Systemic and Climate Diversity in Ontario’s University Sector By Pierre Gilles Piché A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto ©Copyright by Pierre Gilles Piché (2014) 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. ii The second phase of this study used policy analysis and drew on mutually related theoretical perspectives from organizational theory as its primary conceptual framework to interpret and corroborate the decrease in diversity between 1994 and 2010. Interviews were also conducted with university presidents to gain a greater understanding of the key factors or barriers in Ontario’s reticence in proposing design changes in its higher education system. Having been informed by the policy analysis, interviews and projections of the extent of diversity to 2018, the study proposed a diversity policy for Ontario’s university sector. Diversity can be increased in Ontario’s university sector by providing institutions with competitive incremental funding allocations within each of three clusters that would specifically address government diversity objectives through a revised strategic mandate agreement process. Additional research funding should also be provided by the federal government to a limited number of research-intensive universities to ensure that Canadian institutions remain competitive on the world stage. iii DEDICATION To MICHAEL C. CROCK (1965-2012) - You shared so many of my successes my friend! You were always there for me. iv 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. v 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 vi 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 .................................................................................................