Abstract
The present study aims to analyze the historiographic discourse in academic books on Iranian history and to explore the transition from the dominant discourse of "political history" to "civilizational history discourse." Using an integrated approach to discourse analysis (Fairclough's three-level model and Wodak's historical approach) and relying on the theory of discourse transformation, 20 book titles from Samt Publications (10 general history titles and 10 history of culture and civilization titles) over the past two decades (1380-1403) were purposefully selected and analyzed using a combined checklist (including quantitative and qualitative indicators). Quantitative findings show that the average percentage of civilizational chapters in general history books is 24.3% and in history of culture and civilization books is 95.7%. It is worth noting that in general history books, the average percentage of civilizational chapters has increased from 20.8% in the 1380s to 36.1% in the 1390s, indicating a "gradual and incomplete transition" from political discourse to civilizational discourse. Qualitative findings also show significant differences in the starting point of the narrative, central characters, and patterns of explanation of causes in the two types of books. Bibliographic analysis (439 entries from the book "Makhaz Shenasi", 2019) also confirms the relative dominance of civilizational discourse (58%) in the body of contemporary historical research. This study, by providing evidence of the coexistence and competition of the two political and civilizational discourses in academic books, highlights the need to review the policy-making of history textbooks.


Introduction and Problem Statement
University textbooks are discursive sites that shape students' historical consciousness, scientific subjectivity, and collective identity (Apple, 2018; Rasti & Razmjoo, 2024). Iranian academic historiography has long been dominated by a "political history discourse" centered on dynasties, wars, and elite power struggles (Mo'tamedi, 2012). Recent global historiographical shifts toward social, cultural, and scientific history have fostered growing interest in civilizational dimensions—including culture, economy, science, art, and education (Fairclough, 2000; Abbasi, 2014). This study addresses three core questions: (1) What is the relative share of political versus civilizational discourse components in Iranian academic history textbooks? (2) Are there significant discursive differences between "general history" and "culture and civilization history" textbooks? (3) Can we observe a "gradual discursive transition" over the past two decades?

Theoretical Framework
The research integrates Fairclough's three-level CDA model with Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach. Drawing on Kuhn's paradigm shift theory—adapted for the humanities—political history is conceptualized as a "dominant discourse" and civilizational history as an "emerging rival discourse." Discursive transitions in historiography are rarely complete; they involve a "gradual and incomplete" process where new elements penetrate the old framework without fully overturning its rules (Kuhn, 2019; Wodak, 2002).

Methodology
A purposive sample of 20 textbooks published by Samt (2001–2024) was selected—10 general/political history and 10 culture‑and‑civilization history—based on period coverage, author diversity, and publication date. A mixed‑methods checklist captured quantitative indicators: percentage of civilizational/political chapters; frequency of political vs. civilizational vocabulary using AntConc 3.5.9; and chapter length. Qualitative indicators examined: narrative starting point; central characters; causal explanation patterns; state‑society representation; and textual tone. Inter‑coder reliability reached 0.83. A bibliographic analysis of 439 entries from Rahbari (2019) served as an external indicator of contemporary research trends.

Key Findings
Quantitative Results
In general history textbooks, the average share of civilizational chapters was 24.3%; in culture‑and‑civilization textbooks, 95.7%—a significant 71.4‑point gap. Within general history books, those published in the 2000s (2001–2011) averaged 20.8%, while those published in the 2010s (2012–2024) averaged 36.1%—a 15.3% increase indicating a gradual but real discursive shift.
Vocabulary analysis confirmed this pattern: in general history books, political keywords (e.g., shah, jang, fatḥ) appeared 80‑90 times per sample chapter versus 20‑25 times for civilizational keywords (farhang, ʿelm, honar). In culture‑and‑civilization books, the ratio was reversed (85‑90 civilizational vs. ~20 political occurrences). This aligns with findings that vocabulary shifts are key indicators of discursive change in textbooks (Siamiān & Tāherzādeh, 2023).
Qualitative (Narrative) Findings
Comparative case study analysis (Zargari‑Nejad, 2016 vs. Jan Ahmadi, 2019) revealed profound differences:

Starting point: Political narratives begin with dynastic rise and military campaigns; civilizational narratives start with cultural, religious, and social contexts.
Central characters: Political histories foreground kings and commanders; civilizational histories highlight scholars, artists, merchants, and social groups.
Causal explanations: Political histories attribute rise/decline to royal competence, succession, and military outcomes; civilizational histories emphasize structural, institutional, and long‑term socio‑economic processes.
State‑society relations: Political histories present a state‑centric view; civilizational histories show mutual interaction and societal agency.
Textual tone: Political histories adopt a descriptive‑reporting tone; civilizational histories tend toward analytical‑interpretive and civilizational‑pride orientations

Bibliographic Analysis
Of 439 entries from Rahbari (2019), 58.1% fell under civilizational topics (science, culture, art, education, literature), while only 26.9% were political (states, wars, power institutions). Mixed or dual‑category entries were 1.4%, and 13.7% were unidentified. The relative dominance of civilizational topics—nearly twice the share of political topics—confirms that the discursive shift observed in textbooks is not merely pedagogical but reflects broader trends in contemporary academic research.

Discussion and Conclusion
The findings demonstrate a clear, albeit incomplete, transition from political to civilizational discourse in Iranian academic historiography. The increase in civilizational chapters in recent general history books, the reversed vocabulary ratios in culture‑and‑civilization textbooks, and the dominance of civilizational topics in bibliographic data all point in the same direction. This aligns with international patterns in history textbook revision (Frostig, 2018; Apple, 2018).
However, the transition remains asymmetric and incomplete. In many general history books, civilizational components appear as separate, almost appended sections rather than being organically integrated into the main political narrative. The overall structure and periodization still follow dynastic logic and power‑shift chronology. Within the theoretical framework, this reflects a situation where the "dominant discourse" faces growing anomalies it cannot adequately explain—such as the long‑term resilience of cultural institutions—while the "rival discourse" gains legitimacy but has yet to transform the core rules of the historiographical field (Kuhn, 2019).
Practical implications include: (1) need for integrated rewriting of general history textbooks, embedding civilizational dimensions within political narratives; (2) design of a dedicated course on "Foundations of Iranian‑Islamic Civilization" for humanities students; (3) development of discourse‑based assessment criteria for evaluating university textbooks; and (4) encouragement of interdisciplinary and comparative research on historiographical discourses in pedagogical settings.
Limitations include the focus on Persian‑language Samt publications, exclusion of digital/auxiliary materials, and absence of classroom observation. Future research should expand the scope, include classroom ethnographies, and investigate the impact of these discursive shifts on students' historical consciousness and civilizational identity.
In conclusion, this study provides robust empirical evidence that Iranian academic historiography is undergoing a significant—though gradual and contested—discursive transition from state‑centric political narratives toward more inclusive, society‑oriented civilizational narratives. While the old discourse has not been fully supplanted, the direction of change is clear and is likely to accelerate as civilizational research expands and educational policymakers increasingly recognize the importance of civilizational depth in higher education.