Journal of Iranian Social Studies

Abstract Becoming interdisciplinary is a growing tendencyprominent in different areas of knowledge which are either inter-related or closely tied with one another. Nonetheless, there are considerable theoretical and practical disagreements on the precise meaning of ‘interdisciplinary’. At the same time one is faced with important reasons for paying attention to an interdisciplinary approach. In Iran, focusing on sociology, we can discuss important questions on the role of interdisciplinary tendency and its difficulties in sociology. Therefore, I intend to portray a picture of possibilities, obstacles and dysfunctions in doing interdisciplinary within sociology in Iran, given the status of the Iranian sociology in particular, and the status of social sciences, in general.It is in this respect that some questions are asked and certain suggestions are offered here. The aim of this paper is to discuss and examine necessities and consequences in relation to the efforts made toward creation of an atmosphere conducive to interdisciplinary work in sociology in Iran, and to determine the results gained from such attempts so far. For studying the basic questions of this paper, the documentary method was used. The paper initially presents a description as to the formation of interdisciplinary studies in Iran and then proceeds to follow sociology’s path with regard to interdisciplinary tendency. The results of this study show that the efforts put into making instances of instruction and research can overcome some tangible shortcomings as seen in social studies, organize a promising research program, and may help to bring about a systematic project for dealing with social problems. Having noticed the above, however, a reminder is in order to the effect that the interdisciplinary work is faced with many conceptual (methodological, and theoretical) and practical difficulties deriving from the characteristic features of the academic community, social system, and the life-world. The final section of this paper, emphasizing the salient issue proposes that theinterdisciplinaryapproach can be used toward the end of reaching a solution for the problematic of social sciences in Iran. Yet, simultaneously, we are faced with different theoretical and practical problems. Then, the road of research on the connections between interdisciplinary method and social research is fraught with ambiguities .The scientific society of sociology should be attentive to these problems and ought to try to resolve them through the dialogue.

Abstract In recent years, social scientist have come under increasing pressure to contribute to applied, policy-oriented research both in Iran and in the global context. As a result, their success and failure is seen, increasingly, in light of their use and utility. This article critically considers the concepts of 'research', 'utility', and 'policy making'. Next, it will focus on the factors that facilitate or hinder the application of research in policy making. Lastly, it examines the historical and current characteristics of applied and policy-oriented social research in Iran. Among other things, this article argues that the connection between research and social policy making is often indirect, invisible and long term; the quality and success of both applied and basic research depends on long term investment in both types of research; and improving connections between social research and social policy in Iran depends, first and foremost, not on researchers but on change at the political and bureaucratic levels of research organization.

Abstract This article looks at some obstacles of the social science development in Iran. It assumes that society is based on a power structure and hence the social science, as an integrated part of scientific and cultural aspects of every society, cannot function and be analyzed separated from power relations. Social science in Iran is not an exception and has always been affected by power structure and relations. Crisis in the social science theory and methodology in Iran is the product of numerous factors; one is domination of the formal vision – acting as a dominant ideology in power relations – which requires theories be matched with their expectations. Hencea critical approach, which is a stimulus for growth and enrichment of social science, has not foundits roots in the official research. Political economy of Iran has dominated relationships in a society where there is no need to produce science, in general and social science in particular. This is why the presence of social science in policy making has not been welcomed by the conservatives in the power structure. This is why two primary goals of social science – i.e., growth of knowledge and contribution to the public policy – have not been manifested. Research and academia systems in Iran are prevented from establishing a universitybased dialogue. These limitations are mainly products of a lack of philosophy of organization of the sciences in Iran, which in itselfis a byproduct of cultural and political barriers stemming from the contemporary political economy of Iran. The social science has a rich potential to make a desirable society in Iran and to contribute to the political project of national development. This contribution can be materialized provided some conditions are met. One is that to understand the overall achievement of the social science –i.e., social science theories are only conjectures of the outer realities and social phenomena – amends expectations of the political elites and social science researchers from social science potentials. This fact erects the views of the former and provides a better interaction to the latter. The social science can be committed to a future that makespossible adjustment to changing circumstances. Although unprecedented for control, information technology has provided new frontiers to human beings' capacities that by changing organization of work, production and power relations it has created new opportunities for individual freedom and public participation, transforming our understanding of social phenomena. Thus, we can expect that social science in Iran too can reconstruct itself using these new capacities. Nevertheless, in this reconstruction process, reviewing dominant discourses of social science and incorporating indigenous cultural elements constitute a necessary condition.

Abstract Using the ‘chaos theory’ this article argues that the Iranian society shows a chaotic behavior, and it can be considered as a chaotic system. To illustrate this point, some traits of the chaotic systems such as “sensitivity to initial condition” and “stretching and folding” mechanisms are considered, by which we discuss characteristics of the Iranian society. Some manifestations of chaos are investigated such as: non-normal distribution of variables and status inconsistency. Making an essential distinction between “chaos” and “complexity”, we have compared the Iranian chaotic society with the developed complex societies of the West. Some theories’ terms, especially Smelser’s concepts of “structural differentiation” and “functional unification” and Katouzian’s“short term society”, have been used to make this comparison. The other goal of this paper is to explain why the social sciences in Iran, as one of the important elements of the modern knowledge, have not been prospering. Thus, the consequences of this typology on the emergence of the social sciences are examined and we have tried to introduce Tabatabayi’s theory into our theoretical framework. Chaos is born by “stretching” and “folding” mechanisms. The basis of our inference is that in the developed societies of the West, due to “structural differentiation” and “functional unification”, the complexity has led the societies to structuration. We have considered this structuration, in its dialectical relation between the western social structures and epistemological foundations. There has always been a “folding” besides “stretching” in Iran and this has made “reductionism” impossible – which has been a requisite of the emergence of social sciences. In fact, the constituent elements of a chaotic society are not reducible, because the boundaries of categories are always changing. At last, in spite of subscribing to Tabatabayi’s theory, we have shown some new possibilities for sociology in Iran by using a few examples. The goal of this theory is to search order in chaos.

Abstract Social sciences are considered as the carrier of western and secular values in postrevolutionary Iran. Now, this is one of the main challenges of social sciences and so of sociology in Iran. Thereby, Iran's government and some scholars attempt to produce an alternativefor sociology, called "Islamic sociology". What has been already posed but it was very fragmented and scattered and it hasn't formed a discipline with a body of systematic knowledge yet. Most Iranian sociologist have denied the possibility of a "religious sociology" and also looked at the scripts offered by proponents of "Islamic sociology". They have expected negativelya defendable and reasonable religious theory of society. But,this essay defends the possibility of religious theory of society although it considers such a theory as a normative one, not scientific. In other words, it offers a resolution for coexistence of scientific theory of society and religious theory of society by making distinction between social theory and sociological theory. The bedrock of this discussion is demarcation between normative theory of society and descriptive and explanatory theory of society. We argue that each domain of knowledge, religionincluded, offers a type of social thought. While sociology studies society as reality and it does not articulate an ideal society. Social theory, as a normative theory of society, criticizes a certain form of society and designs and envisions its favored society. Thus, both of sociologist and social theorist speak of society. They begin a different point of departure for theorizing the society and pursue their own particular purposes. Consequently, sociological theory and social theory have different properties. However, they can use concepts, theories and results of each other, through critical appropriation. Also, it is arguedin this article that critical theory is a type of normative theory of society and so, "critical sociology" is considered as a contradictory term and program.

Abstract Despite failure to indigenize social sciences in Iran after several years, today the subject known as Islamization of human sciences is again being discussed yet more rigorously and with less tolerance. One challenge between social sciences and the domain of power in Iran is that unlike natural sciences, the state was not able to overcome the human sciences and use it as an instrument to increase its hegemony. On the other hand, since all areas of social sciences studied in Iran, i.e.,instances of social deviance, is being considered as political affair, therefore the domain of challenges has increased. The side of political authority tries to control social sphere with "socio-cultural engineering" and the side of social science thinkers responds with social theory as a political campaign. In such a situation neither the Iranian social sciences can develop nor can government control social sciences and decrease the rate of social deviances. The challenges go on and the social deviance increases

Abstract Methodology in anthropology, like in other social sciences, is a central part of any research. Despite universalism in methodology in social sciences, in anthropological fieldwork it should be noted that field methods are constructed by the relation between the researcher and the field context. This relationship is formed in the context of its methodological assumptions and the political relationship between researcher and subject. The problem of methodology is very important in the researches that researcher belongs to the field. Indigenous anthropology is not common in anthropological methodologies that western researcher does fieldwork in nonwestern contexts. This paper is based on our fieldwork concerning religious rituals in Iran (our community) and proposes the methodology of Dialogue for indigenous anthropology. For justifying this method, firstly we critically review the paradigm of anthropological methodology and its insufficiencies for indigenous anthropologists. The basis of these ideas is that culture is mainly situated in unconscious part the people`s minds, and that the best medium to reach this part is the language.This is how the methodology of dialogue has been formed. According to this method, dialogue can help us to understand the implicit cultural knowledge that is common for the native anthropologist as well as the natives. This knowledge by the process of dialogue can be transmitted to conscious part of the mind; it can then be analyzed as anthropological and cultural subject.