Methodology in Islamic Psychology

Extended Abstract
 
Introduction and Objectives: Methodology is a broad strategy, outline, process, and plan that every researcher adopts in the path of choosing their research method. In other words, methodology encompasses the principles and criteria that guide and manage a research endeavor. In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, methodology is defined as the inquiry into the methods by which scientists arrive at the presumed facts about the world, and a critical examination of the logical reasons offered for the validity of these methods (Audi, 1995, p. 611). In fact, methodology presents theories about human activities during their scientific and scholarly endeavors (Wright Mills, 2000). Silverman (2000) also believes that methodology is an indicator of the “general approach to studying research topics.” Methodology more directly reflects the researcher’s epistemological position; for example, a researcher who explicitly adopts an empiricist view in acquiring knowledge approaches research topics through data collection rather than through theoretical formulations (Silverman, 2000; cited in Sadiqi, 2007, p. 34).
Choudhury (1989, p. 15) believes that the methodology of every science has presuppositions that precede the paths to reality; moreover, in his view, the methodology of every science is based on epistemology and axioms that determine the theoretical and empirical foundation of every field of science. One aspect of methodology that requires attention is the paradigm or theoretical framework within which the researcher wants to solve a specific problem. In fact, the paradigm is the basic orientation and strategy toward theory and research. The paradigm creates a system of thought for the researcher and is the first step in research methodology. In this system of thought, basic presuppositions include the important questions that must be answered, the puzzles that must be solved, and the research techniques that must be employed. Therefore, before beginning the actual research, the researcher’s paradigmatic goal must be determined.
In contemporary humanities, at least three important approaches have been identified so far: (1) the positivist paradigm, (2) the interpretive paradigm, and (3) the critical paradigm. These three paradigms, by mapping the path of scientific research and determining goals, determine how the researcher moves along the path of research (research method). Each of the three paradigms of positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory is influenced by general philosophical foundations such as ontological, theological, epistemological, anthropological, and value-based foundations. Islamic psychology, as an approach, will have a different paradigm alongside other contemporary psychological approaches based on its own foundations. The present study aims to introduce its paradigm and express the methodological framework of this approach.
Research Method: The current research aims to develop the collection of existing knowledge about scientific principles and laws. Therefore, this research belongs to the basic research category in terms of the research objective. In terms of the nature of the method, it is among “descriptive-analytical” research. However, in terms of the way of collecting information, it is considered library and documentary. In this research, firstly, by referring to reliable sources in methodology, the description and identification of the types of methodological paradigms in human sciences were discussed. Then, the characteristics and principles governing them were studied and analyzed in a systematic way, and then conclusions were drawn. For this purpose, the researcher described and analyzed the accepted paradigm and its governing principles in the field of Islamic psychology by relying on reliable methodological sources and relying on Islamic and psychological sources.
Research Findings: Rational Realism: The Chosen Paradigm in Islamic Psychology
The research findings showed that none of the three paradigms (positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory) can be accepted in the Islamic psychology approach. The paradigm accepted in this approach is the “rational realism paradigm.” In the methodological approach of Islam, this naturally originates from the Islamic worldview, especially its epistemological foundations, and is completely consistent with it. Islam considers man to be a realistic being who is always curious to discover the truth. All scientific endeavors of man are to discover the facts. Allameh Mesbah Yazdi (RA) says: “Since man’s truth-seeking nature seeks to understand reality, in the position of acquiring knowledge, it requires a scientific education that clearly shows him the true reality. The requirement of man’s truth-seeking nature is not merely to find a belief. What satisfies man’s nature and his truth-seeking desire is acquiring knowledge in accordance with reality and reaching the stage of certainty and moving away from ignorance, doubt, and conjecture” (Mesbah Yazdi, 1998, Vol. 2, p. 109).
For discovering reality, four tools are available to man: senses, rational argumentation, intuition, and revelation. Depending on the nature of the subject, one or sometimes all of these methods are employed to reach reality (as it is). Human reason, which is the faculty for measuring findings against reality, constantly examines human findings and measures them against the realities of the empirical, rational, intuitive, and revealed domains, and continuously sifts them to reach the final reality, which is certain knowledge (Mesbah Yazdi, 2010, pp. 35-139). Therefore, the Islamic paradigm in method can be considered “rational realism,” meaning that man is always seeking to discover reality. Since human realities are divided into four categories: sensory, rational, intuitive, and revealed, man tries to discover reality in each of these four domains. The faculty and psychological mechanism that always distinguishes the genuine from the counterfeit in all four domains is human reason (ibid.).
This paradigm follows the following principles:

Using Different Methods: In the human epistemological system, various methods of cognition are recognized; because in reality, comprehensive and all-encompassing knowledge of man and his characteristics is not possible except by using all various methods, and one cannot achieve a correct and comprehensive knowledge of man by relying on only one method. This pluralism in methods and tools of cognition provides a better basis for identifying the subtleties and details of human personality formation, quantitative and qualitative changes, and also the characteristics of each stage of human evolution and development. Although each of these methods has its own degree of validity and reliability, the human cognitive system gains knowledge of the appearances of things through the senses, reaches the perception of universals through reason and rational argumentation, becomes aware of what is beyond the reach of sense and reason through transmitted reports and reference to documents, and gains knowledge of the self and inner states of man through present knowledge (ʿilm al-ḥuḍūrī) and inner intuition. Therefore, it can be said that the Islamic psychology approach recognizes many ways in the path of discovering external realities and recognizing the laws governing the human psyche.
Using Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: Research method scholars in behavioral sciences also emphasize the multiplicity of ways of achieving cognition and consider the “scientific” (empirical) method merely as one of the sources of cognition (not the only method of cognition), and alongside it, they mention other sources of cognition, and even consider them necessary for understanding the existing situation and achieving comprehensive and all-encompassing knowledge. Mowli (1970) writes: A geographical map of a city shows the situation of different regions of that city and shows their physical relationship with each other. The more accurate and detailed the map, the better the realities related to the regions are depicted. The use of maps that have the desired accuracy facilitates related activities. Various fields of human knowledge in general, and behavioral sciences in particular, can be imagined like maps, but these maps, in addition to depicting phenomena and the relationships between them, also serve other purposes; including explaining the factors that create these phenomena and predicting how they will evolve in the future. In this case, by achieving knowledge in the realm of a field of knowledge, one can describe phenomena, predict how they occur, reveal how to control them, and finally achieve the set of theoretical relationships among them. In general, man throughout the history of his life has used various methods to compile a map of the realities of the world around him. The various sources of human cognition can be categorized as follows: (a) reference to an authoritative source; (b) methods based on spiritual wayfaring; (c) rationalist method; (d) scientific method (Mowli, 1970; cited in Sarmad et al., 1997, p. 19).

Therefore, as behavioral science methodologists also acknowledge, the scientific (empirical) method is only one of the methods of cognition in the path of discovering the laws, principles, and theories governing phenomena and events. Sarmad et al., after quoting Mowli, write: One of the first ways of cognition that has been used by mankind is the use of the opinions and information of authoritative references. Reference books and their use also constitute a kind of reference to an authoritative source. Spiritual wayfaring is also another way of cognition. Similarly, in the rationalist method, the body of knowledge is acquired through logical laws and argumentation (deductive-inductive). The scientific method is only one of the ways to reach cognition, which books and methodological sources (research method) in behavioral sciences deal exclusively with this last method, i.e., the “scientific method” (ibid., p. 20).
It should be noted that the knowledge and cognition discussed in contemporary humanities is not certain knowledge in the specific sense (one hundred percent certainty), but rather knowledge that “can be trusted and is reassuring”; because this level of knowledge is also called “science,” and people in their daily lives act upon this level of knowledge, trust it, and shape their behaviors based on this trust. The reason and custom of society members also base their interactions on the realism of this level of science; similarly, researchers and thinkers in their empirical findings trust and rely on it and confirm its realism and narration from outside and inside. The Qur’an also refers to this level of cognition with the word “knowledge” (ʿilm). For example, in two chapters of Sūrat al-Naḥl and verse 5 of Sūrat al-Ḥajj, while stating that man at birth knows nothing and it is as if his mind is a white tablet that is gradually filled through the senses and reason, or more precisely, gradually realizes along with achieving mental forms; also, man due to longevity and aging loses all those acquired knowledge and learned information and forgets all the principles he has learned, and sometimes even forgets concepts and does not remember any of them. In any case, based on these two verses, the collection of human knowledge, whether obtained through the senses or reason, is called “knowledge”; thus, from the Qur’an’s perspective, all rational arguments and also information and awareness obtained through the senses for man are true knowledge and cognition, and these terms are not exclusively limited to rational or sensory knowledge or certain knowledge in the specific sense. Rather, their realm is general and extensive (Hosseinzadeh, 2008, p. 151).
Although the findings of contemporary psychology mostly rely on the empirical method and the use of the tools of the external senses, it seems that detailed (deep and comprehensive) knowledge of human perceptual abilities, capabilities, motivations, and inclinations is the correct way to understand the contexts and talents and actualities that constitute man; therefore, all methods proposed for knowing man must be able to identify these matters in detail. A successful method of cognition is one that provides comprehensive and reliable knowledge of all human abilities, capacities, and characteristics (Vaezi, 2012, p. 74).
Therefore, it is not only unnecessary to introduce necessarily a unique method for knowing man and his characteristics from among the methods of cognition, but the analysis of methods, the realm and capabilities of each of the ways of cognition, may lead researchers to the conclusion that the reasonable and correct way is to use a combination of several methods of cognition. Of course, in contemporary psychology, the dominant view is that the only method of knowing human phenomena is the method of using the external senses and seeking help from sense and experience. However, it must be acknowledged and accepted that observing the behavior of human individuals and the stages of growth and learning in children, and empirical research in psychological and biological aspects of man, provides useful information about the empirical characteristics of man; nevertheless, the truth of man cannot be defined exclusively based on this empirical data, because many dimensions of human existence are beyond the reach of observation and experience of a researcher who observes from the outside; for example, man’s inner life and his deep emotional and spiritual tendencies are not empirically verifiable, and usually those researchers who have tried to define man using the empirical method that is verifiable and confirmable have erred and fallen into the fallacy of “essence and aspect.” The essence of this fallacy is that they consider one aspect of a thing as the essence and entirety of that thing (Vaezi, 2012, p. 74). Therefore, many scientific research that has sought to identify man and the factors affecting human personality and behavior have not been immune from this fallacy. The discovery of each of the factors affecting human personality, nature, and life has led some researchers and psychologists to define man based on that same factor and characteristic, and without paying attention to other factors affecting the formation of human personality and identity, they have ignored other dimensions of his existence and have placed one existential dimension of man in place of his entire personality; for example, Freud emphasizes one of human instincts as the main factor constituting his identity and personality, or behaviorist psychologists define man as an animal with unlimited learning power (ibid., p. 75).
On the other hand, with a little precision in the empirical method emphasized by contemporary psychology, the use of present knowledge and benefiting from the method of inner intuition is done secretly and covertly; because when empirical researchers go to the subjects to collect their information, in fact, in this method, they use tools such as questionnaires and interviews to discover the laws and characteristics existing in man and how changes occur in him. They emphasize the method of observation and objective experience in this way, unaware that if this method is looked at well and with sufficient precision, it will be clear that the researcher has collected research data secretly and unintentionally through the method of introspection; because when subjects want to report their perceptions, feelings, and emotions and answer the interviewer’s questions in an interview or mark one of the multiple options in a questionnaire, they must go within themselves and consider their inner findings through introspection and present knowledge, and then report it to the examiner (in the interview) or transfer and write it on the answer form in the questionnaire; in fact, this is the same method of introspection and present awareness that has come to help and the empirical method uses it secretly. Although contemporary psychology explicitly states that the empirical method is only based on objective and observable findings and should not use the introspection method, and in other words, the period of introspection research method is over and belongs to the time when psychology was in the lap of philosophy. Perhaps this is why Ernst Cassirer, in criticizing the empirical method of contemporary psychology, emphasizes the introspection method as one of the methods of cognition and research in behavioral sciences, although he does not consider it complete but considers it incomplete and believes that the introspection method can only know a small part of man.
Shaleh (1929) writes: When the psychologist studies inner life within himself, he uses the mental method, and when he studies inner life in others, he uses the objective method. The mental method is the first method that has been used in the study of psychology since ancient times, and only from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards have psychologists paid attention to the objective method! Some psychologists have considered these two methods completely opposite and contradictory and have preferred one over the other, while today the dominant theory is that both methods should be used together; as Ribot (one of the French psychologists), who initially criticized the mental method severely and tried to show the advantage of the objective method, finally acknowledged the importance of the mental method and considered it the fundamental method in psychology and even a necessary condition for other methods! (Shaleh, 1929; cited in Mahdavi, 1999, p. 137).
Perhaps it is for this reason that Wundt, the founder of the voluntarism school, claimed that although natural events can be explained according to the facts, psychological events cannot be justified in this way; therefore, the methods used by natural sciences are not suitable for psychology. Wundt believed that voluntary actions are lawful, but the laws governing these actions cannot be examined experimentally; therefore, Wundt believed that higher functions cannot be examined through experiment, but rather only through historical analysis and natural observation of psychologists (Herganhan, 2010, p. 381).
This school, by proposing the introspection method, opened a different space for the formation of human cognition and awareness of human phenomena and the rules governing them for researchers.
Some researchers have said: “Without resorting to the introspection method and without immediate present awareness of feelings, emotions, perceptions, and thoughts, the field of human psychology cannot be determined; however, it must be accepted that if we want to proceed only in this way, we will never be able to grasp the comprehensive nature of man. The introspection method only illuminates the small part of human life that individual experience is capable of perceiving, and will never be able to reach the vast field of all human phenomena, even if we succeed in collecting and mixing all information, we will still make a very poor and distorted picture of human reality” (Cassirer, 1994, p. 24); therefore, a part of human cognition is through cognitions obtained through present knowledge, because man finds his own self, psychological states, mental forms, and psychological actions (will) through present knowledge (Naqd-e Makāteb, p. 68).
Psychoanalysts such as Freud also criticized the conventional empirical method in psychology and do not consider it the only criterion for identifying the laws governing man and human behavior, and therefore emphasize their own psychoanalytic method and clinical method, which are a kind of inner intuition and individual reception.
Discussion and Conclusions: The chosen paradigm in the approach of Islamic psychology is the “rational realism paradigm.” Because this approach is on the path of discovering external facts and understanding the rules governing the human psyche. On the other hand, since human realities are divided into four categories: sensory, rational, intuitive, and revealed, the researcher will try to discover the reality in each of these four areas. Also, since the faculty and psychological mechanism that distinguishes the genuine from the counterfeit in these four domains is human reason, it has been considered rational. In sum, this paradigm follows principles that include:

Using Different Methods: Pluralism in methods and tools of cognition provides a better basis for identifying the subtleties and details of humans, how personality is formed, quantitative and qualitative changes, and also the characteristics of each stage of human evolution. The human cognitive system gains knowledge of the appearances of things through the senses, reaches the perception of universals through reason and rational argumentation, becomes aware of what is beyond the reach of sense and reason through transmitted reports and reference to documents, and gains knowledge of the self and inner states of man through present knowledge and inner intuition.
Using Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: Considering the challenges and obstacles in each of the quantitative and qualitative methods, the use of the integrated quantitative-qualitative method in the Islamic approach can be a solution.
Using Experimental Studies for Benchmarking: Sometimes the subject of research is a problem that has not been researched or very little. In such cases, the possibility of quantitative research is practically not possible. Rather, such problems are first studied with a qualitative method on the theoretical basis, so that the field of study is provided in an objective and external environment, and the problem is tested with experimental studies.
The Authority of Reason: This approach is called rational because reason is the final authority in establishing all methods and confirming findings in various methods.