A Methodological Analysis of Interdisciplinary Studies on the Qur’an and Psychology in Iranian Scholarly Articles
نویسندگان
1 PhD Student in Qur’an and Sciences, Specialization in Psychology, Jurisprudence and Qur’an Academy, Al-Mustafa International University, Mashhad, Iran
2 PhD Student in Qur’an and Sciences, Specialization in Psychology, Jurisprudence and Qur’an Academy, Al-Mustafa International University, Mashhad, Iran
3 PhD Student in Qur’an and Sciences, Specialization in Psychology, Jurisprudence and Qur’an Academy, Al-Mustafa International University, Mashhad, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Department of the Qur’an and Social Studies, Civilizational Islam Research Center, Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy, Mashhad, Iran
5 PhD Student in Qur’an and Sciences, Specialization in Psychology, Jurisprudence and Qur’an Academy, Al-Mustafa International University, Mashhad, Iran
6 PhD Student in Qur’an and Sciences, Specialization in Psychology, Jurisprudence and Qur’an Academy, Al-Mustafa International University, Mashhad, Iran
doi
10.37264/JIQS.V3I2.12چکیده
This study aims to analyze the research methodologies employed in interdisciplinary studies of the Qur’an and psychology published in Iranian scholarly journals from 2011 to 2024. Initially, 346 articles were selected, and after closer examination, 136 articles that specifically addressed interdisciplinary studies between the Qur’an and psychology were chosen as the main corpus of analysis. A total of 157 instances of research methods were identified across the corpus. These methods were analyzed based on an expert-approved classification of research methodologies into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed categories. The findings revealed that descriptive–analytical methods and qualitative content analysis were the most frequently employed approaches, whereas mixed methods, survey methods, and the Qur’an-by-Qur’an method were the least common. The analyses indicate that attention to paradigmatic coherence and innovation in methodological development were among the strengths, while the use of low-yield methods, methodological chaos, and insufficient attention to interdisciplinary requirements were among the key methodological weaknesses observed in these studies.
