An example of refining a crude housing research theme based on findings from the employment of the Socratic Method: on divorce and housing needs

An example of refining a crude housing research theme based on findings from the employment of the Socratic Method: on divorce and housing needs

 

I am a Housing Studies student, currently trying to formulate my dissertation project proposal. For a start, I have a crude research theme, which is "to examine the relatedness of divorce and housing needs regarding the middle-class generation x, over the past 3 years, based on the critical realism lens." Please review my crude research theme using the Socratic Method so that I am able to refine the theme further based the Socratic Method findings.

Your theme is promising, but it currently combines several research objects—divorce, housing needs, middle-class Generation X, a three-year period, and critical realism—without yet specifying the causal problem you want to explain. A critical realist study should move beyond describing an association and ask what structures, mechanisms, and contextual conditions produce particular housing needs or housing pathways after divorce.

Socratic review

1. What exactly do you mean by “relatedness”?

Socratic question: Do you mean correlation, influence, causation, mutual constitution, or policy relevance?

Your wording—“the relatedness of divorce and housing needs”—is too broad. Divorce may generate new housing needs, but housing constraints may also shape divorce decisions, separation timing, post-separation living arrangements, or decisions to remain in an unsuitable home. Hong Kong evidence suggests the relationship can run in both directions: high housing costs and public-housing arrangements can affect divorce decisions, while divorce creates demand for separate accommodation.

Refinement: Replace “relatedness” with a clearer explanatory relationship, such as:

“How divorce reshapes the housing needs, housing constraints, and housing pathways of middle-class Generation X households.”

2. What is a “housing need” in your study?

Socratic question: Are you studying need, demand, preference, affordability, tenure security, suitability, or access?

These are not interchangeable. “Housing need” may include affordability, adequate space for children, proximity to work or schools, safety, tenure security, accessibility, and the ability to form two viable households after separation. Housing research commonly treats housing status as multidimensional, including tenure, quantity, quality, and affordability rather than a single measure.

Refinement: Define two or three measurable or interviewable dimensions, for example:

• Affordability: ability to secure adequate housing within post-divorce income.
• Suitability: space, location, child-related needs, and accessibility.
• Security and continuity: tenure type, risk of displacement, shared ownership, mortgage issues, and family support.

3. Why “middle-class Generation X”?

Socratic question: What makes this group theoretically interesting, and how will you operationalize it?

“Generation X” is usually a birth cohort, while “middle class” is a socioeconomic position. You need explicit criteria for both. For example, Generation X might be people born approximately between 1965 and 1980; “middle class” might be defined by income, education, occupation, home ownership, or subjective class identity. These choices materially change your sample and argument.

This group is potentially interesting because many are mid-career, may have children, may own property jointly, and may face substantial mortgage, asset-division, and rehousing constraints after divorce. Critical realism is particularly appropriate where outcomes emerge from the interaction of personal agency, family circumstances, housing-market structures, and policy settings.

Refinement: Specify inclusion criteria, for example:

“Divorced or separated adults born between 1965 and 1980 in Hong Kong, who were in middle-income employment or owned/part-owned a home before separation.”

4. Why only the past three years?

Socratic question: Is the three-year period a meaningful causal window, or merely a convenient recency boundary?

Three years may capture recent housing-market and policy conditions, but divorce-related housing transitions can unfold over a longer period: separation, legal proceedings, asset division, children’s schooling, sale or retention of the former matrimonial home, temporary living arrangements, and eventual rehousing. A short window may miss these processes.

Refinement: Either justify the period precisely—e.g., “people who divorced or separated between 2023 and 2026”—or extend it to “within the past five years.” Also distinguish:

• Date of separation/divorce: the event that begins the housing transition.
• Current housing situation: the outcome observed during data collection.
• Housing trajectory: the sequence of moves, tenure changes, and constraints.

5. What does critical realism add?

Socratic question: Are you using critical realism as a philosophical label, or will it actually shape your research questions, sampling, data collection, and analysis?

Critical realism asks researchers to explain observed events by identifying underlying structures, mechanisms, and contexts—not merely to report participants’ experiences or statistical associations. It encourages “why” and “how” questions, retroduction, and attention to causal mechanisms operating in open social systems.

For your topic, a critical realist design might examine:

• Empirical events: moves, applications for housing, property sales, shared living, rent burdens.
• Mechanisms: asset division, mortgage liability, gendered income differences, childcare responsibilities, family support, emotional attachment to the former home.
• Structures: Hong Kong’s high private-rent levels, limited public-housing eligibility or supply, mortgage rules, divorce law, labour market conditions, and family norms.
• Context: whether the person has children, owns property, earns a high income, receives family help, or remains in the same district.

Critical realist housing research explicitly treats housing outcomes as shaped by complex, open, and structured social arrangements, including property rights, savings and investment circuits, labour relations, and welfare relations.

6. What is your provisional causal explanation?

Socratic question: What do you expect to find, and why?

You do not need a hypothesis in the positivist sense, but a critical realist proposal benefits from an initial theoretical proposition. For example:

Divorce creates a need to convert one household into two, but the resulting housing outcome depends on mechanisms such as property ownership, mortgage responsibility, childcare obligations, income security, family support, and access to affordable housing.

This can later be developed into context–mechanism–outcome configurations, a common realist analytical form.

Possible refined themes

Option	Refined research theme	Strength
A	How divorce reshapes housing needs and housing pathways among middle-class Generation X households in Hong Kong	Broad but clear
B	A critical realist study of the housing constraints and coping strategies of divorced middle-class Generation X parents in Hong Kong	More focused; suitable for interviews
C	How property ownership, childcare responsibilities, and family support shape post-divorce housing outcomes among middle-class Generation X households in Hong Kong	Stronger causal focus
D	Explaining housing insecurity and rehousing pathways among recently divorced middle-class Generation X households in Hong Kong: a critical realist study	Policy-relevant and analytically focused

Suggested working proposal

A stronger version of your original theme could be:

“A critical realist study of how divorce reshapes housing needs, constraints, and coping strategies among middle-class Generation X households in Hong Kong between 2023 and 2026.”

Its research questions could be:

1.    What housing changes do middle-class Generation X households experience after divorce or separation?

2.    What housing needs arise in relation to affordability, suitability, tenure security, children, and location?

3.    Through what mechanisms—such as asset division, mortgage obligations, income changes, childcare, and family support—do these needs translate into particular housing outcomes?

4.    How do Hong Kong’s housing-market structures and policy context enable or constrain post-divorce housing pathways?

Hong Kong-based studies already indicate that divorced households, especially single parents, face affordability pressure, long public-housing waiting times, and difficulties with existing housing-support procedures; however, much of that evidence focuses on lower-income households, leaving the middle-class experience comparatively under-researched. That gap could become the justification for your study.

 

Provide three academic references related to the theme of "divorce and housing needs" as discussed above in Harvard reference format.

Below are three directly relevant, peer-reviewed academic references in Harvard format. They are useful for framing divorce as a trigger for residential mobility, tenure change, and housing insecurity.

Harvard references

Einiö, E. and Ponkilainen, M. (2025) ‘Gendered housing consequences of divorce: an analysis of marital dyads from different-sex and female same-sex couples’, Genus, 81, article 38. doi:10.1186/s41118-025-00276-x.

Mikolai, J. and Kulu, H. (2018) ‘Divorce, separation, and housing changes: a multiprocess analysis of longitudinal data from England and Wales’, Demography, 55(1), pp. 83–106. doi:10.1007/s13524-017-0640-9.

Mikolai, J., Kulu, H., Vidal, S., van der Wiel, R. and Mulder, C.H. (2019) ‘Separation, divorce, and housing tenure: a cross-country comparison’, Demographic Research, 41(39), pp. 1131–1146. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2019.41.39.

Why they fit your theme

·        Einiö and Ponkilainen (2025) examine changes in homeownership and residence around divorce, including whether divorced spouses recover within three years—directly relevant to your proposed three-year timeframe.

·        Mikolai and Kulu (2018) show that separation has both immediate and longer-term effects on residential and housing trajectories, supporting a focus on housing pathways rather than a single post-divorce housing outcome.

·        Mikolai et al. (2019) compare post-separation tenure outcomes across countries and show that education, parenthood, and housing-market context shape whether separated people move into owner-occupation, private renting, or social renting.