Are Canadian-trained PhDs disadvantaged in the academic labor market?
A REVIEW OF THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CANADIAN SOCIOLOGY
There have been several attempts to record the history, and diagnose the shortcomings of Canadian sociology (Brym 2003; Cormier 2004; Hiller 1979; Johnston 2005; McLaughlin 2006). What is interesting to us is the almost uniform belief that Canadian sociology is irreversibly in decline and has been so since the late 1970s, a theme that pervades the discussions on this topic over the past 40 years (with Johnston 2005 as an exception). While our purpose is not to support or refute these assertions, we only wish to add substance to some of the claims that have been made on the subject, particularly in regard to the hiring of PhDs (1) who are trained in Canadian sociology departments. As a result, we come to a slightly different conclusion than many of our more esteemed peers; we think that although there may be some truth to some of the accusations, but overall the evidence suggests that Canadian-trained PhDs do find academic work in Canada. Contrary to popular belief, Canadian universities are, for the most part, hiring trained-in-Canada PhDs for tenure-track positions more frequently than those trained outside of Canada, but there are some notable exceptions.
There has been a healthy debate, particularly in our competitor journal, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, regarding the history, rise, and decline of the sociological enterprise in Canada. The reasons for this decline are varied: we are too focused on the "elephant next door" (the United States) and too insecure as Canadians (the mouse) to fully develop our own "brand" of Canadian sociology (Brym 2003; Cormier 2004). Others claim that the professors we are hiring are not "Canadian enough" (Brym and Saint-Pierre 1997; McLaughlin 2005) or the effect of the Canadianization movement (Cormier 2004; Hiller 1979) has led us to hire perceivably inferior Canadian candidates over other more qualified non-Canadian sociologists. A more pervasive an argument is that the large and more academically "important" sociology departments evade the "hire Canadians first" rule by making job descriptions so specific, few Canadians are eligible to apply, meaning the more "prestigious" institutions can make an easier case for hiring foreign-trained non-Canadians for professorships in Canadian universities (McLaughlin 2005). While these arguments are attractive, we argue that they may not apply to most sociology departments today (albeit with some exceptions).
It was interesting to review the historical literature on the development and maturation of sociology in Canada. We learned several issues associated to the development of sociology in Canada. First, the "hire Canadians first policy" in all universities across all institutions was largely made possible by the lobbying efforts of the Canadian Sociological and Anthropological Association (CSAA) in the late 1970s (Hiller 1979). Second, the CSAA did not exist as its own entity until 1965, existing as a subgroup of the Canadian Political Studies Association until that time. Third, the University of Toronto sociology department was censured between 1975 and 1977 because 75 percent of the professors were non-Canadians and Simon Fraser's Department of Politics, Sociology, and Anthropology was censured and boycotted for a period of 17 years (Cormier 2004) but for different reasons. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the Porter Prize winning books are not among the most cited books in Canadian sociology. As a result, there is no connection between winning "the" most coveted prize and intellectual influence of the work of other Canadian sociologists (Nock (2) 2001). Last, Canadian-produced Francophone sociology enjoys a much stronger position internationally because it has evolved into quite a distinct world (Nock 2001:471) compared to Anglophone sociology in Canada. Brym (2003) argues that "due to differences in language and intellectual tradition, the attractions of American sociology hardly threaten Quebecois sociologists" and that "these protective barriers are largely absent in the Anglo-Canadian case" (p. 411). In short, Francophone sociologists are largely insulated from American and British influences according to this argument (Brym and Saint-Pierre 1997).
We would like to note that this is a great simplification of Francophone sociology given the excellent research work that has been produced in that province. Most importantly, we learned that when researching the development of sociology within Canada the fear of American domination of our discipline looms large. It is interesting to note the parallels exist between the fear of American influence in our discipline with the fear of American commercialization and foreign ownership of our economy. It is hardly surprising that the enterprise of sociology cannot be divorced from the influences outside of academe.
The "Devaluation" of a Canadian PhD? Hardly
The primary author was a panelist at the 2012 CSA general meetings in Kitchener-Waterloo where a question from the audience identified the supposed "preference" among some sociology departments in Canada for foreign-trained, particularly American-trained sociologists. It is an argument that is similar to those made by McLaughlin (2005) and others. (3) At the CSA conference, all panel members agreed that hiring non-Canadians was not a widespread practice and in fact, the hiring of non-Canadians may contravene Canadian labor laws. Under Canadian employment legislation, universities, because they are publicly funded institutions, must hire all qualified Canadians prior to considering non-Canadians. The point the audience members made, however, was that Canadian students would be better pursuing their graduate work outside of Canada if they ever hoped to be considered for employment at a Canadian university. This boisterous discussion caused an extended email discussion among the panel members and resulted in an article in University Affairs (Siebarth 2012) claiming that the panelists had it all wrong, there is a preference among universities to hire PhDs trained outside of Canada. What we realized was that the panelists had likely misinterpreted the audience's question. They were not asking about non-Canadian hires in sociology departments. Rather, they were concerned that Canadians who were being trained outside of Canada were more advantaged in the hiring process than their peers who were trained in Canada.
Worth noting is what the "hire Canadians first" legislation really means. There was a major change to this law in 2002. Prior to 2002, non-Canadians could not be considered as shortlist candidates during the first posting of an academic job vacancy. Because universities are publicly funded institutions with more than 1,000 employees, jobs must be advertised and a shortlist of Canadian (4) candidates must be identified. In the first round of interviews, only Canadian or permanent residents of Canada could be considered for the shortlist. If the shortlist did not produce a hirable Canadian candidate, then the committee could interview foreign applicants in round two. If the shortlist produced a qualified Canadian candidate, then the position must be awarded to that candidate. This legislation was amended in 2002. Now hiring committees can consider foreign academics in round one, but the shortlist must contain at least one qualified Canadian. If, after the interviews are conducted, the Canadian is deemed to be qualified, then the job must be given to that candidate. If the Canadian candidate is not considered "qualified," then the job may be given to a foreign candidate. These new rules mean that foreign candidates have a better chance of being selected for the position under post-2002 rules because they do not have to wait until the second round of interviews to be considered for the position. Much of the decision about what constitutes a "qualified" candidate revolves around the wording of the job posting. Human resource departments increasingly rely on the job ad to make the determination of whether or not the candidate is "qualified." If the foreign candidate is selected, job search committees are asked to justify the selection of the non-Canadian candidate by completing a form. The form must state why the Canadian(s) on the shortlist were not qualified and why the selected foreign candidate has the qualifications necessary to fulfill the job requirements. Anecdotal evidence, from speaking with numerous colleagues across Canada on this matter, reveals that some departments may be posting very constrained, finite job postings that would disqualify most Canadian applicants. This may not be a very wise strategy as the pool of qualified candidates applying for a position may be limited. Unfortunately, we were unable to verify this practice.
Results from our own investigation reveal that the evidence for the preference for internationally-trained preference is tenuous, at best, for most Canadian sociology departments. This phenomenon, however, has been documented in other disciplines. In a much quoted article, Groarke and Fenske (2009) report that 70 percent of faculty members in philosophy departments had earned their degrees outside of Canada. Gingras' (2010) data partially substantiates this argument and indicates that in the social sciences, only 55 percent of professors employed in 2005 hold PhDs obtained from Canadian universities, a figure that is nearly the same as at the height of the Canadianization movement in the 1980s. His data did not extract the sociology departments from the other social sciences--so we are left to guess at the rate of Canadian-trained versus internationally-trained professors in Canada.
A recent Statistics Canada (Desjardins 2012) survey of 2005 graduates of PhD programs in Ontario, however, reveals interesting results that help contextualize the "crisis" in the Canadianization movement in the academe. Although limited to a single province (and sociologists are combined with psychology graduates), nearly two-thirds of all Ontario graduates of PhD programs in these fields were working at educational institutions (though they do not differentiate tenure-track from sessional appointments) in Canada while nearly 50 percent of those educated elsewhere in Canada were working in this industry (Desjardins 2012). In short, most PhD graduates find work--most in Canada and a majority within the education sector. When faced with these mixed results we then asked ourselves, were we wrong in the assumption that students trained in Canadian universities were more likely than those trained elsewhere to gain employment in Canadian universities?
A series of very provocative and interesting articles was published in the Canadian Journal of Sociology between 2002 and 2006. The most compelling garnering significant attention is by Neil McLaughlin (2005). Using data collected from select universities in 1997, he demonstrates that 11 percent of faculty members hired by Canadian universities were MA- and PhD-trained in Great Britain with 35 percent trained in the United States. His findings echo those of Curtis, Connor, and Harp (1970; cf., Hiller 1979) who report that among professors holding PhDs at the time, 72 percent were trained in the United States. The reasons behind this tendency are very clear. Until the 1970s, sociology departments had little choice but to hire non-Canadian-trained sociologists due to the lack of PhD programs in Canada, which was combined with a significant growth in university enrollments throughout the 1960s and 1970s, which increased the need for Canadian institutions to hire internationally-trained PhDs in almost all disciplines, particularly sociology. Hiller (1979) reports that university enrollments in Canada between 1961 and 1965 jumped by 81 percent. To keep up with demand, sociology departments needed to hire foreign-trained sociologists in large numbers. Only 19 PhDs in sociology were awarded in Canada in the 1960s, so a large number of foreign-trained professors were hired to teach the arrivals of the baby boomer cohort.
While it was necessary to hire foreign-trained professors to deal with the increased number of students in Canadian universities in the 1960s and 1970s, this led to the Canadianization movement in many institutions, with sociology being arguably the discipline examining this issue with the greatest passion of all academic disciplines (Cormier 2002; Hiller 1979). It was this Canadianization movement that has partially fuelled the hype and mythology surrounding the belief that foreign-trained sociologists still dominate academics in Canadian universities. It is this debate into which we now enter. McLaughlin's (2005) well-argued and much discussed paper in the Canadian Journal of Sociology describes a crisis in Canadian sociology where the top six departments in the country continue to maintain a tradition of hiring non-Canadian-trained sociologists for academic positions. In his paper, McLaughlin (2006) finds a large number of the sociologists in these six departments (Alberta, McGill, McMaster, University of British Columbia, University of Toronto, and Western University (5)) are trained outside of the country.
We do not dispute this evidence. He is correct. Most PhDs in these departments were obtained elsewhere. What we wondered about was whether or not these observations could be replicated in other departments.
We expand McLaughlin's (2005) small-scale study by examining more departments and to classify professors by rank and where they obtained their doctoral degree. We knew we had to control for the date of hire as this would largely eliminate the "influence" of the foreign-trained academics who were hired of necessity (those trained in the 1960s, 1970s), as their presence in the departments currently may skew the hiring data today. A good, albeit still inaccurate way to measure current hiring trends would be to limit our analysis to those who are recently hired as assistant professors, a group who would have been hired in the previous one to seven years. While it is possible that some tenured professors never advance beyond the rank of assistant, these are relatively few in number. We wished to have a more thorough measure of place of training by including those within the ranks of associate and full professor, but this information is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to locate. Many departments do not list the place of highest degree and almost none provide information on the date of hire. Since the number of assistant professors who have not been promoted to associate is small, however, we feel that we have a reasonably good measure of the state of hiring in Canadian universities right now. By focusing on assistant professors, we can say with greater certainty whether or not hiring practices among Canadian sociology maintains a preference for foreign-trained professors over Canadian-trained ones. Readers should note, however, that this investigation should be considered a preliminary analysis only. It was incredibly difficult to obtain accurate information about the place of origin for assistant professors. We relied on department Web sites and found that there were several that did not provide this information, nor were we able to verify the place of origin for PhD-trained academics using other means such as online searches of their CVs and other sources of information.
We also broaden the scope of our analysis beyond McLaughlin's six "big" departments. We widen our survey to include undergraduate and graduate degree programs. (6) There are, however, additional challenges with our task. We recognize sociology is an interdisciplinary discipline and graduates teach in many departments outside of those identified as sociology. It was not possible for us to consider professors who are working as tenure-track professors outside of these departments. For instance, there are sociologists working in business schools--there is no easy way to identify and verify them. As such, they were excluded from our analysis.
Once we determined the number of sociology departments, the team visited their Web sites. Departmental Web sites are used in this study to view the faculty profile pages. The data supplied on profile pages varied. We define a complete faculty profile page as stating the faculty members' position (assistant professor) and where they earned their PhDs (university name). Those profiles that state their faculty position but not where their credentials are earned are categorized as missing data unless we could verify the information using another source (such as online search for CVs and/or personal knowledge of the individual). Additionally, faculty members who are cross-listed with other departments or were sociologists but not employed by a sociology department were excluded because we would be unable to accurately identify the sociologists among these groups. Furthermore, we recognize the fluctuating nature of this type of data since faculty hiring, promotions, and departures are independent individualistic occurrences as are updating of faculty profiles. Therefore, it should be noted that this data is a snapshot of data collected between October 2012 and December 2012 and that this information is constantly changing. This type of database is the first of its kind as there are no unified records of the number of assistant professors who earned their credentials in Canada who are working in Canadian institutions or institutions outside of Canada.
Our findings are revealing. One hundred and thirty-five Web sites were examined. Of those, 56 departments had a complete list of the professors and from where their degrees were obtained. Regrettably, some departments had to be omitted because faculty member information regarding rank was not available. The major institutions among the omitted were Queen's University, Dalhousie University, Mt. Allison University, Lakehead University, Moncton University, University of Lethbridge, and Universite du Quebec a Montrel. Of the 56 institutions remaining, 189 assistant professors could be identified by rank. Of these, 13 had incomplete information about from where their professors obtained their highest degree, accounting for 23 percent of our data. In these cases, faculty member profiles were incomplete (e.g., did not state from where degree was obtained). Of these 13 institutions, 38 percent are medical/large universities (n = 5) and primarily undergraduate/small universities (n = 5), 15 percent are comprehensive/mid-sized universities (n = 2), and 8 percent are colleges (n = 1). We calculated an adjusted tally of assistant professors, which removed those with partial or missing data for each institution.
Two-thirds (67 percent) of assistant professors currently employed at Canadian institutions received their PhD training in Canada (see Table 1). A closer examination reveals, however, that there are interesting patterns in hiring between the medical/large, comprehensive/mid-sized, and primarily undergraduate/small institutions. We use the Maclean's magazine operationalization of medical/large, comprehensive/mid-sized, and primarily undergraduate/small institutions (7) to determine the categorization of the department and institution. As the size of the academic institution decreases, the number of Canadian-trained assistant professors increases. The medical/larger institutions have the lowest rate of Canadian-trained assistant professors at 44 percent, whereas the comprehensive/mid-sized (72 percent), the primarily undergraduate/small (83 percent), and colleges (91 percent) report higher rates of Canadian-trained assistant professors.
Some of Neil McLaughlin's (2005) findings can also be substantiated with the results of our work. His work shows there are some departments where the number of assistant professors trained overseas greatly outnumbers those trained in Canada. These patterns are seen in the bigger medical universities as our results reveal in Table 2. We must be cautious, however, as we are dealing with small numbers. We organized the location of PhD training for assistant professors by region: Canada, United States (U.S.), and Europe (E.U.). (8) Universities with the highest percentage of U.S.-trained PhDs who are assistant professors are McGill (100 percent), and Western University (100 percent; see Table 2). Universities with the highest percentage of assistant professors with degrees from European institutions are University of New Brunswick (100 percent), Grenfell College (100 percent), Universite de Montrel (50 percent), University of Ontario of Technology (33 percent), and Memorial University (17 percent). Clearly, there is a pattern where the number of institutions having a "preference" for European-trained scholars is smaller than the "preference" for American-trained scholars. Other institutions have few Canadian-trained PhDs. The University of British Columbia, with six assistant professors (according to their Web site), claims only 20 percent (n = 1) obtained a PhD from a Canadian institution. At the University of Toronto, of the 10 assistant professors listed on their Web site, only 13 percent (n = 1) have obtained PhDs from a Canadian institution. Simon Fraser University, University of Calgary, and University of Ontario of Technology also have fewer than 50 percent of assistant professors trained in Canada.
If we examine all of the universities (n = 56), the trend is different. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent, n = 35) have more Canadian-trained assistant professors than those trained elsewhere. Of these 35 departments, 29 have exclusively Canadian-trained assistant professors. In short, when the numbers are examined in aggregate, most departments have a preference for hiring Canadian-trained assistant professors. This does not mean that some departments are free from an anti-Canadian bias, but the number of institutions where this is a problem is smaller than we are led to believe.
Despite the limited available data, this paper identifies important information regarding the issue of Canadian-training of our professors. The mythology around the preference for foreign-trained PhDs is largely unfounded, except among some of the medical/large universities. Most sociology departments in Canada hire assistant professors with PhDs obtained in Canada. There are notable exceptions, but for the most part, the Canadianization movement has largely succeeded in promoting the hiring of Canadian-trained candidates first, at least in our discipline. It is, however, important to recognize that it is healthy and desirable to have professors with training from a wide range of countries within departments. Students need to be exposed to different ways of thinking and conceptualizing within the discipline, so limiting or preferring Canadian-hires is not always a good practice. Furthermore, departments that continue to hire only their own graduates (and there are a few) also may find themselves becoming stagnant and less relevant in the near future. This does not mean that departments should not hire their own graduates, as this is a signal to other students that the quality of graduates from that department is worthy of hiring. However, departments that depend too much on their own graduates may not be giving their students the diversity in study that is so highly valued in our globalized world. We Canadians have much to learn from the world and to shut out those trained elsewhere to uphold a policy that is preferential to Canadians is also doing our students a disservice.
Where do we go from here? First, we think the debate about the quality and health of Canadian sociology needs to continue. A discipline that does not critically examine itself will soon become dated and irrelevant. Second, a more thorough investigation of where sociologists are trained should be undertaken and would be welcomed. This information is regularly published in university calendars. Since most calendars are being digitized, the Web presence of this information should not be troublesome but may be difficult to separate the assistant from associate and full professor ranks. Third, and this question is more difficult, it would be nice to have some record of the number of Canadian-trained sociologists and Canadian citizen sociologists working abroad and those working in nonsociology departments. This would give the CSA and Canadian sociology an idea of the impact of our training worldwide. This data, however, will be even more difficult to track as there is currently no mechanism to register this information. Alternatively, a survey might be a useful way to glean this information, though we realize that response rates for surveys have been dropping dramatically. If there were an easier way to clearly identify sociologists who are practicing in nonsociology departments, we would have an even better picture.
Finally, our reading of the discussions on this topic reveals what we feel is a quintessential Canadian characteristic. We continue to be too worried about the influence of outsiders on the health of our discipline and neglect to do enough critical reflection on the quality and contributions that Canadian sociologists make to international sociology and to the societies we live in. As the papers in this special issue of the CRS show, the contributions made by Canadian sociologists span many subdisciplines and have made an impact on sociological theory, methodology, and practice worldwide. We need to be less humble about our contributions and be less concerned about the "creep" of other disciplines and ideologies internationally. Part of this inner reflection means that we must maintain the periodic and lively debates on the well-being of our discipline.
Brym, R. 2003. "Note on the Discipline: The Decline of Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association." Canadian Journal of Sociology 28(3):411-16.
Brym, R. and C. Saint-Pierre. 1997. "Sociology around the World (Part 2): Canadian Sociology." Contemporary Sociology 26(5):543-46.
Cormier, J.J. 2002. "Nationalism, Activism, and the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Community." The American Sociologist 33(1):12-26.
Cormier, J.J. 2004. "The Impact of Movements: Bureaucratic Insurgency, Canadianization and the CSAA." Canadian Review of Sociology 41(2):195-215.
Curtis, J.E., D. Connor and J. Harp. 1970. "An Emergent Professional Community: French and English Sociologists and Anthropologists in Canada." Social Science Information 9:113-36.
Desjardins, L. 2012. Profile and Labour Market Outcomes of PhD Graduates in Ontario. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Gingras, Y. 2010. "The End of the Canadianization Movement: A Globalization By-Product?" University Affairs, November 8. Retrieved September 2, 2012 (http://www.universityaffairs.ca/end-of-the-canadianization-movement.aspx).
Groarke, L. and W. Fenske. 2009. "PhD to What End?" University Affairs. Retrieved September 2, 2012 (http://www.universityaffairs.ca/phd-to-what-end.aspx).
Hiller, H. 1979. "The Canadian Sociology Movement: Analysis and Assessment." Canadian Journal of Sociology 4(2):125-50.
Jarvey, P., A. Usher and L. McElroy. 2012. Making Research Count: Analyzing Canadian Academic Publishing Cultures. Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
Johnston, J. 2005. "Second Shift of Canadian Sociology: Setting Sociological Standards in a Global Era." Canadian Journal of Sociology 30(4):513-27.
McLaughlin, N. 2005. "Canada's Impossible Science: Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis in Anglo-Canadian Sociology." Canadian Journal of Sociology 30(1):1-40.
McLaughlin, N. 2006. "Either the Future of Canadian Sociology? Thoughts on Moving Forward." Canadian Journal of Sociology 31(1):107-30.
Nock, D.A. 2001. "Careers in Print: Canadian Sociological Books and Their Wider Impact, 1975-1992." Canadian Journal of Sociology 26(3):469-85.
Siebarth, T. 2012. "Hiring in Sociology: Canadian Trained Academics Preferred." University Affairs. Retrieved September 2, 2012 (http://www.universityaffairs.ca/ hiring-in-sociology.aspx).
LORI WILKINSON, JANINE BRAMADAT, RACHEL DOLYNCHUK, AND ZOE T. ST. AUBIN
University of Manitoba
Lori Wilkinson, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba, 183 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2. E-mail: Lori.Wilkinson@umanitoba.ca
(1) Our gratitude also extends to Sherry Fox, Administrator for the Canadian Sociological Association (CSA), and John Goyder, past CSA President, who assisted in locating archival information needed to complete this paper. Finally, we are thankful for the detailed comments and suggestions made by the authors of the other articles in this special issue of the CRS. We define "Canadian-trained" as earning a PhD from a Canadian university.
(2) We are still waiting for Nock or someone else to take up the promise to examine the impact of Canadian sociological books from 1992 onward. We think this would be an excellent way to investigate the international and national influences on Canadian sociology today.
(3) For the record, we think this is a valid argument. What we question is the inordinate attention paid to this matter despite the lack of empirical evidence to support or refute this belief.
(4)"Canadian" means born in Canada, a naturalized citizen, or a person holding a valid permanent residency.
(5) We will let readers decide whether or not these departments could be considered the "top" sociology departments in Canada. We find it interesting that Queen's University whose sociologists top the H-Index in terms of output and influence on research were completely absent from this list (Jarvey, Usher, and McElroy 2012).
(6) It is important to note that a number of departments we examined did not provide this information for their professors. There are also a number of small institutions that either do not have PhD-trained professors or are small and have no assistant professors at this time. We tried to verify this data using the Guide to Sociology Departments published by the American Sociological Association, but when we cross-referenced their data, it too was inaccurate, particularly for information regarding newly hired assistant professors.
(7) We understand that the methodology of Maclean's magazine in their annual university rankings issue is fraught with problems. However, their categorization of universities based on size and availability of academic programs is relatively straightforward and provides the reader with relatively useful comparative information.
(8) We could not locate any assistant professor who was not trained in Canada, the United States, or in Europe.
Table 1 Canadian-Trained Assistant Professors by Size, October-December, 2012 Assistant Studied in Studied Institution Size Professors Canada Abroad Medical/large 59 23 29 universities 66 Comprehensive/ 41 16 mid-sized Primarily under- 49 30 6 graduate/small Colleges 15 10 1 Total 189 104 52 Missing Adjusted Canadian Institution Size Data Total Trained % Medical/large 7 52 44% universities 66 Comprehensive/ 9 57 72% mid-sized Primarily under- 13 36 83% graduate/small Colleges 4 11 91% Total 33 156 67% Table 2 Origin of Training of Assistant Professors by Institution and Size, October-December, 2012 Canadian U.S. E.U. Trained Trained Trained Medical/large universities Laval Universite 100% 0% 0% McGill University 0 100% 0% McMaster University 50% 50% 0% Universite de Montreal 50% 0% 50% University of Alberta 67% 33% 0% University of British Columbia 20% 80% 0% University of Calgary 33% 67% 0% University of Manitoba 71% 14% 14% University of Ottawa 100% 0% 0% University of Saskatchewan 100% 0% 0% University of Toronto 13% 88% 0% Western University 0% 100% 0% Comprehensive/mid-sized universities Athabasca University 100% 0% 0% Brock University 100% 0% 0% Canadian University College 0% 0% 0% Carleton University 60% 40% 0% Concordia University 50% 50% 0% Memorial University 67% 17% 17% Ryerson University 86% 0% 14% Simon Fraser University 33% 67% 0% St. Thomas University 50% 50% 0% Trinity Western University 100% 0% 0% Universite Saint-Paul 100% 0% 0% University of Guelph 0% 0% 0% University of New Brunswick 0% 0% 100% University of Regina 100% 0% 0% University of Victoria 50% 50% 0% University of Waterloo 100% 0% 0% University of Windsor 0% 0% 0% Wilfrid Laurier University 100% 0% 0% York University 80% 10% 10% Primarily undergraduate/small universities Acadia University 100% 0% 0% Algoma University 100% 0% 0% Augustana University College 100% 0% 0% Bishops' Universtiy 100% 0% 0% Brandon University 100% 0% 0% Cape Breton University 50% 50% 0% Crandall University 100% 0% 0% Laurentian University 100% 0% 0% Mount St. Vincent University 50% 50% 0% Nipissing University 100% 0% 0% Saint Mary's University 0% 0% 0% St. Francis Xavier 100% 0% 0% Thompson River University 100% 0% 0% Trent University 0% 0% 0% University of Ontario of 33% 33% 33% Technology University of Prince Edward 100% 0% 0% Island University of St. Jerome's 100% 0% 0% College University of Winnipeg 100% 0% 0% Colleges Canadian Nazarene College 100% 0% 0% Boothe University College 100% 0% 0% Glendon College 100% 0% 0% Grenfell College 0% 0% 100% King's University College 100% 0% 0% Providence College and 100% 0% 0% Theological Seminary St. Thomas Moore 100% 0% 0% Adjusted Total Total Assistant Missing Assistant Professors Data Professors Medical/large universities Laval Universite i 0 1 McGill University 4 0 4 McMaster University 6 0 6 Universite de Montreal 2 0 2 University of Alberta 10 1 9 University of British Columbia 6 1 5 University of Calgary 3 0 3 University of Manitoba 7 0 7 University of Ottawa 4 1 3 University of Saskatchewan 3 2 1 University of Toronto 10 2 8 Western University 3 0 3 Comprehensive/mid-sized universities Athabasca University 3 0 3 Brock University 4 0 4 Canadian University College 4 4 0 Carleton University 5 0 5 Concordia University 2 0 2 Memorial University 6 0 6 Ryerson University 7 0 7 Simon Fraser University 3 0 3 St. Thomas University 4 0 4 Trinity Western University 1 0 1 Universite Saint-Paul 1 0 1 University of Guelph 1 1 0 University of New Brunswick 2 0 2 University of Regina 1 0 1 University of Victoria 4 0 4 University of Waterloo 2 0 2 University of Windsor 4 4 0 Wilfrid Laurier University 2 0 2 York University 10 0 10 Primarily undergraduate/small universities Acadia University i 0 1 Algoma University 3 0 3 Augustana University College 1 0 1 Bishops' Universtiy 1 0 1 Brandon University 3 0 3 Cape Breton University 3 1 2 Crandall University 1 0 1 Laurentian University 2 1 1 Mount St. Vincent University 2 0 2 Nipissing University 4 0 4 Saint Mary's University 3 3 0 St. Francis Xavier 5 0 5 Thompson River University 2 0 2 Trent University 3 3 0 University of Ontario of 6 0 6 Technology University of Prince Edward 1 0 1 Island University of St. Jerome's 1 0 1 College University of Winnipeg 7 5 2 Colleges Canadian Nazarene College 2 0 2 Boothe University College 1 0 1 Glendon College 1 0 1 Grenfell College 1 0 1 King's University College 6 4 2 Providence College and 1 0 1 Theological Seminary St. Thomas Moore 3 0 3
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||RESEARCH NOTE|
|Author:||Wilkinson, Lori; Bramadat, Janine; Dolynchuk, Rachel; St. Aubin, Zoe T.|
|Publication:||Canadian Review of Sociology|
|Date:||Aug 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||From ethnicity to race in the Canadian Review of Sociology, 1964 to 2010.|
|Next Article:||Mary Janigan, Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark: The West versus the Rest since Confederation.|