Analysis of Intellectual Dialogue (A Qualitative Study)

Hosseini, Mohammad Reza; Chahardoli, Mohammad Amin

doi:10.22077/qrbs.2026.9097.1092

Analysis of Intellectual Dialogue (A Qualitative Study)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

mohammad reza hosseini ¹

mohammad amin chahardoli ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran

² PhD Candidate in Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran

10.22077/qrbs.2026.9097.1092

Abstract

Background: Despite its dazzling technological advances, the contemporary world grapples with a human crisis born from the dominance of instrumental rationality and the coldness of interpersonal relations. In this context, dialogue—as authentic conversation—emerges as a fundamental solution for fostering mutual understanding, collective consciousness, and public reason. On this path, intellectuals, as bearers of critique and awareness, play a key role in promoting a culture of dialogue and revitalizing the public sphere.
Aim: The aim of this research is to transform the abstract concept of "dialogue quality" into objective, quantifiable, and analyzable indicators in order to measure and evaluate the health and authenticity of dialogue within an influential social group (the intellectuals).
Method: Accordingly, the statistical population, based on the components of the theoretical framework, consisted of all dialogues published in every issue of Ayin Monthly from 2004 to 2011 (issues 1 to 35) and every issue of Iran-e Farda Monthly from 2014 to 2020 (issues 1 to 59). Purposive sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved; meaning that the examination of subsequent samples yielded no new components or concepts in the data, and the data became repetitive. This stage was accomplished upon the analysis of 14 samples. Content analysis was selected as the research method, with the paragraph serving as the unit of analysis.
Results: According to the research findings, it can be stated that within the examined texts, dialogical indicators were more prevalent than anti-dialogical indicators. Among the dialogical indicators, the principle of "honesty and frankness" was employed more than other dialogical concepts. Conversely, among the anti-dialogical indicators, the principle of "ignorance and certitude" (jahl wa īqān) was observed more than other principles.
Conclusions: The analysis revealed that intellectual dialogues have progressed in form (frankness and focus on debate), but remain weak in substance (listening and avoidance of dogmatism). This gap between appearance and depth signifies an unfinished transition from debate to genuine dialogue.

Keywords

dialogue

intellectual

dialogue indicators

anti-dialogue indicators

Subjects

content analysis

References

Abbaszadeh, M., & Abbaszadeh, M. (2012). Validity and reliability in qualitative researches. Journal of Applied Sociology, 23(1), 19-34. https://jas.ui.ac.ir/article_18250.html?lang=en

Bohm, D. (2002 a). On creativity (M. A. Hosseinnejad, Trans.). Saqi Press. https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Routledge-Classics-75/dp/0415336406

Bohm, D. (2002 b). On dialogue (N. Lee, Ed.; M. A. Hosseinnejad, Trans.). Cultural Research Office Press. https://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-Routledge-Classics-76/dp/0415336414

Dehkhoda, A. A. (1993-1994). Dehkhoda Dictionary (Volume 16). University of Tehran Press. https://shopipersia.com/product/dehkhoda-dictionary-by-ali-akbar-dehkhoda-16-vol/

Freire, P. (1997). Teaching critical cognition (M. S. Kaviani, Trans.). Agah Press. https://www.iranketab.ir/book/43558

Gardiner, M. E. (2004). Wild publics and grotesque symposiums: Habermas and Bakhtin on dialogue, everyday life and the public sphere. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 28-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00472.x

Ghaedi, M. R., & Golshani, A. (2016). Content analysis method: From quantitative to qualitative. Journal of Psychological Methods and Models, 7(23), 57-83. https://b2n.ir/nz3861

Ghanei Rad, M. A. (2018). The Emergence of the Dialogue Intellectual in Iran? Agah Press. https://www.iranketab.ir/book/43560-the-genesis-of-the-intellectual

Ghazi Moradi, H. (2018). Passion for dialogue and the spread of monologue culture among Iranians. Qatra Press. https://akhtaranbook.ir/fa/Product/113978

Habermas, J. (2013). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Communicative-Action-Rationalization-Society/dp/0807015075

Isaacs, W. (2001). Dialogue and the art of thinking together (M. Haddadi, Trans.). Office of Political and International Studies Press. https://docibox.ir/book/2097437

Kahrazahi, M., & Barahoei Moghadam, N. (2023). The level of attention to the five dimensions of health in the content of experimental science textbooks at elementary schools. Qualitative Research in Behavioral Sciences, 1(2), 47-56. https://qrbs.birjand.ac.ir/article_2686.html?lang=en

Khaniki, H. (2013). In the world of conversation. Hermes Press. https://www.iranketab.ir/book/35931

Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x

Li, X., Han, G., Fang, B., & He, J. (2025). Advancing the in-class dialogic quality: Developing an artificial intelligence-supported framework for classroom dialogue analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(1), 495-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00872-z

Malekian, M. (2002). The road to liberation: An essay on rationality and spirituality. Nehaj Moaser Press. https://www.iranketab.ir/book/27732

Neistani, M. R. (2019). Principles and foundations of dialogue. Yar Mana Press. https://www.iranketab.ir/book/92953-dialogue

Najati Hosseini, S. M., & Manoochehri, A. (2007). An introduction to the theory of dialogic citizenship in Habermas’s political philosophy. Social Sciences Letter, 29(1), 1. https://jnoe.ut.ac.ir/article_18313.html?lang=en

Nili, M. (2014). The quality of dialogue orientation of recent intellectuals. Social Science Research University of Tehran. https://noordoc.ir/author/178940

Pedram, M. (2009). Public Sepehr. Yadavaran press. https://www.gajmarket.com/product/113122

Pouranjati, A., Madani. S., Leilaz, S., & Khaniki, H. (2008). Why does dialogue not lead to understanding? Baztab Andisheh, 102. https://B2n.ir/ds7916

Rajabpour Azizi, Z., & Mehr Mohammdi, M. (2023). Book review: Content analysis of "brain and education". Qualitative Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 73-82. https://qrbs.birjand.ac.ir/article_2977.html?lang=en

Tabrizi, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of deductive and inductive approaches. Journal of Social Sciences, 21(64), 105-138. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.2014.344

Yin, S. X., Liu, Z., Goh, D. H. L., Quek, C. L., & Chen, N. F. (2025). Scaling up collaborative dialogue analysis: An AI-driven approach to understanding dialogue patterns in computational thinking education. Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, 47-57. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/29240

Yang, L., Yang, Q., & Zeng, J. (2025). Dialogue sentiment analysis based on dialogue structure pre-training. Multimedia Systems, 31, 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-025-01672-1

Yankelovich, D. (2006). The magic of dialogue (N. Sanbili, Trans.; 3rd ed.). Ministry of Foreign Affairs. https://www.ketabnak.com/book/93442

Zhong, M., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Zhu, C., & Zeng, M. (2022). Dialoglm: Pre- trained model for long dialogue understanding and summarization. The Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-22). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.02492