Introduction
Recent studies on federalism indicate that this system functions not only as an institutional mechanism for the distribution of power, but also as a framework for safeguarding minority rights, enhancing political participation, and improving governmental efficiency. The tri‑dimensional federalism model, which introduces a third institutional pillar into federal structures, seeks to provide a comprehensive explanation of the complex interactions between central governments and federal units. This model is particularly significant in societies characterized by high cultural and political diversity, as it offers mechanisms for conflict management and the reduction of regional tensions. Interdisciplinary approaches drawing on cognitive science and factor analysis have enabled a more refined examination of elites’ mental frameworks. These approaches move beyond purely institutional analyses to explore beliefs, attitudes, and cognitive patterns related to federalism, and to assess their influence on macro‑level policymaking. Their importance is heightened in political contexts where decisions are strongly shaped by cognitive, cultural, and perceptual factors. The present study aims to identify and analyze national‑level elites’ cognitive patterns regarding federal governance. Using Principal Component Analysis and the Kaiser–Guttman criterion, three dominant cognitive patterns were extracted, jointly explaining more than 79% of the total variance. By adopting this perspective, the study addresses existing gaps in the federalism literature, offers new insights for future research on multi‑level governance and local administration, and provides practical guidance for policymakers seeking to design balanced and efficient governance systems.
 
Methodology
This applied study employs a descriptive–analytical design to examine the implications of federal governance for Iran’s geopolitical capacity using Q‑methodology. This method was selected for its capacity to systematically identify and analyze individuals’ mentalities and viewpoints, particularly those of elites and experts. Q‑methodology integrates qualitative and quantitative techniques and, unlike conventional variable‑centered approaches, focuses on individuals and their subjective cognitive patterns. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their direct relevance to the research topic, resulting in a relatively small yet information‑rich sample. Q‑methodology is widely used in political and social research where the analysis of complex and multifaceted elite perspectives is essential, as it enables the identification of latent cognitive patterns and attitudes toward broad and abstract concepts such as federalism and geopolitics.
Findings
The analysis identified three dominant cognitive patterns. In Cognitive Pattern A, the most salient statements were:
“State‑level managers originate from the same state, live close to the people, and possess greater familiarity with local problems.”
“At the regional level, harmful tensions should be resolved in order to advance a strategy of peaceful coexistence with neighboring and transregional countries, avoiding provocative or expansionist policies.”
“States and smaller territorial units enjoy autonomy in internal affairs and can manage their issues in accordance with local customs and preferences.”
Cognitive Pattern B was characterized by the following key statements:
“The avoidance of excessive bureaucracy.”
“Given military weakness, the country is vulnerable to external aggression.”
“The central government intervenes only in areas of shared national interest, such as defense, foreign policy, and communications.”
Cognitive Pattern C emphasized:
“The right of states to legislate and adopt policies while preserving their cultural identity and customs.”
“The central government intervenes only in areas of shared national interest, such as defense, foreign policy, and communications.”
 
Discussion and Conclusion
Using Principal Component Analysis and the Kaiser–Guttman criterion, this study identified three principal cognitive patterns among elites regarding federal governance at the national level, accounting for more than 79% of attitudinal variance. These patterns reflect the complex and multidimensional mental structures of Iran’s political and academic elites and mirror the country’s distinctive geopolitical, cultural, and institutional conditions. A more detailed interpretation shows that Cognitive Pattern A (Q‑A) emphasizes the importance of local managers who originate from and are embedded in their regions, advocating a form of localized governance that political geography associates with enhanced legitimacy and administrative efficiency. It also underscores the necessity of peaceful regional and foreign policies, reflecting a pragmatic elite perspective on Iran’s geopolitical realities and the management of regional tensions. Cognitive Pattern B (Q‑B) highlights institutional and structural concerns, particularly the avoidance of excessive bureaucracy and the restriction of central government intervention to core national domains such as defense and foreign affairs. This pattern reflects elite apprehensions about administrative complexity and over‑centralization, which may undermine governance efficiency, as well as heightened sensitivity to security vulnerabilities and the need for national cohesion. Cognitive Pattern C (Q‑C) places strong emphasis on the preservation of cultural identity and local customs, advocating states’ legislative authority within a framework in which the central government intervenes only in shared and strategic interests. This perspective aligns with multidimensional theories of federalism that stress cultural and political autonomy for diverse communities, indicating an elite preference for balancing national unity with cultural and political rights. Taken together, these cognitive patterns reveal a nuanced balance between local autonomy and national cohesion, a core challenge in the federalism literature. The findings suggest that Iranian elites tend to favor a federal governance model that respects cultural and geographical diversity, limits excessive centralization, and promotes balanced development and broader political participation. More broadly, the study demonstrates the value of interdisciplinary and cognitive approaches in capturing the complexities of federal governance, as analyzing elites’ mental frameworks beyond formal institutional structures provides deeper insight into the beliefs shaping macro‑level policy design.