Making Progress in Housing

A Framework for Collaborative Research

Sean McNelis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415703468
• eBook ISBN: 9781317859369
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Real Estate
• Index: Business

This book presents a new approach to housing research, one that is relevant to all the social sciences.

Housing research is diverse and operates across many disciplines, approaches and methods making collaboration difficult. This book outlines a methodological framework that enables researchers from many different fields to collaborate in solving complex and seemingly intractable housing problems. It shows how we can make progress in housing research and deliver better housing outcomes through an integrated approach.

Drawing on the work of renowned Canadian methodologist, philosopher, theologian and economist, Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984), McNelis outlines a framework for collaborative research: Functional Collaboration. This new form of collaboration divides up the work of housing research into functional specialties. These distinguish eight inter-related questions that arise in the process of moving from the current housing situation through to providing practical advice to decision-makers. To answer each question a different method is required. Making progress in housing is the result of finding new answers to this complete set of eight inter-related questions.

This approach to collaboration opens up a new discourse on method in housing and social research as well as new debates on progress and the nature of science.

Part I

Context

1 Problems, questions and issues

Insofar as there is to be a resolute and effective intervention in the historical process one has to postulate that the existential gap must be closed. In other words, one has to postulate that the people who are seeking to influence history, to put their lever at the vital point in historical process, are not operating, not doing their thinking, planning, and policy-making, from within the pair of blinkers of a personal or communal horizon. They have to be people in whom the horizon is coincident with the field. If they are not, then all they possibly can do is increase the confusion and accelerate the doom.

Bernard Lonergan in Horizon, History, Philosophy ([1957] 2001c: 306)

Social housing, as the most recent significant achievement in the history of housing, illustrates many of the problems, questions and issues that confront us as we seek to make progress in housing.

Social housing: an overview

Social housing is constituted by a range of elements such as the acquisition of land and dwellings, the design and construction of dwellings, capital financing and operating finance, eligibility and allocation of households, maintenance, asset management and tenancy management (Ball et al. 1988: 5; Burke 1993: 25–33; Paris et al. 1993). These are drawn together in such a way that social housing meets particular purposes such as affordability, equity, efficiency and operational autonomy (Bramley 1991; see also Burke 1993: 34–37; McNelis 2000; Yates c.1994). Each element is structured in such a way that it contributes to and complements the others. Each element is brought about by an aggregate of regular, repetitive activities of many different people. As such, social housing is a collaborative enterprise (Melchin 1991, 1994, 2003) – it is achieved by structuring a broad and diverse range of inter-linked, repetitive and taken-for-granted activities.

Social housing is one enterprise among a very large range of enterprises which meet the material needs of households. It is provided within a larger context of a technology (which provides the know-how for its acquisition, construction, financing and management), an economy (through which many enterprises provide a standard of living), a political system (through which agreement is reached on what is done and how it is done) and a culture (an inherited set of meanings and values that inform our way of living). Social housing achieves its specific purposes by drawing upon, adapting and particularising the operative, taken-for-granted ways of doing things (habits, routines and structured activities) and producing things in this larger context.

Social housing is not static, however. It continues to evolve. It is ever changing and there is a recurrent need to adapt to changing circumstances, to take up opportunities as they arise and to deal with threats as they emerge. The need for change in some area of social housing, however, can be distinguished from the need to reach some agreement about what change will be implemented. Not only is there a recurring need to change the elements of social housing and their particular form, there is also a recurring need to reach agreement about what changes will occur.

Between the inception of social housing and now, there is not only a history of change but also a history of decision-making. In part this history can be traced through the decisions made by governments and/or Social Housing Organisations (SHOs) (depending upon the extent of their autonomy). Each decision had its context, a series of preceding decisions and actions by a broad range of players – governments, political parties, SHOs, managers, practitioners, tenants, applicants, advocates, community activists, researchers, architects, planners, builders, tradespersons, real estate agents, land developers, housing educators etc.

Each player had a different view on the solution to the housing problem. For the most part, all were predominantly interested in immediate short-term solutions. They made their decisions in different ways, however: some were oriented towards improving social housing; some deliberately sought, lobbied and advocated for decisions that furthered their interests and resisted decisions that were not.

Each defined a problem in their own way, exerting their influence and power to ensure that others defined the problem in this way. Differing views (and the decisions that stemmed from them) were the source of conflict between players. For the most part, many individuals and groups sought to exercise their power in their own personal interest or in the interest of some group or other. The role of social housing within society, as indeed all aspects of society, was a site for different and conflicting views: some regarded it as interference in a free market and sought to restrict its application, or even its abolition; some regarded it as the only solution to the housing problem and sought to expand its range, even proposing the abolition of the private market; others viewed social housing as complementary to both owner-occupied housing and the private rental market. As a result, conflicts emerged about the particular elements that constitute social housing (eligibility and allocations, rents, housing stock, finance, legislation etc.) and about what was to done and how it was to be done. As the interests of individuals and groups waxed and waned, and as dominant groups sought to maintain their interests, so too did the particular form of the elements that constituted social housing change (Kemeny 1981; Ball 1983; Jacobs et al. 2004; Dodson 2006; Lawson 2006).

Decision-making is central to the process of change in social housing. While there may be different and even conflicting views as to what is the best course of action, decision-makers seek to bring about something better, to bring about some improvement, to bring about progress in social housing or to use it to make progress in housing more broadly or in some other area of social life. Governments have their view as to what is better; SHOs have their view; tenants and applicants have their view; tenant, community and advocate organisations have their view; academics have their view; local neighbourhoods have their view. And even within these different groups, individuals or sub-groups have their own view as to what is better. We are left, therefore, with the question: have the changes as a result of decisions in the past brought about progress in social housing or have they made it worse? Or, more broadly, have they brought about progress in housing or made it worse?

By making progress a core issue for housing, we immediately face an array of objections. Who is to say whether some change has brought about progress or not? On whose criteria can we assess it? Are general criteria relevant to local concrete circumstances? Are we talking about short-term progress or long-term progress? Are not all decision-makers formed by their own culture and language, their own society, their own socio-economic interests, and thus are in some way biased towards decisions made in their own interests or that of the cultural and socio-economic groups to which they belong? Indeed, is it not simply a matter of who had the power to effect changes in their own interests over and above the interests of other persons or groups?

Those decisions were made in the past. What of the future? Decision-makers now face a different set of issues. Progress, whether some major or minor development in social housing, depends upon our capacity to make changes. What changes we make will in turn depend upon some strategy for effecting those changes, some articulation of what we want to achieve through them, some envisioning of new directions, new policies within a given particular context. It calls for dreams or visions about what the future could be, as well as practicality about what changes have to occur to bring about this near or long-term future. Such change is not simply about the vision and practicality of one person but of a group of people. Where, then, lies the origin and source of a vision for the future? How does this become the vision of a group? What array of persons need to change what they are currently doing, change their habits, change their taken-for-granted way of doing things in order to realise this vision? How are they to integrate this new way of doing within the vast array of things they already do?

Moreover, progress is not simply a matter of continually moving forward. Rather, in seeking to move forward we are confronted by stupidities, greed, entrenched interests and corruption; we are confronted by a current situation in which much housing (including social housing) is poorly designed, poorly located, poorly maintained and environmentally unsustainable. For many households, particularly tenants, their housing does not meet their needs, is not appropriate, overcrowded and unaffordable etc. Indeed, too many people are homeless. Yet, the implementation of practical ideas are distorted and blocked, not only by deliberate self-interest and egoism but also by unacknowledged assumptions which aggrandise particular groups. Many unknowingly support and maintain an unjust status quo: ‘Individuals may have the best will in the world, may be good and upright, and yet by their actions contribute to social and historical processes which oppress and dehumanize’ (Lamb 1982: 3).

We hope for something better but that hope is often strained and even abandoned in the face of continuing failure and disillusionment. Not only is there a need for progress but also of some remediation, some reversal of the destruction. Sustained progress in housing is not easy.

Housing research and making progress in housing

Decision-makers may regard themselves as competent to make a decision about social housing. They may have some vision on its future or some clear view on what changes they want to implement. They may have accumulated sufficient understanding of its role and how it works. On the other hand, they may have many questions before they reach a decision. Have they properly understood some problem that confronts them? For whom is it a problem? Is their perception of the problem simply a reflection of their own personal interests or the interests of the cultural and socio-economic groups to which they belong? How do they deal with different perspectives on the problem, particularly when they depend upon others (who view it differently) to make changes that will solve the problem? Is the problem they face the real problem or just a manifestation of a deeper problem? Do they have a sufficient grasp of the details to propose a change that will adequately deal with the problem? Is the solution the right one? Indeed, is there only one solution? Will the proposed solution create more problems in the future? These are questions that all responsible decision-makers face.

They may want answers to some or many of the questions they have, for ‘in whatever area of experience we are involved, without understanding we are blocked, we cannot go on, nor project our way forward’ (Mathews 1987: 245). They may want answers to questions about the current and possible future role of social housing, about what is happening within social housing or impacting on it, and about what to do. Alternatively, they may want answers which will, more or less, justify their decision about what to do; they may want answers that accord, more or less, with their view as to what is happening.

Thus, decision-makers may seek views, information and advice from a variety of sources – colleagues, managers, practitioners, tenants, advocates, consultants, experts, academics etc. – to supplement their understanding. In this way, housing researchers may play a key role in the decision-making process.

Many housing researchers share the view that housing research has a role in policy development but their relationship is often a difficult and complex one (Jones & Seelig 2004, 2005). Housing researchers want to maintain their independence and autonomy. Yet, at the same time, they often want to influence decisions. Decision-makers, while relying upon some types of housing research, often bemoan the relev...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I Context
• Part II The functional specialties
• Part III Functional Collaboration: A unifying framework
• Bibliography
• Index