Pierre G Piché May 16 2013 1 Focus Ontarios university sector Period 1994 and 2010 What Quantitatively measures diversity Type Systemic and Climate How Hierarchical cluster analysis ID: 806453
Download The PPT/PDF document "Measuring diversity in Ontario’s unive..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Measuring diversity in Ontario’s university sector: 1994 – 2010
Pierre G.
PichéMay 16, 2013
1
Slide2Focus: Ontario’s university sector
Period: 1994 and 2010
What: 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
Slide3Variables: 1994 and 2010
Graduate enrolments (full and part-time)
Undergraduate enrolments (full and part-time)Full-time facultyTuition revenueOperating grants revenueNon-credit operating revenueSponsored research revenueHierarchical Cluster Analysis
3
Slide4Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
1994
4
Slide5Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
2010
5
Slide6Categorizes 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
Slide7Operationalizing variables for Systemic Diversity
Size:
Small – less than 5,000 studentsMedium – between 5,000 to 10,000 studentsLarge – more than 10,000 studentsType:Primarily undergraduate*Comprehensive*medical/doctoral*Special purpose*Maclean’s
Diversity Matrix Methodology
7
Slide812 possible Unique Institutional Types for Systemic Diversity
Diversity Matrix Methodology
8
Slide9Systemic Diversity
Distribution of unique institutional types
for Ontario universities – 19949
Slide10Systemic Diversity
Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010
10
Slide11Measuring Diversity
Four 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 universitiesSimpson’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
Slide12Systemic 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
12
Slide13Operationalizing 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 overDiversity Matrix Methodology
13
Slide14Operationalizing variables for Climate Diversity (continued)
Student-Faculty contact:
High – less than 20 – Total enrolment / # of FT facultyMedium – between 20 and 30Low – over 30Diversity Matrix Methodology14
Slide15Climate Diversity
Distribution of types for Ontario universities – 1994 and 2010
15
Slide16Climate 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
16
Slide17Hierarchical 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 2010Stay 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