Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6, 1233-1248 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 14 March 2025; Revised: 9 May 2025; Accepted: 13 May 2025; Published: 16 June 2025 * Correspondence: wnnyjrn47@gmail.com Faculty engagement in community extension programs: Examining personal factors, institutional support, and stakeholder collaboration in a state university Wanny B. Jaron1*, Ronora Sevilla Malaga2 1,2Carlos Hilado Memorial State University, Talisay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines; wnnyjrn47@gmail.com (W.B.J.) ronora.malaga@chmsc.edu.ph (R.S.M.). Abstract: This study explored the institutional, collaborative, and individual elements that affect teacher involvement in community engagement activities at a state university in Central Philippines. Faculty extensionists were used to test the reliability of a survey created by the researcher and validated by experts. It used a parallel convergent mixed-method approach and polled 90 of the 99 eligible faculty members who participated in community involvement between 2020 and 2025. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data, along with Lichtman's 3Cs technique. The results showed that just 27% of faculty members took part in community programs, and individual factors like workload, motivation, and career advancement influenced that participation. Long-term engagement was made feasible by institutional aspects like funding, workload equality, and incentives, as well as collaborative aspects like openness, capacity building, and joint decision-making. To improve involvement, faculty proposed measures such as enhanced institutional support, collaborative governance, more clearly defined roles, and skill development programs. These findings offer important insights for universities seeking to improve faculty involvement in community engagement by addressing institutional supports and barriers. Keywords: Community extension programs, Faculty engagement, Influencing factors, Parallel convergent mixed-method design, State university. 1. Introduction Community participation is a core mandate of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), bridging academic knowledge with societal needs. However, in the state university under study, faculty involvement in community engagement remains critically low—hindered by heavy workloads, insufficient support systems, and lack of institutional recognition. Addressing these barriers is essential, as meaningful engagement not only empowers communities but also enriches faculty development and reinforces the University’s relevance and impact on society [1, 2]. There is a critical difference between genuine engagement and faculty participation. Dedicated academics combine research and teaching with community needs, addressing difficult problems like public health and climate change, which have been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. The larger goal of HEIs is to support social development and innovation significantly, which is reflected in this integration [4]. In spite of regulations like Republic Acts 8292 and 8435 as well as CHED Memorandum Orders No. 52 (2016) and No. 15 (2019), a state institution in the Negros Island Region said that, during the previous five years, just 27% of its teachers had participated in community extension activities. Finding the underlying causes of this poor engagement rate is the primary objective of the present inquiry. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7031-5807 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7754-1903 1234 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate The study is grounded in several theoretical frameworks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement. Resource Dependence Theory [5] was utilized to explore how resource constraints limit faculty involvement. Self-determination theory [6] guided the investigation into the role of autonomy and competence in shaping faculty motivation. Additionally, Institutional Theory [7] was employed to examine the influence of organizational culture and external norms on faculty engagement. The study incorporates survey data with interviews and document analysis using a parallel convergent mixed-methods methodology [8]. The goal of this all-encompassing strategy is to pinpoint structural, institutional, and motivational obstacles to faculty participation. The results will guide tactics and regulations to increase faculty participation in community extension, enhancing HEIs' contribution to the advancement of societal welfare and promoting career satisfaction. 2. Study Framework Using a parallel convergent mixed-methods design and a pragmatist framework, this study investigated the variables affecting faculty participation in community extension programs [8]. The study offered a thorough grasp of how institutional support, faculty collaborations, and individual motives influence faculty engagement by combining quantitative and qualitative data. The conceptual framework of the study examines three interconnected dimensions: collaborative, institutional, and personal. It does this by drawing on theories of self-determination, resource dependence, and institutionalism. Personal factors have a substantial impact on faculty involvement, including training, professional development opportunities, workload, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation [1, 2]. According to Monteiro, et al. [3] faculty who are highly intrinsically motivated are more likely to engage in extension activities in a meaningful way [3]. In the meantime, extrinsic rewards like job promotion might also promote participation, but they might also lead to varying degrees of long-term commitment and satisfaction [4]. Engagement is made possible in large part by institutional support. Sustained engagement is made possible by administrative support, task modifications, adequate financing, and acknowledgment [9]. Research indicates that faculty members react with greater ownership and a spirit of cooperation when their institutions invest in a culture of community service [10, 11]. The impact and Sustainability of extension initiatives are further increased by collaboration with governmental organizations, non-profits, and the commercial sector. These collaborations increase program relevance, promote knowledge sharing, and increase resource availability. According to research, strategic partnerships enhance the societal function of higher education and increase community resilience. Institutions can create an evidence-based Faculty Development Framework that encourages significant, sustained engagement by considering these factors. Universities can foster an atmosphere where faculty members are empowered to serve communities and contribute to transformative societal change by addressing personal, institutional, and collaborative factors. 1235 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the framework of the study. 3. Literature Review 3.1. Personal Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs Personal incentives, intrinsic motivation, ethical commitment, and congruence with academic goals are factors that influence faculty participation in community engagement [12, 13]. Other important factors include career stage, workload, and development chances [14-16]. Faculty involvement rises when institutional objectives align with individual values and interests, resulting in more effective and long-lasting outreach [17, 18]. 3.2. Institutional Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs Institutional factors that greatly impact faculty involvement in community engagement initiatives include finance, task management, recognition, support, and external networking. In addition to the lack of official recognition and professional promotion for community service, faculty engagement is further hampered by limited financial resources and heavy teaching loads [19]. For community-based initiatives to be sustainable and have an impact, faculty participation must be encouraged and supported by effective institutional support, which includes incentives, flexible policies, and external collaborations [3]. 3.3. Collaborative Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs For academics to participate in community extension initiatives, collaborative factors, including goal alignment, resource access, trust, and transparency, are essential. Building trust through open and honest decision-making promotes faculty participation [3]. According to Sulasula [20] effective involvement is made possible by access to resources and chances for capacity-building [20]. Aligning institutional and community goals guarantees long-lasting, significant projects, while collaborative decision-making and shared ownership improve project performance [21]. 1236 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 3.4. Initiatives to Boost Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs Issues including misaligned goals, a lack of trust, and a lack of resources can make it difficult for teachers to participate in community engagement effectively. These problems can be resolved with the aid of cooperative governance, trust-building, and strategic alliances with regional stakeholders [17, 19]. Participation is also improved by measures to increase capacity, institutional support, and clearly defined roles [13, 14]. Frequent effect evaluations guarantee outreach initiatives' long-term viability and applicability [22]. 4. Methods 4.1. Research Design This study examined teacher involvement in community engagement at a state institution in Central Philippines (2020–2025) using a parallel convergent mixed methods methodology. Open-ended responses yielded more in-depth information, whereas surveys assessed participation levels. This method provided thorough, useful conclusions for bettering policy by fusing quantitative trends with qualitative experiences. Questionnaire surveys were used to collect quantitative data, which was then evaluated using descriptive statistics to find factors like funding sources, participation rates, and collaboration patterns. In addition, qualitative information gathered from open-ended questions reveals issues and motivations that statistical approaches could miss. A more comprehensive knowledge of the ways in which external partnerships, institutional support, and personal motivation impact engagement was achieved by integrating these approaches. The aggregated findings offer useful recommendations for universities seeking to improve the overall efficacy of their extension programs and expand faculty involvement in outreach opportunities. Figure 2. Schematic diagram representing the methodical framework of the study. 4.2. Respondents of the Study Ninety faculty extensionists were chosen at random from among 373 faculty members on four campuses for the study, guaranteeing proportional representation by random sampling. Both closed- ended and open-ended questions were completed by participants, yielding quantitative and qualitative information about their hurdles, motivations, and experiences. This methodology enhanced the dependability and thoroughness of the findings. 1237 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.3. Data Collection Five sections of a structured survey questionnaire were utilized in the study to collect demographic information and insights on faculty involvement in community extension initiatives. It evaluated the institutional, collaborative, and individual elements that affect involvement. Eleven experts’ pilot-tested and validated the instrument's content before Cronbach's Alpha reliability testing was conducted. Cronbach's Alpha values for the personal, institutional, and collaborative factors were 0.92, 0.96, and 0.86, respectively, according to the results of the pilot testing. The final version did not include any items with a content validity ratio (CVR) of less than 0.59. The overall validity and dependability of the data-gathering instrument were improved by this exacting procedure, which ensured that only the most pertinent and legitimate things were kept. Informed consent was a component of ethical processes that guaranteed data confidentiality and voluntary involvement. A combination of closed-ended and open- ended questions was used to gather data, which was then examined independently and combined to provide a thorough understanding of faculty involvement. Findings were further validated and contextualized by the triangulation of faculty records. 4.4. Research Rigors The study used thick description, confirmability, trustworthiness, and dependability to guarantee research rigor. Triangulation compared quantitative and qualitative data to validate findings. Data gathering and analysis were transparent through an audit trail. Reflexive logs and objective coding guaranteed objective outcomes, while thick descriptions offered comprehensive context for transferability to comparable contexts. 4.5. Data Analysis The researchers applied both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. Faculty participation and affecting factors were examined using descriptive statistics (frequency count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation). Lichtman's coding, categorization, and conceptualization framework was used to examine qualitative data. Convergent analysis was used to combine the results from both data sources, comparing quantitative and qualitative findings to find areas of convergence, divergence, and complementarity. A thorough knowledge of faculty participation in community engagement initiatives was made possible by this mixed-methods approach. 4.6. Ethical Considerations Strict ethical guidelines served as the foundation for this investigation into academic participation in community extension initiatives. It sought to maintain scientific integrity, have a significant social impact, and pick participants fairly. The study addressed important stakeholders and reduced risks by emphasizing informed consent, openness, and participant respect. The study aimed to promote constructive change in society and educational institutions in addition to advancing knowledge, all while adhering strictly to ethical norms. 5. Results and Discussion 5.1. Quantitative Findings 5.1.1. Extent of Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs Key patterns in rate, duration, frequency, activity type, and roles are brought to light by the University's faculty participation in community engagement findings. The majority of faculty members (40.0%) have only taken part in community engagement for one school year, according to the data, and their participation tends to decline with the number of years. In terms of frequency, only 23.3% participate regularly, whilst nearly half (46.7%) do so once every semester. The most popular forms of involvement are combination types (33.3%) and training and capacity-building programs (27.8%), suggesting a desire for integrated or diverse activities. In terms of duties, the majority perform the 1238 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate positions of project leaders (37.8%) or active participants (43.3%), indicating a high degree of responsibility and commitment to the programs among the professors. According to scholarly literature, faculty involvement is frequently short-term due to institutional barriers like lack of time, recognition, and competing responsibilities. This is supported by the finding that the majority of faculty members participate in community activities for only one school year, with participation decreasing over time [19]. Given that workload and institutional support influence engagement frequency, over half of the faculty members participate once every semester, whereas fewer participate monthly [23, 24]. Trends toward multidimensional models that combine service, teaching, and research are reflected in a noteworthy preference for training, capacity-building, and integrated forms of participation [25, 26]. The primary role of faculty members is that of project leaders or active participants, indicating a dedication to meaningful engagement. Professional development and contentment are especially associated with leadership jobs [24]. These results demonstrate the impact that structural supports can have on long-term, meaningful community involvement. Table 1. The extent of faculty participation in community engagement programs (N=90). Nature of Faculty Participation f % 1. Years of Participation One SY 36 40.0 Two SY 24 26.7 Three SY 14 15.6 Four SY 4 4.40 Five SY 12 13.3 2. Frequency of Participation At least once a month 21 23.3 Once every semester 42 46.7 Once a year 15 16.7 Rarely (Less than once a year) 12 13.3 3. Types of Community Engagement Outreach programs (e.g., medical missions, livelihood training) 14 15.6 Service-learning projects integrated into courses 5 5.6 Research-based community initiatives 12 13.3 Training and capacity-building programs 25 27.8 Policy advocacy or consultancy services 1 1.1 Others 3 3.3 Combination 30 33.3 4. Role of Involvement Program/ Project Leader (I design and lead programs) 34 37.8 Active participant (I am regularly involved in program activities) 39 43.3 Occasional participant (I join when available) 14 15.6 Observer (I am aware but not actively engaged) 2 2.2 Combination 1 1.0 5.1.2. Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs Table 2 shows that, with a high overall mean score (M = 4.20), personal factors have a considerable impact on teachers' participation in community engagement. Creating meaningful connections with the community and giving back to society were highly approved by faculty members as major motivators (M = 4.30 each). They also indicated a lot of interest in tackling certain community issues (M = 4.28), growing professional networks (M = 4.27), and motivating students with hands-on, real-world experience (M = 4.26). Nonetheless, obstacles continue to exist, especially limited time (M = 4.19), conflicting work obligations (M = 4.18), and inadequate institutional assistance. Faculty engagement is also significantly shaped by institutional factors, including advancement recognition (M = 4.11), research alignment (M = 4.13), and incorporation into instruction (M = 4.16). According to the 1239 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate comparatively low standard deviations (SD = 0.70–0.92), respondents appear to have a similar viewpoint. These findings are consistent with earlier studies that underline professional development, social responsibility, and personal fulfillment [1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 24]. The issues brought up by Chung, et al. [23] and Montesi, et al. [11] are echoed by obstacles like time and institutional constraints [11, 23]. Meanwhile, Morrison and Wagner [27] provide strong evidence for the significance of matching participation with academic responsibilities and rewards [27]. Therefore, encouraging prolonged and significant faculty participation requires striking a balance between individual incentives and institutional structures [11, 23]. Table 2. Personal factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement programs. Personal Factors Mean IN SD 1. My intrinsic motivation to contribute to society affects my level of engagement. 4.30 Highly Influential 0.74 2. My desire to build meaningful relationships with community members motivates me to participate. 4.30 Highly Influential 0.83 3. My passion for addressing specific social issues motivates my participation. 4.28 Highly Influential 0.82 4. Opportunities for networking and collaboration with colleagues through community engagement motivate me to participate. 4.27 Highly Influential 0.78 5. My desire to inspire students through active participation in community programs influences my involvement decisions. 4.26 Highly Influential 0.82 6. My personal interest in serving the community influences my participation. 4.24 Highly Influential 0.92 7. The opportunities for professional growth motivate me to participate in community engagement programs. 4.23 Highly Influential 0.79 8. The additional time demands of developing community partnerships impact my ability to engage in such programs effectively. 4.19 Highly Influential 0.72 9. My ability to balance teaching, research, and community engagement affects my participation. 4.18 Highly Influential 0.70 10. Opportunities to integrate community engagement into my teaching practices encourage my participation. 4.16 Highly Influential 0.81 11. The extent to which my teaching and research align with community engagement affects my participation. 4.13 Highly Influential 0.84 12. My academic responsibilities influence the amount of time I can dedicate to community programs. 4.12 Highly Influential 0.76 13. Competing priorities between teaching, research, and service roles influence the extent of my involvement in community engagement. 4.11 Highly Influential 0.79 14. The potential contribution of community engagement experience toward tenure or promotion influences my participation level. 4.11 Highly Influential 0.84 As a Whole 4.20 Highly Influential 0.57 Note: 4.50 – 5.00 (Extremely Influential); 3.50 – 4.49 (Highly Influential); 2.50 – 3.49 (Moderately Influential); 1.50 – 2.49 (Slightly Influential); 1.00 – 1.49 (Not at all Influential). The importance of institutional and systemic support in influencing teacher involvement in community engagement is highlighted in Table 3. The most significant component was financial support, with institutional grants having the highest mean score (M = 4.42). Additionally, leadership encouragement and administrative support received positive ratings (M = 4.00), indicating that academic leaders' overt advocacy fosters a climate of support. Promotion-related recognition was also desired, and logistical facilitators like administrative support, efficient processes, and manageable 1240 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate workloads were moderately recommended (M = 3.76 to 3.97). Nonetheless, standard deviations between 0.98 and 1.15 show discrepancies amongst departments, especially in institutional recognition and leadership support. These discrepancies point to an unequal implementation of supporting measures, which could have an impact on teacher involvement levels generally. These findings correspond with research that shows the value of institutional culture, leadership advocacy, and financial incentives in promoting long-term engagement [1-4]. Effective support structures, like flexible policies, logistical assistance, and promotion incentives, have been demonstrated to increase participation, while well-known obstacles include workload pressures, lack of recognition, and limited funding [19]. Table 3. Institutional factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement programs. Institutional Factors Mean Interpretation SD 1. Institutional grants or financial assistance for faculty-led community programs influence my involvement. 4.42 Highly Influential 1.15 2. Leadership and administrative encouragement for faculty participation in outreach programs impacts my involvement. 4.04 Highly Influential 1.02 3. The presence of administrative staff dedicated to assisting with the logistics of community engagement programs affects my participation level. 4.00 Highly Influential 1.08 4. Administrative encouragement and visible support from leadership (e.g., deans, department heads) impact my willingness to engage in outreach activities. 3.98 Highly Influential 1.12 5. The availability of funding for faculty-led community programs influence my participation. 3.97 Highly Influential 0.98 6. The availability of sufficient funding for the community engagement projects motivate my participation. 3.97 Highly Influential 1.03 7. Availability of institutional incentives (e.g., funding, reduced workload) significantly influences my decision to engage in community activities. 3.97 Highly Influential 1.11 8. Institutional policies that offer workload reductions for faculty involved in community engagement motivates me to participate. 3.91 Highly Influential 1.09 9. Institutional recognition of faculty contributions to community engagement impacts my willingness to participate. 3.87 Highly Influential 1.09 10. Institutional support in reducing bureaucratic or administrative burdens for faculty involved in the community engagement affects my participation. 3.86 Highly Influential 1.08 11. The presence of incentives such as workload reduction or financial support encourages my engagement. 3.76 Highly Influential 1.13 12. The presence of institutional awards or recognition programs for community engagement affect my motivation to participate. 3.76 Highly Influential 1.15 As a Whole 3.88 Highly Influential 1.12 Note: 4.50 – 5.00 (Extremely Influential); 3.50 – 4.49 (Highly Influential); 2.50 – 3.49 (Moderately Influential); 1.50 – 2.49 (Slightly Influential); 1.00 – 1.49 (Not at all Influential). 1241 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 4, with an aggregate mean of 4.05, underscores the considerable impact of collaborative elements on faculty participation in community engagement (CE). The highest-rated factor was building external relationships (M = 4.21), closely followed by joint decision-making and collaboration with NGOs (M = 4.16 each). Faculty also valued goal alignment, trust, transparency, and shared ownership in CE efforts. These elements not only promote inclusivity and open communication but also help establish long-term, effective community partnerships. Relatively low standard deviations (SD = 0.83–0.95) indicate a strong consensus among faculty, particularly those with prior CE experience, suggesting that ongoing collaboration strengthens involvement over time. These results are consistent with research that emphasizes the vital role of stakeholder communication, co-leadership, and shared objectives in maintaining participation [1-3]. While collaborative frameworks increase project quality and durability [21] deeper commitment is fostered by transparency, shared governance opportunities, and resource accessibility [20]. Table 4. Collaborative Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Community Engagement Programs. Collaborative Factors Mean Interpretation SD 1. The presence of shared governance in decision-making for community projects affect my willingness to engage. 4.03 Highly Influential 0.87 2. The availability of partnerships with government agencies influences my participation in community programs. 4.09 Highly Influential 0.86 3. The availability of shared governance structures between the institution and external stakeholders impact my participation in outreach programs. 4.09 Highly Influential 0.86 4. Collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) impacts my level of involvement in the community engagement. 4.16 Highly Influential 0.92 5. Collaborative decision-making processes with external partners affect my willingness to engage in the community activities. 4.16 Highly Influential 0.86 6. The extent to which faculty have a role in shaping partnerships with external stakeholders influence my participation in community engagement. 4.21 Highly Influential 0.84 7. External partnerships that provide training and capacity building opportunities influence my participation. 4.18 Highly Influential 0.83 8. Regular communication and feedback mechanisms with external stakeholders enhance my engagement in collaborative projects. 4.10 Highly Influential 0.86 9. Opportunities to co-design community projects with external stakeholders affect my level of involvement. 4.06 Highly Influential 0.95 10. The ability to establish long-term partnerships with external stakeholders influence my participation in community programs. 4.02 Highly Influential 0.90 As a whole 4.05 Highly Influential 0.89 Note: 4.50 – 5.00 (Extremely Influential); 3.50 – 4.49 (Highly Influential); 2.50 – 3.49 (Moderately Influential); 1.50 – 2.49 (Slightly Influential); 1.00 – 1.49 (Not at all Influential). 5.2. Qualitative Findings 5.2.1. Driven to Serve – Exploring the Influence of Personal Factors on Faculty Participation in Community Engagement at a State University A mix of social obligation, career growth, and personal fulfillment motivates faculty members to get involved in the community. Many believe that their participation is morally required. "Reaching out to the marginalized sectors of our society and being part of the solutions to address societal needs," said Participant 5, and "Social responsibility and service drive me...," said Participant 8. These feelings are consistent with research showing that socially conscious educators go outside the classroom to create an active learning 1242 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate environment [28, 29]. Through university social responsibility programs, academics can confront social injustices and have a significant impact on the community [29]. Another important motive that surfaced was professional growth. Participant 18 conveyed, “The chance to advance professionally and give back to the community inspires me.” Similarly, Participant 25 shared, "Making an impact in the community along with professional growth… motivates me". Faculty members not only experience personal fulfillment but also develop their research and teaching abilities. Such experiences foster reflective practice and interdisciplinary collaboration [30-32]. Finally, involvement is also influenced by personal obligations and a strong commitment to particular causes. Empathy, ambition, and moral commitment are factors that influence faculty involvement in community extension, highlighting the importance of both professional and personal development as well as a sense of obligation [30, 33]. 5.2.2. Institutional Factors Empowering Faculty Community Engagement: Support, Recognition, and Resources These remarks point out the important role that institutional support plays in encouraging faculty engagement and guaranteeing the success of community initiatives. Participant 20 said, "I feel much more motivated to stay involved in community projects when the university supports my work through clear incentives, recognition, and resources." Another participant said, "Faculty members are more likely to stay involved in community programs when they see that the university provides the support they need to succeed." Finally, Participant 49 emphasized, "If the university supports me with resources and recognition, it helps me focus on creating the best possible outcomes for the community." Clear incentive structures that recognize community service as a valid part of academic citizenship serve to further reinforce this positive reinforcement. The responses from faculty members indicate how important institutional resources and recognition are to maintaining involvement in community extension programs. Faculty are better able to balance teaching, research, and outreach when they get effective assistance, such as institutional incentives, workload allowances, and recognition programs. Organizations that incorporate community involvement into workload models demonstrate its importance in addition to more conventional academic outcomes. For example, Carr-Lemke [1] discovered that modifying workloads greatly increases teacher involvement [1]. Research further suggests that incorporating incentives within tenure and promotion guidelines promotes a culture that values community service as a professional endeavor [2-4]. 5.2.3. Empowering Change: Collaborative Drivers of Faculty Engagement in Community Impact Programs Key collaborative dynamics that have a significant impact on faculty involvement in community activities include transparency, resource equity, co-ownership, value congruence, and innovation. Trust and transparency were shown to be crucial components. "I feel like an equal, not just a participant, when partners respect me," stated Participant 18. Participant 19 also underlined that "trust between partners and faculty is non-negotiable. I wouldn't bother taking part without it.” Accessing resources and increasing capacity were also mentioned as being essential. Participant 3 stated, "I join these programs because government partners provide tools I can't access alone," highlighting the significance of training and material support in encouraging participation. The faculty also emphasized the importance of shared decision-making and co-ownership. "I feel more invested and committed when I co-design projects," said Participant 12. In a similar vein, Participant 25 clarified, "When I concentrate on local needs, my work truly matters to people here." Measurable outcomes and innovation were also inspiring. "Partners in the private sector encourage us to think creatively," said Participant 7, emphasizing the importance of originality in community involvement. These answers support the conclusions of Constancia [2] and Carr-Lemke [1] who highlighted openness and respect for one another as the cornerstones of fruitful collaborations Carr-Lemke [1] and Constancia [2]. Monteiro, et al. [3] emphasized how faculty participation and professional development 1243 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate are empowered by institutional support and resource access [3]. Research by Kangas and Aarrevaara [10] and Cai and Mountford [9] further supports the importance of co-leadership and innovation in maintaining meaningful collaboration and increasing faculty involvement in community service [9, 10]. 5.3. Converged Quantitative and Qualitative Findings Table 5 presents the convergent results about the personal factors impacting faculty participation in community engagement initiatives. According to quantitative data, the desire to address social concerns (M = 4.28), motivate students (M = 4.26), and contribute to society (M = 4.30) all have high mean scores. Qualitative answers that highlight intrinsic motivation based on moral purpose, empathy, and personal development, showing a strong internal commitment to community service, support these findings. Collectively, our results support previous studies that indicate faculty members have a profound feeling of personal fulfillment from community-focused activity [3]. Additionally, faculty interest in addressing specific social issues (M = 4.28) and possibilities for networking (M = 4.27) show how involvement enhances professional identity. These findings are in line with those of DeFelippo, et al. [24] and Menon and Suresh [4] who note that faculty members in their mid-career are seeking employment that emphasizes community involvement [4, 24]. Furthermore, promoting students' application of knowledge in practical settings (M = 4.26) enhances the connections between teacher involvement and student growth [10]. However, barriers such as time constraints (M = 4.19) and employment responsibilities (M = 4.18) make participation challenging. These practical issues align with research by Chung, et al. [23]. Institutional support is also essential in fostering community participation as a scholarly effort, in addition to recognition in promotions (M = 4.16–4.11) and alignment with teaching and research objectives [27]. Table 5. Converged findings of presenting the personal factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement programs. Quantitative Findings Corresponding Qualitative Responses Converged Findings Motivation: Desire to contribute to society (M = 4.30) Desire to address social concerns (M = 4.28) Desire to inspire students (M = 4.26) “It makes me feel good to reach out to people, help them, and see their smiles.” I’ve always felt it’s my duty to give back because I grew up in a community that valued bayanihan.” “I grow as a person as well—it's not just the community that grows.” Intrinsic motivation, rooted in moral purpose, empathy, and self-fulfillment, is a Converging data on institutional factors influencing teacher participation in community engagement programs are shown in Table 6. Funding has a significant impact (M = 4.42), according to quantitative data, and faculty emphasize that while financial support facilitates project implementation, its lack reduces involvement by diverting time to grant-seeking. With mean scores ranging from 3.76 to 3.91, task management is also crucial, and qualitative responses highlight how crucial workload flexibility is for easing stress and promoting role balance. Furthermore, professors reported that recognition of their contributions not only increases visibility but also fosters continued participation and professional development, making career advancement and recognition important motivators (M = 3.76–3.87). Career progression and recognition were also important factors; questions pertaining to institutional recognition scored between 3.76 and 3.87. Faculty observed that career advancement and sustained engagement were encouraged by rewards or evaluation prominence. Faculty emphasized the importance of administrative support and logistical aid in boosting engagement capacity, and institutional support and incentives were also significant (mean scores of 3.86 to 4.04). The significance of networking and outside assistance for sustained engagement was emphasized by qualitative responses despite the fact that these factors were less apparent in quantitative data. 1244 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate The finding supports the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which emphasizes that faculty engagement is strengthened by intrinsic motivation in addition to extrinsic benefits like recognition [1]. Additionally, the Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) emphasizes that money and other resource availability are essential for long-term involvement [3]. Table 6. Converged findings of presenting the institutional factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement programs. Quantitative Findings Corresponding Qualitative Responses Converged Findings Funding: Mean scores range from 3.76 to 4.42 (Highly Influential). Top item: “Institutional grants or financial assistance…” (Mean = 4.42). Faculty stated that funding “gets community projects off the ground,” and its absence leads to “time spent chasing grants,” reducing actual engagement. Funding is critical to launching, maintaining, and expanding engagement. Its presence enables focus on implementation; its absence diverts time and limits impact. Workload Management: “Workload reduction policies motivate me” (Mean = 3.91), “Incentives like workload reduction encourage participation” (Mean = 3.76). Respondents emphasized workload equivalency as essential. “It reduces pressure,” “gives flexibility,” and “helps balance multiple roles.” Effective workload management enables sustained participation. Without it, faculty face role strain, reducing engagement. Institutions must provide support mechanisms for workload redistribution. Recognition and Career Advancement: Recognition-related items scored 3.76–3.87 (Highly Influential). “Recognition pushes me to stay engaged.” Lack of recognition is “demotivating.” “Recognition enhances visibility and supports career progression.” Recognition validates faculty work, boosts motivation, and encourages long-term participation. Career- linked rewards strengthen institutional commitment to engagement. Institutional Support and Incentives: Scores ranged from 3.86 to 4.04 (Highly Influential) for logistics, administrative backing, and encouragement. Support from leadership and logistical help “make it easier to stay involved.” Faculty feel “aligned with institutional values” when supported. Institutional culture and visible support play crucial roles in sustaining programs. Tangible resources and leadership encouragement enhance engagement. Faculty participation in community engagement programs is greatly influenced by a number of important collaboration factors, which are highlighted by the quantitative statistics and qualitative comments. With a mean score of 4.10, trust and transparency were identified as key components. Faculty responses emphasized the value of open communication and transparent decision-making in promoting meaningful collaboration. According to one respondent, "having regular updates and transparent decisions" fosters trust; this idea is supported by communication theories that associate openness with productive teamwork. These results align with the overall findings in Table 7, which showed high mean ratings for capacity-building (M = 4.18), external partnerships (M = 4.09–4.16), and faculty engagement in shaping collaborations (M = 4.21). In addition to fostering professional development and creativity, faculty stressed that shared governance, co-designed projects, and long-term collaborations guarantee relevance, responsibility, and ongoing participation in community-based projects. External collaborations with governmental and non-governmental organizations are also essential since they give credibility and access to resources. According to faculty, these collaborations "broaden the scope" and bring in "new perspectives," which boost community projects' inventiveness and impact. This is corroborated by quantitative data, which shows mean scores for partnerships with these groups of 4.09 and 4.16. These collaborations support academic involvement and long-term Sustainability. Furthermore, faculty members who actively participated in forming projects demonstrated a greater feeling of commitment, making shared governance a significant motivator. This sense of ownership, with a mean score of 4.03, is consistent with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which highlights competence and autonomy as key factors that influence engagement [1]. 1245 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Finally, the importance of long-term collaborations in maintaining faculty involvement was highlighted. According to the faculty, ongoing partnerships "offer continuous advantages" and have long-lasting effects on the faculty and the community. The value of long-term connections in encouraging involvement is consistent with current research showing how crucial successful collaborations are to long-term success. The most important tactics for improving faculty involvement and program success are open communication, resource availability, shared governance, and long-term collaborations. Table 7. Converged findings of presenting the collaborative factors influencing faculty participation in community engagement programs. Quantitative Findings Quoted Qualitative Responses Converged Collaborative Factors Mean = 4.10 – Trust and transparency through communication and feedback are rated as highly influential. Faculty stated that trust is built through “valuing our inputs,” and “clear communication” strengthens engagement. They emphasized that “having regular updates and transparent decisions” builds trust. Trust and Transparency Mean = 4.09 (Gov’t) and 4.16 (NGOs) – External partnerships are highly influential. Faculty noted that partnerships with NGOs “bring in new ideas” and “broaden the impact of our work.” They also emphasized that “working with government agencies helps us scale projects and gain legitimacy.” Resource Access and Capability Building Mean = 4.21 – Faculty value shaping external partnerships most highly. Faculty expressed that “helping create the partnerships ensures the programs meet both academic and community needs.” They feel “more accountable” and “more committed” when involved in shaping partnerships. Ownership in Partnerships Mean = 4.18 – Capacity-building through external partners is highly influential. Respondents stated that “workshops and trainings from partner NGOs” help build “confidence” and “make us more capable.” They also shared that “we’re more willing to join when we have the necessary skills.” Professional Growth via Capacity-Building Mean = 4.03 – Shared governance in decision- making is highly influential. Faculty members mentioned that “having a say in planning makes me more engaged” and “we feel more committed when our voices are heard during decision- making.” Collaborative Decision-Making and Ownership Mean = 4.06 – Co-designing projects with stakeholders is valued. Respondents shared that “being part of the planning process makes projects more relevant and meaningful” and “we align project goals better when we co-design with our partners.” Project Relevance through Co-Design Mean = 4.02 – Long-term partnerships promote engagement and Sustainability. Faculty emphasized that “long-term relationships “build trust and achieve lasting impact” and that “we can plan better when we know the partnership is for the long run.” Innovation and Long- Term Impact Personal, institutional, and cooperative factors all affect faculty involvement in community engagement initiatives. Faculty members, in my opinion, cherish independence and a feeling of pride, and their involvement is increased by shared governance and the opportunity to co-design initiatives. At the institutional level, faculty engagement and motivation depend heavily on leadership support, resource availability, and professional development opportunities. External collaborations with NGOs and government organizations offer crucial resources, credibility, and a range of viewpoints, all of which 1246 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate increase the effect of programs. Long-term collaborations, openness, and good communication all contribute to the development of trust and a cooperative atmosphere, which are essential for maintaining faculty involvement in community-based projects. Figure 3. Faculty community engagement and its influencing factors. 6. Conclusion The study offers useful data about the factors affecting teacher involvement in community engagement initiatives. According to the poll, the majority of faculty members took part in short-term capacity-building activities, with only 27% having completed community projects in the previous five years. While institutional support, professional advancement possibilities, and recognition are critical in maintaining engagement, important personal elements such as intrinsic motivation, career development, and task management have a significant impact on involvement. Furthermore, more meaningful and long-lasting participation is facilitated by collaborative elements like shared ownership, trust, and alignment with institutional and community goals. The results highlight how crucial it is to strike a 1247 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate balance between institutional support, individual incentives, and teamwork in order to increase faculty involvement in community service. 7. Recommendation The study recommends a number of steps to increase the Sustainability and efficacy of community engagement programs. To guarantee Sustainability, community partners should supply resources, oversee projects, and co-design programs with institutions. In addition to forming diverse relationships and taking on doable projects that are in line with their areas of competence, faculty members should push for extension work during tenure evaluations. In order to foster civic engagement and leadership, students should be encouraged to take part in real-world projects. Policymakers and administrators should provide steady financing, provide incentives like workload changes, and incorporate community input into strategic planning. These efforts can also be strengthened by cooperation with the government, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and international development agencies. Lastly, the study suggests more research to investigate novel engagement strategies and assess their effects. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] T. Carr-Lemke, "Exploring Faculty Satisfaction Derived From Community-Engaged Teaching in the COVID-19 Era," International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-21, 2023. https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.91723 [2] R. L. Constancia, "Faculty engagement in relation to the job performance of the faculty members in Northern Mindanao Colleges Incorporated, Cabadbaran City, Philippines," International Journal of Research Publications, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 516–540, 2024. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001521720246921 [3] S. Monteiro, R. Isusi-Fagoaga, L. Almeida, and A. García-Aracil, "Contribution of higher education institutions to social innovation: Practices in two southern european universities," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 3594, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073594 [4] S. Menon and M. Suresh, "Synergizing education, research, campus operations, and community engagements towards sustainability in higher education: A literature review," International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1015-1051, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-03-2020-0089 [5] J. Pfeffer and G. R. Salancik, The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, United States: Harper & Row, 1978. [6] E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, United States: Springer Science & Business Media, 1985. [7] P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields," American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147-160, 1983. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [8] J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, United States: Sage Publications, 2011. [9] Y. Cai and N. Mountford, "Institutional logics analysis in higher education research," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1627-1651, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032 [10] R. Kangas and T. Aarrevaara, "Higher education institutions as knowledge brokers in smart specialisation," Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 3044, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073044 [11] M. Montesi, P. Parra Valero, M. A. Ovalle Perandones, and M. Sacristán Sánchez, "Assessing the societal value of a service-learning project in information studies during the COVID-19 pandemic," Education for Information, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 17-36, 2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.91723 https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001521720246921 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073594 https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-03-2020-0089 https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073044 1248 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 6: 1233-1248, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i6.8098 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [12] N. S. Jessani, A. Valmeekanathan, C. Babcock, and B. Ling, "Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations andrecommendations from one School of Public Health," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 148. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00629-1 [13] B. Chapfika, "The role of integrity in higher education," International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 66–81, 2008. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v4i1.192 [14] R. G. Bringle, R. Games, C. L. Foos, R. Osgood, and R. Osborne, "Faculty fellows program: Enhancing integrated professional development through community service," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 882-894, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955531 [15] A. L. Terosky, "Faculty perspectives on community engagement," Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 75–100, 2013. [16] S. Kavatekar, Engaged institution model, in handbook of research on enhancing innovation in higher education institutions. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2256-7.ch003, 2024. [17] J. D. Geller, N. Zuckerman, and A. Seidel, "Service-learning as a catalyst for community development: How do community partners benefit from service-learning?," Education and Urban Society, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 151-175, 2016. [18] K. Khanal, Cultivating campus citizenship, in Handbook of Research on Enhancing Innovation in Higher Education Institutions. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3470-6.ch012, 2024. [19] I. Gorski and K. Mehta, "Engaging faculty across the community engagement continuum," Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, vol. 6, pp. 108-123, 2016. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1123818.pdf [20] M. Sulasula, "Faculty engagement in higher education," Journal of Educational Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 345–360, 2023. [21] D. M. Kennedy et al., "Reimagining community engagement sustainability: Insights for the postpandemic world," Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, vol. 14, no. 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.54656/jces.v14i2.30 [22] R. Davis, "Evaluating outreach activities: Overcoming challenges through a realist ‘small steps’ approach," Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 45–60, 2017. [23] B. Chung et al., "Faculty participation in and needs around community engagement within a large multiinstitutional clinical and translational science awardee," Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 506-512, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12314 [24] A. M. DeFelippo, D. E. Giles, and A. Defelippo, "Mid-career faculty and high levels of community engagement: Intentional reshaping of meaningful careers," International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2015. [25] D. Montt-Blanchard, S. Najmi, and C. G. Spinillo, "Considerations for community engagement in design education," She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 234-263, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2023.05.004 [26] N. Nicotera, N. Cutforth, E. Fretz, and S. S. Thompson, "Dedication to community engagement: A higher education conundrum?," Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2022. https://doi.org/10.54656/SPEA6513 [27] E. Morrison and W. Wagner, "Exploring faculty perspectives on community-engaged scholarship: The case for Q methodology," Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 5-14, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.101 [28] E. KarwowsKa, "How do responsible universities perceive their social engagement? In search of signs of Creating Shared Value by the University," Journal of Modern Science, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 451-465, 2023. https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/175511 [29] S. Kakkar, S. Ghulyani, S. Kuril, and M. Chaudhuri, "Understanding factors shaping engagement in remote internships: The role of institutional communication, faculty support and intern cynicism," International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1219-1240, 2024. [30] J. Smith, "Faculty engagement in higher education," Journal of Higher Education, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 123–138, 2022. [31] M. Roman, H. Varga, V. Cvijanovic, and A. Reid, "Quadruple Helix models for sustainable regional innovation: Engaging and facilitating civil society participation," Economies, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 48, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8020048 [32] W. Li, T. Yigitcanlar, A. Nili, and W. Browne, "Tech giants’ responsible innovation and technology strategy: An international policy review," Smart Cities, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 3454-3492, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6060153 [33] N. López and D. L. Morgan, "Confronting the nameless-faceless: A duoethnography of navigating turnover and early career socialization," Journal of Organizational Ethnography, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 229-243, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00629-1 https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v4i1.192 https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955531 https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2256-7.ch003 https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3470-6.ch012 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1123818.pdf https://doi.org/10.54656/jces.v14i2.30 https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12314 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2023.05.004 https://doi.org/10.54656/SPEA6513 https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.101 https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/175511 https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8020048 https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6060153 https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012