Komunikasi Antarbudaya Di Kalangan Mahasiswa Etnik Papua Dan Etnik Manado Di Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado

Masyarakat Indonesia tergolong dalam masyarakat heterogen karena terdiri dari berbagai keberagaman suku bangsa, agama, bahasa, adat istiadat dan sebagainya. Dalam melakukan komunikasi untuk memenuhi kebutuhan hidupnya individu ataupun kelompok melakukan interaksi baik sesama etnik maupun dengan individu atau kelompok lain yang berbeda latar belakang budaya, maka di situlah tercipta komunikasi antarbudaya. Komunikasi antarbudaya merupakan komunikasi antar orang-orang yang berbeda budaya (baik dalam arti ras, etnik ataupun perbedaan sosio ekonomi).Dari uraian tersebut, maka penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pesan komunikasi verbal dan hambatan-hambatan yang di temui dalam komunikasi antarbudaya di kalangan mahasiswa etnik Papua dan etnik Manado di Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Politik, Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado.Penelitian ini dilakukan di Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Politik (FISPOL), Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data melalui wawancara, observasi/pengamatan, dan dokumentasi. Adapaun informan adalah mahasiswa FISPOL etnik Papua yang berkuliah selama 1 sampai dengan 4 tahun dan mahasiswa FISPOL etnik Manado yakni: Minahasa, Gorontalo, Sangihe Talaud dan Bolmong yang telah menetap di Provinsi Sulawesi Utara sejak kecil. sedangkan tenik analisis data penulis berupaya dengan jalan bekerja dengan data, mengorganisasikan data, memilah-milahnya menjadi satuan yang dapat dikelola, mensistensikannya, mencari dan menemukan pola dan menemukan apa yang penting dari apa yang dipelajari dan memutuskan apa yang dapa di ceritakan kepada orang lain.Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa komunikasi antarbudaya di kalangan mahasiswa antara etnik Papua dan etnik Manado di fakultas ilmu sosial dan politik (FISPOL) Universitas Sam Ratulangai Manado berjalan cukup baik dapat dilihat dengan mereka masing-masing menyadari perbedaan yang terjadi namun perbedaan tidak menjadi suatu penghalang untuk mereka terus melakukan interaksi karena kedua etnik ini selalu mengedepankan sikap saling menghargai perbedaan baik dari segi budaya berupa bahasa dan dialek, gaya hidup dan perilaku. Akan tetapi berdasarkan hasil penelitian juga menyatakan bahwa makna dalam komunikasi antarbudaya di kalangan mahasiswa antara etnik Papua dan etnik Manado baik melalui komunikasi secara langsung maupun melalui media sosial (facebook, line, dan BBM) belum berjalan secara optimal karena masing-masing etnik masih menggunakan bahasa dan dialek daerah asal dalam melakukan interaksi sehingga masing-masing individu memiliki persepsi yang berbeda dalam menangkap pesan

The use of design activity for research into Computer Supported Co-operative Working (CSCW)

This paper describes current research at Loughborough University in the field of Computer Supported Co-operative Working (CSCW). The project, which is funded by the Information Engineering Directorate (IED) within the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), is titled 'Establishing the Communicational Requirements of Information Technology (IT) Systems that Support Humans Co-operating Remotely'. The research group have adopted a less cumbersome acronym for the project - ROCOCO which is derived from REmote COoperation and COmmunication. Design activity has been proposed as offering a suitable context for a study of co-operation and at the time of writing the first phase of the experiments - involving face to face or proximal co-operation - has been undertaken and the analysis begun. The ROCOCO project is about to embark on phase two involving remote co-operation. This paper presents, in some detail, the construction and operation of a pilot study that allowed project members to assess and adjust the experimental design prior to the start of Phase One. A selection of initial findings illustrate the nature of the investigation to be undertaken. The paper also seeks to highlight the importance of CSCW research for the design community. The substance of the paper is concerned with a presentation of issues involved in an analysis of co-operation, involving as it does, verbal and non-verbal communication

Some excitable behaviors of KTz logistic map.

<p>Parameters are given in Table A in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.s001" target="_blank">S1 File</a>.</p

Phase diagrams of the KTLog model (case I).

<p>Panel A: <i>T</i> × <i>K</i> plane for <i>H</i> = 0 (vertical dashed lines are the selected <i>K</i> values for panels B, C and D); Solid lines are supercritical pitchfork bifurcation [1FP↔2FP, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e008" target="_blank">Eq (5)</a>] or supercritical Neimark-Sacker bifurcation [1FP↔OA, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e009" target="_blank">Eq (6)</a>], rightmost dashed line of the BI region is a subcritical Neimark-Sacker bifurcation [2FP→OA, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e010" target="_blank">Eq (7)</a>] and leftmost dashed line of the BI region is the stability limit of the OA region. Panel B: <i>T</i> × <i>H</i> plane for <i>K</i> = 0.3 (valid for <i>K</i> ≤ 0.5); Panel C: <i>T</i> × <i>H</i> plane for <i>K</i> = 0.6 (valid for 0.5 < <i>K</i> < 1); Panel D: <i>T</i> × <i>H</i> plane for <i>K</i> = 1.5 (valid for <i>K</i> ≥ 1). Panels B–D: 2FP↔1FP are saddle-node bifurcations and dashed lines are subcritical Neimark-Sacker bifurcations; solid lines are given by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e012" target="_blank">Eq (8)</a>. The top point (multicritical points, MCP) in panels C and D are supercritical Neimark-Sacker bifurcations. The OA region contains many periodic Arnold tongues labeled by their winding numbers.</p

Bifurcation diagrams of the KTLog model.

<p>Panels A, B: bifurcation over <i>T</i> for fixed <i>K</i> = 0.6. (A) <i>H</i> = 0.0 and (B) <i>H</i> = −0.01. Panels C–F: bifurcation over <i>H</i> for fixed <i>K</i> = 0.6. (C) <i>T</i> = 0.12, (D) <i>T</i> = 0.32, (E) <i>T</i> = 0.54, (F) <i>T</i> = 0.65. Panels G, H: bifurcation over <i>K</i> for fixed <i>H</i> = 0.0. (G) <i>T</i> = 0.2, (H) <i>T</i> = 0.5. Eqs (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e018" target="_blank">13</a>) and (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e021" target="_blank">15</a>) give stable FPs (—), unstable FPs (⋯) and saddle FPs (---); and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e007" target="_blank">Eq (4)</a> gives the amplitude of OAs (height of the filled up area). Dark grey: coexistence of stable OAs and at least one stable FP; Light gray: coexistence of stable OAs and unstable FPs.</p

ISI bifurcation diagrams and OA amplitude.

<p>ISI is displayed in the top curves and OA amplitude in the bottom ones (circles) for <i>K</i> = 0.6 and <i>δ</i> = <i>λ</i> = 0.001. Panels A–C: <i>ISI</i> × <i>T</i> for <i>x</i>_<i>R</i> = −0.01 (A), <i>x</i>_<i>R</i> = −0.2 (B) and <i>x</i>_<i>R</i> = −0.4 (C); inset: detail of the plot in the frontier between cardiac spikes and aperiodic cardiac spikes; notice how the ISI goes from a characteristic value to several distinct values. Panels D–F: <i>ISI</i> × <i>x</i>_<i>R</i> for <i>T</i> = 0.1 (D), <i>T</i> = 0.275 (E) and <i>T</i> = 0.54 (F). Vertical dotted lines highlight bifurcations. The amplitude of limit cycles, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0174621#pone.0174621.e007" target="_blank">Eq (4)</a>, has discontinuities at every bifurcation. These discontinuities tend to disappear as |<i>x</i>_<i>R</i>|→0 because then the model approaches a supercritical Neimark-Sacker bifurcation. The amplitude also highlights the presence of subthreshold oscillations in the transition from FP to BS or to ACS.</p