No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze critically the evolution of educational reform in Thailand. Three major phases are identified. The special focus of the paper is an assessment of the third reform which began with the passage of the Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC) (2002).Design/methodology/approachThe methodology for the study is mixed methods including document analysis, direct participant observation, and compilation of major statistical performance indicators from diverse sources.FindingsThe success of the most recent reform has been clearly mixed. Major structural and legal changes have occurred but overall system performance remains disappointingly low, despite large Thai educational expenditures as a percent of national budget and the presence of much impressive educational leadership talent. The paper identifies what is called the “Thai educational paradox”. The essence of the paradox is Thailand’s failure to achieve its educational potential. The paper identifies key factors explaining the paradox.Originality/valueThe paper has significant theoretical, policy, and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the study confirms the persistence of strong regional disparities and a lack of fiscal neutrality associated with a neoliberal model of capitalistic development. From a practical policy perspective, it is imperative for Thailand to improve the overall quality of its educational system and to reduce regional disparities. There have been numerous studies of each of Thailand’s three phases of reform, but this paper’s original contribution is its presentation of a historical, interdisciplinary, and integrated perspective on the evolution of educational reform and the many obstacles associated with its implementation.

This study presents an analysis of the relative internationalization of 77 research universities in the United States. Institutions enrolling undergraduate students were selected from the 2003 national report, The Top American Research Universities . Data were collected from publicly available sources for 19 indicators of internationalization pertaining to student characteristics, scholar characteristics, research orientation, curricular content, and organizational support. Data were standardized, weighted by a panel of experts, and summed to yield an overall internationalization index score for each institution. Index scores were then used to rank the 77 institutions. A sensitivity analysis yielded a significant positive correlation (.97, p < .001) between the ranking based on the weighted indicators and a ranking derived from unweighted indicators.

Setting the sceneIn recent decades there has been a dramatic growth in the field of international higher education with an explosion of scholarly work on international educational mobilities and international students' experiences. However, much of this work is focused on European and English-speaking western contexts. In actuality, in an article published in 2009 on Asian international students studying in Thailand, one of us already noted little about international students in areas beyond the Western world has been discussed in the published research literature. The assumption that 'the West is the world' . . . appears to have marginalised even the need and importance of doing research into the so-called Other -the Other that the Self has already known and constructed (

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this study, we address the question of whether and how the internationalization of higher education, particularly its study abroad aspect, has contributed to the common good. Much of the past discussion on study abroad impact has been largely concentrated on outcomes at the personal level. Using qualitative data from the Study Abroad for Global Engagement project, this study analyzes how former study abroad participants contributed to the global common good at the levels of local, glocal, and global communities. The findings show that many chose to practice global engagement, such as civic engagement, philanthropic activities, social entrepreneurship, and voluntary simplicity, for the common good, as the result of study abroad. This article concludes with discussion of implications for research, theory, policy, and practice.