University-Community Cross-Border Engagement Towards a Stronger ASEAN
The implementation of university-community engagement projects is neither novel nor is it in the mainstream in many universities in Malaysia. This paper describes a university-community cross-border engagement programme involving a Malaysian university and a community in Thailand. The challenges the team faced and lessons learnt from a series of four project phases are detailed. The chapter concludes with some recommendations for future cross-border civic engagement projects to ensure that they can work as intended and may contribute towards a stronger ASEAN.
KeywordsUniversity-community engagement Universiti Malaysia Perlis Cross-border civic engagement ASEAN
- AUN Member Universities. (2017). ASEAN University network. http://www.aunsec.org/aunmemberuniversities.php. Accessed 11 Mar 2017.
- Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 1(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2006). Community engagement elective classification. [Online]. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index. Accessed 21 Mar 2017.
- Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
- Goddard, J., & Kempton, L. (2016) The civic university universities in leadership and management of place. [Online] www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/curds/files/university-leadership.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
- Sandmann, L., Saltmarsh, J., & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47.Google Scholar
- Surak, S., & Pope, A. (2016). Engaging the educators: Facilitating civic engagement through faculty development. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(3), 140–162.Google Scholar