NEGOSIASI RUANG AMAN DAN PARTISIPASI SUBSTANTIF DALAM KOMUNIKASI KOMUNITAS PEREMPUAN: STUDI KASUS PUSAT KAJIAN PEREMPUAN SOLO (PUKAPS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/harkat.v22i1.52143Keywords:
collective action, contested safety, feminist participatory communication, komunikasi partisipatoris feminis, partisipasi substantif, safe space, substantive participation , tindakan kolektif, ruang amanAbstract
Abstract. This qualitative case study examines how safe space is negotiated and how member voices gain influence in the Pusat Kajian Perempuan Solo (PUKAPS). Data came from in-depth interviews with five informants, non-participant observation, and organizational documents. Abductive analysis identified three central patterns. First, dialogic openness allowed participants to share personal experiences, but differences in experience, feminist literacy, and confidence kept safety under negotiation. This condition is described as contested safety. Second, participation became substantive when recognized ideas influenced the zine theme, education sessions, and campaign implementation. Third, shared concerns developed into collective initiatives, although limited time, distance, and financial resources constrained their continuity. Accounts of critical awareness (conscientização) in P3 and agency in P4 are treated as individual indications, not uniform outcomes. The study shows that substantive participation connects voice recognition with organizational decisions and collective initiatives. Micro-social transformation is therefore positioned as a limited implication of community practice, not as a universal causal outcome.
Abstrak. Studi kasus kualitatif ini mengkaji cara ruang aman dinegosiasikan dan cara suara anggota memperoleh pengaruh dalam Komunitas Pusat Kajian Perempuan Solo (PUKAPS). Data berasal dari wawancara mendalam dengan lima informan, observasi nonpartisipan, dan dokumen organisasi. Analisis abduktif menghasilkan tiga pola utama. Pertama, keterbukaan dialogis memungkinkan peserta membagikan pengalaman personal, tetapi perbedaan pengalaman, literasi feminis, dan kepercayaan diri membuat rasa aman terus dinegosiasikan. Kondisi ini disebut contested safety. Kedua, partisipasi menjadi substantif ketika gagasan yang diakui memengaruhi tema zine, sesi edukasi, dan pelaksanaan kampanye. Ketiga, keresahan bersama berkembang menjadi inisiatif kolektif, meskipun keberlanjutannya dibatasi oleh waktu, jarak, dan sumber daya finansial. Perubahan kesadaran kritis (conscientização) pada P3 dan agensi pada P4 diperlakukan sebagai indikasi individual, bukan hasil yang seragam. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa partisipasi substantif menghubungkan pengakuan atas suara dengan keputusan organisasi dan inisiatif kolektif. Transformasi sosial mikro karena itu ditempatkan sebagai implikasi terbatas dari praktik komunitas, bukan hasil kausal yang berlaku secara universal.
References
Ajmani, L. H., Bhatt, T., & DeVito, M. A. (2025). Moving towards epistemic autonomy: A paradigm shift for centering participant knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) (Article 474, pp. 1–17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3714252
Al Hakim, G., Bastian, B. L., Ng, P. Y., & Wood, B. P. (2022). Women’s empowerment as an outcome of NGO projects: Is the current approach sustainable? Administrative Sciences, 12(2), Article 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020062
Argestya, U. F., & Afiati, A. R. (2022). Strategi komunikasi komunitas Pusat Kajian Perempuan Solo (PUKAPS) dalam menyuarakan isu gender dan kekerasan seksual. Academic Journal of Da’wa and Communication, 3(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.22515/ajdc.v3i2.5565
Bachmann, I., & Proust, V. (2020). Old concerns, renewed focus and novel problems: Feminist communication theory and the Global South. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1647445
Barrios, L. M., Prowse, A., & Vargas, V. R. (2020). Sustainable development and women’s leadership: A participatory exploration of capabilities in Colombian Caribbean fisher communities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121277
Belaid, L., Atim, P., Atim, E., Ochola, E., Ogwang, M., Bayo, P., Oola, J., Wonyima Okello, I., Sarmiento, I., Rojas-Rozo, L., Zinszer, K., Zarowsky, C., & Andersson, N. (2021). Communities and service providers address access to perinatal care in postconflict Northern Uganda: Socialising evidence for participatory action. Family Medicine and Community Health, 9(2), e000610. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2020-000610
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00086-X
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.; M. B. Ramos, Trans.; D. Macedo, Intro.). Continuum.
Goessling, K. P. (2025). Learning from feminist participatory action research: A framework for responsive and generative research practices with young people. Action Research, 23(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503241228502
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press.
Jacobson, T. L. (2003). Participatory communication for social change: The relevance of the theory of communicative action. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 87–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679023
Kogen, L. (2019). Small group discussion to promote reflection and social change: A case study of a Half the Sky intervention in India. Community Development Journal, 54(4), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsy030
Kumar, N., Raghunathan, K., Arrieta, A., Jilani, A., & Pandey, S. (2021). The power of the collective empowers women: Evidence from self-help groups in India. World Development, 146, 105579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105579
Liebenberg, L. (2018). Thinking critically about photovoice: Achieving empowerment and social change. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918757631
Lohman, K. (2024). Creating a safer space: Being safe and doing safety in queer and feminist punk scenes. The Sociological Review, 72(5), 1156–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221092519
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nasr, H. (2022). Safe spaces for refugee women: Towards cultivating feminist solidarity. Feminist Review, 131(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789221102573
Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence-Based Nursing, 22(3), 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145
Pradhan, M. R., Unisa, S., Rawat, R., Surabhi, S., Saraswat, A., Reshmi, R. S., & Sethi, V. (2023). Women empowerment through involvement in community-based health and nutrition interventions: Evidence from a qualitative study in India. PLoS ONE, 18(4), e0284521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284521
Roestone Collective. (2014). Safe space: Towards a reconceptualization. Antipode, 46(5), 1346–1365. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12089
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Switzer, S., & Flicker, S. (2021). Visualizing DEPICT: A multistep model for participatory analysis in photovoice research for social change. Health Promotion Practice, 22(2_suppl), 50S–65S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211045017
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Tomaszewski, L. E., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174
Utami, Y. S. (2024). Resilience of participatory communication adolescent community communities in the prevention of child marriage in Sukabumi. Jurnal Komunikasi, 16(1), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.24912/jk.v16i1.28227
Wilkins, K. G. (2024). The feminist gaze on communication for social change. Social Sciences, 13(11), Article 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13110580
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Khoirul Hudah, Noor Afy Shovmayanti, Syaiful Maulanna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
