A note on the research philosophy-type grid: for Housing Studies students
Referring to the grid, some options tend to be conceptually more coherent than others (re: Lecture note on research types and their preferred research philosophies )
Please provide an example on each of the following
research theme cases, by coming up with (1) two research objectives, (2) 2
research questions, and (3) 2 relevant research issues:
Research theme case 1: examine the desire on home
ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong generation z by social
class, based on pragmatism and descriptive research
Research theme case 2: examine the desire on home
ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong generation z by social
class, based on pragmatism and exploratory research
Research theme case 3: examine the desire on home
ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong generation z by social
class, based on interpretivism and descriptive research
Research theme case 4: examine the desire on home
ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong generation z by social
class, based on positivism and causal research
Research theme case 5: examine the desire on home
ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong generation z by social
class, based on pragmatism and evaluation research
My intention is to learn how the chosen research
philosophy and research type to study a research theme affect the formulation
of research objectives, research issues as well as the research issues to
respond to. For the 5 research theme cases, the research theme is the same,
i.e. "examine the desire on home ownership (now or in the near future) by
the Hong Kong generation z by social class".
Below are five
worked examples that keep the research theme constant while varying the research
philosophy (pragmatism, interpretivism, positivism) and research type
(descriptive, exploratory, causal, evaluation). For each case, you’ll see how
these choices shape:
- Research objectives (what
the study aims to achieve)
- Research questions (the
guiding questions)
- Research issues
(practical/ethical/methodological challenges the study must address)
Research Theme (common to all five cases)
“Examine the
desire on home ownership (now or in the near future) by the Hong Kong
Generation Z by social class.”
Generation Z here refers to people born roughly between
1997–2012 (currently aged ~14–29 in 2026), and social class can be
operationalised via household income, parental occupation/education, or
subjective class identification.
Case 1
Philosophy: Pragmatism
Research type: Descriptive research
(1) Research objectives
1.
To describe the
level and distribution of home-ownership desire among Hong Kong Generation Z
across different social classes.
2.
To identify key
demographic and socio-economic characteristics associated with stronger or
weaker home-ownership desire within this group.
(2) Research questions
1.
What is the
prevalence of home-ownership desire (now or in the near future) among Hong Kong
Generation Z, and how does it vary by social class?
2.
Which demographic
and socio-economic factors (e.g., income, education, parental home ownership)
are most strongly associated with home-ownership desire within each social
class?
(3) Research issues
1.
Measurement and
operationalisation issue: How to validly
measure “desire for home ownership” (e.g., Likert-scale intention, time
horizon, certainty) and “social class” in a way that is meaningful to Hong Kong
Gen Z respondents?
2.
Sampling and
representativeness issue: How to obtain a
sample of Gen Z across social classes that is sufficiently diverse (e.g.,
students, young workers, gig-economy workers) to allow credible descriptive
generalisation within Hong Kong?
Pragmatism justifies using whichever methods (survey,
short interviews, secondary data) best produce actionable, contextually
relevant descriptions, without being tied to a single ontological stance. Descriptive
research focuses on “what is” rather than “why” or “what if”, hence the
objectives and questions centre on prevalence and patterns.cambridge+2
Case 2
Philosophy: Pragmatism
Research type: Exploratory research
(1) Research objectives
1.
To explore how
Hong Kong Generation Z from different social classes understand and talk about
their desire (or lack of desire) for home ownership.
2.
To uncover
emergent themes, narratives, and contextual factors that shape home-ownership
aspirations among this group, to inform future theory-building and hypothesis
development.
(2) Research questions
1.
How do Hong Kong
Generation Z individuals from different social classes describe their desire
(or non-desire) for home ownership now or in the near future?
2.
What meanings,
expectations, and contextual influences (e.g., family pressure, housing policy,
career uncertainty) emerge as important in shaping these desires across social
classes?
(3) Research issues
1.
Conceptual clarity
issue: “Desire for home
ownership” may mean different things (status, security, investment, family
expectation); how to capture this conceptual diversity without imposing the
researcher’s definition?
2.
Access and
sensitivity issue: How to gain trust
and open discussion with Gen Z respondents on a potentially sensitive and
emotionally charged topic (housing inequality, intergenerational dependence),
especially across class lines?
Here, pragmatism
supports mixed or flexible methods (e.g., focus groups, in-depth interviews,
online discussions) chosen for their usefulness in surfacing rich insights. Exploratory
research is appropriate when the phenomenon is complex and not yet well
theorised in this specific context, so objectives and questions emphasise
understanding meanings and generating themes rather than testing pre-specified
hypotheses.cambridge+3
Case 3
Philosophy: Interpretivism
Research type: Descriptive research
(1) Research objectives
1.
To interpret and
describe the lived experiences and subjective meanings that Hong Kong
Generation Z attach to home-ownership desire within different social-class
contexts.
2.
To illuminate how
social-class positioning shapes the ways in which Gen Z make sense of home
ownership as a life goal, symbol, or burden.
(2) Research questions
1.
How do Hong Kong
Generation Z individuals from different social classes experience and interpret
their desire (or lack of desire) for home ownership?
2.
In what ways do
social-class backgrounds influence the meanings, emotions, and identity
narratives that Gen Z associate with home ownership?
(3) Research issues
1.
Interpretive
validity issue: How to ensure
that the researcher’s interpretations of participants’ meanings about home
ownership and class are credible and grounded in participants’ own accounts, rather
than reflecting the researcher’s biases?
2.
Class and power
dynamics issue: How to manage the
potential power imbalance and sensitivity when researching class differences
(e.g., middle-class researcher interviewing working-class Gen Z) and avoid
reproducing stereotypes in the description?
Under interpretivism,
reality is seen as socially constructed through meanings; the aim is deep
understanding of subjective experiences rather than generalisable frequencies. Descriptive
here means rich, contextual description of meanings and experiences (often via
qualitative case studies or interviews), not statistical description. This
leads to objectives and questions focused on “how” and “in what ways” meanings
are constructed, and issues centred on interpretation, reflexivity, and class
dynamics.frontiersin+3
Case 4
Philosophy: Positivism
Research type: Causal research
(1) Research objectives
1.
To test whether
social class has a causal effect on the strength of home-ownership desire among
Hong Kong Generation Z, controlling for other relevant factors.
2.
To identify
specific mechanisms (e.g., perceived affordability, parental wealth, housing
policy expectations) through which social class influences home-ownership
desire.
(2) Research questions
1.
Does social class
causally affect the level of home-ownership desire among Hong Kong Generation
Z, after controlling for variables such as income, education, and parental home
ownership?
2.
Through which
mediating factors (e.g., perceived affordability, expectations of government
support, intergenerational wealth transfer) does social class exert its
influence on home-ownership desire?
(3) Research issues
1.
Causal
identification issue: How to address
endogeneity and omitted-variable bias (e.g., unobserved preferences, family
culture) when estimating the causal effect of social class on home-ownership
desire?
2.
Measurement and
model specification issue: How to
operationalise “social class” and “home-ownership desire” in a way that
satisfies positivist requirements for reliability, validity, and suitability
for statistical modelling (e.g., regression, structural equation modelling)?
Positivism assumes an objective reality that can be
measured and modelled; knowledge advances through hypothesis testing and
quantification. Causal research seeks to establish cause–effect
relationships, often using surveys with large samples and statistical
techniques. Hence, objectives and questions are framed in terms of testing
effects and mechanisms, and research issues focus on causal inference,
measurement reliability, and model specification.academic.oup+2
Case 5
Philosophy: Pragmatism
Research type: Evaluation research
(Evaluation
research assesses the merit, worth, or impact of a policy, programme, or
intervention.)
Assume a policy
context: for example, a new government scheme aimed at increasing affordable
home-ownership opportunities for young people (e.g., subsidised “Gen Z Home
Ownership Scheme”).
(1) Research objectives
1.
To evaluate the
extent to which a specific home-ownership support scheme influences Hong Kong
Generation Z’s desire to own a home, across different social classes.
2.
To assess how
different social classes perceive the fairness, accessibility, and
effectiveness of the scheme in shaping their home-ownership aspirations.
(2) Research questions
1.
To what extent has
the home-ownership support scheme changed Hong Kong Generation Z’s desire to
own a home (now or in the near future), and does this effect differ by social
class?
2.
How do Gen Z
individuals from different social classes evaluate the scheme’s design,
eligibility criteria, and implementation in relation to their own
home-ownership aspirations?
(3) Research issues
1.
Attribution and
counterfactual issue: How to
distinguish the scheme’s impact on home-ownership desire from other factors
(e.g., macroeconomic conditions, housing price trends, media narratives) that
also influence desire?
2.
Stakeholder and
political sensitivity issue: How to conduct an
evaluation that is methodologically rigorous yet sensitive to political
pressures, stakeholder interests, and potential implications for policy
legitimacy, especially when findings may be critical?
Pragmatism fits evaluation research because it
prioritises practical consequences and usefulness for decision-makers, allowing
mixed methods (surveys, interviews, policy document analysis) to answer “what
works, for whom, and under what conditions”. Evaluation research focuses
on judging the value and impact of an intervention, so objectives and questions
centre on effectiveness, equity across classes, and stakeholder perceptions,
while issues involve attribution and political sensitivity.soar.suny+3
How philosophy and research type shape the
formulation
Across these five
cases, you can see systematic patterns:
- Pragmatism
+ descriptive → objectives and questions about “what is”
and “what patterns exist”; issues about measurement and sampling for actionable
description.
- Pragmatism
+ exploratory → objectives and questions about “how do they
understand” and “what themes emerge”; issues about conceptual openness and
access/sensitivity.
- Interpretivism
+ descriptive → objectives and questions about meanings,
experiences, and identity; issues about interpretive validity and
class/power dynamics.
- Positivism
+ causal → objectives and questions about causal
effects and mechanisms; issues about causal identification and rigorous
measurement/modelling.
- Pragmatism
+ evaluation → objectives and questions about policy
impact and fairness; issues about attribution and political/stakeholder
sensitivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment