What Makes Us Come This Far?

To some world historians, a ‘globalization big bang’ is not considered as a nouvelle phenomenon given that the world in many ways has been ‘globalized’ since the 1490s through trade and markets (O’Rourke and Williamson 2002). Some scholars believe that such a bang was widely experienced following the 1820s through an increase in the complexity of trading expansion worldwide. In other views, the first era of globalization started in the late nineteenth century as a result of the British Empire’s free trade zone, followed by the second era with the rise of transnational supply chains through a new kind of international order supported by the United States, and yet a subsequent third era with the intensification of regional powers throughout the world such as China, Nigeria, Brazil, with the more recent rapid growth of their economies (Hendrix 2012). These movements have been continually conceptualized, defined, and developed since the beginning of the twenty-first century. According to Pieterse (2012), contemporary globalization has been defined by three major changes: The emergence of new industrializing countries in the Global South which have become part of the world economy’s leaders; development agencies that migrated from urban institutions to developing countries; and free-market forces that migrated toward growing state coordination.

Taking those views, it would seem as if globalization was only initiated and framed by economic matters. In reality as is widely accepted, it is a multidimensional process ‘driven by technological innovation that effectuates social change and economic development by transforming a country into a modernized industrial, or developed nation,’ reflected in the Human Development Index in terms of ‘a country’s population’s life expectancy, knowledge and education measured by adult literacy, and income’ (Pologeorgis 2017). This process can be perceived both as making the world ‘a better place’ (O’Neil 2017) and as ‘under attack’ (Broad 2016), depending on how we apply it in our varied contexts. In one sense, the trend creates a new form of living through a blend and exchange of knowledge, information, culture, tradition, and lifestyle. On the other hand, it seems to detach a sense and pride of identity, locality, uniqueness, and originality away from one’s own life. These pros and cons have been repeatedly discussed in the decades that define contemporary globalization (Collins 2015).

While people around the world are gradually adopting various global dimensions into their lives, higher education (HE) as an intrinsic part of global activities is inevitably affected by a transformative international and national atmosphere in terms of language education (Kubota 2002), the knowledge society (Alvesson and Benner 2016) or education policy and practice (Grapragasem et al. 2014, p. 89). Many acts, policies, concepts, methods, activities, materials, and organizations within academia have been reformed and reset to serve such a global change. It is best, however, that this transformation is carefully approached and accomplished, as any substantive educational change usually influences both current and future generations. Not surprising therefore, various debates over the future and preferred courses for HE have emerged since the beginning of the millennium. As Delanty (2004, p. 241) argues, a university can turn into ‘an anachronistic institution clinging to a modernity in ruins’ if the world is not mindful of a collision between culture and technology which has become an important part of the context of contemporary higher education institutions (HEIs). For Scott (2000), the impact of globalization is most evident along two important dimensions: First, globalization cannot be seen simply as a form of internationalism, but rather is better viewed within a complex diversity of nationalism(s); second, globalization marks a shift from modernity to postmodernity in terms of concepts and mentalities, a reality that directly influences universities caught in the midst of their own transformations.

The concern of these scholars is similarly focused on the question of how universities can survive in this rapidly changing environment. This has been exemplified at one level with the emergence of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning’s (P21) renowned Framework for 21st Century Learning, which has had significant impact on teaching and learning worldwide at all levels in terms of framing the necessary skills and knowledge that learners will require to succeed in work and life (Partnership for 21st Century Learning 2007). Whereas the framework is perhaps most employed by institutions in the United States, it has been expanded on and adopted by other countries while being heralded as the desired focus for learning in the twenty-first century. One well-known example, the Ngee Ann Secondary School in Singapore, one of the country’s seven Future Schools, applies technology and digital media in the classroom to enhance students’ learning motivations via the Internet and social media (Edutopia 2012). Within this framework, the teacher no longer acts as a one-way knowledge-giver, but gives students an opportunity to access knowledge from various channels such as the Internet or social media apart from guiding and supporting them to analyze and synthesize data for their best application in the future (Boonpen 2015). In another example drawn from within HE, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore has changed its entire academic system to prepare graduates for the twenty-first-century workplace by creating knowledge to meet various global changes and develop innovative and responsible leaders for the future of Singapore, Asia, and the world (Kong 2014). This determined transformation seeks to move the university forward through a framework of four ‘External Drivers’:

  1. 1.

    Global Environment (Changing Economic, Landscape, Technological, Advancements, Challenges to Sustainability and Global Interdependence)

  2. 2.

    Social Transformation (Speed & Scale of Change, Cultural Diversity, Social Media, Social Inclusiveness and New Moral Dilemmas)

  3. 3.

    Twenty-First-Century Skills (Interpersonal Skills, Collaborative Skills, Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Disciplinary Depth, Interdisciplinary problem-solving and Professional Integrity)

  4. 4.

    EPIC Learners (Experiential Participatory, Image driven and Connected)

The efforts of Nanyang Technological University have been rewarded as it has been ranked the No. 1 university in the world according to QS’s Top 50 Under 50 years of age (2016–2017), the 11th in the world in the QS World University Rankings 2018, and 3rd in the QS University Rankings in Asia 2016 (Quacquarelli Symonds 2018a).

Highlighted by the examples of Singapore and most other countries, Thailand has also been influenced by these macro-global changes and the challenges they present. With respect to HE numerous legislative reforms, policies and regulations have been promulgated to cope with the effects of globalization in the country since the 1990s. Lauhathiansind and Chunbundit (2016, pp. 511–530) point to the change within academic systems brought on by the National Education Reform 1999 that focused on HE administration, personnel and financial management; the long-range plan for HE (2008–2022) that focuses on the quality of students, lifelong learning and employability of graduates in basic and vocational education with the ultimate aims to strengthen governance and accountability, to enhance staff development, to develop learning infrastructure, to promote institutional networking, to enhance national competitiveness, and to solve social issues; and the revision of the Private HE Institution Act which focuses on the quality and standards of private institutes.

Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that these developments have been mainly processed within the regional arena or ASEAN Community, not on global ground. Even though ‘international programs,’ which apply English as the instructive medium have been extensively offered in several public and private universities in Thailand, internationalization specifically built within HE systems has not been assured because the primary emphasis on the part of universities to generate fee income is the underlying rationale for such programs, which in large measure serve only particular and privileged groups (Lavankura 2013, p. 663). Chalapati’s research on The Internationalisation of Higher Education in Thailand (2007) adds confirmation to this assertion with her finding that, since the 1990s, successive Thai governments have tried to build a globally skilled workforce through English-medium business graduate programs branded as ‘international’ at leading universities in Bangkok without considering the English proficiency of students passing through the programs or giving a clear idea of what internationalization means in the Thai context.

With respect to the international standing of Thai universities viewed through the lens of university rankings, only eight appear in the QS World University Rankings 2018 (Quacquarelli Symonds 2018d) namely: Chulalongkorn University (245th), Mahidol University (334th), Chiang Mai University (551st), Thammasat University (601st with a 4-star rating), Kasetsart University (751st), Khon Kaen University (801st), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (801st) and Prince of Songkla University (801st). The other 453 Thai HE institutions (Thai Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 2018) have blurry positions with respect to comparisons outside of Thailand. It is important to note that five of the rated universities are located in Bangkok, and all the eight HEIs regarded as leading Thai universities were established between 50 and 100 years ago. Due to their long history and respectful experience, it is not surprising that they are in the QS World University Rankings, but it raises the question of the relative status of the remaining Thai universities. Having not achieved world rankings or having no international courses to offer raises the issue of whether such institutions have no demonstrable value or if they are unable to maintain a suitable presence within the global higher education environment.

In this case, the question is raised within Thailand as to whether Thai HEIs should go further and drop a pin on achieving a certain destination because the world appears to be moving faster than the country’s speed limit as set and controlled by the national policy which requires them to urgently support global economic movements and dynamic domestic socioeconomic forces. On the other hand, would it be perhaps a better and more prudent course for Thai HEIs to slow down their rates of change and pursuit of global goals and contemplate making full use of local wisdom, knowledge-and-skill preparation, and the domestic demographic context? By so doing, it is better assured that people can achieve recognized capabilities of full value within a domestic context before jumping into the global race. To be or not to be international, that is the question. This is the controversial issue which this chapter aims to consider, analyze, and discuss throughout from a Thai perspective.

Two Polarities: Internationalism and Nationalism in HE

Conflict, disagreement, and confusion are normal occurrences when two polarities meet such as the often cited issues of black and white, east and west, rich and poor, man and woman, human and animal, art and science, good and bad (Balabanis et al. 2001). This does not exclude the case of nationalism and internationalism in HE which has revealed a very similar dynamic when globalization has stepped into this territory. Taking Japan as an example, the internationalization movement known as kokusaika introduced just such an ambiguity into the country’s education system before the end of the twentieth century. It had the consequence of inducing people to get caught up in the idea of resisting global currents and by so doing overlooking the value of fundamental changes essential for internationalism to proceed (Lincicome 1993). After analyzing questionnaires completed by Hong Kong and Mainland university students, Fairbrother (2003, p. 605) found that the emphasis on patriotic education in Mainland China and that of depoliticizing civic education in colonial Hong Kong influenced students’ ‘perceptions of political socialization, critical thinking dispositions, and national attitudes.’ The reason why these two ideas have been conceived as opposites is simple: When globalization has moved in, a duel results between nationalists’ sense of loss and internationalists’ sense of pride and gain (Abdulsattar 2013).

From other perspectives, such a contestation’s outcome is not always negative, but has been both positive and productive to HEIs in many countries. Starting from the international side, Singapore is a good example that displays an ability to adopt globalization thoughtfully and adjust it to HEIs in a very positive manner. Likewise, Malaysia has developed an understanding of globalization, embraced an instructive methodology, and focused on creating a knowledge-based society through the pursuit of four elements: employability, quality assurance, academia, and English language in order to catch up with the perceived international movement (Grapragasem et al. 2014). Their success is revealed in the country’s Vision 2020 which aims to transform Malaysia into a fully developed nation in the near future. Regarding the bright side of nationalism, Wende and Zhu (2015) emphasize that China is establishing the world’s largest HE system largely by following successful Western (mostly Unites States) models and good practices with ‘creative adaptation’ and ‘Chinese characteristic.’

Within this modality, the creative adaptation component is comprised of:

  1. 1.

    New Challenges and Persistent Concerns focused on quality, graduate unemployment, inequality, academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

  2. 2.

    Policy Paradoxes such as sending students and faculty abroad, slowing down the reform for modern teaching and learning approaches, conserving national heritage and educational sovereignty against global threats.

Whereas the Chinese characteristic involves:

  1. 1.

    Global Public Goods and Soft Power

  2. 2.

    Chinese Diaspora

  3. 3.

    Confucius Institutes

  4. 4.

    Shanghai Ranking and the World-Class University Movement

  5. 5.

    China’s New Silk Route: A New Epistemic Route.

From this nationalist standpoint, China is viewed as not just as a follower, but also a global leader in HE. To reach the goal, Wende and Zhu emphasize that the country requires a world-class system to be applied in HEIs to meet global demands with a strong mission and many possibilities for students by focusing on differentiation, deregulation, autonomy, and accountability. However, in many countries, especially developing ones, it seems that the polarities of internationalism and nationalism persist in HE. To understand the HE polarity phenomenon, the following charts might be helpful.

As suggested by Fig. 10.1, when internationalism moves in, nationalism embraces and transfers its impacts to HE in the form of policy. If the embrace and transformation are adjusted to suit local HEIs, every process and activity should get along well and make great progress within this context. As IMHE-Info states (OECD 2009, p. 3), the 35 member countries of OECD (i.e., all are Western, except Japan) have successfully co-operated and worked among each other by enhancing the role of HEIs through the ‘economic, social and cultural development of their cities and regions.’ On the other hand, if such enhancement does not happen, the international movement will simply make the national HE stay far away from where it stands, often causing local people to forget their own identity and suffer a sense of loss (Hazelkorn 2015).

Fig. 10.1
figure 1

International movement in higher education vs National movement in higher education

Full size image

In Fig. 10.1, the consequence is suggested the other way round when taking national movement as a primary concern. Here, the HEI holds firmly to its national policy and tries to assert it into an international context. The conflict arises as the world is becoming more globalized, but the local HEI insists on standing alone, that is, not seeking in a purposive way to deal with the implications of globalization. This willingness to be ignorant of such profound changes isolates HE; people prefer to live within their closed territory and as a consequence know relatively little about the outside world.

Stated in this way, these two polarities probably appear exaggerated or framed within hyperbole, but such positions with regard to internationalization and globalization have actually occurred and played an important part in the development of HEIs worldwide as discussed in the following section.

A Global Effect to a Butterfly

In the age of globalization, it seems that most HEIs have geared themselves to be ‘inter’ through the adoption of or reference to different kinds of global standards such as the QS World University Rankings, world-class excellence awards, SCOPUS/SPRINGER journals, international conferences, English programs, or similar activities. HEIs which have greater capacity and support in terms of policy, budget, curriculum, materials, teaching staff, and learners’ competence are able to move forward in adopting changes consistent with their goals with considerable speed. Their achievement in moving toward a globalized status is revealed in a considerable variety of Western countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, the United States, and several Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and including the autonomous territory Hong Kong, where their HEIs are well regarded within the 100 top universities in the world (Quacquarelli Symonds 2018c). Looking at these Asian HEIs closely, it can be seen that all of them have no problem in communicating in English even though it is not their mother tongue. There is no need to mention what positive or negative history has brought them into this advantaged state and made them able to step into a globalization modality relatively easily and manage to respond effectively to continuous global changes. Today, those countries have proved that they can take action seriously in developing a curriculum and overall academic environment that supports internationalism.

Thailand is an ASEAN country that has followed the trend of globalization. The action is clearly seen from national policies launched by successive Thai governments (Chalapati 2007) and recent actions announced by the government of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha: ‘Thailand 4.0’ (Secretariat of the House of Representatives, E-Library 2017) and the ‘New-Breed Graduate Programs’ initiative (Ministry of Education, National Education Information System 2018). Thailand 4.0 operating under the ‘New Growth Engine’ concept is an economic development model expanded from past models that emphasized Agriculture (Thailand 1.0), Light Industry (Thailand 2.0) and Advanced Industry (Thailand 3.0), which aim to unlock what have been referred to as the middle income trap, an inequality trap, and an imbalanced growth trap by promoting four main objectives: economic prosperity, social well-being, raising human values, and embracing environmental protection (Royal Thai Embassy 2018). In terms of education, Thailand 4.0 focuses on producing graduates with globally relevant knowledge and skills across all careers, especially those in industry, science and technology, through the promotion of innovation, creativity, research and technology (National Science and Technology Capability 2017).

In line with Thailand 4.0, the New-Breed Graduate Programs’ mission is to cope with globalization within the academic context. As revealed by Clinical Professor Udom Kachintorn, the Deputy Minister of Education (Ministry of Education, National Education Information System 2018), the policy of designing New-Breed Graduate Programs was launched by the Thai Government in January 2018 and requested to be applied by August 2018 with the aim to serve The Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021) (Office of the Prime Minister, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board 2017) and to promote economic growth in 10 targeted areas (Bunsupaporn 2017): First S-Curve or older industries (Next-Generation Automotive; Smart Electronics; Affluent, Medical and Wellness Tourism; Agriculture and Biotechnology; and Food for the future) and New S-Curve or future industries (Robotics; Aviation and Logistics; Biofuels and Biochemicals; Digital; and Medical Hubs).

To serve such a policy, New-Breed graduates to be developed within this framework are divided into three groups:

  1. 1.

    Vocational certificate and high-vocational certificate students who wish to continue their studies up to HE;

  2. 2.

    Year-3 and Year-4 undergraduates who can shift from their current program to the New-Breed one; and

  3. 3.

    Graduates and workers who want to acquire higher professional skills and matriculate within non-degree programs within 3–6 months.

These ‘urgent’ New-Breed Graduate Programs have directly affected HEIs throughout Thailand as the framework was open to all universities to submit an unlimited number of programs by February 2018. Nonetheless, only Thai HEIs designing the programs in accordance with the criteria determined by the Office of the Higher Education Commission (e.g., readiness of fundamental facilities, capacity to produce graduates who can fulfill the programs’ demands and serve those targeted 10 industries, apprenticeship in real enterprises not less than 50% of the whole learning duration) are to be selected. This current situation in Thai HEIs reflects ‘a global effect to a butterfly’ instead of a butterfly effect to the globe. That is, according to the Thai Organic Trade Association (2011), ‘Thailand is predominantly an agriculture-based country.’ Transforming it into an industry-based country at once probably takes years or decades, especially when the concept needs to be combined with the whole country’s HE curriculum. Those involved such as administrators, teachers, students, operational staff, parents, and stakeholders need to see the same goal and work together in order to make each curriculum efficient. For instance, if the New-Breed Graduate curriculum does not serve the needs of parents or students, individuals will not be motivated to enroll in it. Likewise, if the curriculum does not meet the requirements of stakeholders, what students have learned will be simply a waste of time. This does not count the time consumed by administrators, lecturers, and operational staff spent writing the curriculum. Nevertheless, as the Thailand 4.0 policy influenced by globalization has been launched, Thai HEs cannot avoid following it. The strong and gigantic wave of globalization has already hit the HE shore within Thailand. The resulting questions are: How destructive is the attack? What is damaged? Are there to be any survivors at all?

5-HE Shields to Safeguard Global Waves: A Case Study of Naresuan University

Ready or not, as of this writing Naresuan University has committed to the national policies, Thailand 4.0 and New-Breed Programs, and already submitted 11 programs to the Office of the Higher Education Commission (Naresuan University, Division of Academic Affairs 2018b). Even though the programs were not chosen, the university’s achievement lies on the job which all staff did together, not the acceptance of those programs. To provide a context for this overall endeavor, it is important to note that Naresuan University was developed from a College of Education in 1967, established as the Phitsanulok Campus of Srinakharinwirot University in 1974, and granted official university status and graciously given the name by His Majesty, the latest King Bhumibol Adulyadej, in 1990 (Naresuan University 2014). Compared to the eight Thai universities ranked within the world rankings, Naresuan University is a smaller and newer HEI which will have its 30th Anniversary in 2020. Currently, the university is included within the 300–350 range in the QS Asian University Rankings 2017–2018 and mentioned as an institution which produces students who ‘not only need to be well-equipped with academic knowledge but also current issues and global trends in order to cope well with the challenges of the ASEAN Economic Community and be outstandingly qualified graduates who are in demand in the labor market’ (Quacquarelli Symonds 2018b).

Given the university’s provincial characteristics and qualifications, it is accepted that the global wave that has impacted Naresuan University has been quite harsh. The impacts (perceived by many as ‘damage’) are rather high because faculties and colleges were asked to design New-Breed programs within a very short period of time and with limited preparation. Yet, the university has survived and moves on; the new programs have been submitted, even as older programs still in the development stage have been requested to follow the New-Breed Graduate criteria (Naresuan University, Division of Academic Affairs 2018a). The important point is not the success developing such program submissions in time, but, rather, following the pathway of the so-called 5-HE Shields which are designed to sustain and protect the essence of Naresuan University from the possible negative effects of seeking to transition to meet the demands of global standards and relevance too quickly.

1st HE Shield: Curriculum Reform

At Naresuan University, the curriculum of the three clusters that constitute the core of the academic program (the Health Sciences Cluster, the Science and Technology Cluster, and the Social Sciences Cluster) is usually revised and updated on a five-year schedule. However, with the adoption of the Thailand 4.0 policy and New-Breed Graduate Programs, each curriculum is now required to be more international, cultural, and practical in preparing students for their future lives. Some clusters or components of clusters may be ‘closed’ whereas others will be ‘opened,’ depending on the perceived global needs and estimations of students’ future careers. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider students within a local context (e.g., learning ability, language performance, financial support, learner’s needs) as well as in the context of global demands and creating university income. The university has also been cooperating with Thai massive open online course (MOOC) and encouraging teaching staff to produce MOOC programs to meet students’ lifelong learning needs (Naresuan University 2018).

2nd HE Shield: Student/Staff Exchange

The university has offered student/staff exchanges (inbound/ outbound) to establish ‘international’ and ‘national’ awareness. At present, there are 53 foreign undergraduates (from Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Gambia, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Philippines); 157 foreign postgraduates (from e.g., England, Jordan, Indonesia, and African countries); plus 122 full-time foreign teachers (e.g., British, American, Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, French) (Naresuan University, Division of International Development 2018a). Many Thai students have been sponsored to study aboard, either in summer or degree courses, via MOUs and MOAs with 153 foreign HEIs (Naresuan University, Division of International Development 2018b). Even though the number of exchanges is not significantly high, at least it indicates a good start to follow what is a rapid global trend even if at the moment it is progressing at relatively slow speed.

3rd HE Shield: Training Courses

Realizing students’ and staff’s limited abilities in English and other foreign languages, the university encourages them to be trained at the NU Language Center, within Thailand and abroad. The university also offers courses in Thai languages and activities related to Thai culture, offered to both foreign students and university staff. The aim is to break language barriers which might prevent students and staff from studying and communicating internationally. At this point, the results may not be extremely impressive as the English proficiency of many students and staff is between A1 and A2 levels. The university, however, continues to support developing their proficiency and trying to support them in multiple ways, such as providing English Proficiency Enhancement (EPE) Courses for postgraduate students to help them reach the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) Level with the Cambridge English Placement Test (CEPT) Standard (Naresuan University, Graduate School 2017).

4th HE Shield: Classroom Performance

Many course syllabi at Naresuan University allow students to be exposed to ‘foreign’ languages and cultures, seeking to provide them with ‘international’ and ‘national’ insights through subjects studied. For example, in the British and American Drama course, year-3 students were assigned to read the first act of Peter Shaffer’s The Royal Hunt of the Sun and perform it as a play one week later (Patamadilok 2017). The result turned out positive and with some guidelines from the lecturer, students could interpret the literary text, including that of Red Indians’ culture and history, through what emerged as an excellent performance, with creative costumes and props. They were also asked to perform the British play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde as their class thesis and present it as a professional drama production. The outcome was significantly positive, and their performance was appreciated by university administrators, lecturers, and students in the audience (Naresuan University 2017).

5th HE Shield: Research Projects

The university encourages staff and students to engage in research projects. For example, the year-4 students at the Faculty of Education are required to write a ‘baby thesis’ or conduct a basic research study with their supervisors (Naresuan University, Faculty of Education 2018). Postgraduate students in all faculties are required to write their theses in English and get them published through the TCI/SCOPUS standard. Teaching staff are funded to do a research project every year and have their work published in both national/international journals.

The 5-HE shields are probably common in other Thai universities or HEIs elsewhere. As Sinhaneti (2011) has indicated, Shinawatra University copes with global challenges through multiple collaborations such as acquiring international cooperation, offering international programs, being a venue for educational fairs, increasing regional and international recruitment, spinning out new types of relevant businesses, and focusing on community-driven and societal development. However, the details of 5-HE Shields are probably worthwhile to look at as they not only prevent the hazardous clash of nationalism and internationalism, but also promote understanding and harmony for the two polarities through learning, working and doing activities among Thai, foreign students and staff.

The basis of dealing with these global waves through the shields is their focus on promoting empathy, understanding and cross-cultural awareness. They are also operated with a ‘3PBL framework,’ a problem-based learning approach that focuses on a question-answer approach by teachers (e.g., modest research studies); project-based learning, which emphasizes skill practices after content achievement of students at all levels (e.g., drama performance); and profession-based learning concentrated on developing apprenticeships among students to prepare them for employment or further work after graduation.

These 3PBL operations can be supported by open online course programs that promote knowledge, skills and technology transfer. In terms of knowledge, the programs are required to serve global needs and markets, seeking to support the development of innovative university products such as good textbooks/books (written by lecturers or with international publishers), teaching equipment (IT devices, computer programs), curriculum (modernized), course syllabi (updated), and research studies (joint projects). In their realization, such products should be international. Regarding skill development within the curriculum, it is necessary that lecturers produce or generate practicum curricula to encourage learners to read/study through media in English (or other languages), especially via the Internet. Consequently, such media should be highly communicative. Finally, technology should be employed to create short courses for a workforce/aging society through MOOCs. This has been currently envisaged, transformed, and changed in accordance with university policy.

According to the description, 5-HE Shields’ approaches at Naresuan University can be summarized as in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 5-HE Shields’ approaches (Table created by author)
Full size table

Epilogue

From a bird’s eye view, the idea probably seems too much of an ‘ideal’ or nearly ‘impossible’ occurrence because of the amount of effort and collaboration required from all parties involved from the top to the bottom of the academic structure. From a Thai provincial university’s perspective, nevertheless, the idea is ‘challenging’ and ‘moving’ within the context of a developing HEI because there is no defined pressure from any world-class requirements or expectations. Although the challenges of global trends come to the institution ‘at high speeds’ and their impact can be damaging, HE within such a provincial setting can survive through the emphasis on promoting mutual understanding and fostering support toward each other within institutional settings. Naresuan University has proved that taking slow steps together can help the institution transition through the global-butterfly effect. At the stage where people are required not only to cope with an ‘internationalism’ to which they do not belong, but also retain a sense of ‘nationalism’ which tends to fade way under such circumstances, it is hoped that developing norms of ‘harmonious’ HE will be a device which helps human beings learn to remain themselves and live with others in this wildly changing world.