Lecture notes on the topics of ontology, epistemology and axiology in Housing Studies dissertation study

Lecture notes on the topics of ontology, epistemology and axiology in Housing Studies dissertation study

 

Briefly highlight 3 main ideas on each of the following research philosophy topics in the context of doing Housing Studies dissertation projects:

1. Ontology

2. Epistemology

3. Axiology

 

In a Housing Studies dissertation, these three ideas ensure that your research question, evidence, methods, and interpretation are philosophically consistent. They concern, respectively, reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), and values/ethics (axiology).

1. Ontology

• What is the nature of the housing reality being studied? Decide whether housing conditions—such as affordability, overcrowding, or waiting times—are objective realities measurable independently of residents’ views, or socially constructed experiences whose meaning differs by household.
• Individual versus multiple realities. A study of flat size may treat square footage as one measurable reality; a study of “home” for subdivided-unit residents may accept multiple realities shaped by family, culture, security, dignity, and life stage.
• Implication for the research question. Ontological assumptions shape what you investigate. For example: “What factors predict housing affordability?” assumes an observable external reality, whereas “How do residents experience housing insecurity?” assumes that lived realities and meanings matter. Ontology concerns the nature of reality and social phenomena.

2. Epistemology

• What counts as credible knowledge? Decide what evidence can answer your housing question: administrative data, transaction prices, survey responses, policy documents, interviews, observation, or a combination.
• Objectivist versus interpretivist knowledge. An objectivist/positivist approach may seek patterns—e.g., modelling the relationship between income and rent burden. An interpretivist approach seeks participants’ meanings—e.g., interviewing public-rental-housing applicants about how they navigate long waiting periods.
• Match methods to the knowledge sought. If the goal is estimating prevalence or testing relationships, quantitative surveys and secondary datasets may fit. If the goal is understanding residents’ interpretations of wellbeing, belonging, or displacement, qualitative interviews or ethnographic observation may fit better. Epistemology addresses how knowledge is acquired, justified, and validated.

3. Axiology

• Recognise that values influence research. Housing is inherently value-laden: researchers may hold views about affordability, inequality, property rights, public housing allocation, or whether adequate housing is a social right. Axiology requires acknowledging how these commitments could influence framing and interpretation.
• Address power and representation. Be careful whose voices are included and whose are excluded. For research involving tenants of subdivided units, low-income households, migrants, elderly residents, or public-housing applicants, avoid portraying participants as merely “problems”; represent their experiences fairly and in context.
• Build ethics into the design. Protect confidentiality, obtain informed consent, minimise harm, and avoid collecting identifiable information that could create tenancy, immigration, or welfare risks. In interview-based work, reflexively record how your position as researcher may affect questions, rapport, and interpretation. Axiology concerns values, beliefs, ethics, and the role of researcher bias in research.

Illustration

For a dissertation on subdivided-unit living in Hong Kong:

Philosophy topic	Practical stance
Philosophy topic		Practical stance
Ontology		Housing inadequacy is both materially observable (space, ventilation, rent burden) and experienced differently by residents
Epistemology		Combine official/ statistical data with semi-structured interviews to understand both patterns and lived experiences
Axiology		Explicitly prioritise ethical protection and non-stigmatising representation of tenants, while reflecting on the researcher’s assumptions about “adequate” housing

A pragmatic mixed-methods design can therefore be appropriate when your project needs both measurable housing indicators and residents’ subjective accounts—provided you clearly explain how the two forms of evidence answer different parts of the research question.