Efficiency and effectiveness of high impact social responsibility projects, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Main Article Content

Sreshthaputra, S.
Prapatigul, P.
Phayakka, N.

Abstract

The research findings revealed that for overall performance, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in implementation, the project recipients allocated a weighted score of 74.35% (high performance). Project efficiency was equated to weighted score of 48.88%, while for overall project effectiveness weighted score was 25.47%. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of the social responsibility project classification were considered according to the grouping of teaching and learning disciplines of Chiang Mai University, the Health Science exhibited the weighted score (overall performance) of 82.50% (high performance level), followed by Science and Technology with a weighted score of 71.25% (high performance level), while the Humanities and Social Sciences exhibited a weighted score of 66.65% (moderate performance level). The service recipients experienced a high level of satisfaction in the work process and a good perception of the projects. They get benefit from the projects in terms of health, the environment, and cost-effectiveness. These results aligned with the university’s aim of bringing knowledge readily available within the university to solve upstream, midstream, and downstream problems in response to improve the livelihoods of people in the area. The project achieved to be a high level of productivity and outcome according to the objectives of the university’s social responsibility project

Article Details

How to Cite
Sreshthaputra, S., Prapatigul, P., & Phayakka, N. (2022). Efficiency and effectiveness of high impact social responsibility projects, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 18(6), 2633–2644. retrieved from https://li04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJAT/article/view/9024
Section
Original Study

References

Acosta, P. A., Almeida, R., Gindling, T. and Lao Peña, C. (2017). Selected Institutional and Governance Arrangements in the Social Sectors. Directions in Development. World Bank Group, pp. 69-98.

Alia, M., Mustaphab, I., Osmanc, S. and Hassand, U. (2021). University social responsibility: A review of conceptual evolution and its thematic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0959652620349751.

Boon-long, P., Kaewthep, K. and Papasratorn, B. (2016). Socially Engaged Scholarship: Concept and Method. 2nd ed. Knowledge Network Institute Thailand, Bangkok, pp.15-18.

Coelho, M. and Menezes. I. (2021). University Social Responsibility, Service Learning, and Students' Personal, Professional, and Civic Education. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617300/full

Jena, A. and Chander. M. (2017). Improving Livestock Services Delivery by Mobile Veterinary Units in Odisha. Journal of Extension Education, 29:5857-5863.

Julphunthong, P., Duangtip, S., Putthaprasert, C. and Panaraj, Y. (2014). The Strategic Development of Academic Services for the Community of Rajabhat Universities in the Lower Northern Region. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 16:40-53.

Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2016). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation. American Society for Training & Development. Alexandria, United States, pp.38-48.

Laoopugsin, S. and Pochakaparipan, J. (2018). Socially-engaged Scholarship Project: Case Study of Saintlouis College. Mahajula Academic Journal, 5:91-104.

María-Jesús Alonso-Nuez, Miguel-Ángel Cañete-Lairla, Miguel-Ángel García-Madurga, Ana-Isabel Gil-Lacruz, Marta Gil-Lacruz, Jorge Rosell-Martínez and Isabel Saz-Gil. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and workplace health promotion: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology Journal. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1011879/full.

Mingchai, C. (2021) Socially engaged Scholarship: A Systemic Approach and Academic Benefits. Area Based Development Research Journal, 13:296-309.

Naidu, J. Y. N., Philip, H., Asokhan, M., Balasubramanian, R. and Duraisamy, M. R. (2016). Constraints Faced by Stakeholders under Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA). Journal of Extension Education, 28:5768-5774.

Rodprasert, P. (2002). Project Management. Natikul Press, Bangkok, pp. 29-30.

Sakhunkhu, S., Suwansopha, D., Sombun, K., Sarnklong, S. and Ngaonoi, C. (2016). Lesson to Learning for sustainable community development. Case study: Ban Na Chuek, Sakon Nakhon Province. RMUTL Journal of Socially Engaged Scholarship, 1:7-16.

Sukloy, T. and Mungkung, N. (2006). Factor affecting community’s participation in forest resource conservation: Klongsai village, Wang Nam Khiao sub-district, Wang Nam Khiao district, Nakhon Ratchasima province. Applied Economics Journal, 13:15-26.