شمارۀ جدید فصلنامه (تابستان 1404) منتشر شد
Volume 16, Issue 2 (4-2025)
Social Problems of Iran 2025, 16(2): 153-183 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shojaeizand A. (2025). Retrieving and Rereading Studies of Religiosity in Iran: Implicit Surveys of Religious Commitment. Social Problems of Iran. 16(2), 153-183. doi:10.61882/jspi.16.2.153
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3825-en.html
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3825-en.html
Associate Professor of Sociology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran , shojaeez@modares.ac.ir
Abstract: (208 Views)
Despite the relative expansion of religiosity studies in Iran over recent decades, many of these efforts continue to suffer from conceptual vagueness, methodological inconsistency, and a lack of longitudinal continuity. National-level analysis of religious change requires valid, comparable, and temporally extended data grounded in coherent and reliable frameworks. However, the few available national surveys—particularly those that assess religiosity only implicitly—do not fully meet these criteria. This article critically reexamines four major nationwide surveys conducted in 1977, 1980, 1996, and 2004, which share a degree of conceptual and structural similarity in their indirect measurement of religiosity. The primary focus is on formal and structural aspects of these surveys, including item coherence, instrument design quality, level of measurement, conceptual consistency, and the comparability of data over time. The study does not engage in evaluating the validity of findings or conducting substantive content analysis. Findings indicate that despite variations in geographic coverage and sample size, the surveys exhibit limited item-level replication across time and largely remain at a descriptive level. Composite constructs and conceptual indices are rarely employed, restricting longitudinal or causal analysis. Nevertheless, these fragmented datasets represent the only empirical sources currently available for partially reconstructing the historical trajectory of religiosity in Iran. The article underscores the need to strengthen systematic and theory-driven survey traditions and urges scholars of religion and Iranian society to critically engage with and build upon these foundational efforts for future research and policy-oriented inquiry.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Reviewing previous research on a specific topic or issue can help the researcher solidify his footing and allow him to go beyond it. Therefore, the main motivation and purpose of back to the past is innovation. At the same time, it is always exposed to the damage of being stopped and preoccupied with the past. The prerequisite for avoiding these two defects is, first, to always keep the research goals in mind, second, to be aware of one's superior position and hermeneutic preference, and finally, to keep the critical perspective active and dynamic. It is by observing such considerations that the future is born from the past and the new from the old, and it places researchers on the boundless path of acquiring knowledge.
This article aims to do this by critiquing several landmark surveys conducted in Iran to provide a coherent literature and background for future research on religiosity in Iran. The purpose of this work, in addition to retrieving and collect scattered literature, was to reread and critique it in order to strengthen the logical, conceptual, and methodological foundations of such research so that it can be used in future research and achieve more reliable results. Another effect of this critique is to provide more insight into the results and findings of these studies and to increase caution in using them in analyses related to the state of religiosity in Iran and its changing trends.
If we look at a few student studies from that period that measured the rate of religiosity; We come to surveys that can be referred to as "implicit measurement of religiosity"; because, in addition to measuring numerous categories, they also examine some aspects of religiosity with a few limited items. The value and importance of these works lies in their a pioneer and in the little information they provide us. These findings on the state of religiosity are scattered and brief, and even subject to damage in terms of validity and credibility; at the same time, they are the only data we have on this subject from that period and situation.
One of the most obvious weaknesses of these surveys is the limited and indefinite of the items related to religiosity; And that too was due to the lack of preparation of the necessary conceptual foundations for it. For this reason, the possibility of combining and forming items into a specific dimension or component has been denied them. This defect has caused the task of measuring this category to be reduced to the level of the items related to it. Limiting to measuring religiosity at the item level is insufficient; while it is expected that it will be elevated to the level of components, dimensions, and even the entirety of religiosity.
2. Methodology
This article examines four surveys that are structurally and thematically connected and were intentionally conducted in a quasi-panel format: Asadi et al. (1977) Asadi et al. (1980) Mohseni (1996) Goodarzi (2004). Although these surveys were designed with ambitious goals, the expected outcomes were not fully realized. As a result, the opportunity to document and analyze Iran’s cultural and social realities across historical periods has been partly lost. In all four surveys, religiosity was not the central theme but rather a secondary variable, examined alongside other social and cultural categories. The ambiguity of the conceptual framework is particularly evident in the treatment of religion. Items measuring religiosity were diverse and inconsistent, ranging from “level of religiosity” to “religious identity,” “religious knowledge,” “assessment of the religious situation in society,” and “types of religiosity.” However, the surveys did not make these distinctions explicit, nor did they explain the criteria for grouping disparate items under the single category of “religion.” Consequently, the findings of these surveys can only be analyzed at the item level, without the ability to aggregate them into coherent dimensions or components. Even this limited use depends on assuming accuracy in the collection process and reliability of responses. Moreover, revisions to the questionnaires over time—such as Asadi’s adjustments between 1977 and 1980 or Mohseni’s later interventions—undermined the comparability and longitudinal consistency of results. In summary, the methodology of this study involved: Recovery and introduction of surveys addressing religiosity at different intervals. Analysis of the conceptual framing of religiosity to assess their adequacy. Evaluation of the scales and items used, highlighting methodological strengths and weaknesses. The importance of this critical review lies in its engagement with the first scientific surveys of religiosity in Iran, spanning from the 1970s to the early 2000s, thus covering both pre- and post-revolutionary contexts.
3. Findings
The review reveals several key findings: Limited Conceptualization of Religiosity: The studies failed to construct a systematic definition of religiosity, treating it only as a minor variable rather than a central research category. Fragmented and Inconsistent Items: Survey items lacked coherence, preventing aggregation into broader dimensions. This reduced religiosity to isolated indicators rather than a comprehensive construct. Weak Longitudinal Comparability: Changes in questionnaires and lack of consistent scales made it impossible to trace clear trends in religiosity over time. Pioneering but Incomplete Contribution: Despite their weaknesses, these surveys remain the earliest and only available data sources on religiosity in Iran from that historical period. They thus hold archival and reference value, albeit with strong methodological caveats. Overall, while the surveys provided pioneering data, their structural and conceptual limitations undermine their utility for robust longitudinal or comparative analysis.
4. Conclusion
This article has highlighted both the pioneering value and critical shortcomings of early Iranian surveys on religiosity. Their fragmented conceptualization, inconsistent measurement tools, and lack of longitudinal consistency prevented them from achieving their stated objectives. Nonetheless, these surveys remain the only available empirical data on religiosity in Iran across several decades, and their historical importance should not be overlooked. The critique presented here is not intended as a dismissal of their contribution but as a call for greater methodological care in future research. By refining conceptual foundations, ensuring consistency across studies, and elevating the measurement of religiosity from isolated items to coherent dimensions, future surveys can generate more reliable and analytically useful results. Such improvements will enable researchers to better understand religiosity in Iran and to capture its evolving patterns within broader social and cultural contexts. The necessity and importance of such work lies in the fact that it is one of the first scientific studies of religiosity in Iran and provides us with the only data that can be referenced and referred to the past. This quasi-longitudinal survey is the only collection that extends from before the revolution to the third decade after it (1970s - 2004s), and has provided the possibility of comparing these two distinct conditions. The most serious criticism of this series of surveys, after the flaws related to the model, the scale, and the items, has been their lack of commitment and conclusion to maintaining the uniformity of the scale throughout the four studies and the loss of the possibility of comparing results and discovering the trend and direction of changes. Their criticism is not out of ingratitude or disregard for the merits of their precedence and the value of the only data available from those lost situations, nor does it raise the level of expectations beyond what was within their power and possibility at that time; rather, it is intended to increase the care and attention of religious scholars in designing future studies and research programs.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Reviewing previous research on a specific topic or issue can help the researcher solidify his footing and allow him to go beyond it. Therefore, the main motivation and purpose of back to the past is innovation. At the same time, it is always exposed to the damage of being stopped and preoccupied with the past. The prerequisite for avoiding these two defects is, first, to always keep the research goals in mind, second, to be aware of one's superior position and hermeneutic preference, and finally, to keep the critical perspective active and dynamic. It is by observing such considerations that the future is born from the past and the new from the old, and it places researchers on the boundless path of acquiring knowledge.
This article aims to do this by critiquing several landmark surveys conducted in Iran to provide a coherent literature and background for future research on religiosity in Iran. The purpose of this work, in addition to retrieving and collect scattered literature, was to reread and critique it in order to strengthen the logical, conceptual, and methodological foundations of such research so that it can be used in future research and achieve more reliable results. Another effect of this critique is to provide more insight into the results and findings of these studies and to increase caution in using them in analyses related to the state of religiosity in Iran and its changing trends.
If we look at a few student studies from that period that measured the rate of religiosity; We come to surveys that can be referred to as "implicit measurement of religiosity"; because, in addition to measuring numerous categories, they also examine some aspects of religiosity with a few limited items. The value and importance of these works lies in their a pioneer and in the little information they provide us. These findings on the state of religiosity are scattered and brief, and even subject to damage in terms of validity and credibility; at the same time, they are the only data we have on this subject from that period and situation.
One of the most obvious weaknesses of these surveys is the limited and indefinite of the items related to religiosity; And that too was due to the lack of preparation of the necessary conceptual foundations for it. For this reason, the possibility of combining and forming items into a specific dimension or component has been denied them. This defect has caused the task of measuring this category to be reduced to the level of the items related to it. Limiting to measuring religiosity at the item level is insufficient; while it is expected that it will be elevated to the level of components, dimensions, and even the entirety of religiosity.
2. Methodology
This article examines four surveys that are structurally and thematically connected and were intentionally conducted in a quasi-panel format: Asadi et al. (1977) Asadi et al. (1980) Mohseni (1996) Goodarzi (2004). Although these surveys were designed with ambitious goals, the expected outcomes were not fully realized. As a result, the opportunity to document and analyze Iran’s cultural and social realities across historical periods has been partly lost. In all four surveys, religiosity was not the central theme but rather a secondary variable, examined alongside other social and cultural categories. The ambiguity of the conceptual framework is particularly evident in the treatment of religion. Items measuring religiosity were diverse and inconsistent, ranging from “level of religiosity” to “religious identity,” “religious knowledge,” “assessment of the religious situation in society,” and “types of religiosity.” However, the surveys did not make these distinctions explicit, nor did they explain the criteria for grouping disparate items under the single category of “religion.” Consequently, the findings of these surveys can only be analyzed at the item level, without the ability to aggregate them into coherent dimensions or components. Even this limited use depends on assuming accuracy in the collection process and reliability of responses. Moreover, revisions to the questionnaires over time—such as Asadi’s adjustments between 1977 and 1980 or Mohseni’s later interventions—undermined the comparability and longitudinal consistency of results. In summary, the methodology of this study involved: Recovery and introduction of surveys addressing religiosity at different intervals. Analysis of the conceptual framing of religiosity to assess their adequacy. Evaluation of the scales and items used, highlighting methodological strengths and weaknesses. The importance of this critical review lies in its engagement with the first scientific surveys of religiosity in Iran, spanning from the 1970s to the early 2000s, thus covering both pre- and post-revolutionary contexts.
3. Findings
The review reveals several key findings: Limited Conceptualization of Religiosity: The studies failed to construct a systematic definition of religiosity, treating it only as a minor variable rather than a central research category. Fragmented and Inconsistent Items: Survey items lacked coherence, preventing aggregation into broader dimensions. This reduced religiosity to isolated indicators rather than a comprehensive construct. Weak Longitudinal Comparability: Changes in questionnaires and lack of consistent scales made it impossible to trace clear trends in religiosity over time. Pioneering but Incomplete Contribution: Despite their weaknesses, these surveys remain the earliest and only available data sources on religiosity in Iran from that historical period. They thus hold archival and reference value, albeit with strong methodological caveats. Overall, while the surveys provided pioneering data, their structural and conceptual limitations undermine their utility for robust longitudinal or comparative analysis.
4. Conclusion
This article has highlighted both the pioneering value and critical shortcomings of early Iranian surveys on religiosity. Their fragmented conceptualization, inconsistent measurement tools, and lack of longitudinal consistency prevented them from achieving their stated objectives. Nonetheless, these surveys remain the only available empirical data on religiosity in Iran across several decades, and their historical importance should not be overlooked. The critique presented here is not intended as a dismissal of their contribution but as a call for greater methodological care in future research. By refining conceptual foundations, ensuring consistency across studies, and elevating the measurement of religiosity from isolated items to coherent dimensions, future surveys can generate more reliable and analytically useful results. Such improvements will enable researchers to better understand religiosity in Iran and to capture its evolving patterns within broader social and cultural contexts. The necessity and importance of such work lies in the fact that it is one of the first scientific studies of religiosity in Iran and provides us with the only data that can be referenced and referred to the past. This quasi-longitudinal survey is the only collection that extends from before the revolution to the third decade after it (1970s - 2004s), and has provided the possibility of comparing these two distinct conditions. The most serious criticism of this series of surveys, after the flaws related to the model, the scale, and the items, has been their lack of commitment and conclusion to maintaining the uniformity of the scale throughout the four studies and the loss of the possibility of comparing results and discovering the trend and direction of changes. Their criticism is not out of ingratitude or disregard for the merits of their precedence and the value of the only data available from those lost situations, nor does it raise the level of expectations beyond what was within their power and possibility at that time; rather, it is intended to increase the care and attention of religious scholars in designing future studies and research programs.
Keywords: Social surveys, Religiosity, Longitudinal studies, Measurement level, Questionnaire, Survey items
Type of Article: Other |
Subject:
Sociology of religion
Received: 2025/05/4 | Accepted: 2025/07/3 | Published: 2025/08/24
Received: 2025/05/4 | Accepted: 2025/07/3 | Published: 2025/08/24
References
1. Hill, Peter C., & Ralph W. Hood Jr. (eds.) (1999). Measure of Religiosity. Birmingham, alabama: Religious Education Press.
2. Kazemipur, Abdolmohammad, & Rezaei, Ali (2003). Religious Life under Theocracy: The Case of Iran. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 3 (347–361).
3. Alvanabadi, Seyed Ahmad. (1973) A Comparison of Religious Thought in the Third Grade of Islamic and Non-Islamic High Schools; Master's Thesis in Psychology, Tehran: Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran. (in Persian)
4. Asadi, Ali and Mohseni, Manouchehr. (1977) Cultural Trends and Social Attitudes in Iran; Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Communication Sciences and Development. (in Persian)
5. Asadi, Ali. Mehdi Behkish and Manouchehr Mohseni. (1970) Cultural Trends and Social Attitudes in Iran: A Report of an Opinion Poll in Tehran in June 1979; Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Communication and Development Sciences. (in Persian)
6. Bahravan, Hossein. (1995) Study of the general culture of Mashhad; Mashhad: General Administration of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Khorasan. (Xeroxed publication). (in Persian)
7. Golriz, Golshan. (1974) A study to prepare a scale of religious attitude and to examine the relationship between religious attitude and other feedbacks and personality traits; Bachelor's thesis in Psychology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran. (in Persian)
8. Heshmati, Mohammad Reza. (2005) Hope and Concern in the Field of Religion: A Study of the National Survey of Iranian Values and Attitudes (Second Wave 2003); Tehran: National Projects Office, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (in Persian)
9. Javaheri, Fatemeh. (1400) A Critical Analysis of National Surveys in Iran; Tehran: Research Institute for Culture, Art and Communications. (in Persian)
10. Kazemi, Abbas and Mehdi Faraji. (2007) Measures of Religiosity in Iran; Tehran: Society and Culture. (in Persian)
11. Kazemi, Abbas and Faraji, Mehdi. (2011) Religiosity of Iranians - First Wave; Tehran: Islamic Propaganda Organization. (in Persian)
12. Kazemipour, Abdolmohammad. (2003) Religious Beliefs and Behaviors in Iran: 1979-1980; Tehran: National Plans of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (in Persian)
13. Khodayarifard, Mohammad et al. (2009) Final report of the research project: Preparing a religiosity scale and assessing the levels of religiosity of different strata of Iranian society; Tehran: In cooperation with supporting organizations. (Limited publication) (in Persian)
14. Mohseni, Manouchehr. (1996) A study of social and cultural awareness, attitudes and behaviors in Iran; Tehran. Research and Educational Deputy of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (in Persian)
15. Shojaei Zand, Ali Reza. (2004a) "Survey Values and Workshop Attitudes". Social Sciences Month Book (Issue 82, August) (pp. 8-11). (in Persian)
16. Shojaei Zand, Ali Reza. (2004b) "Ongoing Processes, Unfinished Projects". Social Sciences Month Book (Issue 85-86, November and December) (pp. 5-12). (in Persian)
17. Shojaei Zand, Ali Reza. (2005) "A Model for Measuring Religiosity in Iran". Iranian Journal of Sociology (Vol. 6, No. 1) Spring 2005. (pp. 34-66). (in Persian)
18. Taliban, Mohammad Reza. (2014) National Survey of Islamic Religiosity of Iranians; Tehran: Prepared and compiled by the Iranian Student Opinion Polling Center (ISPA); Jihad University Publishing Organization. (in Persian)
19. National Survey of Iranian Cultural Developments: Cultural Trends and Social Attitudes of Iranians (Godarzi 2004), Office of National Projects of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (published by the Islamic Propaganda Organization). (in Persian)
20. Values and Attitudes of Iranians: First Edition (Rezaei 2002) (Survey findings in 28 provinces). Tehran: National Values and Attitudes Survey Project Publication Office. (in Persian)
21. Values and Attitudes of Iranians: Second Wave, First Edition (Godarzi 2003) (Survey findings in 28 provinces). Tehran: National Values and Attitudes Survey Project Publication Office. (in Persian)
22. Values and Attitudes of Iranians: The Third Wave (Javadi Yeganeh 2016) Tehran: National Projects Office of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in cooperation with the Social Monitoring Center of the Ministry of Interior. (in Persian)
23. Values and Attitudes of Iranians: The Fourth Wave (Zaeri- unpublished) Tehran: National Projects Center of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (in Persian)
24. Workshop on Analysis of Findings of the Survey of Iranian Values and Attitudes: Religious Beliefs and Social Attitudes (2002), Tehran: Office of National Projects of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. (in Persian)
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC).
