Abstract
Meaning and Measurement in Comparative Housing Research is one more milestone in the short but sometimes turbulent history of method in comparative housing research. It marks a development since the publication of a collection of articles in a 2001 issue of Journal of Housing and the Built Environment.
This short book consists of six contributions (and an introduction) from well-known housing researchers and, except for the final contribution, focuses on European comparisons. Apart from the first two contributions, each reflects on the practical challenges of doing comparative housing research from within a particular methodological approach. The editors jointly convene the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Working Group on Comparative Housing Policy.
An important development is the way in which authors draw upon and locate their work within the broader sweep of the social sciences. As a whole, the book takes us beyond past approaches.
By proposing a new framework for understanding the role of state intervention, Tony Fahey and Michelle Norris challenge the accepted convergence theory that the state is withdrawing from the provision of housing. They argue that state intervention in housing operates both on the capital side through the support for home-ownership and the services side through social housing and rental support. Supported by evidence from Southern Europe they argue that home-ownership is a form of self-provisioning and has a ‘quasi-social insurance function’ based on a three-sided model of state, market and household (p. 21).
Mark Stephens mounts a vigorous defence of comparative housing research. In his view, its primary purpose is policy transfer. However, for this to be successful, housing researchers need to appreciate the distinctive nature of housing and its location within wider social and economic structures. Thus, he advocates a system-embedded approach. A necessary precondition for policy transfer is an understanding of housing policy as it is embedded in the housing system and, in turn, an understanding of how the housing system is embedded in and interacts with wider social and economic structures.
Qualitative methods have been commonly used to demonstrate the unique circumstances of households, the particularistic approach. Marja Elsinga, however, uses her experience in the ‘Demographic Change and Housing Wealth’ project (DEMHOW), a comparative research project across European countries, to argue for a middle-range institutional qualitative approach. She uses qualitative method to reject the universalist economic theory of the life-cycle model, i.e. that rational consumers distribute income and expenditures smoothly over the life cycle. Thus, interestingly, she aims to explain why something does not happen rather than why it does. In doing so, she shows how qualitative method can be used ‘to make qualitative outcomes comparable across countries’ (p. 49). In each stage of her research, she was confronted with methodological issues and she explains how she dealt with each: country selection, interviewee selection, the framework for analysis, interview questions where translated words mean something different, and cross-country analysis.
In the face of past and present criticisms and the recent prominence given to qualitative methods, Nick Horsewood argues that quantitative methods should still be the workhorse of comparative housing research. While defending quantitative methods from ‘mindless empiricism’ (p. 70), he notes certain parallels between the issues confronted in quantitative and qualitative methods. Horsewood demystifies the technical procedures of quantitative method, shows how results can be generalised and outlines its parameters.
Bo Bengtsson and Hannu Ruonavaara take comparative housing research in a new direction. Where other contributors have highlighted the importance of socio-economic, linguistic or cultural context, for Bengtsson and Ruonavaara history matters. They do not, however, employ the usual notion of history. Rather, their approach, a form of comparative process tracing, draws its inspiration from historical institutionalism in political science and comparative historical analysis in sociology and combines theoretical and chronological elements. Reflecting on their work comparing Nordic housing regimes, they outline the rationale for this approach and take us step by step through it. Their analysis focuses around three mechanisms – efficiency, legitimacy and power – as the driving forces of institutional change.
Richard Ronald provides the only contribution that draws on research in a non-European country (Japan) and, as such, raises some important questions about the adequacy of Eurocentric frameworks for understanding housing. Ronald promotes an ethnographic approach and is rather dismissive of the more simplistic quantitative and qualitative approaches that fail to locate their work within wider cultural and historic contexts. An ethnographic approach challenges the taken-for-granted assumptions of researchers operating from within their culture. It raises questions about how a researcher embedded in one culture can come to understand the mindset and practices of another culture. It raises questions about linguistic commensurability between cultures and the need to contextualise perceived similarities and differences. By drawing ‘culture and context into sharper relief’ (p. 104) and linking ‘macro (structure) and micro (agency) explanations’ (p. 110), an ethnographic approach can contribute to ‘a more integrated international framework of housing cultures from which to enhance the application of other quantitative and qualitative comparisons’ (p. 110).
In their introduction the editors note that, in the past, comparative housing research suffered from ‘conceptual, methodological and theoretical underdevelopment’ (p. 4). They also note that running through the articles is a theme: ‘context matters’ (p. 8). All the contributors to this slim volume are wrestling with the problem of context; how a researcher in one socio-economic context (Fahey and Norris, Stephens), linguistic context (Elsinga and Horsewood), cultural context (Ronald) or historical context (Bengtsson and Ruonavaara) can research and interpret the activities of others living in another context. Each is trying to adapt their approach to take account of different contexts. While researchers restrict themselves to their own country with its particular economic, social, political, cultural and historical contexts, they can more easily live with the illusion that their methods and theoretical frameworks are adequate to the task of understanding their own housing system. However, in becoming aware of differences, particularly ones that confound us, we are forced to confront their inadequacies. Confronted with an alien environment where things are no longer as they seem, where taken-for-granted assumptions are no longer adequate, the contributors to this volume show us how to improve our methodologies. In doing so, they are making a contribution not just to comparative housing research but also to mainstream housing research: testing and developing theories (as illustrated by the contributions of Elsinga, Horsewood, Fahey and Norris); throwing the role of culture and context into sharper relief and challenging Eurocentric theories (Ronald); forging a new understanding of histories and their trajectories (Bengtsson and Ruonavaara); and, showing how policy is embedded within wider systems (Stephens).
This is one answer to the question haunting this collection of articles: what is unique about comparative housing research? A suggested second answer reveals a shortcoming: the emancipatory role of comparative housing research is yet to emerge fully. Bengstsson and Ruonavaara, in their contribution, seek to explain how Nordic housing systems came to be so different. The emancipatory role of housing research is a next methodological stage. It emerges when we begin to evaluate the trajectory of housing systems, when we begin to critique what has ‘gone wrong’ and appreciate what has been achieved. The task is not simply one of critique but of working out what promotes the development (not simply change) of the housing system in each country and integrating these into a framework which can provide a guide to the future development of local housing systems. This task presupposes and makes demands on prior empirical work (quantitative, qualitative and ethnographic), the development of adequate theoretical frameworks and a grasp of ‘process tracing’. On the other hand, it demands that housing researchers take a stance on what contributes to the development of a housing system as a whole (rather than giving priority to one element because powerful and sectional interests demand it). This emancipatory role will make new demands on researchers, viz. that they make explicit the grounds upon which they take their stance and expose this to ongoing scrutiny. The transfer of policies from one society or culture to another, from one local area, region or country to another (a role advocated by Stephens) is built upon the results of this emancipatory role.
The book suffers from the lack of a good copy edit. Some chapters more than others have more than an acceptable number of typos, missed words, incorrect and missing references and incorrect heading levels. Many of these were carried over from their previous publication as journal articles. Annoyingly the header (in capitals) remained the same throughout the book rather than changing with each chapter. While the contents page allocated a chapter number to each article, this was not reflected in the text. Some brief notes on each of the contributors would also have been helpful to a non-European audience.
Overall, however, Meaning and Measurement in Comparative Housing Research reflects the ongoing interest in comparative housing research, as well as ongoing efforts to reflect on and improve methodological approaches, and to draw on wider social science disciplines to work out new ways forward. After a decade’s neglect of method in comparative housing research, it is a welcome contribution.