Titi Savitri Prihatiningsih(1*)

(1) Departemen Pendidikan Kedokteran dan Bioetika Universitas Gadjah Mada Gedung Radioputro Lt. 6, Jl. Farmako, Sekip Utara, Yogyakarta 55281
(*) Corresponding Author


Background: Medical profession regulation are carried out through certification and licensure which can be executed by the government, the organizational profession or the collaboration of both. Having a long standing credibility in professional regulation, medical professions have required every medical graduate to undergo certification and licensure process. The UK system adopts the government-led and the USA system has opted for the professional-led medical regulation. In Indonesia currently there are two laws regulating medical profession, namely Medical Practice Law No.29/2004 and Medical Education Law. No.20/2013. These two Laws have given mandates for medical profession regulation to different stakeholders, resulting in conflicting roles and functions, particularly in certification and licensure. Attempts to overcome these situations have been initiated, by inviting all stakeholders involved to discuss the solution during the period of December 2014-January 2015. This study aims at understanding the decision making process to achieve consensus using the concept of collaborative governance.
Method: Qualitative method using a case study is applied and documents analysis is used for data collection. Thematic analysis is employed for data analysis.
Results: Six themes are identified to reflect the decision making process in collaborative governance. It starts with distrust, followed by mutual understanding and willingness to listen, then common goals are agreed. Each stakeholder conducts an internal reflection and eventually accepts a consensus.
Conclusion: The concept of collaborative governance can be applied in medical profession regulation to achieve consensus in collective decision making process.


medical profession, regulation, collaborative governanc

Full Text:



1. Freidson E. Professionalism: The Third Logic.Cambridge: Polity Press; 2001
2. Kultgen J. Professional Paternalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice; 2014; 17(3):pp. 399–412.
Paternalism doi: 10.1007/s10677-013-9451-2.
3. Bougeault IL, Grignon M. A Comparison of the Regulation of Health Professional Boundaries across OECD Countries. The European
Journal of Comparative Economics. 2013;10(2):pp. 199-223.
4. Dingwall R, Fenn P. A respectable profession? Sociological and economic perspectives on the regulation of professional services. International Review of Law and Economics. 1987; 7:51–64. abl e - p ro fe s s ion%E2%80%9DSociological-and-on-the-Dingwall-Fenn/ef7ca8c8c5b8dfa1082f224ac127bfd782908639.doi:10.1016/0144-8188(87)90006-8
5. Evetts J. Similarities in Contexts and Theorizing:Professionalism and Inequality’, Professions and Professionalism. 2012;2(2):1–15. http://dx.doi.
6. Rooney AL, van Ostenberg PR. Licensure,Accreditation and Certification: Approaches to
Health Services Quality. Bethesda: USAID.1999.Available from:
7. Parker, M. Assessing professionalism: theory and practice? Medical Teacher. 2006;28(5):399–403.
8. Prihatiningsih TS. A Case Study of the Role fo Quality Assurance in the Development of
Undergraduate Medical Education. Master Thesis. University of Dundee.2000
9. Undang-Undang No.29/2004 Tentang Praktik Kedokteran
10. Undang-Undang No.20/2013 Tentang Pendidikan Kedokteran
11. Chhaparwal B, Christensen L, Gale R,Leinster S, Talbot M, Walters T. Regulation
and Accreditation. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation
and Assessment. Module 2, Unit 1. 4th edition.FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning,
CenMEDIC, London. 2016
12. Ansel, C.& Gash, A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.2008.18: 543-571. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/31311629_Collaborative_Governance_in_Theory DOI: 10.1093/jopart/
13. Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance. 2011 May 2. doi:10.1093/jopart/
14. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative,Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.
3rd Edition. London: SAGE.2009:1-2
15. Lincoln YS and Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry.New York: SAGE Publications. 1985:48
16. Salkin N. Encyclopedia of Research Design.2012., pp 880-885
17. Bowen GA. Document Analysis as a QualitativeResearch Method. Qualitative Research Journal.2009;9(2): 27-40. https://www.researchgate.
DOI 10.3316/QRJ0902027
18. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid
Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(1).
19. Osborne SP (Ed). The New Public Governance?Emerging perspective on the theory and practice of pubic governance? New York: Routledge. 2010
20. Ratner. Collaborative Governance Assessment.Malaysia: CGIAR. 2012.


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1485 | views : 1581


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Titi Savitri Prihatiningsih

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by: