Methodological Pluralism

This study focuses on the significant lines of development characterizing the history of educational research methodology in Iran. A “historical case study” employed to collect, verify, and synthesize evidence about the same as such appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Education. The results indicated that the educational research in Iran has experienced five, distinct yet, overlapping and simultaneously operating historical moments. The first is the pre-methodology (1919- 1985) stage, during which scholars carried out their investigations without a distinct systematic scientific method. The second (1985- 1994) is a period of rising quantitative approach, during which quantitative methods were becoming central in the education field. The third (1995- 2004) is characterized by insistence on the monopoly of quantitative, during which educational and other social science researchers relied primarily on quantitative methods and statistical inference understood as a means to test the proposed hypotheses. The fourth (2005–2014), is a replacement stage started with the wave of qualitative taking over the traditional and provoked the appearance of a new hegemony. The concern for quality stage (2015-2019) is the fifth when the threat of losing credibility and leaving a relativistic impression were considered by members of the research community. It is concluded that Iran’s educational research urgently requires mobilized and rationalized methodological pluralism with the ultimate goal of improving on existing pedagogical practices.

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is a relatively young field that explores the intersection between science and religion. Some argue that CSR, by employing purely explanatory methods and presupposing methodological naturalism, has secularized and materialized religion. Others believe that explanatory methods are not the sole approach in CSR, and the use of other methods is permissible. This article aims to show how CSR has influenced the entire realm of philosophy of religion and the nature of this impact. It examines various perspectives on the extent of CSR’s influence on the philosophy of religion, particularly analyzing its effect on the proofs of natural theology. The second part demonstrates that contrary to the dominant literature, the impact of CSR can extend beyond merely strengthening or weakening theological arguments and can be used to argue for the reform of religious beliefs. This argument is pursued from four different perspectives: first, the concept of God, arguing that weakening classic proofs does not imply weakening belief in God; second, the methodology of studying religion, advocating for methodological pluralism; third, the topic of revelation and the role of humans in religion, suggesting that a behavioral shift desirable in economics is also preferable in the study of religion; and fourth, the issue of religious pluralism and interfaith relations, arguing against the exclusivity produced by textualism and foundationalism in epistemology.