A Thematic Analysis of University Students’ Community Involvement and Revisit to the Concept of Local Community

1) Selection of Research Participants

The study explores the experiences of university students in community involvement, analyzes the changes resulting from their engagement, and reconsiders the concept of the university town community. The research focused on 12 students who had lived in the Namgu university town community in Busan and actively participated in the ‘Namgu Resident Student Activity Program.’ These students were deliberately selected for a Focus Group Interview (FGI) to ensure similarity in community engagement experiences. The selection criteria were limited to those who shared the same geographical and living environment, ensuring that all participants had comparable experiences in community involvement activities.

The selected group comprised 7 male and 5 female students, predominantly from the humanities and social sciences. It included 1 fourth-year student, 5 third-year students, and 6 second-year students. Among the participants, 6 lived in dormitories, 3 lived off-campus, and 3 commuted from their homes within Namgu. Additionally, half of the participants had relocated from outside the Busan area and lived in the university area for an average of 18 months or more.

2) Data Collection

In-depth interviews were deemed appropriate for this study as they enable a comprehensive and contextual examination of human behavior, cognition, and underlying consciousness (Seidman, 2006). Under the guidance of faculty and staff members from the research institute, the researcher conducted two rounds of Focus Group Interviews (FGIs) in October and December 2022. The first FGI consisted of three sessions with four participants each, exploring students’ perceptions of the university locale and their progress at the midpoint of their activities. The second FGI involved four sessions with three participants each, looking into the outcomes and challenges of community involvement, as well as changes in personal competencies and community perceptions following the activities.

The FGIs were conducted in person at the school’s research laboratory or nearby cafés. Each 90-minute session used a semi-structured format to facilitate a deep exploration of individual behaviors, thoughts, and awareness related to community involvement²⁾. Participants signed a consent form before the research, agreeing to voluntary participation and confidentiality measures.

3) Data Analysis

The interview data was collected and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis method. Thematic analysis was chosen for its ability to reveal the realities, experiences, and meanings as perceived by research participants, accurately reflecting their perspectives. Since this study aims to uncover students’ perspectives on their community and engagement experiences, thematic analysis was deemed appropriate. Although it is not a standardized method, thematic analysis is widely used in qualitative research to identify, analyze, and report patterns within data, providing a comprehensive and detailed understanding (Bryman, 2008; Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted inductively, with a focus on themes and sub-themes derived from participants’ experiences and the meanings embedded in the raw data (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017).

This study’s thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step procedure. Initially, researchers involved in this proram thoroughly engaged with the data by reading transcripts and field notes, making analytical annotations to identify potential meanings. In the second phase, initial coding identified key concepts, capturing surface-level phenomena and underlying meanings. In the third phase, themes were developed by identifying and refining themes and sub-themes, ensuring alignment with the codes. In the fourth phase, each theme was reviewed to confirm cohesion and distinctiveness. In the fifth phase, themes were further refined through collaborative discussions, with illustrative quotations selected to substantiate the findings. Finally, the analysis was summarized and presented in an academic format. In this manner, adhering to Braun and Clarke’s systematic approach, the data underwent systematic deconstruction, examination, and comparison through investigator triangulation. This process elucidated representative phenomena and delineated relevant concepts, with analogous concepts being categorized, labeled, and grouped to facilitate interpretation and provide a comprehensive understanding of the observed phenomena.

1) From Bystanders to Engagers in Local Issues

Before participating in the program, students exhibited minimal interest in community issues. This disinterest likely stemmed from their reluctance to view themselves as part of the community, which prevented them from recognizing local phenomena in their daily lives as significant issues. Additionally, students who did not change their registered address had no voting rights in local elections. They showed low interest in local matters, were unaware of local politicians, and were unfamiliar with youth policy programs tailored for them within their community. Personal commitments, such as preparing for employment, further detracted from their focus on community matters. These attitudes reflect a diminished sense of interest or responsibility as residents of the university town community, indicative of bystander behavior.

Participant 2: Even though I felt uneasy about local matters, I used to think others would voice those concerns. As university students, we rarely file complaints ourselves.

Participant 5: Students don’t raise issues because they don’t see any major problems that directly affect them.

Participant 7: Most students are too focused on preparing for their careers and enjoying their time, so they’re too preoccupied to pay attention to local issues.

Participant 12: I don’t really get involved in politics.

Nevertheless, the program increased the students’ interest in local issues. It is important to acknowledge, however, that university students who already demonstrated an interest in community issues were more inclined to apply for and be selected for the program, which suggests that prior experience with community activities may have influenced the selection process. Despite this potential limitation, most participants reported that their interest in local issues increased due to the program. While it may be premature to claim that participating students have fully assumed the roles of responsible community members or democratic citizens, their active involvement in the program led to a deeper examination of local issues. The process of engaging with specific community agendas contributed to an increased sense of attachment and investment in these matters.

Participant 2: Because we identified and chose the problems ourselves, we felt more motivated to find solutions. As we addressed these challenges, our connection to them grew stronger.

Participant 8: Compared to before participating in the program, I now feel much more connected to the community. I no longer see myself as just a student passing through, but as someone who belongs here and can speak up as a local resident.

Participant 11: Since starting this activity, I’ve felt more connected to the community. It has given me the opportunity to meet new people, listen to their concerns, and get involved in community work. I now believe that being a resident is more than just living in an area; it’s about actively engaging in community activities and building relationships with fellow residents. This experience has made me feel like I truly belong here.

It is challenging to anticipate a profound shift in university students’ perceptions of the community within a short period. Nevertheless, as they began exploring local phenomena with a heightened sense of problem awareness, these students transitioned from passive bystanders to active engagers. Although they have not yet progressed to vigorously advocating for community change or initiating problem-solving efforts, they no longer overlook community issues but approach them with genuine interest and readiness to address them.

2) From University-Centered Limited Relationships to Community Networks

Participation in the involvement program facilitated university students’ integration into the local community network. At the beginning of the program, students reported that they had limited ties to the community and felt hesitant about expressing their viewpoints or seeking support from local stakeholders. Their social circles are mostly confined to peers, faculty, and extracurricular activities. There was skepticism among the students regarding the willingness of stakeholders to cooperate or show any interest in their initiatives.

Participant 3: When I need help, I reach out to my club friends, but I rarely communicate with my next-door neighbor. I don’t even know who lives there.

Participant 12: I was concerned that the officials might doubt the relevance of our topic.

Through collaboration with local government officials, specialists, community advocates, and university faculties, students gained valuable insights, explored potential solutions, and exchanged perspectives. This engagement received positive responses and active support from the community, strengthening students’ connections and expanding their networks.

Participant 10: I had the chance to communicate with various professors and meet with council members multiple times, which made them seem more approachable. I realized they weren’t as intimidating as I had thought, and I felt confident that they would be there to help whenever I faced challenges.

Participant 12: Before meeting the person in charge, I assumed they might not take the interview seriously since it was being conducted by university students. However, they were very kind and answered my questions sincerely, completely changing my initial impression of them.

Consequently, the psychological barriers between the students and the community stakeholders diminished, which led to greater trust and a more favorable perception of the community. Interacting with various community stakeholders allowed the students to move beyond their university-centered relationships.

3) From Ignorance of the Community to Understanding its Complexities

Engaging with influential figures enabled students to recognize their potential and responsibility as proactive community members. These interactions provided a deeper understanding of local issues’ practical context and constraints. Initially, students expressed frustration with unresolved local problems, the lack of better alternatives, and little faith in public institutions.

Participant 4: I often felt like there wasn’t much I could do about local issues. I wanted to make a difference, but we didn’t receive any support from the district office.

Participant 6: It feels like the issues that could be resolved have already been addressed, and the remaining ones have valid reasons for not being changed.

However, their engagement with community members unveiled the intricacies of these issues and the institutional factors intertwined with them. They also realized that projects requiring financial investment posed greater challenges, compounded by hidden constraints from political differences and conflicts of interest among various community groups. This experience enabled them to grasp the complexities of the community.

Participant 4: It’s frustrating that officials are willing to help but lack the authority to manage budgets effectively. Council members prioritize popular ideas due to party influence, while administrative staffs grapple with limited resources, making governance a real challenge.

Participant 7: I met with a council member, hoping to resolve some issues, but I quickly realized that the problems were beyond the council member’s authority. It wasn’t due to incompetence, but rather the complexity of interconnected issues that required intervention at higher levels.

4) From Self-Doubt to Self-Efficacy Within the Community

University students demonstrated a passive response to issues within their environment. Rather than proactively addressing concerns, they frequently tolerated inconveniences without taking action. Even when they expressed concerns, their expectations for resolution were low. This passivity can be attributed to a sense of self-alienation, where students doubted their ability to address problems, believing such matters were beyond their capacity to solve.

Participant 6: At first, we had big dreams of solving community issues, but as university students without the necessary resources or means to coordinate such an initiative, our ambitions gradually faded.

Participant 7: This issue has persisted for quite some time, and I doubt it will be resolved quickly. There are people far more knowledgeable than us who haven’t been able to solve the problem, so I don’t think we can fix it immediately just by taking action.

However, the participatory process provided students with invaluable personal experiences. They cultivated pivotal personal competencies, including leadership, planning, communication, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. Additionally, they acquired political efficacy by recognizing that their proposals could attract policy attention. These experiences empowered students to execute their roles more effectively within the community and make meaningful contributions to community development.

Participant 4: I used to feel that community issues were distant from me, but I realized that there are things I can do. If I pay more attention and put in the effort, I can actively participate in the budgeting system to bring about change.

Participant 5: I found it challenging when I first started addressing local issues, but I soon realized that determination can lead to solutions. As a university student, I engaged senior council members and experts in discussions, which convinced me that these issues could be resolved.

Participant 8: Unlike typical school projects, this involved real-world experience that helped me acquire practical skills.

Ultimately, participants observed a positive evolution in their roles and impact within the community. They began to connect intimately with local issues, grasp the intricate realities of the community, and foster a profound sense of accomplishment and belonging.

1) Community as a Nomadic Land

The most noticeable distinction between students residing in a university town community and traditional community members is their status as temporary residents. Upon graduating, most students are expected to leave the town, either to pursue jobs elsewhere or return to their hometowns. As a result, many do not bother to update their residency status, which can result in limited legal rights and access to administrative services.

Participant 8: I don’t see the point in changing my resident registration; I can still enjoy the local amenities without it.

Participant 10: If my parents call me back home, I’ll go, so I see myself as being here temporarily.

Most students, confined to their university years, resemble nomadic inhabitants with minimal interest in or attachment to the community. However, despite this transient outlook, they still participate in essential activities such as securing lodging, part-time employment, and social interactions within the university town. Some even find the university town more comfortable and convenient than their hometowns, leading to greater satisfaction with their lives there.

Participant 2: I’ve become accustomed to the convenience of the university area. It almost feels like a second home, although nothing beats the comfort of being in my hometown.

Although students typically reside in the town for only 4-5 years, and often view the community as a resource to be utilized during their stay, their presence should not lead to isolation or marginalization by the local community. On the contrary, these students can be seen as having positive roles and potential that contribute to the community, as they approach and egage with the community in their own distinctive ways.

Participant 10: Participating in this activity made me feel more connected to the local community. I was proud to independently identify and solve issues in the area. Additionally, running a pilot community program for students living alone deepened my sense of belonging to this place.

This study’s community involvement program demonstrated that university students are not merely passive exploiters but possess the capacity to actively engage and participate in the community. As indicated in the interview, these transient students’ experiences with the local community fostered a sense of attachment and belonging to their current environment. Consequently, the university town, often considered a nomadic land, has the potential to transform from a place of temporary exploitation into a site for building solidarity.

2) Selective Involvement

The ways in which students engage with the community differ markedly from traditional forms of participation. Traditional engagement is usually structured by local organizations or civil society experts within a hierarchical government framework, often escalating to assertive demands when public institutions fail to resolve significant issues. This form of involvement embodies the political expression of residents who persistently exercise their rights and duties until problems are resolved. In contrast, university students’ community engagement is relatively selective in terms of goals, motivations, methods, and content.

Participant 4: At first, we planned to address the issue of revitalizing local festivals, but then we decided to shift our focus to the problems faced by university students in Namgu.

Participant 12: Honestly, I wouldn’t have participated if it weren’t for the scholarship.

Participant 1: Even without the scholarship, I would have participated because I needed more competition experience.

Their involvement often focuses on issues pertinent to the student population, with motivations combining altruism and personal goals. Many students see these programs as opportunities for economic compensation, such as scholarships, or as a means to enhance their resumes for future employment. These motivations are self-serving and disconnected from the traditional concepts of rights, duties, and responsibilities as community members. Moreover, the methods and content of their involvement are diverse, and the level of engagement varies based on individual student choices, ranging from research and advocacy to direct implementation of solutions. Thus, student community engagement can be characterized as ‘selective involvement.’

Through this program, these university students, who exhibited a selective approach, demonstrated their ability to manage and sustain their own communities. For instance, one of the participating teams established a pilot community where off-campus students cooked and ate together to improve their dietary habits. The team independently secured external financial support to run the program.

Participant 8: Participants actively and wholeheartedly took part in our program. Even though the activity had finished, some people wanted to keep going, so they started a new group chat.

This initiative fostered emotional bonds among the students, with many expressing a desire to continue the activities. Furthermore, it illustrates how students can lead the formation of autonomous groups that integrate virtual and offline networks, thereby establishing rhizome-like connections that effectively mobilize the community.

From a normative perspective, students’ selective community involvement may appear arbitrary or opportunistic. However, given their precarious status and the variability in their capacities and conditions, it is reasonable to expect that their participation is largely driven by individual choice. While this involvement may be characterized by its intermittent and selective nature, it nonetheless positively influences the students. Should opportunities for such engagement increase and participation become more consistent, the university town community could sustain its collaborative and cohesive character.

3) The Need for Institutionalizing Involvement: Policy and Program

Unlike traditional communities, university town communities often struggle with stability and experience lower levels of sustained involvement due to the transient nature of the student population. Overcoming these inherent challenges requires more than the voluntary goodwill and efforts of students alone. Proactive responses from key institutions, such as local governments and university authorities, are essential. Although university town communities tend to prefer non-hierarchical organizations, enhancing student involvement necessitates intentional institutionalization and policy support from external sources, as outlined in the following suggested solutions. To begin with, offering diverse incentives, such as scholarships, research grants, and academic credit, might be crucial to fostering student’s active community involvement.

Participant 5: Students would be more likely to get involved in the community if such programs were structured as extracurricular activities.

Participant 9: As university students, it’s challenging for us to continue without any material compensation, given the investment of both time and money.

Participant 12: I’d be willing to try if the council or the school provided support, but if they expect us to do it on our own without any help, I wonder how we’re supposed to manage. I want to keep going, but it’s difficult to handle alone without proper support.

As indicated in the interviews, incentives enhance students’ motivation and offer tangible support for addressing community challenges. The strategic implementation of these incentives, driven by collaboration among educational institutions, local governments, and other relevant stakeholders, is essential for enhancing student engagement and ensuring that their contributions to community development are sustainable.

Secondly, it is essential to establish accessible entry points for students. This requires creating platforms that facilitate ongoing discussions about local issues and implementing mechanisms to address student grievances.

Participant 4: Establishing a system for regular feedback with politicians and district office officials would be beneficial. University students can’t tackle these issues alone, so having a platform for collective discussion would be really helpful.

Participant 8: I thought about adopting programs from the district or city council to sustain our activities, but doing it alone feels overwhelming. Forming a new team and starting from scratch is challenging.

Participant 11: We need a space or platform where we can freely express ourselves whenever necessary.

Potential entry points include forums, workshops, and programs like the “Namgu Resident Student Activity Program,” designed to enhance student-community interaction. However, institutional efforts from organizations such as local government offices and universities must support establishing and maintaining these entry points. Without such structures, students may struggle to effectively raise their concerns due to uncertainty about where or how to initiate discussions and publicize their issues, as they may feel overwhelmed by the challenges of addressing these matters on their own.

Finally, there is a clear need for an organization that advocates for university student’s opinions and positions and serves as an intermediary between students and relevant authorities.

Participant 6: Creating a community specifically for university students would be beneficial, as it would give them a platform to voice their concerns.

Participant 8: The community organization needs to convey residents’ concerns to the district office. Similarly, we need a youth organization to act as an intermediary and represent young residents’ opinions to the authorities.

Participant 11: We should ensure that young people are represented at residents’ meetings.

The proposals to establish student communities, create representative organizations, participate in resident meetings, and convey recurring issues to local councils reflect students’ strong desire to have their voices heard by the authorities. However, despite these ambitions, students have expressed reservations about who will take responsibility for establishing and managing such organizations, as well as the sustainability of these initiatives, as reflected in the following interview excerpts.

Participant 4: Since university students eventually leave, it’s challenging to manage and operate a community in such a short time.

Participant 2: Someone needs to take charge and plan how to run the organization or community.

Participant 10: Shouldn’t the district office be responsible for creating this for us?

These concerns show the need for a collaborative effort between universities and the local community to enhance institutional support and develop concrete strategies for sustaining student involvement.