Second-Order Change Without First-Order Change 61
the introduction, interpretation and implementation of this phenomenon.
This is evident from the proliferation of international programmes and
international students facilitated by the increasing numbers and types of
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). To analyse and understand
the trajectory of internationalization of higher education in Thailand and
the different levels of policy changes that have occurred, this chapter will
adopt a qualitative methodology using document analysis, semi-structured
elite interviews and as well as participant observation in the national
conferences on the internationalization of Thai higher education.
There are four parts to this chapter. The first part maps out the different
key actors involved in the internationalization of Thai higher education
namely; the state, the market and the academy. The second part traces the
government policy rationales on this phenomenon while the third discusses
the quantitative expansion of internationalization in terms of international
programmes, international students and international agreements between
Thailand and foreign countries and/or institutions. The last part discusses
the levels of policy changes in Thailand.
TRIANGLE OF COORDINATION: ACTORS IN THAI
HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR
Following Clark’s idea of the triangle of coordination, Nilphan (2005) and
Lao (2012) identified the state, academic oligarchs, and the market as the
three most important actors shaping education policy changes in Thailand.
The state is represented mainly by the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA),
which later became the Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC)
under the National Education Act in 2003. The “academic oligarchs” refer
to members of the public and private universities. Due to the growing
power of global forces and internal economic demands by the late 1980s,
the market also became influential in Thai higher education. When the
characteristics of Thai higher education changed over time, there was also
a movement in the “triangle of coordination” from “state authority” to
first the “academic oligarchs” and then to the “market” (Nilphan 2005).
Thus while the state played a dominant role in Thai higher education
between the 1900s and the 1970s, there was a shift in power from the state
to academic oligarchs in the 1970s. From the late 1980s onwards, gradually
the market became critically influential in Thai higher education both at
the institutional and national levels.