Mapping Digital-Era Indonesian Character: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on National Identity, Technology, and Future Governance (2020–2025)
Article Integrity
Article Metrics
185
Article Views
126
PDF Downloads
0
Crossref Citations
Abstract
This study maps research on Indonesian character in the digital era to clarify how national identity, technology, and future governance are connected in the literature. A bibliometric design was applied to Crossref metadata retrieved through Publish or Perish. From 1,000 records published between 2020 and 2025, 402 records met the predefined relevance and metadata criteria. Annual production, document sources, leading contributors, and term co-occurrence were analysed in VOSviewer 1.6.20. Publication output increased from 65 records in 2020 to a peak of 85 in 2023, before declining to 37 in 2025. Scientific journals accounted for 49.3% of the corpus. Term mapping retained 104 terms and identified four connected clusters: moral and personal formation, civic-pedagogical capacity, rights and institutions, and development and welfare. The least dense areas concerned democratic institutions, welfare, human development, health, and regional inequality. The study’s contribution is a future-governance interpretation of character research: digital citizenship, ethical AI use, and human-centred public innovation should be studied as integral, rather than peripheral, dimensions of Indonesian character.
References
1
[1] L. Floridi et al., “AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations,” Minds and Machines, vol. 28, pp. 689–707, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
2
[2] A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 389–399, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
3
[3] B. D. Mittelstadt, “Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 501–507, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
4
[4] T. Hagendorff, “The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines,” Minds and Machines, vol. 30, pp. 99–120, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
5
[5] B. W. Wirtz, J. C. Weyerer, and C. Geyer, “Artificial intelligence and the public sector—Applications and challenges,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 596–615, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103
6
[6] T. Q. Sun and R. Medaglia, “Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 368–383, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008
7
[7] D. Valle-Cruz et al., “Assessing the public policy-cycle framework in the age of artificial intelligence: From agenda-setting to policy evaluation,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, Art. no. 101509, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101509
8
[8] N. Haug, S. Dan, and I. Mergel, “Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda,” Public Management Review, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1963–1987, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
9
[9] M. Choi, “A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the Internet age,” Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 565–607, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549
10
[10] L. M. Jones and K. J. Mitchell, “Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship,” New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 2063–2079, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797
11
[11] M. Choi, M. Glassman, and D. Cristol, “What it means to be a citizen in the Internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale,” Computers & Education, vol. 107, pp. 100–112, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.002
12
[12] E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 72, pp. 577–588, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
13
[13] A. A. S. H. Huda et al., “Merawat Ke-Indonesiaan melalui penguatan dan pengembangan isu Kepancasilaan: Tinjauan analisis bibliometrik terhadap publikasi penelitian tahun 2020–2025,” At-Tazakki, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 156–182, 2025. https://doi.org/10.47006/attazakki.v9i2.26831
14
[14] A. A. S. H. Huda et al., “Reorientasi dikotomis ilmu agama dan umum melalui pendekatan analisis bibliometrik,” Kamaya, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 155–168, 2024. https://doi.org/10.37329/kamaya.v7i2.3219
15
[15] A. Amran et al., “Implementation of education for sustainable development to enhance Indonesian golden generation character,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1521, no. 4, Art. no. 042102, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042102
16
[16] R. Setyaningrum, A. R. Wijaya, and S. Subagyo, “The characteristics of society in Indonesian based on the Hofstede cultural dimensions: Measuring the five Indonesian islands,” International Journal of Culture and Art Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 60–74, 2022. https://doi.org/10.32734/ijcas.v6i1.8720
17
[17] I. K. Ardhana and N. W. R. N. Puspitasari, “Adat law, ethics, and human rights in modern Indonesia,” Religions, vol. 14, no. 4, Art. no. 443, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040443
18
[18] L. Puspitasari and K. Ishii, “Digital divides and mobile Internet in Indonesia: Impact of smartphones,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 472–483, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.11.001
19
[19] A. J. A. M. van Deursen and J. A. G. M. van Dijk, “The digital divide shifts to differences in usage,” New Media & Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 507–526, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959
20
[20] M. Muthukrishna et al., “Beyond Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology,” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 4, pp. 1171–1181, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0910-6
21
[21] M. J. Gelfand et al., “Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study,” Science, vol. 332, no. 6033, pp. 1100–1104, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
22
[22] E. Awad et al., “The Moral Machine experiment,” Nature, vol. 563, pp. 59–64, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
23
[23] I. D. Raji et al., “Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing,” in FAT, 2020, pp. 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
24
[24] O. Zawacki-Richter et al., “Systematic review of AI applications in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ., vol. 16, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
25
[25] F. Ouyang and P. Jiao, “Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020
26
[26] Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 71, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
27
[27] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good?,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
28
[28] P. Donthu et al., “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
29
[29] J. A. Moral-Muñoz et al., “Software tools for bibliometric analysis,” Profesional de la Información, vol. 29, no. 1, e290103, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
30
[30] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “VOSviewer software survey,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
31
[31] I. Zupic and T. Čater, “Bibliometric methods in management,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 429–472, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
32
[32] M. J. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 statement,” BMJ, vol. 372, n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
33
[33] M. Gusenbauer and N. R. Haddaway, “Academic search systems,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 181–217, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
34
[34] A. Martín-Martín et al., “Comparison of citation databases,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1160–1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
35
[35] M. Thelwall, “Dimensions database,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 430–435, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
36
[36] M. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, “Scopus vs Web of Science,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, pp. 213–228, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
37
[37] A.-W. Harzing and S. Alakangas, “Google Scholar comparison,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, pp. 787–804, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
38
[38] M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix R tool,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
39
[39] J. Baas et al., “Scopus as bibliometric data source,” Quantitative Science Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 377–386, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Author Biographies
Ali Anhar Syi'bul Huda
Islamic Religious Education Teacher
Aghnia
Master's Program in Elementary Education
Abid Nurhuda
Doctoral Program in Qur'anic Studies and Exegesis
Walid In'am Ahmad
Doctoral Program in Islamic Economics
Hamdi
Master's Program in Islamic Education
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ali Anhar Syi'bul Huda, Aghnia, Abid Nurhuda, Walid In'am Ahmad, Hamdi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Tools
Citation Impact
Crossref Cited-by
0
citations
Counted from citation links between Crossref-registered works.
Last checked 24 Aug 2026.How to Cite
Anhar, A., Aghnia, Abid Nurhuda, Walid In’am Ahmad, & Hamdi. (2026). Mapping Digital-Era Indonesian Character: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on National Identity, Technology, and Future Governance (2020–2025). Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, and Future Research, 2(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.70211/bafr.v2i1.577