Internationalizing Higher Education in Thailand

Abstract

Each country responds to internationalization differently and offers various interpretations of the concept. Thailand has incorporated the internationalization of higher education into its plans since 1990. This article aims to discuss the primary motivations of the government and of Thai universities in moving toward the goal of internationalization. The discussion focuses on so-called “international programs” in Thailand. Using English as the medium of instruction, these “international programs” have been widely offered in both public and private universities. The programs illustrate the internationalization of higher education in terms of its teaching function. Generally, government rationales involve both global economic trends and domestic socioeconomic forces. At the institutional level, stakeholders’ demands, needs of universities to generate fee income, and specific reasons drawn from domestic context were shown to be the main drivers of the international programs. Current interpretations of the efforts to internationalize higher education in Thailand show a quantitative growth in programs that only serve particular demographic groups. The substantial contributions that internationalization may offer to the higher education system have not been guaranteed.

Keywords

internationalization of higher education internationalization of teaching learning and research internationalization of the curriculum national and transnational policies for internationalization in higher education rationales

Introduction

Reasons for adopting internationalization stem from both external and domestic forces. Demands for market liberalization, the impact of interdependence, advanced communication and technological services, and increased international labor mobility are inescapable and play a part in explaining why a country should change so as to become more international (Knight, 2004, p. 7; Ogata, 1992, p. 64). However, there is room for officials at the national level to either resist or support such growing interference from outside (Doern, Pal, & Tomlin, 1996, p. 4). Obviously, nation-states with different “substantive settings” and “positions in the international system” will have diverse perceptions and interests regarding internationalization, which will lead to different reasons for adopting the policy (Falk, 1992, p. 37; Hook & Weiner, 1992, p. 1; see Jowi, 2009).

The primary rationales for internationalization have been grouped into four main types: social/cultural, political, academic, and economic (De Wit, 2000; Knight, 1999; Knight & De Wit, 1997, p. 174). Later, new rationales emerged, which are both cross-cutting and yet clearly separable at both national and institutional levels. Examples of these emerging rationales at the national level are human resources development, commercial trade, and social/cultural development. The rationales at the institutional level involve international branding and profile, income generation, and knowledge production (Knight, 2004, pp. 22-23). After all, as we know, the rationales driving internationalization differ greatly from time to time, from institution to institution, and from country to country (Knight, 2004, p. 28).

Thailand has been sending students to the West since the very early days of the nation’s development. Cooperation with foreign institutions began in the 1950s with the influx of Western aid. The internationalization concept was increasingly fashionable from the mid-1980s onwards—being incorporated into the state’s plan in 1990—as a result of the economic boom inside the country and external economic pressures. Since that time, the concept has existed through changing socioeconomic situations and has been subject to various demands both inside and outside the country. This article provides an overview of the internationalization of Thai higher education and serves to illuminate rationales that have driven the country’s internationalization during the last two decades.

Government Rationales

The global trends of increased competition and the involvement of the market in higher education have gradually come to affect Thai higher education (see Kälvemark & Van der Wende, 1997, p. 28; Knight & De Wit, 1997, p. 174; Scott, 1998; Van Der Wende, 1996). Being motivated and supported by international development organizations, the internationalization policy initially appeared in Thailand’s first 15-year long-range plan for higher education (1990-2004), followed by the national seminar on “The Internationalization of Thai Higher Education” held in 1991 (Ministry of University Affairs, 1990, 1991).

Apart from such imperative trends, the changing political and socioeconomic situation of the country served as another key factor driving the government’s efforts to formulate an internationalization policy. The government has interpreted the policy differently at different times, mainly to accommodate the changing internal situation. Internationalization policy in the very first period (1990-1996) was formulated during the economic boom in that period. The second phase of internationalization faced the 1997 economic bust. Current internationalization efforts illustrate the government’s attempt to find a “middle way” in which internationalization can contribute to the Thai higher education system.

Internationalizing Higher Education in a “Boom” Period

At the end of the Cold War and the economic boom in the late 1980s, the rationale for internationalization shifted toward economic considerations in order to serve mainly businessmen and the growing middle class. Thailand was increasing its commitment to foreign trade and reliance on foreign investments to facilitate the development of the manufacturing and export sectors. This economic situation led the government to prioritize the drive towards internationalization. The discussion of “global challenges” had become prevalent in the Thai bureaucracy (Pasuk & Baker, 1998, p. 180).

The first 15-year long-range plan on higher education in Thailand (1990-2004) was peppered with such terms as “global awareness,” “economic competitiveness,” “international-level competence,” and “specific skills” (Ministry of University Affairs, 1991). Internationalization was considered to be a “new catchword,” a “new priority,” a “term guiding the future development of Thai higher education,” and something that would “help Thailand realize her dreams of becoming a leading industrialized country in the region” (Amornwich & Wichit, 1997, p. 164). The internationalization envisioned in the seventh (1992-1996) higher education development plan also reflected the importance of higher education in economic terms and suggested that internationalization would help to upgrade academic standards to meet international-level competence (Tong-In, Sinlarat, & Ponoy, 1995).

The government was pursuing economic rather than political or social development, and it perceived higher education as contributing solely to economic development (Chai-Anan, 2001; Girling, 1996; Varunee, 1990). The Thai government chose to support the liberalization of the market and offered no resistance to internationalization.

Localization as an “Alternative Discourse”

The Asian economic crisis in 1997 marked the time when the Thai government moved the policy agenda away from the internationalization discourse. The crisis triggered national anxiety, a loss of identity, and insecurity. Internationalization was reinterpreted to be inward looking: serving local and community development and helping to solve the country’s crisis.

After the strong emphasis on the promotion of internationalization in the seventh higher education development plan (1992-1996), the eighth plan (1997-2001) emphasized both regionalization and internationalization. The degree of internationalization was scaled down after the 1997 economic crisis. The ninth plan (2002-2006) clearly demonstrated a focus of the state’s agenda on local wisdom. It demonstrated an attempt by the state to mix the “market” concept with local values (Ministry of University Affairs, 2002, p. 16). Thai society faced a dilemma between two diverging directions: “seeking a balance of autonomy and dependency, of idealism and pragmatic, and of economic competitiveness and cultural self-reliance” (Witte, 2000, p. 242).

When Thais talked about “internationalization,” they appreciated as well as feared that the concept would threaten the embedded culture, the internal structure of Thailand, and the identity of Thai people. This coincides with the nature of internationalization, which might either increase the nation’s prosperity and security or increase the vulnerability of a state to economic and political forces beyond its control (Falk, 1992, p. 35).

The global financial crisis since 2008 has had an impact on Thailand’s higher education sector. The effects include increased unemployment among graduates, reductions in funding for higher education, and a downward trend in student loans. The crisis has led to an inward-looking solution and strengthened the country’s resistance to the Western paradigm and concepts (UNESCO, 2012, p. 128). Accordingly, the goal of localization has been continued in the second long-range higher education plan (2008-2022) and currently serves as an alternative national development strategy and a political discourse for responding to the increased tensions of today’s world (Commission on Higher Education, 2008).

Internationalizing Higher Education in the Current Period

At present, Thailand has realized that a globalized world is inescapable. The ambition to “catch up with the West” continues, but the idea has been expanded to include other geographic parts of the world, especially the ASEAN countries. In 2009, the government declared its aspiration to become a regional education hub, announcing a goal of attracting 100,000 foreign students enrolled by the year 2014-2015 (“High Hopes to be Asia’s International Education Hub,” October 11, 2009).

For the year 2010, Thailand hosted 20,155 international students at 103 higher education institutions (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011a). The current scheme of the government is to offer more scholarships for overseas students. At the moment, about 15.96% of the international students in Thailand receive Thai and overseas organizations’ scholarships for their studies (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011a). At the same time, support is being given to Thai students who wish to further their studies abroad, as shown by the Ministry of Education’s project of “one district, one scholarship,” allocating a budget of 420,036,800 Baht for the 7-year project in the years 2012-2019 (Ministry of Education, 2012). The above policies and projects reflect the attempt of the government to further encourage the internationalization of higher education.

According to the second long-range plan on higher education, the terms of commercialization, such as “free trade in educational services,” “the ASEAN community by 2015,” “the prominence of China and India in technological aspects,” and “national competitiveness” remain as key external forces that drive the Thai government to engage in an internationalization effort (Commission on Higher Education, 2008), but the dimensions of quality and social benefit have been added.

In this plan, internationalization has not become less significant, but it is being interpreted in a more subtle way when compared to the first plan formulated in 1990. The rapid expansion of Thai higher education over the past two decades has resulted in increased numbers of both public and private universities, reaching 79 and 71, respectively, together with 19 community colleges (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011b, p. 6). This expansion has put a significant strain on the quality of education. Such unbalanced growth has raised awareness of quality issues. In response to this, the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) was set up in 2000. The government has realized that domestic quality standards would be a key element, leading to a more stable path of internationalization while keeping up with the international standards. The question arises, how do these factors affect Thai universities?

University Rationales

Thai universities have various functions: to serve the government and society and to pursue academic missions (Suchart, 2000, p. 2). Influences on policy choices are thus various and mixed. However, since the late 1980s, overwhelmingly dominant have been market demands. In this perspective, the chief function of the universities is to provide assistance in national economic development. However, at the same time, they must generate income on their own (see Rangsan, 2001, p. 313; Watson, 1991, p. 564). Quantitative expansion over the past two decades has triggered questions of quality. It is of interest to explore the extent to which university responses have helpfully enhanced or deleteriously exacerbated the situation. The following section examines university rationales vis-à-vis international programs offered by both public and private universities.

International Programs

One of the universities’ efforts in moving toward the internationalization of higher education in Thailand during the past two decades was seen in the development of various “international programs,” using English as a medium of instruction, sometimes in partnership with a foreign university (Ministry of University Affairs, 1990). These international programs illustrate the internationalization of higher education in terms of the teaching functions of the institution (see Knight, 1997, p. 8). In Thailand, this type of program became popular by the early 1990s, at about the same time at which the internationalization policy was put into the higher education plan.

The number of international programs continues to increase to accommodate the needs of both Thai and foreign students. In 2010, both Thai public and private higher education institutions offered a total of 981 international programs at undergraduate and graduate levels, that is, 342 undergraduate programs, 614 graduate programs, and 25 other degree programs. The programs are divided into 699 in public universities and 282 in private universities (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011, p. 12). In terms of MoUs, the universities signed 1,536 agreements with foreign higher education institutions with countries like the United States, Japan, Australia, China, and the United Kingdom (the top five). Most of the activities are students and lecturers’ exchange, followed by information exchanges, collaborative research agreements, and collaborative degree programs (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2007). The significant increase in the programs, from 14 in 1984, to 520 in 2003, and to 981 in 2010 (see Figure 1), is evidence of the desire of universities to make their teaching programs international due to various motivations. In what follows, these incentives are discussed in detail.

Figure 1.

Growth trends of international programs in Thai universities between 1960 and 2010.

Private Sector and Students Demands

One of the reasons universities initiated “international programs” beginning in the early 1990s is related to the growing dominance of the economic rationale. The demands from the labor market put pressure on universities to reform their curricula, strengthen graduates’ skills, and focus on the international dimension of business and future trends (Amornwich & Wichit, 1997, pp. 164-165). Among the 520 international programs in 2003, the highest numbers were programs in commercial and business administration, and this was partly linked to private preferences and student’s demands (Ministry of University Affairs, 2003). Up until 2010, the number of international programs continued to rise. Among the 981 international programs in 2010, the highest number still offered programs in commercial and business administration (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011b). In 2010, commercial and business administration was the most popular field of study for international students in Thailand. There were up to 2,337 international students enrolling in this program. Thai language and English language program drew 1,564 and 750 international students, respectively (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011a).

Income Generation

Another important reason for establishing “international programs” can be found in the universities’ need to generate fee income (see Knight, 2004, p. 26). The imperatives of liberalization, the free trade context and the privatization of the higher education sector forced universities to rely on market resources (see Altbach & Knight, 2007, pp. 291-292; Dill, 1997; Kirby-Harris, 2003). Both public and private universities were compelled to compete fiercely.

Thai public universities have been encouraged to design schemes whereby more financial support could be mobilized from stakeholders and to generate income from university products (Office of the Higher Education, 2008, p. 12). Since the late 1980s, the government has gradually deregulated the programs of public universities and so they must pursue strategies of self-reliance and self-regulation. For example, the government allowed public universities to open “special” or “full-fee” programs during the sixth plan (1987-1991; Ministry of University Affairs, 1992, p. 197) as alternative sources of income. In these new types of programs, the universities have been encouraged to rely on full tuition fees from students. International programs fall under the rubric of these special types of programs. Generally, universities set tuition fees at a rate about 5 times higher than the fees for normal programs subsidized by the state. Moreover, in 1992 the public universities gained greater authority in approving their own programs (Ministry of University Affairs, 1995, pp. 1-2). As a result, the period saw a steady increase in the number of programs offered by public universities. For example, in 2003 the number of programs in public universities was more than double the number of programs offered by private universities, reaching 366 as against 154, respectively. In 2003, however, there were only about half as many public universities as there were private universities, at 24 and 54, respectively. Such an increase reflects the dominant trend of initiating “full-fee” programs to maximize revenues in the public university sector.

Since the promulgation of the Private College Act in 1969, Thai private universities have been encouraged by the state to enroll increasing numbers of students into the higher education system. The private universities’ contribution to the Thai higher education system has been vital in the context of economic expansion and the growing demand for graduates. In terms of “international programs,” Assumption University, one of the senior private universities, long been known as a pioneering university which offered all programs in English. Currently, the university is attracting the highest number of international students (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011b). However, Thai private universities have long suffered from more rigorous control than that experienced by the public universities, although they are given limited government support. The Private University Act announced in 1969 and later revised in 1979, 1992, 2003, and 2007 reflects a move from its stringent rules and regulations in the direction of more autonomy (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2008, p.6). Even with such increased autonomy, Thai public universities have possessed more prestige and benefits in comparison to the private universities (see Watson, 1991, p. 567).

Not receiving concrete support from the government, Thai private universities generate the bulk of their income from tuition fees. Their relationship with the market has long been clear. Recently, however, the forces of global and national liberalization have provoked increasingly fierce competition among universities due to the rapid increase in the number of both private and public universities and the increase in the number of the privatized “international programs” of public universities. The lesser numbers of the international programs is due to inferior status of the private universities.

Rationales Driving International Programs in the Thai context

Apart from the above rationales following the global trends, the local context also produced other causes. This section explores additional reasons driving international programs in the Thai case.

English Language Tuition

In the Thai context, the extra demand for international programs is based on a growing need for graduates competent in the English language, in addition to being competent in their own discipline. The prioritization of English language skills can be explained by the country’s inferior “position in the international system” and its consequent need to embrace the world’s official academic and business language (see Ehara, 1992, p. 272; Hook & Weiner, 1992, p. 1; Horie, 2002). The proficiency in the English language became one of the country’s practical needs because of the growing foreign investment in the country during and after the economic boom. Private sectors are ready to offer premium salary for skilled workers with English language ability. Many Thai students came to the international programs with the expectation that they would better their English proficiency, which would give them access to more and better job opportunities. English has been considered to be even more important in recent years, especially for the purpose of integrating into the ASEAN community by 2015 (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2010, p.69). Thailand’s recent poor score in English Language proficiency, being ranked at the bottom (53 out of 54 countries), starkly illustrates a situation that needs to be addressed (English First, 2012). The establishment of international programs serves this purpose. The major difference between international programs in Thailand and in Western countries: Thailand focuses on teaching in the English language, whereas the Western countries emphasize the content of the curriculum (Wilawan, 1999, p. 25).

Social Status Upgrading

Another factor motivating Thai students to enroll in international programs is their desire to enhance their social status. The number of urban middle-class Thais grew during the economic boom of 1980s and widened political and social space in the early 1990s, and these students have sought to associate themselves with “international” concepts and “international” activities, using these as a ladder to improve their status (Pasuk & Baker, 1998, p. 180). This behavior reflects the same norms that were evident in the earlier period of Thai history when royal elites and civil servants were sent abroad to obtain a western education (see Likhit, 1978, p. 120). Given that these programs charge high tuition fees, only upper- and middle-class Thais can afford to employ this method to better their social status. This argument is in accord with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s study that “a foreign English language-education can provide status and positional advantages and perhaps superior quality” to students from East and Southeast Asian Countries (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2004, p. 146).

Thai Students as Potential Customers

The international programs in Thai universities have been created to serve mainly Thai students. Observing some of the international programs in Thai universities during 2002-2003, especially in the field of business administration, Thai students accounted for between about 85% and 98% of the total (Pad, 2005, p. 115). In most of the international programs of universities having the highest numbers of international students in Thailand in 2010, Thai students accounted for about 85% of the total enrollments (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Numbers of Thai and International Students in the International Programs of the Universities Having the Highest Numbers of International Students in 2010.

Universities	Thai students, n (%)	International students, n (%)	Total number of students
Assumption University	16,887 (84.54)	3,087 (15.46)	19,974
Mahidol University	6,213 (91.23)	612 (8.97)	6,825
Asia Pacific International University	67 (13.27)	438 (86.73)	505
Rangsit University	780 (64.36)	432 (35.64)	1,212
Chulalongkorn University	4,021 (91.82)	358 (8.18)	4,379
Bangkok University	1,917 (85.09)	336 (14.91)	2,253
Mae Fah Luang University	9,227 (96.77)	308 (3.23)	9,535

Source: Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011b.

The universities initiating these programs understand that their potential customers are Thai students. The chief benefit for Thai students was that these programs in Thailand were much cheaper than studying abroad. The 1997 economic crisis increased rather than diminished the number of applicants. Indeed, the internationalization of Thai higher education is not marketable on a global scale, unlike the cases of the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, where higher education is an export product (see Elliott, 1998; Kälvemark & Van der Wende, 1997, p. 28; Teichler, 2009, p. 94). At the present time, Thai universities are able to generate income though the concept of “internationalization” mainly from Thai students.

For the year 2010, the overall total of international students increased by 5.7% from the year 2009. More than half are from Asia, mainly from China, Laos, and Myanmar (Office of the Higher Education Commission, 2011a). In the international programs of certain universities, greater numbers of foreign students were reported and accounted for a higher proportion of the total than did Thai students (see Table 1). The gradual increase in the number of foreign students reflects a greater need for universities in Thailand to improve their programs to meet the needs of different types of students.

Inequality of Access to Internationalization of Higher Education

While the project of internationalization implemented by developed countries like the United Kingdom or the United States was designed to aggressively extract fee income from foreign students (Elliot, 1998; Kälvemark & Van der Wende, 1997, p. 28), in Thailand the aim was to draw fee income mainly from upper- and middle-class Thai students by charging “full-fee.” Obviously, better opportunities are being provided for those who can afford to pay. “International programs” reflect the exclusive role of education in serving particular elites in the middle and upper classes (Surichai, 2002, pp. 7-17). This inequality of access to higher education has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The perception of universities gaining fee income while the upper- and middle-class students gained privileges from higher education suggests an aspect of marginalization.

Conclusion

The above outline reflects the primary incentives of the Thai government andThai universities in adopting the internationalization of higher education. The government rationales fluctuate according to the socioeconomic situation at differenttimes. Internationalization was seen early on as an opportunity to pursue economic development, while later on it was seen as a threat during the economic crisis. The government is currently facing the dilemma of balancing two divergent views and seems to have decided to try to have it both ways. At an institutional level, there was a great attempt by both public and private universities to develop “international teaching programs,” not only to serve the private sector and students’ demands but also to generate fee income. Most of the specific reasons, such as English language tuition,and social status improvement, as well as the effect of a widening gap betweensocial classes, expose the country’s limitations in grappling with the concepts of internationalization.

At the moment, most of those pursuing internationalization tend to be satisfied with the results that have been obtained. The questions remain, however, whether “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension” has taken place (Knight, 2004, p.11), whether the quality of higher education has been enhanced, and whether any real improvements have accrued to the wider public. The internationalization during the past two decades was driven largely by “aspiration.” From now on, it is time for the government and universities to focus on “reality”: fixing the weaknesses and enhancing the strengths. This will require a long-term solution, and that is what the internationalization of Thai higher education should be working toward.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Pad Lavankura is lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science at Ramkhamhaeng University. She obtained her PhD and MA from the School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, UK. Her PhD thesis (2005) is on “Internationalising Thai Higher Education: Examining policy implementation.” From 1998 to 2001, she worked at the Ministry of University Affairs of Thailand, as an international cooperation officer. Her undergraduate degree was in liberal arts from Thammasat University.

References

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 290-305.

Amornwich

Wichit

(1997). Internationalisation of higher education in Thailand. In Knight

De Wit

(Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries (pp.161-170). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Luna Negra.

Chai-Anan

(2001). From nation-state to state as market: The concept of state and society in globalisation. Bangkok, Thailand: Baan Phra Arthit.

Commission on Higher Education. (2008). Executive report framework of the second 15-year long range plan on higher education of Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press.

De Wit

(2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. In UNESCO/CEPES, Internationalisation of higher education: An institutional perspective (pp. 9-21). Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO/CEPES.

Dill

D. D.

(1997). Markets and higher education: An introduction. Higher Education Policy, 10, 163-166.

Doern

Pal

L. A.

Tomlin

B. W.

(1996). Border crossings: The internationalization of Canadian public policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ehara

(1992). The internationalization of education. In Hook

G. D.

Weiner

M.A.

(Eds.), The internationalization of Japan (pp. 269-283). New York, NY: Routledge.

Elliott

(1998). Internationalizing British policy perspectives. In Scott

Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 32-43). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

10.

English First. (2012). EF English proficiency index. Retrieved from http://www.ef.com/epi

11.

Falk

(1992). American hegemony and the Japanese challenge. In Hook

G. D.

Weiner

M. A.

(Eds.), The internationalization of Japan (pp. 32-60). New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Girling

J. L. S.

(1996). Interpreting development: Capitalism, democracy, and the middle class in Thailand. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.

13.

High hopes to be Asia’s international education hub. (2009, October 11). The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/10/11/national/national_30114200.php

14.

Hook

G. D.

Weiner

M. A.

(1992). The internationalization of Japan. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Horie

(2002). The Internationalization of higher education in Japan in the 1990s: A reconsideration. Higher Education, 43, 65-84.

16.

Jowi

J. O.

(2009). Internationalization of higher education in Africa: Developments, emerging trends, issues and policy implications. Higher Education Policy, 22, 263-281.

17.

Kälvemark

Van der Wende

(1997). National policies for the internationalisation of higher education in Europe. Stockholm, Sweden: The National Agency for Higher Education.

18.

Kirby-Harris

(2003). Universities responding to policy: Organisational change at the University of Namibia. Higher Education, 45, 353-374.

19.

Knight

(1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In Knight

De Wit

(Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries (pp. 5-19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Luna Negra.

20.

Knight

(1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Ed.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education: Programme on institution management in higher education. (pp. 13-23) Paris: OECD.

21.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.

22.

Knight

De Wit

(1997). Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Luna Negra.

23.

Likhit

(1978). The bureaucratic elite of Thailand: A study of their sociological attributes, educational backgrounds and career advancement pattern. Bangkok, Thailand: Wacharin Press.

24.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Third “1-Tambon-1 Scholarship” given the nod “in principle.” Retrieved from http://www.en.moe.go.th/index.php

25.

Ministry of University Affairs. (1990). Summary of the long-range higher education plan 1990-2004. Bangkok, Thailand: Author.

26.

Ministry of University Affairs. (1991). National seminar report on internationalization of Thai higher education. Bangkok, Thailand: Author.

27.

Ministry of University Affairs. (1992). Two decades of Ministry of University Affairs. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University.

28.

Ministry of University Affairs. (1995). The evaluation on curriculum implementation of Thai public universities after the deregulation of the Ministry of University Affairs. Bangkok, Thailand: Author.

29.

Ministry of University Affairs. (2002). Vision of higher education development according to the Ninth Higher Education Plan (2002-2006). Retrieved from http://www.mua.go.th

30.

Ministry of University Affairs. (2003). International programs in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Parb-Pim Limited Partnership.

31.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2007). Internationalization of Thai higher education. Bangkok. Thai: Bangkok Block Ltd.

32.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2008). Thai higher education: Policy and issue. Retrieved from http://www.inter.mua.go.th/main2/files/file/Plicy&Issue/OHEC%20Policy&IssueThai%20Higher%20Education%20PolicyIssue.pdf

33.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2010). The strategy of Thai higher education in preparation for the ASEAN community in 2015. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Block Ltd.

34.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2011a). Foreign students in Thai higher education institutions 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Block Ltd.

35.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2011b). Study in Thailand 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Block Ltd.

36.

Ogata

(1992). Interdependence and internationalization. In Hook

G. D.

Weiner

M. A.

(Eds.), Internationalisation of Japan (pp. 63-71.). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Internationalisation and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris, France: Author.

38.

Pad

(2005). Internationalising Thai higher education: Examining policy implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

39.

Pasuk

Baker

(1998). Thailand’s boom and bust. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books.

40.

Rangsan

(2001). Education, capitalism and globalization. Bangkok, Thailand: kobfai.

41.

Scott

(1998). Massification, Internationalization and globalization. In Scott

(Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 108-129). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

42.

Suchart

(2000). Leading Thai intellectuals: Role and influence in the public sphere of Bangkok. Bielefeld, Germany: University of Bielefeld.

43.

Surichai

(2002). Chula and Society. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Publishing.

44.

Teichler

(2009). Internationalisation of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 93-106.

45.

Tong-In

Sinlarat

Ponoy

(1995). Internationalisation of Thai higher education. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of University Affairs.

46.

UNESCO. (2012). The impact of economic crisis on higher education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002171/217144e.pdf

47.

Van Der Wende

M.C.

(1996). Internationalising the curriculum in Dutch higher education: An international comparative perspective. Hague, Netherlands: Nuffic.

48.

Varunee

(1990). Analytical study of the historical policy development of higher education in Thailand: Its implications for current development and future trends. Bangkok: Ministry of University Affairs.

49.

Watson

(1991). Thailand. In Altbach

P. G.

(Ed.), International higher education: An encyclopedia (pp. 559-577). New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

50.

Wilawan

(1999). Trends of international graduate programs in higher education institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of University Affairs in the next decade (B.E. 2543-2552). Unpublished master of education thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

51.

Witte

(2000). Education in Thailand after the crisis: A balancing act between globalisation and national self-contemplation. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 223-245.