conducted by the researcher. Data collection took place in 2002 and was updated in
275
2011. A visual graph display was used to show and analyze the network using Netdraw.
The goal of this research was to determine how the communication network structure occurs
within a group. This structure is important because it is expected that the communication network structure
had a strong influence on how the group overcame conflict and maintained the group process.
The last step in the process allowed us to separate out the groups and to classify all members of
the organization into one of the following role types: group member, brokerage bridge, and isolate. Next,
calculations such as centrality degree were conducted.
Centrality Degree CD measures the extent to which a node connects to all other nodes in a social
network. For a non-directed graph with g actors, the degree of centrality for actor node
i
is the sum of
i
’s direct ties to the
g
– 1 other actors. In matrix notation,
g CD
A
Ni
= ∑
x
ij
I
≠
j J= 1
Where
CD
A
Ni
denotes centrality degree for node
i
and ∑
x
ij
counts the number of direct ties that node
i
has to the
g
– 1 other
j
nodes
I
≠
j
excludes i
’
s
relation to itself. After calculating the centrality degree of actors, we calculated the group centrality
degree. Unlike actor centrality degree, group centrality degree measures the extent to which the
actors in a social network differ from one another in their individual centrality degree. The centrality
degree of group closely resembles measures of dispersion in descriptive statistics, such as the
standard deviation, that indicate the amount of variation or spread around a central tendency value.
Freeman 1979 proposed a generic measure of group centrality degree:
g ∑ [C
A
N – C
A
N
i
] i=1
CD
G
= _________________________ g
Max ∑ [C
A
N – C
A
N
i
] i=1
Where C
A
N denotes the largest actor centrality degree observed in a network, and the C
A
N
i
are the centrality degrees of the g-1 other actors. Thus, the numerator sums the observed differences
between the largest actor centrality and all others. The denominator is the theoretically maximum
possible sum of those differences. GROUP DESCRIPTION
Group Collective Action The Mekar Jaya Group life history includes
four phases of group life. Each phase had its own collective action as one of manifestation of network
communication. In phase I 1989-1994, the collective action
was the planting of trees that had leaves for feeding. Trees were planted along the Cilutung River. Some
of the small trees could be harvested within six months to one year, whereas others could be
harvested after several years.
Another collective action, gathering and selling sheep feces, was also started in phase I. Many
farmers in the upland area needed it for become fertilizer. They typically stacked the feces near a stall
and let it dry. After drying, it would be placed in sacks, collected by the sub group leader, and sold to
the buyer. The group members agreed to a price of IDR 15,000 per sack. The frequency of feces
collection was once every three months. One stall could produce six sacks, on average, resulting in 180
sacks from all stalls owned by the active members.
The last collective action was the group meeting. During group meetings, all or a
representative of sub-group members met and discussed the issues that the group faced. Meetings
were held every month. The selection of a new group leader was also facilitated by the group meeting, as
the incumbent suggested a new name and the members voted for him.
In phase II 1995-1997, the collective action was preparing the grass for sheep feeding. Because of
the large number of sheep, the group planted grass along the river bank. The land along the river bank
was owned by the village. The group could plant grass on this land through the approval of the village
head. The land use was divided and distributed to subgroup members.
The group meeting was also conducted in phase II, but it was not held as often as was the case
in phase I. The group meeting was held when the members approved the new leader in this phase.
Then, at the end of the phase, the succession of the phase II leader occurred, resulting in the beginning of
phase III.
In phase III 1997-2002, the utilization of land for planting grass did not seem to satisfy the
necessity of sheep feeding, especially when the dry season arrived. The group initiated grass collection
from remote locations with an abundance of grass stock. The chosen location was Sumber village, at
Sumber sub district, Cirebon. They often used the truck that was owned by the sugar factory, but also
sometimes rented a truck that was owned by the villagers to travel to Sumber. They left in the morning
and returned in the afternoon.
276 In phase III, the other collective action was
the
arisan
.
Arisan
or ROSCA rotary savings and credit association was conducted in the third year of
the project. Each member paid IDR 5,000 per month to the sub leader. Every month, the group held a raffle
in which four members won. However, the implementation of
arisan
could not exist in the long term because group conflict arose.
The group meeting was again promoted. It started with the succession of the leader from phase
II to the new leader in phase III, followed by the division of the group into sub-groups to make the
program run effectively. However, halfway through phase III, conflict arose when the return of aid did not
run smoothly. The impact was that the program could not be implemented effectively.
From phase IV until now, the group has revitalized the group size. In phase IV 2002-2009,
the group meeting was held when the group decided to revitalize the group size by reducing the group
membership. Planting grass at the river bank continued to satisfy the needs of feeding. The last
action that is still ongoing was the gathering of sheep feces and selling it to the farmers in the upland area
of Majalengka.
The Change in Group Members
The Mekar Jaya Group experienced four periods of change in size. The phase I group included
30 people all of them were active members until phase IV, the phase II group included 50 people
consisting of 30 people of phase I and 20 new members, 12 of which became active members and 8
of which became inactive members, the phase III group included 69 people consisting of 30 people of
phase I, 20 people of phase II and 19 new members who became inactive and left the group in the latter
phase and the phase IV group included 34 people. These data were updated in 2011 as following.
Data were collected in 2002, 2009, and 2011. In 2002, 69 individuals all members were
interviewed, and the units of analysis were group dynamics and the group communication network. In
2009, 42 people phase IV group were interviewed, and the unit of analysis was group dynamics. In the
2009 data collection, the phase IV group included 39 individuals, with 27 people from the phase I group
and 12 people from the phase II group. In 2011, 34 people phase IV group were interviewed, and the
unit analysis was the group communication network. This final membership in Phase IV included the
Phase I group 24 people and the Phase II group 10 people. Six members from phase I recently passed
away and 2 members from phase II are no longer members, as they have moved to another village
since 2010. No members from the Phase III group remained in the group.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Communication Network in Phase I
The group accepted aid in the form of sheep from Bogor Agricultural University. The leader of
phase I was elected in the group meeting. The meeting was held at hamlet hall Cangkring hamlet
hall. All of the members attended the meeting and not exception the BAU officer. This meeting is called
musyawarah
. “Musyawarah” is a term in Indonesian culture that means a group discussion for solving a
problem. In musyawarah, there is no voting. The members release the issue, and then by some
considerations, all of the members agree on a choice through their opinion leaders, even if all members
attend the meeting. In the MJG meeting, the members agreed to choose leader A phase I leader
as the group leader. One reason for this choice was that leader A actively encouraged the villagers to
make a group. Another reason was that leader A was assumed as the brave man in the hamlet. He typically
did not hesitate to release the opinion and statement for the deed. However, this characteristic later
became his weakness in the conflict between him and the village apparatus. He made a choice that was
contrary to the decision of the village head.
Later, the group meeting was used to discuss any issue that the group faced, and this was
encouraged by the BAU officer. He often used the group meeting to deliver his knowledge and new
innovation to the members. The group meeting was typically conducted monthly in leader A
’s house. The members of the group were the
Cangkring hamlet residents. Some people were invited by leader A, supported by the BAU officer to
build the group. They invited their neighbor, who was also involved in sheep husbandry, from a different
neighborhood or Rukun Tetangga RT. This decision was based on the suggestion of the BAU
officer to increase the economic community. Of the 6 RTs in the Cangkring hamlet, 4 RTs were chosen
because the residents were primarily farmers and husbandries. The other
RTs’ residents were primarily vegetable traders and small shop traders. Then, 22
husbandries met together and built the group. They felt that the group was not complete without the
relationship with sheep traders. Thus, they also invited 8 sheep traders in the hamlet to join. The final
membership totaled 30 people.
When the group cooperated with the BAU officer, several programs were planned in relation
with the aid, including planted trees. The group also had a division of roles. The leader chose one
277
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
secretary and one treasurer to manage the project. After they chose the leader, secretary and treasurer,
they chose the group location near an irrigation pool. The group meeting musyawarah and the structure
of the group demonstrate the flow of communication in the group.
The communication network feature in phase I is shown by figure 1. Each node represents a
member. The leader A is node 1, the secretary is node 9 and the treasurer is node 8. Figure 4 shows that
there was no bridge in the network. The network was stable. Figure 1 also shows that there were some stars
within the group. The stars are node 1, 8, 9, 22, and 28. Focus group discussion revealed that all of these
nodes became the opinion leader in their sub groups. In phase I, the sub groups were informal.
Note: :RT 03 ; : RT 04 ; : RT 05; : RT 06 ;
: non-reciprocal tie; : reciprocal tie
Fig 1. Communication Network in Phase I
There were four cliques in phase I ’s network
structure refer to the criteria for cliques in the introduction:
1. Clique 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
2. Clique 2: 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
3. Clique 3: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
4. Clique 4: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Four cliques were constructed because there was a dyadic or reciprocal relationship composition
of complete sub-graph among some members and separated with another member. One clique had the
main complete of sub-graphs. The clique could consist of the main complete of sub-graphs e.g.,
clique 2, clique 3, and clique 4 or it could consist of the main complete of sub-graphs and non-complete
of sub-graphs because of non-reciprocal ties e.g., clique 1. Clique 1 had main complete of sub-graphs.
That is, the sub-graphs were built from the triangle 1- 2-4, 1-2-3, 1-3-9, and 1-9-10. However, other
triangles were built from non-reciprocal ties, including 1-4-5, 1-5-6, and 1-7-1, but these triangles
were also connected with the main sub-graphs of clique 1. Thus, they were included in clique 1. The
basis of clique formation was the RT. There were four RTs RT 03, RT 04, RT 05, RT 07 as the basis
of clique formation.
The clique criteria were not completely satisfied perfectly. Of the three criteria, only two
criteria were fully satisfied. However, it was considered as one clique. Node 22 in clique 5 did not
satisfy the second clique criteria because the average link was only 0.4. However, because it satisfied the
third criteria, it was included in clique 5.
Every opinion leader was linked to the group leader node 1. This is clearly shown by the close
relationships among opinion leaders, which tend to appear as a clique node 1, 8, 9, 22, 28. It was easier
for the leader to coordinate with other members. Every program in phase I the returning of sheep and
the planting of trees succeeded.
In 1995, there was a conflict between leader A and village apparatus. The resulting group conflict led to a
succession of leadership.
The conflict between Leader A and the village administrators was due to the plan to move the
location. Leader A, who was not liked by the village administrators, accused them of seeking a profit from
the land used for housing. The village administrators realized that if the location of the stalls was moved to
a specific area, the group would receive aid from the local government. The situation became complicated,
and most of the members supported the plan to move. Finally, the leader gave up but, he did not want to
continue as the leader because he did not want to be viewed as a loser, and he nominated his replacement.
However, he retained power in the group, and he remained active even after the conflict with the
village administrators. He gave his position to the secretary. This was the beginning of a new phase and
new
network structure
within the
group. Furthermore, from Table 3 to Table 6 it seen clearly
about total sheep industry which were produced in group and sheep ownership of cut-points.