Reengineering the Thematic Structure of Science Based on Evolutionary Research Methodology: A Prerequisite for Transformation in Humanities

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Graduate in Policy Making, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

2 Ph.D, Assistant Professor, Department of Cultural Strategic Management, Supreme National Defense University, Qom, Iran.

3 Researcher, Islamic Sciences Academy, Qom, Iran.

10.30471/mssh.2025.10690.2607

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: The transformation of humanities as a complex undertaking requires a conceptual framework or model for identification, evaluation, and decision-making. The foundational step in this process—as a prerequisite for transformation—involves the systematic examination, analysis, and classification of existing knowledge within these disciplines. Given that these fields are not operating in a vacuum but rather consist of well-established sciences across all domains, this work aims to:
1. Provide precise awareness of existing scholarly achievements,
2. Establish coherence within these disciplines,
3. Present a comprehensive model that reveals gaps,
4. Guide future research directions, and
5. Assist scholars in selecting appropriate methodological pathways.
"Reengineering the humanities" thus constitutes the critical first step toward substantive transformation. Focusing specifically on management science as a case study within the humanities, this research seeks to reengineer its thematic structure and classify its accumulated knowledge through a predetermined evolutionary research methodology. The resulting framework—derived from a meta-analysis of management literature—serves as both a diagnostic tool for mapping existing knowledge and a prescriptive model for identifying systemic deficiencies. This approach resolves the cognitive dissonance often experienced by non-specialists while providing a holistic understanding of management science for those outside its immediate academic sphere.
Methodology: The preliminary phase employed conventional academic research methods grounded in an interpretive philosophical paradigm (per Saunders' research onion model), utilizing qualitative-descriptive methods with inductive reasoning. Thematic analysis was applied for data processing and pattern identification.
The core phase implemented Evolutionary Research Methodology (ERM)—a novel approach rooted in the philosophy of Wilayat-based systems (as developed by the late Allameh Seyyed Munir al-Din Husseini). This methodology:
* Originates from irreducible religious axioms and value commitments
* Utilizes self-evident conceptual foundations
* Generates empirically actionable interventions
Through ERM, codes derived from the preliminary phase were systematized into three core categories (Action, Subject, and Objective). These were further integrated into a broader taxonomy comprising:
1. Intra-scientific dimensions (the core triad above)
2. Extra-scientific foundations (underlying principles, schools of thought, theories)
3. Relational dynamics (emergence, change, evolution)
This tripartite structure (depicted in Table 1) reengineers management science into 27 discrete thematic domains, revealing both developed knowledge areas and underexplored/absent research territories.
Results: The ERM-driven classification system:
* Identifies 27 distinct research domains within management science
* Reveals knowledge gaps requiring completion or revision
* Highlights entirely unexplored research areas
* Demonstrates how higher-order layers (principles → schools → theories) influence core elements (Action/Subject/Objective)
The symbolic model presented in the concluding section illustrates how foundational changes (e.g., anthropological assumptions in organizational sociology) cascade through all levels of scientific structure. For instance, prevailing paradigms that reductively focus on material dimensions of human nature inevitably constrain subsequent theoretical developments and practical applications in management.
Discussion and Conclusion: This study establishes comprehensive classification of existing knowledge as the essential precondition for humanities transformation. The proposed "Reengineering of Thematic Structures" through ERM achieves exhaustive coverage—no substantive aspect of the discipline remains unaccounted for in the final model.
Key contributions include: 
1. A diagnostic framework mapping knowledge positions and neglected research frontiers
2. Demonstration of how foundational principles (particularly anthropological assumptions) etermine downstream theoretical and practical outcomes.
3. Empirical validation through application to management science
The study concludes that strategic interventions at the foundational level (e.g., redefining human ontology) represent critical leverage points for substantive transformation, as these necessarily reshape schools of thought, theories, and ultimately, practical applications.

Keywords

References

  1. ابراهیم‌پور، حبیب و رضا نجاری. (1386). «مبانی فلسفی سازمان در چهار پارادایم». روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، 13(53): 9-33.
  2. اخلیان، جمال. (1394). «مروری کلی بر تئوری انتقادی و تحول سازمانی». کنفرانس بین‌المللی مدیریت، فرهنگ و توسعه اقتصادی، ص 1-15، مشهد: رایمندپژوه.
  3. اشرفی، علی. (1398). ایسم‌ها: مکتب‌های فکری و سیاسی برای رشته علوم انسانی. تهران: آلتین.
  4. الوانی، سیدمهدی و حسن دانایی‌فرد. (1379). «مدیریت دولتی از نگاه انتقادی». فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت، 4(13-14): 13-32.
  5. پیروزمند، علیرضا و عباس جهانبخش. (1397). مبانی و روش تحقیق تکاملی در علوم انسانی اسلامی. در کتاب نظریه3. تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های علوم انسانی اسلامی (صدرا).
  6. پیروزمند، علیرضا. (1400). «پیش‌آمد و پس‌آمد الگوی توسعه اسلامی». مطالعات حقوق شهروندی، 2(2): 531-574.
  7. جلالی، سیدحسین. (1393). اثبات‌گرایی و پسااثبات‌گرایی و نقش آن در تحقیقات مدیریت. تهران.
  8. جهانیان، رمضان و سعیده زارع. (1396). «نقش تئوری آشوب در مدیریت آموزشی». فصلنامه پژوهش‌های جدید در مدیریت و حسابداری، دوره جدید، شماره 4، 163-180.
  9. حبیبی، آرش. (19 اردیبهشت 1400). نظریه و نظریه‌پردازی. بازیابی از پارس مدیر:

https://parsmodir.com/db/research/research-theory.php

  1. دانایی‌فرد، حسن. (1386). «پارادایم‌های رقیب در علم سازمان و مدیریت رویکرد تطبیقی به هستی‌شناسی، شناخت‌شناسی و روش‌شناسی». دانشور رفتار، 5(26): 89-104.
  2. رحمتی، محمدحسین؛ خنیفر، حسین و ابراهیم کتابی. (1395). «الگوی رهبری امام حسینg در قیام عاشورا». فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مدیریت اسلامی، 24(3): 129-145.
  3. رشاد، علی‌اکبر. (1390). «منطق طبقه‌بندی علوم انسانی». همایش تحول در علوم انسانی، 5- تهران.
  4. رضائیان، علی (1387). مدیریت رفتار سازمانی. تهران: سمت.
  5. رضائیان، علی (1388). مبانی سازمان و مدیریت. تهران: سمت.
  6. رضایی‌منش، بهروز. (1373). «پارادایم تفسیری و مطالعه سازمان». مطالعات مدیریت، 4(15): 39-50.
  7. رضوی، سیدمهدی. (1387). آشنایی اجمالی با تعاریف کاربرگ بانک توسعه اسلامی اطلاعات (کاربرگ مهندسی تحقیقات). قم: فرهنگستان علوم اسلامی (چاپ داخلی).
  8. سیدجوادین، سیدرضا و حسین جلیلیان. (1392). سیر تحول مکاتب و نظریه‌های سازمان و مدیریت. تهران: نگاه دانش.
  9. شیبانی‌فر، محمدشهاب؛ الوانی، سیدمهدی؛ رستگار، عباسعلی؛ دامغانیان، حسین و حسن دانایی‌فرد. (1399). «سیر تاریخی دانش مدیریت در ایران». پژوهش‌های مدیریت عمومی، 13(40): 5-25.
  10. عابدی، احمد. (1400). بررسی و تبیین قاعده روشی «فعل موضوعاً، موضوعات فعل و آثار فعل» در نظام فلسفه ولایت. قم: فرهنگستان علوم اسلامی (چاپ داخلی).
  11. عابدی جعفری، حسن. (1370). «جایگاه و موضوع علم مدیریت». مصباح زمستان (پیش‌شماره)، 35-43.
  12. گنجعلی، اسدالله و احسان رحیمی. (١٣٩۵). «تحلیل مبانی انسان شناسی پارادایم‌های جامعه‌شناختی سازمان و مدیریت از منظر اندیشه‌های علامه طباطبایی». دوفصلنامۀ علمی -تخصصی اسلام و مدیریت، 5(8-9): 133-159.
  13. مشکانی، علیرضا؛ قراری، محمد و منصوره بختیاری فایندری. (1395). «سیر تحول اندیشه مدیریت در سیمای مکاتب و صاحب‌نظران علم مدیریت». مدیریت و کارآفرینی، 2(2/1): 62-70.
  14. میرزایی اهرنجانی، حسن. (1369). «زمینه‌های فکری و اجتماعی نظریه‌های مدیریت». دانش مدیریت، 9 و 10، 14-28.
  15. نفری، ندا و امیر لک‌عیان. (1392). «بررسی رابطه کیفیت زندگی کاری و رضایت شغلی کارکنان شعب منطقه 3 بانک ملّت تهران». فرآیند مدیریت و توسعه، 26(3): 161-186.
  16. یزدانی زیارت، محمد و غلامحسین علامت. (1395). «نقش و کاربرد پارادایم‌ها در علم سازمان و مدیریت». دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی حسابداری و مدیریت در هزاره سوم، ص 1- رشت.

 

References

  1. Abedi, A. (2021). Analysis and explanation of the methodological rule of “acts as subjects, subjects of acts, and consequences of acts” in the system of philosophy of guardianship. Qom: Academy of Islamic Sciences (Internal Printing). [In Persian]
  2. Alhojailan, M. I. (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, *1*(1), 39–47.

https://doi.org/10.51817/WEJSS.2012.39

  1. Alvani, S. M., & Danaeefard, H. (2000). Public administration from a critical perspective. Journal of Management Studies, *4*(13), 13–32.

https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22518037.1373.4.13.14.2..28 [In Persian]

  1. Ashrafi, A. (2019). Isms: Intellectual and political schools of thought for the humanities. Tehran: Altin. [In Persian]
  2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, *3*(2), 77–101.

https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  1. Clarke, T., & Clegg, S. (2007). Management paradigms for the new millennium. International Journal of Management Reviews, *9*(1), 45–64.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00205.x

  1. Danaeefard, H. (2007). Competing paradigms in organizational and management science: A comparative approach to ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Daneshvar Behavior, *14*(26), 89–104. [In Persian]

https://www.sid.ir/paper/448515/fa

  1. Danaeefard, H., & Mozafari, Z. (2008). Enhancing validity and reliability in qualitative management research: A reflection on audit strategies. Management Research, *1*(1), 131–162. [In Persian]

https://ensani.ir/fa/article/41936

  1. Ebrahimpour, H., & Najari, R. (2007). Philosophical foundations of organization in four paradigms. Methodology of Humanities, *13*(49), 9–33. [In Persian]
  2. Ganjali, A., & Rahimi, E. (2016). Analysis of anthropological foundations of sociological paradigms of organization and management from Allameh Tabatabai’s perspective. Scientific and Specialized Biannual Journal of Islam and Management, *5*(2), 133–159. [In Persian]

https://doi.org/10.30471/im.2016.1331

  1. Habibi, A. (2021). Theory and theorizing. Parsmodir. [In Persian]

https://parsmodir.com/db/research/research-theory.php

  1. Jahanian, R., & Zare, S. (2017). The role of chaos theory in educational management. Quarterly Journal of New Research in Management and Accounting, *1*(1), 163–180. [In Persian]
  2. Jalali, S. H. (2014). Positivism and post-positivism and their role in management research. Tehran. [In Persian]
  3. Jamali, D. (2005). Changing management paradigms: Implications for educational institutions. Journal of Management Development, *24*(2), 104–115.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510579452

  1. Meshkani, A., Gharari, M., & Bakhtiari Fayenderi, M. (2016). The evolution of management thought in the schools and theorists of management science. Management and Entrepreneurship, *1*(1), 62–70. [In Persian]
  2. Mirzaee Aharanjani, H. (1990). Intellectual and social contexts of management theories. Management Knowledge, *5*(2), 14–28. [In Persian]
  3. Nafari, N., & Lak Ayan, A. (2013). Examining the relationship between quality of work life and job satisfaction of employees in Region 3 branches of Bank Mellat in Tehran. Management and Development Process, *26*(3), 161–186.

https://doi.org/20.1001.1.17350719.1392.26.3.9.9 [In Persian]

  1. Okhlian, J. (2015). A general review of critical theory and organizational transformation. International Conference on Management, Culture, and Economic Development (pp. 1–15). Mashhad: Raymandpajouh. [In Persian]

https://civilica.com/doc/427237/

  1. (2019). Principles of management. Houston: Rice University.
  2. Piroozmand, A. (2021). Precedents and consequences of the Islamic development model. Citizen Rights Studies, *12*(2), 531–574. [In Persian]
  3. Piroozmand, A., & Hejazi, A. R. (2023). The model of transformation in humanities. Strategic Knowledge Interdisciplinary Studies Quarterly, *1*(1), 205–228. [In Persian]
  4. Piroozmand, A., & Jahanbakhsh, A. (2018). Foundations and methodology of evolutionary research in Islamic humanities. In The book of theory 3. Tehran: Sadra Islamic Humanities Research Center. [In Persian]
  5. Ponnam, A., & Dawra, J. (2013). Discerning product benefits through visual thematic analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management, *22*(1), 30–39.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2012-0160

  1. Rahmati, M. H., Khanifer, H., & Ketabi, E. (2016). Imam Hussein’s leadership model in the Ashura uprising. Islamic Management Research Quarterly, *24*(3), 129–145. [In Persian]

https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22516980.1395.24.3.6.7

  1. Rashad, A. A. (2011, May 11). The logic of classification in humanities. Transformation in Humanities Conference (pp. 5–28). Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
  2. Razavi, S. M. (2008). An overview of definitions in the user worksheet of the Islamic Development Bank (Research Engineering Worksheet). Qom: Academy of Islamic Sciences (Internal Printing). [In Persian]
  3. Rezaeian, A. (2008). Organizational behavior management. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
  4. Rezaeian, A. (2009). Foundations of organization and management. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
  5. Rezaeimanesh, B. (1994). Interpretive paradigm and organizational studies. Management Studies, *5*(1), 39–50. [In Persian]
  6. Seyedjavadin, S. R., & Jalilian, H. (2013). The evolution of schools and theories of organization and management. Tehran: Negah Danesh. [In Persian]
  7. Strauss, A. (1987). An introduction to codes and coding. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (pp. 27–58). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842.002

  1. Yazdani Ziarat, M., & Alamat, G. (2016). The role and application of paradigms in organizational and management science. Second International Conference on Accounting and Management in the Third Millennium (pp. 1–12). Rasht. [In Persian]

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics