An analysis of educational technology policy: Assessment and implementation factors in the Thailand Information Technology Campus project

The purpose of this study is to analyze policy implementation during the first year of the Information Technology Campus (IT Campus) project in Thailand. The policies for the IT Campus project are intended to expand the reach of traditional academic institutions throughout Thailand.; This study applies Mazamanian and Sabatier's (1989) conceptual framework of the policy implementation process to assess qualitatively the first phase of the IT Campus. Elite interviews regarding education technology policy were conducted with 37 respondents, including the minister, the permanent secretary, and various other officials of the Ministry of University Affairs; the deputy director of the National Electronic and Computer Technology Center; seven university presidents; 11 vice presidents; and several college deans, associate deans, and directors of academic computing.; Policy that seems impressive in theory often fails during practical application. There is no time when this is more apparent than during the policy implementation stage. This study is therefore guided by two primary research questions. First, how was the IT Campus project policy formulated? Second, to what extent has the policy been successfully manifested during the implementation stage? This study investigates the policy creation process pertaining to information technology campuses in Thailand. It also evaluates the degree of success regarding the three national Thai policies designed to implement the use of information technology within academic institutions. Important issues to be examined include those of ambiguous policy development, specific project outcomes, and the relationships between policymakers and policy implementors.; The results of this study show that the effectiveness of policy implementation was hampered by policy ambiguity and led to delays in funding allocation. This situation was further compounded by frequent changes of top governmental policymakers, which in turn led to a breakdown in communication and a lack of cooperation between the Ministry of University Affairs and the participating universities. Recommendations include clarity of the policy directives, decentralized funding, and cooperation among participating agencies as well as commitment of leaderships.