The CACE/ACCUTE Hiring Survey, 2008-2009
The 2008-2009 survey can be found in the June 2009 ACCUTE Newsletter.
The CACE/ACCUTE Hiring Survey, 2006-2007
Prepared by Daniel Paul O'Donnell (Lethbridge) with material supplied by Paul Bidwell (Saskatchewan)
Introduction: In 1996 many doctoral candidates (& ACCUTE members) became increasingly concerned by rumours that most tenure-track jobs annually advertised in English in Canada were going to candidates (whether Canadian or not) who held PhD degrees from non-Canadian universities. In order to assess the substance of these rumours, ACCUTE commissioned Professor Heather Murray (Toronto) to conduct a systematic survey of hiring in Canada over the previous 10 years (1987-97). The Murray Report (ACCUTE Newsletter Summer 1998) established that over the ten-year period under investigation 36% of tenure-track positions had in fact gone to candidates with non-Canadian PhDs, though only 3% of those candidates were non-Canadians. As a result of the valuable information produced by the Murray Report on this issue and others, ACCUTE and CACE decided to institute an annual survey of hiring in English in Canada. The first annual survey (1998-99) appeared in the ACCUTE Newsletter for June 1999.[1]
General Observations: By late May, most hiring is in hand, though some places are still recruiting tenure-track, contractually limited term, and per-class (sessional) appointees. This year, by the time CACE met on 25 May at the University of Saskatchewan, 22 institutions had reported some data on hiring or their department statistics. This compares to 42 institutions in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (in the following report, figures from the current year are in bold type, figures from 2005-2006 are in square brackets). The discrepancy is almost certainly attributable to two factors: a change in the way information was collected this year, and the relatively short period of time during which members could report their statistics.
This year, CACE went to a web-based form for collecting data. This has the advantage of providing instant results and offering members the opportunity to update their statistics over the course of the year. Because different forms were used to report different aspects of the survey (Tenure Track Hiring, CLTA hiring, Department Statistics), however, many departments only partially completed the survey. 10 departments, for example, initially provided hiring data but did not complete the department statistics section.
Developing the web-based form also took longer than originally anticipated. This had the result of greatly shrinking the window during which statistics were collected. All the statistics in this year's report were collected during a three week period in May immediately before the meeting.
Addressing the first problem will require changes in the design of the website and a rationalisation of the data collected, several of which (as has been reported in previous years) are inherently problematic and/or unreliable. For the 2006-2007 report we built the website using previous year's paper forms as our model. We will be optimising this data to reflect the different strengths and weaknesses of computer collection for next year.
With the roll-out of the site, the second problem has been addressed. The new method of collection allows departments to add or edit information throughout the course of the year. With some minor changes to the workflow, it should be possible to encourage departments to use the CACE website throughout the year to reflect changes in the department faculty and graduate programmes.
Statistical Summary
The following statistics represent the institutions completing the survey. This year’s numbers are in bold face type, last year’s are bracketed.
Faculty
22 [42] institutions answered some or all of these questions.
Overall Faculty Complement:
· Considering all teaching faculty (tenured and temporary appointments), 11 (50%) institutions reported that they expanded in size [vs. 8 (19%)] , 3 (14%) reported that they declined [vs. 7 (17%)], and 7 (36%) reported that they maintained their faculty complement [vs. 26 (62%)]. An additional 1 department reported a search, but did not indicate whether its faculty complement increased or decreased.[2]
Current Totals of Tenure-track, CLTA and Per-class Sessionals:
· Total tenure-track faculty reported: 466 [962.6].
· Total CLTA reported: 51 [108.5].
· Total per-class sessionals: 373.5 [739].[3]
New Tenure-track positions:[4]
· Advertised: 46 [65]; filled 38 [52]; still on-going (as of May 2007) 5; not filled 3.
· The gender of the successful candidate was reported in 34 cases (i.e. 74% of the time): of these 22 (65%) were female, 12 (35%) male [in 2005-2006 the reported ratio was 50:50].
· The citizenship of the successful candidate was also reported in 34 cases: of these 25 (74%) were Canadian; 9 (26%) non-Canadian [in 2005-2006 the ratio was 75:25].
New or Renewed CLTA positions:[5]
· Advertised: 17 [56].
· The gender of the successful candidate was reported in 16 cases: 10 (63%) male : 6 (38%) female [vs. 58:42 in 2005-2006].
· The citizenship of the successful candidate was reported in 16 cases: 15 Canadian : 1 non-Canadian.
PhD. Programmes:
9 institutions reported activity in their PhD programmes. Together, they admitted 99 [150] students and graduated 41 [90]. The departments also reported that 40 PhD graduates had obtained jobs last year (though these presumably are not all from from the same cohort): 15 in Tenure Track jobs [vs. 34 in 2005-2006], 6 in CLTA appointments [vs. 13 in 2005-2006], 6 in Post Doctoral positions, and the remainder either in sessional appointments or other work.
Five year summary of PhD graduate success in finding positions.[6]
Note: This is not a cumulative figure, merely each year’s report on those who have found various types of employment soon after being graduated.
M.A. Programmes
12 departments reported activity in their M.A. programmes, a new statistic added to this year's survey in response to discussion on the listserv. Collectively, these programmes reported accepting 222 new students and graduating 214.
Conclusion
Although this year's report suffered some problems due to the change in format, the statistics are largely comparable to those of previous years. Most relative scores (such as percentage of students placed or the ratio of students admitted to and graduating from PhD programmes) are similar to those reported in other years based on larger samples. Absolute numbers (such as the number of advertised positions) tend to reflect the smaller sample size in the 2007 survey proportionately. The few statistics that do not show this congruence or proportionality are in areas that have fluctuated relatively significantly from year to year in previous surveys as well.
The 2007 survey did not address several persistent methodological problems in the annual survey which have been discussed at previous CACE meetings. The most significant of these involve information about total faculty complement and PhD placements, both of which are collected in ways that allow institutions to report different types of information depending on their interpretation of the question. In the case of the question pertaining to total faculty complement, this can be solved by improving the wording of the question. In the case of questions regarding PhD placement, addressing the problem will require a change in the nature of the information collected.
[1] The publication of the 2007 report was delayed due to a problem with the reported data. In particular, a number of institutions did not fill in the section of the survey that pertained to graduate student placement. Additional data for this section was collected after the annual CACE meeting.
[2] This number cannot be calculated independently because of the wide variety of factors other than hiring (e.g. illness, death, and retirement) that can affect the total faculty complement. CACE has never surveyed for information about these other factors.
[3] Some departments report the number of individual sessions taught by per-course employees; others report the number of employees on per-course contracts.
[4] Due to an error in the design of the database, statistics on whether candidates had Canadian or non-Canadian PhDs are not comparable to previous years' statistics. In keeping with a decision at the 2006 meeting, statistics on visible minority hiring are no longer reported as several institutions are legally prevented from recording this information.
[5] Due to an error in the design of the database, statistics on whether candidates had Canadian or non-Canadian PhDs are not comparable to previous years' statistics. In keeping with a decision at the 2006 meeting, statistics on visible minority hiring are no longer reported as several institutions are legally prevented from recording this information.
[6] Although this year's figures for PhD placement show a similar success rate to that of previous years, it is highly likely that this statistic misrepresents the actual number of PhDs placed. As in previous years, this is partially an artifact of the data collection, as many respondents report that the categories used to collect the data are unclear: some institutions report statistics only for the current graduating class; others report all hires made in the current year; others report all students whom they know to be hired. In 2007, the use of a web-based form appeared to introduce an additional complication as a significant number of departments did not fill in this section of the survey. After the CACE meeting, departments that did not fill in this part of the survey were contacted individually. This table includes these late results. At the CACE meeting, it was decided to alter this section of the survey future years in order to produce more meaningful results.