Keeping the Flame of Sustainability: A Critical Interpretation of the Methodology of Government Science
Authors/Creators
Description
Menjaga Pijar Keberlanjutan: Tafsir Kritis atas Metodologi Ilmu Pemerintahan (Keeping the Flame of Sustainability: A Critical Interpretation of the Methodology of Government Science) is a book-length invitation to rethink how knowledge about government is produced, validated, and used. Rather than treating methodology as a neutral toolbox, the book frames methodology as an ethical and political arena where questions of power, voice, and responsibility are always at stake. It challenges technocratic habits that reduce complex social realities to procedures, indicators, and standardized evaluations, and it argues that such habits can make scholarship “efficient” yet socially blind. In this sense, sustainability is approached not only as an environmental concern, but also as a commitment to intellectual integrity, social justice, and long-term public value.
Across its chapters, the book moves from diagnosis to reconstruction. It maps a methodological crisis in the study of government: the tendency to confuse precision with truth, measurement with understanding, and administrative order with public value. It explores how positivist assumptions and bureaucratic rationality can narrow the horizon of inquiry, steering researchers toward what is easily counted rather than what is socially decisive. A sustained critique of “neutrality” follows, emphasizing that data, categories, and policy designs always carry assumptions, interests, and exclusions. Readers are invited to ask uncomfortable questions: Who defines the problem? Whose experiences become “evidence”? What kinds of realities are erased when only certain variables are considered legitimate?
The constructive core advances a methodology grounded in solidarity and emancipatory purpose. It advocates approaches that recognize citizens and communities as epistemic partners who can co-produce knowledge, not merely as objects to be surveyed. Participatory inquiry, deliberation, community mapping, and citizen-led observation are presented as practical pathways to restore legitimacy to local knowledge and to reduce the distance between analysis and public struggle. Methodological rigor is reframed as accountability: accountability to context, to lived experience, to ethical consequences, and to the people who bear the costs of policy failure. The book also highlights the importance of ecological and social interdependence, encouraging inquiry that takes seriously place, history, and everyday practices.
The book addresses contemporary disruptions as well. It discusses digital governance, information asymmetries, and the risk of authoritarian control through technology, insisting that methodology must be adaptive enough to uncover power embedded in platforms, algorithms, and dominant narratives. It also treats global ideas and local contexts as a methodological challenge rather than a simple transfer of “best practices.” Instead of importing models uncritically, researchers are urged to build two-way interpretive bridges that respect difference while remaining analytically disciplined. The goal is not to reject comparison, but to make comparison honest about its limits and sensitive to power.
Ultimately, Menjaga Pijar Keberlanjutan calls for reviving epistemological awareness: methodology should open inquiry, not close it, and cultivate critical reflection rather than merely verify technical results. Clear, reflective, and provocative in tone, the book speaks to students, researchers, policy analysts, and practitioners who want their work to be both intellectually credible and socially responsible. It offers a roadmap for turning methodological choices into deliberate commitments to justice, context, and human dignity, while keeping the flame of inquiry alive in Ilmu Pemerintahan.
Files
Menjaga Pijar Keberlanjutan.pdf
Files
(2.4 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:1cc0156654d332bac4ca19df0c661f23
|
2.4 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Abasilim, U.D., & Adekunle, A.O. (2024). Digital Media and Governance Research: Empirical Evidence from Public Administration and Political Science Scholars. Journal of Digital Governance, 6(3 Special Issue), 65–76. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13191662 Agbabiaka, H., McAdam, R., Keenan, M., & Godwyll, F. (2022). Digital governance and institutional resilience: How dynamic capabilities drive smart cities. Technology in Society, 68, 101887. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101887 Aguiar, M., Silva, J. S., & Barbosa, L. M. (2023). Co-producing knowledge for social transformation: Dialogues between community and academia in Latin America. Community Development Journal, 58(2), 275–294. DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsac035 Alhusban, A. A., & Almshaqbeh, S. N. (2024). Delivering an inclusive built environment for physically disabled people in public universities (Jordan as a case study). Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(6), 1980–1998. DOI: 10.1108/JEDT-06-2022-0281 Andrade, J., & Costa, M. (2020). Transformative Research and Sustainable Governance: A methodological reflection. Latin American Journal of Public Policy, 12(3), 233–254. DOI: 10.1353/ljpp.2020.0033 Andree, P., & Keshet, U. (2023). A New Paradigm for Inclusive Cities. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-32829-5 Angus, A., & Rand, W. (2019). Governing the "smart" city: Data, power, and participation. Urban Studies, 56(6), 1233–1250. DOI: 10.1177/0042098018799521 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 543–569. DOI: 10.1177/1368431009349830 Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What's the problem represented to be? In The Problem Represented to Be? Approach. Pearson. DOI: 10.4324/9780429439295 Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 467–498. DOI: 10.1177/1354066106069326 Bansal, P., & Song, H.-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149. DOI: 10.5465/annals.2015.0095 Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 395–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.003 Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., et al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth system governance. Science, 335(6074), 1306–1307. DOI: 10.1126/science.1217255 Boaventura de Sousa Santos. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315634879 Boulton, J., Allen, P., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568020.001.0001 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. DOI: 10.3316/QRJ0902027 Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12238 Cardenas, J. C., & Ostrom, E. (2004). What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons. Agricultural Systems, 82(3), 307–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.008 Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), Article 56. DOI: 10.5751/ES-06824-190356 Chowdhury, R. (2022). Decolonizing "decolonization" in development studies: A critical appraisal. Development and Change, 53(4), 665–686. DOI: 10.1111/dech.12711 Cosens, B. A., Ruhl, J. B., Soininen, N., & Gunderson, L. H. (2020). Governing complexity: Integrating science, governance, and law to build resilience in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 265. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00265 Criado, J. I., & Guevara-Gómez, A. (2021). Public sector, open innovation and collaborative governance. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(4), 612–626. DOI: 10.1108/TG-08-2020-0242 Datta, A. W., & Chaffin, B. C. (2022). Evolving adaptive governance: A case study of community-based resource management in Solomon Islands. In Adaptive Governance and Climate Change (pp. 113–130). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-32829-5_6 Deslatte, A. (2021). Adaptive governance and agenda setting to achieve sustainability policy change in cities. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 4–30. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12356