A study note on the research methods used in historical study: for Housing Studies students (on housing policy)

A study note on the research methods used in historical study: for Housing Studies students (on housing policy) (information from perplexity.ai)

My question 1: "What are the research methods used to study history all about with reference to housing policy study?"

The reply: "The study of history in the context of housing policy employs a variety of research methods that are designed to uncover the development, impact, and effectiveness of housing policies over time. These methods are grounded in both empirical data and theoretical frameworks, and they often combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding.

Research Methods in Historical Housing Policy Study

1. Empirical and Positivist Approaches

Early housing policy research tended to be empirical and positivist, focusing on collecting objective data to inform policy decisions. This approach relies on observations and evidence to directly influence policy, often through descriptive statistics and case studies. It is useful in relatively homogeneous and less complex environments where clear cause-effect relationships can be identified1.

2. Social Constructionist Approaches

From the mid-1990s, housing studies increasingly adopted social constructionist epistemologies. This approach views housing experiences and policies as socially constructed and subject to interpretation and power struggles. It emphasizes the role of actors in shaping policy discourses and recognizes that social facts are not fixed but contested. This method allows for deeper theoretical insights and helps explain the diversity and complexity of housing realities beyond mere description1.

3. Mixed Methods and Methodological Pluralism

Housing policy research often uses mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to capture both the measurable outcomes and the contextual, interpretive aspects of housing policies. For example, case studies are frequently used, sometimes coupled with statistical analysis or document analysis, to evaluate the successes and failures of housing policies comprehensively2.

4. Case Studies and Process Tracing

Case studies are a common method in housing policy history, providing detailed examination of specific policies or programs. Process tracing is used to uncover the causal chains and political processes behind policy adoption and implementation. This method involves analyzing multiple sources such as government documents, reports, secondary literature, and timelines to reconstruct the sequence of events and the interplay of political and economic factors23.

5. Document and Secondary Data Analysis

Researchers analyze official documents, legislative summaries, program evaluations, and historical records to understand the evolution of housing policies. Secondary data from academic literature, news media, and policy reports supplement this analysis to provide context and support interpretations23.

6. Comparative and Typological Approaches

Some studies adopt comparative methods to identify differences and similarities across housing systems or policies in different regions or periods. Typologies of housing systems based on cultural, political, or ideological factors help in understanding divergent policy trajectories and outcomes1.

Linking Theory and Methodology

The choice of research method in studying housing policy history is influenced by the theoretical framework adopted. Positivist approaches favor empirical and quantitative methods, while constructionist approaches lean towards qualitative and interpretive methods. A rigorous study often involves making these epistemological assumptions explicit and selecting methods that align with the research objectives and theoretical stance1.

Summary

To study the history of housing policy, researchers use a blend of methods including:

• Empirical data collection and statistical analysis

• Qualitative case studies and process tracing

• Document and secondary data analysis

• Mixed methods to integrate quantitative and qualitative insights

• Comparative and typological analyses to understand broader patterns

These methods help uncover the political, economic, and social contexts that shaped housing policies, their implementation, and their impacts over time, providing valuable lessons for contemporary policy-making123."

My question 2: "Clarify the topic a bit more in the context of Hong Kong over the past 80 years?"

The reply: "Studying the history of housing policy in Hong Kong over the past 80 years involves using historical research methods that combine archival analysis, case studies, policy document review, and empirical data analysis to understand the evolution, political context, and social impact of housing programs.

Research Methods Applied to Hong Kong’s Housing Policy History

1. Archival and Document Analysis

Researchers extensively use government archives, policy papers, white papers, legislative records, and reports from bodies like the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and Housing Department. For example, the analysis of the 1964 White Paper on squatter control and low-cost housing, the Ten-year Housing Programme (1973-1982), and subsequent Long Term Housing Strategies (1987-2001) reveals policy shifts and government priorities156. Archival research helps trace the institutional framework changes, such as the establishment of the Housing Authority in 1973 and the merging of departments.

2. Case Studies and Historical Narrative

Detailed case studies of specific estates (e.g., Shek Kip Mei resettlement estate, Wah Fu Estate) and housing schemes (e.g., Home Ownership Scheme, Tenant Purchase Scheme) are used to illustrate the practical implementation of policies and their social effects. These case studies often include architectural and urban planning analyses, showing how housing design evolved from Mark I to Harmony blocks reflecting changing standards and social expectations135.

3. Political and Social Contextual Analysis

Historical research on Hong Kong’s housing policy also involves examining the political context, such as the colonial government’s response to post-war population surges, squatter clearance, and social unrest in the 1950s-60s. Studies highlight how housing policy was shaped by the colonial government’s need to maintain legitimacy and stability amid political pressures from China and local social dynamics2. This approach uses a framework linking political structure, ideas, and policy outcomes.

4. Cohort and Longitudinal Analysis

Some studies employ cohort analysis to examine how different generations experienced housing provision and policy changes over time (e.g., from 1981 to 2001). This method tracks housing trajectories of various social groups, revealing inequalities and shifts from public rental housing to home ownership4. It combines demographic data with policy timelines to assess impacts.

5. Mixed Methods and Interdisciplinary Approaches

Research integrates quantitative data (such as population statistics, housing unit numbers, income eligibility criteria) with qualitative insights from interviews, policy discourse analysis, and urban studies. This mixed approach helps capture both the measurable outcomes (e.g., housing supply targets) and the lived experiences of residents.

Summary of Hong Kong Housing Policy History Through Research

• 1950s-1960s: Focus on emergency resettlement and squatter clearance due to population influx and political urgency; research highlights colonial political motives and limited resources leading to basic resettlement blocks (Mark I and II)25.

• 1970s-1980s: Introduction of the Ten-year Housing Programme and establishment of the Housing Authority; shift towards planned self-contained communities with improved facilities; emergence of home ownership schemes studied through policy documents and estate case studies15.

• 1987-2001: Long Term Housing Strategy emphasizes mixed tenure and financial independence of HA; cohort studies reveal differential benefits across social groups and growing home ownership trends46.

• Post-2000: Policy adjustments include cessation of some schemes (e.g., HOS), introduction of market-based approaches, and greater tenant involvement; modular design and flexible housing typologies studied in architectural research13.

These research methods collectively provide a rich, multi-dimensional understanding of how Hong Kong’s housing policies developed in response to demographic pressures, political imperatives, and social needs over eight decades.

This approach to studying Hong Kong’s housing history combines archival research, case studies, political analysis, cohort tracking, and mixed methods to reveal the complex evolution of housing policy and its social impact in the city123456."

My question 3: "How did the colonial government's housing policies differ from those after 1997?"

The reply: "The colonial government’s housing policies in Hong Kong and those implemented after the 1997 handover differ significantly in their objectives, approaches, and political contexts.

• : The colonial government’s housing policy was largely reactive, shaped by urgent crises such as the 1953 Shek Kip Mei squatter fire that left 53,000 people homeless. The government responded by providing basic resettlement blocks (Mark I and II) to house displaced populations, focusing on emergency relief and social stability rather than long-term planning7.

• : Before 1954, the government adopted a largely laissez-faire approach, but the post-war influx of refugees from China forced it to take more active, though still limited, intervention in housing7.

• : The government emphasized public rental housing to provide affordable shelter, with subsidized rents significantly lower than private market rates2.

• : Introduced in 1972, this policy granted indigenous male villagers in the New Territories rights to build small houses, reflecting a political compromise to secure rural support for new town developments. This policy was a legacy of the colonial era, balancing development needs with traditional rights56.

• : Due to Hong Kong’s status as a “borrowed place for a borrowed time,” the colonial government did not pursue long-term housing strategies but focused on maintaining order and addressing immediate housing shortages8.

• : Upon the 1997 handover, the new SAR government under Tung Chee-hwa set ambitious targets: building at least 85,000 flats annually, achieving a 70% home ownership rate by 2007, and reducing public rental housing waiting times to three years. This marked a shift to a more “active” government role, yet still within a framework of limited intervention in the private market1.

• : The 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis caused property prices to collapse, undermining initial housing strategies. By 2002, the government shifted to a remedial focus, emphasizing assistance to low-income families while minimizing interference in the private property market1.

• : The government stopped producing and selling Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats from 2003 and ended the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS) in 2005 to avoid market distortions and overlap with private housing supply1.

• : The SAR government faced financial deficits limiting expansion of welfare-related housing. It maintained a cautious stance on reintroducing subsidized schemes despite public and legislative pressure, arguing that property prices were not excessively high relative to the 1997 peak1.

• : The Small House Policy remains in place post-1997, protected under Article 40 of the Basic Law, reflecting continuity in respecting indigenous villagers’ rights despite broader policy changes5.

In essence, the colonial government’s housing policies were reactive and focused on emergency relief and social stability within a limited intervention framework. After 1997, the SAR government initially adopted a more proactive housing strategy aiming for increased home ownership and shorter public housing waits but later shifted to a more market-oriented and financially cautious approach, reducing direct subsidized housing interventions while maintaining some colonial-era policies like the Small House Policy1578."

My question 4: "On this topic of "How did the colonial government's housing policies differ from those after 1997?", please come up with 4 research objectives and 2 research questions from historical study perspective"

The reply: "Here are four research objectives and two research questions from a historical study perspective on the topic "How did the colonial government's housing policies differ from those after 1997?" in Hong Kong:

Research Objectives

1. To analyze the key characteristics and objectives of housing policies implemented by the colonial government in Hong Kong before 1997, focusing on their social, political, and economic contexts.

2. To examine the housing policy changes introduced by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government after 1997, including shifts in policy goals, strategies, and implementation mechanisms.

3. To compare and contrast the role of government intervention and market forces in housing policy formulation and execution before and after the 1997 handover.

4. To investigate the continuity and change in specific housing policies, such as the Small House Policy, and their implications for indigenous rights and urban development across the colonial and post-colonial periods.

Research Questions

1. How did the colonial government’s housing policies address the challenges of population influx, housing shortages, and social stability compared to the post-1997 SAR government’s housing strategies?

2. In what ways did the political transition in 1997 influence the priorities, targets, and approaches of Hong Kong’s housing policies, particularly regarding public rental housing and home ownership promotion?

These objectives and questions aim to guide a historical inquiry that situates housing policy within its evolving political and social context, using archival documents, policy analysis, and comparative historical methods. They reflect the shifts from crisis-driven, welfare-oriented colonial policies to more market-sensitive and strategic approaches after 1997, while also considering policy legacies like the Small House Policy1457810."

My question 5: "Please comment briefly on the originality, academic and practical values of studying these 4 research objectives and 2 research questions."

The reply: "Studying the proposed four research objectives and two research questions on the differences between colonial and post-1997 housing policies in Hong Kong holds significant originality, academic, and practical values:

Originality

• The focus on a historical comparison spanning colonial and post-handover periods provides a unique longitudinal perspective rarely covered in depth, especially linking political transitions with housing policy shifts.

• Investigating continuity and change in policies such as the Small House Policy within evolving political frameworks adds novel insights into how traditional rights intersect with modern urban development.

• Combining political, social, and economic contexts with policy analysis enriches understanding beyond purely economic or planning-focused studies common in Hong Kong housing research.

Academic Value

• The objectives and questions encourage interdisciplinary research bridging history, political science, urban studies, and social policy, contributing to a fuller scholarly understanding of Hong Kong’s housing development.

• They promote critical analysis of government roles and market interactions, addressing gaps in literature about how political regime changes affect policy formulation and implementation.

• The research can advance theoretical debates on colonial legacies, state-market relations, and welfare policy transitions in post-colonial contexts.

• Comparative historical analysis can inform academic discussions on housing affordability, social equity, and urban governance in global cities facing similar challenges.

Practical Value

• Understanding the historical roots and evolution of housing policies helps policymakers identify structural constraints and legacies influencing current housing crises, such as affordability and supply shortages27.

• Insights into policy shifts post-1997 can guide more effective housing strategies that balance market mechanisms with social welfare needs, addressing calls for reforms to subsidized ownership and rental schemes23.

• Examining the political and social contexts behind policy decisions can improve public communication and stakeholder engagement in housing reforms.

• Lessons from historical policy successes and failures can inform future housing supply planning, tenure diversification, and protection of indigenous rights, aiding sustainable urban development45.

In summary, this research agenda offers original and academically rigorous contributions that also carry tangible implications for addressing Hong Kong’s persistent and complex housing challenges."

Reference: 

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.