Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.
Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework A Non-Reductive KPI Architecture for Governing Abrahamic Theological Dialogue
Interfaith dialogue is often assessed through participation, declarations, or visibility, leaving doctrinal-source integrity, institutional follow-through, and risk governance under-specified. This article develops the Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework (IDDF) as a non-reductive design-science artefact for formal and semi-formal Abrahamic theological dialogue, with Christian–Muslim programmes as the initial application. The study synthesised the IDDF design corpus, a consolidated domain–axis model, and the complete KPI catalogue; no participants, field cases, or operational datasets were analysed. Artefact development organised the framework into five strategic domains and fourteen specialist axes, generated 280 candidate KPIs, and subjected the catalogue to structural checks for uniqueness, placement, controllability, auditability, and theological boundaries. The resulting architecture confines measurement to evidence integrity, dialogue process, institutional capability, inclusion, risk, data governance, and implementation, explicitly excluding the truth, superiority, sanctity, or salvific validity of any religious tradition. IDDF also specifies KPI dictionary requirements and human-supervised controls for AI-assisted retrieval, coding, narrative analysis, and dashboards. The framework integrates comparative-theological requirements with design-science and performance-governance logic, enabling institutions to move from symbolic engagement toward auditable learning and accountable implementation. The artefact remains evaluation-ready rather than empirically validated; content validity, reliability, measurement invariance, weighting sensitivity, and field usability require subsequent multi-tradition testing.
1. Köbrich J, Hoffmann L. What do we know about religion and interreligious peace? A review of the quantitative literature. Politics and Religion. 2023;16(4):708-732. doi:10.1017/S1755048323000238.
2. Orton A. Interfaith dialogue: seven key questions for theory, policy and practice. Religion, State & Society. 2016;44(4):349-365. doi:10.1080/09637494.2016.1242886.
3. Abu-Nimer M. Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research. 2001;38(6):685-704. doi:10.1177/0022343301038006003.
4. World Council of Churches. Guidelines for dialogue and relations with people of other religions. Geneva: World Council of Churches; 2002.
5. Tabassi E. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023. doi:10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
6. Abu-Nimer M, Nelson RK, editors. Evaluating interreligious peacebuilding and dialogue: methods and frameworks. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter; 2021. doi:10.1515/9783110624625.
7. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly. 2004;28(1):75-105. doi:10.2307/25148625.
8. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2007;24(3):45-77. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
9. Franco-Santos M, Lucianetti L, Bourne M. Contemporary performance measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research. 2012;23(2):79-119. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001.
10. MoghadasNian SAH, AlizadehMousavi SM, HosseinPoor SMM, Bagheri A. Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF): a KPI-based strategic architecture for intra-faith dialogue, institutional governance, and civilizational unity [preprint]. SSRN; 2025. doi:10.2139/ssrn.6011734.
11. MoghadasNian SAH, AlizadehMousavi SM, HosseinPoor SMM, Bagheri A. Ecumenical performance analytics: a KPI framework for Christian unity and institutional dialogue [preprint]. SSRN; 2025. doi:10.2139/ssrn.6012834.
12. OECD, European Union, European Commission Joint Research Centre. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2008. doi:10.1787/9789264043466-en.
13. Driessen MD. Interreligious dialogue, conflict resolution and peacebuilding: a review. Religions. 2025;16(2):150. doi:10.3390/rel16020150.
14. Clooney FX. Comparative theology: deep learning across religious borders. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. doi:10.1002/9781444318951.
15. Cornille C, editor. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to inter-religious dialogue. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. doi:10.1002/9781118529911.
16. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;90(5):751-783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.
17. Gregor S, Hevner AR. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly. 2013;37(2):337-355. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01.
18. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health. 2018;6:149. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
19. Raji ID, Smart A, White RN, Mitchell M, Gebru T, Hutchinson B, et al. Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2020:33-44. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372873.
20. MoghadasNian SAH. Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework (IDDF): a KPI-oriented architecture for Abrahamic unity. University of Religions and Denominations; 2025. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.13026.85443.
21. MoghadasNian SAH, AlizadehMousavi SM, HosseinPoor SMM, Farmanian M, Bagheri A. Governing legitimate difference: a comparative design-science framework for Islamic taqrib, Christian ecumenism and the Karamah of Difference Index. 2026. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21094920.
22. MoghadasNian SAH. TGE-360: a mature, executable and evidence-governed Taqrīb Governance Ecosystem. University of Religions and Denominations; 2026. ResearchGate. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.30521.53601.
