03 August 2010
Beyonce Sings Church Bells - Cadillac Records - 12/5
คืนวันอาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมา (1 ส.ค.2553) นั่งดูหนังเรื่อง Cadillac Records ได้ฟังเพลงที่เป็น "ราก" ของร็อคแอนด์โรล ซะอิ่มหนำสำราญ ประทับใจกับลีลาการร้องและการแสดงของ บียอนเซ่ ที่รับบทเป็น เอ๊ตต้า เจมส์ นักร้องเพลงบลูส์ยุคแรก "น้องเซ่" ร้องได้อย่างมีพลัง แสดงได้อย่างสมบทบาท กับเพลงที่แสนจะไพเราะ
AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ROLES OF RAJAMANGALA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
Title : AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ROLES OF RAJAMANGALA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
by : Pakorn LAWAKUL (1) and Phadungchai PUPAT, Ph.D. (2)
(1) Ph.D. Candidate, Department of of Industrial Education, Faculty of Industrial Education King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand
Email: pakornla@gmail.com (2) Academic Lecturer, Department of of Industrial Education, Faculty of Industrial Education King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand
Email: pdc_2500@yahoo.comABSTRACT
The objective of this research is to analyze the variables that affect the roles of Rajamungala University of Technology Council Board by using the focus group technique. The samples were 9 experts who were skillful in the roles of university council. The instruments included two main questions for group discussion: one was concerned with the appropriateness of the variables, and the other was opinions on the variables. The focus group was conducted on 16th December 2009 at Miracle Grand Hotel, Bangkok. The data were analyzed with the content analysis.
It was found that there were 6 factors which affected the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council Board. These factors consisted of the committee’s leadership, their background, council structure, administrative system, culture of organization, and cooperative network of the university council. Key Words: Factors, Focus Group, University Council Roles
INTRODUCTION
The university is an educational institute at which higher education is provided with the aim of creating manpower beneficial to the development plan of country in the future. Also, the university serves as the nation’s essential component in building bodies of knowledge and innovations for society. Through the perspective of higher education administrators in Thailand and other countries, the university has been highly regarded and prioritized as the society’s value, envisaging that the financial budget allocated for universities will be like the investment for the future of country. Like the government of country, the university council functions several responsibilities featuring the supervision on financial matters, social affairs and on the stakeholders of the university. Another mission lies in the decision-making process in relation with all policies made by the university. (Moses. 206:1)
Hence, the university’s directions and roles rely substantially upon the university council whose mandates embrace setting policies and directions for the university. The board of university council consists of a group of people that can be varied according to requirements,regulations, agreement and important laws particularly made by the individual. Due to the said responsibilities, the role of the council member is considered essential. Several universities abroad have set distinct requirements on the council members’ qualifications stating that they are strictly required to be a well-behaved and selfless public person having deep concerns on ethics, transparency and honesty with the obvious target and leadership. (Committee of University Chairman. 2004: 13-14)
In compliance with the Act of Rajamangala University of Technology B.E. 2548, nine new universities under the name of Rajamangala University of Technology had been officially established after the amalgamation of the existing faculties and campuses of Rajamangala Institute of Technology throughout the country. In each university there is the highest administrative unit; that is, every single university has its own council. All councils play an important role in administration. The context of Rajamangala University of Technology is itself interesting in some particular aspects. Among nine universities, there exists multi-dimension difference: quantitative dimensions (the number of units located in different universities), dimensions on location (among the universities located in central and regional parts),dimensions on the administration under the same requirements on the university council despites varied roles of different university councils. For these reasons, the researcher is particularly interested to investigate the factors or variables having impacts on the roles of the university council in Rajamangala University of Technology as a case study.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this research was to analyze the variables which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology council
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this research was to analyze the variables which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology council
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
In this study the researcher used the conceptual research framework of CUC (2004), Chepa (2006) Vijarn Panich (2008), Moses (2006: 1-12), Fielden (2008: 43), Phranakhon Rajabhat University (2007: 139-147), Tierney, Kezar and Minor (2008) to analyze related documents and studies both in Thailand and other countries. The focus group discussion was used to analyze the variables which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research procedures were as follows:
1. Experts - The experts included nine specialists on the roles of university council all of which had previous experience as a member of university council. Such members are of different university councils namely Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Rajamangala University of Technology Suvanabhumi, Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep,KamphaengPhet Rajabhat University, and Vongchavalitkul University.
2. Research Instruments - The research instruments comprised the questions and issues raised in the focus group discussion in relation with the causal factors which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council.
3. Data Collection
3.3) Using such variables in the group focus discussion
3.4) Using the group focus discussion to collect data in particular issues by having a moderator to raise the involved issues and questions and to encourage the group to think and express their opinions comprehensively and critically. The group focus discussion was implemented by an experienced moderator and fully equipped with facilities and supplementary documents. The discussion was held on 16th December 2009 at Miracle Grand Hotel, Bangkok.
4. Data analysis was operated by using content analysis.
Table 1 Variables and causal factors which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council derived from the documents and studies involved
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The instruments used in this research included the issues and questions raised in the focus group discussion. The questions involved two main issues in the suitability of variables and other opinions in relation with variables.
CONCLUSION
1. The result of document synthesis revealed five variables affecting the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council as follows: 1) factors on leadership 2) factors on the council members' background 3) factors on the council structure 4) the factor on the council administrative system 5) factors on the council organizational cultures.
2. Based on the focus group discussion, it was found that the expert opinion was in conformity with five variables in the document analysis.
3. Regarding the variable adjustment, the experts suggested that there should be one more variable on the cooperative network. As a result, there were totally six variables including 1) factors on leadership 2) factors on the council members' background 3) factors on the council structure 4) the factor on the council administrative system 5) factors on the council organizational culture 6) factors on the cooperative network as illustrated in Figure 1
Figure 1 Factors affecting the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology council
DISCUSSION
The importance of six variables which affected the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council was as follows:
1. Factors on leadership had an impact on the stipulation of the council members' qualification and on the leadership promotion in the university council.
2. Factors on the council members' background had an impact on the stipulation of the council members' qualification.
3. Factors on the council structure had an impact on the setting of council structure, components, term of service and background of the council member.
4. Factors on the council administrative system had an impact on the administration the administration of the university, authorities and responsibilities, meetings, division of work and performance assessment of the university council.
5. Factors on the council organizational culture had an impact on the creation of positive work atmosphere among the council members and to develop the work atmosphere in the university council.
6. Factors on the cooperative network had an impact on the creation of cooperative network necessary for the implementation of different units both inside and outside the university council.
REFERENCES
3.1) The involved documents were systematically analyzed to investigate the research findings on each variable both in Thailand and other countries as illustrated in Table 1
3.2) Setting variables obtained from data analysis and synthesis 3.3) Using such variables in the group focus discussion
3.4) Using the group focus discussion to collect data in particular issues by having a moderator to raise the involved issues and questions and to encourage the group to think and express their opinions comprehensively and critically. The group focus discussion was implemented by an experienced moderator and fully equipped with facilities and supplementary documents. The discussion was held on 16th December 2009 at Miracle Grand Hotel, Bangkok.
4. Data analysis was operated by using content analysis.
Table 1 Variables and causal factors which affect the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council derived from the documents and studies involved
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The instruments used in this research included the issues and questions raised in the focus group discussion. The questions involved two main issues in the suitability of variables and other opinions in relation with variables.
CONCLUSION
1. The result of document synthesis revealed five variables affecting the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council as follows: 1) factors on leadership 2) factors on the council members' background 3) factors on the council structure 4) the factor on the council administrative system 5) factors on the council organizational cultures.
2. Based on the focus group discussion, it was found that the expert opinion was in conformity with five variables in the document analysis.
3. Regarding the variable adjustment, the experts suggested that there should be one more variable on the cooperative network. As a result, there were totally six variables including 1) factors on leadership 2) factors on the council members' background 3) factors on the council structure 4) the factor on the council administrative system 5) factors on the council organizational culture 6) factors on the cooperative network as illustrated in Figure 1
Figure 1 Factors affecting the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology council
DISCUSSION
The importance of six variables which affected the roles of Rajamangala University of Technology Council was as follows:
1. Factors on leadership had an impact on the stipulation of the council members' qualification and on the leadership promotion in the university council.
2. Factors on the council members' background had an impact on the stipulation of the council members' qualification.
3. Factors on the council structure had an impact on the setting of council structure, components, term of service and background of the council member.
4. Factors on the council administrative system had an impact on the administration the administration of the university, authorities and responsibilities, meetings, division of work and performance assessment of the university council.
5. Factors on the council organizational culture had an impact on the creation of positive work atmosphere among the council members and to develop the work atmosphere in the university council.
6. Factors on the cooperative network had an impact on the creation of cooperative network necessary for the implementation of different units both inside and outside the university council.
REFERENCES
1) Act of Rajamangala University of technology (2005). Government Gazette. Volume 116 Section 6 A. 24-25.
2) Adrianna Kezar, William G. Tierney. (2008). Assessing Public Board Performance. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). [online]. Available : http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/documents/publications/Performance.pdf
3) Adrianna Kezar, William G. Tierney. (2006). 7 Elements of Effective Public-Sector Boards. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship. (Nov-Dec 2006) 14(6) : 4.
4) AGB Statement on Board Accountability. (2007). Adopted by the AGB Board of Directors, January 17, 2007, p.10 http://www.agb.org
5) Anthony Baker. (2006). An Australian Perspective on University Governance. Thai-Australian Workshop on University Governance Bangkok, 22-23 June 2006.
6) Barbara E. Taylor. (1987). Working Effectively with Trustees: Building Cooperative Campus Leadership. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2.
7) Barbara E. Taylor. (1988). Working With Trustees. ERIC Digest. Carman, Harry J. (1962). Boards of Trustees and Regents. In Burns, Gerald P.(ed.). Administrators in Higher Education. PP. 79-110. New York : Harper & Row Publishers.
8) Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). (2006). The Role of Boards in College Access Programs: Creating and Maintaining Quality. University of Southern California. [online]. Available :
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/28/06/d2.pdf
9) Chawalit Putthawongs. (1981). Characteristics of University Boards of Trustees in Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis of Indiana University.
10) Cindra J. Smith. (2008). Trustee Handbook. Community College League of California.
11) Clark Marshall Egnor. (2001). Governance of a private Japanese university before and after the 1998 University Council reforms. West Virginia University
12) Committee of University Chairmen (CUC). 2004. Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK. HEFCE BRISTOL QD.
13) Dalat Ward, Yaprak. (2007). The governance roles of Turkish public university presidents based on the Cohen and March model of governance roles. Ed.D. Thesis of Sam Houston State University.
14) Dennis L. Payette. (2001). Fiduciary Responsibility of Board Trustees and Officers in Universities and Colleges. Journal of Corporate Governance. 1(4) : 12-19.
15) Egnor, Clark Marshall. (2001). Governance of a private Japanese university before and after the 1998 University Council reforms. Ed.D. Thesis of West Virginia University.
16) Ingrid Moses. (2006). Global Trends in University Governance. Thai-Australian Workshop on University Governance Bangkok. 22-23 June 2006.
17) James C. Hearn, Michael K. McLendon, and Leigh Z. Gilchrist. (2004). Governing in the Sunshine : Open Meetings, Open Records, and Effective Governance in Public Higher Education. [online]. Available :
http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/Sunshine%20Final%20Report%20040415.pdf
18) John Fielden. (2008). Global Trends in University Governance. Washington, D.C. The World Bank.
19) Keeratikorn Krisanapong. (2007). Summary of Lecture on “Challenges of Office of Higher education Commission in Strengthening Thai Higher Education through the Development of Good Governance, Administration and Personal Enhancement”. [online]. Available :
http://www.mua.go.th/users/maytinee/Content/LaykaFlagship.htm
20) Kusol Kiatkamjorn (2543). A Causal Structural Relationship Model of Factors Affecting Leadership of Deans in State Universities under the Jurisdiction of Ministry of University Affairs. PH.D. Dissertation on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
21) Luanglue Wattana. 1995. An Analysis of Efficiency Indicators of Thai University Council. PH.D. Dissertation on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
22) N.F. Dufty. (1982). Members' Views on Their Staff Association and Its Role in the Decision Structure. Journal of Educational Administration. 20(2) : 200–212.
23) Nada K. Kakabadse, Andrew P. Kakabadse. (2007). Chairman of the board: demographics effects on role pursuit. Journal of Management Development. 26(2) : 169–192.
24) Nancy R Axelrod. (2005). In the Boardroom. Culture Counts. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship (May-Jun 2005). 13(3). Papalia, D. D., & Olds, S. W. 1985. Psychology. New York. McGraw-Hill.
25) Panich Vijarn. (2008). University Council. [Online]. Available : http://gotoknow.org/blog/council
26) Panich Vijarn. (2008). Research Summary of Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) in the United Kingdom on the Operation Guidelines of University Council Members in the United Kingdom. [Online]. Available: http://gotoknow.org/blog/council/163502
27) Phranakhon Rajabhat University. (2007). Roles of Thai University Council. International Conference on “Quality Supervision of Universities” 22-23 June 2007. 139-147)
28) Pianthanyakorn Sanor. (1988). An analysis of Administrative Structures of Thai Tertiary Education. Master’s Thesis on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
29) Robert L. Katz. (1989). Skill of Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review 33
30) Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, Barbara E. Taylor. (2005), Governance as Leadership. Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., 132. (January – February 1989), 33 – 42.
31) Schermerhorn, John R, Jr., Hunt, James G., Osborn, Richard N. (1997). Organizational Behavior. 6 th ed. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
32) Steve O. Michael, Michael Schwartz. (1999). Perceived role of trustees: A study of higher education institutions in Ohio. Journal of Educational Administration. 37(2) : 165–183.
33) William G. Tierney, Adrianna Kezar, and James T. Minor. (2008). Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). [online]. Available : http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/documents/publications/selection.pdf
34) Wilson, E. B. (2005). The Learning Curve of Trusteeship Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship. (Jan-Feb 2005) 13(1).
35) Zwingle, J.L. (1970). Governing Boards In Knowles. Asa S. (ed.) Handbook of Colleg and University Administration. PP. 2-3-2-80. New York : McGraw-Hill.
2) Adrianna Kezar, William G. Tierney. (2008). Assessing Public Board Performance. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). [online]. Available : http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/documents/publications/Performance.pdf
3) Adrianna Kezar, William G. Tierney. (2006). 7 Elements of Effective Public-Sector Boards. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship. (Nov-Dec 2006) 14(6) : 4.
4) AGB Statement on Board Accountability. (2007). Adopted by the AGB Board of Directors, January 17, 2007, p.10 http://www.agb.org
5) Anthony Baker. (2006). An Australian Perspective on University Governance. Thai-Australian Workshop on University Governance Bangkok, 22-23 June 2006.
6) Barbara E. Taylor. (1987). Working Effectively with Trustees: Building Cooperative Campus Leadership. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2.
7) Barbara E. Taylor. (1988). Working With Trustees. ERIC Digest. Carman, Harry J. (1962). Boards of Trustees and Regents. In Burns, Gerald P.(ed.). Administrators in Higher Education. PP. 79-110. New York : Harper & Row Publishers.
8) Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). (2006). The Role of Boards in College Access Programs: Creating and Maintaining Quality. University of Southern California. [online]. Available :
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/28/06/d2.pdf
9) Chawalit Putthawongs. (1981). Characteristics of University Boards of Trustees in Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis of Indiana University.
10) Cindra J. Smith. (2008). Trustee Handbook. Community College League of California.
11) Clark Marshall Egnor. (2001). Governance of a private Japanese university before and after the 1998 University Council reforms. West Virginia University
12) Committee of University Chairmen (CUC). 2004. Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK. HEFCE BRISTOL QD.
13) Dalat Ward, Yaprak. (2007). The governance roles of Turkish public university presidents based on the Cohen and March model of governance roles. Ed.D. Thesis of Sam Houston State University.
14) Dennis L. Payette. (2001). Fiduciary Responsibility of Board Trustees and Officers in Universities and Colleges. Journal of Corporate Governance. 1(4) : 12-19.
15) Egnor, Clark Marshall. (2001). Governance of a private Japanese university before and after the 1998 University Council reforms. Ed.D. Thesis of West Virginia University.
16) Ingrid Moses. (2006). Global Trends in University Governance. Thai-Australian Workshop on University Governance Bangkok. 22-23 June 2006.
17) James C. Hearn, Michael K. McLendon, and Leigh Z. Gilchrist. (2004). Governing in the Sunshine : Open Meetings, Open Records, and Effective Governance in Public Higher Education. [online]. Available :
http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/Sunshine%20Final%20Report%20040415.pdf
18) John Fielden. (2008). Global Trends in University Governance. Washington, D.C. The World Bank.
19) Keeratikorn Krisanapong. (2007). Summary of Lecture on “Challenges of Office of Higher education Commission in Strengthening Thai Higher Education through the Development of Good Governance, Administration and Personal Enhancement”. [online]. Available :
http://www.mua.go.th/users/maytinee/Content/LaykaFlagship.htm
20) Kusol Kiatkamjorn (2543). A Causal Structural Relationship Model of Factors Affecting Leadership of Deans in State Universities under the Jurisdiction of Ministry of University Affairs. PH.D. Dissertation on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
21) Luanglue Wattana. 1995. An Analysis of Efficiency Indicators of Thai University Council. PH.D. Dissertation on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
22) N.F. Dufty. (1982). Members' Views on Their Staff Association and Its Role in the Decision Structure. Journal of Educational Administration. 20(2) : 200–212.
23) Nada K. Kakabadse, Andrew P. Kakabadse. (2007). Chairman of the board: demographics effects on role pursuit. Journal of Management Development. 26(2) : 169–192.
24) Nancy R Axelrod. (2005). In the Boardroom. Culture Counts. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship (May-Jun 2005). 13(3). Papalia, D. D., & Olds, S. W. 1985. Psychology. New York. McGraw-Hill.
25) Panich Vijarn. (2008). University Council. [Online]. Available : http://gotoknow.org/blog/council
26) Panich Vijarn. (2008). Research Summary of Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) in the United Kingdom on the Operation Guidelines of University Council Members in the United Kingdom. [Online]. Available: http://gotoknow.org/blog/council/163502
27) Phranakhon Rajabhat University. (2007). Roles of Thai University Council. International Conference on “Quality Supervision of Universities” 22-23 June 2007. 139-147)
28) Pianthanyakorn Sanor. (1988). An analysis of Administrative Structures of Thai Tertiary Education. Master’s Thesis on Education, Chulalongkorn University.
29) Robert L. Katz. (1989). Skill of Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review 33
30) Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, Barbara E. Taylor. (2005), Governance as Leadership. Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., 132. (January – February 1989), 33 – 42.
31) Schermerhorn, John R, Jr., Hunt, James G., Osborn, Richard N. (1997). Organizational Behavior. 6 th ed. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
32) Steve O. Michael, Michael Schwartz. (1999). Perceived role of trustees: A study of higher education institutions in Ohio. Journal of Educational Administration. 37(2) : 165–183.
33) William G. Tierney, Adrianna Kezar, and James T. Minor. (2008). Selection and Appointment of Trustees to Public College and University Boards. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). [online]. Available : http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/documents/publications/selection.pdf
34) Wilson, E. B. (2005). The Learning Curve of Trusteeship Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Trusteeship. (Jan-Feb 2005) 13(1).
35) Zwingle, J.L. (1970). Governing Boards In Knowles. Asa S. (ed.) Handbook of Colleg and University Administration. PP. 2-3-2-80. New York : McGraw-Hill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)