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

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

 

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

 

A suitable Chapter 3 for an interpretivist Housing Studies dissertation evaluating a housing policy should explain not only what methods were used, but also how policy meanings, experiences and interpretations were constructed by different stakeholders. The chapter should demonstrate clear alignment among the research questions, interpretivist philosophy, qualitative design, data sources, analysis and ethical procedures. Interpretive policy research commonly examines the meanings, values and beliefs attached to policy, as well as how those meanings are communicated and understood by relevant interpretive communities.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Briefly introduce the purpose and structure of the chapter.

You may state that the chapter explains:

·        The philosophical position underpinning the study.

·        The methodological approach and research design.

·        The case or policy selected for evaluation.

·        The methods of data collection.

·        The process of data analysis.

·        Ethical considerations.

·        Research quality, reflexivity and limitations.

Example:

This chapter explains the methodology adopted to evaluate how [housing policy] is understood, implemented and experienced by relevant stakeholders in [study location]. The study adopts an interpretivist research philosophy and a qualitative case-study design to examine the meanings, perceptions and lived experiences associated with the policy.

3.2 Research Philosophy

3.2.1 Ontological position

Explain your assumptions about the nature of reality.

For an interpretivist dissertation, you could argue that:

·        Housing policy does not have one universally agreed meaning.

·        Policy realities are shaped by social, institutional and historical contexts.

·        Different actors may understand the same policy differently.

·        Tenants, policymakers, housing officers, developers and advocacy groups may construct different interpretations of policy success.

Avoid claiming that the policy is simply “subjective.” A stronger argument is that policy outcomes and meanings are socially produced through interaction, language, institutional practices and lived experience.

3.2.2 Epistemological position

Explain how knowledge about the policy can be obtained.

You may state that:

·        Knowledge is developed through engagement with participants and policy documents.

·        The researcher interprets participants’ accounts rather than discovering a completely objective policy meaning.

·        Understanding depends on context, language and the relationship between researcher and participant.

·        The researcher is an active interpreter of the data.

Interpretive qualitative research typically involves selecting relevant material, refining the research design and research questions, preparing the material, and analysing its “what,” “how” and “why” dimensions.

3.2.3 Interpretivist rationale

Explain why interpretivism is appropriate for the research problem.

For example:

An interpretivist approach is appropriate because the purpose of this study is not merely to measure whether the policy achieved predetermined numerical targets. It is to understand how different stakeholders interpret the policy, how implementation is experienced, and why the policy may produce different meanings and consequences across social groups.

This section should distinguish your study from a positivist evaluation based mainly on indicators, statistical measurement or causal-effect estimation.

3.3 Research Approach

3.3.1 Qualitative approach

Explain why qualitative research is suitable.

A qualitative approach may help you examine:

·        Stakeholders’ perceptions of policy objectives.

·        Experiences of accessing housing support.

·        Understandings of fairness, affordability or adequacy.

·        Tensions between formal policy objectives and implementation.

·        Differences between official policy narratives and residents’ lived experiences.

·        The institutional and social context in which the policy operates.

Qualitative policy research commonly draws on interviews, observation and close reading of relevant documents.

3.3.2 Inductive, deductive or abductive reasoning

Identify how you will develop and use concepts.

Possible options include:

·        Inductive reasoning: themes emerge primarily from the data.

·        Deductive reasoning: existing concepts guide the analysis.

·        Abductive reasoning: theoretical concepts and empirical findings are repeatedly compared to develop the most plausible interpretation.

For an MBA or Housing Studies dissertation, an abductive approach may be especially useful:

The study uses an abductive analytical approach. Existing concepts from the housing-policy literature informed the initial interview and document-analysis framework, while unexpected meanings and patterns emerging from the data were used to refine the interpretation.

3.4 Research Design

3.4.1 Case-study design

Explain whether the study is:

·        A single-case study.

·        A comparative case study.

·        An embedded case study involving different groups, neighbourhoods or implementation sites.

·        An instrumental case study used to understand a wider housing-policy issue.

·        An intrinsic case study focused primarily on the particular policy or location.

A generic formulation might be:

The study adopts an instrumental qualitative case-study design. The selected housing policy is treated as a bounded case through which broader issues of policy interpretation, implementation and housing inequality can be examined.

Define the boundaries of the case:

·        Policy name.

·        Geographic area.

·        Relevant time period.

·        Target population.

·        Implementing organisation.

·        Specific policy stage being evaluated.

Case-study research is particularly useful when the research examines policy implementation, programme effects or a contemporary phenomenon in its real-world context.

3.4.2 Policy-evaluation framework

Clarify what “evaluation” means in an interpretivist study.

Rather than evaluating only whether targets were achieved, you might examine:

·        How policy objectives are defined.

·        How different stakeholders understand policy success.

·        Whether implementation reflects formal policy intentions.

·        How access and eligibility are experienced.

·        How benefits and burdens are distributed.

·        Which groups are included or marginalised.

·        What unintended effects or contradictions arise.

·        How policy legitimacy and fairness are constructed.

Possible evaluation dimensions include:

Evaluation dimension	Indicative question
Policy meaning	What does the policy mean to different stakeholders?
Relevance	Does the policy address perceived housing needs?
Accessibility	How do eligible residents experience access?
Implementation	How is the policy translated into organisational practice?
Equity	Who benefits, and who may be disadvantaged?
Effectiveness	How do stakeholders judge the policy’s results?
Unintended consequences	What effects were not anticipated?
Legitimacy	Why is the policy accepted, contested or resisted?

An interpretive policy approach is concerned with policy artefacts, the communities that interpret them and the meanings attached to them.

3.5 Research Setting and Case Context

Provide sufficient background to allow the reader to understand the case.

Include:

·        Housing-market and socioeconomic context.

·        Relevant housing problems.

·        Development of the policy.

·        Policy aims and target population.

·        Main delivery organisations.

·        Institutional and legal context.

·        Relevant implementation history.

·        Reasons for selecting the location or policy.

Do not reproduce the entire literature review or policy background here. Include only contextual information needed to understand the methodology and case boundaries.

3.6 Sampling Strategy

3.6.1 Sampling method

Explain how participants and documents will be selected.

Possible sampling strategies include:

·        Purposive sampling.

·        Criterion sampling.

·        Maximum-variation sampling.

·        Snowball sampling.

·        Theoretical sampling, if using grounded theory.

·        Document sampling based on relevance, authority and policy stage.

Example:

Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with direct knowledge of, or experience with, the housing policy. Maximum variation was sought across stakeholder categories in order to capture differences in institutional position, housing tenure, age, household circumstances and policy experience.

3.6.2 Participant groups

Possible stakeholder groups include:

·        Housing-policy officials.

·        Local-authority or housing-department staff.

·        Housing-association representatives.

·        Private-sector housing providers.

·        Community or tenant organisations.

·        Housing advisers and social workers.

·        Current or former policy beneficiaries.

·        Applicants who were unsuccessful or excluded.

·        Residents affected indirectly by the policy.

3.6.3 Sample size and saturation

State the intended or actual sample size and justify it in terms of information richness rather than statistical representativeness.

Explain:

·        How many participants were recruited.

·        How many belonged to each stakeholder group.

·        How recruitment ended.

·        Whether thematic sufficiency or saturation was considered.

·        Whether certain groups were difficult to access.

Avoid presenting saturation as an automatic or purely numerical rule. For an interpretivist project, you may instead refer to thematic sufficiency, meaning that additional interviews were no longer producing substantially new insights relevant to the research questions.

3.6.4 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Set out criteria such as:

·        Minimum period of experience with the policy.

·        Residence within the selected area.

·        Current or previous involvement in policy implementation.

·        Age or capacity requirements.

·        Ability to provide informed consent.

3.7 Data Sources and Data Collection

A strong interpretivist policy evaluation normally benefits from more than one data source. Triangulation can help compare policy intentions, institutional interpretations and lived experiences, although it should not be treated as proving one single objective truth.

3.7.1 Semi-structured interviews

Describe:

·        Why interviews were selected.

·        Interview format and approximate duration.

·        Location or online platform.

·        Interview language.

·        Recording and transcription procedures.

·        Development of the interview guide.

·        Use of follow-up and probing questions.

·        How sensitive issues were handled.

Interview topics might include:

·        Understanding of the policy’s objectives.

·        Experience of policy access or implementation.

·        Perceived benefits and disadvantages.

·        Fairness and inclusion.

·        Administrative barriers.

·        Differences between policy rules and actual practice.

·        Suggested improvements.

3.7.2 Policy and documentary analysis

Potential documents include:

·        Legislation and statutory guidance.

·        Policy statements.

·        Implementation plans.

·        Administrative guidance.

·        Consultation documents.

·        Meeting minutes.

·        Evaluation reports.

·        Annual reports.

·        Housing strategies.

·        Complaints or appeal documents.

·        Public statements by advocacy groups.

·        Media coverage, where relevant.

Explain how documents will be selected and analysed. Consider:

·        Authorship and institutional position.

·        Intended audience.

·        Date and policy stage.

·        Purpose of the document.

·        Terminology used.

·        Problems defined by the document.

·        Groups represented or absent.

·        Assumptions about responsibility, deservingness and fairness.

3.7.3 Observation or field notes

If appropriate, include:

·        Public meetings.

·        Consultation events.

·        Housing advice sessions.

·        Community meetings.

·        Policy-implementation meetings.

·        Relevant online forums or public communications.

Specify whether observations are participant or non-participant observations, what was recorded and how consent was managed.

3.7.4 Optional visual or participatory methods

Housing research may benefit from:

·        Photovoice.

·        Housing diaries.

·        Mapping exercises.

·        Walk-along interviews.

·        Photographs of housing conditions.

·        Participatory workshops.

Use these only if they directly answer the research questions and can be completed within the dissertation’s time and ethical constraints.

3.8 Research Instruments

3.8.1 Interview guide

Explain how questions were developed from:

·        The research questions.

·        The conceptual framework.

·        The policy documents.

·        Previous housing research.

·        Pilot-interview findings.

You can include the full interview guide in an appendix and provide only the main topic areas in Chapter 3.

3.8.2 Pilot study

If conducted, describe:

·        Number and type of pilot participants.

·        Problems identified.

·        Changes made to wording, sequence or length.

·        Whether the pilot data was included in the final dataset.

A pilot can assess whether questions are understandable, sufficiently open-ended and appropriate for participants with different levels of policy knowledge.

3.9 Data Management and Preparation

Explain the practical process from collection to analysis:

·        Audio-recording and transcription.

·        Transcription style, such as verbatim or intelligent verbatim.

·        Translation and back-translation, if applicable.

·        Anonymisation.

·        File naming and storage.

·        Data-security procedures.

·        Use of qualitative software, such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti or MAXQDA.

·        Separation of identifying information from interview data.

If conducting research in Hong Kong or another multilingual setting, explain how Cantonese, Mandarin and English data were handled. Translation is not merely a technical procedure; wording may affect the interpretation of concepts such as “affordability,” “fairness,” “eligibility” and “home.”

3.10 Data Analysis

3.10.1 Analytical approach

State the principal method, for example:

·        Reflexive thematic analysis.

·        Interpretive thematic analysis.

·        Framework analysis.

·        Narrative analysis.

·        Discourse analysis.

·        Frame analysis.

·        Qualitative content analysis.

·        Within-case and cross-case analysis.

For a generic policy evaluation, interpretive thematic analysis combined with document analysis is often a practical choice.

3.10.2 Suggested analysis stages

You could organise the analysis as follows:

1.    Familiarise yourself with interview transcripts, field notes and documents.

2.    Record initial observations and reflexive notes.

3.    Conduct initial coding of meaningful passages.

4.    Develop codes relating to policy meanings, experiences, implementation and outcomes.

5.    Group related codes into candidate themes.

6.    Compare themes across stakeholder groups and data sources.

7.    Examine contradictions, negative cases and minority perspectives.

8.    Relate the themes to the conceptual framework and research questions.

9.    Construct an interpretive account of policy implementation and evaluation.

10.                    Select quotations and documentary extracts that support the analysis.

3.10.3 Possible coding framework

Analytical category	Illustrative codes
Policy meanings	affordability, adequacy, fairness, security, deservingness
Policy implementation	discretion, bureaucracy, communication, coordination
Access	eligibility, application barriers, waiting time, exclusion
Lived experience	stress, dignity, insecurity, satisfaction, coping
Equity	tenure, class, age, disability, ethnicity, household type
Policy outcomes	intended benefits, unintended effects, displacement
Contestation	resistance, mistrust, alternative interpretations

Treat this as an initial framework rather than a fixed coding scheme. An interpretivist analysis should remain open to meanings that do not fit the initial categories.

3.10.4 Interpretation and reflexivity

Explain how you moved from description to interpretation.

You might ask:

·        What assumptions are embedded in participants’ accounts?

·        How do institutional roles shape interpretations?

·        Which voices are privileged?

·        How do official and resident narratives differ?

·        What social, political or economic context gives these accounts meaning?

·        How did your own position influence access, questioning and interpretation?

3.11 Trustworthiness and Research Quality

In an interpretivist study, discuss quality rather than relying only on the language of validity and reliability.

3.11.1 Credibility

Methods may include:

·        Prolonged engagement with the case.

·        Triangulation of interviews and documents.

·        Comparison across stakeholder groups.

·        Participant checking, where appropriate.

·        Discussion with supervisors or research peers.

·        Attention to contradictory evidence.

3.11.2 Transferability

Provide:

·        Thick description of the policy context.

·        Clear case boundaries.

·        Detailed participant and setting information.

·        A cautious explanation of which insights may be relevant to similar contexts.

Do not claim statistical generalisability unless the study has a suitable quantitative design.

3.11.3 Dependability

Document:

·        Changes to the research design.

·        Recruitment and interview procedures.

·        Coding decisions.

·        Development of themes.

·        Reasons for excluding or retaining data.

3.11.4 Confirmability

Demonstrate that interpretations are grounded in the data through:

·        An audit trail.

·        Reflexive notes.

·        Direct quotations.

·        Documentary evidence.

·        Explicit discussion of alternative interpretations.

3.11.5 Triangulation

Explain whether you use:

·        Data-source triangulation.

·        Investigator triangulation.

·        Theoretical triangulation.

·        Methodological triangulation.

In an interpretivist study, triangulation should be presented as a means of exploring differing perspectives and strengthening the richness of interpretation, not as a mechanism for eliminating all subjectivity.

3.12 Researcher Reflexivity

This section is especially important for interpretivist research.

Discuss:

·        Your relationship to the housing issue.

·        Your professional, academic or personal position.

·        Access to participants and institutions.

·        Possible power differences.

·        Assumptions brought to the research.

·        How your identity may influence interviews.

·        How you managed confirmation bias.

·        How reflexive journaling or supervision informed the analysis.

Example:

As the researcher occupies an interpretive position, neutrality is understood not as the absence of influence but as transparency regarding the researcher’s role in producing and interpreting the data. Reflexive notes were maintained throughout recruitment, interviewing and analysis to identify assumptions and examine how the research relationship shaped the findings.

3.13 Ethical Considerations

Address the following:

·        Institutional ethical approval.

·        Informed consent.

·        Voluntary participation.

·        Right to withdraw.

·        Confidentiality and anonymity.

·        Secure data storage.

·        Protection of vulnerable participants.

·        Risks of discussing housing insecurity or institutional experiences.

·        Avoidance of harm or coercion.

·        Management of incentives.

·        Use of quotations.

·        Data retention and destruction.

Housing-policy research may involve participants who face homelessness, insecure tenure, financial stress or dependence on public services. Explain how interviews were conducted sensitively and how participation was kept separate from access to housing services.

3.14 Methodological Limitations

Acknowledge limitations without undermining the entire study.

Possible limitations include:

·        Small or non-probability sample.

·        Difficulty recruiting excluded or vulnerable residents.

·        Overrepresentation of articulate or highly engaged participants.

·        Reliance on self-reported experiences.

·        Restricted access to confidential policy documents.

·        Researcher interpretation and possible bias.

·        Translation or language-related loss of meaning.

·        Limited time available for longitudinal observation.

·        Findings being context-specific.

·        Policy changes occurring during the research period.

Then explain how you mitigated these limitations through purposive sampling, multiple data sources, reflexivity, transparent analysis and careful claims.

3.15 Chapter Summary

Briefly restate:

·        The interpretivist philosophical position.

·        The qualitative case-study design.

·        The policy and participant selection.

·        The data-collection methods.

·        The analytical method.

·        The trustworthiness and ethical procedures.

End by linking to Chapter 4:

The next chapter presents the findings from the interviews, documentary analysis and field observations. The findings are organised around the themes developed through the interpretive analytical process.

Suggested final structure

A concise version of the chapter could therefore use this sequence:

1.    Introduction.

2.    Research philosophy.

3.    Research approach.

4.    Research design.

5.    Case and policy context.

6.    Sampling strategy.

7.    Data sources and data collection.

8.    Research instruments and pilot study.

9.    Data management and preparation.

10.                    Data analysis.

11.                    Trustworthiness and quality.

12.                    Researcher reflexivity.

13.                    Ethical considerations.

14.                    Methodological limitations.

15.                    Chapter summary.

The most important principle is methodological coherence: your research questions should lead to the interpretivist position, the interpretivist position should justify the qualitative design, the design should determine the case and sampling strategy, and the data collected should be capable of answering the policy-evaluation questions.

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