Thesis Proposal

Systemic and Climate Diversity in Ontario’s University Sector

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) 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.

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.

iii

DEDICATION

To MICHAEL C. CROCK (1965-2012) - You shared so many of my successes my friend! You were always there for me.

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.

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

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

vii

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

viii

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

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

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

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

xii

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

xiii

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

xiv

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

1 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

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 Guelph OCAD Carleton Algoma Western Laurier Ryerson Trent Lakehead Windsor McMaster Toronto Ottawa Laurentian Waterloo UOIT Queen’s Nipissing Redeemer York Dominican Royal Military

Comprehensive (1) Comprehensive (2) Comprehensive (1) Comprehensive (1) Primarily UG (1) Primarily UG (1) Primarily UG (2) Primarily UG (1) Primarily UG (3) Medical/Doctoral (1) Medical/Doctoral (1) Medical/Doctoral (1) Medical/Doctoral (2) Special Purpose (1) Special Purpose (1) Special Purpose (2) 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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 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 postsecondary 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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

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. 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). 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.

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). 23

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

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

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

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, 27

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

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%

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

28 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

29 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.

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.

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

32 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.

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

34 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

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).

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).

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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 Includes institutions that awarded at least 20 research Universities 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.

Master's Colleges and Generally includes institutions that awarded at least 50 Universities 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.

Table 5 – The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions 2010

Dimension and Indicators Definition

Teaching and learning profile

Degree level focus 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).

Expenditure on teaching Percentage of the institution’s total expenditure dedicated to the teaching activities.

Orientation of degrees Proportion of graduates (all levels combined) in three types of programs: general formative programs, programs leading to licensed/regulated professions, and other career‐oriented.

Range of subjects 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 Students enrolled in distance learning programs as a percentage of total enrolment.

Mature students Students aged 30+ as a percentage of total enrolment

Part-time students Students enrolled in part‐time programs as a percentage of total enrolment.

Size of student body Total enrolment. Research involvement

Doctorate production The number of doctorate degrees awarded as a percentage of the number of academic staff.

Expenditure on research Expenditures on research as a percentage of total expenditure.

Peer reviewed academic Peer reviewed academic publications relative to the total publications number of academic staff.

Peer reviewed other research Number of research outputs other than peer reviewed products publications and professional publications per academic staff.

Professional publications 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 Number of first year bachelor students from the region as from the region a percentage of total number of first year bachelor students.

Graduates working in the Number of the graduates from two years ago who work region in the region, as a percentage of the total number of graduates from two years ago.

Importance of local/regional Income from regional and local sources as a percentage income sources of total income. Involvement in knowledge exchange

Cultural activities Exhibitions, Concerts and performances per 1000 FTE academic staff.

Income from knowledge Sum of income from licensing agreements, income from exchange activities '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.

Patent applications filed The number of patents per 1000 FTE academic staff.

Start‐up firms The average number of start‐up firms created over the last three years per 1000 FTE academic staff.

International orientation

Foreign degree seeking Number of degree seeking students with a foreign students diploma on entrance as a percentage of total enrolment in degree seeking programs.

Importance of international Income from international sources as a percentage of sources of income total income.

Incoming students in Number of incoming students in international exchange international exchange programmes, as a percentage of total enrolment. programs

International academic staff Foreign academic staff members as a percentage of total number of academic staff.

Students sent out in Number of students sent out in international exchange international exchange programs as a percentage of total enrolment. programs

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).

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.

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

54 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.

• 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

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

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.

• 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.

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).

Table 6 – Institutions included in the 1994 and 2010 Ontario university sector

Founding Year COU Included Included year* joined member? in 1994 in 2010 Institution AUCC*(6) ** dataset? 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 1982 1985 NO YES YES College 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

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

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.

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

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 65

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).

Table 8 – Classification of Ontario Universities under the Adjusted Carnegie and Maclean’s Classification Methodology 2010

Adjusted Carnegie Adjusted Maclean’s Classification Classification Institution

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

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

Number of Institutions Methodology

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

(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

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:

• 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?

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

Figure 2 – Dendogram of Ontario Universities 2010

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

81 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

SIZE TYPE 1994 2010 1994 2010

Algoma University S SP Brock University L L PU PU Carleton University L L C C Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology S S SP SP University of Guelph L L C C Lakehead University M M PU PU Laurentian University M M PU PU McMaster University L L MD MD Nippissing University S M PU PU OCAD University S S SP SP Ontario Institute for Studies in Education S SP UOIT M PU University of Ottawa L L MD MD Queen's University L L MD MD Redeemer University College S S SP SP Royal Military College of Canada S S SP SP Ryerson University L L PU PU University of Toronto L L MD MD Trent University M M PU PU University of Waterloo L L C C The University of Western Ontario L L MD MD Wilfrid Laurier University M L PU PU University of Windsor L L C C York University L L C C

Size: S=small, M=medium, L=large Type: PU=primarily undergraduate, C=comprehensive, MD=medical/doctoral, SP=special purpose

Table 12 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact 1994 and 2010

ENROLMENT UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTY PROFILE PROFILE CONTACT 1994 2010 1994 2010 1994 2010

Algoma University L M L Brock University L L M H L L Carleton University M M M H L L Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology H H L L H H University of Guelph M L H H M L Lakehead University L L M H L M Laurentian University L L M M M M McMaster University M M M H H M Nippissing University L L L M L L OCAD University L L L M L L Ontario Institute for Studies in Education H L H UOIT L H L University of Ottawa M M M H M L Queen's University M M M M M M Redeemer University College L L H H M M Royal Military College of Canada H H H H H H Ryerson University L L L L L L University of Toronto M M M H M M Trent University L L M H M L University of Waterloo L M M H M L The University of Western Ontario M M M H H M Wilfrid Laurier University L L M H M L University of Windsor L M M H L L York University L L M H L L

Enrolment profile: L= low graduate, M= medium graduate, H=high graduate Undergraduate profile: L=low full-time, M=medium full-time, H=high full-time Student/Faculty contact: L=low contact, M=medium contact, H=high 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

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

1994 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

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.

Table 14 – Ontario Institutions by Type 1994 and 2010

1994 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

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.

Table 15 – Ontario Institutions by Enrolment Profile 1994 and 2010

1994 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

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.

Table 16 – Ontario Institutions by Undergraduate Profile 1994 and 2010

1994 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

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.

Table 17 – Ontario Institutions by Level of Student/Faculty Contact 1994 and 2010

1994 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

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. 88

Table 18 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity 1994 and 2010

1994 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

3 5 3 50 15 68 1 4 4 67 19 86 1 2 5 83 21 95 1 1 6 100 22 100 6 6 100 22 100

2010 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

4 5 4 80 20 87 1 3 5 100 23 100 5 5 100 23 100

The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:

Table 19 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity 1994 and 2010

1994 2010 Change in INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994 A 22/6 3.7 23/5 4.6 Decrease B 5/22 X 100 22.7 5/23 X 100 21.7 Unchanged C 3/22 X 100 13.6 2.5/23 X 100 10.9 Increase D 1/22 X 100 4.5 0/23 X 100 0 Decrease

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.

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

1994 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

2 4 2 20 8 36 2 3 4 40 14 64 2 2 6 60 18 82 4 1 10 100 22 100 10 10 100 22 100

2010 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

1 6 1 10 6 26 1 4 2 20 10 43 2 3 4 40 16 70 1 2 5 50 18 78 5 1 10 100 23 100 10 10 100 23 100

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:

Table 21 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity 1994 and 2010

1994 2010 Change in INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994 A 22/10 2.2 23/10 2.3 Unchanged B 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 Decrease C 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 Decrease D 4/22 X 100 18.2 5/23 X 100 21.7 Increase

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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

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 2010 (Thousands of dollars) Percentage Percentage Percentage 1994* 2010** of Total of Total Change Institution

Algoma University - 143 0.0 0.0 - Brock University 1,423 6,264 0.6 0.8 33.3 Carleton University 11,513 23,769 4.5 3.2 -28.9 University of Guelph 18,716 28,743 7.4 3.8 -48.6 Lakehead University 1,031 4,426 0.4 0.6 50.0 Laurentian University 1,403 3,920 0.6 0.5 -16.7 McMaster University 29,189 88,815 11.5 11.9 3.5 Nipissing 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 63.9 Queen's University 25,815 62,190 10.2 8.3 -18.6 Ryerson University 838 9,276 0.3 1.2 300.0 University of Toronto 84,499 267,951 33.2 35.9 8.1 Trent University 1,899 4,226 0.7 0.6 -14.3 University of Waterloo 20,395 43,791 8.0 5.9 -26.3 The University of Western Ontario 22,771 67,898 9.0 9.1 1.1 Wilfrid Laurier University 895 5,022 0.4 0.7 75.0 University of Windsor 4,678 9,694 1.8 1.3 -27.8 York 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. 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

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 2010 (Thousands of dollars) Percentage Percentage Percentage 1994* 2010** of Total of Total Change Institution

Algoma University - 119 0.0 0.1 - Brock University 200 3,219 0.9 3.2 255.6 Carleton University 1,521 6,466 7.1 6.4 -9.9 University of Guelph 732 1,772 3.4 1.8 -47.1 Lakehead University 68 1,124 0.3 1.1 266.7 Laurentian University 114 657 0.5 0.7 40.0 McMaster University 1,626 6,290 7.6 6.2 -18.4 Nipissing 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 -8.5 Queen's University 1,688 8,233 7.8 8.2 5.1 Ryerson University 97 2,448 0.5 2.4 380.0 University of Toronto 5,025 25,682 23.4 25.5 9.0 Trent University 483 987 2.2 1.0 -54.5 University of Waterloo 1,161 3,335 5.4 3.3 -38.9 The University of Western Ontario 1,632 8,948 7.6 8.9 17.1 Wilfrid Laurier University 460 2,354 2.1 2.3 9.5 University of Windsor 277 1,514 1.3 1.5 15.4 York 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.

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

100 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 2010 (Thousands of dollars) Percentage Percentage Percentage 1994* 2010** of Total of Total Change Institution

Algoma University - 24 0.0 0.0 - Brock University 1,223 2,528 0.8 0.8 0.0 Carleton University 9,779 15,990 6.6 5.2 -21.2 University of Guelph 16,572 22,822 11.2 7.5 -33.0 Lakehead University 963 2,809 0.7 0.9 28.6 Laurentian University 1,289 2,865 0.9 0.9 0.0 McMaster University 14,949 27,048 10.1 8.8 -12.9 Nipissing 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 40.0 Queen's University 17,538 37,345 11.9 12.2 2.5 Ryerson University 658 5,692 0.4 1.9 375.0 University of Toronto 33,488 77,430 22.8 25.4 11.4 Trent University 1,363 3,153 0.9 1.0 11.1 University of Waterloo 18,961 35,428 13.0 11.6 -10.8 The University of Western Ontario 10,552 27,271 7.2 8.9 23.6 Wilfrid Laurier University 435 2,447 0.3 0.8 166.7 University of Windsor 4,401 7,662 3.0 2.5 -16.7 York 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.

101

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 (Thousands of dollars) Percentage Percentage Percentage 1994* 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 0.4 100.0 University of Guelph 1,412 4,149 1.7 1.2 -29.4 Lakehead University - 493 0.0 0.1 - Laurentian University - 398 0.0 0.1 - McMaster University 12,614 55,477 14.8 16.3 10.1 Nipissing 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 81.0 Queen's University 6,589 16,612 7.7 4.9 -36.4 Ryerson University 83 1,136 0.1 0.3 200.0 University of Toronto 45,986 164,839 53.8 48.5 -9.9 Trent University 53 86 0.1 0.0 -100.0 University of Waterloo 273 5,028 0.3 1.5 400.0 The University of Western Ontario 10,587 31,679 12.4 9.3 -25.0 Wilfrid 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. 102

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

103

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 (Number of Chairs) Percentage Percentage Percentage 2005* 2010* of Total of Total Change Institution

Algoma University - - 0.0 0.0 - Brock University 9 11 1.2 1.5 25.0 Carleton University 26 24 3.5 3.2 -8.6 University of Guelph 36 39 4.9 5.3 8.2 Lakehead University 6 10 0.8 1.3 62.5 Laurentian University 9 9 1.2 1.2 0.0 McMaster University 69 69 9.3 9.3 0.0 Nipissing 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 15.3 Queen's University 55 53 7.4 7.1 -4.1 Royal Military College 4 5 0.6 0.7 16.7 Ryerson University 8 11 1.1 1.5 36.4 University of Toronto 267 238 36.2 32.1 -11.3 Trent University 9 9 1.2 1.2 0.0 University of Waterloo 53 61 7.2 8.2 13.9 The University of Western Ontario 70 66 9.5 8.9 -6.3 Wilfrid Laurier University 8 11 1.1 1.5 36.4 University of Windsor 15 13 2.0 1.8 -10.0 York 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

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,

104

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

105 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

106

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 postsecondary 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

107 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

Percentage (Thousand of dollars) Percentage of Federal Federal Provincial Other of Total Federal Research Contribution* Contribution* Contribution* Contribution Funding** Institution

Algoma University 8,008 8,008 - 1.60 0.02 Brock University 38,000 33,500 23,910 7.60 0.75 Carleton University 26,250 26,250 3,200 5.25 3.32 University of Guelph 16,818 16,818 - 3.36 4.89 Lakehead University 13,000 - 37,000 2.60 0.85 Laurentian University 5,153 5,000 10,100 1.03 0.60 McMaster University 19,250 19,250 3,500 3.85 11.01 Nipissing University - - - 0.00 0.11 OCAD University - - - 0.00 0.01 UOIT 36,704 102,704 29,670 7.34 0.44 University of Ottawa 30,000 50,000 32,500 6.00 9.85 Queen's University 28,818 28,818 19,210 5.76 7.93 Ryerson University 16,450 16,450 - 3.29 1.26 University of Toronto 75,500 75,500 9,000 15.09 35.87 Trent University 10,800 20,200 10,400 2.16 0.71 University of Waterloo 50,000 50,000 61,000 10.00 7.33 The University of Western Ontario 25,000 25,000 - 5.00 8.94 Wilfrid Laurier University 13,000 13,000 - 2.60 0.66 University of Windsor 40,000 40,000 30,000 8.00 1.61 York 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

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 108

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.

109

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

110

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.

111

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

112

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).

113

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.

114

Table 31 – Other MTCU Grants as a Percentage of Basic Formula Grants 1994 and 2010

(Grants are in thousands of dollars)

1994* 2010** Other as a Other as a Institution Basic Formula Other MTCU Percentage Basic Formula Other MTCU Percentage Gr a nt Gr a nts of Basic Grants Gr a nt Gr a nts of Basic Grants

Algoma University 4,130 6,455 156.3 Brock University 32,902 10,186 31.0 63,930 4,176 6.5 Carleton University 75,762 20,334 26.8 125,907 5,706 4.5 Dominican College 127 66 52.0 125 424 339.2 University of Guelph 95,730 12,022 12.6 131,353 9,938 7.6 Lakehead University 25,936 9,062 34.9 40,350 8,778 21.8 Laurentian University 26,229 24,288 92.6 39,972 21,794 54.5 McMaster University 103,553 16,988 16.4 128,353 15,886 12.4 Nipissing University 5,730 3,348 58.4 18,831 4,070 21.6 OCAD University 9,694 967 10.0 15,150 3,114 20.6 Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 21,875 2,363 10.8 UOIT 32,860 8,517 25.9 University of Ottawa 118,143 45,546 38.6 173,021 48,626 28.1 Queen's University 107,722 22,648 21.0 147,181 9,046 6.1 Redeemer University College*** 0 0 0 0 Ryerson University 66,773 6,647 10.0 138,428 12,448 9.0 University of Toronto 351,131 45,398 12.9 451,312 28,826 6.4 Trent University 17,619 8,392 47.6 29,571 8,128 27.5 University of Waterloo 117,523 13,868 11.8 162,728 4,217 2.6 The University of Western Ontario 161,997 13,064 8.1 225,964 14,688 6.5 Wilfrid Laurier University 32,292 6,394 19.8 65,047 987 1.5 University of Windsor 64,824 6,726 10.4 88,883 9,029 10.2 York 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

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

115

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-

116

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 (thousand of dollars)

Institution 1994* 2010**

Algoma University 4,859 Brock University 18,661 93,639 Carleton University 44,097 141,535 Dominican College 131 310 University of Guelph 35,082 124,199 Lakehead University 14,522 40,492 Laurentian University 14,519 34,348 McMaster University 34,808 157,841 Nipissing University 3,944 25,257 OCAD University 4,089 19,003 Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 4,299 UOIT 34,128 University of Ottawa 45,620 213,028 Queen's University 40,260 177,979 Redeemer University College*** 2,669 10,760 Ryerson University 38,587 161,365 University of Toronto 126,039 600,781 Trent University 10,090 42,232 University of Waterloo 47,738 209,429 The University of Western Ontario 65,630 258,153 Wilfrid Laurier University 15,251 87,542 University of Windsor 30,909 96,660 York University 74,321 328,825 Total 671,266 2,862,365

Tuition as a percentage of Basic 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

117

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%.

118

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

119

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

120 funding across the province would suggest that it promoted processes of institutional convergence.

Table 33 – SuperBuild Program Allocations by Institution 2000-2006 (Millions of dollars) SuperBuild Formula 2001 Allocation as a Grants as a SuperBuild Formula Percentage Percentage Funding* Grants** of Total of Total Institution

Algoma University 0.65 2.84 0.1 0.2 Brock University 21.80 34.28 3.1 2.4 Carleton University 39.09 75.62 5.6 5.2 Dominican College - 0.10 0.0 0.0 University of Guelph 49.48 85.28 7.0 5.8 Lakehead University 14.61 22.66 2.1 1.6 Laurentian University 2.49 25.46 0.4 1.8 McMaster University 42.01 94.05 6.0 6.4 Nipissing University 12.83 6.90 1.8 0.5 OCAD University 21.16 7.63 3.0 0.5 University of Ottawa*** 50.10 113.81 7.1 7.8 Queen's University 58.93 104.13 8.4 7.1 Ryerson University**** 55.09 72.37 7.8 5.0 University of Toronto 99.96 320.87 14.2 22.0 Trent University 29.17 17.86 4.1 1.2 University of Waterloo 35.61 103.37 5.1 7.1 The University of Western Ontario 67.65 135.57 9.6 9.3 Wilfrid Laurier University 20.28 29.79 2.9 2.0 University of Windsor 16.80 57.50 2.4 3.9 York 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

121

Capital Renewal Program

Table 34 – Capital Renewal Allocation by Institution 2008

(Thousand of dollars) Capital Formula Total Capital 2007 Allocation as a Grants as a 2007-8 Special Renewal Formula Percentage Percentage Allocation* Allocation* Allocation Grants** of Total of Total Institution

Algoma University 363.2 1,000.0 1,363.2 3,884 0.4 0.2 Brock University 4,573.7 6,747.2 11,320.9 61,886 3.4 3.1 Carleton University 7,347.6 10,839.3 18,186.9 103,586 5.4 5.1 University of Guelph 8,114.1 11,970.1 20,084.2 117,031 6.0 5.8 Lakehead University 2,506.4 3,697.5 6,203.9 32,451 1.9 1.6 Laurentian University 2,790.5 3,989.1 6,779.6 35,997 2.0 1.8 McMaster University 9,160.0 13,513.1 22,673.1 123,423 6.8 6.1 Nipissing University 1,434.3 2,116.1 3,550.4 14,293 1.1 0.7 OCAD University 1,458.0 2,150.8 3,608.8 13,684 1.1 0.7 UOIT 1,350.0 2,500.0 3,850.0 19,129 1.1 0.9 University of Ottawa 9,675.6 14,273.6 23,949.2 156,358 7.1 7.8 Queen's University 8,387.4 12,373.3 20,760.7 122,208 6.2 6.1 Ryerson University 6,867.7 10,131.4 16,999.1 105,375 5.1 5.2 University of Toronto 25,578.8 37,734.3 63,313.1 417,644 18.9 20.8 Trent University 2,212.2 3,263.5 5,475.7 27,127 1.6 1.3 University of Waterloo 9,088.6 13,407.7 22,496.3 139,396 6.7 6.9 The University of Western Ontario 13,208.6 19,485.6 32,694.2 179,049 9.8 8.9 Wilfrid Laurier University 3,383.5 4,991.4 8,374.9 50,443 2.5 2.5 University of Windsor 4,899.6 7,227.9 12,127.5 74,725 3.6 3.7 York 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.

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.

122

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

123

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-council Provincial of Provincial Research Contribution* Contribution Funding** Institution

Algoma University 225 0.0 0.0 Brock University 3,313 0.6 0.8 Carleton University 13,751 2.7 3.2 University of Guelph 38,832 7.6 3.8 Lakehead University 2,764 0.5 0.6 Laurentian University 2,394 0.5 0.5 McMaster University 63,348 12.4 11.9 Nipissing University 681 0.1 0.1 OCAD University 6,208 1.2 0.0 UOIT 1,235 0.2 0.4 University of Ottawa 43,006 8.4 11.8 Queen's University 60,740 11.9 8.3 Ryerson University 5,316 1.0 1.2 University of Toronto 139,605 27.3 35.9 Trent University 5,275 1.0 0.6 University of Waterloo 42,223 8.3 5.9 The University of Western Ontario 68,059 13.3 9.1 Wilfrid Laurier University 975 0.2 0.7 University of Windsor 4,926 1.0 1.3 York 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. 124

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

125

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 University Funding as a University College Percentage Funding* Funding* of Total Year

2005-6 47,405,553 9,111,442 83.9 2006-7 40,515,204 9,484,796 81.0 2007-8 38,292,220 11,707,780 76.6 2008-9 35,129,747 14,870,253 70.3 2009-10 28,106,177 14,393,823 66.1 2010-11 27,716,598 14,783,402 65.2 2011-12 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 126

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.

127

Table 37 – Ontario Trust for Student Support Funding by Institution 2005-2012

OTSS Enrolment 2009-10 Funding as a as a OTSS Enrolment Percentage Percentage Funding* Headcount** of Total of Total Institution

Algoma University 705,164 1,188 0.3 0.2 Brock University 10,390,179 17,625 4.4 3.7 Carleton University 8,230,149 25,888 3.5 5.4 University of Guelph 4,587,090 26,354 1.9 5.5 Lakehead University 4,082,671 8,496 1.7 1.8 Laurentian University 5,469,567 9,246 2.3 1.9 McMaster University 14,755,298 28,717 6.2 6.0 Nipissing University 861,380 6,521 0.4 1.4 OCAD University 3,543,833 4,047 1.5 0.8 UOIT 5,999,660 7,384 2.5 1.5 University of Ottawa 14,777,150 40,371 6.2 8.4 Queen's University 10,775,267 24,028 4.5 5.0 Ryerson University 28,526,124 37,834 11.9 7.9 University of Toronto 37,742,686 78,389 15.8 16.3 Trent University 4,704,827 7,840 2.0 1.6 University of Waterloo 14,244,737 32,504 6.0 6.8 The University of Western Ontario 24,042,199 36,237 10.1 7.5 Wilfrid Laurier University 10,103,527 17,572 4.2 3.7 University of Windsor 12,233,691 15,845 5.1 3.3 York 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 Universities Universities 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

128

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

129

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

130

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

131

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

132

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

- Percentage

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

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.

133

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

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

Percentage 2.00

1.00

-1.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

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.

134

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,

135

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.

136

Table 40 – Cumulative Change in Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Students from 2004 2005-2010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Laurentian University 3.8 6.1 11.5 12.7 15.2 16.7 UOIT 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 7.6 13.4 Lakehead University 0.3 2.4 2.8 5.8 8.1 10.0 Ryerson University 2.4 3.3 2.3 4.1 6.7 8.0 The University of Western Ontario 1.9 4.4 3.8 4.3 6.1 6.5 York University 1.9 2.0 1.5 3.1 3.6 5.1 Brock University 1.9 1.5 2.4 1.9 2.5 3.7 Dominican College -0.1 -6.7 -6.6 -13.5 -3.0 2.0 University of Guelph 2.5 2.2 1.1 0.7 1.6 1.8 Wilfrid Laurier University 0.8 2.6 3.2 2.5 1.4 1.8 University of Windsor 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.4 University of Ottawa 2.6 3.8 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.1 University of Toronto 1.2 1.7 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 Carleton University 2.2 2.2 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 0.3 Queen's University 0.8 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.2 Trent University 3.3 3.8 1.6 -2.8 -2.6 -0.2 University of Waterloo 0.6 1.5 0.0 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 McMaster 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.

137

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 39.0 The 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.

138

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

139 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

140

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.

141

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,

142

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

143 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

144

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

145

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

146 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.

147

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

148 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

149 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.

150

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

151

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

152 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

153

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

154

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-

155 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

156

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 multidisciplinary 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.

157

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.

158

Table 44 – Categorization by Size and Type 2010 and 2018

SIZE TYPE 2010 2018 2010 2018

Algoma University S S SP SP Brock University L L PU C Carleton University L L C C Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology S S SP SP University of Guelph L L C C Lakehead University M L PU PU Laurentian University M L PU PU McMaster University L L MD MD Nippissing University M M PU PU OCAD University S S SP SP UOIT M L PU PU University of Ottawa L L MD MD Queen's University L L MD MD Redeemer University College S S SP SP Royal Military College of Canada S S SP SP Ryerson University L L PU C University of Toronto L L MD MD Trent University M M PU PU University of Waterloo L L C C The University of Western Ontario L L MD MD Wilfrid Laurier University L L PU C University of Windsor L L C C York University L L C C

Size: S=small, M=medium, L=large Type: PU=primarily undergraduate, C=comprehensive, MD=medical/doctoral, SP=special purpose

159

Table 45 – Categorization by Enrolment Profiles and Student/Faculty Contact 2010 and 2018

ENROLMENT UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT/FACULTY PROFILE PROFILE CONTACT 2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018

Algoma University L L M M L L Brock University L M H H L L Carleton University M M H H L L Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology H H L L H H University of Guelph L M H H L L Lakehead University L L H H M M Laurentian University L L M M M M McMaster University M M H H M M Nippissing University L L M M L L OCAD University L L M M L L UOIT L L H H L L University of Ottawa M M H H L L Queen's University M M M M M M Redeemer University College L L H H M M Royal Military College of Canada H H H H H H Ryerson University L M L L L L University of Toronto M M H H M M Trent University L L H H L L University of Waterloo M M H H L L The University of Western Ontario M M H H M M Wilfrid Laurier University L L H H L L University of Windsor M M H H L L York University L M H H L L

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.

160

Table 46 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Systemic Diversity 2010 and 2018 2010 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

4 5 4 80 20 87 1 3 5 100 23 100 5 5 100 23 100

2018 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

1 8 1 20 8 35 2 5 3 60 18 78 1 3 4 80 21 91 1 2 5 100 23 100 5 5 100 23 100

The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:

Table 47 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Systemic Diversity 2010 and 2018

2010 2018 Change in INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 2010 A 23/5 4.6 23/5 4.6 Unchanged B 5/23 X 100 21.7 8/23 X 100 34.8 Decrease C 2.5/23 X 100 10.9 4/23 X 100 17.4 Decrease D 0/23 X 100 0 0/23 X 100 0 Unchanged

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

161

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.

162

Table 48 – Distribution of Institutional Types – Climate Diversity 2010 and 2018

2010 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

1 6 1 10 6 26 1 4 2 20 10 43 2 3 4 40 16 70 1 2 5 50 18 78 5 1 10 100 23 100 10 10 100 23 100

2018 Cumulative Cumulative Number Number of number of number of of Types Universities types % institutions %

1 7 1 10 7 30 3 3 4 40 16 70 1 2 5 50 18 78 5 1 10 100 23 100 10 10 100 23 100

The results of calculating the simple indices are as follows:

Table 49 – Comparison of Four Simple Diversity Indices – Climate Diversity 2010 and 2018

2010 2018 Change in INDEX Diversity Calculation Index Calculation Index since 2010 A 23/10 2.3 23/10 2.3 Unchanged B 6/23 X 100 26.1 7/23 X 100 30.4 Decrease C 6/23 X 100 26.1 7/23 X 100 30.4 Decrease D 5/23 X 100 21.7 5/23 X 100 21.7 Unchanged

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

163

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.

164

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

165

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

166

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.

167

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.

168

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.

169

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

170 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.

171

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,

172 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

173

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,

174 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

175

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 interdisciplinary 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.

176

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.

177

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?

178

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.

179

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.

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,

180

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

181

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

182

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.

183

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

184

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

185

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

186 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,

187

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.

188

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

189

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.

190

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/

191

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.p hp

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/IanClarkWebPageatUof T/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.

192

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.

193

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

194

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.

195

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%20Researc h%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

196

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_OC ADU_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.

197

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.

198

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/proposedmandatestatme nt.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.

199

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/

200

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%2 0Guelph.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%20 Agreement.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/

201 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%20Statem ents/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_universit y.pdf

202

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.

203

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-time Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Faculty** NOVEMBER 1, 1994

Brock University 7113 3330 120 497 311 Carleton University 14744 4423 1639 957 714 Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology*** 60 83 21 6 9 University of Guelph 10851 2125 1543 262 711 Lakehead University 5849 1648 196 158 255 Laurentian University (Algoma & Hearst) 5757 2922 146 139 358 McMaster University 11979 3008 1573 651 972 Nippissing University 1412 978 0 24 66 OCAD*** 1471 1231 0 0 74 OISE 17 108 874 1519 129 University of Ottawa 14317 6809 2360 1501 1,089 Queen's University 11331 3458 2089 632 810 Redeemer University College***** 743 65 0 0 30 Royal Military College of Canada****** 961 0 272 423 155 Ryerson University 10120 11761 0 0 500 University of Toronto 29836 13236 6360 1809 2,568 Trent University 3760 1479 122 33 192 University of Waterloo 15726 4797 1690 405 831 The University of Western Ontario 20103 5638 2234 514 1,457 Wilfrid Laurier University 5118 2275 451 316 277 University of Windsor 10427 4278 656 227 491 York 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

204

Appendix 2 – Enrolment and Faculty data - 2010

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Number of HEAD COUNT* Undergrad Undergrad Graduate Graduate Full-time Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment Faculty** NOVEMBER 1, 2010

Algoma University*** 834 354 0 0 39 Brock University 14,076 2,013 932 604 563 Carleton University 18,162 4,124 2,778 824 821 Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology**** 36 31 57 1 7 University of Guelph 21,604 2,235 2,287 228 780 Lakehead University 6,323 1,569 578 26 308 Laurentian University 6,241 2,237 407 361 365 McMaster University 21,327 3,349 3,354 687 1305 Nippissing University 3,874 2,320 59 268 181 OCAD University**** 3,054 898 44 51 108 UOIT 6,515 456 308 105 158 University of Ottawa 28,200 6,133 4,611 1427 1254 Queen's University 15,730 4,349 3,580 369 802 Redeemer University College****** 870 40 0 0 39 Royal Military College of Canada******* 1,090 170 300 260 195 Ryerson University 18,632 16,956 1,893 353 931 University of Toronto 56,531 6,870 13,195 1793 2698 Trent University 6,187 1,230 354 69 229 University of Waterloo 26,458 1,627 3,486 933 1023 The University of Western Ontario 27,457 3,435 4,782 563 1322 Wilfrid Laurier University 14,102 1,942 908 620 533 University of Windsor 11,645 2,401 1,658 141 523 York 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

205

Appendix 3 – Undergraduate and Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year 2001-2011

All Students- Fall Headcounts 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 (Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes Northern Ontario School of Medicine)

Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

206

Appendix 4 – Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts per Year 2001-2011

Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students - Fall Headcounts 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 (Includes eligible and ineligible students)

Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

207

Appendix 5 – Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Students per Year 2001-2011

Full-time and Part-time Graduate Students as a Percentage of Total Fall Headcounts 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

208

Appendix 6 – Full-time and Part-time Master’s Students – Fall Headcounts per Year 2005-2011

Full-time and Part-time Masters Students - Fall Headcounts 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 (Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes graduate diploma students)

Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

209

Appendix 7 – Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students – Fall Headcounts per Year 2005-2011

Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students - Fall Headcounts 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 (Includes eligible and ineligible students) (Excludes graduate diploma students)

Source: Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

210

Appendix 8 – Master’s Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts 2005-2011

Full-time and Part-time Masters Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Fall Headcounts

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

211

Appendix 9 – Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduates – Fall Headcounts 2005-2001

Full-time and Part-time Doctoral Students as a Percentage of Total Graduate Fall Headcounts

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

212