Reexamining the Role of Advisers for Enhancing the Quality of Research Programs in Thai Universities

Abstract

Knowledge is power. Human history is not just a wonderful tale of war, conquest and colonization; it is also a story of the evolution of knowledge, research and innovations in science, technology, engineering and their use in social development. Not surprisingly, the pecking order of development in the world is paralleled by the pecking order of research universities and engineering colleges. USA, UK, Germany, China, Japan, Australia, Singapore are countries whose economy manifest the inextricable connection between research and development (R&D) in science, technology and industrialization and development. On the other hand, Thailand is at the tail end of knowledge based economic development or much worse, at risk of being left behind in the next spiral of development in AEC. Two global rankings of the institutions of higher education are closely followed every year by education watchers - The Times Higher Education World University Ranking and Financial Times Top 100 Business Schools. Each year these rankings stand testimony to the status of higher education in Thailand. Although Thailand has made strong, aggressive and purposeful strides in infrastructure, but it must be equally serious about its higher education. If a country wants to compete globally, improving the quality of R&D holds the key. Hierarchical administrative structure, centralized decision making, bloated bureaucratic organizations such as Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC) and Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) with their emphasis on command, control and compliance poses biggest hurdles to improving Thai higher education. It is time that each university and institute in Thailand examine, evaluate and establish, if necessary, the vision, purpose, structure, processes and strategy for enhancing R&D and their alignment with each other as well as with the changing context of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Improving the quality of research remains one of the biggest challenges for Thai universities. There is an in-built historical rigidity in higher education, where role of advisers in PhD. research programs has been largely neglected or even ignored. This paper examines the effect of various traditional advising practices that has led to poor quality of research in Thai universities. It also sheds light on how to improve the existing role and the stature of advisers in graduate level research programs leading to PhD's. A new model for enhancing the role of advisers in a research program is also proposed.