What have ECHP and EU-SILC to contribute to the comparative study of housing?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

64 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-26
JournalCritical Housing Analysis
Volume2
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

comparative study
EU
housing
social indicator
academic research
social indicators
social stratification
stratification
educational system
social science
methodology

Cite this

@article{069b81cbee594aa89a75d1c7145fe6ef,
title = "What have ECHP and EU-SILC to contribute to the comparative study of housing?",
abstract = "This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.",
author = "Caroline Dewilde",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.13060/23362839.2015.3.3.238",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "19--26",
journal = "Critical Housing Analysis",
issn = "2336-2839",
publisher = "Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences",
number = "2",

}

What have ECHP and EU-SILC to contribute to the comparative study of housing? / Dewilde, Caroline.

In: Critical Housing Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, p. 19-26.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What have ECHP and EU-SILC to contribute to the comparative study of housing?

AU - Dewilde, Caroline

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.

AB - This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of pan-European datasets, in particular ECHP and EU-SILC, for research in housing. Although ‘housing’ is a complex topic when studied from a European comparative perspective, I argue that there is no inherent reason why housing should be less amenable to cross-national research than other equally complex topics in comparative social science research, such as research into family change and stability, or the impact of educational systems on social stratification. Given appropriate theory, conceptualisation and contextualisation, along with strong methodologies, meaningful and informative research in housing with ECHP and EU-SILC are possible. There are however a number of limitations, which are mainly related to the fact that both datasets are geared towards the ‘production’ of a ‘system of social indicators’ informing European and national governments. Because of these limitations, ECHP and in particular EU-SILC are less attractive and less useful for academic research then they could potentially be.

U2 - 10.13060/23362839.2015.3.3.238

DO - 10.13060/23362839.2015.3.3.238

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 19

EP - 26

JO - Critical Housing Analysis

JF - Critical Housing Analysis

SN - 2336-2839

IS - 2

ER -