THE UNIVERSITY: EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES

lorraine symaco

Introduction
The role of universities in development, broadly defined, has been emphasised in
government policies worldwide (Mohd Asri & Crossley, 2013; Symaco, 2013a;
Tsuruta, 2013). From its seeming function in human capital development to more
recent pronouncements of higher education for sustainable development, the
pendulum has swung back to the sector in terms of fulfilling the needs required
of an even increasing modernised world. Not surprisingly, the significance of
higher education can be traced back to its earliest origins of providing ‘beyond-
basic’ skills. The Shangyang in China (2257–2208 bc) equipped officials with
skills needed to function the state, while imperial examinations were introduced
during the Sui dynasty (581–618 bc) (Yang, 2013). The teaching of Islam in
the Arab world also traces the history of higher education at least ‘as far back
as a thousand years ago’ of which such institutions served as an important link
between the Islamic world and Europe in the Middle Ages (Symaco, 2013a, p.
214). On the one hand, the concept of a modern university was later recognised
through the establishment of the University of Bologna in 1088. Considered the
oldest university in the West, this gave rise to other universities which feature
collegiate models such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. However,
previous traditions of such modern universities spanning prior to the Arab world
and Renaissance Europe is evidenced in “Indian scholarship at such institutions
as Nalanda and Valabhi. Although there was certainly a strong tradition of
learning in Ancient China at least a thousand years earlier, it does not seem
to be characterised by the degree of orthodoxy that formalised the idea of the
university as such” (Brock, as cited in Symaco, 2013a, p. 214).

Different ‘systems’ are also practiced in universities for teaching and learning.
The British model characterised by the tutorial system, as best exemplified by
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, highlights the regular contacts
between students and professors. The German tradition on the one hand typify

153
154 L. Symaco

institutional autonomy where universities are expected to perform a central

societal role “in close collaboration with the state and the practical business
of citizens” (Ertl, as cited in Brock, 2007, p. 29). While the American higher
education system which developed from the European models, underscores its
general education component, which derives from its units-crediting modular
form in achieving a university degree.

The fundamental function of universities for human capital formation is

re-emphasised with the notion of aligning such skills for the needs of a
knowledge-based economy (Symaco, 2013a). The rise of international university
ranking systems also stresses the market-driven orientations and struggle for
quality of higher education institutions worldwide. The appeal for greater
social responsibilities of universities on the other, underlines the call for the
democratisation of access to higher education and the broader call for education
for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2009; Reason, Ryder & Kee, 2013).
The following sections will discuss these issues in general, and how Malaysian
universities respond to such challenges in the sector.

Higher Education and the Knowledge-Based Society

The focus on higher education and its role in the knowledge-based society is
evinced in various government development strategies (Ahrens & McNamara,
2013; Brown & Rahim, 2013; Symaco, 2013a). However, this concept is not
new found where Drucker (1999, p. 79) some time ago argues that the value of
productivity and innovation, where “the most valuable asset of a 21st century
institution … will be its knowledge workers and their productivity”. Literature
has been replete with the rising challenge of the knowledge-based economy,
where Stehr (2001) also argued a system wherein “(w)hat is new is the large
number of professions that involve working with knowledge” (p. 7).

While some argue the perplexing realities and definitions brought about by
the knowledge economy/knowledge society, and others maintaining its long-
established role in society (Stehr, 2001; Delanty, 2003), the roles of information
and communications technology (ICT) and research also illustrate the changing
feature of the higher education sector as relevant to this trend. The rise of
ICT and a research driven approach has spurred, among others, the idea of an
entrepreneurial university and the increasing consideration of research outputs
as indicative of qualitative education, and the democratisation of education
access through for instance, the massive open online courses (MOOCs). This
role of ICT, similar to the knowledge society, is not novel. Manuel Castells,
almost two decades ago, drew attention to such zeitgeist during that time, where
 The university: Evolving perspectives 155

he references to a ‘new society’ which is imagined though (1) the technological

paradigm on the basis of the ever increasing development of information
technologies and (2) progress in scientific knowledge (Symaco, 2013a; 2013b,
p. 184).

While new technologies and open access courses exhibit some of the features
of universities these days, the issue of further relegating people in the periphery
who have no access to basic resources such as the internet is evident. While
internet penetration rates have improved over the years, access to this service is
“particularly dependent upon the quality of institutions prevailing in an economy”
(Chinn & Fairlie, 2004, p. 3), which makes it a greater challenge for developing
economies to provide universal access to their societies. This digital divide is also
inherent in higher education institutions in developing countries that are unable
to access scientific resources for research (e.g. journal articles) which are often too
costly to access. Despite this, international university rankings systems have put
a premium in research outputs as a factor in assessing a university’s reputation in
these contests. Given also that major indexed scientific papers are published in
the English language, this has resulted to disadvantaging institutions that mainly
publish their research work in mediums other than English. This speaks clearly
of the influence of cultural capital in line with assessing qualitative education
systems, while others maintain this view of the English language as the “main
bearer of Western economic hegemony” (Pennycook, 1998; Holborow, 1999).

Along the line of greater engagement of universities for research, the shift from
a research university to an entrepreneurial university has also been recognised.
Etzkowitz (2003, p. 100) argues that the higher education sector has evolved
to being entrepreneurial in nature as a result of its dealings and connections
with business firms for research procurement, and the transfer of knowledge
and technology. In an entrepreneurial university, the missions of a teaching
and research university is coupled with a new mission of social and economic
development. And where the “academic enterprise is transformed in parallel,
sometimes leading; other times lagging the transition to a knowledge-based
economy” (Etzkowitz, 2003, p. 100).

In the case of Malaysia, the aforementioned issues figure prominently in its

higher education sector. The next section will detail some of the issues as
contextualised in the Malaysian setting.

Malaysian universities and the knowledge-based society

Malaysia has put a premium on its higher education sector, as demonstrated from
the support allotted by the government to its universities, and the significant
role it supposedly will play in the country’s Vision 2020, or the vision to make
156 L. Symaco

Malaysia a highly developed nation by year 2020. Over the years, attention
has been placed on the important role of universities in the socio-economic
development of the country. The First Malaysia Plan (1966–1970) has set out
the importance to make certain that the education system, broadly defined,
corresponds to the manpower needs of the country (Malaysia, 1966). It was
also about this time when the University and Universities College Act was
formed (1971) and where the establishment of various public universities in the
early 1970s has positioned higher education’s greater role in nation building.
The higher education sector of the country has since expanded and the Private
Higher Education Institutions Act of 1996 has further developed this to include
private institutions. Recent initiatives of the government still acknowledge the
critical role of universities in development. The Malaysia Education Blueprint
2015–2035 (Higher Education) continues this traction by promoting greater
internationalisation of services and warranting that the universities in the country
are able to respond to the needs of the modern times.

The substantial resources given to the sector by the Malaysian government

is reported in the blueprint, which accounts the annual total expenditure on
higher education to 7.7 per cent of the government’s annual expenditure. This
figure is reported to be the highest among the country’s peers in developed
Asian economies (i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Japan)
(MOE, 2015, pp. 1–4). Malaysia also ranks 33th (out of 128 countries) in the
Global Innovation Index (GII) in terms of gross expenditure in research and
development (R&D) (Cornell University, INSEAD & WIPO, 2016).

Considering some of the aforementioned issues relating to higher education,

the following sections shall compare Malaysia to some of its selected
neighbours in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in
terms of indices from the GII. Some of the indices to be considered here are
(1) ICT use, (2) number of researchers, (3) scientific and technical publications,
and (4) university-industry research collaboration.

Information and communications technology

One of the ICT indicators in the GII is the ICT use index which measures,
among others, the percentage of individuals using the internet. In this index,
Malaysia ranks second to Singapore among selected ASEAN countries
(Table 1). ICT use and access advantages the country with its 67 per cent
internet penetration rate, the seventh highest across Asia (MOE, 2015). This
puts Malaysia in a good position to “harness the power of online learning to
widen access to good quality content, enhance the quality of teaching and
learning, lower the cost of delivery, and bring Malaysian expertise to the global
community” (MOE, 2015, pp. 1–23).
 The university: Evolving perspectives 157

Table 1 ICT use (year 2015)

Malaysia 54
Philippines 68
Singapore 15
Thailand 60
Vietnam 78

It also is worth considering as emphasised earlier, how ICT access and use is
related to prevailing institutions of an economy. The ranking also highlight
quite accurately the positions of the countries involved in terms of economic
development. Naturally, such use to the internet allows for greater access and
participation of individuals in scientific discourse and resources.

Research and development

Relating to the significance of research in higher education, the GII also

ranks countries in terms of researchers in R&D as “professionals engaged in
the conception and creation of new knowledge, products, processes” (Cornell
University, INSEAD & WIPO, 2016, p. 396). This also includes doctoral
students involved in R&D. For this index, Malaysia ranks 39th (Table 2). In
terms of scientific and technical publications (Table 3), Malaysia is ranked 55th
on this index.

Table 2 Researchers, full time equivalence (per million population) (year 2014)
Malaysia 39
Philippines 69
Singapore 6
Thailand 59
Vietnam n/a

Table 3 Scientific and technical publications (year 2015)

Malaysia 55
Philippines 123
Singapore 29
Thailand 86
Vietnam 95
158 L. Symaco

The categorisation of five Malaysian research universities (RUs) also highlights

the prominence placed in research in the higher education sector. To this end,
the MEBHE also underscores the three-fold increase of published research
articles by Malaysian universities between 2007 and 2012, which apparently
is the highest increase in the world. Similarly, there was a four-fold increase in
citations between years 2005 to 2012 (MOE, 2015, pp. 1–3). The five RUs is said
to contribute to 70 per cent of the total publications reported.

The notion of establishing entrepreneurial universities as a transition phase from

an RU (Etzkowitz, 2003) exhibits the crucial relationship between university and
industry collaborations, another index considered by the GII (Table 4).

Table 4 University-industry research collaboration

Malaysia 12
Philippines 54
Singapore 5
Thailand 44
Vietnam 86

The MEBHE also draws attention to this concept through specifically addressing
the need to set an ‘entrepreneurial mindset’ in line with one of its 10 shifts in
higher education key initiatives which emphasise the need for greater university-
industry collaboration which include: (1) enhancing the student learning
experience by expanding industry collaboration in the design and delivery of
programmes (...) and (2) creating opportunities for students and academic
staff to acquire entrepreneurial skills and pursue their own enterprises through
sabbaticals, industry secondments, business incubators (...) (MOE, 2015,
pp. 1–15). The plan also notes greater collaboration between universities and the
industry through research and consulting services which has generated RM1.25
billion in revenues from 2007 to 2012 (MOE, 2015, pp. 1–3).

Universities and Social Responsibility

Universities, and education in general, has been accorded with the role of
engaging with communities – the notion that individuals are themselves part
of societies, who should then strive to promote the ‘well-being’ of such. Dewey
in his book Democracy and Education emphasised the formation of ‘supportive
communities’ as the principal aim of education where “(m)en live in a community
in virtue of the things which they have in common. What they must have in
common in order to form a community or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations,
knowledge – a common understanding” (Dewey, as cited in Pring, 2012, p. 27).
 The university: Evolving perspectives 159

A key feature of universities that has gained much ground is the idea of
promoting social responsibility in universities, also known as university social
responsibility (USR) as emulating the concept of the broader corporate social
responsibility (CSR) theme. The 2009 World Conference on Higher Education
has drawn major points of engaging in USR which highlights the social
responsibility role of the sector to “advance our understanding of multifaceted
issues, which involve social, economic, scientific and cultural dimensions and
our ability to responds to them” (UNESCO, 2009, p. 2). Literature also point
to the need for greater community engagement of universities to promote
broader sustainable development (Chile & Black, 2015; Shiel et al., 2016).
The Brundtland report some time ago also highlighted that “(h)uman resource
development is a crucial requirement not only to build up technical knowledge
and capabilities, but also to create new values to help individuals and nations cope
with rapidly changing social, environmental, and development realities” (WCED,
1987, p. 45).

Community engagement through increased social responsibility, also considered

as the third function of universities, has seen shifts in awareness from mere
‘supporting communities’ to being considered as a ‘university knowledge function’
(Mtawa, Fongwa & Wangenge-Ouma, 2016, p. 126). Emphasis has been given to
this ‘third role’ that social responsibility of universities has now been considered in
the rankings game. For instance, the QS Stars university rating system positions
universities in terms of its overall contribution to social responsibility. The main
criteria used for this include: (1) community engagement and development,
(2) charity work and disaster relief, (3) regional human capital development, and
(4) environmental impact (QS, 2016). Universities that obtained five stars (highest
possible) under this rating shows a good mix of regional representation around the
world, with four higher education institutions from the ASEAN joining the total
47 five star-institution recipients (QS, 2016).

Given the strong emphasis towards a more engaging partnership between

universities and the community, a number of initiatives and discussions have been
launched to highlight and encourage universities to respond to this call. More
recently, the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) Conference
of University Leaders (2016) devoted a section on ‘social responsibility –
embedding the third pillar’ which builds on the significance of universities
‘giving back’ to community, going beyond mere charity – but instead, working
together and developing contextualised response to the needs of the society. The
Talloires Declaration of 1990 also affirms the ‘commitment to environmental
sustainability in higher education’ which was signed by over 350 university leaders
in over 40 countries (ULSF, 2001). An offshoot of this is the Talloires Network
of Tufts University which brings together over 360 universities in 77 countries to
strengthen the ‘civic roles of and social responsibilities of higher education’ (Tufts
University, 2016).
160 L. Symaco

In South East Asia, the ASEAN University Network (AUN) has similarly
highlighted the importance of engaging universities in social responsibility
and sustainability through the Burapha Workshop in 2010. The workshop
established the existing networks of USR practices in universities in the ASEAN
region and focused on the need to engage other universities in this practice.
The workshop featured USR through activities that involved among others,
university-community health involvement, disaster mitigation and response, and
engagement with indigenous communities (AUN USR&R Secretariat, 2011).
Despite this, full USR programmes within the region remains sketchy given
the technical human development focus by most tertiary institutions in the
region. This shows that much has yet to be achieved to fully implement a USR
programme among ASEAN universities.

The following section will highlight some of the social responsibility engagement
of universities in Malaysia.

University social responsibility in Malaysia

Some of the institutional programmes in line with broader community
engagement in Malaysia include the Universiti Malaya (UM) Cares, ratified in
2014, which highlights the university’s “commitment to community engagement
and engagement for sustainability” (UMCares, 2016a). Some of the initiatives
under UMCares include the Adopted Schools Programme which aims to provide
schools around the campus to access the university’s facilities and expertise.
The network also focuses on schools in difficult areas with the desire to lower
drop out incidence (UMCares, 2016a; 2016b). There are currently 18 schools
under this programme. Another programme under UMCares is the Urban Poor
Empowerment which aims to “increase knowledge literacy and numeracy skills
of students” in selected subjects while also promoting personality and character
building (UMCares, 2016b; 2016c).

The AsiaEngage network, under the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

serves as a platform for the AUN Network on Social Responsibility and
Sustainability, the Asia-Talloires Network and the ASEAN Youth Volunteer
Programme (AYVP). This initiative, supported by the Malaysian government,
underlines the partnerships among various stakeholders for better community
engagement and social responsibility. Among the programmes led by the
AYVP include the construction of a mobile green store in the Philippines,
where students brought to school their waste recyclables (for recycling) and, an
environmental education contest in Indonesia where students were made aware of
environmental concerns through illustrations/drawing (AsiaEngage, 2016).
 The university: Evolving perspectives 161

Additionally, the South East Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative of

UKM formed in 2008 has core programmes in research, postgraduate training
and workshops which aim, among others to “serve as a focal point on issues
related to science and governance for disaster risk reduction in South East Asia”
(SEADPRI, 2014). Some of the projects initiated under this include landslide
assessments, such as the Kundasang landslide complex in Sabah and the landslide
and slope failure in Bukit Antarabangsa (SEADPRI, 2014). Similarly, the Centre
for Global Sustainability Studies (CGSS) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia
includes service learning and community involvement as an essential part of the
research/academic experience. Some of the services offered under CGSS include
sustainability analysis and disaster risk management.

Conclusion
The central role of universities in training human resources for development
of countries, has expanded further to include the skills supposedly needed for
a more complex modern times. The rise of knowledge-based societies which
draws force the role of knowledge in overall socio-economic advancement, has
instigated the move to focus on ICT, research and collaboration with the industry
for improved teaching and learning. In addition, the third role of universities in
social responsibility through improved civic engagement has also augmented the
role of universities beyond skills training. Along these lines, programmes and
initiatives are incorporated in Malaysia’s higher education sector to ensure that its
universities respond to the demands of a knowledge-based economy, while at the
same time confirming that its universities develop a more balanced approach to
development that is inclusive of the communities and regions surrounding them.

References
Ahrens, L. & McNamara, V. (2013). Cambodia: Evolving quality issues in higher
education. In L.P. Symaco (Ed.), Education in South East Asia (pp. 47–70). London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
AsiaEngage. (2016). Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://asiaengage.org/v2/events
/past
AUN USR&R Secretariat. (2011). AUN USR&R: University Social Responsibility and
Sustainability – A Collection of Good Practices. Bangkok: ASEAN University Network
(AUN).
Brock, C. (2007). Historical and social roots of regulation and accreditation of higher
education for quality assurance. In B.C. Sanyan & J. Tres (Eds.), Higher Education
in the World 2007: Accreditation for Quality Assurance, What is at Stake? (pp. 24–36).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
162 L. Symaco

Brown, M. & Rahim, D. (2013). Brunei Darussalam: Planning for educational

transformation and ICT in education. In L.P. Symaco (Ed.), Education in South East
Asia (pp. 1–22). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Chile, L. & Black, X. (2015). University–community engagement: Case study of
university social responsibility. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10(3),
234–253.
Chinn, M.D. & Fairlie, R.W. (2004). The determinants of the global digital divide:
A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Retrieved 12 October
2016 from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hz053p3#page-8
Cornell University, INSEAD & WIPO. (2016). The Global Innovation Index 2016:
Winning with Global Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau and Geneva: Cornell
University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
Delanty, G. (2003). Ideologies of the knowledge society and the cultural contradictions
of higher education. Polict Futures in Education, 1(1), 71–82.
Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California
Review Management, 41(2), 79–94.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the
entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.
Holborow, M. (1999). The Politics of English. London: Sage.
Malaysia. (1966). First Malaysia Plan (1966–1970). Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers.
MOE. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint, Higher Education (2015–2035). Putrajaya:
MOE.
Mohd Asri, M.N. & Crossley, M. (2013). Educational innovation and the knowledge
society: Development and issues of the clusters of excellence initiative in Malaysia.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(2), 156–169.
Mtawa, N., Fongwa, S. & Wangenge-Ouma, G. (2016). The scholarshop of university-
community engagement. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 126–
133.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourse of Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pring, R. (2012). Importance of philosophy in the conduct of educational research. Journal
of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 23–30.
QS (Quacquarelli Symonds). (2016). Rating Universities on Social Responsibility: QS
Stars. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://www.topuniversities.com/qs-stars
/qs-stars/rating-universities-engagement-qs-stars
Reason, R., Ryder, A. & Kee, C. (2013). Higher education’s role in educating for personal
and social responsibility: A review of existing literature. New Directions for Higher
Education, 164, 13–22.
SEADRPI. (2014). Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://www.ukm.my/seadpri/?page
_id=2
Shiel, C. Filho, W.L., do Paco, A. & Brandli, L. (2016). Evaluating the engagement of
universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 123–134.
Stehr, N. (2001). A world made of knowledge. Society, 39(1), 89–92.
 The university: Evolving perspectives 163

Symaco, L.P. (2013a). Education in South East Asia. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Symaco, L.P. (2013b). Education and knowledge society in the Asia Pacific. Special Issue.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(2).
Tsuruta, Y. (2013). The knowledge society and the internationalisation of Japanese higher
education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(2), 140–155.
Tufts University. (2016). The Talloires Network. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from
http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/who-we-ar
ULSF. (2001). Talloires Declaration. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://www.ulsf
.org/programs_talloires.html
UMCares. (2016a). Our history. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://umcares
.um.edu.my/about-us/history
UMCares. (2016b). Kelab Sahabat UM. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from
http://umcares.um.edu.my/what-we-do/school/kelab-sahabat-um
UMCares. (2016c). Empowering the Urban Poor. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from
http://umcares.um.edu.my/what-we-do/community-engagement/empowering-the
-urban-poor
UNESCO. (2009). 2009 World Conference on Higher Education: The new
dynamics of higher education and research for societal change and development.
COMMUNIQUE. Retrieved 15 October 2016 from http://www.unesco.org
/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ED/pdf/WCHE_2009/FINAL%20
COMMUNIQUE%20WCHE%202009.pdf
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common
Future. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Yang, R. (2013). Indigenizing the Western concept of university: The Chinese experience.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 85–92.