Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010
description
Transcript of Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010
Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010
Pierre G. PichéMay 16, 2013
1
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).
Overview
2
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
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 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
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 Diversity
Distribution 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 22 100
6 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 23 100
5 5 100 23 100
2010
1994
Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010
10
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 **
∑pᵢ²pᵢ - 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 Diversity
Four 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 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
Diversity Matrix Methodology
13
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
Diversity Matrix Methodology
14
Climate Diversity
Distribution 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 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
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 Decrease
D 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 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).
Conclusion
17