Communication practice in village datacollection

This study analyses two communication practices for rural data collectionin Indonesia: top-down, carried out by the state, and bottom-up, initiated by collectiveintellectuals. This research is to reveal how to communicate rural data collectionactions. The differences in data manifest the practice of communicating rural datacollection actions; and Doxa, habitus, and symbolic violence that is ‘hidden’ in theprocedures and mechanisms of data collection run by the state. The study area isTegallalang Village, Gianyar Regency, Bali. Quantitative data in Prodeskel from theMinistry of Home Affairs and Precision Village Data (DDP) with a Drone ParticipatoryMapping approach were obtained independently by researchers. The research usedMixed Methods Research. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviewsusing the Nvivo R1 application analysis. Knife analysis using Pierre Bourdieu and NickCouldry. The study results found two differences in the practice of rural data collection,namely; first, the difference in data collection actors. The state represents Prodeskel,and collective intellectuals represent DDP; second, the difference in data is due todifferences in the practice of communication actions (procedures and mechanisms) ofdata collection. Prodeskel data with a top-down approach produces low-accuracy dataand vice versa for DDP. This research also reveals the opus operatum ofcommunication actions in the form of Doxa, habitus, and symbolic violence in datacollection of the country’s countryside and digital technology to build a space forcommunication and citizen participation which is the key to the birth of DDP.