An example of formulating and evaluating research method design for 2 Housing Studies dissertation proposals based on different research philosophies

An example of formulating and evaluating research method design for 2 Housing Studies dissertation proposals based on different research philosophies

 

With regard to the Housing Studies research theme of "the housing need of the Hong Kong Generation Y middle-class singles in 2026", please provide two dissertation proposals, one based on positivism and one based on interpretivism, with the following proposal information:research objectives

2 research objectives

2 research questions

   1 primary research method and 1 secondary research method

 

Below are two alternative dissertation proposals for the same theme. Generation Y may be operationally defined as persons born approximately between 1981 and 1996; in 2026, they are broadly aged 30–45. The topic is timely because Hong Kong has continued to expand subsidised-sale-flat supply and has introduced measures intended to assist younger one-person applicants, while affordability and access remain central housing concerns.

Proposal 1: Positivist study

Proposed title

Determinants of Housing Need and Home-ownership Intention among Hong Kong Generation Y Middle-class Singles in 2026: A Quantitative Study

Philosophical position

This proposal adopts positivism, treating housing need as a measurable phenomenon that can be examined through observable variables, statistical relationships, and hypothesis testing. It focuses on whether socioeconomic resources, housing costs, family support, and preferences predict the intensity and type of housing need among middle-class single adults.

Research objectives

1.    To measure the housing needs, tenure preferences, and affordability position of Hong Kong Generation Y middle-class singles in 2026.

2.    To examine the effects of income, savings, housing expenditure, family financial support, and eligibility for subsidised housing on their home-ownership intention and preferred housing tenure.

Research questions

1.    What are the prevailing housing needs, affordability conditions, and tenure preferences of Hong Kong Generation Y middle-class singles in 2026?

2.    To what extent do financial capacity, housing affordability, parental support, and access to subsidised housing predict their intention to buy a home rather than rent or remain in the parental home?

Primary research method

Structured questionnaire survey.

A self-administered online questionnaire can target approximately 250–400 eligible respondents: Hong Kong permanent residents or residents aged 30–45, unmarried/divorced/widowed without co-resident partner or children, and classified as middle class using a stated individual monthly-income range. Measures could include:

• Current tenure: living with parents, private renting, ownership, public rental housing, etc.
• Housing-cost burden: rent or mortgage payment as a proportion of monthly income.
• Savings and deposit capacity.
• Perceived housing affordability.
• Home-ownership intention within three to five years.
• Preference for private ownership, subsidised ownership, renting, co-living, or remaining with parents.
• Awareness and perceived accessibility of HOS and other subsidised sale flats.
• Parental financial assistance and family housing resources.

The analysis may employ descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, chi-square tests, multiple regression, and logistic regression. For example, the dependent variable could be intention to purchase a flat within five years (yes/no), while predictors include income, savings, rent-to-income ratio, parental support, and perceived eligibility for subsidised home ownership.

Secondary research method

Statistical and documentary analysis of secondary datasets and policy documents.

Relevant materials include Census and Statistics Department household and income statistics, Rating and Valuation Department private-rental data, Housing Authority eligibility rules and sales information, and Long Term Housing Strategy documents. Government policy has been shifting supply toward a higher proportion of subsidised sale flats, with about 56,500 projected for completion from 2025–26 to 2029–30; such context can help interpret survey results on perceived opportunity and housing choices.

---

Proposal 2: Interpretivist study

Proposed title

Making a Home under Constraint: Lived Housing Needs and Housing Strategies of Hong Kong Generation Y Middle-class Singles in 2026

Philosophical position

This proposal adopts interpretivism, viewing housing need not merely as a financial gap but as a socially constructed and personally interpreted experience. It seeks to understand how middle-class single adults define a “suitable home,” experience independence and family obligations, and make sense of renting, co-residence, home ownership, and subsidised housing options.

Research objectives

1.    To explore how Hong Kong Generation Y middle-class singles interpret their housing needs, aspirations, and housing-related life choices in 2026.

2.    To examine how affordability pressures, family relationships, career conditions, social expectations, and housing-policy arrangements shape their housing strategies and perceived housing security.

Research questions

1.    How do Hong Kong Generation Y middle-class singles define an adequate, secure, and desirable housing situation?

2.    How do personal circumstances, family support or obligations, perceived policy accessibility, and housing-market conditions influence their decisions to rent, live with parents, seek subsidised ownership, purchase privately, or defer independent housing?

Primary research method

Semi-structured in-depth interviews.

Conduct approximately 20–30 interviews with purposively selected Generation Y middle-class singles living in different housing circumstances, such as:

• Singles living with parents.
• Private tenants.
• Home owners or mortgage holders.
• Applicants for HOS or other subsidised-sale-flat schemes.
• Persons who have abandoned or postponed a home-ownership plan.

Interview questions should invite detailed accounts of housing journeys, definitions of independence, experiences of sharing a parental home, views of marriage and singlehood, perceptions of stigma or fairness, financial coping strategies, and views on public policy. Thematic analysis can then identify recurring meanings and contrasts—for example, whether remaining with parents is understood as dependence, mutual care, a rational financial strategy, or all three.

Secondary research method

Qualitative document analysis.

Analyse housing-policy papers, Housing Authority scheme documents, Legislative Council replies, media coverage, and relevant academic studies. This will clarify the institutional context within which participants interpret their options. The Housing Authority has, for example, provided additional ballot opportunities and secondary-market quotas for eligible one-person applicants below age 40, while HOS flats continue to form a regular part of Hong Kong housing policy.

Methodological distinction

Element	Positivist proposal		Interpretivist proposal
Element		Positivist proposal		Interpretivist proposal
Main purpose		Measure housing need and test relationships between variables		Understand meanings, experiences, and decision-making processes
View of housing need		An observable and measurable condition		A socially interpreted and context-dependent experience
Primary method		Large-scale structured questionnaire		Semi-structured in-depth interviews
Typical sample		250–400 respondents		20–30 purposively selected participants
Analysis		Descriptive and inferential statistics		Thematic analysis
Likely contribution		Identifies significant predictors of housing need and ownership intention		Explains why similar financial circumstances can lead to different housing choices

The positivist proposal is more suitable if the dissertation aims to estimate patterns and identify statistically significant determinants. The interpretivist proposal is stronger if the aim is to reveal how single middle-class adults experience housing insecurity, independence, family reciprocity, and constrained choice in Hong Kong’s distinctive housing system. Research has also highlighted the role of intergenerational support in shaping younger Hong Kong residents’ housing opportunities, making family context especially relevant to either design.

 

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two primary research methods mentioned, one being for the proposal based on positivism and the other one based on interpretivism?

Below is a focused comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the two primary methods: a structured questionnaire survey (positivist proposal) and semi-structured in‑depth interviews (interpretivist proposal), applied to the study of Hong Kong Generation Y middle‑class singles’ housing needs in 2026.

---

Structured questionnaire survey (positivist primary method)

Strengths

• Efficient measurement of a large population.
  Questionnaires are a low‑cost, practical way to collect standardised data from many respondents quickly, even across a wide geographical area.
• Statistical power and generalisability.
  With a sufficiently large sample, surveys allow estimation of population patterns, detection of small effects, and subgroup comparisons (e.g., by income band, tenure type, or parental support).
• Reliability and comparability.
  Standardised questions and response scales increase reliability and enable comparison across groups, time, or locations, which fits a positivist aim of testing hypotheses about determinants of housing need and home‑ownership intention.
• Ability to measure “unobservable” constructs.
  Surveys can operationalise attitudes, preferences, intentions, perceived affordability, and perceived policy accessibility, which are central to understanding housing behaviour but not directly observable.
• Economical in time and resources relative to many alternatives.
  Compared with experiments, case studies, or intensive ethnography, survey research is relatively economical in researcher time, effort, and cost.

Weaknesses

• Inflexibility and lack of depth.
  Fixed questions and response options limit the ability to explore unexpected themes, nuances in how people define “housing need,” or the meanings they attach to living with parents, renting, or buying.pressbooks.library.vcu+1
• Dependence on design, wording, and validation.
  The quality of data depends heavily on how well the questionnaire is designed, piloted, and validated; poorly worded items can introduce measurement error or bias.
• Response and sampling biases.
  Surveys are vulnerable to low response rates, non‑response bias, sampling bias, social desirability bias (e.g., over‑reporting home‑ownership plans), and recall bias (e.g., inaccurate reporting of past rent or savings).
• Limited contextual understanding.
  A questionnaire captures what respondents are willing and able to report within the instrument’s structure, but not the broader social, familial, and policy contexts that shape their answers.
• Cross‑sectional limitations.
  If administered at one point in time, the survey can show associations but cannot firmly establish causal order between, for example, parental support and home‑ownership intention.

---

Semi‑structured in‑depth interviews (interpretivist primary method)

Strengths

• Depth and richness of data.
  Semi‑structured interviews allow participants to elaborate, clarify, and rephrase their answers, yielding detailed accounts of how they experience and interpret housing need, independence, and family obligations.
• Flexibility and responsiveness.
  The interviewer can probe interesting points, follow up on unanticipated topics, and adapt question order to each participant while still covering core themes, which is valuable for exploring complex, context‑dependent meanings.
• Insight into processes and meanings.
  This method is especially strong for understanding how policies, market conditions, and family dynamics are perceived and acted upon, revealing the processes by which housing strategies are formed and revised.
• Balance of structure and openness.
  Having a pre‑prepared topic guide keeps the interview focused and comparable across participants, while open‑ended questions provide space for participants’ own frames of reference.
• Familiarity and comfort for participants.
  Most people are familiar with the interview format, which can help them feel at ease and share sensitive or personal housing experiences.

Weaknesses

• Time‑ and labour‑intensive.
  Conducting, transcribing, and analysing interviews requires substantial time and effort, limiting the feasible sample size compared with surveys.
• Lower comparability and potential validity concerns.
  Because each interview may differ in content and emphasis, it can be harder to compare responses systematically; excessive flexibility can reduce the consistency and comparability of the data.
• Risk of researcher and social desirability bias.
  The interviewer’s phrasing, tone, or reactions may influence answers; participants may also give socially acceptable responses about family support, home‑ownership aspirations, or policy views.
• Dependence on participants’ articulacy and reflexivity.
  Not all participants are equally able or willing to reflect on and express their housing experiences, which can affect data quality.
• Need for triangulation.
  As a qualitative method, semi‑structured interviews are stronger when combined with other data sources (e.g., documents, observations, or secondary statistics) to contextualise and corroborate findings.

---

Implications for your two proposals

• The positivist survey is well‑suited to answering “how much” and “to what extent” questions about housing affordability, tenure preferences, and predictors of home‑ownership intention among Hong Kong Generation Y singles, but it will be weaker at explaining why people interpret their situation as they do.
• The interpretivist interview approach is well‑suited to answering “how” and “why” questions about lived housing experiences, meanings of independence, and the role of family and policy in shaping housing strategies, but it will not produce statistically generalisable estimates of housing need across the whole population.

Choosing between them depends on whether your dissertation priority is measurement and prediction (positivist) or understanding and interpretation (interpretivist).