A Grounded Theory Analysis of the Dimensions of Conflict Between Public Interests and Individual Ethics in Political Jurisprudence

Abstract

This study aims to provide a grounded analysis of the dimensions of conflict between public interests and individual ethics in political jurisprudence, and to elucidate the strategies and consequences of this conflict based on the lived experiences of academic and religious experts. A qualitative approach using grounded theory methodology was adopted. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 21 political jurisprudence experts and university faculty in Tehran. Purposeful sampling continued until theoretical saturation was reached, and data were analyzed using NVivo software and a three-stage coding process. Data analysis revealed three main categories: structural conflicts (such as the tension between national and individual interests, challenges in the implementation of religious rulings, and the influence of political power), adaptive strategies (including innovative jurisprudence, consideration of public good, dialogue, and structural reforms), and individual and collective consequences (such as moral anxiety, social distrust, and generational gaps). Participants’ quotes highlighted the ambiguity in the boundary between public and individual interests, as well as a lack of structural transparency as the main sources of conflict. The findings underscore the necessity of rethinking jurisprudential and social policymaking structures in light of lived experiences, demonstrating that the integration of dynamic jurisprudence, social dialogue, and independent oversight can reduce conflicts and enhance public trust.