Main Article Content
Colleges under the ceaseless tension of the worldwide rivalry in violent occasions, need to change their administration models dependent on collegiality and popularity-based customs to new ones dependent on scholastic authority. Advanced education in Thailand, as in numerous nations, has moved towards being self-governing. Having acknowledged that self-governing status of the colleges would lead them to be more beneficial and responsible, Thai government has set out a strategy to change all state funded colleges into self-ruling colleges. Subsequently, there are right now 16 self-ruling colleges under the oversight of Higher Education Commission in Thailand. The motivation behind this paper is to play out a basic examination of the pretended by enactment and hierarchical culture on scholarly initiative, to comprehend the possibility structure of any system of creating it. The examination addresses driving our examination are the accompanying: a) what are the invigorating impacts of enactment and authoritative culture on creating scholastic initiative? b) what are the controlling impacts of enactment and hierarchical culture on creating scholarly authority? furthermore, c) what is the impression of personnel staff in the Thai colleges on creating scholastic administration? The last inquiry is inspired by the way that this scholastic year in all Thai colleges there were races for the new overseeing bodies (ie: workforce gatherings and college senates) and new ministers, bad habit ministers, dignitaries and bad habit senior members of resources and division heads dependent on another enactment. Exploration results show that enactment and hierarchical culture are amazing forming powers of scholastic initiative, yet they need to unite to make the vital cooperative energy of progress. This investigation shows that the need to complete scholastic authority at colleges in Thailand is arising. Further exploration should zero in on down to earth approaches to change authoritative culture and inspire scholastic administration.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL), the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- Arokiasamy, A. R. A., & Abdullah, A. G. (2012). Service quality and students’ satisfaction at higher learning institutions: a case study of Malaysian University competitiveness. International Journal of Management and Strategy, 3(5), 1-16.
- Ackroyd, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1999). Problems of university governance in Britain: Is more accountability the solution? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(2), 171–185.
- Askling, B., Bauer, M. and Marton, S. (1999), “Swedish universities towards self-regulation: a new look at institutional autonomy”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 175-195.
- Berdahl, R. (1990), “Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-180.
- Birnbaum, R. (1991). Faculty in governance: The role of senates and joint committees in academic decision making [Special issue]. New Directions for Higher Education, 18(3).
- Bleiklie, I., Enders, J. and Lepori, B. (2013), “Introduction: transformation of universities in Europe”, Higher Education, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
- Bolden, R., Gosling, J., O’Brien, A., Peters, K., Ryan, M., & Haslam, A. (2012). Academic Leadership: Changing Conceptions, Identities and Experiences in UK Higher Education. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
- Brennan, J. and Teichler, U. (2008), “The future of higher education and of higher education research: Higher education looking forward: and introduction”, Higher Education, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 259-264.
- Currie, J. (2005). What makes shared governance work? An Austrian perspective. Academe, 91(3), 20–23.
- De Boer, H. (2000). Paper presented at the OECD-IMHE Seminar, Tokyo. Institutional governance: Consequences of changed relationships between government and university.
- Harman, Grant (2002). Academic Leaders or Corporate Managers: Deans and Heads in Australian Higher Education 1977-1997. Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(2), 53-70.
- Heifetz, Ronald & Donald, Laurie (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, February, 124-134.
- Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.
- Ibrahim Komoo., Norzaini Azman., & Mazlin Mokhtar. (2009). Managing with a difference: Governing university research with innovation and creativity. Journal of the World Universities Forum. 2(4), 41–55.
- Jose-Gines, M. (2001), “Governance and management in the new university”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 95-110.
- Kettunen, J. (2008), “A conceptual framework to help evaluate the quality of institutional performance”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 322-332.
- Khan, H. (2011). A literature review of corporate governance. In International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics (Vol. 25, pp. 1-5).
- Kohtamaki, V. and Lyytinen, A. (2004), “Financial autonomy and challenges to being a regionally responsive higher education institution”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 319-338.
- Kumar, A. (2007). Personal, Academic and Career Development in Higher Education: SOARing to Success. London: Routledge.
- Meek, L. (2002). On the road to mediocrity? Governance and management of Australian higher education in the market place. In A.Amaral, G.A.Jones., & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 235–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Meek, L., & Davies, D. (2009). Trend in Higher Education Governance. Websites of University World News, 1.
- Office of the Higher Education Commission (2017), University in Thailand, available at: www.mua.go. th/assets/img/university_mua1.pdf (accessed 25 August 2018).
- Pongsriwat, S. (2008). Ethical leadership. Rajapbat Chiang Rai University, Thailand.
- Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., Amaral, A., & Meek, L. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education, 52, 215–250.
- Somprach, K. (2003). Educational leadership. Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
- Sarros, James; Gmelch, Walter & Tanewski, George (1998). The Academic Dean: A Position in Need of a Compass and a Clock. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 65-88.
- Siegal, W. & Stearn, J. (2010). Beat the Change Management Trap: Your Organization is More Ready to Change Than You Think. Leader to Leader, Winter 2010. Vol. 2010/55: 37– 44.
- Sporn, B. (2006). Governance and administration: Organisational and structural trends. In Forest & Albach (Eds.) International handbook of higher education, (vol 18., pp. 114–147).
- Trow, M. (1996). On accountability of higher education in the United States. In P.M. Masses & F.A. van Vught (Eds.), Inside academia: New challenges for academic profession. Utrecth: De Tijdstroom. Policy, 14(1), 14–31.
- Wiseman, A. (ed.) (2009). Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International Comparisons. Bingley: Emerald.
- Wolverton, Mimi; Gmelch, Walter; Wolverton, Marvin & Sarros, James (1999). A Comparison of Department Chair Tasks in Australia and the United States. Higher Education, 39(3), 333-350.