The Role of Suratthani Rajabhat University in Community Engagement

Abstract

The objective of this descriptive research was to identify the role of Suratthani Rajabhat University in community engagement. The conceptual framework for monitoring university engagement performance based on 12 aspects according to the literature reviewed, namely : mission and purpose, administrative leadership, supporting structure, curriculum design (teaching and learning), staff role and reward, community-engaged research, academic extension, cultural conservation and promotion, community voice, resource allocation, public relation, and partnership. The secondary data were collected by documentary analysis of university strategic plan, annual reports, quality assessment reports and related documents while primary data were collected by using in-depth interview of key informants and focus group discussion among various stakeholders in and outside university. Data were performed through constant comparison, analytical induction of the contents. The findings were as follows :

The university had clear vision and mission in community engagement and cascaded to strategic plan of all faculties and institutions. However, the key indicators of engagement success were not quite clear both in issues and area focus. The engagement policy “one faculty, two districts” was randomly assigned to each faculty to be responsible for engagement projects in those areas. The engagement administrative structure was not quite conducive to the mission. The engagement mission was under vice president in academic service affair, academic service board  and  academic service division for community development as a secretariat unit. Most of curriculum and courses in programs of study in each faculty had not been designed for service learning although there were apprentice or practicum courses for students to have experiences in community work in their fields of study. Most of projects and activities  delivered to the communities and organizations were academic service or extension (i.e. short-course training , seminar, lecture, exhibitions), not community engagement work which bring about change or impact on occupation, standard of living, health, environmental improvement, or sustainability development  of the local people as well as most researches findings or results could not bring into practice to develop community welfare. There were just few researches that could make change in aforementioned benefits of the localities. 

The findings suggested that the university should develop more potential for community engagement to enhance the welfare of local people and the benefit of targeted communities with possible and powerful action plan and active follow-up. The administrators should express of and calls for community engagement commitment from everybody in the university. The faculty staffs have to be induced and trained in a detailed treatment of community-based research, result-based academic extension, discussed in the overall context of community-university engagement and adopt service learning into most of course syllabus. The administrators also need to redesign processes of community-university engagement, including the development of structures and staffs for the support of community-based research and community-based learning (CBL). The implementation of engaged projects or activities must have been reorganized and followed up closely. Effective partnership management has to be associated with increased research on a community issue, problem, or need, improved service outcomes for clients and with increased funding for community engagement.