Mapping Digital-Era Indonesian Character: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on National Identity, Technology, and Future Governance (2020–2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70211/bafr.v2i1.577Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Digital Citizenship, Future Governance, Indonesian Character, Pancasila, VOSviewerAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
[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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good?,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
[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] 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] 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] 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] M. J. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 statement,” BMJ, vol. 372, n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
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.