ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

Topic

The Language of Neglect: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Single Room Occupancy Housing Inspection Reports

School of Nursing

Date & location

• Monday, April 14, 2025
• 9:00 A.M.
• Virtual Defence

Examining Committee

Supervisory Committee

• Dr. Allie Slemon, School of Nursing, University of Victoria (Supervisor)
• Dr. Bernie Pauly, School of Nursing, UVic (Co-Supervisor)

External Examiner

• Dr. Alexandra Flynn, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Chair of Oral Examination

• Dr. Tim Anderson, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, UVic

Abstract

In Vancouver, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels serve as last-resort housing for people facing structural inequities. SRO building inspection reports frame these spaces through a discourse that individualizes responsibility for poor living conditions while obscuring systemic neglect. Using Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), my thesis examines how Vancouver’s annual SRO inspection reports construct tenants, property conditions, and regulatory compliance. Findings reveal that reports discursively position tenants as risky, unpredictable, and the primary source of building deterioration, reinforcing narratives of the hard-to-house tenant, while failing to properly address the broader structural deficits and overall disrepair of the buildings. Safety discourse prioritizes fire code compliance over tenant security, justifying measures like the removal of secondary locks, overlooking the realities of assault, theft, and unauthorized tenant room entry. Similarly, pest infestations and structural decay are framed as tenant-induced problems (hoarding, clutter) rather than the consequences of chronic underfunding and deteriorating infrastructure. The analysis also highlights how inspection reports create manufactured compliance, where issues are deemed “resolved” based on procedural checkboxes rather than actual improvements for tenants. These opaque discursive ideologies normalize inadequate housing conditions, reinforcing the broader regulation of poverty. The findings are situated within the right to housing framework, challenging the dominant bureaucratic narratives that treat tenants as problems to be managed rather than individuals deserving of safe and dignified housing. A critical re-examination of how bureaucratic discourse shapes housing policy is necessary, as it often reinforces systemic inequities rather than addressing them. Drawing on Fairclough’s approach to CDA, the findings illustrate that discourse is not neutral but an instrument of power. Examining discourse through as critical lens exposes its role in maintaining inequality and opens possibilities for challenging dominant narratives and advocating for housing as a fundamental human right.