A Study of Thailand’s Participation in Global Education Governance: Theory, Practice, and Challenges

Background/purpose. This study explores how sovereign states—specifically, Thailand—have a significant influence on the global system of education governance. Thailand is clearly involved in global education governance, although there are a few areas that need more research. These include comprehending Thailand's educational background, driving forces, career paths, and obstacles.

Materials/methods. This study employed a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. Key stakeholders from six Thai institutions participated, along with 300 international students and 120 international teachers. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used in the data analysis to shed light on best practices, quality control, and policy alignment.

Results. It points out that Thailand's educational system has developed over a long period of time and has created a useful framework for taking part in global education governance. Thailand's involvement is driven by a variety of factors, which result in the creation of basic but unsystematic paths. The study also recognizes the complicated contexts in which Thailand participates.

Conclusion. In short, the study points out a number of shortcomings and suggests that future investigations use both qualitative and quantitative techniques to thoroughly examine sovereign states' involvement in global education governance.

Keywords: Thailand global education governance, the participation of sovereign state

References

Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49(3–4), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w

Al-Youbi, A., & Zahed, A. H. M. (2019). Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Education Institutions. In Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Education Institutions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25525-1_1

Asiva Noor Rachmayani. (2015). Teaching Pragmatics in English as a Foreign Language Classrooms. TEFLIN Publication Division. www.journal.teflin.org

Awa, H. O., Etim, W., & Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y

Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present, and future. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 797–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221127628

Briede., B. (2019). Successful Global Collaborations in Higher Education Institutions: Review. Journal of Language and Education, 6(3), 1–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25525-1

Caraig, B. (2018). Southeast Asian Massive Open Online Courses. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 1. www.seameo.org

Carter, J. L. (2015). Progressive educational development in Thailand: A framework for analysis and revision of curriculum development, classroom effectiveness, and teacher performance evaluations. International Education Journal, 14(3), 32–46.

Chanda, T. C. L. (2017). Sustainable development: implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. General Assembly, 22191(December), 1–7.

Cho, H. S., & Mosselson, J. (2018). Neoliberal practices amidst social justice orientations: global citizenship education in South Korea. Compare, 48(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1364154

Christou, P. A. (2023). How to use thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Qualitative Research in Tourism, 3(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.4337/jqrt.2023.0006

Eichelberger, B., Mattioli, H., & Foxhoven, R. (2017). Uncovering Barriers to Financial Capability: Underrepresented Students’ Access to Financial Resources. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(3). https://doi.org/10.55504/0884-9153.1634

Elfert, M., & Ydesen, C. (2024). Global governance and the promissory visions of education: challenges and agendas. Comparative Education, 60(3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2024.2371701

Elisabeth Staksrud, Haugen, H. Ø., & Harpviken, K. B. (2024). Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. In National Research Ethics Committees (Issue May). https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-and-humanities/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-and-the-humanities/

Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2022). PISA 2025 Technical Standards. European University Institute, 2, 2–5. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=PT%0Ahttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0011:pt:NOT

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2020). A postfunctionalist theory of multilevel governance. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120935303

Karnia, R. (2024). Importance of Reliability and Validity in Research. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 13(6), 137–141. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.30985.45921

Kittisereechai, P. (2022). Global Governance of Education Standards: A Case Study of World University Rankings. Journal of Social Sciences, Naresuan University: JSSNU, 2, 231–277.

Loima, J., & Vibulphol, J. (2015). Learning and Motivation in Thailand: A Comparative Regional Study on Basic Education Ninth Graders. International Education Studies, 9(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n1p31

Maggetti, M., & Trein, P. (2019). Multilevel governance and problem-solving: Towards a dynamic theory of multilevel policy-making? Public Administration, 97(2), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12573

Makhoul, S. A. (2019). Higher education accreditation, quality assurance and their impact to teaching and learning enhancement. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 35(4), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-08-2018-0092

Milenović, Ž. (2011). Application of Mann-Whitney U Test in Research of Professional Training of Primary School Teachers. Metodički Obzori/Methodological Horizons, 6(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.32728/mo.06.1.2011.06

Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y

Morrice, P. I. (2019). Governance in Higher Education. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v12i1.2615

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202

Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.021

Neubauer, D. E. (2019). Changing Patterns in the Governance of Higher Education in Asia. In Higher Education in Asia. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9294-8_2

Phillip Bowen, Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed Methods- Theory and Practice, Sequential, Explanatory Approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 14(01), 3510–3515. www.eajournals.org

Rizvi, F. (2019). Global interconnectivity and its ethical challenges in education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09596-y

Saito-Jensen, M. (2015). Multilevel Governance Theory. Theories and Methods for the Study of Multilevel Environmental Governance, 2–6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02152.5

Samuels, P. (2016). Advice on Exploratory Factor Analysis. Centre for Academic Success, Birmingham City University, June, 2. http://bcu-test.eprints-hosting.org/6076/

Sharma, G., & Sayed, Y. (2024). Global governance and a new social contract for education: Addressing power asymmetries. Prospects, 54(2), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-024-09696-7

Sirat, M. (2017). ASEAN’s flagship universities and regional integration initiatives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 11(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-07-2017-0004

Smith, W. C., Ehren, M. C. M., & Grek, S. (2024). Global governance of education: The Sustainable Development Goals as a product and mechanism? International Review of Education, 70(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-024-10108-3

Solesin, L. (2020). Education Research and Foresight: Challenges in a changing landscape. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1–14. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372895

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2024). Global governance of education: The historical and contemporary entanglements of UNESCO, the OECD and the World Bank. International Review of Education, 783031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-024-10106-5

Tamtik, M., & Colorado, C. (2022). Multi-level governance framework and its applicability to education policy research - the Canadian perspective. Research in Education, 114(1), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237221140141

Tang, Q. (2015). Incheon Declaration Framework for Action. UNDP: Incheon Declaration Framework for Action, 83. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233137/PDF/233137eng.pdf.multi

Tikly, L. (2017). The future of education for all as a global regime of educational governance. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 22–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/689700

Uttayotha, S., & Scheef, A. (2021). Partnerships to promote inclusive education for students with disabilities in Thailand. Journal of Global Education and Research, 5(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.5038/2577-509x.5.1.1102

Vo, P. Q., & Phuong, H. Y. (2024). English Language Education and Students’ Development of Social Capital. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4338-8_6

Wachirawichai, T. (2022). The role of ASEAN University Network (AUN) in promoting Internationalization of Chulalongkorn University. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD). https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/chulaetd/7351

Walters, S., & Watters, K. (2017). Towards a global common good ? In Adult Education Quarterly (Vol. 67, Issue 3). http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Cairo/images/RethinkingEducation.pdf

Zhao, J., Madni, G. R., Anwar, M. A., & Zahra, S. M. (2021). Institutional reforms and their impact on economic growth and investment in developing countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094941

Zürn, M. (2020). Unravelling multi-level governance systems. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120937449

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Message from the Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.

EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.

Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards

To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:

1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond

In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.

In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.

From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.

2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening

All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.

3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee

A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.

Ongoing Commitment:

EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.

Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.

We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.

Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2025-12-09