Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010

1. Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010 Pierre G. Piché May 16, 2013

2. Overview Focus: Ontario’s university sector Period: 1994 and 2010 What: Quantitatively measures diversity Type: Systemic and Climate How: Hierarchical cluster analysis* Diversity matrix** Simpson’s *** *Huisman, J. (2000). Higher education institutions: As different as chalk and cheese? Higher Education Policy, 13, 41-53. **Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass *** Huisman, J., Meek, L., and Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4).

3. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis Variables: 1994 and 2010 • Graduate enrolments (full and part-time) • Undergraduate enrolments (full and part-time) • Full-time faculty • Tuition revenue • Operating grants revenue • Non-credit operating revenue • Sponsored research revenue

4. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis 1994

5. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis 2010

6. Diversity Matrix Methodology* • Categorizes institutions into unique institutional types* • Same values for all variables means the institution belongs to the same cell* • Makes use of indices to measure diversity* • Used Simpson’s as another measure** *Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ** Huisman, J., Meek, L., and Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4).

7. Diversity Matrix Methodology Operationalizing variables for Systemic Diversity Size: Small – less than 5,000 students Medium – between 5,000 to 10,000 students Large – more than 10,000 students Type: Primarily undergraduate* Comprehensive* medical/doctoral* Special purpose *Maclean’s

8. Diversity Matrix Methodology 12 possible Unique Institutional Types for Systemic Diversity

9. Systemic Diversity Distribution of unique institutional types for Ontario universities – 1994

10. Systemic Diversity Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010

11. Diversity Matrix Methodology Measuring Diversity Four indices*: Index A - # of universities / total number of unique types Index B - # of universities most pop cell / # of universities Index C - # of universities in high 10% of cells / # of universities Index D - # cells with only one institution / # of universities Simpson’s ** ∑pᵢ² pᵢ - proportional abundance of the ith institutional type *Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ** Huisman, J., Meek, L., and Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4).

12. Systemic Diversity Four indices: Simpson’s 1994: (5/22)² + (5/22)² + (5/22)² + (4/22)² + (2/22)² + (1/22)² = 0.1983 2010: (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (5/23)² + (3/23)² = 0.2060

13. Diversity Matrix Methodology Operationalizing variables for Climate Diversity Enrolment Profile: Low – less than 10% of FT grad students / total FT enrolment Medium – between 10% and 20% High – over 20% Undergraduate Profile: Low – less than 60% of FT undergrad students / total undergrad enrolment Medium - between 60% and less than 80% High – 80% or over

14. Diversity Matrix Methodology Operationalizing variables for Climate Diversity (continued) Student-Faculty contact: High – less than 20 – Total enrolment / # of FT faculty Medium – between 20 and 30 Low – over 30

15. Climate Diversity Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010

16. Climate Diversity Four indices: Simpson’s 1994: (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 2010: (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

17. Conclusion Hierarchical cluster analysis – very little change Diversity Matrix Methodology* & Simpson’s **: Systemic Diversity – decrease in diversity from 1994 to 2010 Climate Diversity - decrease in diversity from 1994 to 2010 Stay tuned… What are the factors and policies that contributed to this convergence from 1994 to 2010? What government policies are most likely to promote systemic and climate diversity in Ontario’s university sector? *Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ** Huisman, J., Meek, L., and Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4).