Using the Canadian Housing Survey, 2018–2019, we examined self-reported general and mental health among tenants residing in various housing types, including cooperative, non-profit, government, and private housing. Adjusting for confounders, we discovered that tenants in not-for-profit housing reported the highest odds, over four and half times (odds ratio 4.63), of poor general health compared to tenants in privately owned housing in Canada. On the other hand, the odds were reversed for tenants in cooperative housing and government housing, with 24% and 33% lower odds of poor general health, respectively, compared to tenants in privately owned housing. Moreover, we found that tenants in not-for-profit (1.26) and government housing (1.43) reported higher odds of poor mental health. On the other hand, tenants in cooperative housing reported 42% lower odds of poor mental health than tenants in privately owned housing. Furthermore, we observed variations in the odds of poor general and poor mental health among tenants from different equity-seeking groups across different housing types. These findings highlight the importance of considering housing type and equity factors in understanding health outcomes among tenants.

In a social and political context marked by increasingly polarized attitudes towards immigration and ethnic diversity, the paper uses the results of two research projects conducted ten years apart in Brussels and Montréal to reflect on methodological issues. The paper discusses two themes to show how to engage methodologically within a changing context, both theoretically and politically, and how various methodological choices might be used to fill some knowledge gaps. The first theme concerns the choice of research methods, and the type of knowledge they produce. The second theme addressed in this paper stresses the importance of paying more attention to the context where the research takes place, a process denoted here by the term situating. Two different interview methods are central to the discussion: in-depth interviews and ‘on-the-spot’ short interviews. The paper contrasts their use in relation with each project’s research objectives.