Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities

Abstract This article introduces and systematizes a novel qualitative research method termed Qualitative Comparative Content Analysis (QCCA). Conceptualized as a fully qualitative and inter-paradigmatic approach grounded in abductive logic, QCCA integrates inductive meaning discovery with deductive theory-driven analysis through a unified comparative protocol. The method is developed using a qualitative–developmental research design, based on a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of methodological literature published between 2000 and 2025. The resulting framework is operationalized in five analytical stages: data preparation, hybrid coding (open and directed), fuzzy normalization and multi-layered comparison, interpretation, and representation of findings. To assess its analytical capacity, QCCA is applied to a comparative case study of the concept of security in the works of Émile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida. The findings indicate that QCCA enables systematic comparison of meanings across divergent paradigms while preserving qualitative integrity and avoiding causal reductionism. Overall, QCCA offers a structured and reproducible model for qualitative comparative analysis, while further refinement of fuzzy calibration and validation criteria is recommended.

Abstract The primary function of the humanities and social sciences is to understand and address societal issues and problems, a task that is increasingly complex and specialized through interdisciplinary studies and fields. Even when disciplinary expertise fails to comprehend and resolve these problems, interdisciplinary approaches assume this role with enhanced capabilities, employing multidimensional and multilevel methodologies and epistemologies. The premise of this paper is that, in contemporary Iran, there are no acceptable theories or theorists in the field of interdisciplinary studies that meet international standards. This paper aims to explore the reasons behind the lack of prominent and internationally recognized theories and theorists in Iran today, particularly within the interdisciplinary domains of the humanities and social sciences. The factors contributing to this issue are manifold and exist at various levels; this article seeks to understand some of the main and general causes. The central question is: What are the challenges and obstacles to interdisciplinary theorizing in the field of humanities and social sciences in Iran? The article identifies and discusses six general challenges and barriers to Iranian theorizing in these fields, particularly in interdisciplinary studies: populism, politicisation, binary opposition, Westoxification, Pseudo-traditionalization, and bewilderment. This research simultaneously employs both phenomenological and foundational research methods.

Abstract In recent times, various "relational views" based on the "principle of complexity" have emerged as alternatives to essentialist approaches, collectively referred to as the "relational turn". However, the philosophical foundations of these views are often ambiguous, leading to potential confusion with "relativist perspectives" or "interactive views" informed by Habermas' Communicative Action. Contemporary scholarly concerns in the humanities and social sciences -such as new emphasis on materiality, embodied practices, affects and intuition, spatiotemporality, post-humanism, and even the co-disciplinary- to understand human-societal processes, stem from "relational thought" but lack proper elucidation of their ontological and epistemological underpinnings. The article employs the Synthesis Research Method to comprehensively analyze and categorize "relational perspectives" based on their ontological roots to address these issues. Moreover, it seeks to elaborate a "co-disciplinary and (deep) relational epistemological and methodological framework" by utilizing "general epistemic components" and "key components of the (deep) relational view based on flat ontology". From this viewpoint, knowledge possesses multiple, heterogeneous, mediated, and contextual nature, drawing from the intertwined resources of "conscious subjectivity" (conscious deliberation or reflexivity) and "objectivity" (external environment). Furthermore, unconscious mediators, such as "collective ideal" (culture and discourse) and "individual embodied" (psychophysical characteristics) mediators, play an essential role in shaping knowledge. Knowledge exhibits uncertain and contingent boundaries, and is in a perpetual state of "becoming". Drawing inspiration from Latour, the methodology is premised on developing "assemblage/deployment programs". Importantly, the epistemic framework can apply to a wide spectrum of fields, from humanities and social sciences to art, spatial planning, and public policy, with the potential to promote single disciplines into co-disciplinarity and co-disciplines into trans-disciplinarity.

Abstract "Relational perspectives" have been proposed since the 1990s as an alternative approach to the philosophical foundations of social sciences, rejecting hierarchical or binary modes of thought of conventional traditions and avoiding deficiencies of moderate theories. Emphasizing "complexity", "interconnectivity" and "uncertainty" of the world, these views provide accounts of human and social dynamics and processes of "becoming". The latest of these perspectives is "flat ontology" or "deep relationalism". This article provides a comprehensive account of the "flat ontology" concept, its key ideas, and fundamental assumptions through the Research Synthesis, and explores its contributions to co-disciplinary, often suffering from eclectic gaps and the absence of a coherent methodological framework. "Flat ontology" implies "relationality," "multiplicity," "heterogeneity," "contingency," and "spatiotemporality" of reality; and regards entities in a deeply relational way, as dynamic intertwined associations and configurations. This perspective proposes a fluid interpretation of "power", whether among humans or between human and non-human entities, and responds to critical concerns about the necessity of social and environmental inclusiveness. Recent global crises such as the Coronavirus pandemic and climate change confirm the validity of this perspective. According to this view, knowledge fields are deeply interconnected, underscoring the necessity of the co-disciplinary, including multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. Furthermore, flat ontology redefines the philosophical foundations of the co-disciplinary, towards the transdisciplinarity. Applying such a perspective is important and necessary both in social sciences, which deal with social phenomena, and in public decision -making which prescribes generally in a co-disciplinary way.