Lecture note on a generic dissertation report chapter 3 [research methodology] template for my Housing Studies students

Lecture note on a generic dissertation report chapter 3 [research methodology] template for my Housing Studies students

 

In the context of doing a part-time Housing Studies dissertation project, based on pragmatism, on a housing policy evaluation theme, please suggest a generic dissertation chapter template on chapter 3 [Research Methodology].

Here’s a generic, pragmatism-aligned Chapter 3 (Research Methodology) template tailored for a part-time Housing Studies dissertation with a housing policy evaluation theme. It follows common UK/HK master’s conventions and moves logically from philosophy to practical procedures.digilib.itb.ac+3

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

• Restate the dissertation aim and research questions (RQs) focused on evaluating a specific housing policy (e.g., affordability, allocation, sustainability).
• Signpost the chapter’s structure: philosophy → approach → design → data collection → sampling → analysis → quality → ethics → limitations.assignmenthelpcenter+2

3.2 Research Philosophy: Pragmatism

• Define pragmatism as a problem-centred paradigm that prioritises “what works” to answer the RQs, reconciling objectivist and subjectivist concerns through practical consequences.digilib.itb.ac+2
• Justify pragmatism for policy evaluation: it supports mixed methods, abductive reasoning, and utility-oriented knowledge useful for policymakers and practitioners.taylorfrancis+2
• Clarify ontological/epistemological stance: reality is plural and context-dependent; knowledge is validated by its usefulness in solving the evaluation problem.digilib.itb.ac+1

3.3 Research Approach and Logic of Inquiry

• State the overall approach: mixed methods (quantitative + qualitative) integrated to strengthen inference about policy performance.taylorfrancis+1
• Specify logic of inquiry: abductive (iterating between data and theory to generate plausible explanations of policy mechanisms and outcomes).taylorfrancis+1
• Explain how abduction supports theory-building about policy mechanisms (e.g., using a C-M-O or programme logic lens in evaluation).ahuri.edu

3.4 Research Design and Strategy

• Present the design type (e.g., sequential explanatory, concurrent triangulation, or embedded case study) and justify fit with the evaluation questions.assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Define unit(s) of analysis: policy programme, implementing agency, beneficiary households, or geographic area.digilib.itb.ac+1
• If using a case study strategy, describe case selection rationale (typical, critical, or revelatory case) and boundaries.digilib.itb.ac+1

3.5 Data Collection Methods

• Quantitative strand: instruments (e.g., structured survey, administrative data extraction), constructs (e.g., affordability ratios, wait times, satisfaction scales), and development/piloting.govinfo+1
• Qualitative strand: instruments (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus groups, document analysis of policy texts), sampling of stakeholders (officials, providers, residents).ahuri.edu+2
• Procedures: fieldwork steps, recruitment channels, consent scripts, data storage, and timeline.govinfo+1

3.6 Sampling Strategy

• Population and sampling frames for each strand (e.g., households in targeted estates; frontline staff; policy documents).govinfo+1
• Sampling techniques: probability (stratified/random) for surveys; purposive/theoretical for interviews; document selection criteria.govinfo+1
• Sample size justification: power considerations for quant; saturation and depth for qual; integration points between strands.assignmenthelpcenter+1

3.7 Data Analysis Procedures

• Quantitative analysis: descriptive statistics, comparative tests (e.g., t-tests/ANOVA/ANCOVA if comparing groups or controlling covariates), and effect sizes relevant to policy outcomes.govinfo+1
• Qualitative analysis: coding framework (deductive from evaluation questions + inductive themes), thematic analysis or framework analysis, use of software (e.g., NVivo).assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Integration: how findings are merged (e.g., joint displays, meta-inferences, explaining contradictions, building programme theory).taylorfrancis+1

3.8 Quality, Validity, and Trustworthiness

• Quantitative quality: reliability (internal consistency), validity (construct, criterion), and bias mitigation (sampling, measurement).assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Qualitative trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability; techniques such as triangulation, member checking, audit trail.assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Mixed-methods integration quality: coherence of meta-inferences, handling of divergent results, reflexivity about researcher role.taylorfrancis+1

3.9 Ethical Considerations

• Ethics approval pathway (university IRB), informed consent, confidentiality/anonymity, data protection (HK PDPO compliance), and risk management for vulnerable participants.assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Special considerations for policy evaluation: access to officials, sensitivity of administrative data, managing expectations about policy influence.ahuri.edu+1

3.10 Methodological Limitations and Reflexivity

• Acknowledge constraints: access, generalisability, measurement limits, time/resource bounds typical of part-time study.assignmenthelpcenter+1
• Reflexivity: positionality as a practitioner/researcher, potential biases, and steps taken to mitigate them.taylorfrancis+1

3.11 Chapter Summary

• Briefly recap how the chosen philosophy, design, and methods align with the policy evaluation RQs and set up Chapter 4 (Findings).

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