Methodological dogma in homelessness scholarship and its associated myopia

The ongoing shift toward evidence-based homelessness practice and policy has raised helpful questions regarding our current understanding. It has drawn attention to existing methodological skew in homelessness scholarship, particularly in the UK which is dominated by qualitative methods, with research questions seeking to explain homelessness and experiences of those affected. Rather than enriching our methodological toolkit and facilitating research plurality to deepen our knowledge, this growing trend has promoted a hierarchy of evidence. Herein certain methods, particularly randomized controlled trials, are positioned as superior and consequently, certain forms of knowledge are conflated with “what works.” Through discussing current examples within homelessness research and drawing parallels with other fields that underwent similar trends, notably psychiatry, I argue that “methodology-first” approaches present three key challenges to homelessness scholarship. First, a narrowing of insight through distorting the value of certain methodologies and resultantly a dismissal of others. Second, an under appreciation for context, particularly political, legislative, and governance, which undermines research soundness and generalizability. Third, an overextension of trial use resulting in the perverse inversion of academic, policy, and investment decisions whereby choices are guided by what is measurable according to predetermined methods, as opposed to what is needed, relevant and potentially transformative.