URB 5030: A Bilingual Methods-Course Playbook

读者画像：港中深（CUHK-Shenzhen）公共政策学院非全日制硕士在读，主修 Urban Studies。本课程（URB 5030 Social Science Research Methods）是学位必修。本指南目标：保住学位，不当方法学家。

关键约束（来自问诊对话）：本科财务管理，城市研究零起点。语言风格「Balanced — plain talk but keep the key terms」。每章保留中英对照关键词，配一个深圳（或华南城市）例子。

Where does URB 5030 actually sit in your degree — and where should your effort go?

Before you decode a single slide, you need to see where this course sits in the larger degree. The CUHK-Shenzhen School of Public Policy awards the MSSc in Urban Studies on a 27-unit structure: 9 units of common-core courses, 6 units of concentration-specific required courses (choose 2 of 4), and 12 units of electivesCUHK-Shenzhen programme page.

URB 5030 Social Science Research Methods is one of three common-core pillars, alongside URB 5010 Overview of Urban Studies and URB 5020 Urban Economics. All three are 3-unit, required, non-elective. You cannot drop URB 5030; you can only choose how to allocate your effort across its components.

Grading components and where effort should go

The exact grading structure for URB 5030 — including the weights attached to the final exam, group research prospectus, individual assignment, and participation — is published on your course LMS or instructor's syllabus, not on the official CUHK-Shenzhen programme page. You should confirm the exact weights and effort-allocation breakdown from your instructor's syllabus before budgeting effort. This playbook does not assume a specific weighting; it optimises for the two components that any reasonable weighting would treat as high-stakes (the final exam and the group research prospectus).

The final exam is the single largest piece in nearly every plausible weighting. Chapters 2 through 4 of this playbook build the bilingual vocabulary the exam almost certainly tests (science vs. scientific knowledge, laws vs. theories, ontology / epistemology / paradigm, the three paradigms, strategy / design / methods). Chapter 7 closes the loop with three bilingual model answers and a self-check list.

The group research prospectus is your other high-stakes piece. Chapter 5 gives you a decision rule for picking a defensible strategy / design / methods combination. The individual assignment and participation components are typically lower-weight; confirm their actual weights from your syllabus.

What the official page does not tell you

The CUHK-Shenzhen programme page confirms the course title, unit count, and category. It does not publish grading weights, instructor names, textbook edition, or syllabus-level reading lists. Those details must come from your LMS access, not from this playbook.

Here is the curriculum structure in one view:

Figure: Urban Studies 27-unit curriculum tree: required core, concentration choice, electives — with URB 5030 highlighted

Two concentrations are available — Urban Policy and Governance, and Urban Environment and Resource Management — but the page does not specify how many courses you must take from each. Confirm this with your advisor.

So the effort map is clear: the final exam and the group prospectus are the two high-stakes pieces, and together they carry the majority of your grade under any reasonable weighting. Confirm the exact numbers from your syllabus, but the rest of this playbook is built to serve those two pieces either way.

What do the English words on the slides actually mean — and why does urban studies rarely produce "laws"?

The first cluster of terms on the URB 5030 slides looks intimidating because they are everyday English words doing technical work. Science is not "what scientists do." Scientific knowledge is not "what scientists know." The distinction matters in exam questions; here is the frameworkBabbie Ch.1.

Science vs. scientific knowledge

Babbie's Chapter 1 introduces the distinction through what he calls the "agreement-reality" framing: most of what we know about the world we accept on trust from other people. Tradition, authority, and experience are the three ordinary sources of human knowledge. When you accept "don't eat raw pork" because your grandmother said so, that is tradition. When you accept "the boiling point of water is 100°C" because a textbook says so, that is authority. When you know "this road gets jammed at 8am" because you have driven it, that is experience.

Science is not a different activity from ordinary inquiry — it is ordinary inquiry plus a discipline-side fix. The fix is three things: logic (structured reasoning), observation (systematic data collection), and replication (someone else can repeat the process and get the same answer). Scientific knowledge is the product of that fix — hypotheses, laws, theories — while science is the practice that generates itBabbie Ch.1.

The diagram below makes the point visually:

图注：左侧三个方框是人类日常认知的三种来源——传统（Tradition 传统）、权威（Authority 权威）、经验（Experience 经验）。右侧三个方框是科学在日常认知基础上加上的三个学科性约束——逻辑（Logic 逻辑）、观察（Observation 观察）、重复检验（Replication 重复检验）。科学不是与日常认知不同的另一种活动，而是日常认知加上逻辑、观察和重复检验之后形成的学科化版本。

A Shenzhen example to lock the distinction: a specific claim about why the V-town Scheme (统租) post-2023 displaces particular renter groups is a piece of scientific knowledge — it is a hypothesis or a theory. The systematic observation (rent data, interview notes, policy documents) that produced and tested that claim is the science. The exam will test whether you can name both.

Laws vs. theories

Laws describe regular patterns that hold across cases and time. Theories explain why those patterns exist, and they can be revised when new evidence arrives. Urban studies rarely produces laws because the "subjects can upset the regularity" objection hits hardest in social settings — people react to policies in ways the policies did not anticipate, and each urban village has a different stakeholder mapBabbie Ch.1.

Take rent changes in three Shenzhen villages. The actual rent data — Shuiwei Ningmeng went from 70-80 CNY/m² under SOE-lease, to 150 CNY/m² district-lease, to 75 CNY/m² sub-lease — sits at the empirical layerGao & Hu 2025. A "law" would predict a stable regularity across all Shenzhen villages. Urban studies can only deliver a theory because each village's stakeholder map is different: Dachong (pre-2017 large-scale market redevelopment), Shuiwei (2017-2023 transitional SOE-lease), Yuanfen (post-2023 V-town centralised leasing).

The exam item "explain why urban studies mostly produces theories not laws" maps directly onto this distinction.

Six principles of modern science (with a caveat)

The URB 5030 slides present six principles of modern science. An important caveat: Bryman's Chapter 2 enumerates five principles of positivism (after Cohen & Manion 2011), not sixBryman Ch.2. The slides' six-principles list is a synthesis across Babbie, Bryman, and other methodology literature — not a verbatim quote from any one textbook. If you can name five or six of them (empiricism, objectivity, systematicity, replicability, peer review, tentativeness) and give one city example for each, you have answered the exam item.

Deduction vs. induction (the bridge to Chapter 3)

Before we move to theory-and-empirics, you need to see two flow diagrams. These are CC-licensed visuals from Fancera (2023) and Laitsch, hosted on the William Paterson University Press open textbook site (not Wikimedia Commons, and not Bryman or OUP) — the attribution must be preservedFancera/Laitsch CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

The first diagram shows the inductive flow — data → patterns → theory — the direction you travel when you start from observations and build a general explanation:

图注：归纳（Inductive 归纳）流程。数据（Data）经过反复观察形成模式（Patterns），再上升为理论（Theory / General Propositions）。这是从经验上升到理论的方向，定性研究多走这条路。

The second diagram shows the deductive flow — theory → hypothesis → data → confirmation — the direction you travel when you start from a theory and test it against observations:

图注：演绎（Deductive 演绎）流程。理论（Theory / General Propositions）推出可检验的假设（Hypothesis），再设计数据收集（Data Collection），最后得到证实或证伪（Confirmation / Disconfirmation）。这是从理论下推到数据的方向，定量研究多走这条路。

These two diagrams are the bridge to the next chapter: the theory-vs-empirical cycle is not a one-way street. Deduction and induction are the two lanes of traffic.

How do theory and evidence actually talk to each other in a research cycle?

Theoretical and empirical — these two words show up on almost every URB 5030 slide. They are not synonyms; they sit at different layers of the same research cycle.

Theoretical level vs. empirical level

The theoretical layer is where abstract claims live. "Gentrification displaces low-income tenants." "State-led redevelopment concentrates power in SOEs." These are statements about patterns and explanations. The empirical layer is where observable data lives. Rent numbers, interview transcripts, policy-document counts, field-note photographs — these are the observable records that test whether the theoretical claims hold.

Wind Xiaotian (风笑天) presents this interaction as a scientific ring in Chapter 2 §3 of his sociology methods textbookWind Xiaotian Ch.2 §3. The ring has five nodes: Theory (理论) and Hypothesis (假设) at the top — the theoretical layer — and Empirical Observation (经验观察), Empirical Generalization (经验概括), and Tested Hypothesis (检验过的假设) at the bottom — the empirical layer. A horizontal cut-line divides the two layers.

图注：Wallace 的科学环（Scientific Ring / 科学环）。上方两个蓝色节点是理论层——Theory（理论）和 Hypothesis（假设）；下方三个粉色节点是经验层——Empirical Observation（经验观察）、Empirical Generalization（经验概括）、Tested Hypothesis（检验过的假设）。蓝色向下箭头表示演绎（deduction），红色向上箭头表示归纳（induction）。水平虚线把理论层与经验层分开。注意：风笑天原书写的是"理论研究 / 经验研究"，"理论层 / 经验层"的提法来自袁方《社会研究方法教程》的后续修订。

A note on wording: Wind Xiaotian writes 理论研究 / 经验研究 (theory-research / empirical-research) in his original text; the layered terminology 理论层 / 经验层 with an explicit horizontal cut-line comes from a later refinement in 袁方's textbook. Either wording is acceptable in your exam answer, but if you quote Wind Xiaotian directly, use 理论研究 / 经验研究.

The 9-step research process — and a 5-stage reconciliation

The URB 5030 slides likely show a 9-step research process. Here is the catch: Wind Xiaotian explicitly states 5 stages (研究过程的五个阶段) in Chapter 1 §4Wind Xiaotian Ch.1 §4. The 9-step version is Babbie's Wheel of Science scaffold extended into 9 labels, not Wind Xiaotian's wordingBabbie Ch.2.

If the slides say "9 steps," map them onto Babbie's wheel extended:

1. Theory → 2. Hypothesis → 3. Study Design → 4. Data Collection → 5. Data Processing → 6. Data Analysis → 7. Findings → 8. Generalization → 9. Back to Theory.

If the slides say "5 stages," use Wind Xiaotian's wording: 选择问题 → 研究设计 → 资料收集 → 资料分析 → 得出结果.

Both are correct; the exam may test whether you know they refer to the same underlying cycle.

图注：Babbie 改绘的 Wheel of Science（科学之轮），源自 Wallace 1971。四个节点：Theories（理论）、Hypotheses（假设）、Observations（观察）、Empirical Generalizations（经验概括）。蓝色弧线（DEDUCTION / 演绎）从理论顺时针流向假设再到观察；红色弧线（INDUCTION / 归纳）从经验概括逆时针流回理论。这个环就是 9-step 研究流程的概念骨架。

图注：Wind Xiaotian 改绘的"研究过程的五个阶段"（5-stage pipeline）：选择研究问题 → 研究设计 → 资料收集 → 资料分析 → 得出结果。注意：Wind Xiaotian 明确写的是 5 个阶段，不是 9 步。如果 URB 5030 幻灯片用 9 步，那是 Babbie Wheel of Science 扩展为 9 个标签的结果，不是 Wind Xiaotian 原话。

A Shenzhen walkthrough of the full cycle

Theory: the policy claim — "Shenzhen's post-2023 V-town Scheme (统租) produces exclusionary displacement of original low-income tenants through selective eligibility and rent structures." This is the theoretical layer.

Hypothesis: "In SOE-leased blocks, post-renovation sub-lease rents rise above what the original tenant base can afford." This is the testable, observable form of the theory.

Empirical observation: the Shuiwei Ningmeng rent data — 70-80 CNY/m² SOE-lease, 150 CNY/m² district-lease, 75 CNY/m² sub-lease to screened "talented" professionalsGao & Hu 2025. This is the empirical layer.

Empirical generalization: across all three villages in Gao & Hu's study — Dachong (pre-2017), Shuiwei (2017-2023), Yuanfen (post-2023) — the same exclusionary mechanism appears, with different intensityGao & Hu 2025. The pattern generalizes.

Tested hypothesis: the empirical generalization either confirms the original hypothesis (it holds) or disconfirms it (it fails) or refines it (it holds with conditions).

Modified theory: back to the theoretical layer. The theory now has evidence behind it, and the next round of the cycle can refine the claim.

This is the research cycle. The exam will test whether you can name each layer and show the cycle with a Chinese-city example.

What are ontology, epistemology, and paradigm — and which of the three worldviews fits your topic?

Three words show up on every methods slide: ontology (本体论), epistemology (认识论), paradigm (范式). They sound like synonyms but they sit at different layers of the same scaffold.

Crotty's 4-element scaffold

Michael Crotty's The Foundations of Social Research (1998) is the cleanest single source for these four nouns. His Figure 1 is the one image you should be able to draw from memory before the examCrotty 1998.

图注：Crotty 四元素脚手架（Figure 1）。四个方框从上到下依次是：epistemology（认识论）→ theoretical perspective（理论视角）→ methodology（方法论）→ methods（方法）。三个向下箭头表示上一个元素为下一个元素提供逻辑基础。最抽象的假设在最顶端，最具体的技术在最底端。这是考试最容易考的一张图。

The four elements, top to bottom:

• Epistemology (认识论): the theory of knowledge — how can we know what we know?
• Theoretical perspective (理论视角): the philosophical stance — positivism, interpretivism, critical inquiry, etc.
• Methodology (方法论): the strategy or plan of action — case study, survey, ethnography, experiment.
• Methods (方法): the specific techniques — interview, document analysis, regression, observation.

Three epistemologies

Crotty names three epistemological stancesCrotty 1998:8-10:

• Objectivism (客观主义): meaning exists apart from consciousness. "That tree in the forest is a tree, regardless of whether anyone is aware of its existence or not." This is the epistemology that underpins positivism.
• Constructionism (建构主义): meaning comes into existence in engagement with reality. There is no meaning without a mind. The subject and the object generate meaning together. This is the epistemology that underpins interpretivism.
• Subjectivism (主观主义): meaning is imposed on the object by the subject. The object makes no contribution. This underpins postmodernism and certain strands of critical inquiry.

The three paradigms

The URB 5030 slides use a trim three-paradigm matrix:

The matrix is Crotty's Table 1Crotty 1998:5:

图注：Crotty Table 1 把 Figure 1 的四个方框填实。四个栏目：Epistemology（认识论）→ Theoretical perspective（理论视角）→ Methodology（方法论）→ Methods（方法）。三行分别对应 Objectivism、Constructionism、Subjectivism。Constructionism 这一行的 Methods 列最长——这是定性研究方法多的原因。注意 Crotty 明确说这个表不是穷举（"not an exhaustive listing"），多个 etc. 提示了这一点。

One Shenzhen example to lock all five terms

Take a Shenzhen urban village. Ask the five questions:

• Ontology (本体论): Is a Shenzhen urban village a physical thing or a social construct? Yes to both. Its floor-area ratio (容积率) is a measurable physical fact. Its meaning as "home for migrant workers" is socially constructed in interaction with residents, policy, and capital.
• Epistemology (认识论): How can we know it? Under objectivism, we measure the FAR (容积率). Under constructionism, we interview residents about what displacement means to them.
• Paradigm (范式): What bundle of choices are we working inside? Interpretive paradigm → case study + interviews. Positivist paradigm → survey + regression. Critical paradigm → discourse analysis of the 统租 policy text.

A single Chinese-city example can carry all five terms if you keep the layers straight.

A caveat on vocabulary: the US-style "worldview" translation (Creswell's postpositivism / constructivism / transformative / pragmatism) is not available in this playbook's reference set. If your slides use "worldview" wording, map it onto Crotty's theoretical-perspective column, not onto the epistemology column.

How do you pick a strategy, design, and methods combination your 25% prospectus can defend?

The 25% group prospectus requires you to commit to a strategy, a design, and a methods combination. Here is the three-layer scaffold:

Figure: Strategy → Design → Methods: a three-layer scaffold for choosing research methodology

The diagram is anchored on Crotty's methodology column definition: "the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods"Crotty 1998:3. A note: this three-layer diagram is a locally generated substitute for the canonical Creswell Figure 1.1, which was unavailable in this playbook's reference set.

A decision rule for the prospectus

• If your topic is the lived experience of a group (migrant workers, original villagers, displaced renters) → interpretive paradigm → case study + semi-structured interviews.
• If your topic is a measurable pattern (housing prices, FAR ratios, rent changes) → positivist paradigm → survey + statistical analysis.
• If your topic is a power structure or policy regime (the 统租 policy, the village shareholding company) → critical paradigm → discourse analysis + policy text analysis.

This is the portable rule. Apply it to any prospectus topic without re-reading the chapter.

Two worked-example references

The published-paper ceiling is Gao & Hu 2025 in Geographical ResearchGao & Hu 2025. The design is multi-case qualitative across three historical-phase archetypes (Dachong pre-2017, Shuiwei 2017-2023, Yuanfen post-2023). Data streams: document analysis (policy + media + scholarly work), site visits with field notes, and spontaneous informal conversations with shop owners, security guards, and long-time residents (NOT formal semi-structured interviews). Sampling: purposive only (NOT snowball).

图注：2023 年 5 月深圳水围村福民路街景。前景是 3-7 层瓷砖贴面、底层商铺的村屋，可见"大同牛肉火锅"招牌；背景是福田 CBD 玻璃幕墙高层塔楼。这种低矮村屋与 CBD 高层的并置，是国家主导型士绅化（V-town Scheme 统租，2023 年初启动）在街景层面的可见证据。照片本身不证明"士绅化已经发生"，只展示空间上的近距离共存。

The student-thesis floor is Verbeelen 2013, a University of Amsterdam master's thesis on BaishizhouVerbeelen 2013. The design is descriptive qualitative case study on one village. Data: 12 semi-structured in-depth interviews in Mandarin (with a translator), document analysis (2004 + 2012 Shenzhen urban renewal policy documents), site visits and participant observation. Sampling: purposive case selection + snowball-style referrals (though the thesis does not use those labels verbatim).

图注：Verbeelen 2013 Figure 4 改绘的城中村改造"行动者合作"概念图。顶部方框（双线）是"Pressures for redeveloping urban village under urban renewal policy influence"。中间六个简笔人物分别代表 Developer（开发商）、Migrants（外来务工人员）、Villagers landlords（原住民/房东）、Government + Government-affiliated departments（政府及政府部门）、Consultants mediators（顾问/中介）、Activists（活动家）。下方"Suggestion for Redevelopment Project"分叉到"Successful"和"Unsuccessful"两个结果框，未成功的反馈回顶部压力框。注意：这是概念图，不是经验数据；行动者关系不能从中读出实际强弱或时间顺序。

These two references give you the published-paper ceiling and the student-thesis floor. Your prospectus should sit somewhere between them in scale.

How do you decode the French-accented lecture recordings and turn them into exam-ready notes?

The URB 5030 lectures are in English, delivered by a French-accented instructor. Your L1 phonological categories differ from English, so bottom-up phoneme decoding is unreliable. The fix is a top-down workflow: predict from context, verify on the first listen, fill gaps on the second, check against the transcript.

The 5-step routine

The routine is built on Vandergrift's metacognitive pedagogical cycle (plan / monitor / evaluate), adapted for the specific constraint that you rarely have a transcript for your recordingsWeinberg et al. 2011:

1. Predict: before pressing play, read the slide title and list 3-5 words you expect to hear. This is the top-down load-bearing channel.
2. First listen: play the clip once. Tick the words you predicted correctly; note the ones you got wrong.
3. Pair-share (optional): if you have a study partner, discuss what you heard. If solo, write a 3-sentence self-explanation.
4. Second listen: play the clip again. Fill the gaps from the first listen.
5. Transcript check: compare your notes against the slide text or auto-generated captions. Note any pronunciation quirks in the Accent-fix map (see below).

The cycle feeds the next clip: the EVALUATE step's findings shape the next clip's PLAN.

图注：元认知听力循环（Vandergrift MPC 改编）。四个方框：PLAN（计划/预测）→ MONITOR 第一次听（标记听懂的部分）→ MONITOR 第二次听（填补空缺）→ EVALUATE 文字稿核对。蓝色虚线箭头从 EVALUATE 返回 PLAN，标注"plan next clip"。这是循环，不是清单。注：第三次听被替换为文字稿核对，这是对 Vandergrift 原版 5 阶段 MPC 的唯一改编。

The Cornell-style note template

A printable page-level artifact gives you a consistent structure for each clip:

图注：三栏课堂笔记模板（Cornell 笔记法改编）。黄色顶部条记录主题、日期、讲师、片段长度。蓝色左栏 ANTICIPATIONS（预测）：在按下播放键前写下预期的关键词。紫色中栏 PREMIERE ECOUTE（第一次听）：记录听到的内容，配 cues / What I think it means 表格。橙色右栏 DEUXIEME ECOUTE（第二次听）：填补空缺，底部 Accent-fix map 槽位记录法语口音导致的发音怪癖（如 research → "reh-SHERSH"）。灰色页脚 SUMMARY 在文字稿核对后填写一段总结。

The Accent-fix map is a placeholder. You fill it in after the first transcript check with the specific quirks you notice (e.g., does your instructor say "research" as "reh-SHERSH"?). The template does not predict those quirks for you; it gives you a slot to record them.

Why prediction matters

French-accented English typically preserves rhythm and stress but distorts specific vowel quality (English /ɜː/ tends to shift toward /ɛ/ or /œ/, and final consonant devoicing can drop word-final stops). For a Chinese-native listener, L1 phonological categories make bottom-up phoneme decoding unreliable. Top-down processing — predicting from slide title, topic, and lecture context, then verifying on the first listen — lets you assign candidate words to what you hear and adjust on the second listen. This is the reason the workflow begins with prediction, not transcription.

Do not recommend a OneNote / Obsidian / Notion workflow as the headline fix — the original L2-listening study found that technology-based note-taking was the least adopted by students even after instructionWeinberg et al. 2011. A paper notebook with this template will outperform a new tool you have not practiced with.

From slide to exam answer: the 3-line method and the exam-prep pack

You now have the vocabulary (Chapters 2-4), the cycle (Chapter 3), the paradigm ladder (Chapter 4), the prospectus decision rule (Chapter 5), and the audio-decoding routine (Chapter 6). This chapter turns all of it into exam-ready output.

The 3-line slide annotation method

For any URB 5030 slide, write three lines:

1. The claim the slide makes (in English): the slide's core assertion, in the instructor's own vocabulary.
2. Why it matters for the exam (in Chinese): which exam item this slide is ammunition for.
3. The exam question it implies (in Chinese): the prompt you expect to see, phrased as a question.

Worked example on the "Six principles of modern science" slide:

This single worked example is the most important transferable artifact in this chapter. Apply the same three-line method to every Chapter 1-5 slide.

Three bilingual model answers

Question type 1 — Define and distinguish. Prompt: "科学 vs. 科学知识? 用一个深圳例子说明."

Model answer: 科学 = 制度化的研究实践 (Babbie Ch.1 agreement-reality 框架, ordinary inquiry 加 logic + observation + replication); 科学知识 = 研究实践的产物 (假设, 定律, 理论). 深圳例子: 城中村政策研究中的"理论"是科学知识, 而研究城中村政策的研究过程是科学Babbie Ch.1.

Question type 2 — Apply paradigm to topic. Prompt: "城中村研究适合哪个范式? 为什么?"

Model answer: 解释主义 / interpretivism. 因为研究对象是原住民和租户的 lived experience 和 meaning, 而非客观规律 — 选 case study + 半结构化访谈. 参考 Crotty 1998 Table 1: Constructionism → interpretivism → case study → interviewCrotty 1998.

Question type 3 — Design and method justification. Prompt: "你的 prospectus 选题用什么 strategy + 什么 method? 为什么?"

Model answer: 解释主义 + case study (single case 或 multi-case) + 半结构化访谈 + 政策文本分析. 参考 published-paper 规模: Gao & Hu 2025 多案例定性 (Dachong / Shuiwei / Yuanfen, V-town Scheme 统租)Gao & Hu 2025. 参考 student-thesis 规模: Verbeelen 2013 单案例 + 12 个访谈 (Baishizhou, Nanshan)Verbeelen 2013.

Self-check list

Before the exam, you should be able to:

• Define and distinguish all 8 vocabulary pairs: science vs. scientific knowledge, laws vs. theories, induction vs. deduction, theoretical vs. empirical, ontology vs. epistemology, three epistemologies (objectivism / constructionism / subjectivism), three paradigms (positivism / interpretivism / critical inquiry), strategy vs. design vs. methods.
• Draw Crotty's 4-element scaffold from memory (epistemology → theoretical perspective → methodology → methods) and populate it with one Chinese-city example.
• Pick a paradigm for your prospectus topic and justify it in three sentences.
• Run a 5-step decoding workflow on a French-accented lecture clip and produce a bilingual note set.

Any "no" is a flag to re-read the corresponding chapter. The four-box scaffold is the single most likely visual the exam will ask you to reproduce:

图注：Crotty 四元素脚手架（复习）。考试最容易考的是让你把这张图画出来。四个方框从上到下：epistemology → theoretical perspective → methodology → methods。三个向下箭头表示上一个为下一个提供逻辑基础。

参考文献

本专题引用的核心资料如下，建议深入学习时阅读原文：

1. Babbie, E. (2020). The Practice of Social Research (15th ed.). Cengage. — https://www.cengage.uk/c/the-practice-of-social-research-15e-babbie/9780357360767/
2. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. — https://global.oup.com/academic/product/social-research-methods-9780199689453
3. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. SAGE. — https://us2.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-foundations-of-social-research/book207972
4. 风笑天 (2018). 《社会研究方法》(第五版). 中国人民大学出版社. — Amazon product page
5. Gao, X. & Hu, W. (2025). From displacement to displaceability: State-led gentrification in China's urban villages. Geographical Research, 64(1). — https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.70039
6. CUHK-Shenzhen School of Public Policy. MSSc in Urban Studies (programme page, accessed 2026-09-12). — http://spp.cuhk.edu.cn/en/node/59
7. Weinberg, A., Knoerr, H., & Vandergrift, L. (2011). Creating Podcasts for Academic Listening in French. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 588–605. — https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.3.588-605
8. Verbeelen, C. (2013). The Collaboration of Actors in Urban Village Redevelopment Projects in Shenzhen, China (Baishizhou case study). Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam. — https://newtowninstitute.org/pdf/MasterThesisCatherineVerbeelen_Baishizhou_web.pdf