A Critical Study of Thailand's Higher Education Reforms

The culture of borrowing

Rattana Lao

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317691921
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Educational Policy

This book offers a critical examination of contemporary higher education reforms in Thailand situated in the broader historical, socio-economic and political changes. Through a qualitative case study with three methods of inquiry, this book explores why different 'global education policies' such quasi-privatisation, internationalization, as quality assessment (QA) have resonated in Thailand higher education sector. Grounded in policy borrowing and lending, this book uses the politics, economics and culture of borrowing to analyse major reforms in Thailand for the past one hundred years. It is argued that historical legacy, policy contexts and belief systems of policy elites play pivotal roles in facilitating policy changes or the lack thereof. While historical analysis elucidates that the Thai state has always been an active borrower of western ideas, the perseverance of the 'Thai-ness' discourse has often been used to suggest its so-called independence and idiosyncrasy. This in-depth analysis of the Thai case aims to contribute to the critical studies in Asian education, comparative higher education, policy borrowing and lending and Thai studies. The Culture of Borrowing intensively studies the policy appropriation in the Thai education system by analysing:

• Selective Borrowing and the Historical Development of Thai Higher Education

• The Asian Economic Crisis as Window of Opportunity: Autonomous University

• Internationalization of Teaching: Quantitative and Qualitative Challenges

• The Emergence of Quality Policies and their Rationales

• The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Quality Policies

This book will appeal to researchers in Education, particularly to scholars studying educational policies within the context of tertiary education. It will also interest scholars specialising in Asian and South-east Asian Studies.

1 Globalization of higher education policy

The case of Thailand

This book offers an extensive historical, theoretical, and empirical grounded analysis of higher education reforms in Thailand in relation to different forms of external forces in higher education policymaking. It is situated in the broader intellectual attempt to understand the complex relationship between globalization and education policymaking. Such study intends to investigate “the transnational flow … [of] educational reforms from one cultural context to another” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012, p. 3), or what Hayhoe (1989, p. 5) called: “a serious treatment to the international flow of knowledge”. Rather than taking a normative view that countries make references to each other because they are “learning from best practices” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004), this book intends to critically analyze how Western models of higher education have influenced the making of higher education in the case of Thailand throughout the past one hundred years. Saihoo (1973) persuasively argues that the development of Thai higher education has been a recent phenomenon of the past century, noting that “it is only within the past hundred years that we Thai have come to think of education in western terms” (p. 23).

The discussion of the Thai case is also nested in the broader interest to understand the development of Asian higher education systems. Historically, the studies of Asian higher education have strived to understand the complex relationship between Western influences and their encounters in varied contexts of Asia. According to Altbach (1998), two preeminent realities shape higher education systems in Asia: “the foreign origin of the academic model and the challenges of indigenization of the universities as part of the development process” (p. 55). On the one hand, multiple facets of Western models of higher education have influenced the creation of higher education in Asia. The European models, especially the French conception of Grand École or elitist higher education institution, dominated the earlier days of nation building and modernization. However, since the end of the World War II, the American models have influenced much of the development of Asian universities (Altbach, 1989). In fact, the American model is itself borrowed from multiple sources. It is a byproduct of three main ideas: the English collegiate model, the German research university ideal of the late nineteenth century, and the American concept of service to society (Altbach, 1998, p. xii).

Through colonization, Western models and paradigms have pervaded and left significant imprints across the region, which has influenced the construction and development of universities region-wide (Altbach, 1989). Even though Thailand has taken pride as the only Southeast Asia country that has not been colonized by the West (Anderson, 1978; Fry, 2002b), Thai universities were founded upon a variety of foreign influences. Similarly to other Asian countries, European higher education was the model for the Thai higher education system. During the early days of development, French influence was profound. The establishment of the first university, Chulalongkorn, in 1916, epitomized this. Higher education was meant to educate the ruling elite to serve in modern bureaucracy (Wyatt, 1969). In later days, the United Kingdom and the United States have also had enormous influence on the construction of Thai higher education. Influenced by the UK’s administration structure, the university is comprised of different faculties and a dean is the head of each faculty, thus assimilating the power structure of British higher education. Through American economic assistance after the World War II, the American model of higher education became the prototype for Thai higher education. The relationship between the United States and the Thai higher education system occurred at multiple levels. From a bilateral economic assistance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had invested enormously to expand access to higher education in the regional area of Thailand. Other philanthropic organizations such as the Ford, the Rockefeller, and the Fulbright Foundations have also played significant roles (Coleman and Court, 1993). By the 1990s, the bilateral references to particular Western European countries or the United States had been replaced with terms such as “globalization,” “global forces,” and “international best practices” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012). Whether it is just rhetoric or realistic pressure, the rise of globalization, international league tables or benchmarking have indeed replaced the bilateral references to “the West” or “foreign models” and therefore played a significant role in dictating the direction of universities in this region and worldwide.

From the threat of colonization to American economic assistance and the rise of globalization, Western knowledge, models, and values have had significant impacts and imprints on the formation and development of the Thai higher education system. More importantly, Thai leaders have always “used, adapted and modified foreign ideas” to its existing structure (Watson, 1989, p. 64). Watson (1989) persuasively argued that “the Thai have shown themselves to be cultural borrowers par excellence” (p. 64). Therefore, a thorough historical analysis is needed to critically examine the contemporary development of Thailand’s system of higher education.

To analyze the complex relationship between Westernization and indigenization processes of Thai higher education, this book is grounded in the theory of policy borrowing and lending. It is an attempt to “describe, analyze and understand … traveling reforms that surface in every part of the world,” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012, p. 1). Broadly speaking, it is interested to understand the influences of globalization in education policymaking. Verger et al. (2012) argued there exists a “global education policy,” which refers to “similar education reforms and a common set of education policy jargon [that] are being applied in many parts of the world” (p. 1). This global education policy includes child-centered, voucher, and lifelong learning, to name but a few. In particular, this book analyzes the traveling reforms such as deregulation/privatization, internationalization, the rise of international ranking, and the emergence of quality policies such as quality assessment (QA) and qualification frameworks. It intends to move beyond the normative and nationalistic worldview that reforms are implemented because they are “best practices” and sound “international standards.” Instead, it deploys the “politics, economics and culture” of borrowing as theoretical and critical lens to understand different forms of external forces. Historical legacy, political structures, and the socio-logic of the borrowing countries continuously challenge the global reform and modify ready-made packages (Schriewer and Martinez, 2004). The analysis of historical context, political structures, and the roles and belief systems of policy actors within the Thai higher education sub-system provided a fertile ground to acquire a complete understanding of the meaning and implication of global reforms at multiple levels.

Methodological issues

Methodologically, the majority of the data in this book is based on the author’s PhD dissertation, completed under the supervision of Professor Gita Steiner-Khamsi at Teachers College, Columbia University. The research was entitled “The logic of Thailand’s higher education sector and quality assessment policy.” A qualitative case study was the appropriate methodology to investigate these issues. A triangulation of three methods was carried out to collect the data, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and a three-month observation at the Office of National Educational Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). The research fieldwork began by interviewing key policymakers at the center level of policymaking. Policy elites include heads of states and ministries, executive bureaucrats, legislators, and social interests (Grindle and Thomas, 1991, p. 58). Kogan (1978) argued that education policy is “a product of conflicting claims, painfully and painstakingly resolved” (cited in Whitty and Edwards, 1994, p. 15) and, therefore, it is essential to understand differing voices of individuals holding a diversity of responsibilities and power in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the policy. These individuals included bureaucrats, senior policy advisors, and academics involved in the Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), Ministry of Education (MOE), and ONESQA. Dexter (2006) argues that the selection of elite interviewees depends on the fact that “they are the only expert on; and often they are the only person to know specific information on a particular issue or topic” (p. 5). Each individual was also selected based on their direct responsibility and experiences. In total, eighty individuals were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews provided ample room for freedom and flexibility to probe with questions that were appropriate to each interviewee. Subsequently, eight public universities and three private universities in four regions of Thailand were visited to gain the perspectives of QA practitioners and academics at the university and faculty levels. After ten months of intensive fieldwork between 2010 and 2011, thematic analysis has been deployed to analyze the qualitative data.

While the dissertation focused on the emergence of quality policies, this book has also explored other policies of Thai higher education system including deregulation/privatization/autonomous university policy, the internationalization phenomenon, and the rise of international league tables. Therefore, extensive policy documents, academic papers, and an additional eleven interviews with key policy elites and academics have been sought in order to obtain comprehensive understanding of important issues in Thailand’s higher education sector. Having gathered an enormous amount of qualitative data, thematic analysis was used in order to analyze and understand the field notes, documents, and interview transcripts. Braun and Clark (2006) define thematic analysis as “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p. 6). It is a useful analytical lens, allowing flexibility and freedom for data analysis. At the same time, it allows the researcher to encapsulate the richness, depth, and complexity of the data in full range.

The politics, economics, and culture of borrowing: theoretical framework

In order to understand the complex interplays between these global education policies and Thailand’s higher education reforms, the theory of policy borrowing and lending is an appropriate theoretical framework. Traditionally, Noah and Eckstein’s (1969) argument that “one could gain useful lessons from abroad” dominated the early interest in comparative education (p. 15). In fact, the normative belief of learning from “best practices” still provides the commonsense explanation for the process of borrowing and policy transfers. In contrast, policy borrowing theorists argue that a multiplicity of cultures, belief systems, and preferences among various actors and competing interest groups within a nation, especially in the realm of education policymaking, exist and are important factors in determining the process and product of policy borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi, 2000, p. 162). The framework is interested in exploring the patterns that local policymakers and local bureaucrats resist, modify, and indigenize from the international model (pp. 156, 162).

Policy borrowing and lending usually happens between two countries: the borrower and the lender. Phillips’ (1989) substantial work on the British interest in German education as well as Halpin and Troyna’s (1995) work on the transatlantic assimilation between the British and American education systems illustrate this point. Undoubtedly, globalization has blurred the origins of where the policy has been borrowed from. It has created “new imaginative regimes” or an “imagined international community” whereby international discourses and policy packages have traveled globally to replace bilateral borrowing. When policy reaches the status of becoming a global or international policy, countries can selectively borrow different aspects of the policy they want to implement (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). They are free to borrow the package wholesale or bits and pieces of the policy. Dolowitz and Marsh (2002) outline eight possible categories of a policy that can be borrowed: policy goals, structure and content, policy instruments, policy programs, institutions, ideologies, ideas and attitudes, and negative lessons (p. 12). Countries can also refer to international discourse rather than policy practices. The international discourses include quality, efficiency, and accountability (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010). Discursive borrowing has been evident in the emergence of QA, as the proponents repeatedly underscore the need for the education sector to have quality, accountability, and transparency.

Policy borrowing and lending in education aim to reveal the complexity and contradictions that arise when global forces meet local factors. The politics of borrowing expect that a reference to elsewhere is used to mitigate or replace an existing, locally contested reform agenda, while the economics of borrowing are mostly the product of aid-dependency. Although the politics and economics of policy borrowing have dominated the academic discussion on the rationale behind the logic of borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi and Waldow, 2012; Philips, 2004), the cultural aspect must also be acknowledged (Takayama and Apple, 2008; Lao, 2012). The culture of borrowing highlights how modernity and cultural supremacy are important factors to induce change. In short, policy borrowing and lending explores the process of “de-territorialization,” “externalization,” and “re-contextualization” of global reform into local contexts (Steiner-Khamsi, 2000). Each theoretical perspective will be discussed. Concepts such as externalization, legitimation, and socio-logic are particularly useful to understand the historical factors, contemporary policy contexts, and belief systems that facilitate the borrowing process.

The politics of borrowing

The politics of borrowing and lending has been well documented by myriad empirical research across countries and contexts both within the education field and in political science literature (Halpin and Troyna, 1995; Phillips, 1989; Robertson, 1991; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004, 2010, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi and Quist, 2000). Robertson (1991) argues that when borrowing takes place, it is never politically neutral. The value of a foreign example lies in its bias to support or legitimize a preferred policy (as cited in Stone, 1999, p. 53). Therefore, it is expected that these actors can strategically import and borrow any foreign model to legitimize their preferred agenda or contested reforms in their country. Based on the existing research, the politics of policy borrowing can be differentiated into three main purposes: scandalization of the need for reform/identifying educational problems; legitimizing policy solutions; and building policy coalitions. First, Steiner-Khamsi (2004) illustrates how the results of international league tables have been used to “scandalize” the need for reform in various countries. Particular examples can be seen from how policymakers have used the comparative results of their students’ test scores in PISA or TIMMS to call for reform efforts. Second, politics of borrowing helps to legitimize contested reform in the home country. Halpin and Troyna (1995) argue that policy borrowing has much less to do with the success of any particular policy. Rather, political rationale often drives the process. The transatlantic borrowing of vouchers and choice programs is a case in point. Although vouchers and choice were subjects of heated debate in the United States, policymakers in the United Kingdom continued to cite the US case to legitimize the New Right movements in the UK (Halpin and Troyna, 1995). Third, reform or lessons from abroad can have a “salutary effect on protracted policy conflict: it is a coalition builder” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010, p. 324). Given that education policy can be contested by various groups of policy actors, drawing from international standards can act as the third option to mitigate conflicts.

The economics of borrowing

The economics of policy borrowing is a useful framework for understanding how the financial power of the international organization can instigate pressure for recipient countries to borrow, refer, and implement international models. The economics of policy borrowing offers...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• 1 Globalization of higher education policy: the case of Thailand
• 2 Selective borrowing and the historical development of Thai higher education
• 3 The changing role of the Thai state and higher education administration
• 4 The Asian economic crisis as window of opportunity: autonomous university policy
• 5 Internationalization of teaching: quantitative and qualitative challenges
• 6 The politics of international ranking and Thailand’s research landscape
• 7 The emergence of quality policies and their rationales
• 8 The global–local nexus of quality policies: the case of ONESQA
• 9 The intended and unintended consequences of quality policies
• 10 The culture of borrowing and Thailand’s reform fatigue
• References
• Index