Understanding AEC Stakeholder Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Approach Integrating Thematic Analysis and Computational Text Analytics

This study examines stakeholder perceptions of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) among youth and young adult respondents (aged 15–24) across ASEAN member states and regional partners, using a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative thematic analysis with computational text analytics, drawing on 480 open-ended survey responses, thematic analysis identified six themes: Economic Growth and Trade, Regional Integration and Connectivity, Business Development and Market Opportunities, Stakeholder Benefits and Quality of Life, Cooperation and ASEAN Solidarity, and Limited Awareness and Visibility Gap. Chi-square tests revealed statistically significant associations between theme distribution and both country of origin (χ² = 119.80, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.223) and stakeholder group (χ² = 44.17, p = 0.046, Cramer's V = 0.136). Sentiment analysis indicated a predominantly positive overall tone (49.8% positive), with T6 responses registering entirely neutral sentiment. Word frequency analysis identified distinctive vocabulary profiles for each theme. The findings, which reflect the perspectives of a predominantly Filipino and Indonesian youth sample, suggest that stakeholders associate the AEC primarily with tangible socioeconomic benefits. However, national context significantly shapes these perceptions. A persistent awareness and visibility gap among a subset of respondents highlights a governance communication challenge requiring targeted policy attention.

ASEAN Economic Community; Mixed Methods; Thematic Analysis; Sentiment Analysis

1. Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Acharya, A. (2023). ASEAN and the future of regional order. Asian Affairs, 54(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. ASEAN Secretariat. (2015). ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025. ASEAN Secretariat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. ASEAN Secretariat. (2023). ASEAN Integration Report 2023. ASEAN Secretariat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Asian Development Bank. (2024). Asian Development Outlook 2024. ADB. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Baldwin, R. (2006). Managing the noodle bowl: The fragility of East Asian regionalism. Singapore Economic Review, 53(3), 449–478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S. M. (2016). iSA: A fast, scalable and accurate algorithm for sentiment analysis of social media content. Information Sciences, 367–368, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 66–75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gerard, K. (2014). ASEAN's engagement of civil society: Regulating dissent and engendering conformity. Pacific Affairs, 87(2), 255–274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gilardi, F. (2012). Transnational diffusion: Norms, ideas, and policies. Handbook of International Relations, 2, 453–477. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Guntuku, S. C., Yaden, D. B., Kern, M. L., Ungar, L. H., & Eichstaedt, J. C. (2017). Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: An integrative review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Jetschke, A. (2021). ASEAN and the future of Southeast Asian regionalism. The Pacific Review, 34(3), 345–365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jetschke, A., & Murray, P. (2012). Diffusing regional integration: The EU and Southeast Asia. West European Politics, 35(1), 174–191. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Jones, D. S. (2015). ASEAN and the management of regional security. Pacific Affairs, 88(1), 95–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., ... & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 5(1), 1–167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 630–643. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Menon, J. (2013). Narrowing the development divide in ASEAN. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 27(2), 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Narine, S. (2008). Forty years of ASEAN: A historical review. The Pacific Review, 21(4), 411–429. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Petri, P. A., Plummer, M. G., & Zhai, F. (2012). ASEAN Economic Community: A General Equilibrium Analysis. Asian Economic Journal, 26(2), 93–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Plummer, M. G., & Chia, S. Y. (Eds.). (2009). Realizing the ASEAN Economic Community. ISEAS Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Severino, R. C. (2006). Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN community. ISEAS Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Stubbs, R. (2019). ASEAN skeptics versus ASEAN proponents: Evaluating ASEAN. The Pacific Review, 32(6), 923–939. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Wiedemann, G. (2013). Opening up to big data: Computer-assisted analysis of textual data in social sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Young, L., & Soroka, S. (2012). Affective news: Automated sentiment coding in political texts. Political Communication, 29(2), 205–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria