Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Voice of a Stakeholder1
Porntip Kanjananiyot
Chotima Chaitiamwong
Thailand-United States Educational Foundation
(TUSEF/Fulbright Thailand)
tusef@fulbrightthai.org
Fulbright Thailand, administering the Fulbright Program in Thailand since 1950, has stated in
its 10-year framework to focus on internationalization and cross culture in addition to its main
mission of creating mutual understanding of the peoples of Thailand and the United States of
America. This is because of the belief that to fulfill its mission successfully, the Foundation
must be engaged in Thailands internationalization and at the same time, in examining in
further depth the context of culture.
Therefore, this paper intends to discuss development of internationalization in Thailand, the
involvement of Fulbright Thailand, how cultural traditions have played a key part especially
after the most recent Education Reform, and what should be done to enhance smooth and
successful internationalization process.
Development of Internationalization in Thailand
Started from the 15-year Long-range Plan on Higher Education (1990-2004), the Ministry of
University Affairs (currently the Office of the Higher Education Commission under the
Ministry of Education) saw itself as the pioneer in pushing internationalization forward under
the Seventh National Development Plan (1992-1996), emphasizing on internationalization
and regionalization. Since then, attempts have been made to understand the processes that
will fit best for Thai higher education institutions. Experts from within and outside the Asian
regions, Fulbright included were brought in to offer consultations or develop guidelines.
OHEC has also initiated or expanded existing bilateral and multilateral programs. Several
examples are: Thailand-Austria relations that led to the setup of the ASEA-UNINET
(ASEAN-European Academic University Network)2 for multilateral cooperation between Asia
and the European Union; University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific-UMAP, a multilateral
form of exchanges since 1996 to identify and overcome impediments to university mobility,
and to develop and maintain a system for granting and recognizing academic credit; and
ASEM-DUO Secretariat and OHEC, a 2-way exchange starting in 2006 to enhance a
balanced mobility of students between Thailand and ASEM member states for regular-basis
exchange programs and for deeper understanding of the two regions.
Despite some gaps of implementation due to the change of administration with new
policies, the internationalization efforts move on though much more slowly through existing
projects. It is welcoming to see that during the past several years, the movement is
significantly fueled by the ASEAN integration in 2015 with the national dream of becoming
1
Paper presented at the Education Internationalization Forum (EdIF) co-hosted by the Office of
Higher Education Commission, the U.S. Embassy Bangkok, and the Thailand-United States
Educational Foundation (TUSEF/Fulbright Thailand) on Thursday, September 18, 2014 at Amari
Watergate Hotel, Bangkok
2
ASEA-UNINET covers 74 universities from Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece,
Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand,
and Vietnam
1
regional education hub. Several exchange programs and efforts were seen, for example,
ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) Program (previously known as M-I-T-Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand Exchange Program), promoting student mobility with
credit transfer in the ASEAN region as part of the harmonization of higher education in
Southeast Asia; and Thailand-ASEAN Exchange Program, which is a one-way exchange
since 2012 to enhance students competencies to meet the demand of ASEAN labor market,
and to strengthen the relationship and the integration of ASEAN Community through
education. Experts from the US and EU have also been invited to produce policy
recommendations and related guidelines.
Along the development path, challenges remain as internationalization of higher education is
interpreted in various ways and reflected through a number of endeavors. International
programs, for example, have mushroomed in the recent decades. Almost all higher
education institutions, if not all the faculties, established their international programs either
separately or in parallel with the existing ones. Partnerships with foreign institutions are also
sought for collaborative research and exchanges. From the surface, Thai higher education
internationalization is extremely active and seemingly productive. Looking closer from
stakeholders points of view, however, a number of challenges and unseen opportunities
remain unsolved/untapped, needing serious attention.
Role of Fulbright Thailand
Education internationalization requires a concert effort from ALL sectors in order to make
sure that the movement develops towards the same direction on the shared vision. Then,
there is a need of a central body to monitor and facilitate the overall education
internationalization process. None is in the better position than the Office of Higher
Education Commission (OHEC) to assume this role. With its influence on national education
policies, some control over budget, and network across ministries, agencies, and
governments, OHEC has perfect tools and mechanisms for the task.
Since the start of the internationalization policy, Fulbright Thailand has cooperated closely
with the Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), through experts from American
universities and experience sharing of the Fulbright Thailand office itself.
For the past decade, the cooperation has resulted in a few discussion forums and
publications, e.g. Guidelines for International Education at Thai Colleges and Universities by
Dr. Jack Van de Water3 in 2005; translation of Standards of Good Practice for Education
Abroad, developed by The Forum on Education Abroad, 2005; Creating an International
Framework: A Manual for Thai Colleges and Universities by Karen McBride4, etc.
Furthermore, Fulbright Thailand has seriously taken stock of its over 60 years of crosscultural experiences to share with OHEC and universities. Its short cross-cultural stories, and
cases built on real stories in the field have sent signals to the Thai society that some cultural
traditions could become a hindrance cross-culturally. While understanding one owns culture
before learning to appreciate other cultures, it is necessary for the Thais to look ahead to the
world, which will have standard working and living culture (democracy, human rights,
plagiarism, etc.) for all to understand and respect. Thus, analyzing our own thinking and
behaviors well will better prepare us to become the real global citizens.
Project under the Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy, Office of the Higher Education
Commission, Ministry of Education (July 2005)
4
Project under the Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy, Office of the Higher Education
Commission, Ministry of Education (September 2013)
2
The Ministry of University Affairs, The 9th Higher Education Development Plan (2002-2006)
http://www.mua.go.th/university.html
3
characteristics, etc. Naturally, each of them knows better than OHEC what they want and
what works for them. So, as a partner/facilitator, OHEC can focus its staff and resources on
more specific agenda to determine gaps, and bridge them. For instance, with overall
statistics relevant to education/education internationalization locally and globally, OHEC can
periodically analyze those data against the nations policy to see progress, opportunities,
needs, and weakness of education internationalization in Thailand from its macro picture
position. The statistical analysis is crucial for determining what kind of support (e.g. training,
seminars, study visits) is needed, whether the policy should be adjusted, how to effectively
and realistically allocate the budget, etc. OHEC is in an advantageous angle to put the
jigsaw pieces of education internationalization process together and fill in the missing pieces
with possible cooperation and networking opportunities from external agencies, regional and
international organization based in Thailand included; as well as its bilateral and multilateral
ties.
Role of IROs
On the smaller scale, within an education institution, similar phenomenon exists. There could
be international relations offices (IROs) at department, faculty, and institution levels.
Interestingly, IRO, which is the forefront office to push forward respective internationalization
process, is normally underrated. Some institutions have established their central IRO for
institution-wide purposes, yet with insufficient empowerment, and inadequate networking
cooperation within the institutions. Quite a number of IRO staffs are expected to be proficient
in English as the first priority and handle basically logistics like paper works and visa and
accommodation for exchange scholars/students.
Our decades of experience in international exchanges suggest that a strong IRO is
significant for the progress of education internationalization. Proactive IRO and capable
staffs will help institutions become more strategic, as well as more capable to grasp potential
opportunities and manage resource effectively. Along with the need to empower IROs,
proper centralization and decentralization of IRO offices at the university and faculty levels
must be balanced according to their specific contexts, to enhance consistency of policy
implementation and effective endeavors with productive knowledge management in the
longer term.
Quality Controversy
Quality Assurance (QA) is one of the controversial issues among education institutions.
Some have faith in the quality standardized system while some are skeptical on its
practicality. Our experiences suggest that QA is essential and yet, preferably with less
imposition with the central control.
It has widely been criticized that the current education QA systems in Thailand are irrelevant
and burdensome. Darren McDermott pointed out that Thai universities have been through
evaluation fatigue7. In fact, assessment exercises are highly useful when they are
conducted by considering more of the contexts, without prescribing indicators that may be
irrelevant or meaningless to some universities.
It may be better for OHEC to identify only a handful of core values for all higher education
institutions to take up, some shared values like the true mission of universities for national
development, and production of graduates with international outlooks, etc. The rest could
7
depend on each university to decide, considering their readiness and context. Only those
barely meeting the minimum higher education standards should be imposed with strict
measures to be fulfilled.
Quality assessment systems in Thailand have been one of the factors that hinder the
internationalization process. This is due to the facts that the why and how questions
leading to the real quality are always overlooked. Though there is room for universities to
add their own indicators concerning their internationalization efforts, the prescription of
indicators is legally bound and requires compliance. The weakness also lies in the links
among indicators as each quality element tends to stand alone.
It is a challenge for policy makers to integrate fragmental QA efforts into the more practical
and effective scheme flexible enough for different education institutions with different
development stages. This will ensure the diversity of institutions and allow them to move at
their own pace with less pressure. Those who are more ready and have more international
dimensions in their missions and vision can move faster with less assessment burdens they
may not find highly helpful.
Thai American Education Benchmarking
In facilitating education cooperation between Thailand and the U.S., we have seen
opportunities for both to share and learn from each other despite differences in systems,
cultures, and contexts. Some kinds of benchmarking system might have already been
adopted but we urge education institutions to revisit them. Benchmarking is an effective
mechanism to help education institutions see, through others experience, how they can
possibly adjust and what they can do moreJfor the better. However, it must base on clear
vision, systematic knowledge management, thorough understanding on oneself, and the
right match. We would like to emphasis here on the last two factors.
Along the benchmarking process, education institutions need to be aware of their own
contexts including strengths and limitations. Genuine and thorough and self-reflective
exercises will help prevent them from being unrealistic, too ambitious, and lost. A number of
American education institutions are considered international not because they use English
as a medium of instruction but because of their teaching and learning approaches, up-todate course design, student services, orientation, cross-cultural management, faculty
support, research facilities, networking, etc. Simply changing the medium of instruction into
English will not make an institution international.
Significantly, the benchmarking will not be useful if it is not the right match. With selfassessment and clear vision/goals, education institutions must find the suitable counterparts.
In this case, they must not overrate nor underestimate themselves - be realistic. At the same
time, get rid of the bias. There are not only a few institutions in the league. Benchmarking
choices could also be other institutions, community colleges, technical schools, etc. Focus
on their strengths and the institutions learning targets will be best to ensure productivity in
learning and sharing, and reciprocity like coopering with smaller and less known institutions
for their excellent community engagement.
M Engagement and Cross-Cultural Bridge
Surprisingly, students, who are the core of education internationalization, are not much
engaged in the process. One major obstacle is the generation gaps between students and
the adults. Being born after 1979, students are grouped as the Millennials (M) with
alienated characters and culture in the eyes of the Boomers (those born around 1945-1946)
an even the Xers (around 1965-1978). The M might have some unfavorable natures but, at
5
the same time, they are highly potential. They are digital natives with great creativity, strong
social network, teamwork skill, volunteering spirit, and many more. These qualifications, if
strategically utilized, will contribute to the constructive development in education
internationalization8. Education institutions just need to find the right approaches to engage
them. Different institutions might tailor different approaches depending on their specific
context but we believe all successful approaches are based on one factor - cross-cultural
understanding.
Although cross-cultural understanding is the underlined principle of education
internationalization, the focus still leans too much on diverse cultures among different
countries, not among different generationsJwithin the institution. Generation gaps should be
seriously taken into consideration and cross-cultural understanding should be promoted
campus-wide. Cross-generation face-to-face interactions and communication could be
encouraged through outreach/extracurricular activities to promote understanding and respect
for the differences.
Indeed, engaging the M in education internationalization process is a win-win strategy. For
administrators, understanding the M is to understand their customers and market
needs/trend. For lecturers, involving the M in their teaching and learning is to enrich their
resources/lessons and constantly update themselves with changing trends and knowledge.
For the M, being an active part of their own education helps unlock their potential, increase
their sense of responsibility, and enhance their leaning skills. All have something to learn
and share from each other.
Proposed Keyword Lintegration
Education internationalization is the complicated process involving numbers of ideas, vast
variety of stakeholders, layers of policies, and series of implementations. At the national
level, OHEC could be the focal point of the overall education internationalization by
facilitating the process from the big picture. The Office has an advantage of seeing the
missing links and encouraging possible cooperation. It could partner with education
institutions by providing needed support and practical guidelines for quality achievement.
This role requires OHEC to empower its staffs for more strategic directions.
At the institutional level, individual institutions should review their own positions and
benchmarking strategies for better serve their uniqueness in a more realistic way. They also
need to seriously engage their students in education internationalization and to promote
cross-cultural understanding in all aspects of their functions. At the same time, the roles of
IROs must be strengthened to foster the institutions long-term international relations and
their education internationalization efforts.
Both at national and institutional levels, education internationalization must be lintegrated.
Individuals must develop an ability to draw linkages from the big picture and integrate this
linking ability to any aspect of their work. In other words, we encourage lintegration of
Details about the Millennials with regard to education exchanges and cross-cultural communication are in
Managing M Exchange and Gen Gappers in Communication: Getting Wider and Wilder, papers respectively
presented at the First Fulbright Internationalization Forum (FIF), November 15, 2012 at Pullman Hotel, Bangkok
and the Second International Conference on Language and Communication on, Dynamism of Language and
Culture in Society, organized by the National Institute of Development Administration, August 5, 2010.
nd
More details in Education Exchange Excellence with Lintegration, paper presented at the 2 Fulbright
Internationalization Forum (FIF) on September 9, 2013 at the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University