Browsing For Housing

Mixed Methods Sociological Research

The Project

As part of a team of 11 Sociology students at the University of Washington (UW), I studied how undergraduates at UW search for off-campus housing in order to learn about how they leverage their social and financial resources to overcome barriers in the search process. We worked on the project from September to December 2019.

My Role

I worked on a literature review, survey design, participant recruitment, interviews, qualitative and quantitative data analysis, writing a research report, and presenting results.

Background

Seattle’s housing market is notoriously competitive. Rising prices, high demand, and a shortage of affordable options make the city a difficult place to find housing, particularly for students, who often face additional challenges. Many lack a credit score, have low or no income, need a cosigner to lease an apartment, have limited knowledge of their rights as tenants, and may face more stringent requirements in their housing searches. Moreover, most students prioritize housing that is close to campus, but available units are commonly overpriced and in poor condition. As a result, students often rely on their social networks to find housing.

Sociological Background and Theory

While there is a great deal of Sociological research on renters in U.S. housing markets, the housing search process of students is understudied.

Because students may face many barriers to renting off-campus, they must adapt their approach to searching for housing. Existing research shows that students are more likely than others to rely on their personal connections or informal networks, such as groups on social media platforms, when looking for housing. Social capital plays a particularly important role in young people’s housing search processes in expensive areas. Well-connected individuals might be able to find housing that is cheaper and higher quality than what is normally available in their price range in housing databases. Finding housing through friends might also allow students to avoid restrictions such as deposits, background checks, and minimum credit scores that could otherwise restrict their options. Family members can also make the housing search process easier by attending meetings with landlords, co-signing leases, and providing financial support for paying rent.

In addition to studying their search process, we examined how students’ race, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and residency status impact their experiences through the resources available to them and the barriers that they face. Differential access to social and financial resources among students could mean that we observe different housing search patterns among students depending on their group identities.

Research Process

Survey design

We used Google Forms to create a survey that would take respondents 5-10 minutes to complete. The majority of questions are close-ended (a combination of multiple choice and select all that apply), but we also included open-ended short written responses to gain more insight into the students’ situations.

We divided our survey into three sections:

1. Housing search - We asked respondents about their motivation behind searching for housing and factors that affect their housing choices such as housing type, cost, and desired features. We also asked which social media platforms and online databases they use to search for housing.

2. Current housing - We asked what methods were used to find their current housing. We also asked about characteristics of their current housing situation and its application requirements.

3. Background information - We asked respondents about their race, gender, residency status, how they pay rent, and what issues they have regarding housing.

We wrote our questions to be clear, specific, and neutral and were careful to ask about one concept at a time. We ordered our questions so that general or “easy” topics came first and more specific or sensitive information was asked about later.

Data collection

We created flyers with a QR code that links to our survey and posted them in the majority of buildings on campus as well as in areas in the surrounding neighborhood that are popular with students.

As a group, we spent a total of over 100 hours promoting our survey by setting up a table in busy areas of campus (e.g., the student union building, the Quad, libraries) where students could stop by to take our surveys on laptops we provided.

Additionally, we shared our survey through university email lists and promoted it on social media including Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

Over the course of the two weeks it was open, our survey received a total of 646 responses.

Of the survey respondents who met our screening criteria, 115 indicated that they would be interested in being interviewed. We followed up with all of them and eventually interviewed 15. I conducted 12 of these interviews.

Sample population interviews

We conducted interviews so we could go into more depth on patterns we uncovered in the survey, in particular how social capital affects interviewees’ housing experiences.

As a team, we generated a set of questions which were used to loosely structure each interview. Some of these questions were tailored to each interviewee based on their survey responses. Prior to each interview, we examined interviewees’ responses to gain an understanding of their housing experience, from a summary of positive and negative answers to developing an awareness of cultural and economic background. Some survey answers also prompted further research on topics such as tenant rights, housing application process, and market conditions.

Our interviews were conducted in the student union building and lasted between 15 and 40 minutes. Each person was interviewed by two members of our team. We began by introducing ourselves and our project and getting to know our participant. We then asked general questions about the participant’s experience before moving onto more specific questions.

Analysis

We analyzed interview data using a thematic analysis. We started with an initial set of codes that were revised and expanded throughout our research. Interviews were transcribed immediately after they ended. We then read through the interview thoroughly, coded sections of text for key patterns, and created a summary to share with the team.

After running our survey for two weeks, we analyzed its data to see if there is significant variation in motivation, search methods, barriers, and negative experiences between different racial, SES, first generation, and residency groups.

Results

Motivation

The most common motivations were practical concerns such as finding a place that is cheaper and/or has a more optimal location. Some of our interviewees previously had long commutes to campus which were detrimental to their social and academic wellbeing. Additionally, most people sought a more affordable alternative to dorm life, which is typically much more expensive than living off campus with roommates.

“I quickly learned that I probably needed to move back up near campus… I saw a marked decrease in my grades… just the amount of time that you lose, sitting in the car.”

Many respondents were forced into an unwanted or unexpected housing search by external circumstances. We found that is common for potential roommates or landlords to back out at the last minute, leaving people scrambling. Additionally, the University of Washington doesn’t have enough dorm space to meet demand, so students are sometimes forced to find last-minute living arrangements off campus.

Some students must search for new housing to escape a bad living situation, such as toxic roommates or a landlord who refused to fix major problems.

“A lot of times we would have to cite the laws in Seattle just to get [the landlord] to do what his job is, so that was a huge motivation to move.”

Others simply wanted to have more independence. Many respondents described wanting to have their own room or live with a group of friends instead of with their parents.

Students’ motivations for moving did not vary significantly by race, residency, first generation status, or how they pay rent.

Search methods

Students in our sample use a wide variety of resources in their search and typically combine methods. Online databases are the most commonly used type of resource followed by personal connections, but even the least popular category, walking and driving, was used by nearly half of respondents.

When broken down by resource, the majority of respondents use friends and/or Zillow in their search. This is true across all demographic groups we studied, but different patterns emerged when we aggregated resources by type.

We find that international students are significantly more likely than others to use personal connections and social media. Housing found through formal methods like online databases often has more requirements, such as a social security number or proof of income, that can be difficult for international students to provide. Informal methods such as finding housing through friends or a Facebook group can help students avoid these barriers. From our survey, we discovered that housing found through personal connections or social media is much less likely to require application fees, proof of income, and background checks. Additionally, students described living with friends or acquaintances from a similar background as a way to avoid discrimination, something that many non-white and non-U.S. citizen respondents reported experiencing in their search.

Barriers

Application fees and requirements such as credit checks and proof of income were barriers to all groups of students, but particularly those who are first generation, international, or undocumented students.

In interviews, these students described being unable to meet basic requirements for many potential housing options due to factors including not having a social security number, U.S. bank account, credit card, or work experience. International students also described having difficulty finding a cosigner if their family lives outside the U.S.

What Worked

Online databases are the most common way that students in our sample found their current housing, but when broken down by resource, respondents most commonly found their housing through friends.

Negative Experiences

Since students may face many barriers to renting off-campus, they must adapt their approach to searching for housing by making use of informal networks and social connections. While this approach may help students avoid requirements and find cheaper housing, it can also leave them vulnerable to a number of problems.

31.8% of respondents reported having a neglectful or unreasonable POM. In interviews, many of our participants described facing non-responsive landlords and excessive wait times and fees for essential repairs. A few interviewees described privacy violations such as POMs placing cameras inside a unit or regularly entering unannounced.

While 70% of our respondents said that they prioritized safety in their housing search, less than 1/4 said they feel safe in their current home. In our survey analysis, we found that international students and students whose parents pay 100% of their rent are significantly less likely to feel unsafe in their home, experience faulty utilities, or have a neglectful POM. This could be because students in these groups spend on average around $200 more per month on rent compared to others. A higher rent budget might enable them to live better quality places.

Other issues that came up throughout our interviews were problems with roommates. There was variation in whether students lived with acquaintances or strangers. The problems that arose when students lived with friends were typically trivial matters, such as slamming of doors or messy shared spaces, but the problems that arose when students lived with strangers were sometimes more serious. One interviewee had to put up with uncomfortable situations when his roommates were hosting disruptive social engagements, prompting him to keep his door locked.

“I don’t know most of my roommates. I just found them on Craigslist because I needed to move near campus quickly. To be honest, they make me uncomfortable. They have lots loud gatherings and some of their visitors seem dangerous.”

This is an example of how students sometimes have to stay in unsafe situations because they can’t afford other housing or need to remain close to campus. Where in many cases other renters would leave, students must to put up with these bad situations.

Takeaways

1. Take the time to do a pilot. We tested our first survey and interview guide on friends and acquaintances to help us refine our interview questions, making sure that they are well-written and relevant. Although we’d felt good about our questions going into the pilot, we ended up uncovering a few areas for improvement.

2. Embrace awkward silences. While working on this project, I learned that a little awkwardness is inevitable in interviews. It can be tough to sit through silence, but it’s important to give participants time to think through their responses. Participants will often give short or superficial answers when they feel uncomfortable, but giving them some space and asking easier questions can help loosen up a conversation.

3. Know when to use qualitative vs quantitative methods. My team and I used an explanatory sequential design for our mixed methods research. We began with quantitative data analysis because very little scholarly research has been done on students’ housing search process and we needed to develop a broad understanding of this topic. We then used qualitative data from our interviews to further explain and interpret results from our quantitative analysis.