Julius BAUTISTA
NUS College
Bautista, J. (2024). From outreach to empowerment: Cultivating university-driven community engagement [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-jbautista/
SUB-THEME
Opportunities from Engaging Communities
KEYWORDS
Service-learning, community engagement, experiential learning, overseas classroom, Southeast Asia
CATEGORY
Paper Presentation
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
In the context of tertiary education, Community Engagement (CE) is defined as an inclusive approach to university teaching, research, and scholarship that prioritises the sharing of knowledge, wisdom, and resources with society at large. There are three research areas that constitute the pedagogical foundations of CE. These are (1) Service-learning (Sandaran, 2019), (2) Asset-based community development (ABCD) (Nelson et. al., 2011), and (3) Social impact analysis (Khan, 2020) (see Figure 1). Enhancing capacity in these three research areas will enable educators to build on the principle that working collaboratively with stakeholders outside the academe is the best way for us to “strengthen how we learn, deepen what we know, and have more impact on issues that matter.”
Figure 1. The pedagogical foundations of Community Engagement (CE).
Community-engaged universities are crucial to a robust economy and society because they cultivate valuable intellectual and physical resources that contribute to addressing national issues and problems. It is for this reason that the principle of CE has been identified by the Singaporean government as a key Student Development Experience. As such, community-aligned educational programs are widely implemented in various forms across the educational landscape in Singapore (NLB, 2014). At the secondary school level, CE is identified as part of students’ holistic educational development, particularly through the Values in Action (VIA) project (Ang, 2018). Similarly, most local Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) are requiring forms of CE as a key graduation component. At NUS, a diversity of CE platforms are offered, such as the NUS College’s capstone Impact Experience (IEx) Project, or through other modules mapped on to the Communities and Engagement pillar of the NUS General Education Curriculum.
While CE is widely implemented and practiced, however, there are limited opportunities to develop such programs beyond the requirements of the school curriculum. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, the research literature, particularly in examining qualitative student and community partner experiences, is sparse and underdeveloped (Salam, et. al.. 2019; Choi et. al., 2023). There are few studies conducted on thinking about CE as comprised of the aforementioned three research areas in an integrated and interdisciplinary way, particularly in the Asia Pacific. Secondly, networking opportunities specific to CE in tertiary education are underutilised, in spite of the presence of established programs within most IHLs in the region. The most prominent pedagogy-inclined conferences in Singapore, for example the Redefining Pedagogy International Conference at the National Institute of Education, tend to be broadly conceived, thus precluding a sustained and in-depth discussion on how CE can be cultivated beyond curricular requirements. Thirdly, and most crucially, a majority of the CE platforms in institutes of higher learning (IHLs) are typically offered for a duration of one or two semesters, thereby limiting its focus to providing one-way community ‘outreach’ in the short term.
In view of these limitations, I will discuss the challenges we face in developing a robust CE infrastructure— that is, the intellectual resources, institutional policies, practices, equipment, and buildings that contribute to the facilitation of CE. Using case studies and feedback from the NUS College Impact Experience Program, I argue that overcoming these challenges will require a conceptual and operational transition from a short term “outreach” delivery framework (i.e., the academe shares expertise and practices with the public) to a reciprocal “empowerment” partnership framework (i.e., the university and its community partners co-produce solutions to societal issues in a way that adds value to existing community endeavours).
REFERENCES
Ang, J. (2018, September 18). Values in Action Program: Making lasting impact on students. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/values-in-action-programme-making-lasting-impact-on-students-ministry-of Accessed 19 June 2024.
Carnegie Foundation Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning (2024). The Elective Classification for Community Engagement. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/elective-classifications/community-engagement/ Accessed 19 June 2024.
Choi, Y., Han, J. & Kim, H. (2023). “Exploring key service-learning experiences that promote students’ learning in higher education.” Asia Pacific Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09833-5
Khan, I. (2020). “Critiquing social impact assessments: Ornamentation or reality in the Bangladeshi electricity infrastructure sector?” Energy Research and Social Science (60). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101339
Nelson B., Campbell J., & Emanuel J. (2011). Development of a method for asset-based working. NHS North West.
Salam, M., Iskandar, D. N. A., Ibrahim, D. H. A., & Farooq, M. S. (2019). “Service learning in higher education: A systematic literature review” Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 573–593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12564- 019- 09580-6;
Sandaran, S. (2012). Service Learning: Transforming Students, Communities and Universities. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66(7), 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.281