Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Systemic and Climate Diversity in Ontario’s University Sector
By
Pierre Gilles Piché
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
©Copyright by Pierre Gilles Piché (2014)
ii
Systemic and Climate Diversity in Ontario’s University Sector
Pierre Gilles Piché
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education
University of Toronto
2014
ABSTRACT
The extent and nature of institutional differentiation is a design choice among many
that must be considered by policymakers not only when developing a higher education
system but also when introducing policy changes to an existing system. Modifications to
the design of Ontario’s higher education system have been suggested over the years in an
effort to increase its quality (instruction and research) and accessibility in a cost effective
manner. The fiscal climate of restraint has recently intensified the debate for structural
changes through increased institutional differentiation in Ontario’s higher education system.
Institutional diversity was examined using a mixed research method in two phases.
This study first used hierarchical cluster analysis which suggested that there has been very
little change in diversity between 1994 and 2010 as universities were clustered in three
groups for both 1994 and 2010. However, by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix
methodology to Ontario’s university sector, there appears to have been a decrease in
systemic diversity (differences in the type of institution and size of institution) and climate
diversity (differences in campus environment and culture) between 1994 and 2010 and a
projected further decrease to 2018.
iii
The second phase of this study used policy analysis and drew on mutually related
theoretical perspectives from organizational theory as its primary conceptual framework to
interpret and corroborate the decrease in diversity between 1994 and 2010. Interviews were
also conducted with university presidents to gain a greater understanding of the key factors
or barriers in Ontario’s reticence in proposing design changes in its higher education system.
Having been informed by the policy analysis, interviews and projections of the extent of
diversity to 2018, the study proposed a diversity policy for Ontario’s university sector.
Diversity can be increased in Ontario’s university sector by providing institutions
with competitive incremental funding allocations within each of three clusters that would
specifically address government diversity objectives through a revised strategic mandate
agreement process. Additional research funding should also be provided by the federal
government to a limited number of research-intensive universities to ensure that Canadian
institutions remain competitive on the world stage.
iv
DEDICATION To MICHAEL C. CROCK (1965-2012) - You shared so many of my successes my friend! You were always there for me.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I was motivated to embark on this doctoral journey after completing my final paper
for Professor Michael Skolnik’s Institutional Differentiation course. Professor Skolnik’s
kind words inspired me to use his class paper as the foundation for this project and marked
the beginning of my transformative journey.
I would first like to acknowledge and thank the members of my thesis committee:
my supervisor Professor Glen Jones, for his valuable guidance, direction and thoughtful
advice; Professor Michael Skolnik who provided thought-provoking suggestions that
contributed to the overall quality of this dissertation; and Dr. Stacey Young who challenged
me to think through the many policy issues. I would also like to thank Professor Fallis, who
kindly agreed to be my external reviewer, for all of his thoughtful comments.
I would also like to acknowledge my direct report, Ms. Sheila Brown, Chief
Financial Officer at the University of Toronto, for her many words of encouragement while
I was undertaking my Master’s and PhD studies, and for providing me with flexible work
arrangements that allowed me to immerse myself in this rewarding student experience.
I also owe a large debt of gratitude to my peers, Dr. Patricia Gaviria and Mr. Jack
Lee, for sharing their experiences and wisdom as they progressed through their own doctoral
journey. Thank you both for listening when I dominated many of our conversations.
My doctoral journey could not have been completed without the patience, support
and understanding of my partner Louis Giofcos, who always encourages me to follow my
passion for higher education administration and lifelong learning.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the participants
who were interviewed for this study. I valued each and every one of your contributions and
insights into Ontario’s higher education landscape.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Thesis outline ....................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Ontario’s higher education sector ................................................................... 2
Policy debate about diversity in Ontario .............................................................................. 4
Report of the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario (Fisher Committee)........................................................................................................................ 5
Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario (Bovey Commission) ..................................................................................................................... 6
Ontario Council on University Affairs – Sustaining Quality in Changing Times, Funding Ontario Universities ........................................................................................... 8
Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education ............................... 9
Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act .................................................. 11
Ontario: A Leader in Learning ....................................................................................... 12
The Benefits of Greater Differentiation of Ontario’s University Sector ........................ 14
Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (Drummond Report) ............. 18
University group and alliances....................................................................................... 21
Rationale for the study ....................................................................................................... 23
Research questions ............................................................................................................. 30
Limitations of the study...................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 31
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 31
Diversity, diversification and differentiation defined ........................................................ 31
Neo-liberal political framework ......................................................................................... 34
vii
Policy instruments and design ............................................................................................ 37
Theoretical frames used to explain differentiation and diversity in higher education systems ............................................................................................................................... 38
Classification and typologies in higher education.............................................................. 45
Classification of higher education systems or sectors.................................................... 46
Classification of higher education institutions ............................................................... 47
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 54
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 54
Quantitative methodology .................................................................................................. 55
Defining the university sector in Ontario ........................................................................... 60
Operationalization of the variables – Systemic diversity ................................................... 64
Institutional size .............................................................................................................. 64
Classifying institutions by type ....................................................................................... 66
Operationalization of the variables – Climate diversity ..................................................... 69
Enrolment profile ............................................................................................................ 69
Undergraduate profile .................................................................................................... 71
Student-faculty contact ................................................................................................... 72
Qualitative methodology .................................................................................................... 73
Selection of participants ................................................................................................. 74
Data collection ............................................................................................................... 75
Limitations of qualitative methodology .......................................................................... 77
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER IV: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................ 78
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 78
Hierarchical cluster analysis............................................................................................... 78
Diversity matrix analysis .................................................................................................... 81
Distribution of institutions by variable ........................................................................... 83
Categorization of institutions into types ......................................................................... 88
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER V: FEDERAL POLICY ENVIRONMENT .................................................. 94
viii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 94
Ontario’s environmental conditions ................................................................................... 95
Federal government policies .............................................................................................. 97
National granting councils ............................................................................................. 98
Canada Research Chairs Program .............................................................................. 103
Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program ............................................................ 105
Knowledge Infrastructure Program ............................................................................. 107
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 109
CHAPTER VI: PROVINCIAL POLICY ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 110
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 110
Provincial government policies ........................................................................................ 110
Basic operating formula grant ..................................................................................... 112
Tuition fees ................................................................................................................... 116
Capital funding ............................................................................................................. 119
Capital Renewal Program ............................................................................................ 122
Research infrastructure funding ................................................................................... 123
Endowment matching programs ................................................................................... 125
Graduate enrolment expansion .................................................................................... 128
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 140
CHAPTER VII - MOVING FORWARD: DIVERSITY AND THE STRATEGIC MANDATE AGREEMENTS ........................................................................................... 142
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 142
Strategic Mandate Agreement process ............................................................................. 143
Strategic Mandate Agreements ..................................................................................... 145
Algoma University ........................................................................................................ 145
Brock University ........................................................................................................... 146
Carleton University ...................................................................................................... 146
University of Guelph ..................................................................................................... 147
Lakehead University ..................................................................................................... 147
Laurentian University ................................................................................................... 148
McMaster University .................................................................................................... 149
ix
Nipissing University ..................................................................................................... 149
OCAD University .......................................................................................................... 150
University of Ontario Institute of Technology .............................................................. 151
University of Ottawa ..................................................................................................... 151
Queen’s University ....................................................................................................... 152
Ryerson University ....................................................................................................... 152
University of Toronto.................................................................................................... 153
Trent University ............................................................................................................ 154
University of Waterloo.................................................................................................. 154
The University of Western Ontario ............................................................................... 155
Wilfrid Laurier University ............................................................................................ 155
University of Windsor ................................................................................................... 156
York University ............................................................................................................. 157
Categorization of institutions into types........................................................................... 160
Systemic diversity ............................................................................................................ 160
Climate diversity .............................................................................................................. 162
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 164
CHAPTER VIII – DIVERSITY – AVIEW FROM THE TOP ..................................... 165
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 165
Diversity – A cherished value .......................................................................................... 165
Dimensions of diversity ................................................................................................... 167
Provincial government levers that promote diversity ...................................................... 168
Funding formula and tuition fees ................................................................................. 169
Strategic Mandate Agreements ..................................................................................... 172
Teaching-focused baccalaureate granting institutions ................................................ 173
Open University ............................................................................................................ 175
Private University ......................................................................................................... 175
Federal government levers that promote diversity ........................................................... 176
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 177
CHAPTER IX – CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 178
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 178
x
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 179
Historical and environmental context .............................................................................. 180
Change in systemic and climate diversity between 1994 and 2010 ................................. 181
Change in systemic and climate diversity between 2010 and 2018 ................................. 182
Factors promoting or hindering processes of diversification or differentiation ............... 183
Federal government ...................................................................................................... 183
Provincial government ................................................................................................. 184
Interviews...................................................................................................................... 185
Policy implications for Ontario’s university sector.......................................................... 185
Suggested Provincial policy to increase diversity ........................................................ 186
Suggested Federal policy to increase diversity ............................................................ 189
Limitations of the study.................................................................................................... 189
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 189
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 191
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 204
xi
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Universities by Region and Type............................................................................. 3 Table 2 – Full-time Equivalent (FTE) university enrolment in Ontario ................................ 27 Table 3 – Revenue Sources as a Percentage of Total Revenue ............................................. 28 Table 4 – Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching Basic Classification
Categories ............................................................................................................ 48 Table 5 – The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions ............................. 50 Table 6 – Institutions included in the 1994 and 2010 Ontario university sector ................... 61 Table 7 – Negative effects of institutional size ...................................................................... 65 Table 8 – Classification of Ontario Universities under the Adjusted Carnegie and Maclean’s
Classification Methodology ................................................................................. 67 Table 9 – Number of institutions by category - Adjusted Carnegie and Maclean’s
Classification Methodology ................................................................................. 68 Table 10 – Raw Score Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................... 79 Table 11 – Categorization by Size and Type ......................................................................... 82 Table 12 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact ................... 83 Table 13 – Ontario Institutions by Size ................................................................................. 84 Table 14 – Ontario Institutions by Type ................................................................................ 85 Table 15 – Ontario Institutions by Enrolment Profile ........................................................... 86 Table 16 – Ontario Institutions by Undergraduate Profile..................................................... 87 Table 17 – Ontario Institutions by Level of Student/Faculty Contact ................................... 88 Table 18 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity .................................... 89 Table 19 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity .................. 89 Table 20 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Climate Diversity ...................................... 91 Table 21 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity .................... 92 Table 22 – Summary of Federal Programs and Related Impact on Institutional
Diversification or Convergence ........................................................................... 98 Table 23 – Comparison of Funding Provided by National Granting Councils by Institution99 Table 24 – Comparison of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Funding by
Institution ........................................................................................................... 100 Table 25 – Comparison of Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Funding by
Institution ........................................................................................................... 101 Table 26 – Comparison of Medical Research Council (1994) and Canadian Institute for
Health Research (2010) Funding by Institution ................................................. 102 Table 27 – Comparison of Chairs Awarded by Institution .................................................. 104 Table 28 – Canada Excellence Research Chairs Awarded by Institution ............................ 106 Table 29 – Knowledge Infrastructure Program Contributions by Ontario University ........ 108 Table 30- Summary by Provincial Program and Related Impact on Institutional
Diversification or Convergence ......................................................................... 112 Table 31 – Other MTCU Grants as a Percentage of Basic Formula Grants ........................ 115 Table 32 – Tuition revenue by Institution............................................................................ 117 Table 33 – SuperBuild Program Allocations by Institution................................................. 121 Table 34 – Capital Renewal Allocation by Institution......................................................... 122
xii
Table 35 – Research Infrastructure Funding by Institution ................................................. 124 Table 36 – Annual Ontario Trust for Student Support Funding .......................................... 126 Table 37 – Ontario Trust for Student Support Funding by Institution ................................ 128 Table 38 – Annual Graduate Expansion Funding Provided to Ontario Institutions ............ 130 Table 39 – Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total Enrolment by Institution ........... 135 Table 40 – Cumulative Change in Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates
from 2004 ........................................................................................................... 137 Table 41 – Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students by Institution .. 138 Table 42 – Master’s Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students by Institution .. 139 Table 43 – Changes in Categorization of Variables Derived from Proposed Institutional
Plans ................................................................................................................... 158 Table 44 – Categorization by Size and Type ....................................................................... 159 Table 45 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact ................. 160 Table 46 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity .................................. 161 Table 47 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity ................ 161 Table 48 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Climate Diversity .................................... 163 Table 49 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity .................. 163
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Dendogram of Ontario Universities ..................................................................... 80 Figure 2 – Dendogram of Ontario Universities ..................................................................... 81 Figure 3 - Cumulative Change (Less Than 2%) in Graduate Students as a Percentage of
Total Students - Fall Headcount from 2000-01 by Institution ........................... 133 Figure 4 - Cumulative Change (More Than 2%) in Graduate Students as a Percentage of
Total Students - Fall Headcount from 2000-01 by Institution ........................... 134
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Enrolment and Faculty data - 1994 ............................................................... 204 Appendix 2 – Enrolment and Faculty data - 2010 ............................................................... 205 Appendix 3 – Undergraduate and Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year ............. 206 Appendix 4 – Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year ...... 207 Appendix 5 – Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Students per Year .................... 208 Appendix 6 – Full-time and Part-time Master’s Students – Fall Headcounts per Year ...... 209 Appendix 7 – Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students – Fall Headcounts per Year ...... 210 Appendix 8 – Master’s Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts ... 211 Appendix 9 – Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts ... 212
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Modifications to the design (distribution by type of institution, location and
relationship amongst institutions) of Ontario’s higher education system have been
suggested over the years in an effort to increase its quality (instruction and research) and
accessibility in a cost effective manner. The fiscal climate of restraint has recently
intensified the debate for structural changes through increased institutional differentiation
in Ontario’s higher education system. The extent and nature of institutional
differentiation is a design choice among many that must be considered by policymakers
when developing a higher education system or when dealing with an increased number of
students and societal demands for undergraduate and graduate education. While the
worldwide process of institutional differentiation in higher education is not a new
phenomenon, it has received increased attention recently as governments seek to increase
access for a diverse student body.
Thesis outline
Institutional diversity was examined using a mixed research method in two
phases. This study first used quantitative research measures to determine the extent of
diversity in Ontario’s university sector in 1994 and 2010. More specifically, the study
determined the extent of systemic diversity (differences in the type of institution and size
of institution) and climate diversity (differences in campus environment and culture)
during 1994 and 2010 and forecasted the change in systemic and climate diversity from
2010 to 2018 by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) methodology. The second phase of this
study used policy analysis and drew on mutually related theoretical perspectives from
organizational theory as its primary conceptual framework to assist in the interpretation
and corroboration of the change in diversity between 1994 and 2010. Interviews were
conducted with internal agents to gain a greater understanding of the key factors or
barriers in Ontario’s reticence in proposing design changes in its higher education
system. Having been informed by the policy analysis, interviews and the projection of
2
the extent of systemic and climate diversity by 2018 using institutional strategic plans,
the study proposed a policy on institutional diversity for Ontario’s university sector.
Overview of Ontario’s higher education sector
Ontario’s public higher education system currently consists of 21 provincially
assisted universities and their affiliates, 24 publicly assisted Colleges of Applied Arts and
Technology, three agricultural colleges affiliated with a university, one applied health
science institute and one military college.
Ontario universities are autonomous not-for-profit corporations, each created by a
separate provincial act, which for the majority, provide them with the authority to grant
both undergraduate and graduate degrees. The province essentially has a monopoly on
degree granting by its ability to provide the right to publicly supported universities to
offer degrees through legislation. The market for degrees also includes a small number
of private colleges which rely on a combination of tuition fee income and private
donations and offer degrees with different titles than those offered by the publicly
assisted universities (Jones and Young, 2004). All universities except Algoma, the
newest university in Ontario, provide graduate programs. There are differences in
program mix offered by each university while their missions, as stated in their respective
acts, are very similar. Ontario universities operate, like those in many other countries,
within a neo-liberal political framework characterized by an increased focus on the
private benefits of higher education, the use of competition in funding allocation models
and increased accountability measures.
Colleges in Ontario are established under one act and focus mainly on vocational
education. In the year 2000, they were provided with the authority to offer applied
baccalaureate programs. “College degree granting represents 4% of college enrolment
(2011), and 2% of overall Ontario degree-level enrolment” (Hicks, Weingarten, Jonker &
Liu, 2013, p. 3). Colleges also engage in applied research in varying degrees. They also
seek to provide programs in response to their local communities. Starting in 2003, five
colleges have been further differentiated from the others by being assigned the status of
3
Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning which allows them to offer up to 15% of
their programs in applied degrees as compared to 5% for those without this status.
Using the boundaries used for Ontario’s demographic forecasts, Fallis (2013)
observed that universities are geographically distributed across the province. The
distribution speaks to Ontario’s commitment to providing postsecondary education to
every qualified student wishing to attend without having to leave their respective region.
Table 1 replicates the geographical distribution of universities by region as used by Fallis
for institutions included in this study and adds their associated institutional type.
Students in every region essentially have access to all four types of institution save for
the Southwest region which lacks a Special Purpose institution and the Northern region
which lacks a Comprehensive institution and a Medical/Doctoral institution.
Table 1 – Universities by Region and Type 2012
Southwest Central Greater Toronto East Northern
Brock Western Windsor
Guelph Laurier McMaster Waterloo Redeemer
OCAD Ryerson Toronto UOIT York
Carleton Trent Ottawa Queen’s Dominican Royal Military
Algoma Lakehead Laurentian Nipissing
Comprehensive (1) Primarily UG (1) Medical/Doctoral (1)
Comprehensive (2) Primarily UG (1) Medical/Doctoral (1) Special Purpose (1)
Comprehensive (1) Primarily UG (2) Medical/Doctoral (1) Special Purpose (1)
Comprehensive (1) Primarily UG (1) Medical/Doctoral (2) Special Purpose (2)
Primarily UG (3) Special Purpose (1)
(The number of institutions by type is noted in brackets)
While other jurisdictions were undergoing structural changes, Ontario’s higher
education sector did not follow these same trends thereby having little impact on each
sector’s institutional differentiation. Jones (2004) noted that Canadian higher education,
supported by the 1960s structural changes which included the creation of the college
sector, had already moved from elite to mass higher education. While other higher
education system level reforms were guiding what should be accomplished, little
emphasis was being placed on system or sector planning in Ontario during this period.
4
Jones also noted that the neo-liberal policy environment in Ontario’s higher education
system was not only a result of top-down government approach but was also supported
by many executive heads of universities.
Policy debate about diversity in Ontario
The following is an historical analysis of the findings and recommendations of a
number of Commissions and policy documents in an effort to summarize how the debate
about diversity in Ontario’s postsecondary sector has evolved from 1981 to present.
While the analysis starts in 1981 with the Report of the Committee on the Future Role of
Universities in Ontario as this report was the first to make the case for a more
differentiated university system, it should be acknowledged that the Commission to Study
the Development of Graduate Programmes in Ontario Universities, chaired by J.W.T.
Spinks, the then President of the University of Saskatchewan was tasked with examining
the sector's programmatic diversity as it related to "matters concerning the quality, need,
introduction and expansion of graduate education and research in Ontario" (Spinks
Commission, 1966, p. iii). The Commission recognized that there was a lack of central
planning in Ontario's university sector and recommended increased levels of co-operation
and coordination between universities in the development of graduate education and
research. It also recognized "that all provincial universities should move towards full
development of honours and master's programmes in the central disciplines (though not
necessarily in all of them!) and that doctoral programmes ought to be restricted (at any
one time) to a smaller list of institutions where adequate funds and facilities are
available" (Spinks Commission, 1966, p. 23) to ensure certain levels of excellence in a
cost effective manner. "Thus the ambitions and desires of a given institution must
sometimes be tempered by the overall requirements of society" (Spinks Commission,
1966, p. 25).
Diversity refers to the number of types of universities within Ontario’s university
sector derived from classifying universities according to one or more characteristics
and to the dispersion of universities across types at a point in time (as informed by
Huisman, 1998).
5
Since 1981, the debate about diversity in Ontario has been mostly centered on
systemic diversity (differences in the type of institution and size of institution) and
programmatic diversity (differences in degree level, mission and program emphasis) in an
effort to increase the quality of instruction and research, and to increase access to
postsecondary education in a cost effective manner by further differentiating the system.
Policy recommendations have revolved mainly around the funding model and the
strategy of tying incremental funding to performance indicators, mostly made within a
context of respecting institutional autonomy, rejecting central planning functions while
increasing competition, cooperation and collaboration amongst postsecondary
institutions.
Report of the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario (Fisher Committee)
The Fisher Committee was established in November 1980 and was chaired by
H.K. Fisher. The Committee’s terms of reference were
to develop a public statement of objectives for Ontario universities in the 1980s expressed in operational terms; to relate the cost of meeting these objectives to funding levels; to consider modifications to the funding mechanisms that would provide appropriate processes to encourage voluntary institutional adjustments and inter-institutional co-operation to meet these objectives; to define more clearly the appropriate joint roles of the individual institutions, the Council of Ontario Universities, the Ontario Council on University Affairs, and the Government of Ontario; and to recommend such other policy changes as are judged likely to improve the ability of the Ontario universities to meet the agreed upon objectives (Fisher Committee, 1981, p. 3).
The report was issued in July 1981 during a climate of fiscal restraint, enrolment growth
and when calls were being made by universities for “an autonomous, adaptive,
decentralized university system…[with] some kind of system planning” (Fisher
Committee, 1981, p. 30). The Committee noted that while additional funding was
required for universities to meet their objectives to society, which included the
strengthening of its research capacity, it was “essential to have a clearly defined role for
each institution” (Fisher Committee, 1981, p. 42).
6
The report highlighted a restructuring plan for universities should additional
funding not be made available that would have required direct government involvement.
The plans suggested that
Ontario would have one comprehensive university capable of offering a very broad range of high-quality programs at all degree levels. The province would have not more than four full-service universities offering a more restricted range of high-quality programs at all degree levels. Also, the province would have four or five special-purpose institutions, including some designated specifically to serve northern Ontario (Fisher Committee, 1981, p. 42).
This plan also suggested that some universities would have had to close while others
would have been restructured.
Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario (Bovey Commission)
The Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario was
established in January 1984 and chaired by Edmund C. Bovey two decades after the
university sector experienced its most significant growth spurt in enrolment and research
activities. The province was faced with a slowing economy that constrained its ability to
fund higher education. While universities were recognized as playing a vital role in an
increasingly knowledge-based economy and society, due to their role in developing
human capital through instruction, and at developing knowledge through research,
concerns were raised by stakeholders about the future quality of instruction and research
in an environment of fiscal constraint. There was an “urgency of reaching an
internationally competitive level of excellence in higher education and research” (Bovey
Commission, 1984, p. 5) in both basic and applied fields, as Ontario lagged behind other
Canadian jurisdictions, combined with increased adaptability to better respond to the
needs of a changing society. The objectives of excellence in teaching and research, and
adaptability therefore took precedence over further increasing enrolment in the sector
(Bovey Commission, 1984).
The Bovey Commission was charged to develop an operational plan that would
provide
7
for more clearly defined, different and distinctive roles for the universities of Ontario in order to maintain and enhance the quality of university education by ensuring the appropriate concentration of academic strengths…with a view to preserving and developing further a calibre of teaching and research of national and international excellence (Bovey Commission, 1984, p. 1).
It noted that universities were already considerably differentiated when it came to their
roles and how they discharged their missions. While all universities conducted research,
not all were “engaged heavily in those [research] activities where resource-intensiveness
is involved [but conducted] research relevant to their special interests or their regional or
metropolitan location” (p. 14). Increased differentiation was recommended “in terms of
institutional character, range and level of programs, and fields of specialization in
research would provide appropriate concentration of academic strengths and diversity of
choice for students” (Bovey Commission, 1984, pp. 13-14). While the Commission
recommended greater specialization by fields and by institutions and encouraged
institutions to find their respective niches, they insisted that all institutions provide
undergraduate programs in arts and science. The Bovey Commission rejected
the notion that universities should be formally designated by a central body as to their type, or placed in rigid categories. [A contradiction of its terms of reference] Emphasis should rather be placed upon a competitive system within which institutions are rewarded for the distinctive functions they perform and the quality of their activities and in addition are provided with the capacity to be flexible and innovative (Bovey Commission, 1984, p. 14).
The Bovey Commission (1984) suggested that greater differentiation could be
achieved by providing the required incentives and should not be achieved by a top-down
process but through a process that respects institutional autonomy. However, any process
should have “appropriate mechanisms for reconciling competing claims and aspirations
and for ensuring adequate responsiveness to provincial needs be built in both to funding
and to planning and coordinating arrangements for the system as a whole” (p. 15). It
therefore suggested increasing diversity by amending the funding formula to provide
greater financial flexibility for instruction and research. All institutions would be subject
to a funding corridor of ± 4% of base enrolment which would result in no change to an
institution’s government grant. This would allow institutions to decrease enrolment and
8
in turn, increase quality (decrease in student-faculty ratio) while freeing up resources for
research. Institutions with a three-year average of Tri-Council grants exceeding 10% of
total operating revenue would be subject to a funding corridor of ± 6% of base enrolment
while those institutions with a three-year average of Tri-Council grants exceeding 15% of
total operating revenue would be subject to a funding corridor of ± 8% of base enrolment.
This mechanism would allow institutions the freedom to reallocate resources in support
of their research and/or teaching functions (Bovey Commission, 1984).
The report was largely ignored as a new government was elected just after the
final report was released. A number of funding recommendations were implemented in
subsequent years (Task Force on Resource Allocation, 1995).
Ontario Council on University Affairs – Sustaining Quality in Changing Times, Funding Ontario Universities
In 1993, the Ontario Council on University Affairs, the university sector
intermediary body, was asked by the Minister of Education and Training to make
recommendation on improving the funding mechanism to better encourage universities
and colleges to cooperate in order to increase accessibility and when it comes to
universities, the Minister noted that:
…the depth and breadth of the Ontario university system has been recognized as one of the province’s great strengths. However, ways and means will have to be developed to ensure that scarce resources are utilized effectively; accordingly, incentives should be put in place to encourage program cooperation and restructuring. Greater differentiation and increased interdependence have the potential to increase both quality and accessibility to Ontario universities. (Letter from the Honourable Dave Cooke, Minister of Education and Training, to Professor Joy Cohnstaedt, Chair, Ontario Council on University Affairs, November 24, 1993, pp. 2-3 as quoted in Task Force on Resource Allocation, 1995, p. 73). The Ontario Council on University Affairs undertook a consultation process in
response to the Minister’s request and issued a Discussion Paper in August 1994 to
facilitate the process. There was a growing and perceived need to review the extent of
funding provided to public institutions as a result of a slowing economy, decreasing
9
provincial revenues and rising debt payments at the federal and provincial levels. Calls
were also made to increase quality, by decreasing student-faculty ratios, and to enhance
access to postsecondary education. The use of technology and more flexible scheduling
was also suggested as a means of increasing access and quality. Restructuring the system
to achieve these policy goals included rationalizing programs, reducing duplication and
“creating new free-standing institutions; new types of structures, such as open or distance
universities; and consortia of institutions which may better tailor teaching to non-
traditional students” (Ontario Council on University Affairs, 1994, p. 7).
The subsequent Discussion Paper…raised fundamental questions about the goals of Ontario universities and who should determine them, the relationship between the universities and government, [increased control over funding mechanisms would move from universities to government] and the balance of faculty effort between teaching and research,…[redistribution of resources from the research mission to accommodate more students] (Skolnik, 1995, p. 5).
The suggested system restructuring threatened “to upset the balance between academic
self-direction and government control which has existed in Ontario since the early 1960s
[as universities refused to be instruments of government policy] (Skolnik, 1995, p. 5).
By 1996, the Ontario Council on University Affairs was abolished by the
Conservative government.
Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education
In July 1996, the Minister of Education and Training appointed a panel to advise
on the future directions of postsecondary education after universities absorbed significant
reductions in government grants partially offset by increased tuition revenue. The Panel
conducted wide consultations with the public and the postsecondary sector and presented
their report, entitled Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility (1996) to the Minister in
December of that year. While its mandate focused on recommending appropriate cost
sharing arrangements between stakeholders and how to promote increased cooperation
between colleges and universities, the Panel was asked “to provide advice on what needs
to be done to meet the expected levels of demand for postsecondary education, both with
10
reference to existing public institutions and existing or proposed private institutions”
(Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, 1996, p. 1).
The Panel believed that Ontario’s postsecondary structure was sound and did not
require significant design changes. Its recommendations were focused on three themes,
as suggested in the report’s title, on excellence in teaching and research, and increased
accessibility for learners within a framework of shared responsibility. The Panel noted
that this can only be achieved if universities remain autonomous and operate in a less
regulated environment, with accountability through their governing boards, with the
following characteristics:
permit the emergence of differentiation in strengths among colleges and universities in order that the multiple purposes of the postsecondary education sector can best be attained...institutions concentrating on producing the highest quality in the particular functions in which they are specializing…performance should be assessed against standards for the full range of institutions, from research-intensive universities competing internationally to institutions focused on preparing students for vocations in local communities (Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, 1996, p. 3). The Panel noted that they valued quality above all other values. “The servant of
quality is specialization, requiring differentiation among our institutions” (Excellence,
Accessibility, Responsibility, 1996, p. 13). Differentiation should be achieved by
allowing postsecondary institutions the autonomy to experiment and determine how they
will use their resources and in what areas. Institutions should not be constrained by
legislation or by central planning mechanisms. However, there must “be a much stronger
willingness on the part of institutions, both across the binary divide, as well as outside the
postsecondary sector, to cooperate and collaborate, in joint planning, in credit transfers
and in creative partnerships” (Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, 1996, p. 13).
The Panel also determined that there was a limited role to be played in the
postsecondary education sector for privately funded universities. They recognized that
while the Degree Granting Act, 1983 provides that degree-granting institutions can only
be created by Provincial Legislature, government policy did not support the creation of
11
privately-funded universities due in part to its desire to have an exclusively public
system. The Panel recommended
the extension of secular degree-granting powers to institutions currently offering non-secular or restricted degrees…[and] the establishment of privately financed, not-for-profit, university-level secular degree-granting institutions in Ontario could be approved in special cases where appropriate governance structures, high academic quality and financial viability can be assured, at standards that will not devalue the reputation of an Ontario degree (Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, 1996, p. 57).
The Panel rejected giving authority to grant degrees to for-profit universities.
Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act
With the introduction of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence
Act, 2000, (the Act), which replaced the Degree Granting Act, 1983, the Province of
Ontario attempted to diversify the production of baccalaureate degrees by allowing
institutions, including out-of-province institutions wishing to offer a program or part of a
program leading to a degree to obtain prior consent from the Minister. Prior to January 1,
2012, applications to offer degrees were referred to the Post-secondary Education Quality
Assessment Board (PEQAB) for an assessment and for a recommendation to the
Minister. Effective January 1, 2012, the Act was amended where applications for consent
can be referred to PEQAB or another accrediting or quality assurance body, or the
Minster can reject the application without referral. Consent, if granted, is provided for a
specified time period. The university sector in Ontario does not require consent from the
Minister to offer degrees as they derive this authority from their respective charter. Clark,
Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009), observed that the Act is a barrier for market forces to
effectively meet the needs of consumers that are not being fully met by current
baccalaureate degree providers due to the stringent control over degree granting activity
in Ontario. Skolnik (2012) noted that the Act also limits Ontario’s colleges to offering
baccalaureate degree programs in applied fields of study. He argued that governments in
other jurisdictions encouraged colleges to award baccalaureate degrees because of the
belief that it provides programs more directly linked to current occupations, is a more
economical alternative to the traditional research-oriented universities, provides greater
12
geographical accessibility and greater access to a different population (older, low income,
minority, new immigrant) served by traditional universities and provides clear pathways
for those who completed a diploma or an associate degree in a college program.
A review of completed applications since the year 2000 to present revealed that
few institutions outside of existing Ontario institutions seek to offer degrees in Ontario.
The notable exception would be Charles Sturt University, the first foreign university to
offer courses in education leading to a degree at its Burlington campus. It offers a
Bachelor of Primary Education Studies, a Bachelor of Early Childhood Studies and a
Master of International Education (School Leadership). Charles Sturt University was
denied consent to offer a Bachelor of Secondary Education Studies program. The
Minister noted in his letter dated June 7, 2010, that such a program would not be in the
best public interest after considering “the opportunities or lack of opportunities for
employment by teacher education program graduates…that existing teacher education
programs in Ontario, public and private, will provide sufficient supply of teacher
graduates to meet Ontario’s anticipated teacher demand” (Ministry of Training, Colleges
and Universities, 2010, p. 1).
Ontario: A Leader in Learning
In June 2004, the Ontario government, under the Liberal leadership of Premier
McGuinty, requested the Honorable Bob Rae, former NDP Premier of Ontario to
undertake a review of the public post-secondary education system and provide
recommendations on the funding and design of the system that could be incorporated in
the 2005 Provincial Budget. The review focused on how to increase access to
postsecondary education, improve quality and accountability, and consider the adequacy
of the system’s design and structure to meet future needs.
Rae’s report recommended significant increases in provincial funding, in an effort
to increase participation and to improve quality, but it also included a number of
endogenous reforms in support of the continued neo-liberalization of Ontario’s higher
education system. Some examples included recommending that post-secondary
13
institutions focus on satisfying the need for human capital (a focus on the production of a
skilled workforce for the knowledge-based economy instead of calling for universal
learning), recognized the private benefits (as opposed to public benefits) of post-
secondary education and therefore recommended full tuition deregulation, suggested that
graduate expansion be achieved on a proposal (competitive) basis to address faculty
shortages and reduce productivity gaps and recommended the establishment of a council
to monitor and evaluate quality and greater system performance (Rae, 2005).
With respect to institutional differentiation, he encouraged the promotion of
differentiation “through the tuition framework, accountability arrangements and the
design of the province’s funding formula” (Rae, 2005, p. 41) in order to eliminate
unwarranted duplication. Rae (2005) rejected the need for central planning and instead
chose “to reconcile three objectives: institutional independence and diversity, the need for
greater co-ordination and clearer pathways for students, and accountability to the public”
(p. 13).
The report did not provide a clear definition of differentiation and therefore one
can only suspect that he speaks of increased systemic and/or programmatic diversity. He
did recognize that as institutions become more specialized, credit transfer arrangements
among institutions need to be enhanced to create effective pathways to attain a university
degree and therefore suggested more government involvement in this area. While the
report failed to note what type of structural reform would best serve Ontario, it was
enthusiastically received by Ontario university and college administrators and most media commentators. That it also gained the support, albeit mixed, of the major students groups and the Canadian Association of University Teachers attest to its success in identifying the main challenges, risks and opportunities faced by the post-secondary education system (Lowy, F. 2005, p. 23).
The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance supports affordable access to higher
education for all qualified students in an environment with stable and sufficient
government funding. While it supports a cost-sharing approach to funding universities, it
is not surprising that the Alliance is against Rae’s recommendation to fully deregulate
14
tuition fees. The Alliance believes that tuition fees should be controlled by government
in order to ensure affordable access for all qualified students and ensures that students
don’t pay more than their counterparts in other provinces (Voakes and Chan, 2005).
The Ontario government has since essentially incorporated most of the
recommendations noted by Rae (2005) through its Reaching Higher Plan (save the tuition
deregulation) by completing its promised $6.2 billion cumulative investment in higher
education by 2009-10 as announced in its 2005 Budget. This budget announcement
directly linked this historic investment in higher education to the knowledge economy
discourse as the “government understands that, in today’s knowledge economy, education
is the prerequisite for prosperity. The brains and know-how of a skilled workforce are
the competitive edge of the 21st century” (Ontario Budget, 2005, p. 1).
The Benefits of Greater Differentiation of Ontario’s University Sector
The debate about diversity in Ontario’s university sector has recently intensified.
In 2009, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) first commissioned
a study to identify if there were any gaps in Ontario’s higher education system followed
by issuing a report on the benefits of differentiation.
In their report to HEQCO, Jones and Skolnik (2009) called for increased access to
baccalaureate education in Ontario through increased institutional differentiation by
creating a new sector composed of undergraduate teaching-focused institutions that
would be differentiated from colleges and existing universities. They also suggested the
creation of an open university and how existing colleges can be repositioned to provide
additional baccalaureate programs. Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) noted that
Ontario’s current model of publicly supported research-focused universities providing
baccalaureate education is the most expensive model as compared to others and provides
insufficient number of institutional types for Ontario’s diversified student body.
Ontario universities do not support the development of universities whose mandates are solely to teach undergraduate students. The expansion and innovative application of knowledge through research is part of the core mandate of all universities, along with equipping students with the advanced skills and
15
capabilities that allow them to contribute to Ontario’s knowledge economy (Council of Ontario Universities, 2011a, p. 2).
In July 2010, the Ontario Deputy Minister of Training Colleges and Universities
requested HEQCO to explore the issue of “…whether a more strongly differentiated set
of universities would help improve the overall performance and sustainability of the
system, and help Ontario compete internationally [and]…how to operationalize a
differentiated policy, should government be interested in pursuing this as a strategic
objective” (Weingarten & Deller, 2010, p. 6).
The HEQCO report provided a roadmap for the provincial government to increase
diversity in Ontario’s postsecondary education system in a period where increased
enrolment (due to market demand for credentials) is threatening quality and government
resources are being constrained. It acknowledged that the current system is somewhat
differentiated due to its existing binary structure and detailed the benefits of a highly
differentiated system as one that provides
the following benefits: higher quality teaching and research programs; more student choice with easier inter-institution transfer and mobility; greater institutional accountability; a more globally competitive system; and a more financially sustainable system (Weingarten & Deller, 2010, p. 4).
Financial sustainability is achieved through cost reductions and cost mitigation strategies
due to the rationalization of programs. The university sector is also differentiated as a
result of offering a wide range of programs that serve a variety of communities combined
with its “history, geography, regional development, innovation and response to student
demand and the labour market [which has]…created an organic diversity in the Ontario
university system and a good base to build on for further differentiation” (Weingarten &
Deller, 2010, p. 9). Rationalizing some of these programs might result in students having
to travel farther in an effort to have access to desired programs. Additional funding
might have to be provided to students to ensure an equitable access to all programs.
According to Weingarten & Deller (2010), differentiation can be achieved if the
government acknowledges that teaching, research, and in some cases, community service
16
is valued equally as institutions compete for outcome-dependent funding that is within
their stated mandates. Weingarten & Deller further suggest that a comprehensive
agreement between government and universities laying out each institution’s priorities,
goals and areas of future growth and development is the cornerstone of increased
differentiation. The notion of a comprehensive agreement as suggested by Weingarten &
Deller is well accepted by Ontario universities (Council of Ontario Universities, 2010).
However, COU opposes the categorization of institutions that would arbitrarily limit
institutional aspirations. “The approach to differentiation should enable innovation and
allow universities to develop in response to their students, communities and competitors
across the globe” (Council of Ontario Universities, 2011a, p. 3). Government will be
required “to realistically evaluate the elements of a mission proposed by universities and
inevitably it will be called upon to say no to some elements forwarded by some
institutions” (Weingarten & Deller, 2010, p. 14) and may want to seek third-party advice
from an expert panel or from HEQCO to assist them in making these difficult choices.
The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance “do not believe that government should
unilaterally determine the mandates of Ontario universities…[but] supports the use of
multi-year accountability agreements to naturally differentiate universities” (Ontario
Undergraduate Student Alliance, 2010, p. 1) and would like to have a voice in any future
negotiations of multi-year agreements.
Third-party advice is a good idea considering that government might not know
any better than the institutions themselves and have proven in the past to introduce
programs based on labour market demands. For example, the financial resources
provided to universities in the late 1990’s in an effort to increase the number of computer
science and technology students during the collapse of the dotcom bubble that left few
jobs for recent graduates, shows how well government can be engaged in system
planning. “This programme was conceived of by the private sector for the province, after
having failed to influence the federal government on immigration policy” (Jones &
Young, 2004, p. 199).
17
Incremental funding, tied to desired outcomes (measured with performance
indicators), is recommended as the key lever to enable differentiation to occur as with
incentive funding, “universities will do what you [government] fund them to do. If you
don’t tell them what you want them to do, they do what they want” (Weingarten &
Deller, 2010, p. 19). The use of incremental funding tied to performance is a notion that
is well supported by students, especially when it comes to funding tied to student
outcomes (OUSA, 2010). Funding should also be made available through a proposal
process where institutions would “compete for funds that are consistent with their
mandate and multi-year agreement with government” (Weingarten & Deller, 2010, p.
20). Funding would also be allocated to those institutions that have already shown
excellence in achieving the desired goal and committed some of their own resources to
the project. Targets should also be set and must be met in order to retain the incremental
funding. Consideration was also given to reallocating some of the existing base operating
funding as a means of moving differentiation forward. Weingarten & Deller (2010)
rejected this option as “this maneuver would certainly elicit considerable protest from the
sector…in what is perceived to be an already underfunded system” (pp. 25-26).
It is unclear to what extent institutions will want to compete for such incremental
funding at the risk of losing future funding should the quantitative or qualitative metrics
not be achieved. Weingarten & Deller (2010) suggested that targeted funding pools may
be those “related to teaching quality, teaching innovations and the quality of the student
experience” (p. 24). This seems a bit inconsistent after determining that “a strict
‘teaching versus research’ dichotomy may not be a useful differentiator” (p. 21).
The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (2010) was quite
critical of this report. “If differentiation is pursued with the goal of creating the best
possible university system, then it will likely be driven by well-designed, beneficial
policies. If, however, differentiation is pursed as a means to deliver higher education on
the cheap, then it will be an unmitigated disaster” (p. 1). They note that HEQCO failed to
make the case as to why more differentiation is needed and suggested that HEQCO’s
approach will make universities servants to government as it failed to recognize
18
university autonomy and academic freedom as cherished Ontario university values. They
objected to universities competing for funding as this may lead to varying degrees of
quality within the system as “it seems wiser to ensure every institution is of comparable
quality to ensure every student can benefit from a quality education” (p. 2). Further, they
questioned HEQCO’s research approach as one that starts
with a conclusion – usually based around a political goal, like saving the government money – and then conducting research that tends to support that conclusion. HEQCO should be conducting research aimed at producing good policies that address real issues in the university sector, not aligning itself with fiscal restraint narratives emerging from the provincial government (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, 2010, p. 2). The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance viewed this report with cautious
optimism. Meagan Coker, OUSA President noted that “students are hopeful that the
process proposed by HEQCO will ensure a renewed emphasis on teaching and the
student experience at our universities, while increasing sustainability, accountability and
transparency” (Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, 2010, p. 1). The Alliance also
noted that the current emphasis on differentiating the system “should not disrupt current
progress toward fixing the broken credit transfer system” (Ontario Undergraduate Student
Alliance, 2010, p. 1).
Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services (Drummond Report)
In early 2012, as the Province was faced with the fiscal challenges of large
deficits and limited economic growth, Premier McGuinty and Minster of Finance Dwight
Duncan, asked Don Drummond, an economist, to chair the Commission on the Reform of
Ontario’s Public Services with a mandate to provide advice “on how to balance the
budget earlier than 2017–18…Once the budget is balanced, ensure a sustainable fiscal
environment…Ensure that the government is getting value for money in all its
activities…Do not recommend privatization of health care or education…Do not
recommend tax increases” (Drummond Report, 2012, p. 11). The recommendations
touched on all aspects of public services, such as health, elementary and secondary
education, social programs, employment and training services, and the postsecondary
19
sector. The recommendations were focused on achieving increased productivity through
cost reduction initiatives.
The Drummond Report (2012) recognized that the postsecondary sector in
Ontario had just experienced a period of “rapid expansion, combined with the lowest
funding levels in Canada [which had]… undermined quality — more sessional
instructors, larger classes and less contact with professors” (p. 33) and was deemed
“unsustainable from both a financial and quality perspective” (p. 34) due to its anticipated
continued annual cost increases of up to 5%. Demand for postsecondary education was
expected to continue to rise in a period of constrained government funding. The
Commission called for greater efficiency in order for the sector to meet the Province’s
demands to “educate a rising share of the population; help equalize economic and social
outcomes across the population; provide an important component of lifelong learning; be
an engine of innovation; and deliver quality education in an efficient manner” (p. 240).
While the Commission made a total of 30 recommendations for the postsecondary
sector around a number of areas including student financial aid, tuition framework,
teaching and research funding structures, back-office functions, this study will focus on
its key recommendations with respect to increasing diversity. Differentiation was viewed
by the Commission as
a logical progression to improve quality and sustainability. Inherent in differentiation is the potential for reducing inefficiencies and realizing cost savings by minimizing further duplication of programs…[by implementing] multi-year mandate agreements with universities and colleges that provide more differentiation and minimize duplication…a rational and strategic division of roles between the college and university systems…[and by creating] a comprehensive, enforceable credit recognition system between and among universities and colleges” (Drummond Report, 2012, pp. 246-247).
The division of roles included limiting colleges from offering any additional degree
programs and the creation of standards of quality and attainment that would allow college
students who completed two years to enter university.
20
It is unfortunate that the Commission did not take into account that some
duplication in programs is necessary if one values accessibility to programs over a
geographically vast province. It also failed to acknowledge that universities have entered
into a multitude of bilateral and multi-lateral agreements to facilitate the transfer of
credits amongst institutions.
The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (2012) was critical
of the Commission’s extensive use of three sources (Academic Reform, HEQCO and
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance) and concluded that the data was “incomplete
and that the Commission failed to conduct the research necessary to make appropriate
and useful recommendations for Ontario’s higher education sector” (p. 2). With respect
to the recommendations to differentiate the postsecondary sector, the Confederation
observed that the failure of the Commission to define differentiation creates “an
ambiguity which undermines the usefulness of his recommendations” (Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations, 2012, p. 6).
When it comes to the negotiation of multi-year mandate agreements and the
introduction of new programs, the Confederation “rejects in principle any attempts by the
Government of Ontario to interfere with academic planning and the operation of existing
programs. Our current institutional and program mix has evolved organically with the
needs of students and communities in mind” (Ontario Confederation of University
Faculty Associations, 2012, p. 6). Furthermore, when it comes to the responsibility to
negotiate any new mandate agreements, the Confederation is “concerned that a blue
ribbon panel would not have a significantly robust mandate to conduct such a
consultation. Similarly, HEQCO has an abysmal record of sector consultation, and
would be an inappropriate body for developing new mandate agreements” (Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations, 2012, p. 6). The Confederation
supports limiting the degree-granting roles of colleges as the division of roles between
colleges and universities has been blurred as a result of “a combination of institutional
aspirations and political expediency” (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty
Associations, 2012, p. 6).
21
While the Commission recognized that the sector already made use of system-
wide indicators, it recommended more extensive use of “performance measures in multi-
year accountability agreements with post-secondary institutions through the use of
teacher performance scores and student satisfaction ratings where the primary reasons for
dissatisfaction are adequately captured” (Drummond Report, 2012, p. 250) and increased
outcome measures tied to funding as part of the mandate agreements. The Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations (2012) objected to funding tied to
quality performance indicators as “such a funding mechanism takes resources away from
institutions that need it most, and hurt students at institutions not seen to ‘measure up’ to
poorly designated proxy measurements of quality” (p. 8).
It is unclear at this time to what extent the Commission’s recommendations will
be accepted by government as the Commission was an initiative of Minister of Finance
Duncan who later resigned his seat in February, 2013 and was replaced by Minister
Charles Sousa.
University group and alliances
Over the years, some universities, either individually or in groups, have been
trying to differentiate themselves from others by adopting mandates or missions that
emphasize their research-intensiveness, size, student clientele and/or the extent of degrees
awarded. A number of national groups were created which include a number of Ontario
universities.
In 1991, a self-selected group of ten universities (G-10) representing Canada’s
largest research-intensive universities began to meet to exchange institutional data. The
group was later expanded in 2006 to thirteen (G-13) and again in 2011 by two more
(rebranded as U-15). They describe themselves
as Canada’s fifteen leading research universities…[they] undertake 80 percent of all competitive university research in Canada, rank among the world’s premier institutions, and represent a research enterprise valued at more than $5 billion
22
annually. Collectively…[they] produce more than 75 percent of all doctorates awarded in Canada (U- 15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, 2013).
The group’s main focus is on consultation and advocacy with the Federal government for
increased research funding and policy directions that are more favourable to the group as
a whole. Ontario universities in the U-15 include, McMaster University, Queen’s
University, University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario
and University of Ottawa. (U- 15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, 2013) It
recently appointed an Executive Director, Ms. Suzanne Corbeil in an effort “to add a
voice to the dialogue from a group that is focused on the particular issues, concerns and
opportunities [of] large research universities...in that way we are absolutely becoming a
more forceful and vocal group” (Berkowitz, 2012, p. 1).
In 2011, a new group called the Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research
Universities (ACCRU) was created to bring together research Vice-Presidents of small
research universities together to discuss issues, challenges and to share best practices as
opposed to taking on an advocacy role for the group. Ontario universities in ACCRU
include Brock University, Lakehead University, Nipissing University, Trent University,
University of Windsor and Wilfid Laurier University (Charbonneau, 2011).
In his address to the Empire Club of Canada, Professor David Naylor, President
of the University of Toronto, highlighted that increased resources should be strategically
allocated to a limited number of research-intensive universities so they can truly be able
to compete on the world stage. From an examination of various rankings of the U-15
using a number of league tables, he highlighted that “the data suggest that many of the
best research universities in this country are at serious risk of losing ground. And not
enough of them are figuring strongly on the world stage” (Naylor, 2013, p. 15).
Naylor (2013a) noted that in order to reverse this trend, a Canadian research
excellence fund should be created while eliminating the perverse nature of the Federal
Indirect Costs of Research Program funding mechanism which favors small institutions
by covering 80% of their institutional costs and disadvantages large institutions by
23
covering only approximately 17%. The creation of an Advantage Canada Research
Excellence Fund, as coined by the U-15, that would grow to $400 million would be
allocated using “competitions adjudicated by peer-review committees at the federal
granting councils” (p. 12) and would be based on performance with “institution-specific
accountability…setting out key performance indicators that would help ensure a strategic
return on this new investment” (p. 14).
Rationale for the study
There currently exist few studies worldwide which consider the level of diversity
and differentiation in higher education systems (Birnbaum, 1983; Stanley & Reynolds,
1994; Huisman, 2000; Codling and Meek, 2006; Huisman and colleagues, 2007;
Morphew, 2009; Zha, 2009) and no studies have attempted to quantify the level of
systemic diversity (differences in the type of institution and size of institution) and
climate diversity (differences in social environment and culture) in Ontario’s university
sector.
This study will focus on institutional diversity and more specifically on systemic
diversity, because governments around the world are concerned about increasing or
maintaining diversity in their higher education systems as a means of increasing access or
to manage the increased demand for higher education. Systemic diversity is important as
it provides a variety of choices to diverse group of learners which can ensure a better
match of students’ needs to institutions. Students may seek the personal attention of a
small campus while others may seek more cosmopolitan campuses. It also ensures that
the purposes and functions of institutions are more efficiently discharged.
Systemic diversity refers to the number of types of universities within Ontario’s
university sector derived from classifying universities according to their institutional
type and size, and to the dispersion of universities across types at a point in time (as
informed by Huisman, 1998).
Climate diversity refers to the number of types of universities within Ontario’s
university sector derived from classifying universities according to their social
environment and culture, and the dispersion of universities across types at a point in
time (as informed by Huisman, 1998).
24
This study will also focus on climate diversity, as there has been heightened
awareness recently on the part of Ontario universities regarding the importance of
increased student-faculty interactions to an outstanding student experience combined
with the Ontario government’s recent funding commitment and expanding graduate
enrolment in the province. Climate diversity is also important as it provides a variety of
environments that can better meet the needs of a diverse student body thereby increasing
student satisfaction and engagement. Student needs and abilities can also be met through
the characteristics of the other students attending the same institution, by the various
levels of interactions with faculty or by the research or educational focus of institutions.
Singh’s (2008) review of the literature identified various rationales used in
support of a diverse higher education system. These were essentially a mix of different
kinds of imperatives including democratizing, responsiveness and “economic
competitiveness goals relating to knowledge society, labour market and innovation needs,
and system/institutional requirements for efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 248). These
were grouped in two broad competing categories: public good/social justice concerns and
efficiency/effectiveness imperatives.
According to Singh’s (2008), a diverse system provides the following benefits
under the public good/social justice rationales: greater capacity to address the needs of a
diverse constituency with more demonstrable lines of accountability;
more effective way to address the multiple social purposes of higher education; widening of access to higher education for non-traditional students that better addresses their varied needs…fairer access through differential fee structures at different institutions…[and] better informed choices by prospective students [when institutions are clearly classified] (p. 248).
A diverse system provides the following benefits under the
efficiency/effectiveness rationales: purposes and functions of institutions are more
efficiently discharged; provides a framework that lessens mission drift and encourages
the achievement of quality outcomes; institutions might be more efficient at taking on
new tasks and responsibilities and can undertake more focused resource allocation and
25
monitoring; increased capacity to meet diverse qualifications required by a knowledge
economy; facilitates targeted and strategic approaches by national bodies, funders,
donors, and industry; and a higher quality and ability for some institutions to reach
international levels of excellence (Singh, 2008). Stadtman (1980) noted that diversity is
also “a precondition of college and university freedom and autonomy because the greater
the differences are among institutions, the more difficult it is for a central authority to
convert them into instruments of indoctrination rather than of education” (p. 99).
There are adverse consequences of a differentiated system. While a differentiated
system offers increased accessibility to some form of post-secondary education, not
everyone would have access to the same opportunities. Geographic accessibility could
eliminate the benefits of a diverse system when the distances between major urban
centers are large and the cost of transportation is high, thereby limiting the choice of
students to a few types of institutions (Jones, 1996). “The greater the diversity of the
system, the more difference it makes which institution an individual attends in regard to
the quality of the education received and future options for subsequent education and
employment” (Skolnik, 1986, p. 5). Specialized institutions would not have the breadth
of disciplines and activities found in a comprehensive university, thereby limiting the
range of potential interactions between different types of students and different types of
faculty (Skolnik, 1986).
From a class, race and gender perspective, a highly differentiated system can
perpetuate existing social inequalities in its hierarchy. Leathwood’s (2004) analysis of
six universities (three elite research institutions at the top of the hierarchy and three
newer universities with lower levels of funding and prestige at the bottom) focused on
class, race and gender issues in the United Kingdom’s highly differentiated higher
education sector. Elite institutions in the UK were the beneficiary of most research
funding, had more favorable staff/student ratios and scored higher in terms of teaching
assessment and were more likely to recruit students with high academic achievements.
Elite institutions were also over represented by privately educated, white, middle class
students while institutions at the bottom of the hierarchy were over represented by
26
working-class, minority ethnic students. Women were also over represented in the less
prestigious institutions. The benefit of the most prestigious institutions was accorded to
the middle-class who could afford to send their children to private schools as these
institutions recruited more than half of their students from these schools. Students from
working-class backgrounds were more likely to attend less prestigious institutions. The
increased stratification in the sector put more pressure on middle-class parents to choose
private schooling for their children in order to meet entry requirements in elite
institutions.
Students attending elite institutions were receiving a dramatically different quality
of education and student experience than those that attended less prestigious institutions
as the staff/student ratios and teaching assessment scores were significantly better at elite
institutions as compared to those at the less prestigious institutions. Leathwood therefore
called for a more socially just and equitable future for the higher education sector through
the creation of comprehensive universities “with a range of levels, types and modes of
higher education study…[and] re-distributive economic policies to reduce wider
inequalities would go a long way to [ensure a] more equitable provision both in schooling
and in higher education” (Leathwood, 2004, p. 45). While this recommendation may
produce a more equalitarian higher education system with less of a hierarchical structure,
it will lead to decreased levels of systemic diversity as more institutions will resemble
each other.
The province of Ontario has been selected because it currently lacks a policy on
institutional diversity, is the largest province in Canada with 38.7% of the population,
accounts for 38.9% of Canada’s full-time and part-time university students and 39.4% of
full-time and part-time college students (Statistics Canada, 2011). The current
environment of fiscal restraint (and calls for greater efficiency) due to the 2008 global
economic crisis restricts the province’s ability to increase funding to the university sector
in a period when public pressures to increase accessibility go unabated. The province
identified that enrolment growth is expected to decrease which in turn will reduce the
growth in operating grants and tuition revenues. Existing cost structures will therefore
27
need to be examined in light of the decrease in revenue growth in order to ensure a
sustainable system. Quality advances which have been made in the past ten years as a
result of the government’s significant investment in higher education should not be
allowed to be eroded (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2013). The
province is moving to adopt a differentiation framework and therefore is in need of a
model to quantify the level of diversity that can form the basis for policy development to
move the sector forward in difficult economic times.
The period 1994 to 2010 was selected because during that period, the higher
education environment experienced a large number of changes including enrolment
growth. The year 1994 was selected as a starting point for this study as not only does it
provide a long enough period to allow the system to change, but it captures the end of the
NDP government policies for the sector prior to the election of a Conservative
government in June of 1995. The year 2010 was selected as it represents the end of the
Liberal government’s Reaching Higher Plan (even though they have remained in power
since 2003) and the latest year in which complete data are available.
Table 2 – Full-time Equivalent (FTE) university enrolment in Ontario
1994 and 2010
1994(*) 2010(**) % Change Graduate FTEs 24,695 51,041 106.7 Undergraduate FTEs 239,322 367,615 53.6 Total 264,017 418,656 58.6
* Table 6 – 1993-94 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities ** Council of Ontario Universities application statistics
The significant enrolment growth in the university sector in Ontario during that
period stemmed mainly from increased demand for baccalaureate degrees by students and
prospective employers, and as a result of a number of government policies aimed to
increase access to baccalaureate studies by traditionally underrepresented groups, such as
low income, first-generation, and aboriginal students (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick,
28
2009). Total enrolment was up by more than 58% from 1994 to 2010 and graduate
enrolment more than doubled during the same period.
Another significant change during 1994 to 2010 is the continual reliance on
increasingly more diversified revenue sources mainly fueled by government policies.
While expendable revenues available to Ontario universities increased from $4.18 billion
in 1994 to $11.45 billion in 2010, the revenue sources as a percentage of total revenue
highlights the shift away from the university sector’s dependence on government
operating grants to tuition fees. Grants from the Government of Canada for research and
infrastructure were 12.5% of revenues in 2010 as compared to only 8.3% in 1994.
Table 3 – Revenue Sources as a Percentage of Total Revenue 1994 and 2010
Notes:
1. Operating grants distributed according to the funding formula and non-formula grants. 2. Government of Canada grants mainly for research and infrastructure. 3. Ancillary fees and services such as parking, bookstore and food and beverage. 4. Room and board, service charges, health services, athletics, late registration and compulsory feed
excluding student council fees. 5. External borrowing, funding from municipalities and grants and contracts from foreign agencies.
Source: 1994 & 2010 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
Similarly to Morphew (2009), who limited his study to degree granting
institutions, this study will focus on Ontario’s university sector instead of its entire higher
1994 2010 Change
MTCU Grants (1) 46.6% 30.3% -16.3% Tuition fees 15.7% 24.6% 8.8% Federal grants (2) 8.3% 12.5% 4.2% Sales and services (3) 7.1% 4.8% -2.3% Non-Government grants and contracts 5.8% 7.3% 1.5% Other student fees (4) 5.0% 5.7% 0.7% Other Ontario Agency grants 3.5% 4.6% 1.1% Investment income 3.2% 3.1% -0.1% Donations 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% Other sources of funding (5) 2.0% 4.3% 2.3%
29
education system. The non-degree or college sector was excluded from this study for
three reasons. Firstly, a number of studies have already clearly laid out the differences
between the college and university sectors (Skolnik, 1986; Jones, 1996; Skolnik, 2005;
Jones, 2006), many of which assumed that there is little or not enough diversity in the
university sector.
Secondly, while there have been calls by policymakers for increased levels of
enrolment in baccalaureate and graduate degree programs (activities that are mainly
undertaken in universities and not colleges) in order to feed the knowledge economy to
remain globally competitive, universities in Ontario offer the great majority of
baccalaureate programs. Baccalaureate programs in colleges are limited to 5% of their
total activities except in the case of five colleges with an Institute of Technology and
Advanced Learning status which can undertake 15% of their activities in baccalaureate
programs. Baccalaureate programs in colleges are limited to applied fields of study.
Also, there have been calls by policymakers for increased levels of research. While
colleges conduct applied research and receive government grants and funding from
industry, these activities are only a small share of their overall activities as compared to
most universities where research is a significant part of their mission.
Thirdly, the increase in demand for baccalaureate education in Ontario is not
expected to decrease as Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) projected an increase in
university undergraduate enrolments to be between 60,000 and 100,000 from 2007 levels
assuming continued increase in participation rates and the province’s willingness to
accommodate the increase in demand. There also “appears to be a consensus among
educational leaders that Toronto universities may not be able to meet all the growing
needs of the region” (Jones and Skolnik, 2009, p. 2) during the coming decades.
Lastly, the university sector operates in an environment that is quite distinct from
the college or the non-degree sector. Demand for non-degree post-secondary education
can be satisfied by market forces as private schools and career colleges enter the market
to satisfy demand for non-degrees. When it comes to baccalaureate education, degree
30
granting regulations constrain market forces and make it more difficult for institutions
other than universities to grant degrees making the two environments quite distinct.
Research questions
The study addressed the following research questions:
a) Has there been a change in systemic and climate diversity between the year 1994 and 2010 in Ontario’s university sector?
b) Is systemic and climate diversity expected to change between the year 2010 and 2018 in Ontario’s university sector?
c) What factors promoted or hindered the process of diversification or differentiation in Ontario’s university sector between 1994 and 2010?
d) What sector-wide government policies and conditions are most likely to
promote systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s university sector?
Limitations of the study This study examined systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s university sector.
The research design selected for this study does not permit the extrapolation of the results
to other university sectors in Canada or elsewhere. The results cannot be extrapolated to
Ontario’s higher education system.
31
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter establishes the theoretical and contextual foundations upon which
this study is based. It first examined how key terms such as diversity, diversification,
differentiation, neo-liberalism, and policy instruments and design are defined and used in
the literature. Theoretical perspectives from organizational theory are also examined as
they formed the primary conceptual framework for the policy analysis phase of this
study. A review of a number of typologies and classifications for higher education
systems and institutions proposed by scholars and policymakers is examined as they
formed the basis for the classification of Ontario’s university sector in Chapter 3.
Diversity, diversification and differentiation defined
The terms diversity, diversification and differentiation are distinct concepts which
all broadly refers to the existence or emergence of differences. The various meanings in
the higher education literature will be explored to arrive at operational definitions used in
this study.
Stadtman (1980) defined diversity as “a condition of having differences, and in
higher education it characterizes any system in which individual institutions or groups of
institutions differ from one another in any way” (p. 97). Huisman (1998) derived the
concept of diversity from its biological and ecological origins, and diversity refers to the
measurement of characteristics of a community consisting of different species or refers to
the relative proportions of organisms across species. The level of diversity is determined
by examining not only the number of species in a community but also by examining the
evenness of the distribution of organisms across species. A species is a population of
organisms with the ability to interbreed freely and bring forth fertile offspring. Huisman
transferred these concepts to provide insights when addressing the level of diversity in
higher education systems where the system is the community, institutional types are the
species and higher education institutions are the organisms.
32
The term diversity can be used when referring to the variety of types of entities (higher education institutions, study programs, disciplinary cultures) within a certain system (the higher education system, a sector of the system, a university) or to a combination of the variety of types and the dispersion of entities across the types (Huisman, 1998. p. 79).
The term diversity was used in this study, as informed by Huisman’s definition above,
when referring to the number of types of universities within Ontario’s university sector
derived from classifying institutions according to one or more characteristics and when
referring to the dispersion of universities across types at a point in time.
Stadtman (1980) and Birnbaum (1983) distinguished between internal and
external diversity. External diversity relates to differences between higher education
institutions whereas internal diversity relates to differences within institutions. Birnbaum
(1983) noted that as internal diversity increases, institutions become more alike, which
results in a decrease in external diversity.
Birnbaum (1983) identified seven forms of external diversity based on Stadtman’s
(1980) review of the literature: programmatic (differences in degree level, degree area,
mission, or program emphasis of institutions); procedural (differences in the ways in
which teaching, research or services are provided); systemic (differences in institutional
type, size and control within a post-secondary system); constituential (differences in
types of students served or faculty); reputational (differences based on prestige and
status); values and climate (differences in social environment and culture); and structural
(differences arising from legal or historical foundations or internal division of authority
among institutions).
Huisman’s (1998) review of the literature noted that studies of diversity in higher
education systems differed significantly in their conceptualization of the terms
differentiation and diversification. Diversification refers to a dynamic process in which
diversity increases either through the growth of the number of species or through a
change in the dispersion of organisms across species. The unit of research is the
33
organisms in the community and the focus is on the organism and its relationship with the
environment. Differentiation is a development process, referring to the emergence of
several parts from a formerly integrated whole. These parts still need each other to be
meaningful. The unit of research is the integrated whole and the focus is on the
community as a whole and its relationship with the environment.
Translating the biological definitions of diversification and differentiation to
higher education, the term diversification (or heterogenization) and homogenization
“indicate processes in which diversity increases or decreases or in which entities in a
system become different or similar” (Huisman, 1998, p. 80). Differentiation can be used
in reference to “processes in which the number of entities of the subject surveyed
increases and for processes in which new entities emerge in the system surveyed”
(Huisman, 1998, p. 80). The addition of new entities includes entities which previously
did not exist in the system or to a new entity similar to others in the system.
Having located the concepts of diversity, diversification and differentiation in
biological and ecological theory, Huisman (1995) acknowledged that these concepts can’t
be completely transferred in the study of higher education systems. The term diversity in
biology for example, is reserved for communities of organisms that belong to different
species, while in higher education systems, the term can be applied to all classifiable
entities. Social systems, like higher education systems lack the interbreeding capabilities
of organisms making the concept of species not transferable to social systems.
Connected to this issue is that organisms cannot change their identities and therefore
change the species they belong to, whereas institutions can transform themselves into
something different. The concept of differentiation is also not easily transferable to
social events as new entities are added to a system and do not necessarily emerge from an
integrated whole but instead may be introduced from outside the system. The study of
processes which lead higher education institutions to be more or less similar seem
relevant for examination while in ecology, the extent of differences between species is
less relevant. Despite of the transferability issues noted, Huisman contends that the
distinction between the terms is tenable and worthwhile.
34
Differentiation can occur horizontally when there is an increase in the types of
higher education providers (for-profit, philanthropic or religious groups) and usually
occurs as a result of increased demand for higher education (World Bank, 2000).
Horizontal differentiation also refers to a coordinated system where institutions offer a
variety of programs that are conceived as an alternative to programs offered by other
institutions with all programs valued equally (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009).
Differentiation can occur vertically when there is a proliferation of institutional
types (university, college, polytechnics) and usually is driven by the demand for diverse
types of graduates due to more refined division of labor (World Bank, 2000). It refers to
a stratified hierarchical system where lower ranked institutions offer lower level courses
in the same fields as higher ranked institutions (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009)
and can also refer to stratified higher education systems according to, for example,
research quality (number of publication or citations), educational quality (student rating
of instructor’s teaching quality) or academic reputation. Since 1990, increased vertical
diversity among institutions has been advocated in Europe as an option for entering the
global competition for “world-class” status (Teichler, 2008).
This study will draw from Huisman’s (1998) insights and will distinguish
between processes of diversification and differentiation in higher education systems. The
term diversification will be used in this study when referring to processes which increase
the number of types of universities or to processes which change the dispersion of
universities across types in Ontario’s university sector. The term differentiation will be
used in this study to refer to processes which increase the number of universities or
processes which create new universities in Ontario’s university sector.
Neo-liberal political framework
Ontario universities operate, like those in many other countries, within a neo-
liberal political framework. Neo-liberalism is an ideology which provides the required
structures for domestic and global economic relations. It shares the central
35
presuppositions of classical economic liberalism: the self-interested individual; free
market economics; a commitment to laissez-faire and free trade, but instead has a positive
conception of the state. In neo-liberalism, the state creates the appropriate market
conditions, and laws (deregulation of the labour market, low tax regimes) to create the
ideal institutional setting for the market to flourish while creating enterprising and
competitive individuals (Olssen & Peters, 2005). State interventions may range “from
the encouragement of structural adjustment, social capital and good governance in
developing economies, to welfare safety nets, to investment in human capital, to
environmental protection, to corporate social responsibility, even to limited forms of
redistribution” (Gamble, 2006, p. 22). Neo-liberalism advocates increased competition to
increase quality; consumer-managerial accountability mechanisms based on market
processes and quantifiable output measures (performance indicators) (Olssen & Peters,
2005).
The neo-liberalization of higher education public policies have been derived from
the logic of the markets. These include the leveling of the playing field between private
and public institutions (deregulation of public sector and direct subsidies to users), the
creation of quasi-markets (by the adoption of the principles of competition in funding
allocation models), calls for greater accountability and amount of information available to
students for decision making, and the increase in user fees with a decrease in operating
support combined with increased funding allocated for student aid programs (Dill as cited
in Young, 2002). Neo-liberal policies stem from a desire for economic efficiency and
greater innovation and adaptation in the face of global competition in higher education.
It transforms higher education from a public service to a commodity (Dill, 2003).
The impact of neo-liberal policies results in the privatization of higher education
as public funding reductions imposed by the state are offloading the cost of public sector
services on individuals at market rates instead of having them provided by the state (Dill,
2003). The demand for higher education, driven by the need for human capital required
in a knowledge-based economy has opened the door for for-profit trading in higher
education which makes extensive use of a dispensable number of adjunct or part-time
36
staff and few tenured faculty (Morey, 2004). Magnusson (2005) draws from Richard
Hatcher’s distinction between endogenous privatization (public sector delivery of
services is reformed to include market characteristics which mimic the private sector) and
exogenous privatization (public services are provided by the private sector) in her
examination of Ontario’s proposed higher education reform.
In higher education, marketisation seeks to make institutions more accountable to
their stakeholders, introduce greater system decentralization and increase competition for
public and private funds (Jones and Young, 2004).
Marketisation represents a neo-liberal, late 20th century compromise between privatization, the ‘autonomous’ university that is removed from social and economic forces, and blatant government control in the face of the backlash against state intrusion in western socioeconomic life. For their part, market mechanisms are viewed by government as a way of assisting them in allocating resources, where either government failure or market failure threaten either efficient allocation, or in the latter case, a resultant loss of state control over outcomes (Young, 2002. p. 81).
Drawing on Clark’s triangle of coordination as a concept that identified the forces
(market, academic control, and the role of the state) that shape education systems from
their combined influence, Young (2002) noted in her examination of seven major higher
education policy changes in Ontario from 1995 that state control over higher education
had been strengthened with the use of market mechanisms. The policy changes
incorporated the principles of competition with the encouragement of new, private
degree-granting institutions, partial deregulation to bring cost and price into greater
alignment, the creation of synergies between universities and the private sector, and
increased information dissemination requirements. The market-like policy instruments
were also layered on top of core operating support with a focus on the supply of research
(competition for capital infrastructure funding), student spaces (government funding
allocation mechanisms), and student financial assistance (donor matching programs)
(Jones and Young, 2004).
37
Policy instruments and design
Policy instruments refers “to the technical means of achieving a goal, such as a
tax or a regulation [while policy design] is about choosing the most appropriate
instrument to deal with the policy problem as it is defined in order to achieve a given
policy goal” (Pal, 2006, p. 138). Efficiency and effectiveness are implied in these
definitions. The discussion of policy instruments was limited to those that will impact
institutional diversity in the university sector which include direct government action
through the utilization of their resources or regulation and their deliberate inaction.
Deliberate inaction by government as a policy instrument makes sense in
situations where a policy problem has been identified, but due to current resource
constraint or more pressing demands, funding is not available. Inaction from
governments is also available in situations where other forces, such as market
competition will resolve the problem over time. Policy intervention might not be
appropriate in situations where a precedent is set that would place unmanageable
demands on government (Pal, 2006).
Direct government action can achieve policy objectives through the utilization of
its own resources and organizational capacity or by entering into partnerships or contracts
with third parties. These instruments include the provision of grants or unconditional
transfers, contributions which are subject to performance conditions, the use of vouchers
and loans (Pal, 2006).
Regulation instruments are used by government to prohibit or promote selected
actions or behaviors in order to achieve policy objectives. These regulatory instruments
include legislation or statute and quasi-legislation (administrative authorities, policies and
guidelines issued by government) (Pal, 2006).
38
Theoretical frames used to explain differentiation and diversity in higher education systems
There currently exists no prevailing sociological theory of diversity and no
unanimity as to the mechanisms that promote or hinder it. The studies of diversity in
higher education systems (Birnbaum, 1983; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Huisman, 1998;
Neave, 2000; van Vught, 2007) drew perspectives from organizational theory to
formulate competing theories leading to no common explanation for the increase or
decrease in institutional diversity.
Birnbaum’s (1983) empirically determined the change in institutional diversity in
American colleges and universities between 1960 and 1980 and used population ecology
theory, based on the Darwinian evolutionary point of view, as his primary conceptual
framework to explain the change in diversity. He concluded that while the American
higher education system was and continued to be extremely diverse, “during a period of
unprecedented growth in American higher education, the number of different institutional
types (141 types in 1960 and 138 types in 1980) has not increased” (p. 143). While
American colleges and universities were exposed to the same uniform environment of
competition for scarce research funding and increased federal and state regulations, they
used their additional resources to replicate existing types instead of creating new types of
institutions.
These findings can be explained by population ecologists like Hannan and
Freeman (1989), since population ecology theory focuses “on the sources of variability
and homogeneity of organizational forms…it pays considerable attention to population
dynamics, especially the processes of competition among diverse organizations for
limited resources such as membership, capital and legitimacy” (p. 13) which leads to
structural isomorphism. Said differently, organizations which operate in a competitive
environment for scarce resources will tend to converge over time as they must adapt to
their environment or they won’t survive.
39
Birnbaum (1983) did question the validity of using the natural selection model
inherent in population ecology theory to explain changes in institutional populations.
Institutions that fall under the protection of government structures are somewhat
protected from the environment, thereby reducing selection pressures. Large institutions
are less likely to fail making the natural selection model more applicable to small
institutions. The differences between biological and social evolution (not guided by
genetic structures) make applying the natural selection model to organizations
problematic. Organizations are able to change form and structure and adapt to changes in
their environment while biological systems cannot.
Van Vught (2007) drew upon the population ecology, resource dependency and
institutional isomorphism perspectives from organizational theory to develop a
conceptual framework for explaining why diversity and differentiation take place in
higher education systems. His point of departure is from the open systems approach in
social sciences where higher education organizations operate in an environment with
social, political and economic conditions. From this approach, he draws his first
assumption that higher education organizations are free to receive inputs (e.g. students,
faculty, and finances) and deliver outputs (e.g. graduates and research results) for their
environment.
Van Vught (2007) drew two insights from the population ecology perspective.
The first is that the environment is the critical selector as it determines which
organizations succeed and which ones fail. The second is the idea that organizations
have the ability to acquire resources that are important to their success and survival.
When resources are scarce, only those organizations that are able to secure sufficient
permanent resources have better survival odds. Organizations must also face the process
of competition for scarce resources and therefore outperform their competition for
survival. From these insights, he derived the following two assumptions for his theory of
differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. “In order to survive, higher
education organizations need to secure a continuous and sufficient supply of resources
from their environments. When scarcity of resources exists, higher education
40
organizations compete with each other to secure a continuous and sufficient supply of
resources” (van Vught, 1996, pp. 51-52).
The resource dependency perspective builds from population ecology where
organizations are dependent on their environment (unidirectional organizational
dependency) and stresses that organizations also have the ability to interact and affect
their environments. Van Vught (2007) therefore also assumed that “higher education
organizations both influence and are influenced by their environmental conditions” (p.
10) by drawing on this perspective, organizations are not only constrained by their
environment, but they can take actions to modify their environments for their survival.
Slaughter and Rhoades’s (2004) theory of academic capitalism, which explains how
universities and colleges are integrating and are being linked to the new economy,
challenges the conception of clear boundaries between the organization and its
environment inherent in resource dependency theory. They suggest that the boundaries
between markets, states, and higher education are blurred and are constantly being
negotiated.
In order to understand how organizations tend to act when faced with the threat of
scarce resources, van Vught (2007) turned his attention to the perspective of institutional
isomorphism. In order to survive, organizations must adapt to the existence of and
pressures by other organizations present in their environment. This perspective takes the
view that organizations will take into account the survival success of other organizations
in their environment leading organizations to similar behavior, thereby decreasing
systemic diversity. He drew from the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) that
identified three forms of institutional isomorphism: coercive isomorphism (pressures
from other controlling organizations on which the organization is dependent such as
government policies and laws), mimetic isomorphism (organizations imitating the
behavior of successful organizations as they suffer from academic drift, ambiguous goals
or uncertainty caused by poorly understood technologies) and normative isomorphism
(mimicking established professional norms).
41
From the constraining processes noted above, van Vught (2007) formulated two
propositions that address the general relationships between both environmental
conditions and organizational behavior with (de)differentiation. The first proposition is
that “the larger the uniformity of environmental conditions of higher education
organizations, the lower the level of diversity of the higher education system” (p. 11).
This proposition is consistent with the notion that when organizations are faced with
competition for scarce resources (uniform environment), this leads them to adopt
successful processes, leading to institutional isomorphism. The second proposition
incorporated the propositions of mimetic and normative isomorphism with the notion that
organizations can choose their own behavior. “The larger the influence of academic
norms and values in a higher education organization, the lower the levels of diversity of
the higher education system” (p. 12). These propositions demonstrate that in order to
understand the process of differentiation, any study must examine both environmental
conditions and organizational characteristics.
Morphew (2009) made use of institutional theory, a competing theory with
population ecology, to conceptualize changes in institutional diversity, as universities
operate in normatively-defined environments “where success is more attributable to
perceptions of legitimacy than to the quality of an organization’s products” (p. 245). A
normatively-defined environment exists where there is a lack of objective goals,
technology is unclear and actors are highly professionalized. Organizations that operate
in this environment and desire success or legitimacy are susceptible to isomorphic forces
and thereby incorporate or copy the structures, processes and behaviors of the more
prestigious organization, leading to less institutional diversity.
Morphew (2009) examined the change in institutional diversity across the United
States between 1972 and 2002 by replicating Birnbaum’s (1983) methodology using size,
degree level, control and cost to categorize institutions across all 50 states. The period
under investigation was chosen because during this period, the higher education
environment became diversified. The diversified environment consisted of a significant
change in its student population (increase in the proportion of part-time, graduate and
42
minority students combined with the outnumbering of male students by female students),
stronger coordination and oversight from the state and a diversified set of resource
providers (public colleges and universities received less state and federal support which
was offset by an increase in private revenue sources) and the growth of the for-profit
college and university sector with its national institutions with multiple campuses. The
study revealed that “while institutional diversity did not increase during the period
between 1972 and 2002, the period witnessed the growth of a number of new institutional
types” (p. 253-254). The decrease in diversity was attributed to the greater clustering of
institutions within types. Population ecologists would have expected an increase in
diversity consistent with the diversity of opportunities found in the environment. The
study also found that in 2002,
new highly populated institutional types tended to be either large not-for-profits offering advanced degrees or smaller for profits offering two- or four-year degrees. Second, highly populated institutional types in 1972 that became less populated in 2002 were smaller not-for-profits offering two- and four-year degrees (p. 259).
Morphew relied on the work of Oliver (1991) who used institutional theory to understand
organizational change which produces new forms and behaviors. Oliver noted that
organizations in institutionalized environments (traditional faculty personnel and strong
academic cultures) will achieve a compromise with its internal stakeholders (in order to
retain support of key actors) to accommodate competing demands from their diverse
constituent groups for services while maintaining their institutional core. Public
universities with institutionalized elements had to find a compromise with its faculty
personnel in order to serve the new market (part-time students and the need for bachelor’s
degrees) which morphed into something else (master’s degrees offered in the evening)
thereby increasing the number of large not-for-profits offering advanced degrees. Oliver
also suggests that organizations which are highly institutionalized will likely require
more compromise or balance in response to environmental demands than those that are
less institutionalized. Organizations with fewer professionalized actors and a focus on a
single mission of profit which operate in a less institutionalized environment are free to
43
act to serve the new market by offering two- or four-year degrees, hence the increase in
small for-profits offering two- or four-year degrees.
The policy and leadership lesson: while organizations may change, greater diversity is not a likely product in highly institutionalized environments because the notions of what is legitimate for these organizations still dominates. Leaders promoting greater differentiation at the system level or innovation at the institutional level must be aware of the incentive for homogenization on the part of college and university actors and create disincentives (or contrary incentives) to thwart these outcomes (Morphew, 2009, p. 263).
Codling and Meek (2006) developed twelve independent propositions on diversity
based mainly on their observations of Australia’s and New Zealand’s higher education
systems which supported the notion that a higher education system and the institutions
within it can only grow in a predictable direction with deliberate and coordinated actions.
The propositions are presented from a broad policy perspective and indicate how the
environment, policy intervention, funding initiatives, competition and cooperation, and
ranking impact institutional differentiation or convergence.
Similar to van Vught’s (2007) first proposition, Codling and Meek (2006)
suggested that “the greater the uniformity of the environmental conditions within a higher
education system, the lower the potential for systemic diversity [and conversely,] the
greater the variation in environments within a higher education system, the greater the
potential for systemic diversity” (p. 9). A homogeneous environment will promote
institutional convergence unless overt policies, like policies that restrict vocational or
academic drift in a binary system, are in place to prevent it. In Australia, over the past 15
years, traditional universities tended to become similar to the younger universities of
technology through the process of vocational drift by focusing more on applied and
commercially relevant research funded by industry, active partnerships with industry and
offering qualifications with vocational outcomes. The universities of technology on the
other hand were becoming similar to traditional universities through the process of
academic drift by appointing university trained and experienced staff, changing their
culture to be more academic in nature and broadening their research focus.
44
Institutional convergence will occur without strong government policies to sustain
the differences between institutions. From these observations, Codling and Meek (2006)
proposed that “in a higher education system existing in an essentially homogeneous
environment, the greater the formal policy intervention to promote diversity, the greater
the potential for systemic diversity. Binary systems promote diversity providing that
policy and regulation limit the natural tendencies for institutional convergence [while]
unitary systems do not in themselves promote diversity” (p. 12).
Government funding policy is a powerful tool that can be used by government to
maintain differences between institutions. A uniform funding regime that funds the same
outputs will result in institutions doing the same thing to maximize their revenues and
therefore will not encourage institutional diversity. Targeted funding for research or to
maintain certain quality standards may promote convergence as all institutions in the
system seek to steer their organizations towards meeting the specific performance
indicator in order to maximize revenues. From these observations, Codling and Meek
(2006) proposed that “the greater the financial incentives within a higher education
system that do not have explicit diversity objectives, the greater the potential for
institutional convergence [and conversely,] the greater the financial incentives within a
higher education system that do have explicit diversity objectives, the greater the
potential for systemic diversity” (p. 14).
Drawing from their Australian experiences and from deregulated higher education
systems in other parts of the world, Codling and Meek (2006) observed that a competitive
environment generally promotes convergent tendencies among institutions as institutions
are forced to copy one another to be successful. However, any discussion on the
relationship between competition and institutional diversity must also consider the
influence of economic conditions. In a competitive environment with high student
demand, institutions have sufficient resources to invest in mimetic behaviors, leading to
institutional convergence. Conversely, in a competitive environment with low student
demand and therefore limited resources, systemic diversity may increase. They reference
45
Geiger’s (1996) diversity study of United States higher education institutions which
examined the relationship between the flow of resources and systemic diversity. In
periods of rapid growth and high student demand, less prestigious institutions have the
resources and the opportunity to mimic the more successful institutions while the
converse is true in periods of low growth and student demand. From these observations,
Codling and Meek (2006) proposed that “during periods of high student demand and
resource flow in a deregulated competitive market, the potential for institutional
convergence increases [and conversely,] during periods of low student demand and
limited resources in a deregulated competitive market, the potential for systemic diversity
increases” (p.16). As a contrast to competition, Codling and Meek (2006) drew on
Canada’s experience and the work of Jones (1996) which suggested that when institutions
openly co-operate and share best practices, these isomorphic tendencies will promote
institutional convergence to arrive at the proposition that “the greater the co-operative
activity between institutions within a higher education system, the greater the potential
for institutional convergence” (p. 16).
Ranking of universities is an unavoidable phenomenon but there is no obvious
relationship between ranking and institutional diversity as countries like the United
States, Australia and New Zealand with different levels of diversity, continue to be
formally and informally ranked. There is however a tendency for those ranked at the
bottom to emulate those that are ranked higher by copying their successful activities.
From these observations, Codling and Meek (2006) proposed that “whether or not
institutional diversity occurs within a higher education system there will be a hierarchy of
institutions and institutional types based on longevity, wealth and prestige [and] where
institutional ranking is well established within a higher education system, there is a
greater potential for institutional convergence” (p. 18).
Classification and typologies in higher education The classification of higher education institutions is important as it provides
various stakeholders with the ability to investigate similarities and differences between
institutions. It contributes to the understanding of the various types of institutions within
46
a system by grouping together institutions with similar attributes. While classifications
represent a simplified reality, they increase transparency inherent in complex systems of
higher education (van Vught, 2009).
A typology differs from classifications. A typology is a conceptual classification
with its cells representing conceptual distinctions rather than empirical cases while a
classification orders empirical cases based on descriptions of their similarities and
differences (van Vught et al, 2010).
Classification of higher education systems or sectors
Scholars and policymakers have proposed a number of typologies and
classifications for higher education systems. Trow (1973) defined the development
phases of higher education systems as they expanded in size from elite (accommodates
15% of the population), to mass (accommodating up to 50% of the population) to
universal (more than 50% of the population), and these three terms have often been used
to classify the development of higher education systems. Clark (1978) suggested
categories that are useful in understanding the structures and evolution of academic
systems. Clark proposed a framework which can be used to examine differentiation of
higher education systems using two dimensions: horizontal and vertical. The
examination of differentiation within systems of higher education (between institutions)
can be done horizontally by grouping institutions by sectors (public vs. private,
universities vs. colleges vs. technological schools) or vertically by hierarchies based on
the level of educational tasks being performed by the organization (tripartite state system
in United States) or based on socially assigned prestige or status.
Tight (1988) examined the three English higher education sectors, universities,
polytechnics and colleges, using cluster analysis to arrive at a separate typology for each.
By combining the dataset of all three sectors, the study determined that the distinct
boundaries that historically divided the sectors are no longer clearly defined as some
institutions are close to the boundaries of other sectors. The study included nineteen
variables for universities and fifteen for the polytechnic and college sectors. Variables
47
were selected to reflect the varying character of institutions. They included student body
characteristics (student enrolment data) such as full and part-time graduate and
undergraduate enrolment counts, enrolment by discipline, and student-faculty ratios.
Income variables were also used (only in the university dataset) and included total
revenues and the percentage of total revenue from research grants.
Stanley and Reynolds (1994) used cluster analysis to group together similar
institutions within the unified national system of Australian universities using evaluative
ratings and performance indicators (two separate datasets) in an effort to determine if the
system fostered diversity or homogeneity. The study used thirteen evaluative ratings
obtained for each university from Australia’s Good Universities Guide and thirty-seven
performance indicators using data from the Department of Employment, Education and
Training. Performance indicators included academic staff data and ratios, minimum
entry grades by discipline, and funding and outcome variables. The funding and outcome
variables included for example, key revenue sources as a percentage of total revenue,
total research grants, degree completion and enrolment data. The study concluded that
the system maintained or increased its diversity after it was unified since clustering of
institutions did not occur.
Classification of higher education institutions
Clark (1978) also proposed a framework which can be used to examine
differentiation within higher education institutions. Institutions can be examined
horizontally by field of knowledge, or sections (faculty, school, institute or department)
and vertically by arranging units by tasks and activities (undergraduate, graduate and
professional education).
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education categorizes
American universities and colleges according to various criteria, including institutional
missions and functions. The classification framework was first published for use in 1973
and subsequently updated on numerous occasions with the most recent update in 2010.
The 2010 Classification update retained the six parallel all-inclusive classifications,
48
initially adopted in 2005: Basic Classification (the traditional Carnegie Classification
Framework), Undergraduate and Graduate Instructional Program classifications,
Enrollment Profile and Undergraduate Profile classifications, and Size & Setting
classification.
The Basic Classification categories are Associate Colleges, Doctorate-Granting
Universities, Master's Colleges and Universities, Baccalaureate Colleges, Special Focus
Institutions and Tribal Colleges. Sub-categories are also used to further differentiate
institutions for data analysis (Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2012).
Table 4 defines each category.
The European higher education classification system (U-Map) was developed
after extensive consultations with various stakeholders (higher education institutions,
student associations, employers, researchers and national and European policy making
bodies) in order “to better understand and use diversity as an important basis for the
further development of European higher education and research systems. In order to reap
the full benefits of increasing diversity, a tool is needed to describe this diversity” (van
Vught et al, 2010, p. 5).
Table 4 – Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching Basic Classification Categories
2012
Name Definition Associate's Colleges Includes institutions where all degrees are at the
associate's level, or where bachelor's degrees account for less than 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees. Excludes institutions eligible for classification as Tribal Colleges or Special Focus Institutions.
Doctorate-Granting Universities
Includes institutions that awarded at least 20 research doctoral degrees during the update year (excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
49
Master's Colleges and Universities
Generally includes institutions that awarded at least 50 master's degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees during the update year with occasional exceptions. Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
Baccalaureate Colleges Includes mainly institutions where baccalaureate degrees
represent at least 10 percent of all undergraduate degrees and where fewer than 50 master's degrees or 20 doctoral degrees were awarded during the update year. Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
Special Focus Institutions Institutions awarding baccalaureate or higher-level
degrees where a high concentration of degrees (above 75%) is in a single field or set of related fields. Excludes Tribal Colleges.
Tribal Colleges Colleges and universities that are members of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, as identified in IPEDS Institutional Characteristics
Derived directly from: Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2012)
The European classification of higher education institutions is non-hierarchical, is
based on a multi-actor and multidimensional perspective, is descriptive and not
prescriptive, and is based on reliable and verifiable data provided by each institution. It
allows stakeholders to decide for themselves which dimensions and indicators will be
used to classify and group institutions. Feasibility, validity, and legitimacy were the key
criteria used in the iterative process to select the dimensions and indicators. The
classification system has six dimensions: teaching and learning profile, student profile,
research involvement, regional engagement, involvement in knowledge exchange and
international orientation. (U-Map, 2012) Each dimension has a series of indicators which
are summarized in Table 5.
50
Table 5 – The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions 2010
Dimension and Indicators Definition Teaching and learning profile Degree level focus Expenditure on teaching Orientation of degrees Range of subjects
Number of degrees awarded by level of degree (bachelor programs, undivided programs, master programs, short first cycle programs, Doctorate degrees, other third cycle level programs). Percentage of the institution’s total expenditure dedicated to the teaching activities. Proportion of graduates (all levels combined) in three types of programs: general formative programs, programs leading to licensed/regulated professions, and other career‐oriented. Number of subject areas (humanities and arts; engineering; personal services; natural sciences and mathematics; social sciences, business and law; education; agriculture; and health and social service) in which qualifications are awarded.
Student profile Distance learning students Mature students Part-time students Size of student body
Students enrolled in distance learning programs as a percentage of total enrolment. Students aged 30+ as a percentage of total enrolment Students enrolled in part‐time programs as a percentage of total enrolment. Total enrolment.
Research involvement Doctorate production Expenditure on research
The number of doctorate degrees awarded as a percentage of the number of academic staff. Expenditures on research as a percentage of total expenditure.
51
Peer reviewed academic publications Peer reviewed other research products Professional publications
Peer reviewed academic publications relative to the total number of academic staff. Number of research outputs other than peer reviewed publications and professional publications per academic staff. All publications published in journals/books/proceedings that are addressed to a professional audience and that can be traced bibliographically per academic staff.
Regional engagement First year bachelor students from the region Graduates working in the region Importance of local/regional income sources
Number of first year bachelor students from the region as a percentage of total number of first year bachelor students. Number of the graduates from two years ago who work in the region, as a percentage of the total number of graduates from two years ago. Income from regional and local sources as a percentage of total income.
Involvement in knowledge exchange Cultural activities Income from knowledge exchange activities Patent applications filed Start‐up firms
Exhibitions, Concerts and performances per 1000 FTE academic staff. Sum of income from licensing agreements, income from 'private' research contracts with business and public sector organisations, income from copy righted products and income from CPD activities as a percentage of total income. The number of patents per 1000 FTE academic staff. The average number of start‐up firms created over the last three years per 1000 FTE academic staff.
International orientation Foreign degree seeking students
Number of degree seeking students with a foreign diploma on entrance as a percentage of total enrolment in degree seeking programs.
52
Importance of international sources of income Incoming students in international exchange programs International academic staff Students sent out in international exchange programs
Income from international sources as a percentage of total income. Number of incoming students in international exchange programmes, as a percentage of total enrolment. Foreign academic staff members as a percentage of total number of academic staff. Number of students sent out in international exchange programs as a percentage of total enrolment.
Derived directly from: U-Map (2011)
While Canada does not have a formal classification system, Canadian universities
have been differentiated by type for many years by Maclean’s as it annually ranks
Canadian universities in its November issues. The current categorization by Maclean’s
(primarily undergraduate, comprehensive and medical/doctoral) is now generally
accepted by universities and the general public. Orton (2003), through his work at
Statistics Canada, also suggests the use of these institutional types and expanded these by
two others, First Nations and Métis and special purpose organizations. Orton (2003)
explains:
Primarily undergraduate institutions focus on first degrees, usually BA and BSc; they have relatively few graduate programs…Comprehensive institutions have a significant amount of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees…Medical doctoral universities are those with a broad range of PhD programs and research, as well as medical schools…First Nations and Métis institution are either controlled by one or more of the First Nations or Métis groups, receive at least 25% of their funding from one of these groups or from funds that either the federal or a provincial government has set aside for First Nations and Métis programs, are located on a reserve, or whose mission or mandate is to serve First Nations and Métis peoples…Special purpose university and degree-granting institutions are those whose programs or mandate make clear that they deal with a specific field of study or are intended for a special clientele. These institutions typically award a majority of degrees in a single field… The following special purpose areas have been identified: agriculture, art, business, distance education, medical/health, music, religious and theological, technical, and other (Orton, 2003. p. 26-27).
53
Conclusion Ontario’s universities operate within a neo-liberal political framework where
market mechanisms have been used by government in the allocation of resources that
strengthened state control over higher education. These government funding policies,
combined with other factors such as economic conditions, levels of competition and
cooperation, type of external environmental (diversified or homogeneous) conditions, and
the degree to which an institution’s internal environment is normatively-defined, are all
factors that must be considered in the conceptualization of mechanisms that promote or
hinder institutional diversity in higher education systems. There exist no prevailing
sociological theories of diversity.
The change in institutional diversity can be empirically determined by first
classifying higher education institutions based on descriptions of their similarities and
differences. Over the years, scholars and policymakers have proposed a number of
typologies and classification systems for higher education institutions. The Carnegie
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education has categorized American universities
and colleges since 1973. A European higher education classification system was recently
developed as non-hierarchical and is based on multiple dimensions while Canadian
universities have been differentiated by type for many years by Maclean’s with its
primarily undergraduate, comprehensive and medical/doctoral classifications.
54
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction Diversity can be examined using various methodological approaches: critical
analysis, structured qualitative studies and quantitative studies. Qualitative studies are
holistic in nature, offer theoretical grounding but often do not identify which particular
aspects of diversity are being examined and lack empirical testing. While quantitative
studies are superior in this respect, they are reductionist in nature as diversity is often
reduced to a few measurable variables by its operationalization method. They also
seldom offer explanations for their findings (Skolnik, 1986).
In order to gain a better understanding of diversity in Ontario, this study will
exploit the benefits of both quantitative and qualitative studies through the use of a mixed
research method. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) argued that mixed methods
research is one of the major research paradigms in addition to quantitative and qualitative
research. A mixed research method “is the type of research in which a researcher or team
of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches
(e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference
techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and
corroboration” (p.123). The use of multiple research methods for validation purposes
was first introduced in the social science methodological literature by Campbell and
Fiske (1959) with the concept of multiple operationalism which was later extended by
Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, and Sechrest (1966) who were credited with being the first to
use the term triangulation (the use of two or more measurement processes which are used
to confirm a proposition).
This study first used quantitative research measures to determine the extent of
diversity in the university sector in 1994 and 2010 and more specifically the extent of
systemic and climate diversity during 1994, 2010 and forecasted to 2018. The second
phase of this study used policy analysis and drew on mutually related theoretical
perspectives from organizational theory as its primary conceptual framework to assist in
55
the interpretation and corroboration of the change in diversity between 1994 and 2010.
Interviews were conducted with internal agents to gain a greater understanding of the key
factors or barriers which results in Ontario’s reticence in proposing design changes in its
higher education system. Having been informed by the policy analysis, interviews and
the projection of the extent of systemic and climate diversity by 2018 using institutional
strategic plans, the study proposed a policy on institutional diversity for Ontario’s
university sector.
Quantitative methodology
This study quantitatively measured and determined the extent of diversity in the
university sector in 1994 and 2010 using hierarchical cluster analysis. It also
quantitatively measured and determined the change from 1994 to 2010 in systemic
diversity (institutional size and type) and climate diversity (campus environment and
culture) by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to categorize
institutions into institutional types and determined their concentration and dispersion by
type as a means of assessing diversity in the university sector in the province of Ontario.
Simpson’s λ was also used as another measure of systemic and climate diversity for 1994
and 2010.
This study first used hierarchical cluster analysis, a technique used “for portioning
objects into optimally homogenous groups on the basis of empirical measures of
similarity among those objects” (Johnson, 1967, p. 241) to group together universities
(unit of analysis) with similar characteristics (response variables). The practical result of
the analysis is a dendogram for both years that was compared to determine the change
and extent of diversity in the university sector for and between 1994 and 2010. This
study is less interested in the characteristics of each cluster, and as such, did not conduct
multivariate analysis on the clusters as groups.
The response variables used in the analysis for both years are those used to
operationalize systemic and climate diversity as these variables are commonly used to
differentiate institutions and reflect the varying character of institutions.
56
• Number of full-time faculty
• Full-time graduate enrolment
• Part-time graduate enrolment
• Full-time undergraduate enrolment
• Part-time undergraduate enrolment
Financial indicators that differentiate institutions by their main functions of education and
research were also used for 1994 and 2010 consistent with faculty data, enrolment data
and revenue sources used by Stanley and Reynolds (1994).
• Tuition fee revenue: tuition revenue is impacted by the institution’s tuition policy,
the number of students, student mix by program, level of study, and proportion of
international students served and therefore will differentiate institutions.
• Operating grants funding: operating grants revenues are impacted by the number
of students enrolled and the student mix of programs and therefore will
differentiate institutions.
• Non-credit operating funding: Since not all institutions offer the same extent and
type of non-credit courses, this variable will differentiate institutions.
• Sponsored research funding: Since institutions provide different levels of
sponsored research, this variable will differentiate institutions.
This study’s hierarchical cluster analysis used Ward’s method as its clustering
algorithm as suggested by Huisman (2000) and the (squared) Euclidean distance as its
distance index as recommended and favored by Huberty, Jordon and Brandt (2005).
Ward’s method uses an analysis of variance approach to evaluate the distances between
clusters and groups all cases into groups and proceeds until there is only one group. This
method is more suitable than the k-mean clustering algorithm for this study, as it made no
hypotheses concerning the number of clusters in 1994 and 2010. The subjectivity related
to the choice of Ward’s clustering algorithm over other algorithms is minimized since the
same method is used for both 1994 and 2010. The Euclidian distance in univariate
57
analysis is the arithmetic difference between two values. The squared Euclidian distance
was used in order to place progressively greater weight on variables that are further apart.
As recommended by Milligan and Cooper in Huberty, Jordon and Brandt (2005), since
there is no common metric to the measurement of all variables, each variable was
standardized using z scores prior to conducting the analysis using SPSS. It is
acknowledged that an approach which uses a selection of meaningful dimensions by
definition implies a loss of information.
The study more specifically assessed the change in systemic and climate diversity
by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) methodology that categorizes institutions into
institutional types to Ontario’s university sector. Institutional types in this study were
determined using two variables for systemic diversity: Size (small, medium, large) and
Institutional Types (Primarily undergraduate, comprehensive, medical/doctoral, special
purpose), and the following three variables for climate diversity: Enrolment Profile (low
graduate, medium graduate, high graduate), Undergraduate Profile (low full-time,
medium full-time, high full-time) and Student-faculty Contact (high contact, medium
contact, low contact). The variables selected were limited to those that can be objectively
quantified and provided face validity as they were generally accepted as variables
reflecting differences among institutional forms and function in an Ontario context.
It should be noted that the method employed and variables selected in this study
differ from those used by Birnbaum (1983). First, Birnbaum used a matrix which yield a
total of 768 possible institutional types by categorizing each institution by control (four
values); size (three values); sex of students (two values); curriculum (four values);
highest degree level (four variables); and minority enrolment (two values). For the
purpose of this study, the variables were adapted to accommodate the number of
universities in Ontario with a focus on systemic and climate diversity. While
differentiating universities using the control variable may be a discriminating factor in the
United States, this is not the case in Ontario since most institutions (save for Dominican
University College and Redeemer University College) have the same form of control as
publicly funded universities. While there are a small number of private religious colleges
58
operating in Ontario as a niche-market, they receive little attention in public discussions
of higher education (Jones and Young, 2004). For these reasons, this study did not use
the control variable to assess systemic diversity. Future research in this area may have to
consider this variable if more private and other institutions are provided with the
authority to grant degrees under the various ministerial consents or if a study is concerned
about institutional diversity in relation to universities and colleges. The sex of student
variable is not relevant in Ontario since all universities are essentially coeducational
public institutions. The highest degree level offered is not a discriminating variable in
Ontario since only one small institution did not offer graduate degrees. Categorizing
institutions as minority institutions if more than 50% of its enrolment is non-white would
not have differentiated institutions in Ontario as the student population is extremely
ethnically diverse and institutions in Ontario do not define themselves as minority-
serving institutions.
The distribution by institutional types was completed by assigning each institution
to one cell of the diversity matrix using only the two variables to assess systemic
diversity and again, using only the three variables to assess climate diversity. The
possible number of institutional types to categorize each institution is determined to be
the product of the values of each variable. For systemic diversity, the possible number of
institutional types is 12 (3X4) and for climate diversity, the possible number of
institutional types is 27 (3X3X3). Each institution in the study was categorized using
each of the five variables and identified to belong to one and only one of the possible
institutional types. Therefore, institutions having the same identical values for all
variables are viewed as belonging to the same institutional type, or sharing the same cell
in the matrix. It should be noted that institutions belonging to the same institutional type
are not identical in all aspects but share characteristics of their basic form and structure
even though other elements may be different.
Quantitative measures of systemic and climate diversity were calculated using
four indices as suggested by Birnbaum (1983) for 1994, 2010 and 2018 to identify any
significant change between years.
59
• Index A. Diversity increases as institutions are spread over a larger number of
types. Index A is calculated by dividing the number of institutions in the province
by the number of types they represent. The higher the index, the less the diversity.
• Index B. Diversity increases as large-scale clustering within the most densely
populated cell of the diversity matrix decreases. Index B is calculated by dividing
the number of institutions in the most densely populated cell of the diversity
matrix by the total number of institutions in the province (and multiplied by 100
for ease of calculation). The higher the index, the less the diversity.
• Index C. Diversity increases as the concentration of institutions within types
decreases. Index C is calculated by taking the proportion of institutions in the
sample that are in the most highly populated 10 percent of the cells of the
diversity matrix and multiplied by 100 for ease of calculation. The higher the
index, the less the diversity.
• Index D. Diversity increases as the proportion of institutions in the sample that
belong to a cell in the matrix with no other institution increases. Index D is
calculated by dividing the number of institutional singlets by the total number of
institutions and multiplied by 100 for ease of calculation. The higher the index,
the more the diversity.
In ecology, the level of diversity is obtained from Simpson’s λ (∑pᵢ²) which
calculates “the probability that two institutions drawn at random from the population of
higher education belong to the same institutional type” (Huisman, Meek and Wood,
2007, p. 569) where pᵢ represents the proportional abundance of the ith institutional type.
It was used in this study as a measure of systemic and climate diversity for 1994, 2010
and 2018. This measure used the number of institutional types as determined by adopting
Birnbaum’s (1983) methodology to the Ontario university sector and the total number of
institutions. The closer the indicator is to zero, the higher the diversity and conversely,
the closer the indicator is to one, the lower the diversity.
60
Defining the university sector in Ontario
The following method was used to determine which institutions were deemed to
be part of Ontario’s university sector. Prior to 1990, the only institutions that offered
secular degrees were universities. In this past two decades, many different types of
institutions in Ontario were given the authority to grant degrees in response to increased
demand for undergraduate degrees, blurring the historical binary structural distinction.
The increased demand was also handled by providing additional funds to existing
institutions to increase their capacity and by creating the University of Ontario Institute
of Technology (UOIT).
An institution was included in the definition of Ontario’s university sector if,
during the period 1994 to 2010, the institution either gained membership in the
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) or gained membership (full
and associate) in the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) but excluded those
institutions that held affiliation or federation arrangements with a comprehensive
institution as these institutions formed an integral part of the comprehensive institution.
Marshall (2004) noted that AUCC membership is the de facto accreditation
process in Canada. In order to gain membership in AUCC, an institution must satisfy a
number of criteria to ensure that the institution operates like a university. Membership is
tightly controlled to ensure that the association can effectively lobby for like institutions.
AUCC members include institutions that have entered into affiliation or
federation arrangements with comprehensive institutions. Harris (1979) noted that most
of these independent theological institutions still possess the legal right to grant degrees
but hold this authority in abeyance under the terms of the arrangements entered into with
the comprehensive institutions (Harris, 1979, as quoted in Skolnik, 1986).
61
Table 6 – Institutions included in the 1994 and 2010 Ontario university sector
Institution
Founding year*
Year joined
AUCC*(6)
COU member?
**
Included in 1994 dataset?
Included in 2010 dataset?
Algoma University (1) 1964 2007 YES NO YES Brock University 1964 1965 YES YES YES Carleton University 1942 1949 YES YES YES Dominican University College (2)
1900
1974
NO
YES
YES
University of Guelph 1964 1964 YES YES YES Lakehead University 1965 1965 YES YES YES Laurentian University 1960 1965 YES YES YES McMaster University 1887 1915 YES YES YES Nipissing University 1992 1994 YES YES YES OCAD University (3) 1876 2006 YES YES YES OISE (4) 1965 n/a YES YES NO University of Ontario Institute of Technology(5)
2002
2006
YES
NO
YES
University of Ottawa 1848 1965 YES YES YES Queen’s University 1841 1915 YES YES YES Redeemer University College
1982 1985 NO YES YES
Royal Military College of Canada
1876
1939
YES
YES
YES
Ryerson University 1948 1971 YES YES YES University of Toronto 1827 1915 YES YES YES Trent University 1963 1965 YES YES YES University of Waterloo 1957 1960 YES YES YES The University of Western Ontario
1878
1915
YES
YES
YES
Wilfrid Laurier University 1911 1961 YES YES YES University of Windsor 1857 1954 YES YES YES York University 1959 1964 YES YES YES *obtained from Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada ** includes member and associate members (1) Algoma University was an affiliate campus of Laurentian University in 1994 and
therefore was excluded from the 1994 dataset.
(2) Dominican University College receives operating support from the province of Ontario at 50% of the BIU attributed to other provincially assisted universities. In
62
April 2012, Dominican University College and Carleton University signed an affiliation agreement whereas non-ecclesiastical programs and academic degrees offered by Dominican University College will be part of Carleton University and subject to the approval of its senate.
(3) COU recently granted full membership to OCAD University “in view of the institution’s long-standing status as an associate member of COU and as a direct recipient of university operating grants from the province of Ontario, and in view of the June 7, 2010 amendments to its Act to add the word ‘university’ to its name, establish a Senate, and establish the position of Chancellor” (Council of Ontario Universities, 2011, p. 2) While OCAD University was not accepted in AUCC until 2006, it was an associate member of COU in 1994 and therefore was recognized as an integral part of the university sector in Ontario. For that reason, OCAD University was included in the 1994 and 2010 dataset.
(4) The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) was established in 1965 by an
act of the Ontario legislature to conduct research and provide graduate level programs. While OISE was a separately incorporated legal entity in 1994 and operated as an autonomous institution receiving its funding directly from the province and it administered its own academic programs both financially and procedurally, it operated in affiliation with the University of Toronto and graduates received University of Toronto degrees. Since OISE was an associate member of COU in 1994 and was recognized as an integral part of the university sector in Ontario, it was included as a separate institution in the 1994 dataset. In July 1996, OISE was integrated with the University of Toronto’s faculty of education and ceased operation as a separate legal entity and therefore was excluded from the 2010 dataset as it was not a member of either COU or AUCC in 2010.
(5) UOIT was founded in 2002 and therefore was excluded from the 1994 dataset. (6) The following institutions were members of AUCC but were excluded from the study
for both 1994 and 2010 since they held affiliation or federation arrangements with another comprehensive institution included in the study:
University of Trinity College, Victoria University and University of St. Michael’s College held arrangements with the University of Toronto. St. Paul’s University held arrangements with the University of Ottawa. University of Sudbury held arrangements with Laurentian University. Brescia University College, Huron University College and King’s University College held arrangements with The University of Western Ontario. St. Jerome’s University held arrangements with the University of Waterloo.
While AUCC membership provides strong evidence that an institution can be
defined as a university, Council of Ontario Universities (COU) membership was also
considered as the study’s focus is Ontario institutions. COU’s mission is to “promote
63
cooperation among provincially assisted universities of Ontario, and between them and
the Government of the Province, and, generally, to work for the improvement of higher
education for the people of Ontario” (Council of Ontario Universities, 2011, p. 1). COU
membership is granted to those institutions that receive annual operating funding directly
from the province, have the statutory authority to grant degrees and identify themselves
as universities.
Some characteristics that define a university for COU membership include having
a mission and academic goals that demonstrate a commitment to teaching, research and
service to the community, and must provide a breadth of undergraduate degrees in arts
and sciences and first professional degree programs. Previous to the adoption of these
criteria for membership in 2002, COU offered associate membership status to those
institutions that while they did not meet all of the criteria for full-membership, were
considered an integral part of the university sector in Ontario. The current constitution of
COU does not make any provision for future associate members save for the Royal
Military College of Canada and Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD) which
retained its associate membership status when the new membership criteria were adopted
in 2002. Table 6 shows the institutions that were included in each year of the dataset.
The Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM), which welcomed its first
students in the fall of 2005, is a stand-alone not-for-profit corporation with its own board
of directors and is a joint initiative of Lakehead University and Laurentian University.
While the senate of both universities is providing the academic authority to NOSM, it is
not a member of AUCC nor is it a member of COU and therefore was excluded from
both datasets.
The University of Guelph-Humber, which offers seven undergraduate programs
since 2002, is a partnership arrangement between the University of Guelph and the
Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. University of Guelph-Humber
is not a member of AUCC nor is it a member of COU and therefore was excluded from
both datasets.
64
Operationalization of the variables – Systemic diversity
The classification of institutions by role and function facilitates the understanding
of differences that exist among institutions (Altbach, 2002). This study assessed systemic
diversity by classifying institutions by size and type which is common in studies of
diversity.
Institutional size
Institutional size is a variable that can be used to differentiate institutions. The
American literature “consistently supports the existence of strong relationships between
institutional size and other variables relating to activities, goals, campus climate and
student outcomes” (Birnbaum, 1983. p.88). This view is also shared by The Carnegie
Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2010) which noted on their website that size
does matter: “It is related to institutional structure, complexity, culture, finances, and
other factors”.
Zezar’s (2006) review of the literature identified that size affects many
institutional processes including instructional delivery, student satisfaction, resource
management approaches, leadership practices, change, planning, presidential searches,
accreditation, approaches to institutional research among many others. Larger
institutions are more complex, more impersonal, and usually offer a passive learning
environment with more levels of administration as compared to smaller institutions.
When it comes to student engagement, she noted that Pascarella and Terenzini used
enrolment levels of 5,000 to define small-sized institutions and 10,000 or more as large-
sized institutions.
Huffman and Schneiderman (1997) examined the effects of institutional size on
the six-year institutional graduation rate for undergraduate students using 800 four-year
post-secondary institutions in the United States. The statistical analysis controlled for
student academic preparation, enrolment to dormitory capacity ratio, percentage of part-
time students, expenditure per student, and student-faculty ratio. Institutional size was
65
determined to have a significant and negative influence on graduation rates. As
institutions grew in size, the percentage of students who complete a baccalaureate degree
in six-years decreased. Table 7 is a model derived from the statistical analysis. If
institutional size did not have an impact on graduation rates, the number of students who
fail to graduate per 10,000 would be equal for all enrolment levels. While this is not the
case, there appears to be a significant decline in graduation rates after the 10,000
enrolment level and less of an impact between the 5,000 and 10,000 levels. The study
also makes the point that when it comes to graduation rates, close to 1,000 more students
would graduate if three institutions with enrolment levels of 10,000 were used as opposed
to one institution of 30,000 students (3 x 148= 444 as compared to 3 x 476=1,428 for a
difference of 984).
Table 7 – Negative effects of institutional size 1997
Enrolment levels
Graduate rate
Number of Students who
Fail to Graduate per 10,000
1,000
46.9
--
5,000
46.3
66
10,000
45.4
148
20,000
43.8
312
30,000
42.2
476
40,000
40.5
640
50,000
38.9
804 Source: Huffman and Schneiderman (1997), p. 19.
Huisman and colleagues (2007) defined large institutions in their cross-national
and longitudinal empirical analysis as those with more than 10,000 students which is
consistent with the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2010) which also
defines large four-year institutions as those with more than 10,000 students. Large
66
institutions in a European context are defined as those institutions having 15,000 or more
students while small institutions are those with less than 5,000 students (U-Map, 2011).
This study accepted that students will probably have similar experiences in institutions
with more than 10,000 students and therefore categorized institutions as a) small if they
have less than 5,000 students, b) medium if they have between 5,000 to 10,000 students
and c) large if they have more than 10,000 students.
Classifying institutions by type
In order to determine how institutions are differentiated by type, the study first
turned to the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching’s (2012) Basic
Classification for institutions and also examined how institutions are classified in a
Canadian context.
The Associate and Tribal College classification would not be useful to classify
institutions included in this study as no institution in Ontario would fall under this
category. The other categories proved useful. See Table 8 for results.
From a Canadian context, universities have been differentiated by type for many
years by Maclean’s, as it annually ranks Canadian universities in its November issues.
The current categorization by Maclean’s (primarily undergraduate, comprehensive and
medical/doctoral) is now generally accepted by universities and the general public. Orton
(2003) suggested using Maclean’s institutional types and expanded these by two others,
First Nations and Métis and special purpose organizations. Therefore, from a Canadian
context, the categorization by Maclean’s was used with the addition of Orton’s (2003)
two additional types which were grouped together under the type called Special Purpose
in an effort to minimize the number of values that could unduly inflate the number of
institutional types. Table 9 shows how institutions were categorized in 2010 under the
adjusted Carnegie classification system (without the Associate’s College and Tribal
Colleges categories) and the adjusted Maclean’s classification (with the addition of a
Special Purpose category).
67
Table 8 – Classification of Ontario Universities under the Adjusted Carnegie and Maclean’s Classification Methodology
2010
Institution
Adjusted Carnegie Classification
Adjusted Maclean’s Classification
Algoma University (1) Special Focus Special Purpose Brock University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate Carleton University Doctorate-Granting Comprehensive Dominican University College (2)
Special Focus
Special Purpose University of Guelph Doctorate-Granting Comprehensive Lakehead University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate Laurentian University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate McMaster University Doctorate-Granting Medical/Doctoral Nipissing University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate OCAD University (3) Special Focus Special Purpose University of Ontario Institute of Technology (4)
Baccalaureate
Primarily Undergraduate
University of Ottawa Doctorate-Granting Medical/Doctoral Queen’s University Doctorate-Granting Medical/Doctoral Redeemer University College (5) Special Focus Special Purpose
Royal Military College of Canada (6)
Special Focus
Special Purpose
Ryerson University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate University of Toronto Doctorate-Granting Medical/Doctoral Trent University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate University of Waterloo Doctorate-Granting Comprehensive The University of Western Ontario
Doctorate-Granting
Medical/Doctoral
Wilfrid Laurier University Baccalaureate Primarily Undergraduate University of Windsor Baccalaureate Comprehensive York University Doctorate-Granting Comprehensive (1) While Algoma University is primarily an undergraduate institution which provides
programs in liberal arts and sciences and professional programs, it was classified as a special purpose institution as its Charter identifies it as having a special mission with a "focus on the needs of Northern Ontario" (Algoma University, 2010, p. 4) and to "cultivate cross-cultural learning between Aboriginal communities and other communities" (Algoma University, 2010, p. 4). Algoma University's objectives are to focus on Anishinaabe education and research as well as implementing academic
68
offerings that ensures that it remains a distinctive university (Algoma University, 2010).
(2) Dominican University College was classified as a special purpose institution as it offers undergraduate and graduate programs in only two fields of study (philosophy and theology) while mainly serving Christian students. (www.collegedominicain.ca)
(3) OCAD University was classified as a special purpose institution as it offers undergraduate and graduate programs in only two fields of study (visual arts and design). (www.ocadu.ca)
(4) UOIT’s mission is to provide “programs that are innovative and responsive to the
individual needs of students and to the market-driven needs of employers” UOIT Act, (2002). This study classified UOIT as primarily undergraduate as it offers degrees in a number of fields, offers relatively few graduate programs and does not serve a specific clientele.
(5) Redeemer University College was classified as a special purpose institution as it offers undergraduate and graduate programs in only two fields of study (liberal arts and science) in a Christian context. (www.redeemer.ca)
(6) Royal Military College of Canada was classified as a special purpose institution as it offers undergraduate and graduate programs in only three fields of study (arts, science and engineering) to students interested in the pursuit of a career as an officer of the Canadian Forces. (www.rmc.ca)
Table 9 – Number of institutions by category - Adjusted Carnegie and Maclean’s Classification Methodology
2010
Methodology
Number of Institutions
Adjusted Carnegie Doctorate-Granting 9 Master's Universities 0 Baccalaureate 9 Special Focus 5 Adjusted Maclean’s Medical/Doctoral 5 Comprehensive 5 Primarily Undergraduate 8 Special Purpose 5
69
The Adjusted Carnegie classification results in only 3 categories while the
Adjusted Maclean’s results in 4 categories which allows for increased differentiation by
type without unduly inflating the number of types. Both methodologies result in the same
number of institutions being classified as special purpose. Institutions in the Doctorate-
Granting category are essentially further differentiated in the Adjusted Maclean’s
methodology between the Medical/Doctoral and Comprehensive category. The
University of Windsor is the exception as it is classified as Baccalaureate in the Adjusted
Carnegie methodology since it offers less than 50 master’s programs and less than 20
doctoral programs while it would be considered as having a wide range of graduate
programs in a Canadian context by its inclusion in the Comprehensive category. The
study accepted the Adjusted Maclean’s methodology as it allows for increased
differentiation by type, it includes categories that are well understood and accepted by the
general public in Ontario and Canada, since Maclean’s has been using them for many
years, and differentiates those institutions that offer medical school programs.
Operationalization of the variables – Climate diversity
The variables used to assess climate diversity are enrolment profile,
undergraduate profile and student-faculty contact. The selection of values for each
variable permits for differentiation between institutions while allowing for similar
institutions to be clustered together.
Enrolment profile
This variable categorizes students according to the proportion of students enrolled
in undergraduate and graduate programs and provides insight into the mission and
climate of the institution. The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching
(2012a) noted on their website that the mix of graduate and undergraduate students
“reflects important differences with respect to educational mission as well as institutional
climate and culture—differences that can have implications for infrastructure, services,
and resource allocation”. Leslie (1980) noted that Canadian universities were developed
with an emphasis on minimum standards of achievements and universal accessibility
70
rather than by building a stratified university system. Universities, for the most part,
offer both undergraduate and graduate programs with no major centre for graduate
education. Graduate education provides an atmosphere of enquiry and discovery with
faculty having diverse intellectual interests, thereby benefiting both undergraduate and
graduate students. A fair proportion of total resources need to be allocated to support
graduate education. These would include financial resources for the library and
laboratories that would also benefit undergraduate students. However, faculty time
would have to be shared between graduate and undergraduate students. He also noted
that graduate students should make up at least 5% of the student base in order for the
institution to have some benefits from providing graduate education.
The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2012a) classifies
institutions as exclusively undergraduate (two and four year institutions with no graduate
programs), combined undergraduate and graduate/professional, or exclusively
graduate/professional (no undergraduate programs). Institutions that provide both
undergraduate and graduate programs (which is the case in Ontario except for Algoma
University) are further differentiated by those with very high undergraduate (graduate
students account for less than 10% of FTE enrolment), high undergraduate (graduate
students account for between 10% and less than 25% of FTE enrolment), majority
undergraduate (graduate students account for between 25% and less than 50% of FTE
enrolment) and majority graduate/professional (graduate students account for at least
50% of FTE enrolment).
The European classification of higher education institutions chose not to use an
indicator of graduate intensity in their teaching and learning profile dimension to avoid
its hierarchical connotation. Instead, they chose to use the following degree attributions,
of which one or more may be attributed to a single institution: doctorate focus (more than
5% of all qualifications awarded are doctorate degrees), master focus (more than 25% of
all qualifications awarded are master’s degrees), bachelor focus (more than 40% of all
qualifications awarded are bachelor degrees), and sub-degree focus (more than 5% of all
qualifications awarded are sub-degree qualifications) (U-Map, 2011).
71
From a Canadian and Ontario context, few institutions have more than 25% of
their student population as graduate students. This study accepted that students have a
different experience in institutions with graduate students making up less than 10% of
total enrolment and more than 20% of total enrolment. Institutions were therefore
categorized as a) low graduate, if they have less than 10% full-time graduate students as a
percentage of total full-time enrolment, b) medium graduate, if their graduate enrolment
is between 10% and 20% and c) high graduate, if their graduate enrolment is above 20%.
Undergraduate profile
This variable provides insight into the undergraduate climate and culture of the
institution by distinguishing between the undergraduate population that attend on a full-
time basis and those that attend on a part-time basis. The Carnegie Foundation for
Advancement of Teaching (2010a) noted on their website that
these differences have implications for the scheduling of classes, student services, extracurricular activities, time to degree, and other factors. Part-time students also tend to be older than full-time students, and older students bring more life experience and maturity into the classroom, often accompanied by a greater zeal for learning compared with those who have not spent any appreciable time away from formal education. Older students also face special challenges related to the competing obligation of school, work and family. The European classification of higher education institutions examines the part-
time nature of the student body as a whole in its student profile dimension and does not
differentiate between graduate and undergraduate students. Its part-time student indicator
examines the number of students enrolled in part-time programs as a percentage of total
enrolment and classifies institutions as either predominantly part-time (more than 20% of
total enrolment are part-time students), substantially part-time (between 10% and 20% of
total enrolment are part-time students), some part-time (between 5% and 10% of total
enrolment are part-time students) and none if less than 5% of students are enrolled in
part-time programs (U-Map, 2011). Since the vast majority of students in Ontario
universities are undergraduates, the study investigated the undergraduate climate and
culture by examining the number of part-time undergraduate students at each institutions.
72
Institutions were therefore categorized using the same values used by the
Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (2010a) for its examination of
undergraduate profile. An institution was categorized as a) low full-time, if full-time
undergraduate students as a percentage of total undergraduate enrolment is less than 60%,
b) medium full-time, if the percentage is between 60% and less than 80% and c) high
full-time, if the percentage is 80% or higher.
Student-faculty contact
This variable was used as there is a widely held belief in the literature that one of
the factors that lead to improved student engagement, satisfaction and learning is
increased student-faculty contact (e.g., Jacob, 1957; Wilson, Gaff, Dierst, Wood, and
Bavry, 1975; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1979; Astin, 1985, 1993; Lundberg and Schreiner,
2004). For the most part, the more contact between students and faculty both inside and
outside the classroom, the greater the student development and satisfaction (Astin, 1993).
Tinto (1987) noted that student-faculty involvement was the primary motivator for
students’ persistence in their education while Astin (1993) found that student-faculty
interactions were positively associated “with student grade-point average, degree
attainment, enrollment in graduate or professional school, every self-reported area of
intellectual and personal growth, satisfaction with quality of instruction, and likelihood of
choosing a career in college teaching” (pp. 383-384).
From an Ontario perspective, student-faculty interactions have also gained
increased prominence as The Honorable Bob Rae (2005) recommended an additional
$700 million be provided by 2007-08 for academic renewal in Ontario “towards teaching
excellence and educational innovation so that students have increased opportunities for
meaningful contact with faculty, and better facilities and equipment” (p. 53).
Universities in Ontario have also been asked to sign accountability agreements with the
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities that include specific student-faculty
targets to be achieved with the additional funding provided.
73
McMurtry and McClelland (1997) reviewed the literature on student-faculty ratios
and student learning and identified several studies conducted at the elementary and
secondary school level in support of the notion that smaller class sizes have a positive
impact on achievement scores. “For every pupil by which class size is reduced below 20,
the class’s average achievement improves substantially more than for each pupil by
which class size is reduced between 30 and 20” (Glass, Cahen, Smith, & Filby, 1979 as
quoted in McMurtry & McClelland, 1997, p. 294). Kokkelenberg, Dillon, and Christy’s
(2008) study at a public university controlled for a number of variables such as student
ability, level of student, gender, minority status, academic department and others and
determined that the “average grade point declines as class size increases, precipitously up
to class size of twenty, and more gradually but monotonically through larger class sizes.
Using this study to base the parameters, institutions were categorized as a) high contact,
if the ratio of total enrolment to full-time faculty is below 20, b) medium contact, if the
ratio is 20 to 30 and c) low contact, if the ratio is above 30.
Qualitative methodology
The second phase of this study used policy analysis, broadly defined by Pal
(2006) “as the disciplined application of intellect to public problems” (p. 14) and his
expanded definition borrowed from Dunn (2004) as “a process of multidisciplinary
inquiry designed to create, critically assess, and communicate information that is useful
in understanding and improving policies” (Pal, 2006, p. 14). It considered the federal and
provincial policy environments with a focus on the financial component of these policies
which have the greatest impact on universities in Ontario. It drew on mutually related
theoretical perspectives from organizational theory: resource dependency and
institutional isomorphism as its primary conceptual framework in order to assist in the
interpretation and corroboration of the change in diversity during 1994 and 2010. This
study drew from this analytical and theoretical approach as its unit of observation is a set
of organizations.
Qualitative research interviews were used as a method of obtaining knowledge.
Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with university presidents
74
(Executive Heads) or their designate and the President of COU from March 1, 2013 to
May 31, 2013 to gain a greater understanding of the key factors or barriers responsible
for Ontario’s reticence in making design changes in its higher education system.
Participants were also asked to comment on suggestions made in the literature and in the
sector generally, that would increase diversity in Ontario’s university sector and to
suggest provincial and federal government levers that could effectively be used to
increase diversity.
Selection of participants
Nine university presidents or their designate and the President of COU were
interviewed. The selection ensured that participants represented a cross-section of
institutional types (3-comprehensive, 3-primarily undergraduate, 2-medical/doctoral and
1-special purpose) and sizes (6-large, 2-medium and 1-small) as determined by their 2010
categorization. The participants also covered Ontario’s geographic regions (3-GTA, 3-
Central, 1-East, 1-Southwest and 1-Northern) and represented over 40% of publicly
assisted universities. Permission was obtained in writing from each participant to
disclose their names as participants in this study. The participants were:
Dr. Patrick Deane President and Vice-Chancellor McMaster University Dr. Mike Degagné President and Vice-Chancellor Nipissing University Dr. Sara Diamond President and Vice-Chancellor OCAD University Dr. Sheldon Levy President and Vice-Chancellor Ryerson University Dr. Tim McTiernan President and Vice-Chancellor University of Ontario Institute of Technology
75
Dr. Bruce Mitchell Associate Provost, Resources University of Waterloo Dr. Bonnie M. Patterson President and Chief Executive Officer Council of Ontario Universities Dr. Alastair Summerlee President and Vice-Chancellor University of Guelph Dr. Alan Wildeman President and Vice-Chancellor University of Windsor Dr. Daniel Woolf Principal and Vice-Chancellor Queen’s University
Data collection
All participants were provided with a three page summary of the research
methodology and the draft results of the quantitative analysis (Chapter III to VI) as well
as the list of discussion questions. They were also provided with a letter of consent
which was signed and returned to the researcher prior to starting the interview. All
interviews were conducted in person, were digitally recorded and were targeted to last no
more than one hour. All interviews were personally transcribed by the researcher within
approximately one week of the date of the interview and were provided to participants via
e-mail. This ensured that participants had the opportunity to review the transcript and
make additions, deletions or corrections as they saw fit and return the revised transcript to
the researcher within one month. Few participants made changes to the transcript. Notes
were also taken during interviews which proved to be useful in summarizing the main
points of discussion. The written text was analyzed through meaning condensation to
identify major themes.
The main discussion questions were as follows:
76
• If the term institutional diversity refers to the number of institutional types in a
system or sector, or the even dispersion of institutions across types in a system or
sector, in your opinion, to what extent is institutional diversity currently a
cherished value in Ontario’s university sector? Why?
• Institutional diversity comes in different forms. Some forms include,
programmatic diversity (differences in degree level, degree area, mission, or
program emphasis of institutions); procedural diversity (differences in the ways in
which teaching, research or services are provided); systemic diversity (differences
in the type of institution and size of institution); constituential diversity
(differences in types of students served or faculty); reputational (differences based
on prestige and status); values and climate (differences in social environment and
culture). Which form or forms of diversity do you value most? Why?
• An examination of systemic and climate diversity between 1994 and 2010 found
that there was a decrease in the levels of diversity. How would you explain these
results? What factors, in your opinion, are contributing to this convergence?
• There have been a number of suggestions made on how institutional diversity can
be increased in Ontario’s university sector, including for example, the creation of
a teaching-oriented undergraduate focused sector, the creation of an open
university or through the use of Strategic Mandate Agreements. What issues or
concerns do you have with these approaches to increasing systemic diversity in
Ontario’s university sector? How would you suggest increasing diversity in the
sector?
• What provincial government policies or levers would be most helpful or most
likely to increase systemic diversity in Ontario’s university sector?
77
• What federal government policies or levers would be most helpful or most likely
to increase systemic diversity in Ontario’s university sector?
• Is there anything else you would like to add on the topic of diversity from a sector
or institutional perspective?
Limitations of qualitative methodology
As previously stated, there are 21 provincially assisted universities in Ontario.
The study purposely selected participants that ensured representation from a cross-section
of institutional types and geographic regions and therefore cannot be generalized to
represent the views and opinions of all university Presidents in Ontario.
Conclusion This chapter described how the research design first addressed the quantification
of the extent of diversity in Ontario’s university sector between 1994 and 2010 (using
hierarchical cluster analysis) and more specifically, addressed the quantification of
systemic and climate diversity by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix
methodology. It also described how the second phase of the research design used policy
analysis, organizational theory and interviews to assist in the interpretation and
corroboration of the change in diversity to arrive at a proposed policy for Ontario’s
university sector.
This study’s research methodology ensured that this dissertation contributed to the
scholarly literature on higher education in a number of ways. It first added to the
international scholarly discussions of using organizational theory as a conceptual
framework to better understand the change in diversity by bringing an Ontario
perspective in evaluating competing perspectives. This dissertation also provided a first
attempt at quantifying the level of diversity (including systemic and climate diversity) in
Ontario’s university sector.
78
CHAPTER IV: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter quantitatively measured and determined the extent of diversity in the
university sector in 1994 and 2010 by first using hierarchical cluster analysis. It also
quantitatively measured and determined the change between 1994 and 2010 in systemic
diversity (institutional size and type) and climate diversity (campus environment and
culture) by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to categorize
institutions into institutional types and determined their concentration and dispersion by
type as a means of assessing diversity in the university sector in the province of Ontario.
Simpson’s λ was also used as another measure of systemic and climate diversity for 1994
and 2010.
Hierarchical cluster analysis
Hierarchical cluster analysis empirically measures the similarity among variables
and groups similar cases together as homogeneous groups. Table 10 provides descriptive
statistics for all variables used in the hierarchical cluster analysis for 1994 and 2010
before being converted to standard scores. The standard deviation for almost all variables
exceeds the mean due to the high variability in the minimum and maximum values.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the results of the 1994 and 2010 hierarchical cluster
analysis in the form of a dendogram after the raw score for each variable was
standardized and the cluster analysis conducted using SPSS. Universities were clustered
in three groups for both 1994 and 2010. All universities included in both 1994 and 2010
belonged to the same group in 2010 as they did in 1994. These two observations
obtained from an examination of the dendograms suggested that there has been very little
change in diversity between 1994 and 2010.
79
Table 10 – Raw Score Descriptive Statistics 1994 and 2010
Standard
Variable Year Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum
Basic operating funding 1994 75,279 80,531 - 351,131 2010 104,571 104,718 - 451,312
Non-credit funding 1994 2,366 4,160 - 16,131 2010 7,883 12,205 - 41,500
Tuition fees 1994 31,965 30,194 131 126,039 2010 130,107 138,581 310 600,781
Sponsored research funding 1994 33,276 56,798 - 251,699 2010 114,574 200,995 9 878,725
Full-time undergraduates 1994 9,826 8,236 17 29,836 2010 15,857 14,072 36 56,531
Part-time undergarduates 1994 3,976 3,710 65 13,236 2010 3,263 3,689 31 16,956
Full-time graduates 1994 1,152 1,481 - 6,360 2010 2,232 2,938 - 13,195
Part-time graduates 1994 515 562 - 1,809 2010 526 596 - 2,165
Full-time Faculty 1994 614 605 9 2,568 2010 699 638 7 2,698
A closer examination of the second cluster grouping (Guelph, Queen’s, Carleton,
Waterloo, McMaster, Ottawa, Western, York and Ryerson) revealed that it took slightly
longer for Ryerson and York to join the second cluster in 2010 as compared to 1994
suggesting that they are slightly more diverse from the second cluster of institutions in
2010 as compared to 1994.
80
Figure 1 – Dendogram of Ontario Universities 1994
The University of Toronto’s characteristics were so dissimilar from the other
institutions that it remained as a single member in a cluster for both 1994 and 2010. In
the 1994 dendogram, the University of Toronto was combined with all other institutions
in the last stage of the analysis. In the 2010 dendogram, the University of Toronto is first
combined with the second cluster grouping, and as a group, combined with the first
cluster grouping. This would suggest that the University of Toronto, while still a single
member in a cluster, is less different that other institutions in 2010 as compared to 1994
suggesting a decrease in diversity.
81
Figure 2 – Dendogram of Ontario Universities 2010
The hierarchical cluster analysis suggested that there has been very little change
in diversity between 1994 and 2010 since universities in Ontario were clustered in three
groups for both 1994 and 2010 and remained in the same cluster grouping in 2010 as they
did in 1994.
Diversity matrix analysis
In order to quantitatively measure and determine the change from 1994 to 2010 in
systemic diversity (institutional size and type) and climate diversity (campus environment
and culture) by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology, institutions
82
must first be categorized. Table 11 categorizes institutions by size and type for 1994 and
2010. Table 12 categorizes institutions by enrolment and undergraduate profile, and
student-faculty contact for 1994 and 2010. Enrolment and faculty data used to categorize
institutions for 1994 and 2010 can be found in Appendix 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 11 – Categorization by Size and Type 1994 and 2010
1994 2010 1994 2010
Algoma University S SPBrock University L L PU PUCarleton University L L C CDominican College of Philosophy and Theology S S SP SPUniversity of Guelph L L C CLakehead University M M PU PULaurentian University M M PU PUMcMaster University L L MD MDNippissing University S M PU PUOCAD University S S SP SPOntario Institute for Studies in Education S SPUOIT M PUUniversity of Ottawa L L MD MDQueen's University L L MD MDRedeemer University College S S SP SPRoyal Military College of Canada S S SP SPRyerson University L L PU PUUniversity of Toronto L L MD MDTrent University M M PU PUUniversity of Waterloo L L C CThe University of Western Ontario L L MD MDWilfrid Laurier University M L PU PUUniversity of Windsor L L C CYork University L L C C
Size: S=small, M=medium, L=largeType: PU=primarily undergraduate, C=comprehensive, MD=medical/doctoral, SP=special purpose
SIZE TYPE
83
Table 12 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact 1994 and 2010
1994 2010 1994 2010 1994 2010
Algoma University L M LBrock University L L M H L LCarleton University M M M H L LDominican College of Philosophy and Theology H H L L H HUniversity of Guelph M L H H M LLakehead University L L M H L MLaurentian University L L M M M MMcMaster University M M M H H MNippissing University L L L M L LOCAD University L L L M L LOntario Institute for Studies in Education H L HUOIT L H LUniversity of Ottawa M M M H M LQueen's University M M M M M MRedeemer University College L L H H M MRoyal Military College of Canada H H H H H HRyerson University L L L L L LUniversity of Toronto M M M H M MTrent University L L M H M LUniversity of Waterloo L M M H M LThe University of Western Ontario M M M H H MWilfrid Laurier University L L M H M LUniversity of Windsor L M M H L LYork University L L M H L L
Enrolment profile: L= low graduate, M= medium graduate, H=high graduateUndergraduate profile: L=low full-time, M=medium full-time, H=high full-timeStudent/Faculty contact: L=low contact, M=medium contact, H=high contact
PROFILE PROFILEENROLMENT UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTY
CONTACT
The results of the categorization were first summarized for each variable by year
in order to assess the reasonableness of the categorization and to gain a general
understanding of the changes which took place from 1994 to 2010 and its impact on
systemic and climate diversity.
Distribution of institutions by variable
Table 13 summarizes the distribution of institutions by size using total enrolment
levels. It shows that there has been very little change in the dispersion of institution by
size since 1994. Nipissing University is classified in 2010 as medium from small in 1994
as its enrolment levels exceeded 5,000 students in 2010. Wilfrid Laurier University is
84
classified in 2010 as large from medium in 1994 as its enrolment levels exceeded 10,000
students in 2010. It appears that the 56% increase in enrolment which occurred after
1994 in Ontario’s university sector was mainly absorbed by institutions that were already
considered to be large institutions.
Table 13 – Ontario Institutions by Size 1994 and 2010
(n) %* (n) %*
Small 6 27 5 22
Medium 4 18 5 22
Large 12 55 13 57
Total 22 100 23 100* Percentage may not add due to rounding
1994 2010
Table 14 shows that there has also been very little change in the dispersion of
institutions by type between 1994 and 2010 as the only change occurred in the primarily
undergraduate classification due to the creation of UOIT in 2002. There is no change in
the special purpose category as the reduction of one institution (as a result of the merger
of OISE with the University of Toronto) was offset by the addition of another institution
(the dissolution of Algoma University College and re-establishment of the institution as
Algoma University in 2007).
After considering the distribution of institutions by category for each of the two
variables (size and type) used to assess systemic diversity, the analysis would suggest that
there has been very little change if any in systemic diversity from 1994 to 2010.
85
Table 14 – Ontario Institutions by Type 1994 and 2010
(n) %* (n) %*
Primarily undergraduate 7 32 8 35
Comprehensive 5 23 5 22
Medical/doctoral 5 23 5 22
Special purpose 5 23 5 22
Total 22 100 23 100* Percentage may not add due to rounding
1994 2010
Table 15 shows the distribution of institutions by their enrolment profile. There
appears to be very little change in the dispersion of institutions from 1994 to 2010
suggesting no change in climate diversity. The University of Waterloo and the
University of Windsor increased their mix of graduate and undergraduate students as both
institutions moved up one level (from low to medium) while the University of Guelph
moved down one level (from medium to low). Algoma and UOIT were two additions to
the low category. The merger of OISE with the University of Toronto reduced the
number of institutions with high graduate profile.
86
Table 15 – Ontario Institutions by Enrolment Profile
1994 and 2010
(n) %* (n) %*
Low graduate 12 55 13 57
Medium graduate 7 32 8 35
High graduate 3 14 2 9
Total 22 100 23 100* Percentage may not add due to rounding
1994 2010
Table 16 would suggest that there has been a significant change in the
undergraduate profile of institutions from 1994 to 2010 as a result of the growth in
undergraduate enrolment with a greater percentage of undergraduate students attending
institutions on a full-time basis. While the enrolment data collected is for the most part
consistent amongst institutions in-year, it cannot be used to make year-over-year
comparisons because institutions changed their definitions of ‘full-time’ student since
1994. For example, the University of Toronto considered a student to be ‘full-time’ if
she took 4 full courses (8 half courses) per year in most programs prior to 2003-04 but
thereafter considered 3 full courses (6 half courses) as being a ‘full-time’ workload which
inflates the number of full-time students offset by a reduction in the number of reported
part-time students in 2010 as compared to 1994, making the comparison based on
distribution between the two years less meaningful.
87
Table 16 – Ontario Institutions by Undergraduate Profile
1994 and 2010
(n) %* (n) %*
Low full-time 5 23 2 9
Medium full-time 14 64 5 22
High full-time 3 14 16 70
Total 22 100 23 100* Percentage may not add due to rounding
1994 2010
Table 17 shows the distribution of institutions based on their level of
student/faculty contact. It appears that there has been a decrease in climate diversity
from 1994 to 2010 since the dispersion of institutions are concentrated mainly around the
low contact category in 2010 yet institutions are more evenly distributed by category in
1994. Wilfrid Laurier University, Trent University and the Universities of Guelph,
Waterloo and Ottawa all had a decrease from medium to low contact while McMaster
University and The University of Western Ontario had a decrease from high to medium
contact from 1994 to 2010. Only Lakehead University improved its level of contact
moving from low to medium. It appears that institutions handled the growth in enrolment
since 1994 with increased part-time faculty in 2010 relative to 1994, larger class sizes or
a combination of both.
88
Table 17 – Ontario Institutions by Level of Student/Faculty Contact 1994 and 2010
(n) %* (n) %*
Low contact 8 36 14 61
Medium contact 9 41 7 30
High contact 5 23 2 9
Total 22 100 23 100* Percentage may not add due to rounding
1994 2010
After considering the distribution of institutions by category for each of the three
variables (enrolment profile, undergraduate profile and student-faculty contact) used to
assess climate diversity, the analysis would suggest that there has been a decrease in
climate diversity from 1994 to 2010. This conclusion was reached mainly from
examining the student-faculty variable as the enrolment profile showed little change
while the undergraduate profile provided no insight.
Categorization of institutions into types
Using the results of the categorization of institutions by variables, the study
adapted Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to categorize institutions into
institutional types and determined their concentration and dispersion by type as a means
of assessing systemic and climate diversity in the university sector in the province of
Ontario for 1994 and 2010. Each institution is assigned to one cell of the diversity matrix
using only the two variables to assess systemic diversity (type and size) and again, using
only the three variables to assess climate diversity (enrolment profile, undergraduate
profile and student/faculty contact).
Table 18 shows the distribution of institutional types using the variables to assess
systemic diversity for 1994 and 2010. The number of types decreased from 6 in 1994 to
5 in 2010 with over 85% of institutions belonging to only 4 types for both years.
89
Table 18 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity 1994 and 2010
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
3 5 3 50 15 681 4 4 67 19 861 2 5 83 21 951 1 6 100 22 1006 6 100 22 100
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
4 5 4 80 20 871 3 5 100 23 1005 5 100 23 100
2010
1994
The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:
Table 19 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity 1994 and 2010
Change in
INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994
A 22/6 3.7 23/5 4.6 DecreaseB 5/22 X 100 22.7 5/23 X 100 21.7 UnchangedC 3/22 X 100 13.6 2.5/23 X 100 10.9 IncreaseD 1/22 X 100 4.5 0/23 X 100 0 Decrease
1994 2010
90
Index A indicates that there was more systemic diversity in 1994 with twenty-two
universities spread over 6 types compared to twenty-three universities spread over 5 types
in 2010. Index B, which measures the extent of large-scale clustering of universities by
institutional type, indicates that there was little change between both years as the largest
cluster remained constant with 5 institutions. Index C, which measures the extent to
which institutions are concentrated by type, indicates that 2010 had less concentration by
type and therefore more systemic diversity as compared to 1994. Index D, which
measures the extent to which institutions belong to only one institutional type, indicates
that 1994 had more systemic diversity since it had one unique institutional type as
compared to no unique institutional types in 2010. The categorization of institutions by
size and by type may vary the index values by year depending on how each variable is
defined. Since the categorization method is consistent for both 1994 and 2010, the yearly
index values are not as significant by themselves but are calculated purely to determine
the change over time. All differences are also being treated as equally important.
The level of systemic diversity can be further summarized numerically for 1994
and 2010 using Simpson’s λ. The larger the number of types of higher education
institutions and the more institutions are evenly distributed across a large number of
types, the more diverse the system. The closer the indicator is to zero, the higher the
diversity. In 1994, there were 22 institutions distributed across 6 types. Simpson’s λ is
consequently: (5/22)² + (5/22)² + (5/22)² + (4/22)² + (2/22)² + (1/22)² = 0.1983. In 2010,
there were 23 institutions distributed across 5 types. Simpson’s λ is consequently: (5/23)²
+ (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (3/23)² = 0.2060. The categorization of institutions may
vary the calculation of Simpson’s λ by year but since the categorization is consistent for
both 1994 and 2010, the yearly values are not as significant by themselves but are
calculated purely to determine the change over time. Using the calculation of Simpson’s
λ there appears to be a decrease in systemic diversity between 1994 and 2010 since the
2010 value is higher than the 1994 value.
91
Therefore, there appears to have been a decrease in systemic diversity from 1994
to 2010 with two of the four indices identifying a decrease, one identifying little change
and the other identifying an increase in diversity and Simpson’s λ indicating a decrease.
Table 20 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Climate Diversity 1994 and 2010
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
2 4 2 20 8 362 3 4 40 14 642 2 6 60 18 824 1 10 100 22 10010 10 100 22 100
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
1 6 1 10 6 261 4 2 20 10 432 3 4 40 16 701 2 5 50 18 785 1 10 100 23 10010 10 100 23 100
2010
1994
Table 20 shows the distribution of institutional types using the variables to assess
climate diversity for 1994 and 2010. The number of types remained unchanged at ten
between the two years with 4 unique institutional types in 1994 as compared to 5 in 2010
suggesting an increase in the level of climate diversity in the sector.
The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:
92
Table 21 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity 1994 and 2010
Change inINDEX Diversity
Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994A 22/10 2.2 23/10 2.3 UnchangedB 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 DecreaseC 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 DecreaseD 4/22 X 100 18.2 5/23 X 100 21.7 Increase
1994 2010
Index A indicates that climate diversity essentially remained unchanged since
1994 with twenty-two universities spread over ten types as compared to twenty-three
universities spread over ten types in 2010. Index B which measures the extent of large-
scale clustering of universities by institutional type indicates that there was a decrease in
climate diversity as the largest cluster included 4 institutions as compared to 6 in 2010.
Index C, which measures the extent to which institutions are concentrated by type,
indicates that 1994 had less concentration by type and therefore more climate diversity as
compared to 2010. Index D, which measures the extent to which institutions belong to
only one institutional type, indicates that 1994 had less climate diversity since it had 4
unique institutional types as compared to 5 unique institutional types in 2010. The
categorization of institutions by enrolment profile, undergraduate profile and
student/faculty contact may vary the index values by year depending on how each
variable is defined. Since the categorization method is consistent for both 1994 and
2010, the yearly index values are not as significant by themselves but are calculated
purely to determine the change over time. All differences are also being treated as
equally important.
The level of climate diversity can be further summarized numerically for 1994
and 2010 using Simpson’s λ. In 1994, there were 22 institutions distributed across ten
types. Simpson’s λ is consequently: (4/22)² + (4/22)² + (3/22)² + (3/22)² + (2/22)² +
(2/22)² + (1/22)² + (1/22)² + (1/22)² + (1/22)² =0.1281. In 2010, there were 23
93
institutions distributed across ten types. Simpson’s λ is consequently: (6/23)² + (4/23)² +
(3/23)² + (3/23)² + (2/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² = 0.1493. The
categorization of institutions may vary the calculation of Simpson’s λ by year but since
the categorization is consistent for both 1994 and 2010, the yearly values are not as
significant by themselves but are calculated purely to determine the change over time.
Using the calculation of Simpson’s λ there appears to be a decrease in climate diversity
between 1994 and 2010 since the 2010 value is higher than the 1994 value.
Therefore, there appears to have been a decrease in climate diversity from 1994 to
2010 with two of the four indices identifying a decrease, one identifying little change and
the other identifying an increase in diversity and Simpson’s λ indicating a decrease.
Conclusion
The hierarchical cluster analysis suggested that there has been very little change
in diversity between 1994 and 2010 since universities in Ontario were clustered in three
groups for both 1994 and 2010 and remained in the same cluster grouping in 2010 as they
did in 1994. However, by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to
Ontario’s university sector, there appears to have been a decrease in systemic diversity
between 1994 and 2010 with two of the four indices identifying a decrease, one
identifying little change and the other identifying an increase in diversity and Simpson’s
λ indicating a decrease. There also appears to have been a decrease in climate diversity
between 1994 and 2010 with two of the four indices identifying a decrease, one
identifying little change and the other identifying an increase in diversity and Simpson’s
λ indicating a decrease. The following two chapters examined the federal and provincial
environment in an attempt to explain why systemic and climate diversity decreased in
2010 from 1994.
94
CHAPTER V: FEDERAL POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
This chapter first examined the general environmental conditions affecting
Ontario universities and will concentrate on its policy environment in order to determine,
through policy analysis, how these policies impacted the level of diversity in the sector.
Institutions in Ontario are influenced by federal and provincial policies. The study
focused mainly on government policies as they undoubtedly have “a most critical
influence on systemic diversity. In national systems such as those of Australia, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United Kingdom, convergent tendencies
predominate amongst higher education institutions because policy and regulation are not
strong enough to sustain differences between institutions” (Codling and Meek, 2006, p.
9). Furthermore, special attention was placed in this study on financial incentives since
“one of the most powerful forms of policy intervention that a government can use to
maintain differences between institutions is that of higher education funding policy”
(Codling and Meek, 2006, p. 12).
This chapter examined a number of key federal government funding programs
and their contribution to processes of institutional diversification or convergence which is
followed, in the next chapter, by an examination of key provincial programs. The
methodology used to determine if a policy contributes to processes of institutional
diversification or convergence is as follows. Wherever practical, this study first
examined the extent of the change in the dispersion of funding amongst institutions by
comparing the relative proportion of grants received in 1994 as compared to 2010. There
is a greater potential for systemic diversity when funding is concentrated in fewer
institutions. The funding concentration was further examined using the standard
deviation of the relative proportion of grants received in 1994 and 2010. An increase in
the distance from the mean from 1994 to 2010 signifies an increase in concentration of
funding, which suggests increased systemic diversity. The features of a policy were also
considered to determine if the policy provided diversity or convergence incentives for
institutions.
95
The federal programs examined in this study include the provision of research
funding to universities through its national granting councils, Canada Research Chairs
Program, Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program and Knowledge Infrastructure
Program.
Ontario’s environmental conditions
Organizational theory provided a means of analyzing organizational behavior
from a marco perspective through the examination of the relationship between the
organization and its environment. Environmental conditions influence the development
of higher education systems. There are a number of external factors which influences the
university sector in Ontario that must be considered before examining the impact of
federal government policies.
Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) identified two major phenomena which
contributed to the shaping of Ontario’s environment: democratization and globalization.
Democratization in a higher education context is “the idea that all members of society
should have equal access, in a meaningful way, to the resources that society makes
available for post-secondary education and to the opportunities resulting from that
experience” (p. 18). Institutions are faced with increased public interest in how they are
meeting their objectives of increased access and student success resulting in calls for
greater accountability and transparency. Existing institutional norms and values,
especially around what constitutes quality scholarship are being challenged as a result of
greater diversity among staff’s gender, ethnicity and background.
Globalization is a multi-dimensional phenomenon with political, social and
cultural implications since the process of globalization is driven by market forces
(competition and the lure of profits) and technological revolution (transport and
communication). Globalization is “used in a positive sense to describe a process of
integration into the world economy. It is used in a normative sense to prescribe a
strategy of development based on a rapid integration with the world economy” (Nayyar,
96
2008, p. 3). The main implications of globalization for higher education include
increased public awareness of the knowledge and skills produced by post-secondary
institutions and its contributions to economic growth, reliance on market and quasi-
market forces with greater competition for the provision of degrees, increased uncertainty
about the levels of funding available to institutions combined with increased demands for
efficiency and increased pressures for more collaboration with industry for greater
economic competitiveness and for academic institutions to adopt business processes for
greater efficiency (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009).
From 1994 to 2010, there was a significant change in student population from
increased demand for undergraduate and graduate education. As noted in Chapter 1, total
student enrolment increased by 58.6% with graduate students making up a greater
proportion of total population. This period of high student demand for undergraduate and
graduate education also included a gradual increase (1994 – 56% to 2010 – 60%) in
female graduates as a percentage of total graduates (Statistics Canada). This period is
also characterized by an increase in financial resources combined with a more diversified
revenue stream even as the combination of government operating grants and tuition fees
accounted for almost the same proportion of total revenue by 2010. However, the
benefits of a diversified revenue stream are tempered by the fact that the provincial
government’s operating support funds students equally by program for all institutions and
tuition fees are mostly regulated creating a uniform funding regime.
Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009), in their analysis of the forces which
shaped higher education in Ontario, highlighted the strong dominance of values and
norms in universities to include the notion of maximizing choices which forms the basis
for academic freedom of individuals and the autonomy of institutions. These freedoms in
higher education are also balanced with other ethical norms of quality and reputation.
“…the ethos of existing institutions may work so strongly against specialization that it
could be argued that little can be done to move any of them toward specialization”
(p.178), a clear indication that in their view, universities in Ontario operate in an
environment that has traditional faculty personnel with strong academic cultures.
97
From 1994 to 2010, the development of Ontario Universities were influenced by a
lack of variation in a number of environmental factors including a uniform provincial
economy, uniform funding regimes and the strong dominance of values and norms
suggesting the promotion of similar responses from universities and in turn, promoting
homogeneity across the system.
Federal government policies
The role of the Federal government in higher education began in 1874 with the
creation of the Royal Military College in Ontario followed by the funding of applied
industrial research in 1916 and university tuition of World War II veterans. As higher
education came to be viewed as a public good in the 1950’s, access to higher education
needed to expand and the government began to provide operating funding to universities.
Later, operating funding was no longer provided directly to universities but through the
Established Programs Financing (in support of postsecondary education without any
spending restrictions), which also included the health care envelope; and in 1995, was
replaced with the Canada Health and Social Transfer, further expanding the funding
envelope with all social transfer programs (Jones, 2006).
Jones (2006) noted that certain federal programs reward existing research strength
in universities and reinforce differences between those institutions that are research-
intensive from those that are more teaching-intensive. As industrial research in Canada
lagged other OECD member countries, the federal government increased research
funding and created federal Centers of Excellence to link research with industry, and
provided massive research infrastructure funding linked to the private sector through the
Canada Foundation for Innovation. Funding was also provided to support the indirect
cost of research based on an institution’s success in obtaining university-based peer
reviewed research from the three federal granting councils.
The examination of federal research funding provided to Ontario universities is
important as it supports a key function and is a differentiating characteristic amongst
98
institutions. However, Fallis (2013) noted that differentiating universities according to
their research-intensity is complicated and controversial as research results are
disseminated in a variety of ways and therefore are difficult to measure. While there is
no requirement for Ontario universities to report on their research (a gap in Ontario’s
accountability framework), proxies for research output like research grants received are
used to evaluate the extent of research by institution. This type of analysis excludes
research conducted by professors using the institution’s library system, computer or the
institution’s own funding.
Table 22 summarizes the federal program funding and their contributions to
processes of institutional diversification or convergence derived from this study’s
analysis, the details of which are examined below.
Table 22 – Summary of Federal Programs and Related Impact on Institutional Diversification or Convergence
Federal Program Promoted
National granting councils Diversification
Social Science and Humanities Research Council Diversification
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Diversification
Canadian Institute for Health Research Diversification
Canada Research Chairs Diversification
Canada Excellence Research Chairs Undetermined
Knowledge Infrastructure Program Convergence
National granting councils
For many years, the federal government has been providing research funding to
universities through its three national granting councils (Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian
Institute for Health Research) based on a peer review competitive process. Table 23
shows the combination of all grants received by institution for all three granting councils.
Ontario universities received $254 million from all three national granting councils in
99
1994 as compared to over $746 million in 2010. It is interesting to note that while
Ryerson University, Wilfrid Laurier University, Lakehead University and Brock
University each held less than 1% market share in 1994, they all made significant gains in
their research capacity by 2010. University of Guelph, University of Waterloo, Carleton
University, and the University of Windsor had a significant percentage drop in research
capacity in 2010 from 1994. The five medical/doctoral schools all improved their market
share (save for Queen’s University) and maintained their relative levels of research
funding by receiving 77% of the total in 2010 as compared to 71% in 1994.
Table 23 – Comparison of Funding Provided by National Granting Councils by Institution
1994 and 2010
1994 2010Percentage Percentage Percentage
1994* 2010** of Total of Total ChangeInstitution
Algoma University - 143 0.0 0.0 -Brock University 1,423 6,264 0.6 0.8 33.3Carleton University 11,513 23,769 4.5 3.2 -28.9University of Guelph 18,716 28,743 7.4 3.8 -48.6Lakehead University 1,031 4,426 0.4 0.6 50.0Laurentian University 1,403 3,920 0.6 0.5 -16.7McMaster University 29,189 88,815 11.5 11.9 3.5Nipissing University 16 455 0.0 0.1 -OCAD University - 102 0.0 0.0 -Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 1,018 - 0.4 - -UOIT - 2,909 0.0 0.4 -University of Ottawa 18,344 88,222 7.2 11.8 63.9Queen's University 25,815 62,190 10.2 8.3 -18.6Ryerson University 838 9,276 0.3 1.2 300.0University of Toronto 84,499 267,951 33.2 35.9 8.1Trent University 1,899 4,226 0.7 0.6 -14.3University of Waterloo 20,395 43,791 8.0 5.9 -26.3The University of Western Ontario 22,771 67,898 9.0 9.1 1.1Wilfrid Laurier University 895 5,022 0.4 0.7 75.0University of Windsor 4,678 9,694 1.8 1.3 -27.8York University 9,744 28,872 3.8 3.9 2.6 Total 254,187 746,688 100.0 100.0
* SSHRC, NSERC and Medical Research Council funding as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR funding as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
(Thousands of dollars)
An examination of the standard deviation of the 1994 percentage of total (SD=
7.62) as compared to the 2010 percentage of total (SD= 8.07) determined that there has
100
been an increase in the distances from the mean and therefore suggests that research
activity is more concentrated in 2010 as compared to 1994 thereby increasing the
potential for institutional diversification.
Since the three granting councils each provide different levels of funding to the
university sector in Ontario, the analysis was extended by disaggregating the funding by
research council to examine if one or more research council contributed to the increase in
the concentration of research activity in 2010 as compared to 1994.
Table 24 – Comparison of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Funding by Institution
1994 and 2010
1994 2010Percentage Percentage Percentage
1994* 2010** of Total of Total ChangeInstitution
Algoma University - 119 0.0 0.1 -Brock University 200 3,219 0.9 3.2 255.6Carleton University 1,521 6,466 7.1 6.4 -9.9University of Guelph 732 1,772 3.4 1.8 -47.1Lakehead University 68 1,124 0.3 1.1 266.7Laurentian University 114 657 0.5 0.7 40.0McMaster University 1,626 6,290 7.6 6.2 -18.4Nipissing University - 178 0.0 0.2 -OCAD University - 102 0.0 0.1 -Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 906 - 4.2 0.0 -UOIT - 204 0.0 0.2 -University of Ottawa 3,034 13,000 14.1 12.9 -8.5Queen's University 1,688 8,233 7.8 8.2 5.1Ryerson University 97 2,448 0.5 2.4 380.0University of Toronto 5,025 25,682 23.4 25.5 9.0Trent University 483 987 2.2 1.0 -54.5University of Waterloo 1,161 3,335 5.4 3.3 -38.9The University of Western Ontario 1,632 8,948 7.6 8.9 17.1Wilfrid Laurier University 460 2,354 2.1 2.3 9.5University of Windsor 277 1,514 1.3 1.5 15.4York University 2,494 14,061 11.6 14.0 20.7 Total 21,518 100,693 100.0 100.0
* SSHRC funding as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**SSHRC funding as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
(Thousands of dollars)
Table 24 shows the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
funding provided to Ontario universities increased from $21 million in 1994 to over $100
101
million in 2010. Significant gains in market share were made by Ryerson University,
Lakehead University, Brock University and Laurentian University as each held less than
1% market share in 1994 while Trent University, University of Guelph and University of
Waterloo lost significant market share in 2010 relative to their 1994 positions. Of the
2010 funding, 75.9% is concentrated in six universities, representing an increase from
71.6% in 1994. An examination of the standard deviation of the 1994 percentage of total
(SD= 5.86) as compared to the 2010 percentage of total (SD= 6.24) determined that there
has been an increase in the distances from the mean and therefore suggests that research
activity is more concentrated in 2010 as compared to 1994 increasing the potential for
institutional diversification.
Table 25 – Comparison of Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Funding by Institution
1994 and 2010
1994 2010Percentage Percentage Percentage
1994* 2010** of Total of Total ChangeInstitution
Algoma University - 24 0.0 0.0 -Brock University 1,223 2,528 0.8 0.8 0.0Carleton University 9,779 15,990 6.6 5.2 -21.2University of Guelph 16,572 22,822 11.2 7.5 -33.0Lakehead University 963 2,809 0.7 0.9 28.6Laurentian University 1,289 2,865 0.9 0.9 0.0McMaster University 14,949 27,048 10.1 8.8 -12.9Nipissing University 16 277 0.0 0.1 -OCAD University - - 0.0 0.0 -Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 112 - 0.1 - -UOIT - 2,604 0.0 0.9 -University of Ottawa 8,174 23,695 5.5 7.7 40.0Queen's University 17,538 37,345 11.9 12.2 2.5Ryerson University 658 5,692 0.4 1.9 375.0University of Toronto 33,488 77,430 22.8 25.4 11.4Trent University 1,363 3,153 0.9 1.0 11.1University of Waterloo 18,961 35,428 13.0 11.6 -10.8The University of Western Ontario 10,552 27,271 7.2 8.9 23.6Wilfrid Laurier University 435 2,447 0.3 0.8 166.7University of Windsor 4,401 7,662 3.0 2.5 -16.7York University 6,848 8,921 4.6 2.9 -37.0 Total 147,321 306,011 100.0 100.0
* NSERC funding as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**NSERC funding as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
(Thousands of dollars)
102
Table 25 shows the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
funding provided to Ontario universities increased from $147 million in 1994 to over
$306 million in 2010. Significant gains in market share were made by Ryerson
University, Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Ottawa and Lakehead University,
while York University, University of Guelph and Carleton University lost significant
market share in 2010 relative to their 1994 positions. Of the 2010 funding, 74.4% is
concentrated in six universities, representing a decrease from 76.2% in 1994. An
examination of the standard deviation of the 1994 percentage of total (SD= 6.03) as
compared to the 2010 percentage of total (SD= 6.13) determined that there has been a
small increase in the distances from the mean which suggests that research activity is
more concentrated in 2010 as compared to 1994 increasing the potential for institutional
diversification.
Table 26 – Comparison of Medical Research Council (1994) and Canadian Institute for Health Research (2010) Funding by Institution
1994 2010
Percentage Percentage Percentage1994* 2010** of Total of Total Change
Institution
Algoma University - - 0.0 0.0 -Brock University - 517 0.0 0.2 -Carleton University 213 1,313 0.2 0.4 100.0University of Guelph 1,412 4,149 1.7 1.2 -29.4Lakehead University - 493 0.0 0.1 -Laurentian University - 398 0.0 0.1 -McMaster University 12,614 55,477 14.8 16.3 10.1Nipissing University - - 0.0 0.0 -OCAD University - - 0.0 0.0 -Ontario Institute for Studies in Education - - 0.0 - -UOIT - 101 0.0 0.0 -University of Ottawa 7,136 51,527 8.4 15.2 81.0Queen's University 6,589 16,612 7.7 4.9 -36.4Ryerson University 83 1,136 0.1 0.3 200.0University of Toronto 45,986 164,839 53.8 48.5 -9.9Trent University 53 86 0.1 0.0 -100.0University of Waterloo 273 5,028 0.3 1.5 400.0The University of Western Ontario 10,587 31,679 12.4 9.3 -25.0Wilfrid Laurier University - 221 0.0 0.1 -University of Windsor - 518 0.0 0.2 -York University 402 5,890 0.5 1.7 240.0 Total 85,348 339,984 100.0 100.0
* Medical Research Council funding as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**CIHR funding as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
(Thousands of dollars)
103
Table 26 shows the Medical Research Council and Canadian Institute for Health
Research (CIHR) funding provided to Ontario universities increased from $85 million in
1994 to over $339 million in 2010. While the University of Waterloo, Ryerson
University, York University, and Carleton University made significant market gains from
their 1994 position, the five medical/doctoral schools accounted for over 97% of the
funding in 1994 and over 94% of the funding in 2010 indicating that there has been only
modest change if any, in the extent of research activities conducted throughout
institutions as a result of MRC/CIHR funding. An examination of the standard deviation
of the 1994 percentage of total (SD= 12.30) as compared to the 2010 percentage of total
(SD= 11.10) determined that there has been a decrease in the distances from the mean,
but since the decrease in concentration of the five medical/doctoral universities is so
minor, it would suggest that CIHR continues to promote existing research strengths and
therefore processes of institutional diversification.
The disaggregation of funding by national research council showed that all three
councils continued to support existing research strengths and encouraged diversification
in the university sector in Ontario.
Canada Research Chairs Program
In 2000, the Federal government, in cooperation with higher education institutions
established the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP). It allocated $900 million to
create 2,000 university Chairs for Canadian and foreign academics in key academic
fields. The Chairs were allocated to higher education institutions between 2000-01 and
2004-05. The CRCP is as a key component of Canada’s strategy to become a world
leader in the knowledge-based economy and provides Canada with a competitive edge in
attracting, recruiting, and retaining academics who are world leaders in their respective
fields of expertise. The intent of the CRCP is to give seven-year renewable Tier 1 Chairs
(valued at $200,000 annually) to experienced researchers considered world leaders in
their fields and five-year Tier 2 Chairs (valued at $100,000 annually), renewed once, for
researchers with potential to lead in their fields. Institutions are required to ensure that
104
Chairholders have protected research time. The 1,880 regular Chair allocations were
distributed by area of research as follows: 846 Chairs (45 per cent) NSERC, 658 Chairs
(35 per cent) CIHR, and 376 Chairs (20 per cent) SSHRC while also ensuring that every
university would receive at least one Chair irrespective of the level of research funding
received by the institution (Canada Research Chairs, 2012).
Table 27 – Comparison of Chairs Awarded by Institution 2005 and 2010
2005 2010
Percentage Percentage Percentage2005* 2010* of Total of Total Change
Institution
Algoma University - - 0.0 0.0 -Brock University 9 11 1.2 1.5 25.0Carleton University 26 24 3.5 3.2 -8.6University of Guelph 36 39 4.9 5.3 8.2Lakehead University 6 10 0.8 1.3 62.5Laurentian University 9 9 1.2 1.2 0.0McMaster University 69 69 9.3 9.3 0.0Nipissing University - 2 0.0 0.3 -OCAD University - - 0.0 0.0 -UOIT - 8 0.0 1.1 -University of Ottawa 63 73 8.5 9.8 15.3Queen's University 55 53 7.4 7.1 -4.1Royal Military College 4 5 0.6 0.7 16.7Ryerson University 8 11 1.1 1.5 36.4University of Toronto 267 238 36.2 32.1 -11.3Trent University 9 9 1.2 1.2 0.0University of Waterloo 53 61 7.2 8.2 13.9The University of Western Ontario 70 66 9.5 8.9 -6.3Wilfrid Laurier University 8 11 1.1 1.5 36.4University of Windsor 15 13 2.0 1.8 -10.0York University 32 30 4.3 4.0 -7.0 Total** 739 742 100.0 100.0
* Canada Research Chairs (2012)** Sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC, Special and Competition Chairs
(Number of Chairs)
Table 27 compares the allocation of Chairs by Ontario universities for 2005
(Chairs were allocated to institutions over a five year period from the date the program
was first introduced in 2000) and 2010. While the total number of Chairs awarded to
Ontario Universities remained relatively constant since 2005, Brock University,
105
Lakehead University, Royal Military College, Ryerson University, Waterloo University,
Wilfrid Laurier University and University of Ottawa all had increases in the number of
Chairs awarded since 2005 while four of the five medical/doctoral schools had decreases
or remained stable. Of the 2010 Chairs allocation, 75.4% was concentrated in six
universities, representing a decrease from 78.1% in 2005. An examination of the
standard deviation of the 2005 percentage of total (SD= 7.85) as compared to the 2010
percentage of total (SD= 6.84) determined that there has been a decrease in the distances
from the mean. While all Chairs allocated by area of research had a decrease in the
distances from the mean and a decrease in concentration in 2010 from 2005, the most
significant decrease in the distances from the mean was attributed to the SSHRC Chairs
(SD= 7.17 in 2005 compared to SD= 5.38 in 2010). A decrease in standard deviation
suggests that research activity is less concentrated in 2010 as compared to 2005,
increasing the potential for institutional convergence.
It appears from this analysis that while 75% of the Chairs are concentrated in six
universities, there is a decrease in their concentration. However, the feature of not fully
allocating Chairs based of an institution’s ability to attract competitive funding from the
three national research council combined with a period of high resource flows may have
provided incentives to the less research-intensive institutions to mimic the more
successful research-intensive institutions. Since the funding is still highly concentrated in
six universities, CRCP continues to promote existing research strengths and therefore
processes of institutional diversification in Ontario’s university sector even though some
features of the program may provide some incentive for universities to be more research
intensive.
Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program
In 2008, the Federal government, in cooperation with higher education institutions
established the Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) Program in support of
Canada’s position as a leader in research and innovation. World-renowned researchers
and their teams are awarded up to $10 million over seven years to establish ambitious
research programs at Canadian universities in areas that are consistent with the federal
106
government’s science and technology agenda: environmental sciences and technologies;
natural resources and energy; health and related life sciences and technologies; and
information and communications technologies. The Chairs are awarded through a
competitive two stage process with universities first competing for an opportunity to
establish a Chair at their institution followed by a nomination of candidates from the
short-listed universities. The final selection is made by a selection board composed of
prominent Canadians and world-renowned experts. The first group of CERC was
announced in May 2010 and the second group was announced in June 2011. As the first
round of CERC awards nears completion, it is anticipated that another round of
competition will be launched (Canada Excellence Research Chairs, 2012).
Table 28 – Canada Excellence Research Chairs Awarded by Institution 2010-2011
Institution 2010-11*
McMaster University 1 University of Ottawa 1 University of Toronto 2 University of Waterloo 2 The University of Western Ontario 1 Total Chairs - Ontario 7
University of Alberta 4 Université Laval 2 Université de Sherbrooke 1 University of Saskatchewan 1 University of Manitoba 1 University of British Columbia 1 Dalhousie University 1 University of Prince Edward Island 1 Total Chairs 19
* Canada Excellence Research Chairs (2012)
Table 28 is a summary of Chairs awarded by institution. The seven Chairs
awarded to researchers at 5 of the twenty-three Ontario universities rewarded existing
research strength in Ontario’s university sector and reinforced differences between those
institutions that are research-intensive from those that are more teaching-intensive. Since
this program is relatively new, it is unclear from this limited analysis what impact this
107
program will have on the eighteen institutions that did not receive CERC funding and its
related impact on the sector’s diversity.
Knowledge Infrastructure Program
In March 2009, as a result of the latest economic crisis, the Minister of Industry
launched the Knowledge Infrastructure Program (KIP), a $2 billion one-time-only
measure to support infrastructure enhancements at universities, colleges and other post-
secondary institutions across Canada. The program was part of the federal government’s
2009 Economic Plan to stimulate Canada’s economy in the short-term with new
infrastructure investment to improve Canada’s long-term competitiveness mainly in
science and technology. The call for project submissions was made on March 9 with a
submission deadline of March 30. Institutions submitted projects with a total value
which exceeded $5 billion. Projects were selected based on their ability to quickly and
effectively generate economic activity and support job creation. The university
component of the program gave preference to projects that improved the scale or quality
of research and development facilities at the institution. The college component
(includes colleges, publicly funded polytechnic schools and institutes of technology) was
in support of the delivery of advanced knowledge and skills training. The federal
program provided 50% of the eligible cost for selected projects with the remainder to be
funded by the province, the private sector or by the institutions themselves. The
government of Ontario was quick to provide close to $1 billion in support of this
initiative to universities and colleges. Projects that qualified for funding included
renovation of existing facilities and new construction or a combination of both. All
projects had to be completed by March 31, 2011. While most projects were completed
by that time, the government extended the deadline to October 31, 2011. Universities
were awarded 65% of the total federal funding available while the remaining 35% went
to colleges and Cegeps (Industry Canada, 2012).
Allocating KIP funding using a competitive process instead of basing the
allocation on an institution’s proportionate share of federal sponsored research funding
(since the intent was to improve the scale or quality of research and development
108
facilities in universities) resulted in more research infrastructure funding being allocated
throughout the province (in support of job creation and economic activity) instead of
being concentrated on a few campuses. The University of Toronto and McMaster
University clearly did not receive their share of funding while Brock University, UOIT,
University of Windsor, and York University received a substantial increase as compared
to their proportionate share of federal sponsored research funding.
Table 29 – Knowledge Infrastructure Program Contributions by Ontario University
2009-2011
PercentagePercentage of Federal
Federal Provincial Other of Total Federal Research Contribution* Contribution* Contribution* Contribution Funding**
Institution
Algoma University 8,008 8,008 - 1.60 0.02Brock University 38,000 33,500 23,910 7.60 0.75Carleton University 26,250 26,250 3,200 5.25 3.32University of Guelph 16,818 16,818 - 3.36 4.89Lakehead University 13,000 - 37,000 2.60 0.85Laurentian University 5,153 5,000 10,100 1.03 0.60McMaster University 19,250 19,250 3,500 3.85 11.01Nipissing University - - - 0.00 0.11OCAD University - - - 0.00 0.01UOIT 36,704 102,704 29,670 7.34 0.44University of Ottawa 30,000 50,000 32,500 6.00 9.85Queen's University 28,818 28,818 19,210 5.76 7.93Ryerson University 16,450 16,450 - 3.29 1.26University of Toronto 75,500 75,500 9,000 15.09 35.87Trent University 10,800 20,200 10,400 2.16 0.71University of Waterloo 50,000 50,000 61,000 10.00 7.33The University of Western Ontario 25,000 25,000 - 5.00 8.94Wilfrid Laurier University 13,000 13,000 - 2.60 0.66University of Windsor 40,000 40,000 30,000 8.00 1.61York University 47,500 47,500 25,000 9.50 3.81 Total 500,251 577,998 294,490 100.0 100.0
* Industry Canada (2012)** 2009 Federal sponsored research funding reported in 2008-09 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities
(Thousand of dollars)
This analysis suggests that KIP funding allocations did not reward existing
research strengths in universities thereby promoted institutional convergence by funding
research infrastructure across the province instead of localizing it in a few institutions. It
also supports van Vught’s (1996) and Codling and Meek’s (2006) proposition that when
institutions are required to compete for scarce research dollars (creating uniform
environmental conditions), institutions will engage in processes which increase
109
institutional isomorphism in the sector. The full impact of the program on the sector’s
diversity may not be felt for many years as the less research-intensive institutions begin
to compete for a greater share of the national granting council funding having been
provided with increased research infrastructure.
Conclusion
The examination of the extent of the change in the dispersion of funding amongst
institutions between 1994 and 2010 showed that funding distributed on the basis of a peer
review competitive process was more concentrated in 2010 as compared to 1994 thereby
increasing the potential for institutional diversification. This increased potential may be
tempered by the fact that federal grants account for a significantly smaller share of total
revenues as compared to provincial grants and tuition revenue.
The success of research-intensive universities in obtaining federal research
funding lies in their ability to attract and retain world-class researchers by providing them
with top-notch research facilities and operating support for their research efforts. These
financial barriers restrict the less research-intensive universities to effectively compete
and obtain federal research funding.
However, the distribution of Knowledge Infrastructure Program funding across
universities in Ontario, to increase Canada’s competitiveness in science and technology
and regional economic activities, provided financial resources to the less research-
intensive institutions to increase their research capacity, thereby encouraging these
institutions to mimic the more successful research-intensive institutions. This funding
will place the less research-intensive universities in a better position to compete for
research funding (scarce resource) in the future, thereby increasing the potential for
institutional convergence.
110
CHAPTER VI: PROVINCIAL POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
This chapter examined a number of key provincial funding and other policies
through policy analysis to assess their impact on institutional diversification or
convergence. Whenever practical, the extent of the change in the dispersion of funding
amongst institutions will be determined by comparing the relative proportion of grants
received in 1994 as compared to 2010. There is a greater potential for diversity when
funding is concentrated in fewer institutions. The funding concentration is further
examined using the standard deviation of the relative proportion of grants received in
1994 and 2010. An increase in the distance from the mean from 1994 to 2010 signifies
an increase in concentration of funding, which suggests increased diversity.
Funding programs examined in this study are as follows: basic operating formula
grants, tuition regulation, capital funding (SuberBuild, Capital Renewal Program,
research infrastructure, and capital graduate expansion), endowment matching, and
operating graduate expansion.
Provincial government policies
From 1994 to 2010, Ontario universities were operating in a period of high
resource flows from increased student demand and other funding which provided
additional resources to the primarily undergraduate institutions to add new graduate
programs and mimic the comprehensive and medical/doctoral institutions thereby
increasing the potential for institutional convergence.
The neo-liberalization of Ontario’s policy environment continued with the March
2010 announcement of a new five-year economic plan called Open Ontario. This plan’s
objective is to create “a climate where business can thrive, create jobs and build
innovative new products to sell to the world” (Open Ontario, 2010) with a promised
reduction in personnel and corporate taxes. The plan also called for the development of a
111
new five-year post-secondary plan, raising Ontario's post-secondary attainment rate to 70
per cent, the creation of a new Ontario Online Institute, and to “open our colleges and
universities to the world…aggressively promote Ontario post-secondary institutions
abroad, and increase international enrolment by 50 per cent while maintaining spaces for
Ontario students” (Open Ontario, 2010) in an effort to create more jobs. These initiatives
were incorporated in the March 2010 Ontario budget combined with additional resources
to support the implementation of a credit transfer system (Ontario Budget, 2010).
The Open Ontario (2010) plan drew from the Science and Technology Strategy
(2007) by calling for Ontario to be more innovative in order to more effectively compete
globally. The role of higher education in these strategies is to be the wholesale producer
of skilled and creative workers in areas called for by the knowledge economy and to
ensure that the business environment makes “better use of the skills, talent, and
knowledge of our graduates” (Science and Technology Strategy, 2007, p. 10). Similar to
the innovation strategies which called for more private sector investment to turn
knowledge into commercial applications in order to increase productivity gains over
Canada’s trading partners.
Table 30 summarizes the provincial program funding and their contributions to
processes of institutional diversification or convergence derived from this study’s
analysis, the details of which will be examined below.
112
Table 30- Summary by Provincial Program and Related Impact on Institutional Diversification or Convergence
Provincial Program Promoted
Basic operating formula grants Convergence
Differentiation grants Diversification
Tuition fee policy Convergence
SuperBuild Program Convergence
Capital Renewal Program Convergence
Research infrastructure funding Diversification
Ontario Student Opportunities Trust Fund Diversification
Ontario Trust for Student Support Convergence
Graduate enrolment expansion Convergence
Basic operating formula grant
Government operating funding for universities is essentially based on a funding
formula introduced in 1967. Funding is provided as a block grant in support of the
operating activities of the university and does not allow government to direct the extent to
which funds will be allocated between teaching, research, and other activities. This
funding mechanism is the main instrument used by government to carry out its policies of
accessibility, fiscal restraint, and allows for new government initiatives through the use of
special-purpose grants (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009). The operating grant
covers the cost of instruction and research, academic support services, library, student
services, administrative services, plant maintenance and other operating expenses of the
university.
The funding formula is based on enrolments with adjustments for program mix
and provides an equal amount of revenue per student for each university for students in
the same programs. Eligible students are measured in full-time equivalents (FTEs) and
exclude international students. The core unit for calculating operating grants is the Basic
113
Income Unit (BIU). Each BIU was worth $5,442 during 2010-11. Each student enrolled
at university attracts a certain number of BIUs depending upon the program in which he
or she is enrolled. For example, a full-time undergraduate Arts student attracts one BIU
(most undergraduates programs have weights of 1, 1.5 or 2), master’s programs have a
weight of 3 or 4 while a PhD student attracts 6 BIUs. In addition, a formula fee is
attached to each student and this amount is deducted from the BIU funding to arrive at
the actual provincial funding per student. The formula fee is based on a historically-
determined amount by program basis and is not related to the actual tuition fee paid by
the student (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2009). The following is an
example of the funding received for an engineering student.
An engineering student attracts 2 BIUs (2 times $5,442) $10,884
Formula fee for engineering program ($2,591)
Funding provided by province $8,293
The total grant for the sector is determined each year through the provincial budget
process. This process does not necessarily take into account changes in inflation and
enrolment. Reductions in operating funding have occurred over the years, and more
recently in 1996-97 when the province reduced its deficit through reductions in
government spending and income taxes and instilled policies with underlying principles
of privatization in order to create efficiencies between the private sector and universities.
Government operating funding for universities was reduced by 15% while providing the
discretion to universities to increase undergraduate tuition fees.
The provincial government through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities provided over the years a number of special funding envelopes in support of
enrolment (undergraduate and graduate) growth. Once the level of growth has been
achieved, the funding envelopes are folded into the base operating grant thereby
maintaining the equal funding per weighted enrolment (Ministry of Training, Colleges
and Universities, 2009).
114
The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities also makes available funding
in support of different missions and government priorities. Grants in support of different
missions include a) Northern Ontario Grants provided to northern institutions (Lakehead,
Laurentian, Algoma, Hearst and Nipissing) in support of the additional costs incurred due
to environmental factors, to maintain a minimum range of programs that would not be
feasible without this extra funding, and to support activities related to their northern
Ontario missions, b) Bilingualism Grants provided to institutions (Ottawa, Laurentian,
York, Hearst and Dominican) in order to offer a greater number of courses in French in
support of increasing access, recruitment and retention of French speaking students and
to provide a bicultural ambience to both English and French speaking students, c)
Differentiation Grants in support of institutions (Trent, Nipissing and OCAD)
maintaining a previously established differentiation role such as OCAD University’s role
of providing fine arts programs. Grants in support of government priorities include
funding which supports programs and services to Aboriginal students to students with
disabilities (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2009).
Table 31 compares the extent to which special purpose grants were made
available to institutions in 1994 as compared to 2010 in relation to their basic formula
grants. The basic formula grant provided to institutions increased from over $1.58 billion
to over $2.3 billion mainly as a result of the significant increase in enrolment levels since
1994. Institutions received over $313 million in special purpose grants in 1994 as
compared to over $266 million in 2010, a drop of $47 million. The special purpose
grants provided to institutions did not keep pace with the growth in enrolment levels
since these grants as a percentage of the basic formula grants dropped from 19.8% to
11.6% in 2010. This would suggest that the government was less preoccupied in 2010 as
compared to 1994 with supporting the varied missions of institutions that would
contribute to a more diversified university sector. However, the government did provide
significant funding to Algoma University in support of Aboriginal education.
115
Table 31 – Other MTCU Grants as a Percentage of Basic Formula Grants 1994 and 2010
(Grants are in thousands of dollars)
Other as a Other as aInstitution Basic Formula Other MTCU Percentage Basic Formula Other MTCU Percentage
Grant Grants of Basic Grants Grant Grants of Basic Grants
Algoma University 4,130 6,455 156.3Brock University 32,902 10,186 31.0 63,930 4,176 6.5Carleton University 75,762 20,334 26.8 125,907 5,706 4.5Dominican College 127 66 52.0 125 424 339.2University of Guelph 95,730 12,022 12.6 131,353 9,938 7.6Lakehead University 25,936 9,062 34.9 40,350 8,778 21.8Laurentian University 26,229 24,288 92.6 39,972 21,794 54.5McMaster University 103,553 16,988 16.4 128,353 15,886 12.4Nipissing University 5,730 3,348 58.4 18,831 4,070 21.6OCAD University 9,694 967 10.0 15,150 3,114 20.6Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 21,875 2,363 10.8UOIT 32,860 8,517 25.9University of Ottawa 118,143 45,546 38.6 173,021 48,626 28.1Queen's University 107,722 22,648 21.0 147,181 9,046 6.1Redeemer University College*** 0 0 0 0 Ryerson University 66,773 6,647 10.0 138,428 12,448 9.0University of Toronto 351,131 45,398 12.9 451,312 28,826 6.4Trent University 17,619 8,392 47.6 29,571 8,128 27.5University of Waterloo 117,523 13,868 11.8 162,728 4,217 2.6The University of Western Ontario 161,997 13,064 8.1 225,964 14,688 6.5Wilfrid Laurier University 32,292 6,394 19.8 65,047 987 1.5University of Windsor 64,824 6,726 10.4 88,883 9,029 10.2York University 145,317 45,249 31.1 217,469 41,741 19.2 Total 1,580,879 313,556 19.8 2,300,565 266,594 11.6
* Grants as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**Grants as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.***Grants as reported in the 1993-4 and 2009-10 CAUBO Financial Information of Universities and Colleges
1994* 2010**
The basic operating formula grant and other grants provided to institutions on the
basis of enrolment levels create an egalitarian funding model as institutions are funded
equally (same BIU value for all institutions) not only for each student in the same
program, but also to conduct teaching and research functions irrespective of an
institution’s type or size. Very little funding was provided from 1994 to 2010 relative to
other funding that would help differentiate institutions. As noted by Codling and Meek
(2006), a lack of government funding with explicit diversity objectives will have a greater
potential for processes of institutional convergence.
This assessment of operating formula grants was confirmed by most participants
who were interviewed for this study as they were quick to identify the current drive
towards uniformity squarely on the back of the current funding model. When asked to
116
explain why this study found that institutions were converging, a number of participants
believed that it was due to the sector’s operating funding formula that does not reward
program differentiation and does not provide institutions with inflationary increases
requiring institutions to “chase the hot money”. “There is the unchanging nature of the
BIU formula and the tendency in the province, particularly over the last decade, to direct
its resources towards the system’s enrolment growth. All these institutions with their
high rate of internal inflation chasing additional dollars through enrolment growth have
had the same effect everywhere.” The “focus on growth funding and an imperative to
grow…So if there is any culprit in the creation of comprehensive universities, the sense
that absolutely everyone needs to have STEM and professional degrees is the funding
formula and the tuition framework.” Others also noted that university aspirations played
a significant part. Aspirations to grow and move beyond being a small primarily
undergraduate university and embrace graduate programs by becoming more research-
intensive played a role in the current convergence of universities in Ontario. One
participant made reference to mimetic isomorphic forces as “anything that appears to add
real value and is successful will often be copied by others. So that is another factor that
reduces the potential for diversity because people will follow. There are those kinds of
forces that mean anything that is successful will be copied”.
Tuition fees
Tuition fees are another important source of revenue for universities as they
received over $670 million in 1994 as compared to over $2.8 billion in 2010, the increase
of which is due to enrolment growth combined with increases in tuition fee levels. Table
32 shows the importance of tuition fees to institutions has increased significantly since
revenue from tuition fees represented less than half of the basic formula grant in 1994 as
compared to 1.2 times the basic formula grant in 2010.
Undergraduate tuition fees have been regulated for some time in Ontario.
Undergraduate tuition fee were allowed to increase by 10% in 1994-95 and by another
10% in 1995-6. However, with reductions in operating funding in 1996-97, universities
were provided with the discretion to increase undergraduate tuition fees by 20% in 1996-
117
97 and by another 10% each year up to 1999-2000. International student fees, some
professional and all graduate program fees were completely deregulated which allowed
institutions to determine the appropriate fee level, thereby further privatizing (less
government support) higher education and encouraged greater competition between
institutions for students which ensured that Ontario is in a better position to compete
internationally for students.
Table 32 – Tuition revenue by Institution 1994 and 2010
Institution 1994* 2010**
Algoma University 4,859Brock University 18,661 93,639Carleton University 44,097 141,535Dominican College 131 310University of Guelph 35,082 124,199Lakehead University 14,522 40,492Laurentian University 14,519 34,348McMaster University 34,808 157,841Nipissing University 3,944 25,257OCAD University 4,089 19,003Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 4,299 UOIT 34,128University of Ottawa 45,620 213,028Queen's University 40,260 177,979Redeemer University College*** 2,669 10,760Ryerson University 38,587 161,365University of Toronto 126,039 600,781Trent University 10,090 42,232University of Waterloo 47,738 209,429The University of Western Ontario 65,630 258,153Wilfrid Laurier University 15,251 87,542University of Windsor 30,909 96,660York University 74,321 328,825 Total 671,266 2,862,365
Tuition as a percentage ofBasic Formula Grants 42.5% 124.4%
* Tuition revenue as reported in the 1993-4 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.**Tuition revenue as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.***Tuition revenue as reported in the 1993-4 and 2009-10 CAUBO Financial Information of Universities and Colleges
(thousand of dollars)
118
Partial deregulation of fees failed to lead to increased differentiation in the sector
as universities engaged in oligopolistic pricing and no university altered their operations
to offer education at a lower cost structure than its competitors. Some universities did
choose to differentiate themselves by offering ultra-high-cost programs in business and
law (Clark, Trick and Van Loon, 2011).
In an attempt to ensure access for low-income students, the Ontario government
mandated in 1996 that 10% of the increase in tuition fees be set aside for student financial
aid, and in the following year, increased this amount to 30% for all subsequent years.
Tuition fee increases during 2000-01 to 2004-5 for regulated programs were originally
limited to a maximum of 10% not compounded over the five years, but with the change
in government in 2003, tuition fees were frozen for any grant-eligible program for all
Canadian citizens (the freeze did not apply to international students) in 2004-5 and 2005-
6. The government provided compensation to universities for the majority of the lost
tuition revenue during the tuition freeze.
In 2006, the government announced a new tuition (undergraduate and graduate)
framework which increased tuition fees from 2006-07 through to 2009-10 (extended in
2010 for two more years) and further eroded Ontario’s democratic framework in support
of a ‘public’ higher education system. In order to assist low income students, the amount
of tuition fee increases that were set aside for student financial aid which was capped at
2006-7 levels (with adjustments for enrolment changes) was reset at 10% of the tuition
fee increases for 2010-11 and 2011-2012. Regulated tuition fee increases were also
subject to accessibility guarantees provided by institutions. Tuition fees for entering
students in Arts and Science and selected other undergraduate programs were allowed to
increase by a maximum of 4.5% while fees for entering students in graduate and high-
cost professional programs were allowed to increase by a maximum of 8%. Increases in
tuition fees for continuing students in any program were not allowed to exceed 4% with
the average increase in tuition fees for all students in an institution not allowed to exceed
5%.
119
Open Ontario (2010) called for higher education institutions to be more dependent
on private sector funding from ‘high fee paying’ international students to subsidize their
operations and thereby increased competition between institutions for these prized
students. As universities continue to be under increased financial pressures, it is highly
unlikely that they will use these additional funds to increase the quality of education by
hiring more full-time tenured faculty but instead, at the very least, they may increase the
number of contingent workers as the demand from international students can fluctuate
over time. The increase in the number of international students may increase an
institution’s climate diversity leading to enriched student experiences if the current
student body is not currently ethically diversified, but may not add to the sector’s climate
diversity if international students are located across all institutions. The distribution of
international student by program or degree level may also have an impact on an
institution’s programmatic diversity.
For most institutions, tuition fees have become the most significant source of
revenue above government grants. Since these fees have no diversity objectives, and will
probably play an even more significant part of revenues, it is likely that the trend towards
convergence will continue in the future.
Capital funding
During 1994 to 2010, funding in support of university infrastructure was provided
to institutions to maintain facilities in their current conditions through the province’s
Facilities Renewal Program and by providing funding for new facilities to accommodate
increasing enrolments.
In 1999, the SuperBuild Growth Fund was announced by the provincial
government which provided capital infrastructure funding managed through the Ontario
SuperBuild Corporation. This initiative was intended to rationalize how government
invests in public infrastructure and encourage public and private sector contributions
towards public infrastructure. The program provided more than $15 billion to over 4,000
120
projects of which over $1 billion was used to expand and improve post-secondary
facilities across the province to accommodate enrolment increases (due to demographic
trends and the elimination of one high school grade in 2002-3) and to upgrade facilities to
keep pace with new technologies and advances in research. This represented the largest
public capital investment in Ontario universities and colleges in more than 30 years. The
funding was allocated on a competitive basis based on an approach which valued private
and public partnerships as well as the level of responsiveness to student demands,
innovation and community benefits (Ontario SuperBuild, 2000 and 2003).
The funding was provided to Ontario universities and colleges to add new
classrooms, lecture halls, laboratories and faculty offices in support of programs in
chemistry, biology, applied science and engineering, and information technology
(Ontario SuperBuild, 2002). No funding was provided in support of student residences,
recreational, athletic or food service facilities. Start-up funding in the amount of $60
million was also provided to create the University of Ontario Institute of Technology
(UOIT) through the UOIT Act, (2002) which identifies its distinct mission from other
universities to provide “programs that are innovative and responsive to the individual
needs of students and to the market-driven needs of employers” thereby slightly
increasing the sector’s programmatic diversity.
Table 33 shows the funding received by institution under the SuperBuild program.
It excludes the $60 million start-up funding to UOIT. The program provided over $700
million in funding to Ontario universities secured with planned private contributions
exceeding $274 million. While the funding was allocated on a competitive basis, the
distribution of SuperBuild funding mirrors very closely with an institution’s share of total
basic formula grants. Nine universities (excluding Dominican College) had no
significant (1% positive or negative) change in distribution between the two funding
sources while the University of Toronto and Waterloo did not receive their share of
SuperBuild funding based on their relative share of total basic formula grants while
OCAD, Ryerson and Trent received significantly more (more than 2.4%) than their
relative share of total basic formula grants. The more even distribution of SuperBuild
121
funding across the province would suggest that it promoted processes of institutional
convergence.
Table 33 – SuperBuild Program Allocations by Institution 2000-2006
SuperBuild Formula 2001 Allocation as a Grants as a
SuperBuild Formula Percentage PercentageFunding* Grants** of Total of Total
Institution
Algoma University 0.65 2.84 0.1 0.2Brock University 21.80 34.28 3.1 2.4Carleton University 39.09 75.62 5.6 5.2Dominican College - 0.10 0.0 0.0University of Guelph 49.48 85.28 7.0 5.8Lakehead University 14.61 22.66 2.1 1.6Laurentian University 2.49 25.46 0.4 1.8McMaster University 42.01 94.05 6.0 6.4Nipissing University 12.83 6.90 1.8 0.5OCAD University 21.16 7.63 3.0 0.5University of Ottawa*** 50.10 113.81 7.1 7.8Queen's University 58.93 104.13 8.4 7.1Ryerson University**** 55.09 72.37 7.8 5.0University of Toronto 99.96 320.87 14.2 22.0Trent University 29.17 17.86 4.1 1.2University of Waterloo 35.61 103.37 5.1 7.1The University of Western Ontario 67.65 135.57 9.6 9.3Wilfrid Laurier University 20.28 29.79 2.9 2.0University of Windsor 16.80 57.50 2.4 3.9York University 65.25 149.41 9.3 10.2 Total 702.96 1,459.50 100.00 100.00
*As reported in the 1999-2000 to 2005-6 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.** As reported in the 2000-01 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.*** 2004-5 Financial statements and SuperBuild (2002)****As reported by institution
(Millions of dollars)
122
Capital Renewal Program
Table 34 – Capital Renewal Allocation by Institution 2008
Capital Formula Total Capital 2007 Allocation as a Grants as a
2007-8 Special Renewal Formula Percentage PercentageAllocation* Allocation* Allocation Grants** of Total of Total
Institution
Algoma University 363.2 1,000.0 1,363.2 3,884 0.4 0.2Brock University 4,573.7 6,747.2 11,320.9 61,886 3.4 3.1Carleton University 7,347.6 10,839.3 18,186.9 103,586 5.4 5.1University of Guelph 8,114.1 11,970.1 20,084.2 117,031 6.0 5.8Lakehead University 2,506.4 3,697.5 6,203.9 32,451 1.9 1.6Laurentian University 2,790.5 3,989.1 6,779.6 35,997 2.0 1.8McMaster University 9,160.0 13,513.1 22,673.1 123,423 6.8 6.1Nipissing University 1,434.3 2,116.1 3,550.4 14,293 1.1 0.7OCAD University 1,458.0 2,150.8 3,608.8 13,684 1.1 0.7UOIT 1,350.0 2,500.0 3,850.0 19,129 1.1 0.9University of Ottawa 9,675.6 14,273.6 23,949.2 156,358 7.1 7.8Queen's University 8,387.4 12,373.3 20,760.7 122,208 6.2 6.1Ryerson University 6,867.7 10,131.4 16,999.1 105,375 5.1 5.2University of Toronto 25,578.8 37,734.3 63,313.1 417,644 18.9 20.8Trent University 2,212.2 3,263.5 5,475.7 27,127 1.6 1.3University of Waterloo 9,088.6 13,407.7 22,496.3 139,396 6.7 6.9The University of Western Ontario 13,208.6 19,485.6 32,694.2 179,049 9.8 8.9Wilfrid Laurier University 3,383.5 4,991.4 8,374.9 50,443 2.5 2.5University of Windsor 4,899.6 7,227.9 12,127.5 74,725 3.6 3.7York University 12,600.2 18,588.1 31,188.3 216,972 9.3 10.8 Total 135,000.0 200,000.0 335,000.0 2,014,661 100.0 100.0
* COU (2012)** As reported in the 2006-07 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
(Thousand of dollars)
In January 2008, the government announced $200 million under a new Capital
Renewal Program, $135 million of which was allocated to universities. This program
was intended to support energy efficient projects, campus safety and security initiatives
and renewal of existing facility. The 2008 Ontario budget also included an additional
$200 million towards this program specifically for universities for a total of allocation of
$335 million. Table 34 shows that the funding was allocated to universities on the same
basis as an institution’s current share of total basic formula grants as all universities
essentially received their relative share (plus or minus 1%) save for the University of
Toronto and York University. The distribution of capital funding consistent with
operating grant allocations across the province from this program promoted the
homogeneity of institutions.
123
Annual facilities renewal funding is provided to universities in support of minor
facilities repairs and maintenance. Since 2000-01, the amount allocated to universities
remained consistent at $26.7 million annually (with occasional one-time only increases)
but in 2010, as a result of budget restraint measures, this annual amount was reduced to
$17.3 million. Since this funding is not allocated on a competitive basis and is provided
to institutions with the freedom to apply to projects with the greatest need, it fails to
promote institutional diversity within the sector.
Research infrastructure funding
The provincial government started to support university research directly in a
significant way in the mid 1990’s with the creation of the Ontario Research and
Development Challenge Fund (ORDCF) and the Ontario Foundation for Innovation
(OIT). The ORDCF supported leading edge and industrially relevant research in
partnership with private businesses partially to build bridges between research institutions
and the private sector and to enhance Ontario’s research capacity. The OIT was created
in 1999 to fund research infrastructure and to be the vehicle for provincial contributions
in concert with the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) grants awarded to Ontario
researchers (Fallis, 2013).
In 2004, the Ontario Research Fund (ORF) was created to “support scientific
excellence by supporting research that can be developed into innovative goods and
services that will boost Ontario’s economy” (MEDI, 2012). It provides funding on a
competitive process in support of capital costs of research through its Research
Infrastructure program which levers awards from CFI by providing up to 40% of the
capital cost of acquiring, developing or leasing research infrastructure. Since its
inception in 2004, the ORF provided Ontario universities with over $510 million in
infrastructure funding.
Table 35 compares the ORF infrastructure funding percentage allocation to the
2010 percentage allocation of Tri-Council funding for each institution. The allocation of
ORF infrastructure funding using CFI’s competitive processes resulted in research
124
infrastructure funding being allocated throughout the province in a manner that mirrors
very closely to Tri-Council funding allocations with 12 institutions receiving the same
proportions (plus or minus 1%). The five medical/doctoral schools received a smaller
proportion (73%) of ORF funding as compared to their proportionate share (77%) of the
Tri-Council funding suggesting that ORF infrastructure funding is spread out across
institutions. Having previously determined that Tri-Council funding promoted processes
of institutional diversification, it also is reasonable to conclude that capital funding
allocated on the same basis as its related research funding would continue to support
existing research strengths in universities.
Table 35 – Research Infrastructure Funding by Institution 2004-2011
(thousands of dollars) Percentage
Percentage of Tri-councilProvincial of Provincial Research
Contribution* Contribution Funding**Institution
Algoma University 225 0.0 0.0Brock University 3,313 0.6 0.8Carleton University 13,751 2.7 3.2University of Guelph 38,832 7.6 3.8Lakehead University 2,764 0.5 0.6Laurentian University 2,394 0.5 0.5McMaster University 63,348 12.4 11.9Nipissing University 681 0.1 0.1OCAD University 6,208 1.2 0.0UOIT 1,235 0.2 0.4University of Ottawa 43,006 8.4 11.8Queen's University 60,740 11.9 8.3Ryerson University 5,316 1.0 1.2University of Toronto 139,605 27.3 35.9Trent University 5,275 1.0 0.6University of Waterloo 42,223 8.3 5.9The University of Western Ontario 68,059 13.3 9.1Wilfrid Laurier University 975 0.2 0.7University of Windsor 4,926 1.0 1.3York University 8,837 1.7 3.9 Total 511,713 100.0 100.0
* MRI (2012)**SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR funding as reported in the 2009-10 COFO-UO Financial Report of Ontario Universities.
125
From the analysis of capital funding allocations from the various government
programs examined, the allocation of a limited amount of capital funding, not linked to
research funding but based on a competitive process contributed to processes of
institutional convergence as more institutions chose to increase both undergraduate and
graduate enrolment levels in order to obtain a share of the funding allocation.
Endowment matching programs
In 1996, the government introduced an endowment matching program (Ontario
Student Opportunity Trust Fund) to encourage private sector investments where private
endowed donations raised in support of bursaries were matched by the government. This
matching program effectively allowed the market, through private donors, to direct the
allocation of government funding by Faculty within a university, instead of allowing
these funds to be allocated to areas of greater need by the university. Young (2002)
summarized the manner in which the market allocated these funds for student aid. She
compared the percentage raised to an institution’s share of provincial enrolment and
noted that four universities mirrored very closely to their share of provincial enrolment,
six surpassed their share with the University of Toronto raising 43% of the total as
compared to enrolling only 17% of the province’s students and Queen’s raising 13% of
the total as compared to enrolling only 5.7% of the province’s students. This program
allowed the government to shift costs away from its loan program to the private sector
(student’s loan entitlements are reduced by the amount of bursaries received) while
creating additional funds for institutions in the competition and recruitment of students
while fostering increased competition between institutions for a limited number of
philanthropic dollars. The structure of the OSOTF program promoted and uneven
distribution of funding not based on an institution’s share of the provincial enrolment but
allocated by the market, thereby promoting institutional diversification.
In 2005, the government replaced the OSOTF program with another endowment
matching program (Ontario Trust for Student Support) to encourage private sector
investments where private endowed donations raised in support of bursaries were
126
matched by the government until the program was discontinued in 2012. While the
government funding available was not as significant as under the OSOTF program, the
Ontario Trust for Student Support (OTSS) program provided $50 million annually to
universities and colleges, of which $38.3 million was originally allocated to universities.
Universities and colleges were provided an annual funding ceiling limit representing their
share of the annual amount made available under this program. Any unused ceiling room
created by institutions not meeting their fundraising targets was assigned to those
institutions which exceeded their fundraising ceilings thereby creating a competitive
fundraising environment amongst universities and colleges for limited funding and
philanthropic dollars. Table 36 summarizes the funding provided to universities and
colleges under the OTSS program. Universities received a significant share (83.9%) of
the total funding available in 2005-6 but were unable to maintain this momentum
dropping to 64.8% of total funding by 2011-12.
Table 36 – Annual Ontario Trust for Student Support Funding 2005-2012
UniversityFunding as a
University College PercentageFunding* Funding* of Total
Year
2005-6 47,405,553 9,111,442 83.92006-7 40,515,204 9,484,796 81.02007-8 38,292,220 11,707,780 76.62008-9 35,129,747 14,870,253 70.32009-10 28,106,177 14,393,823 66.12010-11 27,716,598 14,783,402 65.22011-12 21,379,138 11,620,861 64.8 Total 238,544,637 85,972,357 73.5
* Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
The OTSS program provided an incentive to encourage institutions with limited
fundraising capacity to raise funds above what they had historically raised under the
OSOTF program. For the first three years of the program, institutions that did not raise
$1,000 per FTE of OSOTF endowments were eligible to receive a three-to-one match on
donations raised under the OTSS program above their historical annual fundraising
127
average, capped at 50% of their historical annual fundraising average. A one-to-one
match was provided on donations raised up to the historical annual fundraising average.
By the end of 2006-7, of the eight universities eligible for a three-to-one match, seven
had reached $1,000 per FTE of OSOTF/OTSS endowments with the University of
Waterloo reaching $944 per FTE of endowments. Institutions not eligible to receive a
three-to-one match (raised more than $1,000 per FTE of OSOTF endowments) received a
dollar-for-dollar match of eligible donations raised up to their annual fundraising ceilings.
The annual fundraising ceiling was determined by allocating the remaining funding
available (after determining the funding required for those institutions eligible for a three-
to-one match) based on each institution’s share of provincial enrolment.
From 2008-9 until the end of the program in 2011-12, an institution qualified for
the three-to-one match when its historical two-year fundraising average was less than its
fundraising ceiling (determined for everyone based on an institution’s share of provincial
enrolment). The three-to-one match was capped at one-third of the difference between
the historical two-year fundraising average and the fundraising ceiling. Similar to the
OSOTF matching program which allowed the market through private donors, to direct
the allocation of government funding to university programs instead of allowing these
funds to be allocated to areas of greater need by the university, this program tempered the
involvement of the market by setting fundraising ceilings based on an institution’s share
of provincial enrolment.
Table 37 shows that 13 of the 20 institutions received funding which mirrored
very closely (plus or minus 1%) to their share of provincial enrolment while 4 institutions
received slightly less and 3 slightly more. An examination of the standard deviation of
the OTSS funding as a percentage of total (SD= 3.98) as compared to enrolment as a
percentage of total (SD= 3.88) further supports that there is very little difference between
the allocation of funding and enrolment levels. The structure of the OTSS program
promoted an egalitarian funding model as it allocated funding based on an institution’s
share of its provincial enrolment thereby contributing to processes of institutional
convergence.
128
Table 37 – Ontario Trust for Student Support Funding by Institution 2005-2012
OTSS Enrolment2009-10 Funding as a as a
OTSS Enrolment Percentage PercentageFunding* Headcount** of Total of Total
Institution
Algoma University 705,164 1,188 0.3 0.2Brock University 10,390,179 17,625 4.4 3.7Carleton University 8,230,149 25,888 3.5 5.4University of Guelph 4,587,090 26,354 1.9 5.5Lakehead University 4,082,671 8,496 1.7 1.8Laurentian University 5,469,567 9,246 2.3 1.9McMaster University 14,755,298 28,717 6.2 6.0Nipissing University 861,380 6,521 0.4 1.4OCAD University 3,543,833 4,047 1.5 0.8UOIT 5,999,660 7,384 2.5 1.5University of Ottawa 14,777,150 40,371 6.2 8.4Queen's University 10,775,267 24,028 4.5 5.0Ryerson University 28,526,124 37,834 11.9 7.9University of Toronto 37,742,686 78,389 15.8 16.3Trent University 4,704,827 7,840 2.0 1.6University of Waterloo 14,244,737 32,504 6.0 6.8The University of Western Ontario 24,042,199 36,237 10.1 7.5Wilfrid Laurier University 10,103,527 17,572 4.2 3.7University of Windsor 12,233,691 15,845 5.1 3.3York University 22,769,438 54,237 9.5 11.3 Total 238,544,637 480,323 100.00 100.00
* Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities** Council of Ontario UniversitiesUniversities in bold denotes institutions w ith less than $1000 per FTE at the beginning of OTSS program
Graduate enrolment expansion
A detailed examination of specific developments leading to increased graduate
program planning in Ontario was conducted to provide insight into current government
policy direction and to gain a greater understanding of the impact of graduate expansion
on institutions and its related impact on systemic and climate diversity in the sector.
Significant changes in an institution’s enrolment profile (proportion of students enrolled
in undergraduate and graduate programs) combined with an increase in number of
129
students impacts the climate of an institution and the combined impact of all institutions
contributes to increases or decreases in the sector’s systemic and climate diversity.
It is important to differentiate graduate education between master’s education and
doctoral education. Master’s programs differ significantly from Doctoral programs as the
majority of the work at the master’s level consists of coursework over a one to two year
period, have an applied or professional orientation with some requiring a thesis which
generally does not constitute new knowledge of publishable quality. Doctoral programs
have an academic orientation, are interconnected with the research function of a
university, usually take four or more years to complete, involve coursework, and requires
a major thesis or dissertation which add to the body of knowledge and is of publishable
quality (Fallis, 2013).
A number of environmental factors were identified that led to Ontario’s graduate
expansion. The need for graduate education was recognized by all levels of government
as Canada’s global productivity and competitiveness could no longer be assured from an
economy based on commodities and natural resources and had to be built on intellectual
capital. This required the post-secondary sector to take a dominant role with a greater
focus on strategic research initiatives as directed by government, greater linkages
between universities and the private sector, and to provide training and education to
increased number of qualified individuals able to conduct research with an advance
understanding of research methods (Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009).
The Canadian labor market demands for holders of graduate degrees exceeded the
current supply produced by Canadian universities for many years. The shortfall was
being made up from immigration and repatriation of Canadians. By the end of the
decade, COU expected the labor market demand for qualified PhDs as university faculty
in Ontario to be 11,000 and 30,000 nationally as retiring faculty would have to be
replaced to accommodate the increased number of undergraduate students seeking
university education. Luckily, there were also an increasing number of students who
130
were prepared to tackle the challenges of graduate education and meet the labor market
demand (Council of Ontario Universities, 2003).
A significant amount of annual one-time-only graduate enrolment growth
operating funding (see table below) was provided to institutions in support of graduate
expansion as a result of the 2005 Ontario budget announcement.
Table 38 – Annual Graduate Expansion Funding Provided to Ontario Institutions 2005-2012
2004-5* 18,428,931 2005-6 15,566,590 2006-7 45,876,519 2007-8 118,693,211 2008-9 46,863,831 2009-10 67,956,457 2010-11 80,402,998 2011-12 82,712,715
476,501,252
*for 2001-2 to 2004-5 Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
The allocation of graduate expansion funding was first based in 2004-5 and 2005-
6 on funding shares driven by five indicators: FTEs, BIUs, sponsored research, degrees
awarded, and graduate grants and scholarships as agreed to by all institutions under a
Consensus Proposal provided by COU. While institutions were promised funding for
expanding their graduate enrolments, they would not know the extent to which each
additional graduate student would be funded as funding for graduate enrolment growth
was announced during 2004-6 after the academic year was completed and was dependent
on available government funds making it difficult for institutions to plan for future
enrolment.
In June 2006, the government announced its graduate expansion plans and related
funding for 2006-7 and 2007-8. Grants were provided to each institution through
131
separate Master’s and Doctoral funding envelopes based on increases in Master’s FTEs
and Doctoral FTEs for 2006-7 and 2007-8 above 2004-5 enrolment levels capped at an
institution’s enrolment targets. In order to ensure that graduate spaces were available to
students, the government created a competitive environment between institutions for
graduate students by reserving the right to reallocate any shortfall in enrolment targets to
other institutions. Institutions were required to provide periodic graduate enrolment
projections to government who assessed their progress towards their assigned graduate
enrolment targets. Institutions were also periodically requested to provide their requests
for additional graduate spaces to government.
In 2006, graduate enrolment targets were first set to increase by 12,000 spaces by
2007-8 and later set at 14,000 students to be reached by 2009 for the Ontario system.
Spaces were allocated between Master’s and Doctoral. In February 2009, a second round
of graduate expansion was announced increasing the target to 15,000 students to be
reached by 2013-14. The government demonstrated its willingness to differentiate
amongst universities when it allocated the additional 1,925 Master’s and 1,373 Doctoral
spaces (which increased system targets by 3,298 over the 12,000 spaces allocated in
2007-8) to a limited number of research-intensive institutions. McMaster, Ottawa,
Toronto, Waterloo, Western and York received 82% of the additional Doctoral spaces
and 62.8% of the additional Master’s spaces. In December 2009, after a mid-year review
of the program, institutions were permitted, on a one-time-only basis to convert up to
50% of their unfilled allocated Master’s and Doctoral spaces between the two pools.
Many institutions converted Doctoral spaces into Master’s spaces as a result of the
increased demand for Master’s degrees, especially professional Master’s degrees. In July
2011, as a component of the government’s Putting Students First plan for post-secondary
education, the government announced support for 6,000 additional graduate spaces for
growth between 2012-13 and 2015-16.
In August 2006, the government announced $471.4 million in planned capital
funding in support of the allocation of 12,000 graduate spaces. The funding will be
provided to institutions as an annual stream of capital grants over 20 years, commencing
132
in 2007-8, based on the institution’s actual graduate enrolment growth over 2002-03.
Institutions are eligible to receive an annual capital grant for each new graduate FTE
enrolled beyond its 2002-3 graduate enrolment level. The planned capital funding of
$471.4 million was allocated to institutions in accordance with an institution’s graduate
enrolment growth target and took account of the institution’s graduate program mix and
its related net assignable square meters (NASMs) as determined by COU’s space
standards. The notional capital funding allocated to the 12,000 graduate spaces was
determined by dividing the $471.4 million planned capital funding by the system total
NASM of 185,269 to arrive at a system notional capital funding per NASM of $2,544.
An institution’s notional allocation was therefore determined by the product of an
institution’s required NASMs based on its program mix and $2,544 (the system funding
per NASM). The institution’s notional capital funding allocation was divided by its FTE
growth targets resulting in an institution’s notional capital funding per FTE which was
discounted over 20 years at 6.5% interest to arrive at a the institution’s capital grant value
per FTE to be paid annually as institutions increase their graduate enrolment levels.
Since the capital funding related to graduate enrolment growth will be paid over 20 year,
institutions were required to use existing cash reserves or externally borrow funds to
accomplish the required capital renovations or construction. This funding mechanism
provides capital funding for each additional graduate student based on an institution’s
planned graduate enrolment growth which was paid annually, similar to its related
operating funding, based on actual enrolment.
The following is an examination of graduate student enrolment changes by
institution to gain an understanding of the impact of graduate enrolment expansion on an
institution’s enrolment profile and climate. Graduate student enrolment change was
operationalized as the change in the graduate student population headcount as a
percentage of total student population. Appendix 3 lists the total student headcounts
(undergraduate and graduate) by institution by year from 2000-01 to 2010-11. Appendix
4 lists the graduate student headcount by institution by year from 2000-01 to 2010-11.
Using Appendix 3 and 4, the graduate student population headcount as a percentage of
133
total student population can be calculated by institution by year. The results are shown in
Appendix 5.
Figure 3 - Cumulative Change (Less Than 2%) in Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Students - Fall Headcount from 2000-01 by Institution
2002-2011
‐3.00
‐2.00
‐1.00
‐
1.00
2.00
3.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Perc
enta
ge
University of Guelph Wilfrid Laurier University Carleton University
York University Nippissing University McMaster University
University of Toronto University of Ottawa Queen's University
Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
Figure 3 and Figure 4 graph the cumulative change in graduate student as a
percentage of total students from 2000-01 by grouping together institutions with less than
a 2% cumulative change and grouping together those institutions with more than a 2%
cumulative change (Dominican College is excluded due to its small number of graduate
students and as an outlier with a 15.7% change as 46% of its students are graduate
students in 2010-11 as compared to over 30% in 2000-01). Algoma University is
excluded as it had no graduate students during the period.
134
Figure 4 - Cumulative Change (More Than 2%) in Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Students - Fall Headcount from 2000-01 by Institution
2002-2011
‐1.00
‐
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Perc
enta
ge
Trent University OCAD University
Lakehead University Brock University
The University of Western Ontario Laurentian University
University of Waterloo University of Windsor
UOIT Ryerson University
Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
Most institutions with less than a 2% change in graduate students as a percentage
of total from 2000-01 to 2010-11 (including four medical/doctoral schools) absorbed an
increased proportion of undergraduate students relative to graduate students during the
double cohort period to 2006 while few institutions with more than a 2% change in
graduate students as a percentage of total from 2000-01 to 2010-11 absorbed an increased
proportion of undergraduate students relative to graduate students.
135
Table 39 – Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total Enrolment by Institution 1994, 2004 and 2010
Institution 1994 2004 2010
Brock University 1.7 6.4 8.7
Carleton University 10.0 12.6 13.9
University of Guelph 12.4 10.2 9.5
Lakehead University 3.2 6.7 7.0
Laurentian University 2.5 5.1 8.2
McMaster University 11.6 11.5 14.1
Nipissing University 0.0 6.3 5.0
OCAD University 0.0 0.0 2.3
UOIT 0.0 5.6
University of Ottawa 14.2 13.0 15.0
Queen's University 15.6 14.5 16.4
Ryerson University 0.0 2.0 5.9
University of Toronto 17.6 18.0 19.1
Trent University 3.1 3.1 5.4
University of Waterloo 9.7 10.7 13.6
The University of Western Ontario 10.0 11.7 14.8
Wilfrid Laurier University 8.1 7.8 8.7
University of Windsor 5.9 7.8 11.4
York University 7.7 9.7 11.1
Analyzing the cumulative change in graduate students as a percentage of total
enrolment provided a general understanding of each institution’s enrolment growth
journey and its impact on each institution’s enrolment mix. The impact of the growth in
students and more specifically, growth in graduate students funded by government, on the
climate of an institution and on the sector is better examined by comparing the percentage
of graduate students as a percentage of total students in attendance at institutions in 1994,
2004 (before the allocation of enrolment growth funding) and 2010.
Table 39 (excluding Dominican College) shows that from 1994 to 2010, all
institutions (except for University of Guelph) had increased the number of graduate
students on campus relative to the total student population. An examination of the
standard deviation for graduate enrolment as a percentage of total enrolment for 1994,
136
2004 and 2010 determined that there has been a decrease in the distances from the mean
from 1994 (SD=5.45) to 2004 (SD=4.76) and a further decrease to 2010 (SD=4.44)
suggesting that as more institutions increased their graduate enrolments relative to the
total population, more institutions resembled each other leading to a decrease in
diversity in the sector.
While graduate programs are offered throughout more of Ontario’s universities,
suggesting a decrease in diversity as noted above, an examination of the extent of the
change in program emphasis between Master’s and Doctoral during the graduate
expansion period could provide further insights. Appendix 6 details the number of
Master’s students by institution from 2004-5 to 2010-11 and Appendix 7 details the
number of Doctoral students by institution during the same period. The proportion of
Master’s students and Doctoral students as a percentage of total graduate students by
institution is detailed in Appendix 8 and 9 respectively.
Table 40 lists the cumulative change in Doctoral students as a percentage of total
graduate students from 2005 to 2010 by institution. It should be noted that an increase in
the percentage of Doctoral students is offset by a decrease in the percentage of Master’s
students for the institutions included in the table. It is interesting to note that The
University of Western Ontario is the only medical/doctoral school that significantly
changed its mix of graduate students while the other medical/doctoral schools made very
little (less than 2%) change. The top 4 institutions (UOIT, Laurentian University,
Lakehead University and Ryerson University) all had cumulative changes in graduate
enrolments as a percentage of total students above 2% and all made significant (more
than 6.5%) changes in their graduate student mix as a result of graduate enrolment
growth funding.
137
Table 40 – Cumulative Change in Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students from 2004
2005-2010
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Laurentian University 3.8 6.1 11.5 12.7 15.2 16.7UOIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 7.6 13.4Lakehead University 0.3 2.4 2.8 5.8 8.1 10.0Ryerson University 2.4 3.3 2.3 4.1 6.7 8.0The University of Western Ontario 1.9 4.4 3.8 4.3 6.1 6.5York University 1.9 2.0 1.5 3.1 3.6 5.1Brock University 1.9 1.5 2.4 1.9 2.5 3.7Dominican College ‐0.1 ‐6.7 ‐6.6 ‐13.5 ‐3.0 2.0University of Guelph 2.5 2.2 1.1 0.7 1.6 1.8Wilfrid Laurier University 0.8 2.6 3.2 2.5 1.4 1.8University of Windsor 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.4University of Ottawa 2.6 3.8 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.1University of Toronto 1.2 1.7 0.0 ‐0.1 ‐0.3 0.4Carleton University 2.2 2.2 0.0 ‐0.9 ‐0.9 0.3Queen's University 0.8 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.2Trent University 3.3 3.8 1.6 ‐2.8 ‐2.6 ‐0.2University of Waterloo 0.6 1.5 0.0 ‐1.4 ‐1.3 ‐1.2McMaster University 1.2 1.3 ‐1.1 ‐0.7 ‐1.2 ‐3.1
(Algoma, Nipissing and OCAD have no doctoral students)
Table 41 shows the extent of the change in program emphasis by institution
during the graduate expansion period by showing the percentage of Doctoral students as a
percentage of total graduate students for 2004 and 2010. An examination of the standard
deviation for Doctoral enrolment as a percentage of total graduate enrolment for 2004
and 2010 determined that there has been a decrease in the distances from the mean from
2004 (SD=13.6) to 2010 (SD=9.97) suggesting that doctoral students are more evenly
distributed across the province leading to a decrease in diversity in the sector.
138
Table 41 – Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students by Institution 2004-2010
Institution 2004 2010
Brock University 4.4 8.1
Carleton University 27.7 28.0
University of Guelph 32.2 34.0
Lakehead University 6.5 16.5
Laurentian University 1.3 17.9
McMaster University 38.0 34.9
UOIT 0.0 13.4
University of Ottawa 26.6 27.7
Queen's University 31.2 31.4
Ryerson University 6.0 14.0
University of Toronto 39.2 39.6
Trent University 29.8 29.6
University of Waterloo 40.2 39.0The University of Weste 30.2 36.7
Wilfrid Laurier Universit 9.4 11.1
University of Windsor 21.1 22.5
York University 25.8 30.9
Table 42 shows the extent of the change in program emphasis by institution
during the graduate expansion period by showing the percentage of Master’s students as a
percentage of total graduate students for 2004 and 2010. An examination of the standard
deviation for Master’s enrolment as a percentage of total graduate enrolment for 2004
and 2010 determined that there has been a decrease in the distances from the mean from
2004 (SD=27.2) to 2010 (SD=12.3) suggesting that master’s students are more evenly
distributed across the province. Even after removing the impact of OCAD University and
UOIT, the standard deviation for Master’s enrolment as a percentage of total graduate
enrolment for 2004 and 2010 still showed a decrease in the distances from the mean from
2004 (SD=13.6) to 2010 (SD=11.4) suggesting that master’s students are more evenly
distributed across the province leading to a decrease in diversity in the sector.
139
Table 42 – Master’s Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students by Institution 2004-2010
Institution 2004 2010
Brock University 95.6 91.9
Carleton University 72.3 72.0
University of Guelph 67.8 66.0
Lakehead University 93.5 83.5
Laurentian University 98.7 82.1
McMaster University 62.0 65.1
Nipissing University 100.0 100.0
OCAD University 0.0 100.0
UOIT 0.0 86.6
University of Ottawa 73.4 72.3
Queen's University 68.8 68.6
Ryerson University 94.0 86.0
University of Toronto 60.8 60.4
Trent University 70.2 70.4
University of Waterloo 59.8 61.0
The University of Western Ontario 69.8 63.3
Wilfrid Laurier University 90.6 88.9
University of Windsor 78.9 77.5
York University 74.2 69.1
From the analysis on graduate enrolment growth, while institutions were once
differentiated according to the extent of doctoral education provided, the allocation of a
limited amount of graduate enrolment operating and capital funding mainly on a
competitive basis contributed to processes of institutional convergence as more
institutions chose to offer graduate programs in order to obtain a share of the funding
allocation.
Since doctoral programs and research intensity complement each other, Fallis
(2013) suggested that differentiation in Ontario’s university sector should occur by
having a subgroup of universities focused on doctoral education and research at an
internationally competitive level. Doctoral education funded at a few universities would
benefit from having a critical mass of students and faculty to deliver high quality
140
programs that could be benchmarked internationally. Research could be conducted at all
universities with the subset of institutions having a critical mass of high quality research
across a range of fields. The other group of universities would focus on baccalaureate
education and would offer Master’s programs but no Doctoral programs. The MYAA
would be used as a mechanism to formally limit enrolments. Therefore, Ontario might be
better served by limiting all future growth in Doctoral programs to those institutions that
already have a greater share of Doctoral students thereby limiting the share of graduate
education to other institutions.
Limiting graduate aspirations was not shared by all participants interviewed for
this study as such a practice would not be equitable, as every institution should have the
chance to offer graduate programs. A participant noted that “those who did not get them
(graduate spaces) would be howling to say you are relegating us to second tier
status…On the other hand, the other voices would say, if Ontario aspires to have world
class institutions, then there has to be some serious differentiation.” Another participant
was concerned that only funding research-intensive institutions in terms of graduate
learning may cause the sector to lose new disciplines and new areas of specialization
while others questioned if the supply of students is as endless as the sector assumes. A
number of participants did question the Ministry’s approach to dealing with unfilled
graduate spaces by some institutions while other had more supply than spaces available.
Criticisms were also launched at institutions on this matter: “if you can’t meet your target
consistently, than you have to ask yourself if you have graduate programs that are
relevant or is there some programs you should not be doing?”
Conclusion
The examination of key provincial funding policies through policy analysis
between 1994 and 2010 suggests that the current policy environment supports the
convergence of institutions. The university’s basic operating funding grant, which is
based on enrolment levels by program, continues to funds institutions equally (same BIU
value for all institutions) without specifying any allocations between teaching, research
and other activities, irrespective of an institution’s type or size. There has also been a
141
decrease in the level of special purpose funding, in support of differentiated missions and
government priorities, provided to institutions during this period.
Tuition fees are for the most part, regulated by the government and provide no
incentive for institutions to engage in competitive pricing to differentiate their programs
and therefore contributed to processes of institutional convergence. Capital funding and
funding in support of student aid, which lack diversity objectives promoted by the
existing egalitarian funding model, contributed to processes of institutional convergence.
While institutions were once differentiated according to the extent of doctoral education
they provided, the allocation of additional graduate operating and capital funding
contributed to processes of institutional convergence as more institutions chose to offer
additional graduate programs.
Ontario universities were operating in a period of high resource flows from
increases in student demand and other funding which provided additional resources to the
primarily undergraduate institutions to add new graduate programs and therefore mimic
the comprehensive and medical/doctoral institutions.
142
CHAPTER VII - MOVING FORWARD: DIVERSITY AND THE STRATEGIC MANDATE AGREEMENTS
Introduction
The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities recently noted that
there is no question that every college and university should be able to offer a full range of core programming, particularly at the undergraduate and entry level. And there is no question that we need to see the continued growth of graduate studies as well as a strong research agenda within both the college and university sectors. But putting students first means focusing our resources on what each institution does best so that collectively they offer the maximum choice, flexibility and quality experience to Ontario students (Milloy, 2011).
This chapter used the strategic mandate agreements provided by each university,
which articulated their future direction, in order to assess the cumulative impact of these
plans on systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s university sector. The impact of
these plans is important as the development of a policy on institutional diversity must
take into account not only current levels of diversity but must also substantiate the need
for such a policy by projecting the extent of diversity under the current policy
environment.
It is understood that this type of analysis is a projection based on the following
key assumptions. It was first assumed that that all institutional plans and priorities will
be realized by 2018 which in itself assumed that the provincial government will provide
the required funding inherent in some of these plans. This study did not conduct any due
diligence to determine the reasonableness of the various institutional strategic directions
and priorities or to assess their likelihood of being realized by 2018. It is also understood
that institutions provided these strategic plans and priorities in response to the
government’s areas of special interest and many have excluded other strategic directions
and priorities which might have impacted the extent of systemic and climate diversity for
2018. The projections also assumed that there was no significant change in the current
federal and provincial policy environment and no new institutions are added to Ontario’s
university sector irrespective of the calls by a number of scholars (Jones and Skolnik,
143
2009, and Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick, 2009) for new undergraduate teaching-
focused institutions.
Strategic Mandate Agreement process
The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities launched a process to
establish strategic mandate agreements with each of Ontario’s colleges and universities,
with the purpose of informing future decisions, including funding allocation decisions
and program approvals. The government also articulated its vision for post-secondary
sector in Ontario as follows: “Ontario colleges and universities will drive creativity,
innovation, knowledge, and community engagement through teaching and research.
They will put students first by providing the best possible learning experience for all
qualified learners in an affordable and financially sustainable way, ensuring high quality,
and globally competitive outcomes for students and Ontario’s creative economy”
(Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, 2012, p. 7).
The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario established a peer review panel
with the objective of evaluating the strategic mandate submissions to identify institutions
that would have the ability to improve productivity, quality and affordability through
innovation and differentiation and that could advance government policies, objectives
and goals. These institutions would be provided with funding to pursue their mandates
by 2013-14 (HEQCO, 2012).
While the submissions specifically addressed the government’s areas of special
interest (productivity, innovation and student centeredness), for many institutions, these
areas were closely aligned with their own strategic plans and priorities which they were
already pursuing. Participants generally agreed that strategic mandate agreements are an
effective way to shape the direction of higher education and increase diversity as
institutions can identify how they can differentiate themselves from others while
encouraging institutions to focus on their areas of strength. As summarized by a
participant, they generally saw the process “as an opportunity not to get radical
transformation in a short period of time, but to set the stage for measured evolution that
will ultimately lead to a differentiated system. Government will have to make some
144
brave policy choices in doing that, and put some stakes in the ground that they haven’t
done before”. However, the inaugural strategic mandate agreement process was not
without criticism as a participant noted:
There wasn’t confidence in the process, it was changing as it was taking place, it was a tight timeframe, wrong time of year, so everybody went back to their strategic plans, done in a more traditional way, used that because they had community buy in, and so we got criticized for not demonstrating enough diversity.
The process was also criticized by participants for not providing incentives to drive
diversity; it limited responses to eight pages (not all institutions complied); focused on
short-term, tactically based responses instead of broad strategic directions; it failed to
recognize the importance of the need for universities to consult with its many
constituencies in order to gain support for any changes in direction or mission; coupled
with a process that occurred when key stakeholders were no longer on campus.
The problem with this SMA process is that we were asked to do one thing but we are being evaluated as if we were asked to do something else. We are than criticized for not generating new ideas as if we were not doing what we were asked to do. We did what we were asked to do. We were not asked to show how we are going to be different.
While most participants supported such a process, some had serious reservations
as noted by the following statement:
My fears with these SMAs is that it will be a way of controlling what universities do in order to reduce costs in the system, than that would be a dead loss because it will have that same homogenizing effect as all the other interventions from government tend to have.
HEQCO’s expert panel also recognized some of the deficiencies in the SMA
process as they highlighted that
…the SMA process, including its focus and areas of emphasis, evolved over time. These considerations, coupled with the constraints of the exercise, shaped what institutions could submit. Additionally, the public consultation and other discussions underway at the time the SMAs were being prepared no doubt influenced submissions. Some institutions perceived that this was an exercise in securing incremental resources, and the content of their SMAs was shaped by
145
what they thought would optimize their success in such a competition. The Panel was mindful of these considerations as it reviewed the SMAs (HEQCO, 2013. p. 5).
The expert panel also noted that “the SMAs provide a rich collection of ideas,
innovations, plans and projects that could be advanced within the institution identifying it
or generalized to other institutions” (HEQCO, 2013. p. 6) but noted that “there was not
sufficient diversity among mandate statements, particularly when examined within each
of the college and university sectors, to allow for identification of some institutions as
leads.” (HEQCO, 2013, p. 6). A number of participants interviewed after the report was
issued criticized the panel for essentially “abrogating their responsibilities towards
making any kind of definitive or declarative statements” on the SMAs.
Strategic Mandate Agreements
The following is a summary of Strategic Mandate Agreements by institution
highlighting potential changes in their 2010 categorization of variables (type, size,
enrolment profile, undergraduate profile and student/faculty contact) that was used to
project the categorization of variables by institution to 2018. The projections of the
variables by institution was used to categorize institutions into institutional types and
determine their concentration and dispersion by type as a means of projecting systemic
and climate diversity in the university sector in Ontario in 2018.
Algoma University
Algoma University is currently a small, regional (Algoma Region), and primarily
undergraduate university with a special mission to focus on teaching and learning, and
engage in cross-cultural education. It plans to grow its enrolment (Aboriginal students,
students from other parts of Ontario, and International students) from 1,000 FTEs to
3,000 FTEs in the future as a path to increased productivity. It seeks to offer its first
Master’s program in Environmental Science in coordination with a similar institution,
Lake Superior State University. It also seeks to extend the number of sites at which it
offers first-year or first and second-year programs in order to feed its upper year courses
on its main, Sault Ste. Marie campus. It also seeks to increase its collaboration with
146
colleges in Northern Ontario and offer two new articulated-degree programs as well as
enter into three new pathway agreements (Algoma University, 2012). The 2010
categorization of variables for Algoma University appears not to be impacted by the
university’s future strategic direction.
Brock University
Brock University is currently a large, regional (Niagara Region), and
comprehensive (2010 - primarily undergraduate) university that offers a variety of
undergraduate programs and 34 Master’s and PhD programs. It is a student-centered,
learning focused institution that offers a full range of traditional, experiential and
innovative pedagogies. It engages in transdisciplinary community-based research and
actively pursues regional economic development initiatives. It seeks to expand its on-line
offering and experiential learning programs for students, to establish five
transdisciplinary Research Institutes and grow its graduate and undergraduate programs
by increasing its graduate enrolment to 10% of total students by 2014. It also seeks to
build networks of community partnerships to expand and establish a culture of
innovation, research and commercialization to meet the needs of the knowledge economy
(Brock University, 2012). Brock University’s desire to increase its graduate enrolment
would impact its enrolment profile by 2018 to medium (more than 10% are graduate
students) from its 2010 category of low (less than 10% are graduate students). It will also
be classified as a comprehensive institution from 2011, consistent with its Maclean’s
classification.
Carleton University
Carleton University is currently a large, regional (National Capital Region),
comprehensive and research-intensive university that offers a wide range of disciplinary
and interdisciplinary programs with excellence in graduate studies and experiential
learning. It seeks to develop a fully integrated model of college/university academic
programming, to provide leadership and collaboration leading to regional economic
prosperity and sustainable development that will engage its faculty and students in their
147
community. It also seeks to expand its international reach by offering a summer gateway
program for international students, develop more on-line courses and cluster of courses
that will be a building block towards a degree and to increase its partnerships with
universities in other countries by developing programs in areas of demand (Carleton
University, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for Carleton University appears
not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
University of Guelph
The University of Guelph is currently a large, comprehensive and research-
intensive university that offers a wide range of theoretical and applied, disciplinary and
interdisciplinary, undergraduate and graduate programs. It is recognized for having the
only veterinary school in Ontario and for conducting research in agri-food and life
sciences. It seeks to transform its curriculum by undertaking a program prioritization
process to enhance its productivity and effectiveness that will inform which program to
enhance, continue, reduce, restructure or eliminate. It also seeks to widen the use of
learning ePortfolios, to develop courses to reflect acquired or developed skills and ensure
that students accumulate a guaranteed minimum number of active learning practices. It
also seeks to provide learning opportunities that will stimulate regional economic and
social development with a variety of partners (University of Guelph, 2012). With the
government announcement of support for 6,000 additional graduate spaces between
2012-13 and 2015-16, the University of Guelph could easily move its current enrolment
profile of 9.6% to 10%, moving to the medium category by 2018.
Lakehead University
Lakehead University is currently a medium, regional (Northwestern Ontario and
Simcoe County) and primarily undergraduate university that offers a variety of
undergraduate programs and 36 Master’s and PhD programs. It has a commitment to
Aboriginal learners which represent 11% of its total student enrolment. As a learner-
centered university, it recognizes that research informs the curriculum as its faculty is
engaged in innovative research initiatives and integrates teaching, learning and research.
148
Experiential learning is also a component of nearly every program. It seeks to create new
pathways and increase student mobility by entering into college-universities multilateral
transfer agreements, regional college partnerships and increase its Aboriginal enrolment
to 15% of total enrolment. It seeks to increase student, faculty and staff engagement by
advancing scholarly and innovative approaches to teaching and technology practices,
creating a gathering place for Aboriginal students, and provide face-to-face and virtual
academic support services in a student success center. It also seeks to be responsive to
the needs of its rural and remote community by expanding learning opportunities,
research and economic development through a series of community partnerships
including the establishment of a store-front legal clinic, a Centre focused on programs for
non-traditional learners, and a Centre of Excellence in mineral exploration and
sustainable mining development (Lakehead University, 2012). Its strategic plans to 2018
notes that enrolment will be increased by over 2,000 students bringing total enrolment
over 10,000 by 2018 moving its enrolment size from medium to large.
Laurentian University
Laurentian University is currently a medium, regional (Greater Sudbury and
Barrie) and primarily undergraduate university that offers a variety of undergraduate
programs and 5 signature graduate programs in a French, English and Aboriginal culture
with over 60% of its students as First Generation and over 10% are Aboriginal. Its
research excellence is focused in 9 areas and is recognized for its fresh water, mineral
exploration and mining innovation research. It seeks to improve its student engagement
and experience by recruiting 90 highly talented faculty, create a Centre for Academic
Excellence, modernize its campus to make creative use of space and increase its
enrolment from 7,200 FTEs in 2011 to 8,300 FTEs by 2017. It also seeks to actively
engage with its community partners by building an Indigenous Learning Centre,
increasing the number of Aboriginal faculty and students and better meet the needs of
Francophone learners in Central-Southwestern Ontario, build a new facility in Barrie that
will allow the expansion of its programs and build a School of Architecture that will
revitalize Sudbury’s downtown core. It also seeks to establish state of the art research
laboratories and graduate research spaces in environmental sustainability, mining
149
innovation and exploration. It will continue its graduate expansion by introducing 5 more
Master’s program and increase the number of PhD students (Laurentian University,
2012). With its 2012 enrolment at 9,700 full and part-time students, Laurentian
University will easily exceed 10,000 students by 2018 with its current enrolment growth
plans, moving its enrolment size from medium to large.
McMaster University
McMaster University is currently a large medical/doctoral and research-intensive
university that offers a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs through a
research-focused, student-centered approach. It integrates research and education by
embedding community-based, experiential learning in programs across all 6 of its
Faculties. It seeks to develop a distinct, personalized and engaging undergraduate
experience by continuing its tradition of pioneering academic programs based on self-
directed, problem-based learning linked to its research mission. It will establish an
Experiential Learning Centre that will increase experiential learning, online delivery,
community engagement and mentorship and will assess the benefits of using student
learning portfolios. It also seeks to build on existing partnerships with local government,
businesses and other community groups and will create a Network of Community
Champions in its Faculties to raise the visibility of its community engagement mission
and enable the sharing of best practices. It also seeks to enhance support to its faculty to
assist them in engaging students in their research activities and further increase its
graduate enrolment by introducing new graduate programs (McMaster University, 2012).
The 2010 categorization of variables for McMaster University appears not to be impacted
by the university’s future strategic direction.
Nipissing University
Nipissing University is currently a medium, regional (Northern Ontario) and
primarily undergraduate university that offers a variety of undergraduate and a handful of
graduate programs in a range of disciplines while giving special attention to learners in
the North, including First Generation and Aboriginal learners. As a teaching and a
150
student-centered learning institution, it seeks to enhance its academic programs by adding
new program offerings and cross-disciplinary degrees (8 new Master’s level and 2
Doctorate level). It also seeks to support student accessibility by providing innovative
programs and applied degrees through its multiple college partnerships (increase
pathways for non-traditional students and improved recognition for prior learning), cross-
sector partnerships, blended learning and online and flexible models of delivery and
credit transfer recognition. It will also continue to develop a fully-integrated community
of engaged scholars and learners by developing problem-based learning with community-
based objectives, engaging undergraduate students in research and practical learning
experiences to enrich their learning experiences (Nipissing University, 2012). The 2010
categorization of variables for Nipissing University appears not to be impacted by the
university’s future strategic direction.
OCAD University
OCAD University is currently a small and primarily undergraduate university
offering undergraduate and a handful of Master’s level programs through experiential and
technology-enabled learning and is specialized in art, design and media education. It
seeks to create a variety of fully online and blended learning course offerings, will lead in
technology-enabled learning and will expand experiential learning opportunities with a
formal partnership with a business school. It also seeks to increase its enrolment to above
5,000 FTEs by 2017 by growing its undergraduate enrolment by 25%, growing its
market-driven graduate programs by 3 times its size and offer PhD programs (a revision
to its Act will be required to allow the institution to offer Doctoral programs) and
increasing the number of diploma-to-degree articulation agreements with colleges. It also
seeks to increase its research capacity in art, design and media to enhance its student
experience and allow it to transfer its knowledge to diverse communities through local
and international research partnerships (OCAD University, 2012). The 2010
categorization of variables for OCAD University appears not to be impacted by the
university’s future strategic direction.
151
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
The University of Ontario Institute of Technology is a medium, primarily
undergraduate university that offers 43 undergraduate and 27 graduate programs in
STEM-based and STEM-intensive disciplines which are designed to be technology-
enabled, career-focused and market-oriented. It seeks to increase its enrolment levels to
10,000 FTEs by 2016 and to 20,000 FTEs by 2030 by implementing a number of
outcome-based learning strategies throughout its programs and by broadening its college-
university transfer articulation agreements and its collaborative program delivery with
Trent University. It seeks to strengthen its partnerships with Durham College and Trent
University to leverage resources in Durham Region and Northumberland County to
enhance their impact on the knowledge economy. It also seeks to enhance its physical
and technological infrastructure in support of a full integration of a technology-enriched
learning environment and to promote innovation in teaching research (digital research
capacity including cloud delivery models) and administration (University of Ontario
Institute of Technology, 2012). With its enrolment plans, UOIT will easily exceed
10,000 students moving its enrolment size from medium to large by 2018.
University of Ottawa
University of Ottawa is currently a large medical/doctoral and research-intensive
university that offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs
in a bilingual environment with a commitment to the promotion of French culture in
Ontario. It seeks to increase its innovation in teaching and learning by increasing the
number of experiential learning opportunities with organizations that are clustered around
the national capital region, enable greater student mobility through its participation in the
University Credit Transfer Consortium, reduce time to completion through three-session
academic programming and three-year undergraduate degrees, increase the use of
technology-assisted learning and accelerate its French immersion program. It also seeks
to increase its research-intensity in its particular areas of strength: health, science and
engineering, and public policy. It will also increase its graduate students to 18% of total
students, increase the number of Doctoral students by 50% and increase the number of
152
courses offered in both English and French to 85% of total course offerings (University
of Ottawa, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for University of Ottawa appears
not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
Queen’s University
Queen’s University is currently a large, medical/doctoral and research-intensive
university that offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs
by providing a student learning experience which is enriched by a research-intensive
setting. It seeks to expand its undergraduate credentials and experiential and
entrepreneurial education. Additional undergraduate credentials include creating more
opportunities for students to receive a college-level certificate or diploma concurrent with
a degree (in cooperation with a College) and will also pursue opportunities within the
university to offer certificates within its degree programs. While it currently offers a
number of experiential and entrepreneurial experiences to students within its programs, it
will compile a directory to identify co-curricular activities and their related learning
outcomes making these activities accessible to all students. It will also build on its
existing strengths to increase student involvement in Kingston and other communities. It
expects to increase enrolments by 2,000 undergraduate FTEs and 350 graduate FTEs by
2018 as it also expands its graduate credentials in its professional programs by offering
laddered credentials which include certificates and graduate diplomas (Queen’s
University, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for Queen’s University appears
not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
Ryerson University
Ryerson University is a large, comprehensive (2010 was primarily undergraduate)
university which offers a variety of undergraduate and graduate programs (13 PhD
programs). It is a student-centered institution that emphasizes entrepreneurial, creativity,
experiential learning, continuing education, and online learning. It seeks to broaden its
professional graduate programs and anticipates increasing enrolment by 750 Master’s
FTEs and 260 Doctoral FTEs by 2018. It also plans to expand its Digital Media Zone
153
concept to other disciplines as it attracted entrepreneurial talent from across the world to
build a digital media industry in the GTA in collaboration with industry and community
partners. It also seeks to transform its curriculum with more experiential learning,
technology-enhanced course delivery, year-round course availability, and provide digital
literacy opportunities across its curriculum. It also seeks to grow its undergraduate
enrolment by 3,600 FTEs with the addition of 6 programs in innovative fields, produce
120 new online courses per year for the next five years bringing its total online offerings
close to Athabasca University’s total online offerings (Ryerson University, 2012). With
the government announcement of support for 6,000 additional graduate spaces between
2012-13 and 2015-16, Ryerson University could easily move its current enrolment profile
of 9.2% to 10%, moving to the medium category by 2018. It will also be classified as a
comprehensive institution from 2011, consistent with its Maclean’s classification.
University of Toronto
The University of Toronto is currently a large, medical/doctoral and research-
intensive university that offers a full range of undergraduate, graduate and professional
programs across disciplines and across three distinctive campuses. It is an internationally
significant research university that ensure its undergraduate education is enriched by its
culture of inquiry, discover and creativity and is known as Ontario’s academic flagship.
It expects to increase its undergraduate enrolment by 5,000 FTEs at its east and west
campus. It seeks to continue to enhance its efficiencies and productivity by increasing
the number of combined undergraduate and Master’s degree (3 + 2), expand the number
of teaching-stream faculty, and expand the number of international graduate students
should the domestic-level funding formula be extended to international graduate students.
It also seeks to expand technology-assisted learning opportunities by exploring the
potential for offering for-credit foundational courses through the Massively Open On-line
Consortium – Coursera. It also seeks to enhance entrepreneurial and experiential
learning opportunities by developing an entrepreneurial for-credit course for its Arts and
Science students, expanding its partnerships with an international consortium, private
sector partners, as well as providing funding to students who can’t afford to forgo part-
time income to take advantage of valuable unpaid internship opportunities (University of
154
Toronto, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for the University of Toronto
appears not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
Trent University
Trent University is currently a medium, regional (Durham Region), primarily
undergraduate research-focused university that offers a variety of undergraduate and a
handful of graduate programs in an intimate learning environment. It seeks to establish
an Interdisciplinary School of Environment, Sustainability and Enterprise which will
increase its reputation for research and teaching in environmental science and
sustainability, expand its graduate and undergraduate programs in its current areas of
strength (enrolment up by 1,150 FTEs) and will provide additional experiential learning
opportunities. It seeks to be a catalyst for regional transformation rooted in community-
based experiential learning, locally focused research and increased university-college
partnerships. It also seeks to develop a Centre for Aging and Society that will examine
the social, economic, cultural and health impacts of aging on society and individuals
communities. It will also increase its leadership in Aboriginal community development
(Trent University, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for the Trent University
appears not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
University of Waterloo
The University of Waterloo is a large, comprehensive and research-intensive
university that offers a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs in an
environment which cultivates innovation while offering a unique form of experiential
learning as the world’s largest post-secondary co-operative education program. It seeks
to expand its graduate program offerings and enrolment by offering more online graduate
courses, more opportunities for research work terms, developing more interdisciplinary
graduate programs and integrating its ESL program for its graduate students. It also
seeks to adopt a transformative higher education model that will help move discoveries
quickly to market and support innovation-enabled learning by developing and building an
Innovation Village that would provide the necessary infrastructure, virtual network of
155
support and like-minded risk takers in an environment fueled by shared ideas. It also
seeks to enhance its technology-enabled learning by first building technology-enabled
learning assessment expertize leading to a regional university consortium that would
develop and distribute online courses and resources using open courseware (University of
Waterloo, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for the University of Waterloo
appears not to be impacted by the university’s future strategic direction.
The University of Western Ontario
The University of Western Ontario is currently a large, medical/doctoral and
research-intensive university that offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate and
professional programs by providing a student learning experience which is enriched by a
research and innovation setting. It seeks to strengthen its current commitment to the
delivery of the best student experience by increasing the number of faculty Chairs to
improve its student to faculty interactions, increasing the number of Teaching Fellows to
increase innovation in curriculum development, expand its experiential learning
opportunities, and increase its enrolment (600 Master’s and 300 Doctoral by 2017)
mainly in its professional graduate programs. It will continue to provide a learning
environment that fosters creativity through exploration, discovery, invention and
innovation and will promote industry access to its facilities through partnerships. It also
seeks to enhance its knowledge mobilization efforts by providing its students with
opportunities to experience hands-on learning in the community and abroad and will
introduce a co-curricular record to give formal recognition to ‘out-of-class” learning
(The University of Western Ontario, 2012). The 2010 categorization of variables for the
University of Western Ontario appears not to be impacted by the university’s future
strategic direction.
Wilfrid Laurier University
Wilfrid Laurier University is currently a large, comprehensive (2010 was
primarily undergraduate), research-intensive university which offers a full range of
undergraduate, graduate and professional programs in a liberal arts tradition, multi-
156
campus and multi-community setting. It seeks to offer innovative academic programs
with a focus on integrated and engaged learning. It provides student choice through its
extensive articulation agreements and excels in teaching and learning by creating
teaching-stream faculty positions, provide a General BA which can be completed entirely
online, and make use of online preparedness evaluations. It will increase its technology-
assisted learning and will partner with regional universities to create new online
resources. It seeks to grow its graduate programs and enrolment (15% growth in
Master’s and 20% in Doctorate enrolment), augment its undergraduate research
opportunities and will increase its emphasis on partnership development and
collaborative research. With limited capacity at its Waterloo campus, it seeks to create
another campus in Milton (Wilfrid Laurier University, 2012). With the increase in its
graduate programs and research intensity, it will be classified as a comprehensive
institution from 2011, consistent with its Maclean’s classification.
University of Windsor
The University of Windsor is currently a large, comprehensive and research-
intensive university that offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate and professional
programs in an environment focused on students and its community (Winsor-Essex
Region). Over the next three years, it seeks to transform the large classroom experience
by redesigning its 25 largest undergraduate courses by making extensive use of online
and mobility communications technologies that will translate into an agile, efficient, and
effective learning experience. It also seeks to strengthen its community engagement and
post-secondary collaborations by building around its new downtown campus (Opening
Fall 2014) by entering into partnerships with the business community and St. Clair
College. It will increase its academic and community programing and student pathways
(undergraduate honors degree/diploma) while maximizing its resource utilization. It also
seeks to increase its research-intensity by encouraging more intra and inter-disciplinary
research groups, expanding its graduate and professional programs, integrating research
and creative activities in its undergraduate curricula and support increased international
research and graduate training opportunities (University of Windsor, 2012). The 2010
157
categorization of variables for the University of Windsor appears not to be impacted by
the university’s future strategic direction.
York University
York University is currently a large, comprehensive and research-intensive
university that offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs
with strengths in liberal arts and programs that enhance inter-disciplinary and multi-
disciplinary approaches. Its seeks to continue to be recognized as a leader in college-
university collaboration, will launch a pilot project with Ryerson University to allow
students to take up to 24 credits at the opposite university, will continue its summer
programs, continue to meet the needs of Southern Ontario’s Francophone community and
will implement an institution-wide retention strategy with a specific focus on first year
and PhD students in order to improve its completion rates. It seeks to create the
University of York-Seneca as a satellite campus at York or Seneca to advance college-
university transfer credits. It also seeks to deepen and broaden its engagement with the
community to increase experiential learning opportunities and to increase its innovative
networks and clusters that foster knowledge mobilization as well as increase its
international connections to provide more opportunities for an international experience to
its students (York University, 2012). With the government announcement of support for
6,000 additional graduate spaces between 2012-13 and 2015-16, York University could
easily move its current enrolment profile of 8.6% to 10%, moving to the medium
category by 2018.
Table 43 summarizes the changes in the categorization of variables by institution
for 2018 from 2010 derived from the review of each institution’s Strategic Mandate
Agreements.
158
Table 43 – Changes in Categorization of Variables Derived from Proposed Institutional Plans
2018
Institution Variable 2010 2018 Brock University Type Primarily Undergraduate Comprehensive
Brock University Enrolment Profile Low Graduate Medium Graduate
University of Guelph Enrolment Profile Low Graduate Medium Graduate
Lakehead University Size Medium Large
Laurentian University Size Medium Large
UOIT Size Medium Large
Ryerson University Type Primarily Undergraduate Comprehensive
Ryerson University Enrolment Profile Low Graduate Medium Graduate
Wilfrid Laurier University Type Primarily Undergraduate Comprehensive
York University Enrolment Profile Low Graduate Medium Graduate
Table 44 categorizes institutions by size and type for 2010 and 2018 and incorporates the
changes noted in Table 43. Table 45 categorizes institutions by enrolment and
undergraduate profile, and student-faculty contact for 2010 and 2018 and incorporates the
changes noted in Table 43. All changes are in bold for ease of comparison.
159
Table 44 – Categorization by Size and Type
2010 and 2018
2010 2018 2010 2018
Algoma University S S SP SPBrock University L L PU CCarleton University L L C CDominican College of Philosophy and Theology S S SP SPUniversity of Guelph L L C CLakehead University M L PU PULaurentian University M L PU PUMcMaster University L L MD MDNippissing University M M PU PUOCAD University S S SP SPUOIT M L PU PUUniversity of Ottawa L L MD MDQueen's University L L MD MDRedeemer University College S S SP SPRoyal Military College of Canada S S SP SPRyerson University L L PU CUniversity of Toronto L L MD MDTrent University M M PU PUUniversity of Waterloo L L C CThe University of Western Ontario L L MD MDWilfrid Laurier University L L PU CUniversity of Windsor L L C CYork University L L C C
Size: S=small, M=medium, L=largeType: PU=primarily undergraduate, C=comprehensive, MD=medical/doctoral, SP=special purpose
SIZE TYPE
160
Table 45 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact 2010 and 2018
2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018
Algoma University L L M M L LBrock University L M H H L LCarleton University M M H H L LDominican College of Philosophy and Theology H H L L H HUniversity of Guelph L M H H L LLakehead University L L H H M MLaurentian University L L M M M MMcMaster University M M H H M MNippissing University L L M M L LOCAD University L L M M L LUOIT L L H H L LUniversity of Ottawa M M H H L LQueen's University M M M M M MRedeemer University College L L H H M MRoyal Military College of Canada H H H H H HRyerson University L M L L L LUniversity of Toronto M M H H M MTrent University L L H H L LUniversity of Waterloo M M H H L LThe University of Western Ontario M M H H M MWilfrid Laurier University L L H H L LUniversity of Windsor M M H H L LYork University L M H H L L
Enrolment profile: L= low graduate, M= medium graduate, H=high graduateUndergraduate profile: L=low full-time, M=medium full-time, H=high full-timeStudent/Faculty contact: L=low contact, M=medium contact, H=high contact
ENROLMENT UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTYPROFILE PROFILE CONTACT
Categorization of institutions into types
Incorporating the changes to the categorization of institutions by variables as
derived from institutional plans, institutions are once again categorized into institutional
types to determine their concentration and dispersion by type as a means of assessing
systemic and climate diversity for 2018.
Systemic diversity
Table 46 shows the distribution of institutional types using the variables to assess
systemic diversity for 2010 and 2018. The number of types remained at 5 for both years
but the distribution by type changed significantly.
161
Table 46 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity 2010 and 2018
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
4 5 4 80 20 871 3 5 100 23 1005 5 100 23 100
2010
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
1 8 1 20 8 352 5 3 60 18 781 3 4 80 21 911 2 5 100 23 1005 5 100 23 100
2018
The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:
Table 47 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity 2010 and 2018
Change in
INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 2010
A 23/5 4.6 23/5 4.6 UnchangedB 5/23 X 100 21.7 8/23 X 100 34.8 DecreaseC 2.5/23 X 100 10.9 4/23 X 100 17.4 DecreaseD 0/23 X 100 0 0/23 X 100 0 Unchanged
2010 2018
While there is no change in Index A as the number of types and institutions
remained unchanged between years, Index B which measures the extent of large-scale
clustering of universities by institutional type, projected a decrease in diversity between
162
both years as the largest cluster contained 5 institutions in 2010 and is expected to
contain 8 institutions by 2018. Index C, which measures the extent to which institutions
are concentrated by type, indicates that 2010 had the least concentration by type and
therefore more systemic diversity as compared to 2018. Index D, which measures the
extent to which institutions belong to only one institutional type, indicates no change as
there were no unique institutional types in 2010 and 2018.
The level of systemic diversity can be further summarized numerically for 2018
and 2010 using Simpson’s λ. The larger the number of types of higher education
institutions and the more institutions are evenly distributed across a large number of
types, the more diverse the system. The closer the indicator is to zero, the higher the
diversity. In 2018, the 23 institutions are projected to be distributed across 5 types.
Simpson’s λ is consequently: (8/23)² + (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (3/23)² + (2/23)² = 0.2401.
Using the calculation of Simpson’s λ, there appears to be a projected decrease in systemic
diversity between 2018 and 2010 (Simpson’s λ=0.2060) since the 2018 value is higher
than the 2010 value.
Therefore, assuming that institutional plans are realized by 2018, these are likely
to decrease the sector’s systemic diversity since two of the four indices identified a
decrease supported by Simpson’s λ.
Climate diversity
Table 48 shows the distribution of institutional types using the variables to assess
climate diversity for 2010 and 2018. The number of types remained at 10 for both years
but the distribution by type did change from year to year.
163
Table 48 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Climate Diversity 2010 and 2018
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
1 6 1 10 6 261 4 2 20 10 432 3 4 40 16 701 2 5 50 18 785 1 10 100 23 10010 10 100 23 100
2010
Number of Types
Number of Universities
Cumulative number of
types %
Cumulative number of institutions %
1 7 1 10 7 303 3 4 40 16 701 2 5 50 18 785 1 10 100 23 100
10 10 100 23 100
2018
The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:
Table 49 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity 2010 and 2018
Change in
INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 2010
A 23/10 2.3 23/10 2.3 UnchangedB 6/23 X 100 26.1 7/23 X 100 30.4 DecreaseC 6/23 X 100 26.1 7/23 X 100 30.4 DecreaseD 5/23 X 100 21.7 5/23 X 100 21.7 Unchanged
2010 2018
While there is no change in Index A as the number of types and institution
remained unchanged between years, Index B which measures the extent of large-scale
164
clustering of universities by institutional type, indicates that there is a projected decrease
in diversity between both years as the largest cluster contained 6 institutions in 2010 and
is expected to contain 7 institutions by 2018. Index C, which measures the extent to
which institutions are concentrated by type, indicates that 2010 had the least
concentration by type and therefore more systemic diversity as compared to 2018. Index
D, which measures the extent to which institutions belong to only one institutional type,
indicates no change as there are 5 unique institutional types in 2010 and 2018.
The level of climate diversity can be further summarized numerically for 2018
and 2010 using Simpson’s λ. In 2018, the 23 institutions are projected to be distributed
across 10 types. Simpson’s λ is consequently: (7/23)² + (3/23)² + (3/23)² + (3/23)² +
(2/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)² + (1/23)²= 0.1607. Using the calculation of
Simpson’s λ, there appears to be a projected decrease in climate diversity between 2018
and 2010 (Simpson’s λ=0.1493) since the 2018 value is higher than the 2010 value.
Therefore, the institutional plans are projected to decrease the sector’s climate
diversity since two of the four indices identified a decrease supported by Simpson’s λ.
Conclusion Institutional plans submitted through the strategic mandate agreement process are
projected to further decrease the extent of systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s
university sector by 2018. This is consistent with Codling and Meek’s (2006)
propositions that a higher education system existing in a homogeneous environment
without formal policy intervention to promote diversity will increase the potential for
institutional convergence. This analysis further highlights the urgent need for a policy on
diversity for Ontario’s university sector.
165
CHAPTER VIII – DIVERSITY – AVIEW FROM THE TOP
Introduction
This chapter will summarize the results of interviews conducted with university
presidents or their designate and the President of COU. Interviews were conducted over
a three month period concluding at the end of May 2013 to gain a greater understanding
of the key factors or barriers responsible for Ontario’s reticence in making design
changes in its higher education system. Participants were also asked to comment on
suggestions made in the literature and in the sector generally, that would increase
diversity in Ontario’s university sector and to suggest provincial and federal government
levers that could effectively be used to increase diversity.
Diversity – A cherished value
Participants often noted that diversity or differentiation is a concept that is poorly
understood, represents different things to different people and is often interpreted
according to criteria that are not very useful. Some participants would like to see a
definition that is agreed upon by the sector while another participant sought a more fluid
definition:
It is just setting the concept of differentiation in stone. That for me is the terrifying end piece because it immediately fossilizes what we perceive about our differences and limits the flexibility, the ingenuity, innovation and inventiveness of institutions to be able to live and breathe.
Participants generally agreed that diversity or differentiation is a cherished value in
Ontario’s university sector. As one participant noted, “it would be nice to have a healthy
and diverse ecosystem because that is a sustainable ecosystem in the post-secondary
sector, you need all types of different types of institutions”. However, diversity is also a
concept that is lauded and feared, as one participant explains.
I think it (diversity) is cherished, lauded and feared. It is something that I think every institution prides itself on and they actually pride themselves on being different, distinct and having specific niches…If we are engaged in truly believing
166
that diversity is an important ethos, we will constantly debate what it means…You can’t have and use the word diversity without having diverse opinions about what it means. Some participants noted that while the sector may value diversity, it is constrained
by another cherished Canadian value, that of equity. They felt that the need to have
policies that treat everyone consistently and fairly constrains diversity. “Some would
argue that Canada handicaps itself because we try so hard to treat people fairly, equitably.
While this is an admirable value, if you are aspiring to be world class that does not get
you there.” A participant stressed that:
Everything in this sector seems to be sacrificed on the altar of consistency. We treat everyone the same even if our circumstances can be totally different. We need to start treating universities differentially, whether by size or by geographical location, or areas of program differentiation.
This might be difficult to achieve, as one participant described how a strong value of
equity impacts interactions amongst institutions:
We come together on some issues, and we are all very different institutions but the pressure for none to stand out above the others is enormous. We always avoid issues that would allow a particular institution or group of institutions to emerge into a dominant position so we form little alliances.
While another noted other consequences of a strong equity ethos:
At the moment, the only form of service to the province that the funding regime recognizes is accommodating numbers of students and the quality issue has been historically an issue best not raised. We do not question the overall quality of education provided in the province nor do we ever suggest that it is better at some places rather than at others. It is the province equity thing taken to an absurd extreme. The aspiration of institutions, and their faculty to grow and evolve over time as
research-intensive institutions was identified by participants as a factor pushing
universities in the system to a homogeneous position. As one participant explained:
Most of the universities that got started as primarily undergraduate-focused universities aspire to have a more significant research component. To that extent, they want and expect to evolve to have more graduate programs, and to have
167
more faculty who have significant research programs. Faculty probably were attracted to become faculty because they wanted to do both research and teaching.
Concerns were also raised by participants as to how diversity or differentiation
could be achieved in the sector, especially with respect to possible redistribution of
funding while highlighting the need to be seen as equals. A participant explained how
diversity can also be feared:
There is a fear of differentiation which is the one that says that underneath it all, it’s about you wanting to be seen to be better than me and take my money. There is a real pull back from institutions and therefore their effort to not enter into differentiation because they don’t trust it to be a legitimate exercise. You have to get over both barriers, both the legitimacy of the exercise and therefore the confidence that it is really about true differentiation rather than about a transfer of resources.
Dimensions of diversity
Participants were asked to comment on which dimension or dimensions of
diversity they cherish. The majority of participants discussed one or several dimensions,
but one participant simply valued being different.
Difference is what I value. Difference is what is important. Different approaches, different understandings, different belief systems, different ways of looking at things. It is all that which embodies diversity for me. To me, it does not mean something that everybody says, that would be a diverse system and when we get there we will be able to say we are diverse. That would be a betrayal of the very process, it is an organic ever changing absolutely fluid system that we are trying to promote and create. Six participants expressed the importance of programmatic diversity as “creating
a niche with depth in certain areas and some breadth in others”. A number of participants
noted that, in each community, students should have access to a number of high quality
programs across a limited number of disciplines. The community’s needs should dictate
which programs are offered.
168
Five participants mentioned that they value systemic diversity as the size
component is very important, especially from an economy of scale perspective and for
creating a sense of community.
Some students really thrive within a small institutional culture, they feel it is more intimate, it may have less offerings for them but in general the student-faculty ratios are lower and the sense of being in a community is stronger…There is a value to small institutions but the challenge is the economy of scale…we have to think about how to aggregate operational systems, purchasing, support, all of those pieces that can allow small institutions to be financially solvent. Other participants noted that climate diversity was important in support of a
quality graduate student experience and the need to have institutions with low student-
faculty ratios. Participants also made reference to reputational diversity as having some
importance. “In the U.S. there is more of this sense of ecology where not every
institution has to be excellent in all areas but they need to serve this population base.”
One participant spoke of the importance of procedural diversity
in terms of models for teaching, research and service. There is a tendency to try to conform those, yet how in the future we are going to be structuring experiential learning where the learner is outside the walls of the institution and it goes beyond a co-op program approach, (although I think internships and co-op programs are excellent and we need more of them).
Provincial government levers that promote diversity
Discussions with participants on what provincial levers could be used to promote
diversity revealed that there was no support for any legislative solutions but, without
question, participants agreed that funding initiatives would have the most steering effect
on institutions. However, participants questioned if the provincial government could
actually move forward in the short-term to fund increased differentiation considering its
current fiscal challenges and other priorities. There was a general consensus among
participants that the government needs to provide the required incentives to increase
diversity in the sector. Some participants noted that government could perform some
central planning function with the assistance of expert panels.
169
Funding formula and tuition fees
A number of funding policy changes have been discussed in the literature that
could increase Ontario’s diversity in the university sector. The funding formula and
tuition fee policy are seen as the most powerful tools government can use to affect
change in Ontario’s higher education system. “There is every reason to believe that the
strategic and disciplined use of funding formulas to drive these changes will be effective.
The extraordinary growth of Ontario’s postsecondary system over the last ten years attest
to the powerful force and dramatic results that targeted funding can exert” (HEQCO,
2013. p. 14). This view was also shared by Clark, Trick and Van Loon (2011) who
mainly focused their attention on possible changes in government funding policies and
reporting requirements noting that without government action, institutions cannot act
alone to affect the degree of institutional differentiation in the system, unless they obtain
and use non-government funding to pursue a more specialized mission. Most participants
agreed that structural changes to the existing funding model would be needed to increase
diversity in the sector.
Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) suggested a more differentiated funding
mechanism which balances public interest and institutional autonomy as current funding
arrangements in Ontario offer few incentives to encourage institutions to be something
other than research-intensive universities. The redistribution of a significant portion of
the operating funding envelope to enhance teaching missions for some while supporting
research-intensive missions for a subset of universities to effectively compete with their
research peers could provide the required incentives to increase systemic diversity. Some
participants also suggested that the provincial government make more use of
differentiated funding as noted by a participant:
You would have to have a funding system that did not treat all things the same if you are going to have real differentiation. A differentiated funding system that was based upon entitlements to an institution because of size or age as opposed to outcomes would wrong and dangerous for the province and would ultimately not work. Where the funding is differentiated, it should be output driven and it should be competitive.
170
According to some participants, incremental funding would include the creation of a
number of funding envelopes that would be tied directly to the university’s mandate to
serve their communities. Funding should also be provided for those universities that
would choose not to grow but instead would choose to increase program quality as a
means of differentiating themselves. Considering the current fiscal environment,
participants acknowledged that the government will have to make tough decisions to
make some progress on this issue. One participant noted that diversification could be
better achieved by encouraging innovation within institutions:
They [government] need to set out clear parameters around fiscal management, one of which is you must have set aside 3 or 5 percent of your total operating budget for innovation. They need to incent that behavior or you need to penalize institutions. If you don’t have it, your grant gets cut because you clearly don’t need to have that amount.
In his response to MTCU’s Strengthening Ontario’s Centres of Creativity,
Innovation and Knowledge, Clark (2012) builds on proposals made in Academic Reform
and suggests that Ontario should adopt a research performance-based funding
mechanism, like those used in other OECD jurisdictions, that encourages the most
productive researchers to do more research while others would do more teaching without
increasing system resources. Clark (2012) proposed a transparent and cost-effective
methodology which would have the government distribute a substantial portion of
operating funding by allocating a dollar amount per research contribution unit (RCU)
earned by an institution’s professoriate. An RCU would be assigned to each professor
based on an individual’s rank in an ordinal distribution. Professors in the top deciles
would be attributed more RCUs than those in lower deciles. The research contribution of
professors by field would be determined using web-based bibliometric indices and
granting council awards available in the public domain. In cases where no quantitative
data exists, ordinal rankings could be generated by an expert panel reviewing professors’
curriculum vitae.
Clark (2012) anticipates that the variability in research performance among
faculty in the same field will follow a power law distribution where the majority of
171
research contributions by field are produced by a small number of very productive
professors. The allocation of a portion of the operating grant based on research
performance would provide the required financial incentives for those institutions
receiving less funding per full-time professor from the research portion to focus more of
their efforts on teaching rather than research, thereby possibly attracting a greater share of
the teaching portion of the operating grant. Over time, these allocation mechanisms
would enhance diversity in the sector as they would encourage each institution to
specialize in fields where they could attract and retain highly productive faculty by
increasing the fraction of time they devote to research activities. Conversely, it would
also act as an incentive for institutions to shift some of the research time of the less
productive researchers to teaching and other scholarly activities (scholarly activities
undertaken by teaching faculty do not need to include time spent trying to make an
original research contribution). Reducing the amount of time a professor spends on
research would not necessarily damage one’s teaching quality as the two activities are
essentially uncorrelated.
Participants were generally not supportive of Clark’s (2012) research and teaching
allocation mechanism. While there were no objections for institutions to be measured
and accountable, the possibility of dislocating current funding from one institution to
another was seen as untenable and against the value of equity that we share in Ontario
and Canada.
I totally disagree with that approach. It completely compartmentalizes the learning experience and creates artificial boundaries and completely ignores the community relevance and the fact that we all work with particular stakeholders who might see value in us having a particular set of undergraduate and graduate programs to help our communities.
A participant suggested that any allocation between teaching, research and community
service should be done with each being valued equality, that is, one third of the funding
allocated to each of the three to emphasize that research in no better than teaching. Any
metric should be applied to everyone in the sector.
172
Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) suggested a larger role for government or
a government advisory body to advise on the current funding of Ontario universities as
the rise in class size and the use of part-time instructors is continuing despite significant
financial infusions. The current use of the public Multi-Year Accountability Agreements
(MYAA) could also be enhanced to effectively link funding to an institution’s mission
and priorities and to better recognize and endorse institutional differences. The expert
panel, which assessed the strategic mandate agreement submissions, agreed that the
government needs to take a greater role in driving change and “should consider devolving
and depoliticizing outcome-based funding decisions to an external group of experts that
represents societal interests and is charged to implement government direction”
(HEQCO, 2013. p. 8). One participant agreed that the provincial government should
make more use of expert panels but noted that these should be international review panels
that would set goals and suggest incremental funding allocations. It was felt that this
approach would be more palatable to the academic community. There was also
scepticism as to what role government could play in increasing diversity. As one
participant explains,
…even though we chase money, and there is no question that it can have a steering effect, you do have to question whether they [government] would get it right…or could the government say, pick any percentage you want of your money available for you to do something different and be more diversified…but I think government does not know any better than we do.
Participants voiced their concerns that government should provide clear goals and
direction for the sector when it comes to diversity. Any goals provided should be
accompanied with metrics so institutions can demonstrate the change in the level of
diversity in the sector. Another suggested that any goals and priorities should not be set
for the sector but should be negotiated on an institution by institution basis in order to
ensure that local communities are appropriately served.
Strategic Mandate Agreements
The process to establish strategic mandate agreements (SMA) with each of
Ontario’s colleges and universities with the purpose of informing future decisions,
173
including funding allocation decisions and program approvals was viewed by participants
as a generally good process as long as future processes address concerns discussed in the
previous chapter. Participants suggested that the process should be reframed as a means
of not only increasing diversity in Ontario’s postsecondary sector, but it could also
provide the public with a greater understanding of what universities are doing, and why
and how they are doing it. The process should include a negotiated process with the
province that would ultimately arrive at strategic objectives that would ultimately be
approved by the province. Institutions should continue to be accountable on how they
achieve provincial goals and priorities through the MYAA, but institution specific goals
and priorities negotiated through the SMA process should be assessed through metrics
determined by the institution and reported through their governing bodies as the locus of
accountability and responsibility.
Teaching-focused baccalaureate granting institutions
A number of policy choices have been discussed in the literature to increase
Ontario’s systemic diversity in the university sector. Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick
(2009) made a number of suggestions including the creation of new teaching-focused
baccalaureate granting institutions with a limited research mission focused mainly on
teaching-related scholarship. Jones and Skolnik (2009) also recommended the creation of
teaching-oriented institutions that focus on undergraduate education combined with
expanding the current role of colleges to offer additional baccalaureate programs. Clark,
Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) and Jones and Skolnik (2009) noted a number of issues
with creating new institutions. If created, they should be unencumbered by an existing
institution’s history, culture and labour agreements. Some of these institutions could be
career-focused (closer to polytechnic institutes without the graduate component) while
others could be career-focused and offer liberal arts programs. Placing some of these
institutions in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) was recommended due to the future
expected growth in demand for baccalaureate education in that region, but the
recommendation failed to address the impact on other universities outside of the GTA
that actually draw a significant portion of their students from the GTA. They also
suggested that a handful of colleges could have increased involvement in providing
174
career-focused baccalaureate programs, could be designated as polytechnic institutes or
could have their mission redefined to substantially provide baccalaureate programs.
Fallis (2013) disagreed with the idea of creating teaching-only undergraduate
universities or polytechnic institutions due in part to the current fiscal situation of the
province and his projections of future demand for higher education which do not support
the need for new institutions. In any case, Fallis believes that if new institutions are
created, they should be created in a large enough number so they can work together to
establish their own distinct and recognizable identity in order to prevent institutional
isomorphism.
Most of the individuals interviewed for this study were opposed to the idea of a
teaching-only undergraduate university sector. The link between teaching, research, and
community service was viewed as sacrosanct and should not be broken, as without these,
the institution is not a university evidenced by this participant’s comment:
“Undergraduate students need to have exposure to research, researchers, research
methodology and that is one of the reason you go to university and not a college.”
Another participant noted,
I don’t support that idea. I think only bureaucrats can dream of such a thing because when we have people in our PhD programs, they are in our PhD programs not because they want to stop doing research, but because they want to continue to be engaged in the research enterprise. I don’t think you are running a university if the people you are putting in front of the students are not contributing to the growth of the discipline and the advancement of knowledge in that discipline. You have something else but let’s not call these things a university.
Some participants raised a number of other concerns, including graduates from a
teaching-only undergraduate university may be restricted from accessing graduate
education in the future, that such institutions might not always be limited to only offering
undergraduate education and might have future aspirations of offering graduate education
and that a mechanism must be in place that ensures that under no circumstances should
the teaching load of faculty in these institutions be reduced below 4 and 4. There was
support for having teaching-focused faculty within universities and that teaching,
175
research and community services should be equally valued within existing universities.
A participant did note that teaching-focused institutions are a good idea as long as they
have “a scholarship mandate, and research that suits and fits their areas of excellence”.
Open University
A number of scholars (Jones and Skolnik (2009); Clark, Moran, Skolnik and
Trick (2009)) suggested the creation of an open university to enhance degree completion
in the province as traditional universities currently do not have an open admission and
flexible credit recognition features of an open university. Participants interviewed for
this study were for the most part, supportive of such an initiative. One participant noted
that
the open university concept serves an important niche. An important part of the ecosystem. An open university would meet the needs of a lot of people who want to complete degrees, pursue degrees, particularly while they are still working and when they don’t have access.
Another participant suggested that “anything that democratizes access to knowledge is a
really good thing” while another suggested that such an institution should be created as a
cooperative joint venture amongst a number of existing universities. Concerns around
the quality of education that could be obtained from an open access institution were
raised by one participant. “If you are going to mix open access with specializations, you
will diminish the educational experience for the people who really want to be experts or
at the forefront of a field as you will have to dumb down the material.”
Private University
When some participants were asked if there could be a possibility that a publicly
assisted university in Ontario could privatize as a means of increasing diversity in the
sector, participants noted that few institutions if any, could actually fully privatize by
charging differentiated tuition fees to make up for lost government grants. Also,
investment income made available for spending from endowments at Ontario universities
only make up a small percentage of an institution’s total revenues and would need to
176
significantly grow in order for the institution to be financially viable. One participant
questioned the extent to which a private university in Ontario could succeed by focusing
primarily on an international clientele while another participant suggested that our sector
could benefit from having an international graduate school offering “highly inter-
disciplinary dynamic programs”. The idea of a private university in Ontario was
welcomed by one participant who noted that
I don’t think there is anything wrong with that as long as it serves a certain need and may push the public sector to look at its own practices. I think to a limited extent it could be welcomed in the system as such a place could innovate quicker.
Federal government levers that promote diversity
The federal government plays an important role in supporting research at Ontario
universities and across the country. As noted by Jones (2006), federal government
programs tend to reward existing research strengths and as noted in this study, promote
processes of institutional diversification. Most participants agreed that funding research
at universities is a key factor in supporting systemic diversity. Some suggested that the
federal government can play an even greater role in supporting increased systemic
diversity by introducing
some other program on top of that concentration of resources through the granting councils…It would have a very powerful differentiating effect and others might see it as undesirable but for the nation it would be very desirable…I don’t think anybody arguing for a greater concentration of resources in research-intensives would want that to come at the cost of impoverishing the rest of the system.
Another suggestion included how the granting councils can play a greater role in
improving the learning environment by ensuring
that undergraduates are being taught by grant winners rather than just graduate students. They could change their evaluation to say that there are certain requirements, at least on a three year rolling cycle that you have done so much undergraduate teaching. If you think the quality of education and what you do is important, than you might ask faculty members to submit student evaluations as part of their submissions. That would change the incentives quite a bit.
177
Others suggested that more funding should be put in classroom if the Federal government
would alter the way they fund the indirect cost of research at institutions. A participant
noted:
The biggest tragedy, in terms of our federal relationship, and I say tragedy from the point of view of its impact on teaching and the learning environment, is the indirect cost of research. That would create increased systemic diversity because those institutions that do represent excellence would have that same opportunity with a more leveled paying field.
Conclusion
Diversity is a cherished value in Ontario but it is also feared and lauded. It is also
poorly understood in the sector as it means different things to different people.
Programmatic and systemic diversity may be valued above other dimensions of diversity.
Ontario’s reticence in making design changes in its higher education system may stem
from the desire to have policies that treat everyone equitably. Participants noted that the
greatest potential for increasing diversity lies in making structural changes to the
provincial operating funding policy through a revised strategic mandate agreement
process. Participants were generally opposed to the creation of a teaching-only
undergraduate university sector but were, for the most part, supportive of an open
university that would enhance degree completion in the province. Some participants also
recognized the important role of the federal government in supporting research and
suggested it could provide incremental funding for greater differentiation while amending
its current indirect cost of research funding program.
178
CHAPTER IX – CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The extent and nature of institutional differentiation is a design choice
(distribution by type of institution, location and relationship amongst institutions) among
many that must be considered by policymakers when developing a higher education
system or when dealing with an increased number of students and societal demands for
undergraduate and graduate education. Modifications to the design of Ontario’s higher
education system have been suggested over the years in an effort to increase its quality
(instruction and research) and accessibility in a cost effective manner. The fiscal climate
of restraint has recently intensified the debate for structural changes through increased
institutional differentiation in Ontario’s higher education system.
Ontario’s universities operate within a neo-liberal political framework where
market mechanisms have been used by government in the allocation of resources that
strengthened state control over higher education. Government funding policy changes
incorporated principles of competition, partial deregulation and increased information
dissemination requirements (Young, 2002). These policies, combined with other factors
such as economic conditions, levels of competition and cooperation, type of external
environmental (diversified or homogeneous) conditions, and the degree to which an
institution’s internal environment is normatively-defined, are all factors that must be
considered in the conceptualization of mechanisms that promote or hinder institutional
diversity in higher education systems.
The study focused on the following research questions:
a) Has there been a change in systemic and climate diversity between the year 1994 and 2010 in Ontario’s university sector?
b) Is systemic and climate diversity expected to change between the year 2010 and 2018 in Ontario’s university sector?
c) What factors promoted or hindered the process of diversification or differentiation in Ontario’s university sector between 1994 and 2010?
179
d) What sector-wide government policies and conditions are most likely to promote systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s university sector?
Methodology
Institutional diversity was examined using a mixed research method in two
phases. The first phase of the study quantitatively measured and determined the extent of
diversity in the university sector in 1994 and 2010 using hierarchical cluster analysis.
The response variables used in the analysis for both years are those used to operationalize
systemic and climate diversity as these variables are commonly used to differentiate
institutions and reflect the varying character of institutions. They include the number of
full-time faculty, full-time and part-time graduate enrolment, and full-time and part-time
undergraduate enrolment. Financial indicators that differentiate institutions by their main
functions of education and research were also used for 1994 and 2010 and include tuition
fee revenue, operating grants funding, non-credit operating funding, and sponsored
research funding. This study’s hierarchical cluster analysis used Ward’s method as its
clustering algorithm and the (squared) Euclidean distance as its distance index.
This study also quantitatively measured and determined the change from 1994 to
2010, and forecasted the change from 2010 to 2018 (using institutional strategic mandate
agreements) in systemic diversity (institutional size and type) and climate diversity
(campus environment and culture) by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix
methodology to categorize institutions into institutional types and determined their
concentration and dispersion by type as a means of assessing diversity in the university
sector in the province of Ontario. The larger the number of types of higher education
institutions and the more institutions are evenly distributed across a large number of
types, the more diverse the system. Simpson’s λ was also used as another measure of
systemic and climate diversity for 1994, 2010 and 2018. It calculates the probability that
two institutions, drawn at random, will belong to the same type.
180
The second phase of this study used policy analysis and drew on mutually related
theoretical perspectives from organizational theory as its primary conceptual framework
to interpret and corroborate the decrease in diversity between 1994 and 2010. Policy
analysis included, where practical, an examination of the extent to which funding is
concentrated in fewer institutions. There is a greater potential for systemic diversity
when funding is concentrated in just a few institutions. This was achieved by
determining the change in the dispersion of federal and provincial government funding
amongst institutions by comparing the relative proportion of grants received in 1994 as
compared to 2010. The funding concentration was further examined using the standard
deviation of the relative proportion of grants received in 1994 and 2010. An increase in
the distance from the mean from 1994 to 2010 signified an increase in concentration of
funding, which suggests increased systemic diversity. Organizational theory provided a
means of analyzing organizational behavior from a macro perspective through the
examination of the relationship between the organization and its environment. Interviews
were also conducted with university presidents or their designate and the President of
COU to gain a greater understanding of the key factors or barriers in Ontario’s reticence
in proposing design changes in its higher education system.
This study’s research methodology ensured that this dissertation contributed to the
scholarly literature on higher education in a number of ways. It first added to the
international scholarly discussions of using organizational theory as a conceptual
framework to better understand the change in diversity by bringing an Ontario
perspective in evaluating competing perspectives. This dissertation also provided a first
attempt at quantifying the level of diversity (including systemic and climate diversity) in
Ontario’s university sector.
Historical and environmental context An examination of the findings and recommendations of a number of
Commissions and policy documents revealed that beginning in 1981 and continuing to
the present, the debate about diversity in Ontario has been mostly centered on systemic
and programmatic diversity in an effort to increase the quality of instruction and research,
181
and to increase access to postsecondary education in a cost effective manner. Policy
recommendations have revolved mainly around the funding model and the strategy of
tying incremental funding to performance indicators, mostly made within a context of
respecting institutional autonomy, rejecting central planning functions while increasing
competition, cooperation and collaboration amongst postsecondary institutions.
Clark, Moran, Skolnik and Trick (2009) highlighted that democratization and
globalization are two phenomena which shaped Ontario’s environment. Other factors are
the strong dominance of values such as academic freedom of individuals, the autonomy
of institutions and, the creation and dissemination of knowledge. These freedoms in
higher education are also balanced with norms of quality and reputation. Universities in
Ontario also operate in an environment that has traditional faculty personnel with strong
academic cultures.
From 1994 to 2010, Ontario universities were operating in a period of high
resource flows as a result of increased student demand for undergraduate and graduate
education and the receipt of other funding which provided additional resources to the
primarily undergraduate institutions to add new graduate programs and mimic the
comprehensive and medical/doctoral institutions thereby increasing the potential for
institutional convergence.
Change in systemic and climate diversity between 1994 and 2010
This study first used hierarchical cluster analysis which suggested that there has
been very little change in diversity between 1994 and 2010 since universities in Ontario
were clustered in three groups for both 1994 and 2010 and remained in the same cluster
grouping in 2010 as they did in 1994. This period is also characterized by an increase in
financial resources combined with a more diversified revenue stream even though the
combination of government operating grants and tuition fees accounted for almost the
same proportion of total revenue by 2010. However, the benefits of a diversified revenue
stream are tempered by the fact that the provincial government’s operating support funds
182
students equally by program for all institutions and tuition fees are mostly regulated
creating a uniform funding regime.
The adaptation of Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to Ontario’s
university sector revealed a decrease in systemic diversity (differences in the type of
institution and size of institution) as two of the four indices signaled a decrease, one
signaled an increase and one signaled no change. The level of systemic diversity was
further summarized numerically for 1994 and 2010 using Simpson’s λ and appeared to
indicate a decrease in systemic diversity between 1994 and 2010 since the 2010 value is
higher than the 1994 value.
The adaptation of Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix methodology to Ontario’s
university sector revealed a decrease in climate diversity (differences in campus
environment and culture) between 1994 and 2010 as two of the four indices signaled a
decrease, one signaled an increase and one signaled no change. The level of climate
diversity was further summarized numerically for 1994 and 2010 using Simpson’s λ and
appeared to indicate a decrease in climate diversity between 1994 and 2010 since the
2010 value is higher than the 1994 value.
This dissertation provided a first attempt at quantifying the level of diversity
(including systemic and climate diversity) in Ontario’s university sector and empirically
confirmed the general belief that diversity is decreasing in Ontario’s university sector.
Change in systemic and climate diversity between 2010 and 2018
Institutional strategic mandate agreements were used to project the extent of
systemic and climate diversity from 2010 to 2018 as a further substantiation of the need
for a policy on institutional diversity by adapting Birnbaum’s (1983) diversity matrix
methodology to Ontario’s university sector.
The analysis revealed a decrease in systemic diversity as two of the four indices
signaled a decrease and two signaled no change. The level of systemic diversity was
183
further summarized numerically for 2018 using Simpson’s λ and appeared to indicate a
decrease in systemic diversity between 2010 and 2018 since the 2018 value is higher than
the 2010 value.
The analysis revealed a decrease in climate diversity as two of the four indices
signaled a decrease and two signaled no change. The level of climate diversity was
further summarized numerically for 2018 using Simpson’s λ and appeared to indicate a
decrease in systemic diversity between 2010 and 2018 since the 2018 value is higher than
the 2010 value.
Factors promoting or hindering processes of diversification or differentiation
This study examined a number of key federal and provincial government funding
programs and their contribution to processes of institutional diversification or
convergence by using organizational theory as a conceptual framework. It brought an
Ontario perspective to the discussion in the evaluation of competing perspectives.
Interviews were also conducted to identify the key factors or barriers in Ontario’s
reticence in proposing design changes in its higher education system.
Federal government
This study examined a number of key federal government funding programs (the
provision of research funding to universities through its national granting councils,
Canada Research Chairs Program, Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program and
Knowledge Infrastructure Program) and their contribution to processes of institutional
diversification or convergence. Federal grants accounted for 8.3% of total revenues in
1994 and 12.5% in 2010. The examination of the extent of the change in the dispersion
of funding amongst institutions between 1994 and 2010 showed that funding distributed
on the basis of a peer review competitive process was more concentrated in 2010 as
compared to 1994 thereby increasing the potential for institutional diversification. This
increased potential is tempered by the fact that federal grants account for a significantly
smaller share of total revenues as compared to provincial grants and tuition revenue.
184
However, the distribution of Knowledge Infrastructure Program funding across
universities in Ontario, to increase Canada’s competitiveness in science and technology
and regional economic activities, provided financial resources to the less research-
intensive institutions to increase their research capacity, thereby encouraging these
institutions to mimic the more successful research-intensive institutions. This funding
will place the less research-intensive universities in a better position to compete for
research funding (scarce resource) in the future, thereby increasing the potential for
institutional convergence.
Provincial government
Provincial funding programs examined in this study were as follows: basic
operating formula grants, tuition regulation, capital funding (SuberBuild, Capital
Renewal Program, research infrastructure, and capital graduate expansion), endowment
matching, and operating graduate expansion.
The basic operating formula grant and other grants provided to institutions on the
basis of enrolment levels create an egalitarian funding model as institutions are funded
equally (same BIU value for all institutions) not only for each student in the same
program, but also to conduct teaching and research functions irrespective of an
institution’s type or size. The tuition fee policy, which has now become the most
significant source of revenue above provincial government grants, is regulated and
provides no incentives for institutions to engage in competitive pricing to differentiate
their programs and therefore contributed to processes of institutional convergence. There
has also been a decrease in the level of special purpose funding, in support of
differentiated missions and government priorities, provided to institutions during this
period.
While institutions were once differentiated according to the extent of doctoral
education they provided, the allocation of additional graduate operating and capital
funding contributed to processes of institutional convergence as more institutions chose
to offer additional graduate programs. Since Ontario universities were operating in a
185
period of high resource flows, it provided additional resources to the primarily
undergraduate institutions to add new graduate programs and therefore mimic the
comprehensive and medical/doctoral institutions.
These findings are consistent with Codling and Meek’s (2006) propositions that a
higher education system existing in a homogeneous environment without formal policy
intervention to promote diversity will increase the potential for institutional convergence.
Interviews This study, through interviews with university presidents or their designate and
the President of COU, determined that diversity is a cherished value in Ontario but it is
also feared and lauded. Diversity is also poorly understood in the sector as it means
different things to different people. Programmatic and systemic diversity may be valued
above other dimensions of diversity.
Ontario’s reticence in making design changes in its higher education system may
stem from the need to have policies that treat everyone equitably. Participants noted that
the greatest potential for increasing diversity lies in making structural changes to the
provincial operating funding and tuition fee policy through a revised strategic mandate
agreement process. Participants were generally opposed to the creation of a teaching-
only undergraduate university sector but were, for the most part, supportive of an open
university that would enhance degree completion in the province. Some participants also
recognized the important role of the federal government in supporting research and
suggested it could provide incremental funding for greater differentiation while amending
its current indirect cost of research funding program.
Policy implications for Ontario’s university sector
This study projected a further decrease in systemic and climate diversity in
Ontario’s university sector by 2018 by extrapolating institutional plans submitted through
the strategic mandate agreement process which further supported Codling and Meek’s
(2006) propositions that a higher education system existing in a homogeneous
186
environment without formal policy intervention to promote diversity will increase the
potential for institutional convergence. This analysis also further highlighted the urgent
need for a policy on diversity for Ontario’s university sector.
Structural changes to the provincial operating funding and tuition fee policy
through a revised strategic mandate agreement process were also suggested by
participants. Clark, Trick and Van Loon (2011) also proposed a number of structural
changes including the adoption of a new, simpler funding formula that can be used by
government to more effectively affect public policy. The current single general-purpose
grant is based on the mistaken belief that each professor must be a productive researcher
in order to be an effective teacher. It provides the university with the freedom to decide
how much time and money is devoted to each of teaching, research and other activities.
It has also become needlessly complex, is not well understood by the university system
and makes it difficult for government to effectively affect policy changes. The current
arrangements could be replaced with three funding envelopes, one for teaching, one for
research and one in support of differentiated missions and special government priorities.
The teaching envelope could be allocated in a manner that ensures that every university
receives the same amount of funding per-student when combined with tuition revenue.
The research envelope could be allocated in three ways: as a flat dollar amount per
faculty without regard to disciplines of study to support the time faculty spends on
research, to top up funding as a contribution to the additional costs associated with the
receipt of external research grants (allocated using a performance-based criteria), and in
support of research not currently funded by the national granting research councils.
Funding in support of differentiated missions and special government priorities would be
provided through a teaching enhancement fund (initially calculated as 5% of the total
teaching envelope) for strategic initiatives that promote system improvements negotiated
through the MYAA.
Suggested Provincial policy to increase diversity
The debate about diversity in Ontario has historically centered on increasing
systemic and programmatic diversity in order to increase quality (instruction and
187
research) and accessibility in a cost effective manner. A policy on diversity will need to
clearly identify its objectives (quality, accessibility and/or cost effectiveness) and should
be framed within the following:
i. There are multiple dimensions to diversity. Any policy document will
need to clearly identify what dimensions along which institutions should
be diversified.
ii. Teaching, research and community service are the hallmarks of a
university. An institution must continue to do all three in order to be
called a university.
iii. Institutional autonomy must be respected with an accountability
framework that identifies the Board of Governors as the locus of
accountability.
iv. The provincial government, through the use of an international panel of
experts, will have to take on a more central planning role for the sector by
recognizing institutional program strengths while accepting that
institutions will not be able to be everything to everyone.
v. The current egalitarian funding model will need to be altered to include
more diversity objectives through either providing incremental funding or
increased differentiated funding.
vi. System changes take time. Multi-year plans will need to be negotiated
with each institution. Multi-year and transitional funding will need to be
provided and monitored through institutional specific performance
indicators.
More specifically, the basis of the policy should be structured around the strategic
mandate agreement (SMA) process supported by incremental funding. The criticisms of
the inaugural SMA process discussed in chapter VII should be addressed. The negotiated
mandates should be supported by institutional specific performance indicators.
Institutions should also be required to, not only identify areas of strength and aspirations,
188
but should also identify programs which they will discontinue over time. Transitional
funding should also be provided in support of any program rationalization.
While it is understood that the Province is undergoing a slow economic recovery
with increased demand for baccalaureate education, diversification can only be achieved
by providing the required incentives to autonomous institutions which translate into
providing incremental funding. An increase in public funding to levels comparable to
other provincial jurisdictions should be invested to increase diversity by creating a
number of world-class institutions of choice for international students and to increase
quality by decreasing the student-faculty ratios at a number of universities.
While funding policies could be individually determined for each university,
“many differentiation frameworks cluster like-minded institutions into categories in
which institutions share the same rights and responsibilities as others in their cluster”
(Weingarten, Hicks, Jonker, and Liu, 2013, p. 7). As this study determined, institutions
in Ontario can be grouped in three clusters. The University of Toronto is in a cluster of
its own. Algoma, Redeemer, Dominican, Laurentian, Nipissing, Lakehead, Trent, OCAD,
UOIT, Brock, Wilfrid Laurier and Windsor would be included in a primarily
undergraduate cluster while Guelph, Queen’s, Carleton, Waterloo, McMaster, Ottawa,
Western, York, and Ryerson would be included in more research-intensive cluster.
Weingarten, Hicks, Jonker, and Liu (2013) used a limited number of variables without
the rigor of cluster analysis to arrive at similar clusters but determined that York,
Carleton, Windsor and Ryerson “do not fall easily into the two broad clusters of ‘more
research intensive’ and ‘mainly undergraduate” (p. 17). Incremental funding could
therefore be allocated competitively within each cluster as institutions would provide
detailed proposals (with performance indicators) specifically addressing government
diversity objectives set for each cluster. Proposals would be reviewed by an international
panel of experts that would advise the government on funding allocations by institution.
The government will have to prioritize its diversity objectives by allocating the
incremental funding envelope by cluster before considering any proposals.
189
Suggested Federal policy to increase diversity
The Federal government already plays an important role in funding competitive
research as a means of ensuring that Canada remains economically competitive in a
knowledge-based economy. It has also provided infrastructure support to universities in
an effort to stimulate regional economies.
As suggested by Naylor (2013, 2013a), universities in Canada are losing ground
to other research-intensive universities around the world whose government has decided
to fund some of their universities at levels that will allow them to compete on the world
stage. The Federal government should therefore concentrate additional multi-year
resources to institutions allocated based on their percentage of peer-adjudicated federal
granting council funding. This additional allocation would only be accessed by
institutions after submissions for funding are approved by an international panel of
experts.
Limitations of the study This study quantitatively examined systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s
university sector. The research design selected for this study does not permit the
extrapolation of the results to other university sectors in Canada or elsewhere. The
results cannot be extrapolated to Ontario’s higher education system.
Due to the small number of universities in Ontario, this study purposely selected
participants that ensured representation from a cross-section of institutional types and
geographic regions and therefore the results cannot be generalized to represent the views
and opinions of all university presidents in Ontario.
Future Research
Future research in this area could consider if the model used in this study to
quantify diversity can be applied to Ontario’s higher education system as a whole instead
of limiting it to its university sector. This quantitative model could also be applied to
190
other university sectors in Canada in order to assess diversity from a Pan-Canadian
perspective. The model could be extended to consider the impact of satellite campuses
on systemic and climate diversity by disaggregating institutional data by campus.
As a result of the importance of programmatic diversity to the sector, a greater
understanding of diversity could be achieved by quantifying the level of programmatic
diversity and its change over a number of years. This would require adapting the model
used in this study by categorizing institutions based on their program offerings.
191
REFERENCES
Algoma University. (2010). Institutional Plan 2010-2015. Retrieved on Sept 18, 2012 at: http://www.algomau.ca/administration/accountability/strategic-plan
Algoma University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.algomau.ca/administration/accountability/strategic-mandate-agreement-sma
Altbach, P.G. (2002). Differentiation requires definition: The need for classification in
complex academic systems. International Higher Education, Winter 2002. Astin, A. W., (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berkowitz, P. (2012). U-15 begins to formalize its organization. University Affairs. Retrieved on July 1, 2013 at: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/u-15-begins-to-formalize-its-organization.aspx
Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Bovey Commission (1984). Commission on the Future Development of the Universities
of Ontario. Ontario Universities: Options and Futures. Toronto: Ministry of Colleges and Universities.
Brock University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30, 2012
at: https://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/23510 Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Canada Excellence Research Chairs (2012). Program description and details retrieved on
October 2, 2012, at: http://www.cerc.gc.ca/cpov-pcap-eng.shtml Canada Research Chairs (2012). Program description and details retrieved on October 2,
2012, at: http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/index-eng.aspx Carleton University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://newsroom.carleton.ca/2012/10/11/carleton-presents-strategic-mandate-agreement-to-provincial-government/
192
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). Classification descriptions and details retrieved on January 2, 2011, at: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010a). Classification
descriptions and details retrieved on January 2, 2011, at: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/undergraduate_profile.php
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2012). Basic Classification
descriptions and details retrieved on July 23, 2012, at: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/methodology/basic.php
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2012a). Enrolment profile
descriptions and details retrieved on July 23, 2012, at: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/enrollment_profile.php
Charbonneau, L. (2011). Research vice-presidents of smaller Canadian universities form
new alliance. University Affairs. Retrieved on July 1, 2013 at: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/research-vice-presidents-of-smaller-canadian-universities-form-new-alliance.aspx
Clark, B.R. (1978). Academic differentiation in national systems of higher education.
Comparative Education Review, 22, 242-258. Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-
National Perspective. Berkley CA: University of California Press. Clark, I.D. (2012). A new process for assessing and funding research performance in
universities: How research contribution units could be calculated using on-line resources. Retrieved on October 31, 2012, at: http://www.publicpolicy.utoronto.ca/FacultyandContacts/IanClarkWebPageatUofT/Documents/A_new_process_for_assessing_and_funding_research_performance_in_universities.pdf
Clark, I.D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M.L., and Trick, D. (2009). Academic Transformation:
The Forces Reshaping Higher Education in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston: Queen’s Policy Studies Series, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Clark, I.D., Trick, D., and Van Loon, R. (2011). Academic Reform: Policy Options for
Improving the Quality and Cost-Effectiveness of Undergraduate Education in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston: Queen’s Policy Studies Series, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Codling, A. and Meek, V.L. (2006). Twelve propositions on diversity in higher
education. Higher Education Management and Policy, (18) 3, 1-24.
193
Council of Ontario Universities (2003). Advancing Ontario’s Future Through Advanced
Degrees: Report on the COU Task Force on Future Requirements for Graduate Education in Ontario. Toronto: COU.
Council of Ontario Universities (2010). Ontario universities welcome the debate on
enhancing the differentiation of universities. Press release retrieved on August 16, 2013 at: http://www.cou.on.ca/news/media-releases/cou/ontario-universities-welcome-the-debate-on-enhanci
Council of Ontario Universities (2011). Constitution retrieved on January 18, 2012 at:
http://www.cou.on.ca/about/pdfs/cou-constitution-2011.aspx Council of Ontario Universities (2011a). Differentiation in Ontario Universities.
Toronto: COU. Council of Ontario Universities (2012). Capital investments in campus renewal program
retrieved on October 12, 2012 at: http://www.cou.on.ca/facts-figures/capital Dill, D.D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: the case of the United States. Higher
Education Quareterly. 57(2), 136-157. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Drummond Report (2012). Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and
Excellence. Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Dunn, W.N. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
Prentice-Hall. Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility (1996). Report of the Advisory Panel on Future
Directions for Postsecondary Education. Toronto: Ministry of Education and Training.
Fallis, G. (2013 – in print). Rethinking Higher Education: Participation, Research and
Differentiation. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Fisher Committee (1981). The Report of the Committee on the Future Role of
Universities in Ontario. Toronto: Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Gamble, A. (2006). Two faces of neo-liberalism. In Robison, R. (ed.). The Neo-liberal
Revolution: Forging the Market State. (pp. 20-35). Palgrave Macmillan.
194
Geiger, R.L. (1996). Diversification in US higher education: Historical patterns and current trends. In Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O., & Rinne, R., (Eds.) The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education (pp. 188-203). Oxford: Pergamon.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. Hicks, M., Weingarten, H.P., Jonker, L., and Liu, S. (2013). The Diversity of Ontario’s
Colleges: A Data Set to Inform the Differentiation Discussion. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, (2012). Policy Advice. Retrieved on
October 21, 2012, at: http://heqco.ca/en-CA/About%20Us/policyadvice/Pages/smas.aspx.
Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, (2013). Quality: Shifting the Focus. A
Report from the Expert Panel to Assess the Strategic Mandate Agreement Submissions. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Huberty, C.J., Jordon, E.M. and Brandt, W.C. (2005). Cluster analysis in higher
education research, Smart, J.C. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 437-457). Springer.
Huffman, J.P. and Schneiderman, S. (1997). Size matters: The effect of institutional size
on graduate rates. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Association for Institutional Research Forum in Orlando, Florida.
Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation, Diversity and Dependency in Higher Education.
Utrecht, the Netherlands: Lemma. Huisman, J. (1998). Differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XIII (pp. 75-110). New York: Agathon Press.
Huisman, J. (2000). Higher education institutions: As different as chalk and cheese?
Higher Education Policy, 13(1), 41-53. Huisman, J., Meek, L., and Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education:
a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4), 563-77.
Industry Canada (2012). Retrieved on July 31, 2012, at:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/696.nsf/eng/home
195
Jacob, P. (1957). Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of College Teaching. New York: Harper.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., and Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. Johnson, S.C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241-254. Jones, G. A. (1996). Diversity within a decentralized higher education system: The case
for Canada. In Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O., & Rinne, R., (Eds.) The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education (pp. 79-94). Oxford: Pergamon.
Jones, G. A. (2004). Ontario higher education reform, 1995 – 2003: From modest
modifications to policy reform. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, (34)3, 39-54.
Jones, G. A. (2006). Canada. In Forest, J.J.F., & Altbach, P.G., (eds.) International
Handbook of Higher Education. Part One. (pp. 627-645). Netherlands: Springer. Jones, G. A. and Skolnik, M. (2009). Degrees of Opportunity: Broadening Student
Access by Increasing Institutional Differentiation in Ontario Higher Education. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Jones, G.A. and Young, S. J. (2004). “Madly off in all directions”: Higher education,
marketization and Canadian federalism. In Markets and Higher Education, Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D. D., & Amaral, A., (eds) (pp. 185-205). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kezar, A.J. (2006). The impact of institutional size on student engagement. NASPA
Journal, 43(1), 87-114. Kokkelenberg, E.C., Dillon, M., and Christy, S.M. (2008). The effects of class size on
student grades at a public university. Economics of Education Review, (27), 221-233.
Lakehead University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://vpacademic.lakeheadu.ca/?display=page&pageid=94 Laurentian University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.laurentian.ca/strategicmandateagreement Leathwood, C. (2004). A critique of institutional inequalities in higher education: (or an
alternative to hypocrisy for higher education policy). Theory and Research in Education, 2(1), 31-48.
196
Leslie, P. (1980). Canadian Universities 1980 and Beyond: Enrolment, Structural Change, and Finance. AUCC Policy Study No. 3. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Lowy, F. (2005). Implement the Rae report! Education Canada, 45(3), 23-25. Lundberg, C. A. and Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interactions as a predictor of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-566.
Magnusson. J. (2005). Information and communications technology: Plugging Ontario
higher education into the knowledge society. Encounters on Education, (6). Marshall, D. (2004). Degree accreditation in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, XXXXIV (2), 69-96. McMaster University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.mcmaster.ca/vpacademic/documents/McMasterUniversitySMA28_09_12.pdf
McMurtry, S. L. and McClelland, R. W. (1997). Trends in student-faculty ratios and the
use of non-tenure-track faculty in MSW programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 293-306.
Milloy, J. (2011). Remarks made on May 30, 2011 by the Minister of Training, Colleges
and Universities at the Canadian Club, Toronto. Retrieved on October 21, 2012, at: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/postsecondary/speech_may.html.
Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. (2012). Ontario Research Fund
description retrieved on November 11, 2012 at: http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/ResearchFund.asp
Ministry of Research and Innovation. (2012). Research infrastructure funding retrieved
on November 11, 2012 at: http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/orf/ri/documents/Ontario%20Research%20Fund%20-%20Research%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2009). The Ontario Operating Funds
Distribution Manual. Postsecondary Finance & Information Management Branch. Toronto, Ontario.
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2010) Letter to Charles Sturt University
dated June 7, 2010. Retrieved on June 27, 2013 at: http://www.peqab.ca/Publications/Consents/CSUSecEdStudiesDenyConsent.pdf
197
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2012). Strengthening Ontario’s Centres of Creativity, Innovation and Knowledge. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2013). Ontario’s Differentiation Policy
Framework for Postsecondary Education. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Morey, A.L. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education.
Higher Education, 48(1), 131-150. Morphew, C.C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S.
colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243-269. Naylor, D. (2013). Zombies vs. Zombies: tackling two dangerous myths about higher
education & advanced research. Address given to the Empire Club of Canada on March 7, 2013.
Naylor, D. (2013a). Global research excellence: How Canada can compete and win.
Address given to the Economic Club of Canada on May 7, 2013. Nayyar, D. (2008). Globalization: What does it mean for higher education? In Weber,
L.E. & Duderstadt, J.J. (eds.) The Globalization of Higher Education. (pp. 3-14). Economica Ltd.
Neave, G. (2000). Diversity, differentiation and the market place: The debate we never
had but which we ought to have done. Higher Education Policy, 13(1), 7-21. Nipissing University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.nipissingu.ca/departments/presidents-office/Pages/SMA.aspx OCAD University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.ocadu.ca/Assets/pdf_media/ocad/about/Accountability/20121012_OCADU_Strategic_Mandate_Agreement_Submission.pdf
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge
economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345.
Orton, L. (2003). A New Understanding of Postsecondary Education in Canada: A
Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 81-595-MIE, 2003, No. 11.
198
Ontario Budget (2005). Ontario Budget: Investing in People Strengthening our Economy. Retrieved on March 20, 2010, at: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2005/index.html
Ontario Budget (2010). Open Ontario: Ontario’s Plan for Jobs and Growth. Retrieved
on March 24, 2010, at: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2010/papers_all.html
Ontario Building Together (2012). Project funding and project costs retrieved on October
13, 2012 at: https://www.infrastructureapp.mei.gov.on.ca/en/ Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (2010). Response to the
HEQCO Differentiation Report. Retrieved on June 27, 2013 at: http://realacademicplanning.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/ocufa-response-to-the-heqco-differentiation-report-26-october-2010/
Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (2012). Analysis of the
Drummond Report: Long on cuts, short on insight. Retrieved on August 16, 2013 at: http://ocufa.on.ca/wordpress/assets/OCUFA-Drummond-Report-Analysis-Feb.-22-2012Final.pdf
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (2010). Proposal to increase the differentiation
of Ontario’s universities met by cautious optimism from students. Press release retrieved on August 16, 2013 at: http://www.ousa.ca/newsroom/news/proposal-to-increase-the-differentiation-of-ontarios-universities-met-by-cautious-optimism-from-students/
Ontario SuperBuild (2000). Progress Report. Retrieved on October 13, 2012 at:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/2000/sbfine00.pdf Ontario SuperBuild (2002). Projects in colleges and universities. Retrieved on October
13, 2012 at: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/7000/10316759.pdf Ontario SuperBuild (2003). Progress Report. Retrieved on October 13, 2012 at:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/6000/10310597.pdf Open Ontario (2010). Ontario Throne Speech. Retrieved on March 20, 2010, at:
http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/event.php?ItemID=11282&Lang=En Pal, L.A. (2006). Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times.
Canada: Nelson. Pascarella, E. T. and Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Student-faculty informal contact and college
persistence: A further investigation. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 214-218.
199
Postsecondary Education Choice and Excellence Act (2000). Retrieved on December 31, 2010, at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00p36_e.htm
Queen’s University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://queensu.ca/provost/responsibilities/responsetomtcu/proposedmandatestatment.pdf
Rae, The Honorable Bob (2005). (Adviser to the Premier and the Minister of Training
Colleges and Universities) Ontario a Leader in Learning, Report and Recommendations.
Ryerson University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.ryerson.ca/about/president/sma_submission.html Science and Technology Strategy (2007). Mobilizing Science and Technology to
Canada’s Advantage. Industry Canada. Schramm, C. (2008). Reinvigorating universities in an entrepreneurial age. In Weber, L.
E., & Duderstadt, J. J., (eds.) The Globalization of Higher Education (pp. 15-25). Economica Ltd.
Singh, M. (2008). Valuing differentiation as a qualified good: The case of South African
higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 245-263. Skolnik, M. L. (1986). Diversity in higher education: The Canadian case. Used
unabridged version later published in The European Review of Higher Education, XI, (2), 19-32.
Skolnik, M. L. (1995). Upsetting the balance: The debate on proposals for radically
altering the relationship between universities and Government in Ontario. Ontario Journal of Higher Education. 5-26.
Skolnik, M. L. (2005). A discussion of some issues pertaining to the structure of
postsecondary education in Ontario and some suggestions for addressing them. College Quarterly, 8(1).
Skolnik, M. L. (2012, forthcoming). College baccalaureate degrees and the
diversification of baccalaureate production in Ontario. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy:
Markets, States, and Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
200
Spinks Commission (1966). Report of the Commission to Study the Development of Graduate Programmes in Ontario Universities. Toronto: Queen's Printer.
Stadtman, V. A. (1980). Academic Adaptations: higher education prepares for the 1980’s
and 1990’s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Stanley, G. and Reynolds, P. (1994). Similarity grouping of Australian universities.
Higher Education, 27(3), 359-366. Statistics Canada (2011). 2010 Population by province, retrieved on August 17, 2011, at:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm, 2009-10 university and college enrolment, retrieved on October 8, 2012, at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/educ71a-eng.htm
Ontario Council on University Affairs (1994). Sustaining Quality in Changing Times,
Funding Ontario Universities – Discussion Paper Summary. Toronto: Ontario Council on University Affairs.
Task Force on Resource Allocation (1995). University-Government Relations in Ontario
1945-1995: A Summary of Selected Initiatives and Recommendations Related to System Coordination and Planning. Toronto: Ontario Council on University Affairs.
Teichler, U. (2008). Diversification? Trends and expectations of the shape and size of
higher education. Higher Education, 56(3), 349-379. The University of Western Ontario. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on
October 30, 2012 at: http://www.uwo.ca/pvp/images/Western-University-SMA-FINAL-Sept-26-2012.pdf
Tight, M. (1988). Institutional typologies. Higher Education Review, 20(3), 27-51. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trent University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30, 2012
at: http://www.trentu.ca/administration/pdfs/121012sma.pdf Trow, M.A. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education.
[s.1.:s.n.]. U- 15 Group of Canadian Research Universities (2013). Information retrieved on July 1,
2013 at: http://www.u15.ca/
201
UNESCO (1995). Policy Paper for Change and Development in Higher Education. Retrieved on February 2, 2010 at, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000989/098992e.pdf
UNESCO (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century:
Vision and Action and Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development in Higher Education. Retrieved on February 2, 2010 at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001419/141952e.pdf
University of Guelph. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.uoguelph.ca/vpacademic/planning/pdf/SMA%20University%20of%20Guelph.pdf
University of Ontario Institute of Technology Act. (2002). Retrieved on February 28,
2010 at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02u08_e.htm
University of Ontario Institute of Technology. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement.
Retrieved on October 30, 2012 at: http://shared.uoit.ca/shared/uoit/documents/UOIT%20Strategic%20Mandate%20Agreement.pdf
University of Ottawa. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.uottawa.ca/governance/documents/2012/strategic-mandate-agreements.pdf
University of Toronto. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.president.utoronto.ca/speeches/the-university-of-torontos-strategic-mandate-agreement-submission
University of Waterloo. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October
30, 2012 at: https://uwaterloo.ca/provost/university-waterloo-strategic-plan University of Windsor. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30,
2012 at: http://www.uwindsor.ca/president/system/files/UWindsor-Strategic-Mandate-Agreement.pdf
U-Map (2011). Overview of indicators and data-elements, by dimension. Retrieved on
September 23, 2012 at: http://www.u-map.eu/U-Map%20dimensions%20and%20indicators%20detail.pdf
U-Map (2012). Methodology. Retrieved on September 30, 2012 at: http://www.u-
map.eu/methodology.doc/
202
van Vught, F. A. (1996). Isomorphism in higher education? Towards a theory of differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. In Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O. & Rinne, R., (Eds.) The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education (pp. 42-58). Oxford: Pergamon.
van Vught, F. A. (2007). Diversity and differentiation in higher education systems. Paper
presented at the CHET anniversary conference. Cape Town. van Vught, F. A., Ed. (2009). Mapping the Higher Education Landscape: Towards a
European Classification of Higher Education. Dordrecht etc., Springer. van Vught, F. A., Kaiser, F., File, J.M., Gaethgens, C., Peter, R., and Westerheijden, D.
F. (2010). U-Map: The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions. Enschede, CHEPS.
Voakes, V. and Chan, J. (2005). A higher education act in Ontario: Enshrining access,
affordability, accountability and quality in post-secondary education. Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. Retrieved on August 16, 2013 at: http://www.ousa.ca/uploaded_files/pdf_files/Policy%20Papers%20and%20Statements/highereducationactpolicy.pdf
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive
Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally. Weingarten, H. P. and Deller, F. (2010). The Benefits of Greater Differentiation of
Ontario’s University Sector. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Weingarten, H. P., Hicks, M., Jonker, L., and Liu, S. (2013). The Diversity of Ontario’s
Universities: A Data Set to Inform the Differentiation Discussion. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Wilfrid Laurier University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October
30, 2012 at: http://www.wlu.ca/docsnpubs_detail.php?grp_id=2295&doc_id=52561
Wilson, R., Gaff, J., Dienst, E., Wood, L., and Bavry, J. (1975). College Professors and
their Impact on Students. New York: Wiley & Sons. World Bank (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise.
Washington DC: World Bank. York University. (2012). Strategic Mandate Agreement. Retrieved on October 30, 2012
at: http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/special/strategic_mandate_submission__york_university.pdf
203
Young, S. J. (2002). The use of market mechanism in higher education finance and state
control: Ontario considered. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXXII (2), 79-102.
Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization: how governments and markets have
combined to (re)shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process. Higher Education, 58(1), 41-58.
204
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Enrolment and Faculty data - 1994
Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Number of
HEAD COUNT* Undergrad Undergrad Graduate Graduate Full-timeEnrolment Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Faculty**
NOVEMBER 1, 1994
Brock University 7113 3330 120 497 311Carleton University 14744 4423 1639 957 714Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology*** 60 83 21 6 9University of Guelph 10851 2125 1543 262 711Lakehead University 5849 1648 196 158 255Laurentian University (Algoma & Hearst) 5757 2922 146 139 358McMaster University 11979 3008 1573 651 972Nippissing University 1412 978 0 24 66OCAD*** 1471 1231 0 0 74OISE 17 108 874 1519 129University of Ottawa 14317 6809 2360 1501 1,089Queen's University 11331 3458 2089 632 810Redeemer University College***** 743 65 0 0 30Royal Military College of Canada****** 961 0 272 423 155Ryerson University 10120 11761 0 0 500University of Toronto 29836 13236 6360 1809 2,568Trent University 3760 1479 122 33 192University of Waterloo 15726 4797 1690 405 831The University of Western Ontario 20103 5638 2234 514 1,457Wilfrid Laurier University 5118 2275 451 316 277University of Windsor 10427 4278 656 227 491York University 25627 9854 2127 1178 1,061
* Includes eligible and ineligible students from MTCU enrolment records**Statistics Canada - University and College Academic Staff Survey *** Faculty data obtained from university website**** Faculty data obtained from 2005 CUDO data***** Enrolment data obtained from 2003 - AUCC and Faculty data obtained from 1999 per 2001 Almanac***** Enrolment data obtained from 2003 - AUCC and Faculty data obtained from 2001 per 2004 Almanac
205
Appendix 2 – Enrolment and Faculty data - 2010
Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Number ofHEAD COUNT* Undergrad Undergrad Graduate Graduate Full-time
Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Faculty**NOVEMBER 1, 2010
Algoma University*** 834 354 0 0 39Brock University 14,076 2,013 932 604 563Carleton University 18,162 4,124 2,778 824 821Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology**** 36 31 57 1 7University of Guelph 21,604 2,235 2,287 228 780Lakehead University 6,323 1,569 578 26 308Laurentian University 6,241 2,237 407 361 365McMaster University 21,327 3,349 3,354 687 1305Nippissing University 3,874 2,320 59 268 181OCAD University**** 3,054 898 44 51 108UOIT 6,515 456 308 105 158University of Ottawa 28,200 6,133 4,611 1427 1254Queen's University 15,730 4,349 3,580 369 802Redeemer University College****** 870 40 0 0 39Royal Military College of Canada******* 1,090 170 300 260 195Ryerson University 18,632 16,956 1,893 353 931University of Toronto 56,531 6,870 13,195 1793 2698Trent University 6,187 1,230 354 69 229University of Waterloo 26,458 1,627 3,486 933 1023The University of Western Ontario 27,457 3,435 4,782 563 1322Wilfrid Laurier University 14,102 1,942 908 620 533University of Windsor 11,645 2,401 1,658 141 523York University 41,012 7,219 3,841 2165 1396
* Includes eligible and ineligible students from MTCU enrolment records**Statistics Canada - University and College Academic Staff Survey *** Obtained from university**** Faculty data obtained from university website***** Faculty data obtained from 2010 CUDO data****** Enrolment data obtained from 2012 - AUCC and Faculty data obtained from 2009 per 20011-12 Almanac******* Enrolment data obtained from 2003 - AUCC and Faculty data obtained from 2001 per 2004 Almanac
206
Appendix 3 – Undergraduate and Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year
2001-2011
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University - - - - - - - - - 1,164 1,188 Brock University 11,269 11,924 13,130 15,523 16,597 17,406 17,453 17,005 16,417 17,128 17,625 Carleton University 17,531 18,464 20,455 22,535 23,583 23,835 24,082 24,256 24,284 25,257 25,888 Dominican College 150 158 188 171 177 183 150 148 138 127 125 University of Guelph 15,323 15,945 17,029 19,096 20,120 20,622 21,922 22,362 23,114 24,844 26,354 Lakehead University 6,195 6,140 6,525 7,304 7,579 7,535 7,596 7,837 7,671 8,190 8,602 Laurentian University 6,590 6,796 7,320 8,695 9,405 9,862 10,336 10,032 9,766 9,078 9,401 McMaster University 17,187 18,451 20,056 22,001 23,234 24,664 25,446 26,151 26,767 27,684 28,717 Nipissing University 3,729 4,101 4,603 5,478 5,906 6,659 6,830 6,333 6,843 6,817 6,521 OCAD University 2,356 2,417 2,453 3,062 3,435 3,467 3,413 3,445 3,431 3,716 4,047 UOIT - - - 936 1,830 3,090 4,320 5,103 5,567 6,589 7,384 University of Ottawa 25,124 26,563 28,198 30,948 31,766 33,690 35,112 36,280 36,958 38,702 40,371 Queen's University 17,773 18,223 18,923 20,034 20,391 20,783 20,566 20,716 21,717 22,601 24,028 Ryerson University 21,786 23,439 24,979 27,221 28,610 33,019 33,906 35,061 36,481 36,892 37,835 University of Toronto 55,990 58,995 62,944 68,290 68,810 71,224 72,333 74,035 74,731 77,163 78,389 Trent University 5,344 5,547 6,347 7,348 7,798 8,170 8,327 7,891 7,734 7,817 7,840 University of Waterloo 22,164 22,715 24,186 25,029 25,958 26,181 27,040 27,975 28,842 30,859 32,504 The University of Western Ontario 28,522 29,653 31,134 32,784 33,460 34,072 34,270 34,207 34,403 35,314 36,237 Wilfrid Laurier University 9,525 10,404 10,872 12,426 13,319 14,061 14,906 15,152 15,715 16,820 17,572 University of Windsor 12,850 13,510 14,313 16,266 16,518 16,830 16,883 16,183 15,695 15,568 15,845 York University 38,527 39,578 43,635 46,794 49,496 50,691 51,420 51,819 51,989 53,205 54,237 Total 317,935 333,023 357,290 391,941 407,992 426,044 436,311 441,991 448,263 465,535 480,710
All Students- Fall Headcounts
(Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes Northern Ontario School of Medicine) Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
207
Appendix 4 – Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year
2001-2011
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University - - - - - - - - - - - Brock University 639 648 673 863 1,065 1,053 1,169 1,259 1,419 1,544 1,536 Carleton University 2,544 2,664 2,737 2,951 2,962 2,906 3,035 3,397 3,510 3,567 3,602 Dominican College 46 59 56 56 54 52 48 58 58 60 58 University of Guelph 1,685 1,741 1,859 1,964 2,055 2,050 2,074 2,330 2,394 2,434 2,515 Lakehead University 279 286 345 431 511 556 553 721 629 618 604 Laurentian University 325 311 374 404 477 552 558 645 705 695 768 McMaster University 2,332 2,537 2,579 2,690 2,662 2,801 2,987 3,303 3,408 3,686 4,041 Nipissing University 169 172 187 221 375 368 327 320 350 373 327 OCAD University - - - - - - - - 26 63 95 UOIT - - - - - 12 23 90 167 345 413 University of Ottawa 3,429 3,723 4,057 4,188 4,122 4,181 4,345 4,967 5,247 5,625 6,038 Queen's University 2,588 2,665 2,700 2,781 2,953 3,099 3,264 3,515 3,606 3,889 3,949 Ryerson University 50 240 396 456 570 773 1,085 1,639 1,966 2,120 2,246 University of Toronto 10,417 11,029 11,862 12,226 12,375 12,276 12,603 13,827 14,208 14,828 14,988 Trent University 173 189 207 229 242 248 277 345 386 405 423 University of Waterloo 2,041 2,237 2,485 2,650 2,789 2,884 3,120 3,630 3,987 4,295 4,419 The University of Western Ontario 3,325 3,410 3,715 3,848 3,906 4,021 4,185 4,612 4,861 5,040 5,345 Wilfrid Laurier University 900 925 978 1,041 1,036 1,073 1,150 1,267 1,370 1,488 1,528 University of Windsor 878 846 1,053 1,209 1,287 1,304 1,377 1,479 1,637 1,689 1,799 York University 4,220 4,340 4,708 4,734 4,783 4,754 5,144 5,698 5,861 6,093 6,006 Total 36,040 38,022 40,971 42,942 44,224 44,963 47,324 53,102 55,795 58,857 60,700
Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts
(Includes eligible and ineligible students) Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
208
Appendix 5 – Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Students per Year 2001-2011
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Brock University 5.67 5.43 5.13 5.56 6.42 6.05 6.70 7.40 8.64 9.01 8.71 Carleton University 14.51 14.43 13.38 13.10 12.56 12.19 12.60 14.00 14.45 14.12 13.91 Dominican College 30.67 37.34 29.79 32.75 30.51 28.42 32.00 39.19 42.03 47.24 46.40 University of Guelph 11.00 10.92 10.92 10.28 10.21 9.94 9.46 10.42 10.36 9.80 9.54 Lakehead University 4.50 4.66 5.29 5.90 6.74 7.38 7.28 9.20 8.20 7.55 7.02 Laurentian University 4.93 4.58 5.11 4.65 5.07 5.60 5.40 6.43 7.22 7.66 8.17 McMaster University 13.57 13.75 12.86 12.23 11.46 11.36 11.74 12.63 12.73 13.31 14.07 Nipissing University 4.53 4.19 4.06 4.03 6.35 5.53 4.79 5.05 5.11 5.47 5.01 OCAD University - - - - - - - - 0.76 1.70 2.35 UOIT - - - - - 0.39 0.53 1.76 3.00 5.24 5.59 University of Ottawa 13.65 14.02 14.39 13.53 12.98 12.41 12.37 13.69 14.20 14.53 14.96 Queen's University 14.56 14.62 14.27 13.88 14.48 14.91 15.87 16.97 16.60 17.21 16.43 Ryerson University 0.23 1.02 1.59 1.68 1.99 2.34 3.20 4.67 5.39 5.75 5.94 University of Toronto 18.61 18.69 18.85 17.90 17.98 17.24 17.42 18.68 19.01 19.22 19.12 Trent University 3.24 3.41 3.26 3.12 3.10 3.04 3.33 4.37 4.99 5.18 5.40 University of Waterloo 9.21 9.85 10.27 10.59 10.74 11.02 11.54 12.98 13.82 13.92 13.60 The University of Western Ontario 11.66 11.50 11.93 11.74 11.67 11.80 12.21 13.48 14.13 14.27 14.75 Wilfrid Laurier University 9.45 8.89 9.00 8.38 7.78 7.63 7.72 8.36 8.72 8.85 8.70 University of Windsor 6.83 6.26 7.36 7.43 7.79 7.75 8.16 9.14 10.43 10.85 11.35 York University 10.95 10.97 10.79 10.12 9.66 9.38 10.00 11.00 11.27 11.45 11.07
Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Fall Headcounts
209
Appendix 6 – Full-time and Part-time Master’s Students – Fall Headcounts per Year
2005-2011
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University - - - - - - - Brock University 1,018 987 1,100 1,172 1,329 1,437 1,409 Carleton University 2,122 2,015 2,113 2,427 2,537 2,574 2,554 Dominican College 29 28 29 35 39 34 30 University of Guelph 1,390 1,337 1,359 1,552 1,605 1,610 1,655 Lakehead University 461 505 501 648 548 525 502 Laurentian University 471 524 506 555 602 572 618 McMaster University 1,593 1,636 1,756 2,012 2,076 2,266 2,583 Nipissing University 375 368 327 320 350 373 327 OCAD University - - - - 26 63 95 UOIT - 12 23 90 158 314 354 University of Ottawa 2,955 2,908 2,981 3,482 3,687 3,976 4,271 Queen's University 2,032 2,108 2,226 2,412 2,436 2,661 2,710 Ryerson University 536 708 984 1,503 1,768 1,852 1,932 University of Toronto 7,468 7,274 7,413 8,355 8,603 9,016 9,008 Trent University 170 166 184 237 282 295 298 University of Waterloo 1,668 1,697 1,819 2,171 2,427 2,591 2,686 The University of Western Ontario 2,721 2,725 2,733 3,039 3,183 3,206 3,381 Wilfrid Laurier University 939 964 1,012 1,108 1,207 1,328 1,358 University of Windsor 1,015 1,018 1,074 1,148 1,278 1,313 1,386 York University 3,547 3,426 3,701 4,132 4,152 4,286 4,139 Total 30,510 30,406 31,841 36,398 38,293 40,292 41,296
Full-time and Part-time Masters Students - Fall Headcounts
(Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes graduate diploma students) Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
210
Appendix 7 – Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students – Fall Headcounts per Year
2005-2011
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University - - - - - - - Brock University 47 66 69 86 89 107 125 Carleton University 815 863 904 930 929 944 995 Dominican College 25 24 19 23 19 26 28 University of Guelph 659 708 710 774 787 819 851 Lakehead University 32 37 49 66 77 90 99 Laurentian University 6 28 40 81 98 113 135 McMaster University 975 1,053 1,134 1,177 1,234 1,319 1,385 Nipissing University - - - - - - - OCAD University - - - - - - - UOIT - - - - 6 26 55 University of Ottawa 1,069 1,198 1,299 1,377 1,445 1,515 1,633 Queen's University 921 991 1,038 1,103 1,170 1,228 1,239 Ryerson University 34 65 101 136 198 268 314 University of Toronto 4,808 4,930 5,113 5,379 5,514 5,734 5,899 Trent University 72 82 93 108 104 110 125 University of Waterloo 1,121 1,169 1,301 1,458 1,537 1,646 1,718 The University of Western Ontario 1,180 1,292 1,451 1,572 1,677 1,834 1,964 Wilfrid Laurier University 97 109 138 159 163 160 170 University of Windsor 272 286 303 331 359 376 403 York University 1,236 1,315 1,426 1,551 1,688 1,792 1,852 Total 13,369 14,216 15,188 16,311 17,094 18,107 18,990
Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students - Fall Headcounts
(Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes graduate diploma students) Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
211
Appendix 8 – Master’s Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts 2005-2011
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Brock University 95.6 93.7 94.1 93.2 93.7 93.1 91.9 Carleton University 72.3 70.0 70.0 72.3 73.2 73.2 72.0 Dominican College 53.7 53.8 60.4 60.3 67.2 56.7 51.7 University of Guelph 67.8 65.4 65.7 66.7 67.1 66.3 66.0 Lakehead University 93.5 93.2 91.1 90.8 87.7 85.4 83.5 Laurentian University 98.7 94.9 92.7 87.3 86.0 83.5 82.1 McMaster University 62.0 60.8 60.8 63.1 62.7 63.2 65.1 Nipissing University 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 OCAD University ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100.0 100.0 100.0 UOIT ‐ 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.3 92.4 86.6 University of Ottawa 73.4 70.8 69.6 71.7 71.8 72.4 72.3 Queen's University 68.8 68.0 68.2 68.6 67.6 68.4 68.6 Ryerson University 94.0 91.6 90.7 91.7 89.9 87.4 86.0 University of Toronto 60.8 59.6 59.2 60.8 60.9 61.1 60.4 Trent University 70.2 66.9 66.4 68.7 73.1 72.8 70.4 University of Waterloo 59.8 59.2 58.3 59.8 61.2 61.2 61.0 The University of Western Ont 69.8 67.8 65.3 65.9 65.5 63.6 63.3 Wilfrid Laurier University 90.6 89.8 88.0 87.5 88.1 89.2 88.9 University of Windsor 78.9 78.1 78.0 77.6 78.1 77.7 77.5 York University 74.2 72.3 72.2 72.7 71.1 70.5 69.1
Full-time and Part-time Masters Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Fall Headcounts
212
Appendix 9 – Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts 2005-2001
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Algoma University ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Brock University 4.4 6.3 5.9 6.8 6.3 6.9 8.1 Carleton University 27.7 30.0 30.0 27.7 26.8 26.8 28.0 Dominican College 46.3 46.2 39.6 39.7 32.8 43.3 48.3 University of Guelph 32.2 34.6 34.3 33.3 32.9 33.7 34.0 Lakehead University 6.5 6.8 8.9 9.2 12.3 14.6 16.5 Laurentian University 1.3 5.1 7.3 12.7 14.0 16.5 17.9 McMaster University 38.0 39.2 39.2 36.9 37.3 36.8 34.9 Nipissing University ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ OCAD University ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ UOIT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.7 7.6 13.4 University of Ottawa 26.6 29.2 30.4 28.3 28.2 27.6 27.7 Queen's University 31.2 32.0 31.8 31.4 32.4 31.6 31.4 Ryerson University 6.0 8.4 9.3 8.3 10.1 12.6 14.0 University of Toronto 39.2 40.4 40.8 39.2 39.1 38.9 39.6 Trent University 29.8 33.1 33.6 31.3 26.9 27.2 29.6 University of Waterloo 40.2 40.8 41.7 40.2 38.8 38.8 39.0 The University of Western Ont 30.2 32.2 34.7 34.1 34.5 36.4 36.7 Wilfrid Laurier University 9.4 10.2 12.0 12.5 11.9 10.8 11.1 University of Windsor 21.1 21.9 22.0 22.4 21.9 22.3 22.5 York University 25.8 27.7 27.8 27.3 28.9 29.5 30.9
Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Fall Headcounts