This section outlines the organization of the research, which is differentiated into eight chapters.
Chapter I has provided an introduction to this dissertation. It introduced the emergence of QA as a new policy tool in higher education and mapped out the global landscape of the policy. Based on the S-Shape curve (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010), this chapter presents the first important finding of the dissertation, which is to illustrate that the expansion of QA has reached the point of becoming a global education policy. The extensive document analysis offers an international perspective on QA as well as provides the rationale to select Thailand for a case study to investigate this global phenomenon in depth. The expected theoretical and practical contributions of this dissertation have also been outlined.
Chapter II reviews multiple areas of literature as the basis for analysis of the dissertation. Firstly, a brief theoretical debate on globalization within the field of
comparative education is introduced. Secondly, a detailed discussion of policy borrowing and lending theory provides a theoretical framework for the review of the literature and the dissertation at large. Three main concepts--socio-logic, policy window, and policy
belief systems--will be highlighted as the key factors that facilitate the policy borrowing and lending process.
Thirdly, this chapter reviews the experiences of different Asian countries with the institutionalization of QA. An insight into Asian cases serves to illustrate how historical legacies, local structures, and politics determine the shapes and shades of the QA system in the respective countries. Based on policy borrowing and lending theory, the fourth part of this chapter discusses differing possibilities and logic as to why countries have
introduced QA. Further discussion of higher education implementation theory (Burke, 2005; Clark, 1983) provides heuristic devices to identify the key actors and forces for policy change. Not only does the review of the international literature on QA illustrate how the institutionalization of QA has resonated in differing countries, but it also
provides a macro-perspective for the following in-depth analysis on how the semantics of QA resonated in the case of Thailand.
Chapter III discusses the rationale for choosing qualitative case study as the
methodology to study how QA resonated in Thailand. The chapter provides reflections on the benefits and limitations of conducting document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and a three-month observation at the Office of National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). These include detailed discussions of how the case was selected and what sampling strategy was used. The processes of Thematic Analysis (Bruan & Clark, 2006) are highlighted to exemplify how the data were analyzed and presented.
Chapter IV traces the trajectory of Thailand's higher education sector through the policy borrowing and lending framework. The historical legacies demonstrate how the Thai state has always sought external pressures to legitimize and implement new reforms. Subsequently, the chapter outlines the changing role of the Thai state in relation to higher education policy and its implementation. While the Thai state has been known for its centralized bureaucracy, this chapter introduces the concept of the elusive state as a new way to understand the actors in the Thai higher education sector. Based on the concept of
the elusive state, this chapter introduces a quality coalition between the senior
bureaucrats and academic executives who believe in the concept of quality assessment. The concept of an elusive state provides a useful understanding for identifying the multiple identities of the key actors from differing sectors.
Chapter V begins with basic information about Thai higher education and differing organizations relating to Quality Assessment. The chapter then focuses on the rationale supporting the emergence of differing quality policies in Thailand. The discussion is differentiated into globalization, regionalization, and national contexts. Furthermore, this chapter highlights different ways in which Thai policy elites have referred to
globalization, global trends, or international league tables as sources of justification to support their policy. While globalization and regionalization are essential factors, the chapter also emphasizes how national contexts are significant in the process. The data from this chapter are mainly based on interviews with policy elites and making sense of their logic.
Chapter VI provides an insight into the logic of the Office of National Educational Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). The discussion in this chapter is based on the interviews of ONESQA advocates and the three-month internship within the
organization. While the previous chapters discussed historical analyses and macro perspectives, this chapter focuses on the organizational logic of ONESQA, how it was created, and its intended expectation from the creators. The expectation and response from QA policymakers will be highlighted.
Chapter VII addresses the second research question in length: How QA was introduced, implemented, and interpreted in Thailand. The chapter focuses on policy implementation and perception at the university level. Comparative case studies of Prince of Songkla University and Suranaree University of Technology are introduced to
demonstrate how QA is implemented in practice. The complex process of data collection and data interpretation is outlined. This chapter also provides the space to highlight the
voices of the QA practitioners and the differing disciplines of academics. The disparity between QA as a regulatory work vis-à-vis academic works is discussed.
Chapter VIII illustrates how globalization and global reference have been used throughout the introduction and implementation of QA policy. As the concluding chapter, it highlights the complex interplay between globalization, historical legacies, and political structures in Thailand. Furthermore, it discusses the disparity of voices and views
between academic executives and other academics on the issues of QA. The theoretical contributions of the dissertation as well as potential limitations will be thoroughly discussed, as well as areas for future research.