ࡱ> '` bjbj"9"9 :8@S@S: :::8;; Vd<<"<<<>>>ccccccc$մhc>>c<<4c(xZxZxZR<<cxZRcxZxZ\]<< p+z::\U(]]$d<Vd].iX.i].i]|>ExZJ N>>>cc ZX>>>VdRRRR   2:   :     The Changing Academic Profession in Canada: Perceptions of Canadian University Faculty on Research and Teaching Bryan Gopaul Glen A. Jones Julian Weinrib Higher Education Group Ontario Institute for Studies in Education ݮƵ DRAFT: May 25, 2012 This paper was prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) entitled Crossroads in Higher Education: Which Way Forward? University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, May 28-30, 2012. The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Ontario Research Chair in Postsecondary Education Policy and Measurement. This research chair was endowed by a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities administered by the Council of Ontario Universities. Information on other publications from the Canadian CAP project, can be found at  HYPERLINK "http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/hec" www.oise.utoronto.ca/hec The Changing Academic Profession in Canada: Perceptions of Canadian University Faculty on Research and Teaching Introduction: There has been an increasing interest in studying the experiences of university professors over the last two decades (Acker 2003; Finklestein 2010, 1984; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006; Sorencini & Austin, 1992). The demands of public trustees and policy makers for greater transparency in terms of understanding how members of the academic profession spend their time provided a rationale for a range of studies on academic work (OMeara, Teroksy & Neumann, 2008). Studies have explored, for example, faculty reward systems and tenure processes (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Chait, 2002), the importance of broadening the definition of scholarship (Boyer, 1990; OMeara & Rice, 2005), and recruitment and socialization processes (Wulff, Austin, Nyquist & Sprague, 2004; Tierney & Bensimon, 1997). While there has been a concerted and sustained scholarly interest on studying the professoriate in the United States and some other countries, there has been relatively little research on the experiences of faculty members at Canadian institutions of higher education. A number of leading Canadian scholars have explored issues of inequity across faculty members at Canadian universities, such as issues of gender (Acker, 2003; Acker & Armenti, 2004) and the concomitant rise in part-time, contingent academic workers (Rajagopal, 2002; Muzzin, 2009). However, these studies further reinforce the need for additional research to comprehensively examine the experiences of faculty members in Canada universities. This paper is part of a body of scholarship (Jones, Weinrib et al, forthcoming; Jones & Weinrib, 2012; Weinrib et al., forthcoming; Metcalfe et al., 2011) exploring the experiences of full-time members at Canadian universities drawing from the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey. Our objective in this paper is to focus on the CAP data related to faculty perceptions of research and teaching in Canadian universities. Prior to examining the CAP survey in greater detail, we will review relevant research on the academic profession in Canada as well as comment on the Canadian higher education system. The Canadian Context: Higher education policy in Canada is highly decentralized. The provinces have assumed legislative authority for education, including higher education, under the Canadian constitutional arrangement, and there is no national ministry and no national policy for higher education. Universities function under provincial legislation, and most are private, not-for-profit institutions that receive public support through provincial operating grants. Given this decentralized policy environment, there is considerable variation in funding and governance structures across provinces (Shanahan & Jones, 2007). There has been surprisingly little research on the nature and scope of academic work in the Canadian context. Two particular trends that directly impact academic work, especially in the context of research and teaching, have been the rise of accountability and managerialism (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004), across jurisdictions globally, and the prominence of faculty unionization (Dobbie and Robinson, 2008), in the Canadian context particularly. While there are national nuances to how the pressures of accountability and managerialism operate within institutions, including reinterpretations of relevant research, increased competition for targeted research funding and the encroaching need for entrepreneurial strategies amongst faculty members (Olssen and Peters, 2005; Enders and Musselin, 2008). These factors have intensified academic work since in some systems faculty are subject to unfair tenure systems, work expectations, mission creep, managerial reform, chilly climates, and a lack of support and mentoring (OMeara, Terosky, and Neumann, 2008, p. 16). This intensification has had particular influences on the nature and scope of research and teaching activities of faculty members, and we will discuss interesting subtleties to these dynamics for Canadian faculty later in the paper.. The second trend influencing the work of academics, particularly in the Canadian context, is the powerful role of unionization across universities in Canada. Unionization has implications for the level of salaries and benefits, as well as academic working conditions including policies around tenure and promotion. Instability in the higher education sector in the 1970s led to the broad movement towards faculty unionization in universities in Canada. Within a decade, the landscape was transformed as unionization had encompassed over 50% of university professors in Canada (Tudivor, 1999, p. 85). The trend continued in the 1990s and 2000s, and the vast majority of university faculty are now members of recognized bargaining units. Importantly, other categories of university instructors, including graduate students and non-tenure track positions, have also unionized, frequently with different union groups than full-time faculty, and focus on similar issues, especially salaries, benefits, and job security. The high level of unionization in the university sector is an important contextual feature of the nature of the environment in which academic work is performed and developed (Jones, 2011). The Changing Academic Profession Study: The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) project involved the administration of a common survey questionnaire to a representative sample of faculty in 19 jurisdictions (18 countries plus Hong Kong), and represents one of the most comprehensive attempts to obtain national and comparative data on the perceptions of faculty concerning the nature of their work and their academic work environment. In national terms, the Canadian CAP project provides unique, quantitative data on the work and experience of full-time faculty at Canadian universities. A detailed description of the design and method of the international CAP surveys can be found in earlier publications (see Locke and Tiechler, 2007). The Canadian study was designed to gather responses from a representative sample of full-time faculty members at Canadian universities. A two-stage cluster sample was created at two distinct levels: that of the institution and of the individual. The popular taxonomy for institutional type amongst Canadian universities uses three categories: Medical/Doctoral, Comprehensive and Primarily Undergraduate. A random sample was generated with this institutional taxonomy and consisted of 18 institutions: 4 Medical/Doctoral, 6 Comprehensive and 8 Primarily Undergraduate. At least one university in each of Canadas ten provinces were represented in this study, and for each university, only full-time faculty members were surveyed. At the end of ݮƵ 2007, 6693 potential participants were sent an invitation via email with a hyperlink to a web-based survey, which was then closed in mid-December, 2007. Another attempt to secure respondents was initiated in April 2008, and the survey was finally closed in May 2008 having obtained 1152 valid returns for a response rate of 17.21%. Details on the survey sampling framework and response rates are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Canadian CAP Survey Sampling FrameworkGross Sample*Net SampleReturned SampleInstitutionsInstitutionsInstitutionsFacultyFacultyFacultyUniversity Type(#)(%)(#)(%)(#)(%)(#)(%)(#)(%)(#)(%)Medical Doctoral1531.91884059.7422.2224533.5422.244238.4Comprehensive1123.4780624.7633.3310946.5633.350143.5Undergraduate2144.7490815.6844.4133920.0844.420918.147100.031554100.018100.06693100.018100.01152100.0*Source: CAUT Almanac, 2008 We begin our analysis of the Canadian CAP data by summarizing responses to some key demographic questions. This is followed by a discussion of faculty responses to questions concerning teaching and research. The key demographic data analyzed in this study focuses on the educational experiences, personal circumstances, outside employment and additional activities of faculty members at Canadian universities. Educational Experiences: The CAP survey included a number of questions focusing on the educational experiences of faculty members. Approximately 72% of respondents obtained their first university degree in Canada. For those who obtained their first degree outside of Canada, 30% obtained their degree in the United States, 12% in the United Kingdom, 10% in France, and 4% in China. The average age at which the first degree was obtained was 23. Approximately the same percentage of faculty (74%) obtained their second degree in Canada. For those who obtained their second degree outside of Canada, 44% obtained this degree in the United States, 12% in the United Kingdom, 12% in France, and 4% in China. For respondents reporting an earned doctoral degree, two-thirds had obtained this degree from a Canadian university. For those who obtained their doctoral degree outside Canada, 50% obtained their degree in the United States, 19% in the United Kingdom, and 12% in France. The questionnaire also included a series of questions focusing on specific elements of a faculty members doctoral experience, and there were clear differences between the responses from all faculty and the responses from more junior (assistant professor) respondents. Of those faculty who had earned a doctoral degree, 69% reported that they had obtained a scholarship or fellowship during their doctoral program, 56% reported that they had some form of employment contract during their doctoral studies, and 53% indicated that they were involved in research projects with a faculty member or senior researcher during their doctoral program. For more junior faculty, 80% reported that they had obtained a scholarship or fellowship, 74% had an employment contract, and 68% indicated that they had been involved in a research project with a faculty member during their doctoral program. Some faculty had also obtained other types of relevant experience during their doctoral programs. Approximately 29% reported that they had served on institutional or departmental committees while they were doctoral students. One-fifth (20%) of faculty received training in instructional skills or learned about teaching methods during their doctoral studies. Once again, a larger percentage of junior faculty reported these experiences compared with their more senior peers, with 38% of assistant professors reporting that they had sat on a committee, and 35% indicating that they had received training in instructional methods or learned about teaching methods during their doctoral program. Personal Circumstances: Many university faculty members come from families where parents have average educational backgrounds. Approximately 50% of respondents indicated that their father had attained or completed at least some level of postsecondary education, while 29% reported that their father had attained or completed some level of secondary education, and 18% had only a primary education. Approximately 39% indicated that their mother had attained or completed at least some level of postsecondary education, while 41% reported that their mother had attained or completed some level of secondary education, and only 16% had only a primary education Four-fifths (81%) of faculty reported that they were married or had a partner, while 16% indicated that they were single, and 3% indicated some form of other situation. In terms of the highest educational level of the spouse or partner of respondents, 88% of these individuals had some (or completed) postsecondary education, while 7% had only secondary education. In terms of employment, 63% of spouses/partners were employed full-time, 17% were employed part-time, and 20% were not employed. Approximately 39% of respondents with partners reported that their spouse/partner was also an academic. Almost half of respondents reported that they have at least one child living with them. Approximately 18% of faculty had one child , 23% had two children, and 9% had three or more children living with them. Outside Employment: ݮƵ two-thirds of respondents (67%) indicated that they would not be working for an additional employer during the next year, while one third of faculty (33%) reported that they would have additional employment beyond their full-time appointment at their university. Approximately 18% of respondents reported that they would have self-employment income during the next year (for example, paid consulting income). Other faculty indicated that they would work for additional employers during the year, with 7% indicating that they would work for a non-profit or government employer, 5% indicating that they would work for another higher education institution, and 3% indicating that they would work for a business organization. Additional Activities: Faculty were asked a series of questions focusing on other activities that they would be engaged in during the coming year, and it seems clear that many Canadian university faculty are frequently involved in community and academic service activities. Approximately 82% of respondents indicated that they would be a peer reviewer during the next year, while 44% reported that they would sit on committees or boards. ݮƵ two-fifths (41%) of faculty indicated that they will work with community organizations. One-third of faculty (32%) reported that they will play a role as an elected officer in an academic or professional association. One-quarter of faculty reported that they will be an editor. Approximately 8% of respondents indicated that they will be an elected union officer or leader during the next year. Balance of Interest in Teaching and Research An entry point into our discussion about perceptions of research and teaching amongst faculty members can be found in the question that explored preferences between research and teaching: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? Respondents indicated an interest in both teaching and research, as evidenced by 80% of respondents; however, importantly, 54% of total respondents indicated that their interests lied in both teaching and research, but learning toward research. This finding is not surprising given the full-time status of these faculty members who may be engaged in research activity, at different levels, across the professorial ranks. So, the vast majority of faculty members (80%) enjoyed both research and teaching, yet there was a slight majority (54%) who leaned toward research. We turn now to a discussion of faculty perceptions of research. Research at Canadian Universities The following section presents the findings of select CAP survey questions in order to present a more comprehensive understanding of faculty perceptions regarding an array of research-related issues, such as researcher autonomy, work patterns, professional interest and preferred means and media of productivity. All of this is done to paint a more holistic picture of how full-time faculty at Canadian universities are currently experiencing the role of research within their working lives. Research-related work at Canadian Universities The first general theme for analysis is conceptualized as research productivity, dissemination and collaboration, and relates to the amount, type and nature of research conducted by the surveyed faculty members. Broadly considered, how are Canadian faculty spending their time and what are the media and collaborative dynamics preferred for the practice and dissemination of research-related activities? The CAP survey contained a number of questions that directly addressed these issues. In addition to the preferred media that Canadian academics use to disseminate research, faculty were asked; How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three years? Eleven categories were put forward, ranging in scope from scholarly books authored to artistic works performed. Table 2 presents the Canadian responses from most to least frequent. Table 2: Percentage of Faculty Reporting Use of Forms of Dissemination and the Level of Productivity Form of Research Dissemination# of Publications (mean/3 years)% of respondentsPaper presented at a scholarly conference8.193Article published in an academic book or journal6.289Research report/monograph written for a funded project1.444Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine1.441Other0.610Scholarly books you authored or co-authored0.325Scholarly books you edited or co-edited0.319Artistic work performed or exhibited0.35Patent secured on a process or invention0.15Computer program written for public use0.16Video or film produced0.14 In terms of the professional dynamics involved in the publication of the above research, a number of CAP questions investigated the form, structure and processes associated with faculty responses. The collaborative dimension of academic research productivity was highlighted by a number of direct questions, with the following findings. During the year previous to the survey being conducted (2006/07), 84% of respondents indicated that they had collaborated with other researchers in one or more of their research projects, 68% had collaborated with persons at other institutions within Canada, and 63% report having collaborated with international colleagues. In terms of co-authorships stemming from collaborate research activities, 40.3% of respondents claim to have co-authored with colleagues in Canadian institutions, while only 12.7% report having co-authored with colleagues in foreign countries. However, despite the low-level of co-authorship with foreign scholars, 31% of Canadian respondents claim to have published in a foreign country publication. Conceptualizing Research: The second theme that emerged from the CAP survey questions is grouped under the heading conceptualizing research, specifically in terms of how individual academics relate to the purported goals and expectations of research with the dissemination or use of research. As issues of accountability and managerialism continue to influence spending on and within public research institutions, the use and application of research outputs remains a central problematic for evaluating the state of the 21st century academic professional, specifically as it relates to the rubric of academic freedom. As such, faculty perceptions regarding desirable or preferred uses of research, as well as the perceived role of non-academic influences over the research process and the dissemination of findings, are central themes of this studys analysis. The following section will take up these issues by examining pertinent CAP survey questions in order to portray a broad aggregate of perceptions for full-time academics at Canadian universities, acknowledging that nuances exist at sub-aggregate levels that will be well served by further analysis in subsequent studies. The first grouping of questions relates to the perceived goals or expectations for research, and broader conceptualizations of the purpose of research within the 21st century university. The findings presented below indicate that the traditional conceptualization of research and knowledge production activities within universities is separate in some fundamental ways from broader societal issues within the psyche of many Canadian academics. For instance, 76% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on original research; 68% strongly agreed or agreed that scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge in real-life settings; and only 59% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society. A related question posed by the CAP is the perceived extent that high expectations of useful results and application are a threat to the quality of research, with 61% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing. The correlate question regarding the quantity of research indicates similar concerns, as 72% of respondents strongly agree or agree that high expectations to increase research productivity are a threat to the quality of research. These responses seem to indicate that there is trepidation amongst Canadian academics regarding the influence that societal issues should have on determining the nature, scope and application of research in Canadian universities, acknowledging that real-life settings can benefit from academic research, but that the expectation of application should not be the driving force of research. The second grouping of questions relating to the conceptualization of research probes the influence that external and non-academic actors have on the construction, funding and evaluation of research activities and practices, within Canadian universities, particularly in relation to the quality, quantity and scope of research. The CAP responses indicate that the academic profession in Canadian universities is operating within a tension between internal and external priorities. Some questions highlight the increased influence that funding sources and external actors play in the determination and evaluation of research, but this is in tension with the relatively strong perception of autonomy within the academic workforce and the support of administrators towards academic freedom and research activities. In terms of external influence, specifically around issues of funding, the following CAP findings are most pertinent: 75% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the pressure to raise external research funds has increased since my first appointment; 73.3% of research funding is from non-institutional sources; 45% of respondents claim that external sponsors or clients have influence over the research activities of individual faculty members; and only 21% of respondents report that institutional research funding is excellent or very good. These questions indicate that external or non-academic actors are perceived as playing a significant role in the defining and funding of research in Canadian universities. Furthermore, institutional resources are perceived as being inadequate to meet the research demands of Canadian academics. However, as will be examined below, these findings are balanced by a wide array of responses that indicate high levels of autonomy are still held by academics in relation to the setting of academic standards, the evaluation of research, and the motivating factors of research activities in Canadian universities. In terms of decisions regarding the setting of internal research priorities at Canadian universities, only 2% of respondents indicated that government or external actors were the primary influence, with individual faculty (35%), institutional managers (27%), academic unit managers (19%) and Faculty committee/boards (17%) fulfilling the role of arbiters for institutional research priorities. A similar question focused on the actors with primary decision-making influence on the evaluation of research activities, with the following results: Faculty committee/boards (38%), Academic unit managers (21%), individual faculty (20%), institutional managers (13%), and government or external stakeholders (8%). The strong role that academics and institutional actors have on setting the priorities and evaluation of research was supported by responses to two related questions: only 11% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the question, restrictions on the publication of results from my publicly-funded research have increased since my first appointment, and 61% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the administration supports academic freedom. While there appears to be a funnelling of resources by external sources, the vast majority of academics remain resistant to the idea that research funding should be concentrated (targeted) on the most productive researchers, with only 21% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing. Taken as a whole, the above findings indicate that while institutions are perceived by Canadian academics as being incapable of meeting research funding demands, which is resulting in, or perhaps a result of, external actors influencing the dominant funding mechanisms available to academic staff, on the other hand, respondents generally indicate that universities and their administrative and professional units remain the primary arbiters of research priorities, research evaluation and professional support. As a result, it appears that the increased influence of external actors via research funding mechanisms has not resulted in significantly increased restrictions or targeting of research activities for Canadian academics. One hypothesis that may explain these circumstances is that the extremely strong legacy of institutional and sub-institutional autonomy in Canadian universities represents a substantial negotiating layer for the institutionalization of external influences and conditionalities that may be attached to external funding. However, this hypothesis is solely reflective of the broad literature examining institutional governance in Canadian universities and does not derive from any particular CAP survey question. Commercial influence over Research A final theme of analysis that reflects significant trends in the broader literature on academic work in the 21st century relates to the role of private-sector influence and commercial-related research in publicly funded universities. Any examination of the role that external actors are playing in Canadian universities should consider the growth of private-public partnership funding schemes initiated in Canada over the last 10 years, such as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Networks for Centres of Excellence (NCE) (Tudiver, 1999; Atkinson-Grosjean, J., House, D., and Fisher, D, 2001; Shanahan and Jones, 2007; Polster, 2007; CFI, 2008; Metcalfe and Fenwick, 2009), and the general growth of market-oriented activities or incentivized funding schemes in public higher education institutions around the world (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Musselin, 2005; Marginson, 2006, 2007). A number of CAP survey questions directly engage with issues of private or commercial influence over university-based research activities. The findings of these questions indicate that Canadian academics as a whole appear to be predominantly disengaged from the private sector and are resistant to commercially oriented research activities, despite the cautionary tales raised by researchers of both the Canadian and global academic profession. In terms of funding sources, respondents indicated that in the aggregate only 4.5% of total research funding is derived from business or industry sources, with 3.7% coming from other sources that may or may not represent private sector investment or partnership. In terms of research emphasis, for the question, How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year?, respondents averaged a 4.2 on 5-point Likert scale for commercially-oriented/intended for technology transfer category of the question, with 1 representing very much and 5 representing not at all. Lastly, only 40% of respondents indicated that their institution emphasizes commercially-oriented or applied research. One question engages with the issue of academic freedom and privately funded research by asking if restrictions on the publication of results from my privately-funded research have increased since my first appointment, with only 11% of faculty agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. The above findings and responses, though limited in scope, appear to indicate that the private sector and commercial interests do not play a significant role in the determination of research priorities or activities for tenured faculty members in Canadian universities. While individual faculty members perceive institutions as being relatively interested in promoting commercially-oriented or applied research, for the most part this interest has not translated into substantial shifts in research practices or interests at the individual level. Teaching in Canadian Universities The perceptions of teaching by faculty members at Canadian universities reveal a robust and dedicated team of individuals who are committed to student learning, passionate about engaging students in the classroom and interested in improving the experiences of students, as they relate to teaching and instruction. The discussion that follows addresses these perceptions of teaching as guided by the contexts of undergraduate education and graduate education, respectively. In the context of teaching, a major theme emphasized undergraduate teaching and perceptions related to the academic preparedness of undergraduate students. During the academic year, faculty members spend nearly 20 hours per week preparing and conducting teaching or teaching-related activities, which eclipses all other academic tasks. Of the time spent on teaching, faculty members spend 63.1% of their time focusing on undergraduate teaching. In addition to this concentration in undergraduate teaching, these faculty members have relatively small numbers of undergraduates per course at 59 students. For instructional methods in the classroom, the survey explored the use of group work, computer-assisted learning and distance education, and while faculty members do use these aforementioned methods, lecturing was the overwhelmingly preferred method of instruction. Also, these faculty members are heavily invested in developing course materials. This commitment to teaching is fostered by institutional cultures that support both the assessment and improvement of teaching. Specifically, 55% of respondents strongly agree or agree that they are encouraged to improve their teaching in response to teaching evaluations, and importantly, 58% of individuals revealed that their institutions provide adequate training course for teaching improvement. This focus on teaching permeates into interactions with students. That is, many faculty members spend time interacting with undergraduate students outside of the classroom, through face-to-face interactions in office hours and email communication. Specifically, 95% of respondents interact with students outside of the classroom and 96% engage in email communication with students. Given that faculty reported average undergraduate class sizes of 56.3 students per class, this commitment to student interaction outside of the classroom may be slightly easier to facilitate in the Canadian context. Interestingly, there is a strong sense from faculty members that students are not equipped with basic skills prior to enrolling in a course/institution, which results in faculty members believing that they have to spend more time teaching basic skills due to student deficiencies. So, 55% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they spend more time than they would like on basic skills, while 77% of individuals strongly agreed or agreed that they inform students about issues of plagiarism and cheating. While the nature of these deficiencies was not delineated in the CAP survey, the strong sense of obligation by faculty members in Canada to inform students about issues related to plagiarism and cheating in their courses suggests that particular expectations and norms related to study skills, evaluations and academic writing operate at these institutions (and academe more broadly) of which students are unaware. Importantly, it could be suggested that not only do students lack an understanding of these issues, but also that an awareness of plagiarism and cheating should be part of students toolkit of study skills when entering into institutions of higher education. A second theme that emerged, although with considerable less frequency than the first theme, was that of teaching and graduate education. From an organizational perspective, faculty members experience institutional targets related to the number of hours in the classroom and to the number of students per class for undergraduate student populations. For instance, 80% and 56% of respondents indicated that their institutions set quantitative load targets for the hours of in the classroom and number of students in the class, respectively. This sort of institutional transparency works to stabilize undergraduate education where faculty members are aware of explicit norms and expectations from their respective institutions. The context of graduate education is a little different, particularly as it relates to Canadian faculty members. In the Canadian context, faculty members do not experience similar direction through institutional targets related to the number of graduate students supervised, as only 18% of faculty members revealed that their institutions had load targets or regulatory mechanisms for the supervision of graduate students. Canadian faculty members spend very little time instructing doctoral students (9.8%) and doctoral student class sizes are small (faculty reported an average class size of 5 students per course). For these faculty members, the time spent teaching in masters programs and the number of students in masters classes are much larger than in doctoral programs. For instance, the amount of total instruction time in masters courses is larger than in doctoral courses at 21.1%, and class size for masters courses nearly doubles that of doctoral courses at an average of 9.8 students per course. So, faculty members experience important nuances to their teaching experiences in the contexts of undergraduate and graduate levels of education, as well as through teasing out the masters and doctoral programs related to graduate education. These nuances are related to institutional priorities of transparency with respect to each sub-set of education as well as broader institutional, regional and national interests of undergraduate and graduate education. Research and Teaching in Canadian Universities Up to this point, our discussion has focused on the separation of research and teaching; an examination into how each operates distinctly and separately from the other as components of academic work. One way of assessing how faculty members spend their time across the different aspects of academic work came from a question on workload: Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? This question was posed both for when classes are in session and are not in session. When classes are in session, Canadian respondents reported that they worked an average of 16 hours per week on research and research-related activities (reading literature, writing, conducting experiments, fieldwork), compared to 19.6 hours on teaching-related activities, 4.3 hours on service, and 7.9 hours on administrative work, and 2.7 on other academic activities, for a total of 50.7 hours per week. When classes are not in session, the reported amount of time spent on research rose dramatically to 28.5 hours per week, with a corresponding drop to 5.4 hours of teaching, but similar reported scores of 4 hours of service, 6.8 hours of administration and 3 hours of other academic work, for a total of 47.7 hours per week. An important entry point into assessing the intersections of the components of academic work came from faculty responses to the statement: Your research activities reinforce your teaching and Your service activities reinforce your teaching. Interestingly, 82% of faculty members agreed or strongly agreed that research reinforces teaching, while only 43% agreed or strongly agreed that service reinforces teaching. Although the nature and scope of how research may inform teaching were not addressed by the CAP survey, responses to other survey questions may suggest possible interpretations. For instance, 60% of faculty members indicated that they used international content or perspectives in their teaching. This broadening of curricula may reflect an increased globalized research environment with more collaborative projects across researchers and institutions, where the findings or implications of such research can be applied to multiple jurisdictions. Importantly, the increased prominence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) as an emerging research arena dedicated to the improvement of teaching has gained traction in Canada. The important intersection between research and teaching communicated by faculty members may reflect an outcome of this increased scholarly attention to SoTL. Summary and Conclusion: In terms of the general demographic data analyzed at the outset of this paper, while there has been some discussion of the increasing internationalization of Canadian higher education, it is important to note that the vast majority of Canadian faculty received their postsecondary education in Canada. Almost three-quarters of respondents obtained their first degree in Canada and almost two-thirds of faculty obtained their doctorate from a Canadian university. Other demographic data collected from respondents revealed few surprises; many tenure-track faculty members come from educated family backgrounds; there continue to be huge gender inequities within the professorial ranks; and the vast majority (81%) of faculty are married or in permanent relationships, with 39% of these individuals partnered with another academic. Research If taken in a vacuum, the CAP survey results indicate that Canadian academics are generally satisfied with the levels of autonomy in the context of their professional research endeavours and responsibilities, but there is a strong recognition that external pressures and the expectation of commercial or applied forms of knowledge are threatening forces for autonomous research. However, while the CAP responses indicate that full-time academics are aware of the rising tension between external actors and institutional or professional expectations, the majority believe that their research interests have not been negatively influenced by such patterns of influence and that institutional administrators continue to support basic academic freedoms. Furthermore, despite the recognition by the majority of Canadian faculty that academic research can be beneficial to broader societal issues, a similar majority indicated that these societal issues should not be the driving force of academic research and that expectations of higher productivity levels is a threat to overall academic quality. When taken as a whole, these responses appear to support the idea that academics are best served by self-regulation and that, to this point, self-regulation has for the most part been maintained by the current configuration of power in Canadian higher education institutions. While one can hypothesize as to the reason for this continued resistance or management of non-academic forces, specifically looking to the strong traditional of institutional autonomy in the Canadian context, further study is required in order to understand how this autonomy has been maintained in Canada while having been sacrificed in part or in whole in other jurisdictions, particularly the other Anglophone countries as exemplified in Slaughter and Leslies account of academic capitalism in Canada, the United States, the UK and Australia (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). However, the CAP responses require further examination along a number of trajectories, particularly in terms of the variability between different institutional types (research-focused vs. teaching-focused), disciplines, professional ranks, and genders, to name a few of the most salient. Until a more nuanced analysis is undertaken, it is difficult to ascertain how representative the overall CAP results are in relation to the entire Canadian context. In terms of working patterns, the CAP results indicate that Canadian full-time academics work at greater rates than the traditional 40-hour work week, both when classes are in and are not in session, and this is particularly salient in terms of the time spent on research, with faculty reporting an average 16 hours a week during session and 28.5 when not in session, compared to 19.6 hours of teaching when classes are in session and only 5.4 hours per week when classes are not in session. As outlined in the section on research, this commitment is echoed in the high level of productivity and dissemination practices, particularly through conference presentations and article publications. Given that the overall levels of satisfaction for Canadian academics is quite high, there is no reason to believe that these numbers are viewed as problematic. However, the CAP survey offered limited questions for analysing the relation of particular work patterns to overall satisfaction levels. Teaching The teaching experiences of faculty members at Canadian universities suggest that faculty members are highly invested in their teaching and in their students learning through large commitments of time and energy in developing course materials, using various instructional techniques and communicating with students in office hours and through email. Part of this commitment may come from general job satisfaction in the nature of their academic work; however, faculty members may be partly committed to issues of teaching and learning due to the perceived need to spend more time than anticipated on teaching basic skills to students as well as informing students of issues of cheating and plagiarism. It could be construed that these students need to possess particular knowledge about academic writing and university life prior to enrolling in university education and/or that these faculty members are actually making explicit the norms and expectations of university culture. While institutional clarity through explicit regulatory mechanisms and load target facilitate stability in undergraduate education, the context of graduate education is much different for these faculty members. The time spent teaching doctoral courses is minimal and doctoral class sizes are tiny, meanwhile for masters courses and class sizes, the figures more than double that of doctoral education. Adding to these nuances, just slightly more than 1 in 6 faculty members suggested that institutional targets existed for the number of graduate students supervised. This sort of obscurity serves to highlight continued need to examine the relationship between the teaching experiences of faculty members and issues related to graduate education. Importantly, faculty members articulated a strong presence of their research reinforcing their teaching, which was a foundational notion to the movement of the scholarship for teaching and learning (SoTL). The intersectionality of the different components of academic life is an important future area of research that advocates a more holistic orientation to the activities of faculty members. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the forces of accountability and managerialism have been very powerful in shaping institutional research agendas and priorities; however, the data from the CAP survey in Canada revealed important nuances to these seemingly global trends. While not explicitly researched as a countermeasure to these pressures, the significance of faculty unionization in the Canadian context may be an important contextual dynamic to understand the experiences of faculty members in Canada, but also to consider the influence and presence of coordinated voices to advocate for the interests of members of the professoriate. Overall, the aim of this paper was to reveal the experiences of Canadian faculty members related to issues of research and of teaching. This paper is an important contribution to understanding the working lives of Canadian academics, a subject that has received little attention in the research literature. The data from this paper is part of a larger attempt to delineate changes in the academic profession, especially as increasing trends of globalization, labour market mobility, and fiscal retrenchment bring additional pressures to understanding the work that academics do. References Acker, Sandra. 2003. The Concerns of Canadian Women Academics: Will Faculty Shortages Make Things Better or Worse? McGill Journal of Education 38 (3): 391-405. Acker, Sandra., and Carmen Armenti. 2004. Sleepless in Academia. Gender and Education 16 (1): 3-24. Atkinson-Grosjean, J., House, D., & Fisher, D. (2001). Canadian science policy and public research organizations in the 20th Century. Science Studies, 14 (1), 3-25. Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). (2008). 2007-2008 Annual Report. Ottawa: Canada. Foundation for Innovation. Dobbie, D. and Robinson, I. (2008). Reorganizing Higher Education in the United States and Canada: The Erosion of Tenure and the Unionization of Contingent Faculty. Labour Studies Journal, 33 (1), pp. 117-140. Enders, J., and Musselin, C. (2008). Back to the Future? The Academic Professions in the 21st Century. In Higher Education to 2030: Volume 1, Demography (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) pp. 125-150. Finkelstein, M. (2010). Diversification in the Academic Workforce: The case of the US and implications for Europe. European Review, 18 (1), pp. S141-S156. Jones, G. A. (2011). The Fragmentation of Academic Work and the Challenge for Academic Governance and Administration. Paper presented at the World Universities Network Ideas and Universities annual conference on The Changing Roles of Academics and Administrators in Times of Uncertainty held at the Hong Kong Institute for Education, Hong Kong, November 3-4, 2011. Jones, G. A. & Weinrib, J. (2012). The organization of academic work and the remuneration of faculty at Canadian universities. In P. Altbach et al, Paying the professoriate: A global comparison of compensation and contracts (pp. 83-93). New York: Routledge. Jones, G., Weinrib, J., Metcalfe, A. S., Fisher, D., Rubenson, K., & Snee, I. (2012). Academic work in Canada: Perceptions of early-career Academics. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(2), 189-206. Locke, W. & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2007). The Changing Conditions for Academic Work and Careers in Select Countries. Werkstattberichte 66 (Kassel, International Centre for Higher Education Research). Marginson, S. (2006). Putting public back into the public university. Thesis Eleven, 84, 44-59. ---. (2007). University mission and identity for a post post-public era. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (1), 117131. Metcalfe, A. & Fenwick, T. (2009). Knowledge for whose society?: knowledge production, higher education, and federal policy in Canada. Higher Education, 57, 209-25. Metcalfe, A. S., Fisher, D., Gingras, Y., Jones, G. A., Rubenson, K., & Snee, I. (2011). Canada: Perspectives on governance and management. In W. Locke, W. K. Cummings, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Governance and management in higher education: The perspectives of the academy (pp. 151-174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Musselin, C. (2005a). European Academic Labor Markets in Transition. Higher Education, 49, 135-154. Muzzin, L. (2009). Equity, Ethics, Academic Freedom and the Employment of Contingent Academics. Academic Matters, May 2009, pp. 19-22. Olssen, M. & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education, and the knowledge economy: from free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Educational Policy, 20, 313-45. O'Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2009). Faculty Careers and Work Lives: A Professional Growth Perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34 (3) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Polster, C. (2007). The nature and implications of the growing importance of research grants to Canadian universities and academics. Higher Education, 53, 599-622. Rajagopal, I. (2002). Hidden Academics: Contract Faculty in Canadian Universities (Toronto, ݮƵ Press). Schuster, J. & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Shanahan, T., & Jones, G. A. (2007). Shifting roles and approaches: Government coordination of postsecondary education in Canada, 19952006. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (1), 3143. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tudiver, N. (1999). Universities for Sale: resisting corporate control over Canadian higher education. Toronto: Lorimer. Warman, C., Woolley, F. & Worsick, C. (2010). The evolution of male-female earnings differentials in Canadian universities, 1970-2001. Canadian Journal of Economics, 43 (1): 347-472. Weinrib, J., Jones, G., Metcalfe, A. S., Fisher, D., Gingras, Y., Rubenson, K., & Snee, I. (forthcoming). Canada: Canadian university academics perceptions of job satisfaction - the future is not what it used to be.In P.J. Bentley, H. Coates, I. R. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure & V. Lynn Meek (Eds.), Job satisfaction around the academic world.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.     PAGE   PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 15 01ux{   # , D Z / > H J ̽| h/15h/1h/15 hZIA5hZIAh@s0JCJaJjhZIAh@sCJUaJhZIAh.aCJaJh CJaJhZIAh@sCJaJh@shmhmhm5hmh.a5hmh.a5CJaJhmh@s5CJaJhZIAh.a-1uvwx  dgdZIA $da$gdZIA$a$gd +s$a$gdZIA $da$gd +s  H I J X Y q0 !!&b(((($&#$/Ifgd*`gd*gd*gd +s$a$gd +s$a$gd +sJ W X Y h k % < L ]]pq,a<Rw|&Y>Tsºֲhh h/1h*5 hE5h/1hE5hEh.a6 hoh.a h.a6hEhE6hEh +sh.ah~hmh*h*5 h~5h/1h~5>12t>Ee8SGz]y,5M{= J c !!!!!!""6":"<"}""5###"$,$ %% &%&T&h&&&&& heh.ahk(h/1h*5 hM5h/1hM5h[6hMh h.ahP&&'''2'7'<'b'' (b( ) )))")2)))))))))))))* ***'*,*l*y*z*****@,X,Y,Z,B5h5E6F6]6^6_688h/]h.a6 h.a6h/1h*5 h.a5h/1h.a5h/1hLhk(CJOJQJaJhLhk(CJOJQJaJhk(hk(CJ\aJhk(hk(5CJ\aJhk(hk(CJaJ heh.ah.a7(((($&#$/Ifgd*((((4$&#$/Ifgd*kd$$Iflֈ"$,5/'''M''' 6-644 lap<ytk((((((((((((((((((((Ff.$&#$/Ifgd*((((4$&#$/Ifgd*kd$$Iflֈn+'6'''%'' 6-644 lap<ytk((((((($&#$/Ifgd*((kd9$$Ifl֞n,5/'6'''%''' 6-644 lapFytk(())) ) )))))!)")2)6):)>)B)F)J)N)R)V)Z)^)$$&#$/Ifa$gd*Ff $&#$/Ifgd*^)b)c)t)w)|))))))))))))))))Ff/$$&#$/Ifa$gd*$$&#$/Ifa$gd*Ff$&#$/Ifgd*)))))))))))))** * *****Ff$&#$/Ifgd*$$&#$/Ifa$gd*$$&#$/Ifa$gd**#*'*,*-*.*1*7*=*C*F*L*Q*W*Z*`*e*k*l*m*n*FfP+FfM%$$&#$/Ifa$gd*$&#$/Ifgd*$$&#$/Ifa$gd*n*o*p*q*r*s*t*u*v*w*x*y*z**************gd*Ff4Ff;0$&#$/Ifgd**?,@,Y,Z,03E6F6^6_68cFEƀ`Ggd*GC$Eƀ`Ggd*gd*`gd* 8<<<<>> ? ?>?()ұ3K3>^>>>>>> ? ? ?=B>B?BlBmBB C C(CCCEEEFFFF'F(F)FFFGFtF}FFFnGpGHHHEHFHGHmHoHpH~HHHHHHhxh.a6 hH(h.ahX&h*6hX&h.a6 h>_h.a h.a>* h!h.ah[6h[65 hX&h.ah[6h/1h*5 h.a5h/1h.a5 h.a6h.a>HH III"J$J%J1J4JGJJJJJJ_KrKwKyKKKKKKLL;L*h 7h.a_H  h]_H  h.a]_H h 7h.a]_H  hH(h.aPqkNpOprpspuz)|*|L|M|(~uv@AAmnXʠ`gd*gd*qprpsppp)rrrrrrr&s's0t3t4t uuu&uausuuu-wwwwx?yyzzz(|)|*|K|L|M|v(?ôî릞ߍߍߍ߉߁h*h.a5h*hhW}ch*5 h.a5hW}ch.a5h(lh.a>* h.a_H  h_H h 7h.a_H hH(h.a_H h.a^JaJhUh.a^JaJh.ahH(h.aH* hH(h.ahX&h*6 h.a62?@A_Jg•LPYZז+ev?@Aʘ*FPv™HqКԚ֚lmnˠӠԠՠ"#h* h.a6hX&h.a6h]3h*5 h]35h]3h.a5 h[h.ahBB h.a_H  h_H hH(h.a_H  hH(h.ahh.ah*h*5 h.a5=ʠˠԠՠ39#$y QR]^gdW}c`gd*gd*GC$EƀGgd*#$<PQR\]^ѻ@Tcd~߼ ;R[bɽ$=FJRS󸰸ȅȅȅ}ȅȅhehH6 hehHhUh.a6^JaJh(lh.a6^JaJhUh.aH*^JaJh.a^JaJhUh.a^JaJ hH6hHhbhW}c>*hW}ch.a5hW}chW}c5h* hHxeh.ahBBh.ahX&h*61^cd eST:;׿ؿLMPQ$$ 00*$^`0a$gdE 0^`0gd[6gd +s 0^`0gd +s`gd.agd.a 0^`0gdH .:Iȿֿ̿׿KLM$,-Q=~'(ʿʨ}r}rhUh.a^JaJh.a^JaJhE^JaJhE h6hH hE0Jh6hE0J6h6hE0Jh[hE6@mH sH hE6@mH sH hE@mH sH  h4}h[6h[6hHhehH6 hH6 hehHh4}hHH*,Q<CD!op$$ 00*$^`0a$gd +s 0dd[$\$^`0gdE`gd.agd.a 0^`0gd +s 0^`0gdE(57;<ABCDGt !>Qbmp-{ ԽܲԲԲԦԟԅyԅԅqh +smH sH h 9*h.a6mH sH h 9*h.amH sH  hEhEh6hE6 h6hEh(lh.a6mH sH h(lh.amH sH hUh.a6mH sH hUh.amH sH h.amH sH h.ahUh.a^JaJh.a^JaJh(lh.a6^JaJ(mw%&EORn lm{ )*-Tмȵȼȏ|h +smH sH hvd6@mH sH hvdmH sH hbhHmH sH  h!hHh!hH6hH hX{hHhbh.a6mH sH h.amH sH hbh.amH sH hehvd6@mH sH hehvd@mH sH hvd@mH sH .QR m,-*u-. `gd.am$gd.am$ 0^`0gd +s 0^`0gd +s$$ 00*$^`0a$gd +s`gd.agd.aT)*78X,.=EIPQR()34۹ۛۛۛۛۛۛwlwh.a6^J_H aJhbh.a6^J_H aJh.a^J_H aJhCRh.a6mH sH hCRh.amH sH hbh.a6h.a hUh.ahbh.amH sH hUh.a6mH sH hUh.amH sH h.amH sH hvdmH sH h +smH sH h +sh +s6mH sH ()GHh]hgd.a &`#$gd.adgd.a 0^`0gdE 0^`0gdH`gd.agd.a `gd.am$4EGHT[bilnostj./Y[ۿwqwqmqh* h*0Jjh*0JUhs*jhs*U hh.a h6hEh6hE0J6]hE0J6] hE0Jh6hE0JhUhE^J_H aJh!/&hH6 h!/&hHhHhH^J_H aJh.a^J_H aJhUh.a^J_H aJ)dgd.a$a$ $h]ha$gd.a &`#$gd.a hh.ahs*h*mHnHujh*Uh*hSNh*CJ 8 001h:p +s/ =!"#$% %$$If!vh555M555#v#v#vM#v#v#v:V l 6-6,555M5559/ p<ytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / pւytk(kd'$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk(%$$If!vh56555%55 #v6#v#v#v%#v#v :V l 6-6,56555%55 9/ p<ytk($$If!vh56555%555#v6#v#v#v%#v#v#v:V l 6-6,56555%5559/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / pFytk($$If!v h565255r52555M5 5 #v6#v2#v#vr#v2#v#v#vM#v #v :V l 6-6, 565255r52555M5 5 9 / / / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / / / pdytk(RkdR $$Ifl  "$+'6'2''r'2'''M'' 6-6((((44 lapdytk(c$$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 /  / /  / / / /  / / / /  / / / /  / / / / / / / / / / / pւytk(kd;$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / / / / / / / / / / / pւytk(kd$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / / / / / / / / / / / pւytk(kd$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  / / / / / / / / / / / / / pւytk(kd!$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / / /  / / /  / / /  / / /  / / / / / /  / / /  pւytk(kd1($$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 #v6#v2#v#vT#v#v2#v#v#v #v M#v #v #v :V l 6-6, 565255T552555 5 M5 5 5 9 / pւytk(kd4.$$Ifl"  n"$,5/'6'2''T''2''''M''' 6-6444444 lapւytk($$If!v h55525559525K5 45 #v#v#v2#v#v#v9#v2#vK#v 4#v :V l 6-6, 55525559525K5 45 9 / pdytk(Rkd3$$Ifl n"g),5/'''2'''9'2'K'4' 6-6((((44 lapdytk($$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5$$If!vh5v55#vv#v:V l t065v5 00@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List n@n L Table Grid7:V0_H8@8 SN0Header  !tH>O> SN0 Char Char5CJaJmH sH 8 @"8 SN0Footer  !tH>O1> SN0 Char Char4CJaJmH sH .)@A. SN Page NumberH@RH 02 Balloon TextCJOJQJaJtHFOaF 02 Char Char3CJOJQJaJmH sH B'@qB 02Comment ReferenceCJaJ8@8 02 Comment TexttH>O> 02 Char Char2CJaJmH sH @j@@ 02Comment Subject5\DOD 02 Char Char15CJ\aJmH sH 6U@6 @s Hyperlink >*B*ph8O8 Eapple-style-span<+@< H Endnote TextmH sH 4O4 H Char CharCJaJ81uvwxHIJXYq 0b !!! ! !!!!!!!"!2!6!:!>!B!F!J!N!R!V!Z!^!b!c!t!w!|!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"" " """""#"'","-"."1"7"="C"F"L"Q"W"Z"`"e"k"l"m"n"o"p"q"r"s"t"u"v"w"x"y"z""""""""""""""?$@$Y$Z$(+E.F.^._.0444466 7 7>:?:::>>(>)>Ұ3C:?;"<"=\>?\@ABC, Dtj"E,F$G4,!H IJ#K=LM N!OkPDQܯR SܺT U\LVYLW X gY!Z![\T]4#^$_,"`a9b~c)Jd efg7!hi4=!j\"kHlmnBoDkp4HqFrtGsl))@@I% % Z Z mm,,%%M%v%%%%%R&R&&&&&&&''' ( (ÔÔPP{{ T\\ʵܵܵ::IIɽɽEE 55Xjj[jj      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdgefhijknlmopsqrtuvwxyz{|}~//HSS&&+ + ` ` ss22%%S%%%%%%X&X&&&&&'''''((ɔɔVVZbb׵BBOOϽϽ ##KK %%<<Zppduu   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdfgehijkmnloprsqtuvwxyz{|}~9s*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8t*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB~*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=|*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName={*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace B&~|{{|{|ts~|{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~t~s~t~~t~tt{|t||{~t||{t||{tt~t~ |-2<C_g& - y &+ '/&u|jjjjjjkk lll#loo_ceiЭǮԮ!mudlDM (޻_f >5<+-$)1) -'-3377K MOOUђLS7dǴ 23Se%Txy*/;RַOMop˹Q4=@޻<BIɼ !'QnpȽ*v&PR m+-S*7.Q*3Huvfi333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333WXYY 00X$Y$].^.44 7 7'>(>JJ?ӘԘ"#<QRN_ ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o  p^ `OJQJo(  @ ^ `OJQJo( x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(]3ZIABBM.aW}c30im +s2dv[6s*Ek(*@s /1NHvd~wb !!! ! !!!!!!!"!2!6!:!>!B!F!J!N!R!V!Z!^!b!c!t!w!|!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"" " """""#"'","-"."1"7"="C"F"L"Q"W"Z"`"e"k"l"m"n"o"p"q"r"s"t"u"v"w"x"y"z"""""""""""">$D?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@1Table>iWordDocument:8SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q