Mapping the Academic Discourse on Sharia and Conventional Monetary Frameworks

Abstract

This study aims to map the academic discourse on sharia and conventional monetary frameworks by examining dominance, differentiation, and future research directions. Using a qualitative research design with bibliometric analysis and in-depth interviews with academics, regulators, and practitioners, the study explores how literature in both frameworks develops and interacts. Findings reveal that conventional monetary studies remain dominant in quantity and global influence, primarily shaped by Western academic institutions, while sharia monetary studies are rapidly growing in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The research also identifies significant gaps: sharia studies are limited in addressing global macroeconomic policies, whereas conventional literature rarely incorporates ethical and social justice dimensions. However, an integrative trend emerges, with increasing efforts to build hybrid models that combine technical stability and ethical inclusiveness. Theoretically, this study contributes by offering a dialogical mapping of discourse beyond dichotomy, while practically, it highlights opportunities for policy innovation through the integration of sharia and conventional approaches. Limitations include restricted data scope, suggesting the need for future research that broadens contexts and empirical validation.