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

Pierre G. PichéMay 16, 2013

1

Focus: Ontario’s university sectorPeriod: 1994 and 2010What: Quantitatively measures diversityType: Systemic and ClimateHow: 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).

Overview

2

Variables: 1994 and 2010Graduate enrolments (full and part-time)Undergraduate enrolments (full and part-time)Full-time facultyTuition revenueOperating grants revenueNon-credit operating revenueSponsored research revenue

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

3

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

1994

4

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

2010

5

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).

Diversity Matrix Methodology*

6

Operationalizing variables for Systemic Diversity

Size:Small – less than 5,000 studentsMedium – between 5,000 to 10,000 studentsLarge – more than 10,000 students

Type:Primarily undergraduate*Comprehensive*medical/doctoral*Special purpose

*Maclean’s

Diversity Matrix Methodology

7

12 possible Unique Institutional Types for Systemic Diversity

Diversity Matrix Methodology

Large

Medium

Small

Primarily Comp Med/ SpecialUndergrad Doc Purpose

8

Systemic DiversityDistribution of unique institutional types for Ontario universities – 1994

9

Large 2 5 5

Medium 4

Small 1 5

Primarily Comp Med/ SpecialUndergrad Doc Purpose

Systemic Diversity

Number of Types

Number of Universities

Cumulative number of

types %

Cumulative number of institutions %

3 5 3 50 15 681 4 4 67 19 861 2 5 83 21 951 1 6 100 22 1006 6 100 22 100

Number of Types

Number of Universities

Cumulative number of

types %

Cumulative number of institutions %

4 5 4 80 20 871 3 5 100 23 1005 5 100 23 100

2010

1994

Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010

10

Measuring DiversityFour indices*:

Index A - # of universities / total number of unique typesIndex B - # of universities most pop cell / # of universitiesIndex C - # of universities in high 10% of cells / # of universitiesIndex 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).

Diversity Matrix Methodology

11

Systemic DiversityFour indices:

Change inINDEX Diversity

Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994A 22/6 3.7 23/5 4.6 DecreaseB 5/22 X 100 22.7 5/23 X 100 21.7 UnchangedC 3/22 X 100 13.6 2.5/23 X 100 10.9 IncreaseD 1/22 X 100 4.5 0/23 X 100 0 Decrease

1994 2010

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

12

Operationalizing variables for Climate Diversity

Enrolment Profile:Low – less than 10% of FT grad students / total FT enrolmentMedium – between 10% and 20%High – over 20%

Undergraduate Profile:Low – less than 60% of FT undergrad students / total undergrad enrolmentMedium - between 60% and less than 80%High – 80% or over

Diversity Matrix Methodology

13

Operationalizing variables for Climate Diversity (continued)

Student-Faculty contact:High – less than 20 – Total enrolment / # of FT facultyMedium – between 20 and 30Low – over 30

Diversity Matrix Methodology

14

Climate DiversityDistribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010

Number of Types

Number of Universities

Cumulative number of

types %

Cumulative number of institutions %

2 4 2 20 8 362 3 4 40 14 642 2 6 60 18 824 1 10 100 22 10010 10 100 22 100

Number of Types

Number of Universities

Cumulative number of

types %

Cumulative number of institutions %

1 6 1 10 6 261 4 2 20 10 432 3 4 40 16 701 2 5 50 18 785 1 10 100 23 10010 10 100 23 100

2010

1994

15

Climate DiversityFour 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

Change inINDEX Diversity

Calculation Index Calculation Index since 1994A 22/10 2.2 23/10 2.3 UnchangedB 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 DecreaseC 4/22 X 100 18.2 6/23 X 100 26.1 DecreaseD 4/22 X 100 18.2 5/23 X 100 21.7 Increase

1994 2010

16

Hierarchical cluster analysis – very little change

Diversity Matrix Methodology* & Simpson’s **:Systemic Diversity – decrease in diversity from 1994 to 2010Climate 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).

Conclusion

17