No abstract

This paper examines policy responses in higher education in the months of March and April 2020 during the rapid unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose is to map responses and compare levels of coordination between three actors-the Canadian federal government, the Ontario provincial government, and Ontario's publicly funded colleges and universities-and to consider the policy implications of these initial responses for higher education's future recovery from the pandemic. Conceptualizing COVID-19 as both a wicked problem and, in the Canadian context, a complex intergovernmental problem, the paper draws on over 200 data points from public announcements made by these three actors. It uses an emergency management framework to present a chronological comparison of actors' actions during the response and mitigation phases focusing on four areas: academic mobility, teaching and learning, research initiatives, and student support. Actions to support higher education were largely dispersed and uncoordinated in the two key months of March and April 2020. Colleges and universities were proactive in restricting academic mobility, adapting teaching and learning, and providing student support. There was some alignment with the federal government's responses, although federal announcements focused more on research initiatives and, latterly, student support. The Ontario government did not appear to play a significant role in shaping the initial higher education responses to the pandemic. Despite the disconnect between responses, we argue that all three actors will play an equally critical role in the future recovery and necessary rethinking of the functions and purpose of higher education.

This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of “elite” by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper’s approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.