Listening to Learn in Canada’s Housing Research

EAR TO THE GROUND

They say you can’t see the whole elephant just by looking at the tail. This old adage is being confirmed by a group of Bridging Divides researchers looking into the causes of Canada’s housing crisis. While the media, politicians, and casual observers often seem to have accepted the claim that the housing crisis is a direct cause of immigration levels, researchers across the country are taking pause and mobilizing to examine the issue from a multi-causal perspective, taking nothing for granted. Professor Feng Qiu is one of them, and she believes that this research requires listening to community. “We wanted to know not only what the data says about housing affordability, but also how people working on the ground understand the problem,” she explains.

Based at the University of Alberta, Qiu leads the Bridging Divides project Is Immigration Responsible for the Current Housing Crisis in Canada? The team has been systematically analyzing data to examine the relationship between migration and housing affordability, with a focus on Alberta’s two major cities: Edmonton and Calgary. Rather than waiting until the end of their study to share results, the researchers did something different. Before finalizing their survey questions, they opened the research process to the community and invited those who work on housing every day to help shape the study with their own insights and expertise.

Over a series of three expert meetings, the team brought together municipal representatives, economists, real estate professionals, and non-profit organizations to discuss their perspectives on affordability, demand, and supply. Each meeting focused on a different group: Edmonton stakeholders, Calgary stakeholders, and a third group of participants from across Alberta.

“The goal,” Qiu says, “was to understand the challenges that different communities face, and to hear what measures or indicators they think truly capture affordability.” Those conversations directly influenced the design of the research survey, which now includes more than 30 questions informed by stakeholder input.

Research by co-design

These consultations were not only an opportunity to validate the research design, but also an exercise in the co-creation of knowledge. The same experts who are often consulted to respond to findings had the opportunity to shape the direction of the study itself, sometimes sparking entirely new research areas.

In one instance, participants emphasized the growing role of domestic migration — people moving from other provinces, often from Ontario and British Columbia — in local housing markets. “These people are much more likely than international migrants to purchase higher-end homes or investment properties,” Qiu explains. “That kind of internal movement has a very different impact on housing than international migration.” This insight sparked an entirely new line of inquiry.

“We realized we needed to treat intra-provincial and international migration separately in our analysis. That came directly from the consultations.”

In Edmonton, participants identified zoning reforms passed two years earlier as a critical factor affecting affordability — something the research team had not yet integrated into its study design. The discussions inspired a new follow-up study in collaboration with The City of Edmonton to assess the policy’s effects.

“I appreciate the consultations so much,” Qiu reflects. “All the participants have first-hand experience and a type of knowledge that we truly need. I’m honestly so appreciative of their time and expertise.”

A practitioner’s perspective

From his perspective as an economist, Hotaka Kobori, who currently works at The City of Calgary, found the sessions equally enlightening. Having moved from academia as a graduate student to a public sector role as a housing economist, he saw the consultation as an opportunity for open dialogue between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. He believes that should happen far more often.

He recalls being struck by how open the process was. “I was pleasantly surprised at the level of work the research project undertook. Their professional consultation invited feedback from different sectors, and they took our input seriously. We were able to contribute to the survey in a meaningful way.”

For Kobori, this represented a new model for producing academic work, one that evolves not only through peer review and scientific methods, but also through real-world engagement with those most familiar with the subject. “Academics are sometimes seen as staying in their own field,” he notes, “but this project really tried to incorporate multiple perspectives. There were representatives from The City, industry and real estate. I think that makes the research stronger and more connected to real-world issues.”

The consultation also offered him a chance to see the housing issue through the eyes of other stakeholders. “For example, at the City of Calgary, we’ve been trying to deliver this comprehensive housing strategy called Home is Here,” he says. “It was interesting to hear how different industry experts like those in the real estate industry or academics perceive some of those changes we have been implementing. It gave me a broader view of the current challenges.”

He also sees a broader lesson for policy and research communities. “Projects like this one show alignment between different parties and create real value,” he says. “The investigation into the relationship between immigration and housing will provide insights that can help with planning for the future.”

That alignment between evidence and policymaking, Kobori argues, is essential for evidence-based governance. “The more research we have, the better equipped we are to apply evidence-based policy making that benefits citizens. Collaboration helps build that evidence base, especially when studies focus on relevant areas.”

Building on what works

Kobori believes collaborations like this one shouldn’t end when a project does. “Right now, many partnerships between municipalities and universities are on a project-by-project basis,” he says.

“What we need is a more systematic and continuous way of working together. We can all gain from a collaboration that is more institutionalized, rather than ad hoc.”

He imagines a model where universities and public sector agencies meet regularly to share data, review findings, and co-develop research priorities. “Different ideas or approaches would need to be explored but could include things like ongoing workshops or regular updates,” he says, though he notes the differing timeframe between public-sector and academic environments can pose a challenge. “It’s important that knowledge and experience don’t disappear when a project concludes.”

Such continuity, he believes, would also make it easier to evaluate policies in a more rigorous way. “At the municipal level, collaboration with multiple stakeholders often happens at the pre-implementation stage of policies. I see real potential for more collaboration with academic partners in the post-implementation stage as well. Then, policies’ outcomes can be assessed in a more causal way, rather than casual, supported by academic expertise,” Kobori explains. “The collaboration can help by providing additional transparent, independent policy evaluation that citizens deserve to know.”

Looking ahead

It all comes down to what is best for the community. “As public servants and practitioners,” says Kobori, “we want policy implementation to be as evidence-based as possible. The more research we have, the better it is for policymaking and ultimately for citizens.”

Qiu agrees. “There’s a lot of energy and goodwill across sectors to address complex issues like housing,” she says. Trying to find ways to integrate those perspectives meaningfully can be a challenge, but it shouldn’t stop researchers from trying.

This idea of strengthening and sustaining partnerships systemically and across projects is central to Bridging Divides’ approach to research. Whether through co-designed surveys or community-driven research questions, the goal is to bridge not just academic and policy divides, but also the gap between knowledge and action. For both researchers and practitioners, collaboration is a way to generate understanding that is both locally grounded and widely relevant.

“My advice to other public servants interested in collaborating in a similar way with researchers? Do it. There’s nothing to lose in collaboration, and always something to gain,” Kobori says.

In this issue of Bridges:

What Happens When You Invite People In

Narratives of Citizenship: Seeing Belonging Through a Newcomer Lens

Listening to Learn in Canada’s Housing Research

AI Takes a Village: How Collaboration is Powering Canada’s Digital Future

Challenge Accepted: Mentorship Beyond the Data

Reporting Across Borders

Plus: Fall 2025 Allies in Action