The Sessional Situation: Sessional/Stipendiary Workers in Canadian Departments of English, 2009-11
Heather Murray (U Toronto/ACCUTE). June 2010.
FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT
o this report was based on responses from 61 English departments across a variety of Canadian post-secondary institutions
o 24 English departments reported a decrease in S/ST (sessional/ stipendiary) hiring in 2009-10 while 11 departments reported an increase (slight in some cases)
o cuts to sessional/stipendiary hiring in 2009-10 were most pronounced in medical/doctoral institutions
o almost all departments in colleges, smaller university-colleges, and liberal arts colleges retained or increased their S/ST positions in 2009-10, although 7 (of 17) anticipate a decrease in 2010-11
o the overall decline in S/ST positions in 2009-10 was not caused by (or balanced out by) tenure-track and CLTA hiring, as these also declined
o apart from qualifications for the position, length of service and seniority are the main determinants of S/ST hiring
o offering employment to new PhDs ranks proportionately low as a hiring consideration
o the CLTA situation seemed relatively stable in 2009-10 ( 10 departments reported a decrease versus 7 showing an increase, while 16 reported no change) but 26 reporting departments had no CLTA positions
o 44% of the responding departments in medical/doctoral universities have no CLTA positions
o looking ahead to 2010-11, 6 departments anticipated increased sessional/stipendiary hiring, 29 expected cuts, 26 expected a relatively stable situation (which could mean that cuts had already occurred)
o looking ahead to 2010-11, departments reporting increases and decreases in CLTA hiring are balanced in number, although increases appear to be accounted for by shorter-term contracts
Some conclusions and recommendations are at the end of this report.
INTRODUCTION
The situation of sessional and stipendiary personnel in departments of English has long been of concern to ACCUTE (the Association of Canada College and University Teachers of English) and to its members. The discussions generally have run along two lines: concern about the (seemingly increasing) dependency of English departments and other humanities programs on stipendiary instruction, at the expense of tenured and tenure-track positions; and concerns about the pay and working conditions of these so-called “part-time” employees who of course may well be working full-time and more, either in one institution (often with many years of service) or as a commuting or “gypsy scholar” piecing together positions. The persistence and deepening of sessional/stipendiary numbers even in relatively stable economic times has made it abundantly clear that college and university administrators find it fiscally advantageous to use such highly-trained, experienced, underwaged, and “flexible” personnel. As this form of academic labour becomes increasingly entrenched, in some institutions sessional and stipendiary employees have achieved some gains in pay, working conditions, and employment stability through unionization. Departmental chairs, caught between the rock and hard place of staffing pressures and concern for underemployed junior academics and long-serving colleagues, have often tried to make the best possible packages for sessional/stipendiary (S/ST) personnel, even with scanty resources. This situation is of course not unique to Canada: the MLA “One Faculty Serving All Students” statement is an attempt to bridge if only through solidarity the two very different classes (quite literally) of employees who make up university humanities departments today.
We all know the situation. Writing in the ACCUTE Newsletter of December 2009, the executive’s sessional representative Sara Humphreys quoted John Hess’ acerbic comment about the “incessant statistical approach to the problem of contingent faculty.” In some respects, it would seem that the last thing we need is more figures about sessional hiring. However, in spring 2009 there were some early indications of shifts in the S/ST hiring situation in English departments in Canada. Responding to a mini-survey that I conducted one year ago, designed to anticipate the impact of the economic meltdown on tenure-track hiring for the following year, some chairs also replied that they would be losing S/ST positions as well as tenure-track hires as their institutions retrenched. (“Then and Now: Academic Generations at Risk” ACCUTE Newsletter March 2009. ACCUTE website www.accute.ca). Anecdotal evidence from sessional and instructor members of ACCUTE, and from new PhDs on the job market, also suggested that sessional work was harder to find last year. But is this perception supported by the numbers? If there was a reduction in hiring, was this a one-time occurrence, or would S/ST hiring recover to its previous levels when the fiscal situation had straightened? Were all sectors responding similarly, or are there areas of employment stability or growth? The survey that forms the core of this report was designed to explore these questions.
THE SURVEY AND METHOD
A short survey was sent by email in March 2010 (with later reminders) to all chairs on the CACE (Canadian Association of Chairs of English) list, as well as to other chairs at institutions where ACCUTE has campus representatives (eg. some university-colleges with degree-granting status, and small liberal arts colleges). The survey was designed to be fairly quick to answer given that chairs would soon be asked to do the more time-consuming CACE/ACCUTE annual hiring survey. However, a number of respondents provided supplementary material and comments in addition to their answers. The return rate of 61 responses is very high, and testifies to the level of concern of department chairs on this issue, Since chairs were assured that their responses would be treated in confidence, the 61 respondents must be thanked collectively here.
Draft copies of this report were circulated to the members of the ACCUTE executive and the Committee for Professional Concerns, and the draft report was also presented to the CACE (Canadian Association of Chairs of English) meeting in May.
THE RESPONSE POOL; CATEGORIES
Since one intent was to look for sectoral variations, the responses have been categorized using a modification of the well-known division of institutions into medical/doctoral, comprehensive, and “primarily undergraduate” groupings (this is used by the Maclean’s annual postsecondary survey, for example). To this has been added a fourth category for institutions that are degree-granting (or partly degree-granting) in English but that are omitted from the Maclean’s categories: university-colleges, colleges with degree granting capacities, small universities and liberal arts colleges that are sometimes, but not always, of religious foundation, and distance education providers.
The responses came from the following types of institutions:
C1 Medical/Doctoral 16
C2 Comprehensive 11
C3 Primarily Undergrad 17
C4 Other 17
Further information on the response pool (including how well each category is represented in the responses) is provided in an appendix.
QUESTION ONE
1. Did stipendiary hiring in your department increase, decrease, or stay the same for the 2009-10 academic year, compared to the few years previously? If an increase or decrease, can you estimate the percentage up or down?
11 departments reported an increase in S/ST hiring in 2009-10
24 departments reported a decrease in S/ST hiring in 2009-10
24 departments reported the situation was roughly the same as in the previous few years
2 gave no response or said the question was not applicable to them
This question was designed to show trends up or down in a general way. It should be recalled that in smaller institutions “up” or “down” could be a matter of one maternity or research leave commencing or concluded. Fluctuations are normal, as more than one chair pointed out.
At first glance, these answers do not seem to support the perception of deep cuts to S/ST hiring, since the majority of departments (34 of 60) reported stability or an increase. The responses are more yielding of results when divided sectorally:
The 10 responses showing an increase originated as follows:
C1 0
C2 6
C3 1
C4 4
In other words, no medical/comprehensive institutions increased their S/ST hiring; and the increase was proportionally greatest in the comprehensive category (although note that, because this is the smallest response pool, any one response can strongly affect the results).
The 24 responses showing a decrease came from these sectors:
C1 10
C2 4
C3 8
C4 2
In other words, 63% of C1 respondents reported a decrease, 40% of C2 respondents, 47% of C3 respondents, and 12% of C4 respondents.
Taken together, these suggest that S/ST cuts occurred in the C1 sector especially, while C4 was the most stable sector.
QUESTION TWO
2. Can you express this information in other ways? ( Answers are not required for all of these...and feel free to leave blank if this information is not readily available.)
a) In 2009-10, we cut ____ sections (or courses) that would normally be taught be stipendiary instructors.
b) In 2009-10, we added ____ sections (or courses) to be taught by stipendiary instructors.
This question was not designed to collect statistical information about overall job losses and gains. Rather, it was intended to allow chairs to amplify or to illustrate their response to Question One and to indicate the degree of increase or decrease if reported. As this question was optional, the response rate was lower : 25 of 61 respondents answered 2a or 2b. But the answers may nevertheless be given:
The chairs who reported an increase collectively reported 49 sections added.
The chairs who reported a decrease collectively reported 100.5 sections cut.
The net loss across these 25 departments is 51.5 courses/sections.
This result should be treated cautiously, and not just because of the lower response rate. Designed to detect trends rather than to gather numbers, the question did not distinguish between courses and sections; and at some institutions a “course” could be either 1.0 or 0.5 FCE.
c) In 2009-10, we decreased the number of stipendiary instructors we hire from ____ to ___.
d) In 2009-10, we increased the number of stipendiary instructors we hire from ___ to ___.
Only 10 chairs chose to answer 2c or 2d:
The chairs who reported an increase in personnel reported the addition of 11 positions in total.
The chairs who reported a decrease in personnel reported the cut of 16.5 positions in total.
The net loss across these 10 departments is 5.5 positions.
Again, this result should be treated cautiously. Chairs may have found this question difficult to answer since S/ST work is by definition allocated as piecework rather than through “positions.” Further, some chairs’ comments suggest they are attempting to retain S/ST staff rather than laying off people entirely, even if it means offering instructors fewer courses. As another chair noted, a “head count” does not show whether the individual is teaching one or multiple courses.
QUESTION THREE
3. What factors did you emphasize in making your sessional hiring decisions, apart from “fit” to the position?
a) length of service to the department
b) seniority as determined by union regulations [collective agreement]
c) giving work to new PhDs
d) giving work to doctoral ABDs
e) other (please specify)
This question yielded very good results, with 59 responses. Some departments offered several or multiple factors that they took into account in addition to qualifications in allocating positions, in which case all factors are recorded.
The responses were as follows:
a) length of service 22
b) seniority (union) 41
c) work for new PhDs 15
d) work for doctoral ABDs 13
e) other:
specialty areas (eg creative writing) 1
curriculum development 1
hiring a postdoctoral holder 1
hiring graduate students (non ABD) 1
spousal status 1
equity 1
“reverse” seniority 1
Some notes on these responses: even though “qualifications” was assumed by the question, 7 respondents specifically mentioned qualifications, perhaps differentiating this from “fit,” or perhaps referring to specialization in a different way. Note that while the response to 3d, hiring of doctoral students/ABDs, seems like a relatively low figure, this answer applies only to the smaller number of departments with PhD programs. (And one department reported that ABD hiring came from a separate budget line and is not therefore considered “sessional” hiring.) In their comments, several chairs noted that at times none of these criteria were particularly relevant, since they were hard-pressed to find suitable applicants for their positions.
These responses permit several observations. First, it is apparent that unionization by S/ST instructors (whether they have formed their own bargaining units or been absorbed into existent faculty unions) has been effective in introducing seniority to the system. Seniority and longevity (in non-unionized workplaces) is by far the major determinant (not including qualifications) in allocating positions. Hiring of new doctoral-holders ranks relatively low on this priority list.
QUESTION FOUR
4. Looking ahead to 2010-11, what do you estimate will be the picture for sessional hiring compared to the 2009-10 year? Better, worse, or the same?
This question is a sort of “straw poll” to determine, if there was a decline in S/ST hiring for 2009-10, whether this was a one-time-only occurrence caused by the economic downturn.
Chairs of 4 departments anticipated that S/ST hiring would be better (increase) in 2010-11.
Chairs of 29 departments anticipated that S/ST hiring would be worse (decline) in 2010-11.
Chairs of 26 departments felt the situation would remain relatively the same.
Two gave no answer (in one case, awaiting a budget).
Several chairs qualified their answers. Of the 4 chairs anticipating an increase, two believed the increase would be “very slight.” Two added the caveat that they “hoped” the situation would stay the same; two, that it might be the same but could be worse. Several pointed out that “same” did not necessarily imply stability: “the same, that is, not good.” One mentioned that s/he had answered “same” because all possible cuts had already occurred.
The “improve/increase” responses are too small to permit analysis (although it is perhaps noteworthy that no C1 institution foresees an increase in their S/ST hiring next year). The 29 “worsen/decline” responses may be broken down sectorally although no distinctive pattern results:
For the C1 institutions, 9 anticipated a decline in S/ST hiring.
For the C1 institutions, 5 anticipated a decline.
For the C3 institutions, 8 anticipated a decline.
For the C4 institutions, 7 anticipated a decline.
It seems that cuts will be spread fairly evenly across all four sectors. Compare, however, the C4 response to Question One, where only two of the C4 departments reported a 2009-10 decline.
This question contains an ambiguity that was noted by several respondents: better or worse from which perspective? More S/ST hiring in lieu of tenure-track positions is certainly “worse” from a chair’s perspective. (As one respondent pointed out, these are “weighted terms that implicitly judge the response from a SL’s point of view.”) The terms increase and decline would have been clearer and more value-neutral. However, the respondents seem to have caught this ambiguity and adjusted their responses accordingly to reflect the intent of the question.
This ambiguity lends itself to a symptomatic reading. While the high number of sessional hires has long been of concern (with calls for increased tenure-track hiring and the consolidation of S/ST work into CLTA positions), the current question is whether these positions are declining as well. If so, the situation would certainly be “worse,” for sessionals and administrators alike.
QUESTION FIVE
5. Please briefly describe the factors determining your sessional hiring for 2010-11.
As with Question Three, some respondents offered more than one factor in their answers, in which case all are recorded.
Since only 4 departments anticipated increases (two of those “slight”) here they are combined with departments expecting things to stay thesame in 2010-11. The 29 departments offered the following reasons for their projected improved or similar situations:
Replacements for leaves/admin secondments 6
Need to staff “protected” or essential courses 5
Rising enrolments 2
Need for specialties (eg. creative writing, film) 2
Summer course staffing 1
Courses run on cost-recovery basis 1
Sessional in lieu of tenure-track hiring 1
Some respondents noted that while things seemed the “same” on paper, staff were being redeployed. Several noted the shift of sessionals into large “intro” courses; one noted that the class sizes taught by S/STs in their department would increase by a third; one noted the loss of “literature” sections in favour of ESL courses. Three chairs mentioned that S/ST staff were used only/primarily in summer courses. Three chairs noted that even though they had available positions, they were experiencing difficulties attracting suitably-qualified applicants.
An equal number of departments foresaw a reduction in S/ST hiring for 2010-11. They offered the following reasons for the forthcoming decline:
Further budget cuts 17
Fewer leave replacements 7
Curricular re-organization (other than cuts) 2
Declining enrolments 1
“Laying off” before seniority achieved 1
Hiring of a new CLTA 1
[Hiring of new tenure-track positions] 0]
Several chairs provided glosses. While there are actually fewer leaves in some cases, sometimes administrations are reimbursing departments for only part (or none) of the leave replacement cost. “Laying off” refers to one university’s requirement that S/ST instructors be terminated after a certain length of time. The figure of zero and its absent reason have been added for emphasis.
QUESTION SIX
The question was worded as follows:
This section is for any comments you would like to provide about sessional hiring, either in your own department/institution, or more generally for departments of English.
Here are the comments (excluding those that simply clarify responses):
One chair noted that more than half of their courses are taught by sessionals, and another reported a directive to increase S/ST teaching from 10% to 30%. Another department, reporting a rise in S/ST hiring (with a decline in tenure-track) noted that the quality of those sessionals has risen over the years, as well as the size of the applicant pool. A further chair, while feeling that they had “ “very good teachers,” thought this might be shortchanging students who need contact with more active researchers. Another chair wondered whether S/ST instructors maintain the rigorous standards of non-contract faculty. Another, while praising the S/ST staff as “well-qualified,” noted the difficulties of “cutting and reallocating” courses according to enrolment.
Other chairs reported S/ST decreases, in one case the result of a Faculty-wide 5% cut..In two case, there were administrative decisions to cut core (writing) courses or ESL sections. Two chairs were told to hire graduate students in preference to S/ST instructors. One chair concluded: “Cutting sessional positions is a mindless, panicked response to shortfalls in funding..If one doesn’t have any full-timers retiring, then a budget cut can only be accommodated with Sessional cuts, which makes no longterm sense, given the tuition revenue that their teaching generates, and the pressure on full-time faculty to be research-intensive.”
Two chairs reported somewhat different difficulties related to unionization: one felt that qualifications for specialty courses could not always be prioritized while another said that the university’s wariness of seniority accrual meant that sessional terms must be limited.
The struggle for resources occasioned this emphatic comment: PART-TIME FACULTY PAY THE PRICE FOR THE UNDERFUNDING OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS.
One chair noted the considerable difference between sessional and contractual rates (for eight or even four-month contracts) and considered the first unfair compensation for the work performed.
Another chair (who described sessional pay as “appalling”) outlined measures to make sessionals feel like full members of the department, including a faculty mentoring system. Another chair mentioned allocating courses in spring to reduce uncertainty, clarifying hiring procedures and seniority, and telling part-time faculty about budget changes and how they would be affected. A third chair also described efforts to treat S/ST instructors professionally and to integrate them into the “culture” of the department, including the provision of centrally-located office space
One chair felt that S/ST work performed by new PhDs or by experts “can enrich the programs and help build the profession” but “longstanding reliance on per-course hiring” contradicts the academic principles that we “fight for on other fronts.”
QUESTION SEVEN
7. This final question refers to CLTA positions (contractual term positions, for a term of one year or longer, where the employee is paid by salary instead of stipend, as a lecturer or non-tenure-track assistant professor):
a) did your CLTA hiring for 2009-10 decrease, increase, or stay the same?
b) do you expect to have more, fewer, or the same CLTAs in 2010-11 as in 2009-10?
c) can you briefly describe the factors affecting your CLTA hires (example: maternity/parental or sabbatical leaves, budget cuts/increases, and so forth)?
Recognizing that the definition of a CLTA as a twelve-month position might be too restrictive, a further question was sent to chairs asking how they would answer if the CLTA was redefined as being for eight months or longer. This query was answered by 50 chairs, and those responses were used to modify their original responses when needed.
This question was designed in part to help respondents discriminate between S/ST and other forms of hiring, by including a separate question on CLTAs to differentiate them. But it yielded good results:
For 2009-10:
10 departments reported a decrease in CLTA hiring.
7 departments reported an increase in CLTA hiring.
16 departments reported that the situation stayed the same as in recent years.
26 departments said they had no CLTA positions.
2 departments did not respond to this question.
For 2010-11:
12 departments expected a decrease in CLTA hiring.
13 departments expected an increase in CLTA hiring.
11 departments expected the situation to stay the same as in 2009-10.
23 departments said they would have no CLTA positions.
2 departments did not respond to this question.
While more departments will have increased CLTA hiring in 2010-11 compared to 2009-10, this situation appears to be driven by the prevalence of shorter-term contracts. Asked about CLTAs of one-year or longer, only 7 (rather than 13) departments expected an increase next year.
Presumably the non-responding departments considered the question inapplicable and could be added to the “no CLTAs” category. However, even without them, over the two years covered by this survey between 32% and 42% of the responding departments reported having no CLTA positions. It is worth noting that this applies to C1 universities as well, of which 44% reported that they have no CLTA positions at all.
One department attributed the loss of a position to a new tenure-track hire; two said that the loss was caused by the “conversion” of CLTA-holders (or CLTA positions) into new teaching-stream appointments.
Asked about the main factors (other than budget) determining their employment of CLTAs, chairs offered the following:
9 cited sabbatical/research leave replacement
5 cited maternity leave replacement
5 cited replacement of new hires whose start was delayed, or faculty who had died or resigned
2 cited retirement replacements
2 cited special curricular needs
2 cited increased enrolments
2 cited the need to replace people on administrative secondments
1 cited spousal retention
One chair noted that their CLTA positions had declined because they preferred to use the money to retain sessionals. Another noted they preferred to hire S/ST instructors rather than CLTAs fearing that CLTA positions might “count against them” when requesting tenure-track positions.
Since CLTA positions, like sessional positions, can rise or decline for many reasons, there is no particular point in trying to correlate the responses of chairs to question seven to question one. The relative scarcity of CLTA positions (at least, judging by the number of institutions employing them) does, however, suggest that the decline or absence of CLTA positions may be one cause of increased sessional hiring where this occurs.
CONCLUSIONS
In the past, members of the profession have been concerned about the reliance of colleges and universities on sessional/stipendiary hiring, for many reasons: the unfairness of keeping large numbers of highly-trained people in underwaged positions with uncertain prospects; the waste of tax dollars and of research funds when highly-trained people are not properly deployed; the tendency of universities to scale-back tenure-track positions in favour of this highly “flexible” work force; the lack of curricular continuity resulting from annual (or even term-by-term) staffing changeovers; the morale problems of departments with “have” and “have not” staff.
In the past we have been concerned that there are too many sessional/stipendiary positions. It is a sign of the very changed academic landscape of the new millenium, that we should begin to worry that there are too few.
This survey covers only the year 2009-10 and (with some prognostication) 2010-11, and any conclusions must be made on the basis of this survey alone since there is no available prior data or current data for comparative purposes. (Statistics Canada covers only “full-time” postsecondary employment, does not make some necessary distinctions as to types of employment, and for budgetary reasons has cancelled earlier plans to collect data on “part-time” teachers in this sector.) Nonetheless, some conclusions may be drawn.
Whether we are witnessing the continuation of a downward trend that was already in motion, or more immediate cuts caused by the “economic downturn,” S/ST hiring in Canadian departments of English is decreasing and will continue to decrease. Tenure-track jobs have also declined sharply over the same period. According to figures supplied by University of Toronto Department of English placement officer Paul Stevens, there were 64 advertised tenure-track jobs in 2008-09 and 40 in 2009-10 (compare to 84 in 2006-07). This survey shows that CLTA positions, while relatively stable in terms of departments reporting increases and decreases, are few in number. In other words, S/ST staffing is declining even though other forms of academic employment are decreasing as well. Declining enrolments are not a factor: only one department of all those surveyed listed declining enrolments as a consideration.
Who is doing the work? First of all, it is the sessionals themselves, who face higher class sizes (and are being moved into high-demand ESL sections, composition courses, and summer school sessions). Second, it is the tenure-track and tenured faculty, whose salaries represent the only (so far) “uncuttable” item in a chair’s budget, who are also taking on larger classes, or classes with reduced TA support, or both, especially in institutions where they have never bargained workload-protection. Third, it is the graduate students, who are being moved from RA and TA positions into course instructorships, often relatively soon after their entry to the program. Fourth, it is being done by (what we might call) “retirement-track” faculty, who have postponed retirement, are phasing-out with reduced loads, or are teaching courses post-retirement.
Two groups appear to be especially adversely affected: long-service personnel in non-unionized situations; and new PhD holders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is difficult to know how to begin to unravel this tight knot of tangled strands: government under-funding, endowment losses, the end of compulsory retirement, the inflation of graduate school enrolments, university administrators’ favouring of medical, business, scientific and professional school faculties over the humanities... the list goes on. How do we begin the work of gaining, not “more” sessional/stipendiary positions, but more and better positions?
Here are some suggestions arising from this report, targetted in different ways:
For job seekers: the college and university-college sector is holding relatively steady, and offers interesting learner populations and interdisciplinary programs.
For chairs: a number of departments in non-urban and northern locations report they are having difficulty attracting applicants for their positions. It is worth publicizing postings widely.
For sessional/stipendiary instructors: unionization provides protection, at least if the jobs are there. And collective agreements can be used to modify job classifications, even if gradually.
For tenured and tenure-track faculty: Don’t take on, at least without protest, the work of people who are being laid off. Volunteerism and esprit de corps shouldn’t turn into a form of scabbing.
More for tenured and tenure-track faculty: unionize, and if you are already unionized, prioritize getting workload limits and class “caps.” You’ll save your sanity and other peoples’ jobs.
For graduate directors: try to communicate to administrators the costs to graduate students of carrying courses before they are ready. This is not the same as professional/pedagogic training.
For associations: scholarly and higher-education organizations need to push Statistics Canada to generate complete and meaningful employment indicators for the postsecondary sector.
For chairs again: keep saying what you already say to administrators. Inflated grad programs suck undergrad resources. Retirements need replacements. Teaching is more than contact hours.
For university administrators: recalculation is needed of the demographic impact of delayed retirements, whether willing or caused by the collapse of defined-contribution pension schemes.
For CFHSS: work with SSHRC and government lobbying are needed to make the case for many more postdoctoral fellowships, and new forms of teaching apprenticeships and bridge positions.
For policy makers: time to bring back the “two-tier hire” (confined to Canadian nationals and landed-status in the first search, with a later international search only if a hire cannot be made).
For everyone: we must communicate strongly to government and to the public the toll of chronic underfunding: we are losing both highly-trained teachers and our discipline’s next generation.
APPENDIX : THE RESPONSE POOL
While the CACE list was the basis for the email-out of this survey, some institutions on the CACE list are departments of Modern Languages with little hiring in English, and several chairs replied that the survey was not really applicable to their situations. On the other hand, there are departments in colleges and university-colleges that are not represented among the CACE membership. All degree-granting departments large enough to have an ACCUTE campus representative were contacted for this survey.
Some large C1 and C2 institutions have more than one department of English (eg. on separate campuses) in which cases the responses are recorded separately. All such departments are categorized according to the status of the larger institution in which they are located.
On the other hand, there are some small colleges (sometimes, but not always, of religious foundation) affiliated with larger institutions, and these have been placed in the C4 category.
How representative are these responses of the institutions in each category?
Category C1 (Medical/Doctoral). There were 16 responses drawn from 13 institutions, of a possible 14 institutions, meaning that 93% of C1 institutions are represented by one or more responses. (Note that there are 15 institutions in this category but Laval has no separate English department.)
Category C2 (Comprehensive). There were 11 responses drawn from 10 institutions, of a possible 11 institutions, meaning that 91% of C2 institutions are represented by one or more responses.
Category C3 (Primarily Undergraduate). There were 17 responses of 21 possible institutions, meaning that 81% of institutions in this category are represented. (Note that there are actually 22 institutions in this category but UOIT has no English department.)
Category 4 (Other). There were 17 responses from “other” institutions eg. small liberal arts colleges, small religious-foundation universities, university-colleges, and distant learning institutions. The possible size of this pool would be a matter of inclusion criteria so representativeness is not calculated .