Social Disorganization in the Digital Society and Its Impact on Social Cohesion in Rural Communities
Keywords:
Digital society, Social disorganization, Social cohesion, Rural communitiesAbstract
This study aims to explore social disorganization in digital society and its impact on social cohesion in rural communities. The study responds to the growing use of digital media in village communication, public information, education, local business, and community activities, which creates both opportunities and social challenges. A qualitative approach with a multisite case study design was used. The research was conducted in three rural villages in South Lampung Regency, Lampung Province, Indonesia, from March to May 2025. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, limited participatory observation, and documentation. The participants included village officials, community leaders, religious leaders, teachers, youth, small business actors, farmers, housewives, and older residents selected through purposive and snowball sampling. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings reveal five main themes: digital communication fragmentation, unequal digital participation, weakening of face-to-face deliberation, changing authority of information, and community strategies to maintain social cohesion. The study shows that digitalization can support faster communication and wider access to information, but it can also create exclusion, dependence, and weaker collective discussion when not managed inclusively. The study contributes to social disorganization theory by showing that digital disruption in rural communities can occur through fragmented communication and unequal participation rather than open conflict. The findings suggest the need for inclusive village digitalization that combines online systems with direct social interaction.
References
Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., & Olenik, N. L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4(10), 1358–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.1441
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5
Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051
Anugrah, G. T. P., Sjaf, S., & Hermansah, T. (2024). Digital divide and classifying social class in rural development: Voices from the secondary data of field. Jurnal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat: Media Pemikiran dan Dakwah Pembangunan, 8(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.14421/jpm.2024.081-06
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Esteban-Navarro, M.-Á., García-Madurga, M.-Á., Morte-Nadal, T., & Nogales-Bocio, A.-I. (2020). The rural digital divide in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: Recommendations from a scoping review. Informatics, 7(4), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7040054
Fahmi, F. Z., & Arifianto, A. (2022). Digitalization and social innovation in rural areas: A case study from Indonesia. Rural Sociology, 87(2), 339–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12418
Fahmi, F. Z., & Mendrofa, M. J. S. (2023). Rural transformation and the development of information and communication technologies: Evidence from Indonesia. Technology in Society, 75, 102349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102349
Fahmi, F. Z., & Savira, M. (2023). Digitalization and rural entrepreneurial attitude in Indonesia: A capability approach. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 17(2), 454–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-06-2021-0082
Feurich, M., Kouřilová, J., Pělucha, M., & Kasabov, E. (2024). Bridging the urban-rural digital divide: Taxonomy of the best practice and critical reflection of the EU countries’ approach. European Planning Studies, 32(3), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2186167
Giest, S. (2025). The intersection of digital and social infrastructures in (a)spatial policymaking. Policy Sciences, 58, 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09569-6
Heeks, R. (2022). Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: Conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation in the Global South. Information Technology for Development, 28(4), 688–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492
Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
Linning, S. J., Olaghere, A., & Eck, J. E. (2022). Say NOPE to social disorganization criminology: The importance of creators in neighborhood social control. Crime Science, 11, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-022-00167-y
Maihasni, M., Fachrina, F., Anggraini, N., & Ariesta, A. (2025). Social cohesion and social media threats to families in the digital era. Society, 13(2), 796–813. https://doi.org/10.33019/society.v13i2.833
Martínez-Domínguez, M., & Mora-Rivera, J. (2020). Internet adoption and usage patterns in rural Mexico. Technology in Society, 60, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101226
McKim, C. (2023). Meaningful member-checking: A structured approach to member-checking. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12973
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Parks, L., Srinivasan, R., & Aragon, D. C. (2022). Digital empowerment for whom? An analysis of “network sovereignty” in low-income, rural communities in Mexico and Tanzania. Information, Communication & Society, 25(14), 2140–2161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1928264
Phillips, R. H. (2024). The role of ICT in maintaining social cohesion: Understanding the potential of digital initiatives for social networks in rural areas. Rural Sociology, 89(3), 545–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12557
Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
Sommer, C., Chilla, T., Birnbaum, L., & Kröner, S. (2025). Digital social innovations in rural areas: Process tracing and mapping critical junctures. Journal of Rural Studies, 114, 103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103510
Ye, L., & Yang, H. (2020). From digital divide to social inclusion: A tale of mobile platform empowerment in rural areas. Sustainability, 12(6), 2424. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062424
Zerrer, N., & Sept, A. (2020). Smart villagers as actors of digital social innovation in rural areas. Urban Planning, 5(4), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3183
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
