i
Volume 10/Issue 2/2024
From the Guest Editors
ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP AND HOUSING SECURITY
Isobel M. Findlay and Lori Bradford
Housing security is the availability of and access to stable, safe,
affordable, and adequate housing without experiencing barriers,
including gender, race, caste, ethnicity, ability, or sexual orientation
among many more (Cox et al., 2017; Findlay et al., 2013). Although
housing security has been an issue long in the making in Canada
with decades of disinvestment in affordable rental stock in favour of
home ownership and market solutions (Careless, 2020; Hulchanski
& Shapcott, 2004; Hulchanski et al., 2009; Olauson et al., 2023;
Sutter, 2016), the housing crisis was both exacerbated and exposed
by the COVID-19 pandemic (Kunzekweguta et al., 2022). The
pandemic redoubled insecurities and vulnerabilities, “amplify[ying]
the suffering of being homeless” and having “nowhere to go” (Doll
et al. 2022, pp. 11-12).
Even though housing as a human right critical to human
development is recognized in Canada under the 2019 National
Housing Strategy Act (NHSA), the correlation between income
and housing insecurity puts those in lower income brackets at the
highest health, well-being, safety, and financial risk. Low-income
earners typically bear the added burdens of systemic discrimination,
which creates significant barriers to receiving the support they need,
while exacerbating their vulnerability to exploitation by those who
would profit from putting at risk the security and safety of the most
vulnerable. Despite the NHSA pledge to act on the best evidence, the Auditor General of
Canada (2022) reports that “Infrastructure Canada, Employment and Social Development
Canada, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know whether their efforts
improved housing outcomes for people experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness
and for other vulnerable groups” (p. 5). While scholars are growing the evidence, including
the list of barriers to optimal outcomes, data on those barriers and other factors shaping our
understanding of housing security, people actually experiencing housing insecurity remain the
experts in knowing who is housing insecure, what will support their housing security, and how
we should be moving forward together to enhance housing security nationwide. The usual
Lori Bradford
Isobel M. Findlay
ii Isobel M. Findlay and Lori Bradford
Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning
research methods, like case studies, interviews, focus groups, mind mapping, research-creation,
surveys and questionnaires are evolving to be more inclusive of community-based research
activities (Mitchell et al., 2016; Quilgars et al., 2009).
In this special issue on Engaged Scholarship and Housing Security, we share the insights
of emergent approaches, digital tools, advocate-scholars, and community champions doing
the hard work. We recognize, support, and highlight research and researchers of all types who
are using engaged scholarship, community-based approaches, and/or community-driven and
managed research and activities around housing security, including those using diverse and
multiple ways of knowing about housing security.
The article “Toward the Right to Housing in Canada: Lived Experience, Research and
Promising Practices in Deep Engagement” importantly addresses the meaningful engagement
of lived expertise in housing research consistent with the NHSA’s promotion of lived expertise
and participatory processes. The ambitious goals of the NHSA require that “those in greatest
need,” including those with lived experience of housing precarity, homelessness, and housing
rights violations, contribute to research, help shape policy, and further the operationalizing of
housing as a human right. The article draws on a project where the team (with and without
lived expertise) probe how lived experts engage in housing research on housing precarity in
Canada, while reviewing close to 300 articles in the literature through an intersectional lens.
They are mindful too of the colonial history and the need for Indigenous-led and controlled
research that may not choose knowledge mobilization in traditional academic fora. They
also call for “deep engagement” defined “as meaningful, non-hierarchical engagement geared
towards transformative action, informed by the strengths and unmet needs of communities.”
The next article uses community-engaged arts-based methods to shed light on housing
insecurity in rural areas and overlapping rural-urban spaces. If homelessness is less visible in those
settings, it is no less part of the broader crisis of housing insecurity and homelessness demanding
policy and other action. The article complicates and complements official narratives constructed
by such means as point-in-time counts, those notoriously undercounting instruments that
conceal as much as they reveal in the efforts to quantify the issue for policy intervention. In the
process they may well reinforce “a deficit-based understanding of demographic groups more
likely to experience homelessness” and thus entrench individualized rather than systemic or
structural understandings of homelessness. By contrast, the authors highlight twelve storytellers,
including three members of the research team, and eight examples of digital storytelling inspired
by the Re•Vision Centre for Art and Social Justice at the University of Guelph, Ontario,
Canada. Theirs is a participant-led process of engaged scholarship that can uniquely challenge
power relations and render visible the particular “intersections of individual circumstance and
structural factors” that demand policy change. The digital storytelling documents the resilience
and skill of those navigating homelessness. Their stories reveal how social assistance policy,
rural motels and racism, and anti-immigration and misogyny fuel poverty and illegal evictions
which reproduce homelessness, isolate the vulnerable, and render their experiences invisible.
If community proved important in the previous essay in confounding taken-for-granted
views of homelessness, “Community of One: Social Support Networks and Low-income
iii
Volume 10/Issue 2/2024
Tenants Living in Market-rental Housing” presents another perspective on the meaning of
community for those struggling with housing insecurity. Based on 21 interviews with tenants
and housing providers in a community-engaged project, the essay explores the social support
networks of low-income renters living in market housing while in receipt of rent subsidies and
housing worker assistance. It is especially important to understand the experiences of lowincome
renters in the context of the housing and affordability crises and of policy and other
investments in the private market and subsidies as the solution. Among the most marginalized,
low-income renters are often forced by intense poverty to make hard choices between rent and
food, medication, or utilities. Those pressures are also felt disproportionately by those facing
intersecting oppressive systems, such as Indigenous people, racialized groups, women, seniors,
and people living with disabilities. The tenants in the study proved to have few social supports
and even avoided social networks that had been harmful to their housing security. They often
preferred their own company. Nevertheless, they did seek and receive formal social support
(both material and emotional) from the non-profit sector in areas such as harm reduction,
youth and women’s centres as well as assistance from housing workers. The findings have clear
implications for investments in the non-profit sector—and for research comparing market
renters with those in public, co-operative non-profit housing or exploring the experiences of
different sub-populations.
An intersectional approach to housing security is the focus of the final essay, “Intersectionality
in Housing Research: Early Reflections from a CBPR Partnership.” The essay discusses
preliminary findings from a larger project designed to implement “intersectional praxis across
the life cycle of community-based participatory research (CBPR).” These preliminary learnings
come from a “Co-Learning Workshop” involving both academic and community partners
which highlights three key challenges or “promising puzzles” in co-defining and integrating
intersectionality into housing research to illuminate “the multi-scaled complexities” of housing
security as “both specifically experienced and institutionally produced” and to persuade policy
and programme personnel of the value of the approach in disclosing “the specific contexts
in which structural housing inequities take root.” The overall aim is through “reciprocal
community-driven partnerships and the direct participation of the people affected throughout
the life cycle of the partnership” to produce “more relevant, inclusive, and sustained housing
outcomes for multiply-marginalized populations” in urban and rural settings. They aim to
demonstrate the potential of the intersectional approach to build community capacity, to
further housing as a human right, and to fill gaps in knowledge and understanding created by
data collection methods and results that take too little account of “equity-seeking groups who
face intersecting barriers—e.g., LGBTQ2S+ youth and newcomer women.”
The Reports from the Field features two reports. The first has a strong call to action:
“'Less Talk, More Builds': The Mixed-Income Residential Tower Model of the University of
Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation.” In the context of the urgent need for more
affordable housing stock and government failure to deliver despite investments in policy and
program incentives, the authors describe the potential of a scalable model that needs to be better
known and understood: the mixed-income residential tower of the University of Winnipeg
iv Isobel M. Findlay and Lori Bradford
Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning
Community Renewal Corporation (UWRC), a non-profit foundation that since 2005 has
worked in partnership with community organizations to become Winnipeg’s leading social
real estate developer. While the role of universities in student housing provision has had some
attention (including whether or not the reliance on international students to balance budgets
contributes to the housing crisis), less known is this mixed-income, mixed-use residential
model developed off-campus.
The model is currently being replicated in Winnipeg’s downtown core where close to half
the units are affordable rental reserved for “marginalized residents” (low-income immigrants
and refugees, Indigenous persons, persons living with disabilities, and others facing multiple,
intersectional barriers) in a project that is committed to a four-pillar framework of “multidimensional
sustainability.” While building new units is but one means (Less Talk, More Builds)
of addressing the current housing supply and insecurity crisis, it is the one means (with numbers
and dollar value) favoured by politicians with an eye to electoral cycles. The report usefully and
importantly links this initiative to engaged scholarship and how academics might adapt this
model to their locations, deepening NGO and other partnerships to help develop government
policies to accelerate scaled replication, assessing the efficacy of different financing mechanisms
(mortgages, loans, subsidies, etc.), studying the dynamics of mixed-income groups that choose
to live together, and understanding the opportunities and challenges to be navigated by a nonprofit
entity of a university or college that builds and manages off-campus social housing.
The second report, “Survival and Resistance: A Zine Study with Young Women and
Femmes Experiencing Housing Injustice in Canadian Cities,” explores housing injustice
as a public health issue among young women and femmes between the ages of 18 and 24
(expressing femininity but recognizing diverse gender expressions) in urban settings. This is a
group whose lived experience is rarely captured in part because they tend not to use shelters
and are more likely to be found among the so-called hidden homeless. Drawing on social
constructionism in an arts-based inquiry, the authors aim to answer this research question:
“what are the survival and resistance strategies that young women and femmes experiencing
housing injustice use to support their wellness and engage with life?” They use reflexive
thematic analysis of zine contributions centring the young women’s voices and problematizing
understandings of both youth (“developmental period” or “structural framing” around which
“institutions are built”) and resistance as highly contextual to identify five themes: affective
and psychological resistance, survival strategies, what good living means to participants,
their experience of “organized abandonment” or selective investment/disinvestment, and the
importance of human connection and care. The zine contributions fill in some important gaps
in understanding of housing injustice among young women and femmes with valuable policy,
research, and other implications.
The Exchange highlights a conversation among four academics in nursing, medicine,
engineering, and social sciences involved in an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral group
researching ways to improve the built environment in rural, remote, and reserve communities.
Through their dialogue, key themes and reflection emerge, highlighting the reciprocal nature
of engaged scholarship and its imperative for addressing societal challenges.
v
Volume 10/Issue 2/2024
The participants define their practices of engaged scholarship as collaborative endeavours
characterized by adaptability, reciprocity, informality, and responsiveness to community
needs. They emphasize the importance of a community-gifted term, “ReconciliACTION”,
wherein research transcends campus environments to catalyze joint commitment to actions
in communities, fostering more equitable partnerships. Insights are shared on the challenges
of balancing academic goals with community priorities, navigating institutional memory,
and promoting interdisciplinarity among engineers; natural, health and social scientists;
humanists; and artists. Strategies that they promote to enhance engaged scholarship include
addressing language accessibility, advocating for institutional support, and leveraging platforms
like policy briefs, graphical art, and peer-reviewed journals to disseminate knowledge and
facilitate collective learning. The exchange underscores the transformative potential of engaged
scholarship to prioritize researcher humility, campus friendships, research accessibility, and
sustained community engagement.
The special issue concludes with reviews of two important new books, The Tenant Class by
Ricardo Tranjan sheds light on the reproduction of an inequitable housing market, offering both
critique of the naturalizing processes that would rationalize the status quo and recommending
solutions, not technical but political, and sharing histories of tenant organizing to that end.
Andrew Crosby’s Resisting Eviction: Domicide and the Financialization of Rental Housing has
much in common with Tranjan’s book not least in its powerful critique of the housing system
and the construction of the housing crisis. Crosby’s is a compelling tale of the destruction of
rental units by financialized landlords in Ottawa’s Heron Gate, the eviction of tenants, the
organizing of tenants, and a human rights lawsuit that could have a real impact on housing
rights in Canada.
About the Authors
Lori Bradford is an associate professor at the College of Engineering and is also a Tier 2 Canada
Research Chair (CRC) in including Social and Cultural Sciences in Engineering Design.
She is also the editor-in-chief of the Engaged Scholar Journal. Her current research areas are
interdisciplinary social sciences, engaged scholarship, social and cultural impact assessment,
water empathy and policy, and community-driven co-design. Email: lori.bradford@usask.ca
Isobel M. Findlay is a professor emerita, Management and Marketing, Edwards School of
Business; University Co-Director, Community-University Institute for Social Research; and
Fellow in Co-operatives, Diversity, and Sustainable Development at the Canadian Centre for
the Study of Co-operatives at University of Saskatchewan. She has special research interests
in housing and homelessness, communications, cultures, and communities; diversity, social
inclusion, and social cohesion; Indigenous and associative organizations; partnerships and
vi Isobel M. Findlay and Lori Bradford
Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning
governance; and performance indicators, and reporting standards. Isobel works closely with
community groups and social economy, public, and private sectors designing and conducting
research to promote and support community economic development, social justice, social
inclusion, quality of life, and environmental sustainability. Email: findlay@edwards.usask.ca
References
Auditor General of Canada (2022, November 15) Report 5: Chronic Homelessness. https://www.
oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att__e_44159.htm
Careless, J. (2020). Exploring the trajectory of housing assistance policies in Canada. Alternate Routes:
A Journal of Critical Social Research, 31(1). http://www.alternateroutes.ca/index.php/ar/
article/view/22512
Cox, R., Rodnyansky, S., Henwood, B., & Wenzel, S. (2017). Measuring population estimates of
housing insecurity in the United States: A comprehensive approach. CESR-Schaeffer Working
Paper, (2017-012).
Doll, K., Hughes, J., Leviten-Reid, C., Wu, H. (2022). Homelessness within the COVID pandemic
in two Nova Scotia communities. International Journal of Homelessness, 2(1), 6-22.
Findlay, I. M., Holden, B., Patrick, G., & Wormith, S. (2013). Saskatoon’s homeless population 2012:
A research report. Community-University Institute for Social Research, University
of Saskatchewan.
Hulchanski, J D & Shapcott, M. (2004). Finding room: Options for a Canadian Rental Housing
Strategy. Toronto: CUCS Press, University of Toronto. www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca
Hulchanski, J.D., Campsie, P., Chau, S.B.Y., Hwang, S.W., & Paradis, E. (2009). Homelessness:
What’s in a word? In J.D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang, & E. Paradis (Eds.).
Finding home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada. E-book Introduction.
Cities Centre, University of Toronto
Kunzekweguta, M., Findlay, I.M., Kowalchuk, M., & Pham, A. (2022). 2022 Saskatoon point-in-time
homelessness count. Community-University Institute for Social Research, University
of Saskatchewan
Mitchell, C., Chege, F., Maina, L., & Rothman, M. (2016). Beyond engagement in working with
children in eight Nairobi slums to address safety, security, and housing: Digital tools for
policy and community dialogue. Global Public Health, 11(5-6), 651-665.
National Housing Strategy Act S.C. 2019, c. 29, s.313. (2019). https:// laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/
acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
Olauson, C., Nyamekye, R., Findlay, I.M. Muhajarine, N., Buhler, S., Holden, B., Christopherson-
Cote, C., & Usiskin, L. (2023). A Review of Affordable Housing Programs for Those in Greatest
Need in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Community-University Institute for Social Research,
University of Saskatchewan.
Quilgars, D., Elsinga, M., Jones, A., Toussaint, J., Ruonavaara, H., & Naumanen, P. (2009).
Inside qualitative, cross‐national research: Making methods transparent in a EU housing
study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(1), 19-31.
Sutter, G. (2016). Canadian social housing: Policy evolution and program periods. McGill-Queen’s
University Press.

## Références

Auditor General of Canada (2022, November 15) Report 5: Chronic Homelessness. https://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att__e_44159.htm

Careless, J. (2020). Exploring the trajectory of housing assistance policies in Canada. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research, 31(1). http://www.alternateroutes.ca/index.php/ar/article/view/22512

R., Rodnyansky, S., Henwood, B., & Wenzel, S. (2017). Measuring population estimates of housing insecurity in the United States: A comprehensive approach. CESR-Schaeffer Working Paper, (2017-012).

K., Hughes, J., Leviten-Reid, C., Wu, H. (2022). Homelessness within the COVID pandemic in two Nova Scotia communities. International Journal of Homelessness, 2(1), 6-22.

Findlay, I. M., Holden, B., Patrick, G., & Wormith, S. (2013). Saskatoon’s homeless population 2012: A research report. Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan.

Hulchanski, J D & Shapcott, M. (2004). Finding room: Options for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy. Toronto: CUCS Press, University of Toronto. www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca

Hulchanski, J.D., Campsie, P., Chau, S.B.Y., Hwang, S.W., & Paradis, E. (2009). Homelessness: What’s in a word? In J.D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang, & E. Paradis (Eds.). Finding home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada. E-book Introduction. Cities Centre, University of Toronto

Kunzekweguta, M., Findlay, I.M., Kowalchuk, M., & Pham, A. (2022). 2022 Saskatoon point-in-time homelessness count. Community University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan

C., Chege, F., Maina, L., & Rothman, M. (2016). Beyond engagement in working with children in eight Nairobi slums to address safety, security, and housing: Digital tools for policy and community dialogue. Global Public Health, 11(5-6), 651-665.

National Housing Strategy Act S.C. 2019, c. 29, s.313. (2019). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html

Olauson, C., Nyamekye, R., Findlay, I.M. Muhajarine, N., Buhler, S., Holden, B., Christopherson-Cote, C., & Usiskin, L. (2023). A Review of Affordable Housing Programs for Those in Greatest Need in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan.

D., Elsinga, M., Jones, A., Toussaint, J., Ruonavaara, H., & Naumanen, P. (2009). Inside qualitative, cross‐national research: Making methods transparent in a EU housing study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(1), 19-31.

Sutter, G. (2016). Canadian social housing: Policy evolution and program periods. McGill-Queen’s University Press.