DESDE SU PUNTO DE VISTA, ¿CUÁL(ES) DE LAS SIGUIENTES OPCIONES ESTRUCTURA MEJOR LA REVISORÍA FISCAL EN FUNCIÓN DE

This section outlines the pattern in factors that play a role in developing the social imaginary in Thai society. Means and standard deviations were calculated to identify the attitude of 223 participants from two universities regarding the potential of developing social imaginary in Thai society. The table below demonstrates the factors (globalization, cultural dimensions) that influence the social imaginary in Thai society. These responses were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (SD) to strongly agree (SA). The results map strength of attitude and are to be interpreted as follows:

Likert Score Range Strength of Attitude

0.00-1.50 strongly disagree 1.51-2.50 somewhat disagree 2.51-3.50 disagree 3.51-4.50 neutral 4.51-5.50 agree 5.51-6.50 somewhat agree 6.51-7.00 strongly agree

5.3.1 Relationship between Independent Variables (globalization and cultural dimensions) and the Dependent Variable (social imaginary)

The means and the standard deviations for the sample were calculated for each item on the questionnaire. The results are not reported here but are contained in the table in Appendix 8. The data presented below shows an aggregate mean with the corresponding standard deviation for each group of (four) items (for globalization and cultural dimensions). It is a summary picture for the independent variables generated out of the responses to the individual question items. The separate responses can be seen in Appendix 8.

5.3.1.1 Globalization

Variable Mean Std. Deviation N Strength of

M SD Attitude ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION 4.70 .886 221 agree CULTURE GLOBALIZATION 4.85 .807 221 agree COMMUNICATION GLOBALIZATION 4.52 .699 221 agree POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION 4.01 .762 221 neutral

Table 5.1Globalization and Thai Society

Note: EGS = economic globalization; CGS =culture globalization; CMS = communication globalization; PGS = political globalization

Globalization is most commonly associated with the growing internationalisation of the processes of production and finance, though it has been used to describe a variety of complex developments in the economic, communication technology, political and cultural spheres as well (Hadiz, 2002). According to the characteristics of globalization framework, used in their project, globalization is divided into four forms: economic, cultural, communication and political globalization.

The results shown in Table 5.1 are descriptive statistics which representthe perceptions of the university students regarding the impact of globalization in Thai society. The results indicate that these social science students agree that cultural globalization (M=4.85, S.D.=.807) is the strongest influence in Thai society compared to the other forms of globalization. This is followed by economic globalization (M=4.70, S.D.=.886), then communication globalization (M=4.52, S.D.=.699) and the finally the least powerful among the four globalization factors was the political globalization (M=4.01, S.D.=.762). The smallest spread in responses, the most consistent view in the sample, was for communication globalisation.

5.3.1.2. Cultural Dimensions and Thai Society

Variable Mean Std. Deviation N Strength

M SD of

Attitude

Power Distance 3.56 .897 221 neutral

Uncertainty Avoidance 4.04 .844 221 neutral

Masculinity 4.02 .825 221 neutral

Individualism 4.95 .794 221 agree

Long term

Orientation 4.99 .753 221 agree

Table 5.2 Cultural Dimensions

Note: IDV = individualism; PDI = power distance; MAS = masculinity; UAI =uncertainty avoidance; LTO = long-term orientation (or Confucian dynamism) (Sources: Hofstede (1980, 2003)

As mentioned, the research project has employed Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, individualism, and long term orientation, and the questionnaire asked about attitudes to traits associated with these dimensions. The results show that long term orientation is the strongest dimension among the young Thai students, followed by individualism and power distance orientations respectively.

The results show high score for long term orientation (M=4.99, S.D.=.753). And individualism (M=4.95, S.D.=.794). The students are in strong agreement that these two cultural dimensions are very significnact factors in Thai society as they relate to social creativity and the social imaginary. These two dimensions also have the smallest spread, adding to the strength of that view.

Power distance (M=3.56, S.D.=.897), uncertainty avoidance (M=4.04, S.D.=.844) and masculinity (or gender orientation) (M=4.02, S.D.=.825) present lower results and show up as neutral in compassion.

5.3.1.3 Social Imaginary

The mean and standard deviations for all sixteen questions about the social imaginary are shown below. All questions, except question 3 - Thai people support creativity at all levels of society present in agreement. Items 10 and 11 about families and society supporting youing people to be creative have the strongest levels of agreement.

QUESTION MEAN STD. DEVIATION N

STRENGTH OF ATTITUDE 1. Thai people can generate

creativity for social benefit

4.90 1.50 _{221 agree}

2. Thai society is open to creativity

5.04 1.49 _{221 agree}

3. Thai people support creativity at all levels of society

3.57 1.63 _{221 neutral}

4. Creativity can develop at all levels of society

4.51 1.35 _{221 agree}

5. Thai society supports creative people

4.97 1.46 _{221 agree}

6. Thai teenagers can imagine new ways of living in society

4.76 1.37 _{221 agree}

7. Thai teenagers are capable of using creativity in changing their life course and chances

4.89 1.33 _{221 agree}

8. Thai teenagers have

opportunities to use their creativity in developing society

4.88 1.43 _{221 agree}

9. Families allow young people to think and act creatively in

planning their future

4.78 1.34 _{221 agree}

10. Families should encourage young people to think and act more creatively in planning their future

6.12 0.99 _{216 somewhat}

11. Society should allow young people to exercise imagination and creativity in developing society

6.23 1.17 _{216 somewhat}

agree

12. Globalization helps young people be creative in their lives

4.66 1.25 _{216 agree}

13. Globalization allows people to live more creatively

4.59 1.29 _{216 agree}

14. Globalization can change traditional ways of learning or living in Thai society

4.63 1.18 _{216 agree}

15. Traditional culture should change in order that Thai society fits better in a globalized world

5.25 1.26 _{216 agree}

16. Globalization brings

momentous changes to social and cultural structures

4.66 2.51 _{215 agree}

Table 5.3 Survey Questions for the Social Imaginary

The scores above when aggregated, give an overall picture as shown below.

The overall social imaginary scores

Variable Mean Std. Deviation N Strength

M SD of Attitude

Social Imaginary 4.71 .864 221 agree

The social imaginary concept was divided into sixteen questions as shown above to clarify the characteristics and of the social imaginary in Thai society. The results confirmed that the young people gave that Thai society was open to creativity in all levels and that these is support for the possibility of creating social change in the future [Q.1-Q.5]. Questions 6 to 11 asked the participants to evaluate their opportunities to develop their own creativity and leading to the development of society in the future and the results show high levels of agrees across the board.

Research on the remaining items show that globalization does effect Thai society in developing social creativity. The overall aggregated result for all sixteen of social

imaginary questions (M=4.71, S.D.=.864) indicates agreement about the positive role of the social imaginary in society for social change linked with globalization.

5.4 The Relationship between Independent Variables (globalization and cultural