Catus Brooks and Jocelyne Praud
Despite the worsening of the housing crisis in North America — the Canadian and US federal governments refuse to discuss the issue in any meaningful way. Still, this crisis deserves special attention, so what have authors said about the matter? Constantine Kontokosta and Alan Walks and Brian Clifford provide compelling arguments on housing policy and political economics. The former employs a comparative analysis of regional and local governments in America, and the latter uses a descriptive case study to ascertain Canada’s federal management of the housing market. Furthermore, we argue that no single research method suffices; instead, political scientists should balance their approaches to create a comprehensive methodology. Such a methodology provides insightful findings while ensuring an argument’s intelligibility and measurement validity. This thesis may be overdone, but its very truth and importance call for an inquiry. As severe as the housing crisis is, political scientists expect a well-rounded methodology. Hence, to test this argument, Kontokosta and Walks and Clifford make for a good comparison. To this end, we summarize and compare the above two articles. They both use case studies; however, Kontokosta couples his with statistical analysis and Walks and Clifford develop their argument with document analysis: the former’s case study is selective, the latter’s is comprehensive. Both studies’ methodological strength lies in their insights, unearthing successes and failures in the recent history of housing policy.
分享此文章