A Renewed Social Institution: Non-marital Cohabitation

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
About ten years ago, there was a debate on soft data within Swedish sociology. This article sums up the contents of the soft-data debate from an ideological historical point of view. According to both Erik Allardt and Goran Therborn, this debate was unique for Sweden. The distinction between soft-data and hard-data sociology is based on formal aspects of data. In soft-data sociology qualitative data are used instead of quantita tive data. According to the soft-data sociologist, precision is not the ultimate goal of social science. With this wide definition, there are diffe rent branches of soft-data sociology with respect to both philosophy of science and consequences for society. In this article, an effort will be made to specify these branches. Furthermore, there will be a discussion of the bases for scientific judgements in both hard-data and soft-data sociology. What are the reasons then for using soft data? The study of scientifically and politically important problems needs soft data. And it is also a way to an anti-elitism among social scientists. Moreover, soft-data sociology used in an un-mechanical research process promises to be empirically and theoretically richer than the positivistic hard-data sociology.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: