Introduction

In an increasingly interconnected world, aligning education systems with labor market needs is critical for fostering sustainable career development. Quality assurance (QA) processes in education are crucial tools for ensuring that education is effective and meets standards, particularly enhancing the effectiveness of educational programs in career development and work-integrated learning (WIL). Thailand and Latvia, despite their cultural and economic differences, share common challenges and opportunities in aligning educational practices with labor market demands.

Objective

This study aims to compare and analyze QA and Quality Culture systems in career development and WIL in Thailand and Latvia.

Research Questions

Q1) What are the key similarities and differences between the QA systems for career development and WIL in Thailand and Latvia?

Q2) How do Thailand and Latvia integrate quality culture into their QA systems for career development and WIL?

Q3) What roles do stakeholders play in shaping the QA and quality culture systems for career development and WIL in each country?

Q4) How do contextual factors such as economic, cultural, and educational frameworks influence QA and quality culture in career development and WIL in Thailand and Latvia?

Theoretical Framework

This research is grounded in the principles of Quality Assurance Theory, which emphasizes continuous improvement, stakeholder involvement, and accountability in education (Tetteh et al., 2021). Quality assurance in career development and WIL is not merely a compliance activity but a transformative process to bridge the gap between academic learning and practical skills(Khampirat & McRae, 2016). Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb & Kolb, 2022) demonstrates the importance of integrating concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation in effective learning environments. The cooperation between QA processes and experiential learning ensures that WIL programs produce graduates with skills, knowledge, abilities, and behaviors consistent with employer expectations in the digital age.

Background and Context

In Thailand, the rapid industrialization and expansion of its service sector have necessitated robust QA frameworks to ensure that educational institutions produce graduates with the skills employers require (Khampirat, 2021). The Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd) is a cornerstone of these efforts, emphasizing learning outcomes and stakeholder engagement (Khampirat et al., 2020). Similarly, Latvia, as a member of the European Union, adheres to the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), which advocates for a student-centered approach and external QA reviews (Academic Information Centre, 2019).

Despite these frameworks, both countries face challenges in fully integrating WIL into their QA systems. In Thailand, the diversity of industries and regional disparities in skills and socioeconomic status lead to uneven implementation of WIL programs (Vandeweyer et al., 2021). Conversely, Latvia’s relatively compact economy and emigration trends pose challenges for sustaining partnerships between educational institutions and employers (Hazans, 2019). This comparative research study focuses on QA systems and quality culture in these contexts.

Methodology This study employs document analysis to investigate quality assurance (QA) and quality culture systems in education and training for career development and work-integrated learning (WIL) in Thailand and Latvia. Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing and evaluating documents, which provides a rich source of data and allows for an in-depth understanding of the structures, policies, and practices underpinning QA systems. The study began with collecting, sorting, and identifying policy documents and then selected representative policy documents for comparative content analysis. Data Collection The study collected data on publicly available documents, including national and institutional QA frameworks, policy reports, accreditation guidelines, and relevant legislation. The data were selected based on availability criteria. Key sources in Thailand include the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd) and publications from the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). The TQF: HEd emphasizes learning outcomes, competency-based education, and alignment with industry needs, reflecting global trends in quality assurance. Publications from OHEC provide detailed guidelines on implementing QA practices, including standards for program accreditation and mechanisms for external quality audits, which have been the focus of several prior studies (Khampirat et al., 2020). For Latvia, the primary documents analyzed include the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and reports from the Academic Information Centre (AIC), which oversees QA in higher education. The ESG, widely regarded as a benchmark for QA in Europe, emphasizes transparency, stakeholder engagement, and a student-centered approach (Alzafari & Ursin, 2019). Previous research by Westerheijden and Kohoutek (2014) highlights how the implementation of ESG, which is part of the Bologna process in EU and Latvia, has fostered collaboration between higher education institutions and employers, particularly in the context of WIL. Additionally, AIC reports provide valuable insights into the challenges and successes of QA practices, including the adoption of innovative approaches such as digital accreditation processes. Analytical Approach The analysis follows a thematic approach. This qualitative approach emphasizes identifying, organizing, and interpreting key themes within a structured framework (Nowell et al., 2017). The documents are systematically reviewed to identify recurring themes, patterns, and discrepancies in QA practices related to career development and WIL. Key themes include stakeholder engagement, alignment with labor market needs, integration of WIL into curricula, and mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. The analysis also considers contextual factors, such as economic and cultural differences.

Thailand Thailand emphasizes practical training through structured WIL models to ensure students gain industry-relevant skills. The Dual Vocational Education (DVE) model alternates classroom learning with industry-based training, managed by the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC), ensuring students acquire hands-on experience alongside academic instruction (OVEC, 2025). Many universities implement Cooperative and Work-Integrated Education (CWIE) Programs, where students undertake internships in collaboration with industry partners. Entrepreneurship education is another focus area, equipping students with essential skills to start and manage businesses. Accredited by national bodies, these programs emphasize innovation and market relevance. QA systems include internal and external systems, utilizing employer feedback, student evaluations, and program reviews to uphold high standards. External audits by agencies like ONESQA, Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (EdPEx), and AUN-QA (Khampirat et al., 2020). Latvia Latvia’s WIL model integrates EU standards and national priorities to create a cohesive framework for career development. Work-based learning (WBL) programs, overseen by the Ministry of Education and Science, combine structured workplace training with academic learning (Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia, 2025). The European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) framework aligns Latvia’s vocational education system with EU standards, promoting quality through self-assessments, peer reviews, and stakeholder consultations (European Commission, 2025a). Performance metrics and measurements, such as employment rates, employer satisfaction, and curriculum relevance, are used to guide continuous improvement in programs (Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Regular accreditation and monitoring by national agencies evaluate teaching methods, industry partnerships, and student outcomes (Volkova & Lancmane, 2019). EU funding, facilitated through the European Social Fund (ESF) and Erasmus+ programs, supports social inclusion, employment, education and training, reduces skills shortages, and enhances Latvia’s capacity for innovation and international benchmarking (European Commission, 2025b).

Academic Information Centre. (2019). Development of higher education quality assurance system in Latvia. https://www.aika.lv/en/aika-about/development-of-higher-education-quality-assurance-system-in-latvia/ Alzafari, K., & Ursin, J. (2019). Implementation of quality assurance standards in European higher education: does context matter? Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1578069 European Commission. (2025a). EQAVET - European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training. European Commission. https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/skills-and-qualifications/working-together/eqavet-european-quality-assurance-vocational-education-and-training_en European Commission. (2025b). The ESF+ in Latvia. European Commission. https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/support-your-country/esf-latvia Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003 Hazans, M. (2019). Emigration from Latvia: A Brief History and Driving Forces in the Twenty-First Century. In R. Kaša & I. Mieriņa (Eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics (pp. 35-68). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_3 Khampirat, B. (2021). The Impact of work-integrated learning and learning strategies on engineering students’ learning outcomes in Thailand: A multiple mediation model of learning experiences and psychological factors. IEEE Access, 9, 111390-111406. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055620 Khampirat, B., Hastindra Na Ayudhaya, N., & Bamrungsin, P. (2020). Pedagogy and quality assurance in Thai higher education institutions. In H. Flavian (Ed.), From pedagogy to quality assurance in education: An international perspective (pp. 129-153). Emerald. Khampirat, B., & McRae, N. (2016). Developing global standards framework and quality integrated models for cooperative and work-integrated education programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 17(4), 349-362. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2022). Experiential Learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.46787/elthe.v1i1.3362 Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia. (2025). Education. https://www.izm.gov.lv/en/education-0 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 OVEC. (2025). Vision and Mission. OVEC. https://vec.go.th/Engishpage/VisionandMission.aspx Tetteh, G. A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Twumasi, J. (2021). Developing a quality assurance identity in a university: A grounded theory approach. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(2/3), 238-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0141 Volkova, T., & Lancmane, L. (2019). Higher education quality assurance system in Latvia. The Journal of Quality in Education, 9(14), 12. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v9i14.194 Westerheijden, D. F., & Kohoutek, J. (2014). Implementation and translation: From European standards and guidelines for quality assurance to education quality work in higher education institutions. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education (pp. 1-11). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-494-9