Meaning, science, context and confusion in comparative housing research

Abstract

This paper examines the aims and methodology of some recent European housing studies. Several interpretations of `Comparative Housing Research' are contrasted. The nature of a `scientific' approach and the relationships between quantitative and qualitative approaches are debated. It is argued that one of the greatest confusions in housing research that covers several countries arises from calling all such work `comparative'. The use of the term `comparative housing research' should be limited to research that genuinely compares and contrasts. Merely including several country descriptions in a single text does not provide analytical comparisons. Housing studies with an international dimension do not, however, have to be comparative to be useful. The valid purpose of research might not be comparison but rather the better understanding of complex phenomena through a wide and differentiated basis of evidence. The concept of `transferability' in relation to policies, institutional structures and professional practices should be developed. The applicability of transfer, and the processes for implementing transfer, could be modelled to move analysis forward from simply identifying `good ideas' from elsewhere and speculating that they might be worth trying in an importing country. The methodologies used in international housing research need to be made more explicit and more closely justified.