Having reflected on the experience of the field work, several patterns, clashes, and conflicts deserve further explanation. Amongst these I identified the clash between paradigms, conflicting purposes, and structural hierarchy as the major issues to be discussed for qualitative policy research in Thailand.
The experience in the field reveals that quantitative methodology dominated the research scene in Thailand, especially in the field of education. As aforementioned, major researchers on QA and higher education in Thailand have been using quantitative
methodology. Furthermore, the personnel responsible for QA policy are mostly trained in quantitative methodology and hence favor this over qualitative methods. Throughout the nine months in the field, I was constantly questioned by senior policymakers, academics, and QA practitioners about my methodology. Not only were they doubtful about my research; they also tried to persuade me to include quantitative methodology in my
design. To exemplify, the most frequent questions asked of me during my fieldwork were: What are your hypotheses? What is your contribution to QA policy in Thailand? What is your methodology? What is your model?
Similar resistance was found during my internship at ONESQA. I was not given any responsibilities while interning at the Higher Education Task Force. The few
temporary tasks given to me were related to translation and the English language. When I asked the team leader what I could do for them, one of the seniors said: “It is very hard to give you any responsibilities. You are not familiar with quantitative and database”
quantitative was overwhelming. The educational background of these individuals
explained their bias. When analyzing the profiles of the policymakers in ONESQA, many received BA and MA degrees from the Research Department of the Education Faculty, Chulalongkorn University, where quantitative and statistical methodologies were prioritized. Furthermore, a lot of the academics and administrators responsible for QA have been trained in the engineering and scientific fields. Given that QA requires an expertise on data management or information systems, they viewed quantitative data as useful for them.
This issue of methodological differences were problematic throughout the interview process. Four academics resisted interviews based on this issue. They are professors of education and have been represented on the boards of ONESQA since its inception. Given their influential participation in the policy, I sent several requests for interviews to hear their insights on the issues. The formal requests were ignored. Worse, informal contacts from the informant in the field were also rejected. When I approached them personally, one replied: “I am really sorry, this is not my area of expertise”
(personal comment, November 2010). The answer is dubious, since the professor has not only been a board member of ONESQA, but she has also advised various research
projects related to QA. Another professor furiously responded: “I am not wasting my time in this type of research. You’re not really doing scientific research, this is more like you’re writing a story or a tale” (personal comment, October 30, 2010). Despite their extensive experiences in the QA field in Thailand, it was obvious that methodological differences were why they avoided this research. These different worldviews between myself and them can be understood as a clash of paradigms. This clash of paradigms continued to be a barrier to research throughout my fieldwork.
Another frequently asked question throughout the fieldwork was "How would your research help to improve the QA system in Thailand?" Although some people doubted my research methodology, I should not undermine the enormous help I received throughout
the fieldwork. I was welcomed by many policymakers, QA practitioners, and academics. However, there was an overt expectation from the interviewees that this research would contribute to improving the QA system. Many people were enthusiastic about my research and willing to share their experiences. Furthermore, they wanted to share with me the problems, mostly technical, of the system. A lot of QA practitioners encouraged me to come up with a new QA model for Thailand. One said, "I am very happy someone is doing this project! There are so many problems about our system. Your research must help us to improve!" (Interview, December 2010). They believed that the findings of this research would help reconcile the mechanical problems of QA policy in Thailand.
Unlike the main objective of this research, which is to analyze the logic of Thai state and academic voices, many hopeful interviewees perceived this research to be another problem-solving type. Although their enthusiasm was useful, their expectation called for some analysis. Research culture and donor logic in Thailand contributed to this clash of expectations and objectives. Given that government agencies play an eminent role in funding research in Thailand, it is argued most people are used to that perspective. Ozga (2008) argues that policy research, which is driven by policymakers, will likely be preoccupied by implementation studies. Therefore, researchers were interested in
problem-solving and the implementation of policies rather than critically questioning the nature, philosophy, and logics of the policy.
Thailand is a highly hierarchical society, and the culture of seniority is embedded in the country. While there were many instances where I would have liked to debate with or reject a senior’s opinions, I remained quiet in order to appear polite. Sometimes, I felt I was overtly submissive and did not know how to respond to their questions or requests. When I was humiliated, I decided to remain silent rather than defend my research design and rationale. The culture of hierarchy and seniority was most problematic during the interviews. In Thailand, we are taught not to interrupt our elders. Most of the senior policymakers took the liberty of controlling the interviews. Although I had prepared
guideline questions, I failed to follow them on many occasions. I did try to raise my hand and ask them to come back to the issues, however the seniors controlled the tone and direction of the interviews. This created a huge problem for data collection. In many interviews with the most powerful seniors in Thailand, I ended up not getting necessary data but rather sat listening to their achievements.
Although the Thai culture of seniority plays an influential role in this asymmetrical relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, Kogan (1994) points out that such awkwardness is not cultural specific. John Furlong calls this “a ritual humiliation of researcher,” referring to how interviewers in elite settings need to be more modest and pretend to know less than we do in order to avoid conflict with the interviewees (cited in Kogan, 1994, p. 74). Similarly, Ball (1994) argues that the researcher is required to strike a balance between knowledgeability and naïveté during their interviews with the
powerful. In my case, the decision to withdraw and remain silent was as much methodological as cultural.
One of the most troubling ethical issues occurred when interviewees constantly questioned my opinion on my research topics. Walford (1994) faced similar problems when he researched the Christian Schools Campaign. Throughout the fieldwork, he was constantly questioned about his religious beliefs. He found it difficult to admit that he did not share similar religious views and maintain trust and rapport with the interviewees. When I had just started, I had the luxury of telling them that I had just begun and was still learning about the topic. It was more difficult to escape the opinion-type questions when I was almost at the end of the fieldwork. I tried to share my opinion without giving away too much by saying something along the line of: “This is a complex issue, I am still trying to make sense of it.” In many instances, the interviewees wanted to know whom I had previously interviewed and what others thought of the topic. While I had to respect the confidentiality of others, I struggled to maintain trust with the present interviewee. At one time, one of the academics really pushed me hard to share my opinion of what other
people thought; I tried my best to keep the balance by responding: "Your question is very difficult. It would be really unethical to share with you his opinion on this and it would make me an action-researcher" (my response during personal interview, December 5, 2010). She persisted and joked that I should make this an action research. I tried not to share my opinion on the issues or that of other interviewees. When I was probed, I responded that there are diverse perspectives on the topic in order to avoid sharing direct information and causing more conflict among the actors.
3.5. Summary
The nine months of fieldwork in Thailand allowed me to realize the interlocking intersections between the research context, cultures, and researcher’s identity. Having been educated and influenced by research methodology from Western academics, I constantly questioned my research rationale and sought to identify the discrepancy between theory vs reality on the ground. I argue that the personal experience of researching powerful and personal struggles should be highlighted more than hidden from the readers. The anecdotes are not complaints. Rather, they are critical reflections on the integral relationships between personal relationships, culture, and theory (McPherson & Raab, 1998; Ozga, 1990; Whitty & Edwards, 1994). Whitty (2002) purports that such an awareness is essential in the quest for a quality qualitative research. Influenced by C. Wright Mills's (1961) concept of “sociological imagination,” Whitty (2002) aptly argues that it is important to critically create “(an) intersection between biography and history, between identity and structure and between personal troubles and public issues” (p. 15). To be sure, this chapter has been carefully written to link the research
experiences, quality policies, and broader context of Thailand. Carnoy (2006) warned against an overt emphasis on the roles and reflection of the qualitative researcher, which can potentially divert attention and focus of the readers from the issues being researched.