Field Guide to Housing Theory

Cdes header

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Community Capitals Framework

Keywords: Community, capitals, resources, bonding, bridging, resources

Summary:
The idea of social capital comes from the larger concept of what is known as the community capitals framework. The community capitals framework was a community-level of analysis that was developed by primarily rural sociologists, most noticeably Jan and Cornelia Flora, to help evaluate communities. An important aspect of the community capital framework is the use of the term "capital"--which implies that different aspects of the community can be viewed as a positive strength or resource. Thus, it is important to consider that the capitals (including social capital) within the community capital framework are meant to be (and should be) viewed in a positive sense.

Specifically the community capital framework refers to seven different "capitals" which range from natural beauty and resources to the culture of the people who live in an area. Social capital is one of the seven capitals and it refers to the connections among (and between) various groups of individuals. In order to better assess these connections, social capital is often broken into two categories--bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital refers to the "bonds" that are formed within groups. Bonding strengthens relations amongst members of the same or similar groups. In contrast, bridging social capital refers to the connections (or bridges) that occur between different groups. Thus, a helpful way to differentiate between bonding and bridging is that bonding is primarily focused on members of the same group that bond together while bridging refers to different groups bridging differences.

Another important aspect of social capital is assessing the ability (or power) of groups to "make things happen". This ability is important because at the community-wide level different groups may have different amounts of power or influence. Therefore, researchers can better understand the power relations that shape and influence communities by using social capital as a framework of analysis.

However, researchers who are interested in using social capital as a means of analysis also need to consider the other aspects of the community capital framework in which social capital is but one part. Ignoring the larger philosophical underpinnings of the community capital framework could result in methodologically flawed or incomplete work. Likewise, social capital (and all the community capitals for that matter) is best used at the community or group level of analysis. They would not be appropriate or helpful at the individual or household level. However, for researchers interested in gaining a clearer understanding of how groups function within a community--social capital may be an excellent means of analysis.

Level of Analysis:
The community capital framework (including social capital) is best used at the community and group level of analysis. While researchers can study the impact of social capital at the individual or household level; it is important to remember that the community capital framework was developed for analysis at a larger level.

Methods:
Researchers have multiple options when using the community capital framework. However, an essential component of any research method would include some element of qualitative research, including fieldwork. Qualitative research is important for social capital research because it allows researchers to analyze the interactions between various groups within a community. Commonly researchers will spend time in the field collecting field notes and jottings, which will be followed by time spent coding and analyzing the collected notes. This process lends itself to researchers using a variety of methods--including elements of ethnography, constant-comparison coding, grounded theory, qualitative data collection and coding, discourse analysis, and mixed methods.

Application:
The community capital framework (including social capital) can be extremely helpful for researchers interested in understanding group and community issues in housing studies. Researchers can use social capital to understand how groups interact and what they value (or prefer) in regards to housing and community development. Furthermore, understanding the community capital framework can also allow researchers to examine the ability of groups and communities to "get things done". This is especially important in studying and understanding groups that may operate outside the dominate or mainstream culture. For example, a new immigrant community may rely on informal networks or groups to help form a sense of community, which may in turn influence the housing decisions of members of the immigrant population. In this example, studying the social capital of the group can illuminate the underlying values and preferences that influence housing choices.

Resources:
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/cflora/ncrcrd/capitals.html

The link above comes from Iowa State University's Department of Sociology, where Flora and Flora are both faculty members. This webpage provides a concise and excellent overview of the entire community capital framework.

Flora, Cornelia Butler, and Jan L. Flora. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2008. Print.

Rural Communities: Legacy and Change is a book by Flora and Flora that outlines and details specifically how to use the community capital framework in a rural setting. It does an outstanding job of explaining each community capital in separate chapters. The book is an excellent (almost essential) starting point for any researcher interested in using the community capital framework. Here also is the link to the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Rural-Communities-Cornelia-Butler-Flora/dp/0813345057

Agnitsch, K., Flora, J. & Ryan, V. (2006). Bonding and bridging social capital: The interactive effects on community action. Journal of the Community Development Society, 37(1), 1-16.
The Agnitsch and Flora article is a helpful piece for researchers who may be interested in seeing social capital applied to understanding the concept of "community action". This piece demonstrates how social capital can be used to help understand an element of a community, using both qualitative and quantitative data. This piece is also helpful because it provides a clear and logical outline of how a researcher can conduct research using social capital as a primary means of analysis.

Emery, M. Fey, S., &Flora, J. (2006). Using Community Capitals to Develop Assets for Positive Community Change. CD Practice, 13, 1-19.

This piece provides an excellent example of how both academics and practioners can apply the community capital framework to examining rural communities. This piece also provides a brief overview of all the community capitals and describes how the community capital framework can be used to help understand the "assets" (in a positive sense) that comprise a community.

Residential Satisfaction Theory

Residential Satisfaction Theory

Theorists
George C. Galster and Garry W. Hesser

Keywords
Housing or Residential Satisfaction, Subjective Well-being, Aspirational Conceptualization, Housing Consumption

Summary
Residential Satisfaction Theory is an offshoot of Housing Adjustment Theory (Morris & Winter, 1975) that looks at a household's felt needs and aspirations to assess how the household evaluates their current dwelling situation (Galster & Hesser, 1981). The cognitive construct of satisfaction is a judgment that individuals or households make when they consider the extent to which their actual situation mirrors the ideal situation they imagine for housing (Vera-Toscano & Ateca-Amestoy, 2008). The satisfaction a household feels is determined by three groups of factors (Diaz-Serrano, 2006; Galster 1987):
1. Objective characteristics of the household.
a. These include social, economic and personal characteristics.
2. Objective characteristic of the environment.
a. Both the dwelling itself and the environment surrounding it are considered.
3. Subjective Well-being.
a. Defined by perceptions, values and aspirations.
When a household examines the alignment between their ideal or aspirational housing situation and their lived situation, they will either manifest satisfaction or they will not (Galster & Hesser, 1981). In the event that satisfaction is not achieved, the household will attempt to redefine needs or change their evaluation of the subjective measures. Barring those, we see households manifest dissatisfaction that they then seek to resolve through changing their household characteristics or those of the dwelling.
Residential Satisfaction Theory builds upon Housing Adjustment Theory by explicitly stating the attributes of the household as central to the understanding of the household as well as understanding the ideal housing situation to which they aspire (Galster & Hesser, 1981). Instead of looking to cultural norms in housing, each household constructs their own desired ideal out of their demographics and lived experiences, as well as the peer influences around them (Yang & Zhu, 2006).

Level of Analysis
Residential Satisfaction relates to the household or individuals that constitute a household. The role that the neighborhood plays in the level of satisfaction can be crucial, but the analysis is still happening on the household level; neighborhood satisfaction could only be regarded as the aggregate or average satisfaction of the households in the neighborhood.

Methodology
Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods can all be used to measure Residential Satisfaction. Quantitative measures would include things such as survey instruments that ask residents to rate different facets of their satisfaction on a 1 to 5 scale and the analysis of the objective variables that have been established to correlate to housing satisfaction. Qualitative measures would include interviews or other open-ended explorations of satisfaction and the antecedents of these feelings.

Application to Housing Studies
Research shows that lower self-reported housing satisfaction correlates with a greater likelihood to move to a different residence (Diaz-Serrano, 2006). Following the move, however, different research suggests different outcomes. Some research shows that following a move there is no significant change in satisfaction (Lu, 1999). Other studies show there is an increase in satisfaction following a move (Diaz-Serrano, 2006). These divides suggest that the question of relocation on residential satisfaction will continue to be an active one in the future.
Residential Satisfaction can also be employed to look at housing as a consumer product. While the history of Residential Satisfaction draws on diverse areas from Psychology to Geography (Diaz-Serrano, 2006), it also can incorporate Customer Satisfaction Theory (Yang & Zhu, 2006). Yang and Zhu develop a model looking at expectations, perceived quality and perceived value to arrive at an understanding of satisfaction with housing as a purchased commodity.
Additionally, Residential Satisfaction can be a better theoretical tool than Housing Adjustment Theory when looking at non-traditional or emerging housing formulations (co-housing, for example) because the measure of housing is completely self-created and not concerned with societal norms (Choi, 2011). With the household constructing the measure against which their lived housing is analyzed, you can examine subcultures of housing in their own context, one that may have very different norms from the surrounding society.

References
Choi, J. S. (2011). HOUSING: Evaluation of common activity and life in Swedish cohousing units. International Journal of Human Ecology, 12(2), 133.
Diaz-Serrano, L. (2006). Housing satisfaction, homeownership and housing mobility: A panel data analysis for twelve EU countries. IZA Discussion Papers, NO. 2318.
Galster, G.; Hesser, C. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 735-758.
Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behavior, 19(5), 539-568.
Lu, M. L. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logic vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264-287.
Morris, E.; Winter, M. (1975). A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 37(1), 79-88.
Vera-Toscano, E.; Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008). The relevance of social interactions on housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 86(2), 257-274.
Yang, S.; Zhu, Y. (2006). Customer satisfaction theory applied in the housing industry: An empirical study of low-priced housing in Beijing. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 11(6), 667-674.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Structuration Theory / Structural Theory

Robert D. Putnam
(b. 1941)
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/commentary/growing-class-gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Putnam).

Summary:
Social capital refers to social relationships or networks among people that enable them to obtain financial and other necessary resources. Beugelsdijk and Smulders (2003) stated that there is no one way to define social capital because many different fields of study have used it to describe social networks and how those networks can impact resources.

According to Putnam (2000), Hanifan, was one of the first to write about social capital in 1916. Hanifan used it to refer to community involvement in public school. Putnam himself became one of the best known leaders in the field of social capital research. He encouraged people to increase and develop their resources, or “social capital”. Putnam found that social capital could be increased through social interactions either with family members and close friends or informal social contacts in the community. Most researchers use social capital to refer to the relationship between two or more people that enables them to develop economic and other resources. Fukuyama felt that social capital encouraged interaction between people and was related to norms and ideals within cultures and families.

Bonding and bridging are two types of social capital. Bonding is one of the most important social networks that increase human and capital. Bonding refers to social ties between family members and close friends. Because of this, trust is one of the foundations of social capital and an important part of bonding. Trust is how people interact without having boundaries and restrictions on their behavior. Other critiques stated that bonding refers to exclusive or isolating relationships within different social groups and how they relate to those outside those groups.

Bridging is the second type of social capital. Bridging is a method of reducing expenses and helping people become more independent. It refers to the relationship between people who have never met before. Putnam defines bridging as “inclusive” and links it to seeking help outside one’s family and close friends to agencies within their community. Bridging is described as a weak form of social capital when compared to bonding. However, Putnam states that having both bonding and bridging together increases one’s ability to obtain resources.

Level of Analysis:
Social capital exists at the level of individual, family, group, and community.

Methods:
Mixed methods

Application:
The larger a person’s social capital, the more resources they will have and the better chance they will have of obtaining satisfactory housing. Social networks change with the need of the person. For people who have limited financial resources, social capital serves as a major way of accessing financial and other capital.

The concepts of bonding and bridging capital can be applied to cross-cultural studies of housing. For example, close family relationships are the most important type of social capital in Saudi Arabia. Bonding, or contacts within one’s own family, is the main type of social capital used to access housing. A newly married couple in this country who are seeking their first home will depend on the couple’s family contacts in order to find the right house as well as financial assistance. In western countries, on the other hand, bridging appears to be the main avenue for obtaining housing and financial resources. Homeowners and renters depend more on informal networks such as banks, real estate companies, and other community agencies as the main way to find help as well as funding for purchasing and renting housing.

It is important to have a sufficient amount of social capital through social networks in order to meet one’s financial and other needs. Usually an increase in one type of social capital results in a decrease in the other. The type of social capital a person uses will depend upon their cultural and family norms.

References:
Agnitsch, K., Flora, J., Ryan, V. (2006, March) Bonding and bridging social capital: The interactive effects on community action. Journal of the Community Development Society 37 (1), 1-16.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon and Schuster. (pp. 21-28)
Beugelsdijk, S., Smulders, S. (2003) Bridging and bonding social capital: Which type is good for economic growth? Retrieved March 13, 2009 from: http://www.eea-esem.com/papers/eea-esem/2003/119/EEA2003.pdf
Fukuyama, F. (1997, May) Social capital: The problem of measurement. Mediterranean Development Forum I. Voices from Marrakech: Towards Competitive and Caring Societies in the Middle East and North Africa, May 12-17, Marrakech, Morocco. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from: http://www.worldbank.org/mdf/mdf1/socicap.htm.
Salehi-Isfahani, D. & Dhillon, N. (2008, October). Stalled youth transitions in the Middle East: A framework for policy reform. Executive Summary. The Middle East Youth Initiative Working Paper, Number 8. Wolfensohn Center for Development. Dubai School of Government. Dubai, Saudi Arabia. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from: http://www.prio.no/upload/prio/file_Stalled_Transitions_final.pdf

Siisiainen, M. (2000, July 5-8) Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy. Paper presented at the ISTR Fourth International Conference, Dublin, Ireland.

Social Capital

Marxist Theory / Theory of Social Change

Frederich Engles Karl Marx
(b. 1820-d. 1895) (b.1818-d. 1883)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Engels.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Marx.jpg

Summary:
Marxism came into form between 1844 – 1848 through the writings of Karl Marx, a philosopher, and Friedrich Engels, a social scientist, both of Germany. Throughout history, their work has influenced many disciplines, some of which include: sociology, economics, history, political theory, philosophy, and anthropology. The motivation behind the development of Marxism lies in the dedication to the overthrow of the capitalist order. In which case, it is considered a macrolevel approach used to predict social change.

The theory of social change is rooted in the class struggle of the mid-nineteenth century relating directly to the conflict between the dominant (bourgeoisie) and subordinate (proletariat) social classes. Marx and Engels intended to provide a way of thinking that could help the proletariat regain control of their lives. They believed the purpose of economic activity was the satisfaction of human needs and the production of general well-being. However, from their perspective, capitalism counteracted this notion, creating an “us versus them” mentality between the middle and lower classes. And rather than establishing an environment that meets the needs of all its members equally, Marx and Engels saw capitalism as a means to increase the control and wealth of the bourgeoisie, while impoverishing the proletariat.

Marx and Engels suggest that under a capitalist regime, wage workers would become aware of their disadvantaged position in society. They go on to theorize that this realization of exploitation would lead to a revolutionary “class consciousness,” which would ultimately result in the transformation of the working class. In other words, it is hypothesized that with this newly discovered ”consciousness,” the proletariat would be motivated to rebel against the capitalist order in order to regain control of their lives. Through the organized actions of the working class, then, Marx and Engels argued that the result of class consciousness would ultimately end capitalism.

Level of Analysis:
Macro/Societal.

Methods:
Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods.

Application:
Although highly based on economics and class wages, Marxist theory has also been used in the field of housing. Some topics related to Marxism include: rent gap, land use, and community organizing. In addition to these, a few studies have also used Marxist theory to explain the deterioration of housing.

References:
Barton, S. E. (1977). The urban housing problem: Marxist theory and community organizing. Review of Radical Political Economics, 9(4), 16-30.
Hughes, J. A., Sharrock, W. W., & Martin, P. J. (Eds.). (2003). Karl Marx. Understanding Classical Sociology, 19-85. New York: Sage Publications.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1969). Manifesto of the Communist party. Marx/Engels Selected Works, 1. Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers.
McCall, P. (2008). “We had to stick together”: Individual preferences, collective struggle, and the formation of social consciousness. Science and Society, 72(2), 147-181.
Rapaport, A. (1968). A view of the intellectual legacy of Karl Marx. Social Science Information, 7(4), 7-15.

Skaburskis, A., & Moos, M. (2008). The redistribution of residential property values in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver: Examining neoclassical and Marxist views on changing investment patterns. Environment and Planning A, 40, 905-927.

Impression Formation Theory

Solomon E. Asch
(b. 1907- d.1996)
Source: Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict

Summary:
The impression formation theory was pioneered by Solomon Asch (1946). Developed to understand how person impressions are established, Asch found that adjective traits were an important key in an organized process of forming impressions. The theory addresses how people use bits of information and selected cues to form general impressions. Impression formation involves the cognitive, perceptual and affective processes of making judgments and drawing conclusions about a person, an object or environment (Fidzani, 2002).
Information in isolation has different meanings than information in various contexts. Because of this, information is weighted and averaged with other information in order to form a more complex impression (Steggell et al., 2003). Impression formation involves four stages: Cue selection, Interpretive inference, Extended inferences and Anticipatory set or verbal report. Impression formation may be affected by (a) a person’s objective stimulus characteristics (b) the nature of stimuli and the context in which they are presented (c) perceiver variables (d) social interaction (Fidzani, 2002).
Most contemporary impression formation work seeks to emphasize cognitive process and representations. The Dual Process model suggests that a person may be perceived either as an individual or as a member of a stereotyped group, with the latter requiring less cognitive effort (Carlston & Mae, 2000). The Continuum model suggests that people form impressions based on both overall perceptions as well as on isolated elements (Fidzani, 2003). Other contemporary work has shifted attention to the way that impressions are influenced by perceiver’s states or characteristics. For example, perceivers often form impressions that are relatively congruent with accessible (e.g., primed) trait concepts, prior expectancies, processing goals and motives, moods and self-perceptions.

Future work on impression formation promises to explore such important issues as the interrelationships among different facets of impressions (traits, behaviors, affect, etc) and the role of interpersonal and conversational process (Carlston & Mae, 2000).

Level of Analysis:
Individual.

Methods:
Qualitative, mixed methods; stimulus-response sampling, forced-choice measures.

Application:
In architecture and interior design, emphasis is given to the importance of space within built environments and the way in which the organization of space affects human behavior. Impressions are formed not only of individuals but of the physical aspects of our environment as well. A building’s aesthetics, purpose, content and context provide cues and stimulus about not only the space itself but also the individual, thus influencing the response from the perceiver. The context in which behavior occurs has a considerable effect upon the impression the perceiver forms (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Not only does Impression Formation Theory have application in social interaction, but it can also find credence in the physical structure itself. The spatial and organizational layout of a space can influence behavior patterns and in turn affect person environment interaction. Various ways of living in different cultures can be seen as reflecting different patterns of coping. It is also possible that the physical structure of a house determines the resident’s way of living (Omata, 1992).
Impression Formation Theory suggests that environmental information is received through the process of perception and that the environment is an integral part of behavior. Impressions then serve to direct consumer (group) based or personal (individual) decisions. In housing studies, examples of application of the theory include: determining market trends; evaluating personal satisfaction with place and health; and well being in living environments.

References:
Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290

Carlston, D.E., Mae, L. (2000). Impression Formation. Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 234-236). Washington, DC: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Fidzani, L.C., (2002). First Impressions of the Interiors of Hotel Lobbies as Influences on Perceptions of Hotels. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
L. Davis & S. Lennon (1988). Social cognition and the study of clothing and human behavior. Social Behavior and Personality Journal, 16, 175-186.
Omata, K. (1992). Spatial Organization of Activities of Japanese Families. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 259-267.
“Solomon E. Asch”. [Photograph]. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from The Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict

Steggell et al. (2003). Exploring theories of human behavior in housing research. Housing and Society, 30 (1),

Housing Adjustment Theory

Earl W. Morris & Mary Winter
(Morris, b. 1922) (Winter, b. 1940)
Source: www.threegfarms.com ; www.las.iastate.edu

Summary:
The theory of housing adjustment behavior is a framework for understanding the process by which households seek to maintain equilibrium, the causes of disequilibrium, and the consequences of existing in a state of disequilibrium. In this sense, equilibrium refers to a state in which the household’s current housing is in accordance with the norms of both society and the household itself, and it fits the needs of the household. Housing norms include space, tenure and structure type, quality, expenditure and neighborhood. When one or more of these norms is not met by the household’s current housing, the household experiences a housing deficit.

A deficit is a “condition or set of conditions that is subjectively defined as undesirable in comparison with a norm” (Morris & Winter, 1996, p. 22). For example, a typical space norm is the expectation that the dwelling will have enough rooms that opposite sex children will not have to share a bedroom once they reach a certain age. However, if a dwelling does not have enough rooms for this norm to be upheld, the household will experience a deficit. Deficits lead to feelings of dissatisfaction with one’s current housing, and chronic dissatisfaction may cause the household to engage in change behavior in the form of adjustment, adaptation, or regeneration. However, the household’s preferred change behavior is predicated on overcoming any constraints that impose on the household’s ability to remedy the situation. A household may experience constraint in one or more of the following areas: resources, predispositions, discrimination, market, or household organization. On the other hand, a deficit in one area, such as the bedroom example above may be offset by a positive deficit in another area, for example a really large backyard. Thus, the household will have to determine which deficit is more dissatisfactory to them and make their changes based on that decision.

The theory of housing adjustment has been well-validated through studies conducted over two decades. However, an important criticism to consider when discussing the use of theory is the risk of decelerating or narrowing the development of any field of research by adhering to one principal theory. As Elaine Pedersen (2007) has succinctly stated, “theory is everywhere,” yet not every theory used will be as prevalent or well-validated as Morris and Winter’s theory of housing adjustment. In fact, “there will be times when an initial theoretical context is important to a particular question or when the discovery of a new theoretical perspective is desired. When a new theoretical perspective is desired, the scholar will not define the research process by using a preexisting theory” (Pedersen, 2007, p.120). Thus, although the use of preexisting theories is undeniably important to the development of knowledge within a given field, so is the use of as-yet-unnamed theories.

Level of Analysis:
Primarily meso/household.

Methods:
Quantitative; may be used to inform qualitative studies.
Theoretical Model for the Housing Adjustment Theory
Morris & Winter (1996), p. 71.

Application:
The theory of housing adjustment has been used extensively to study housing satisfaction, housing preferences, residential mobility, and housing decisions. For example, Keller, Farr, Kirby, and Rusco (1997) referred to the Morris and Winter theory (1978) in their discussion regarding the role of housing norms, values, and cultural background in shaping housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Krofta, Morris, and Franklin (1994) used this theory to study housing decisions among older age cohorts, whereas Bruin & Cook (1997) looked at constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income, single-parent families.

References:
Bruin, M. & Cook, C. (1997). Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families. Environment and Behavior, 29, 532-553.
“Earl W. Morris & Mary Winter” [Photograph]. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from Welcome to 3G Farms,
Keller, T.C., Farr, C.A., Kirby, S.D., & Risco, J. (1997). Housing and its influence on life and job satisfaction among clergy. Housing and Society, 24, 15-34.
Krofta,, J., Morris, E.W., & Franklin, E. (1994). Housing, health and the needs for help in older households: Differences among age cohorts. Housing and Society, 21, 76-89.
Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 79-88.
Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, family, and society. New York: Wiley.
Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1994). Housing, family, and society (Rev. Ed.). Ames, IA: Morris & Winter.
Morris, E.W. & Winter, M. (1996). Housing, family, and society (Rev. Ed.). Ames, IA: Morris & Winter.
Pedersen, E. (2007). Theory is everywhere: A discourse on theory. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(1),106-128.

Steggell, C.D., Binder, S.K., Davidson, L.A., Vega, P.R., Hutton, E.D., & Rodecap, A.R. (2001). Exploring theories of human behavior in housing research. Housing and Society, 28(1/2), 3-32.

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )