Article Sidebar

Download
Download PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 327 Download : 239

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Hoax atau disinformasi dalam penanganan Covid-19 menjadi salah satu masalah utama di hampir seluruh negara termasuk Indonesia. Untuk kepentingan akademik dan kontribusi perumusan kebijakan penanggulangan pandemi di masa yang akan datang, analisis perkembangan kajian fenomena hoax dan Covid-19 sangat penting dilakukan. Kajian ini menggunakan analisis bibliometrika dengan pencarian keyword “Covid-19”, “in Indonesia”, dan “hoax” atau “disinformation” atau “fake news” dari database Google Scholar (GS). Analisis menggunakan VOSviewer menemukan 276 artikel yang relevan. Hasil analisis bibliometrika menunjukkan penelitian tentang disinformasi dan Covid-19 di Indonesia masih sedikit. Begitupun dari sisi waktu, penerbitan di jurnal internasional, kajian tentang topik ini juga belum terlalu lama. Temuan lainnya adalah bahwa tema-tema penelitian terkait topik ini didominasi istilah “perception”, “number”, “hoax information”, “perspective” dan “student”. Kata-kata di atas masih bersifat umum dan belum fokus pada tema-tema komunikasi risiko seperti trust, kredibilitas, pesan, penerima, psikososial dan lainnya. Hasil analisis juga menunjukkan masih sedikit peneliti yang melakukan kajian dalam isu Covid-19 dan hoax. Data menunjukkan bahwa di antara para penulis tidak ada kerja sama dalam melakukan penelitian ini. Studi ini penting selain sebagai kontribusi untuk mengisi keterbatasan kajian literatur Covid-19 juga memberikan bahan masukan kepada para pembuat kebijakan dalam rangka antisipasi penanganan pandemi di masa yang akan datang.

Keywords

bibliometrika literatur hoax Covid-19 disinformation fake news komunikasi risiko

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Copyright ©Kementerian PPN/Bappenas RI

How to Cite
Adiyoso, W. (2022). Kajian Hoax dalam Pandemi Covid-19 di Indonesia . Bappenas Working Papers, 5(3), 356 - 366. https://doi.org/10.47266/bwp.v5i3.177

References

  1. Abdel-Raheem, A. (2021). Reality bites: How the pandemic has begun to shape the way we, metaphorically, see the world. Discourse & Society, 09579265211013118. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265211013118
  2. Adiyoso, W. (2019). Manajemen Bencana: Isu-isu Strategis (1st ed.). Bumi Aksara. http://opac.lib.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=book_detail&sub=BookDetail&act=view&typ=htmlext&buku_id=782902&obyek_id=1
  3. Adiyoso, W. (2020). Assessing Governments’ Emergency Responses to COVID-19 Outbreak Using a Social Analysis Network (SNA). Advance Publisher, Pre-Print.
  4. Adiyoso, W., & Wilopo, W. (2020). Social Distancing Intentions to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19: The Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Research Square, Pre-Print.
  5. Bolsen, T., Palm, R., & Kingsland, J. T. (2020). Framing the Origins of COVID-19. Science Communication, 42(5), 562–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020953603
  6. Bourrier, M. (2018). Risk communication 101: A few benchmarks. In SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74098-0_1
  7. Chahrour, M., Assi, S., Bejjani, M., Nasrallah, A. A., Salhab, H., Fares, M. Y., & Khachfe, H. H. (2020). A Bibliometric Analysis of COVID-19 Research Activity: A Call for Increased Output. Cureus, 2(December 2019), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7357
  8. Dores Cruz, T. D., van der Lee, R., & Beersma, B. (2021). Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221991232
  9. Ellegaard, O. (2018). The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects. Scientometrics, 116(1), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2765-z
  10. Feehan, J., & Apostolopoulos, V. (2021). Is COVID-19 the worst pandemic? Maturitas, 149(January), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2021.02.001
  11. Forman, R., Atun, R., McKee, M., & Mossialos, E. (2020). 12 Lessons learned from the management of the coronavirus pandemic. Health Policy, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.008
  12. Goniewicz, K., Khorram-Manesh, A., Hertelendy, A. J., Goniewicz, M., Naylor, K., & Burkle, F. M. (2020). Current response and management decisions of the European Union to the COVID-19 outbreak: A review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093838
  13. Green, M., Musi, E., Rowe, F., Charles, D., Pollock, F. D., Kypridemos, C., Morse, A., Rossini, P., Tulloch, J., Davies, A., Dearden, E., Maheswaran, H., Singleton, A., Vivancos, R., & Sheard, S. (2021). Identifying how COVID-19-related misinformation reacts to the announcement of the UK national lockdown: An interrupted time-series study. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 20539517211013868. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013869
  14. Liao, H., Tang, M., Luo, L., Li, C., Chiclana, F., & Zeng, X. J. (2018). A bibliometric analysis and visualization of medical big data research. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010166
  15. Montesi, M. (2020). Understanding fake news during the Covid-19 health crisis from the perspective of information behaviour: The case of Spain. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 0961000620949653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620949653
  16. Olivia, S., Gibson, J., & Nasrudin, R. (2020). Indonesia in the Time of Covid-19. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 56(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2020.1798581
  17. Pulido, C. M., Villarejo-Carballido, B., Redondo-Sama, G., & Gómez, A. (2020). COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information. International Sociology, 35(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920914755
  18. Robinson, K. R. (2021). Comparing the Spanish flu and COVID-19 pandemics: Lessons to carry forward. Nursing Forum, 56(2), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12534
  19. Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x
  20. Starcevic, V., & Brakoulias, V. (2021). ‘Things are not what they seem to be’: A proposal for the spectrum approach to conspiracy beliefs. Australasian Psychiatry, 10398562211008182. https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562211008182
  21. Utami, D. (2021). The Use of Social Media in Risk Communication during COVID-19: An Analysis of Stakeholders’ Messages on Social Media. academiccommons.columbia.edu. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-x59k-n715
  22. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(66), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
  23. WHO. (2021). Global update on coronavirus disease. WHO. https://covid19.who.int
  24. Wijaya, M. C., & Kloping, Y. P. (2021). Validity and reliability testing of the Indonesian version of the eHealth Literacy Scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Informatics Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458220975466
  25. Zakaria, N., & Mustaffa, C. S. (2014). Source Credibility, Risk Communication and Well-being: A Conceptual Framework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.276