Statement of the problem: Art doctoral dissertations reflect intellectual and methodological paradigms; however, a systematic and theoretically-driven analysis of the patterns governing them, particularly in Iran, has not yet been conducted.
Objective and research question: This study aims to explain the paradigmatic, thematic, and methodological patterns governing doctoral dissertations in art at the University of Art (2019–2023), and addresses the question: “What patterns have been dominant in these dissertations, and how can they be interpreted in light of theories from the sociology of science?”
Theoretical framework: The explanatory framework integrates Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) theory of “scientific paradigms” and Pierre Bourdieu’s (1975) theory of the “scientific field,” both employed as interpretive lenses for reading the observed patterns.
Research method: This qualitative study adopts a documentary thematic analysis approach. The corpus consists of 59 doctoral dissertations defended in the fields of Art Research and Comparative and Analytical History of Islamic Art at the University of Art. Data were analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis logic through cyclical coding, constant comparison, and validated by means of peer audit and theoretical triangulation.

**Findings:** Four overarching themes were identified: 1. the dominance of “the contemporary” over more distant historical periods; 2. the hegemony of library-based methods (73%) and a meagre share of fieldwork; 3. the paradigm of description (81% descriptive aims) and the complete absence of developmental research; 4. the missing link of interdisciplinarity and an overemphasis on technique.

**Conclusion:** The dominant patterns can be cautiously interpreted under Kuhn’s “normal science” and Bourdieu’s “scientific habitus”; a transition to innovative methodologies requires changes in institutional structures and scientific capital.