Türkiye Merkezli Akademik Dergilerde Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorilerinin Yeri

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye merkezli akademik dergilerde yayımlanan uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi konulu makaleleri inceleyerek Türkiye’deki teorik tartışmaların konumunu analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada, Web of Science veri tabanında taranan ve uluslararası ilişkileri doğrudan veya dolaylı çalışma alanı olarak kabul eden Türkiye menşeili 10 akademik dergide yayımlanmış 6.105 makale taranmış, bunlardan 2.363’ünün uluslararası ilişkiler alanına ait olduğu, 354’ünün ise doğrudan uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri ile ilgili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Doküman analizi yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen inceleme, Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarının ağırlıklı olarak teori odaklı örnek olay analizlerine dayandığını, özgün teori üretme veya meta-teorik katkıların sınırlı düzeyde kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, Türkiye akademisinin küresel teori tartışmalarına kısmen dahil olmakla birlikte hâlen Batı-merkezli teorilerden yoğun biçimde yararlandığını göstermektedir. Realizm ve liberalizm en fazla başvurulan teoriler olurken son yıllarda konstrüktivizm, Kopenhag Okulu ve Batı-dışı teori çalışmaları da dikkat çekici bir artış göstermektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye’deki akademik dergilerin uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerine yaklaşımını haritalandırarak, disiplinin merkez-çevre tartışması bağlamında Türkiye’nin teorik üretim ve tüketim konumunu değerlendirmekte ve literatüre özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teori
• Türkiye
• Batı
• Batı-Dışı
• Batı-Sonrası

The Place of International Relations Theories in Türkiye-Based Academic Journals

Abstract

This study examines the position of theoretical debates in Türkiye by analyzing articles on international relations theory published in Türkiye-based academic journals. The research reviewed 6,105 articles published in 10 Turkish academic journals indexed in the Web of Science database, all of which directly or indirectly focus on international relations. Among these, 2,363 articles were identified as related to the field of international relations, and 354 were specifically concerned with international relations theories. Employing document analysis, the study finds that international relations scholarship in Türkiye predominantly relies on theory-oriented case studies, while the production of original theories and meta-theoretical contributions remains limited. The findings indicate that although Turkish academia is partially engaged in global theoretical debates, it continues to rely heavily on Western-centric theories. Realism and liberalism emerge as the most frequently referenced approaches, yet constructivism, the Copenhagen School, and non-Western theoretical perspectives have shown a notable increase in recent years. By mapping the treatment of international relations theories in Türkiye-based academic journals, the study evaluates Türkiye’s position within the center–periphery debate on theoretical production and consumption, offering an original contribution to the literature.

Keywords

• Theory
• Türkiye
• West
• Non-West
• Post-West

References

1. Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the West. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39 (3), 619-637.
2. Acharya, A. (2019). Towards global international relations. A. Acharya & B. Buzan (Eds.), The making of global international relations origins and evolution of IR at its centenary (285-320). Cambridge University Press
3. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/7.3.287.
4. Agarwal, A. (2021). Going beyond the add-and-stir critique: Tracing the hybrid masculinist legacies of the performative state. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 63-83.
5. Alker, H., & Biersteker, T. (1984). The dialectics of world order: Notes for a future archeologist of international savoir faire. International Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 121–142.
6. Andrews, N. (2020). International relations (IR) pedagogy, dialogue, and diversity: Taking the IR course syllabus seriously. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 9(2), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.716687.
7. Aydın, M., & Yazgan, K. (2013). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler akademisyenleri eğitim, araştırma ve uluslararası politika anketi – 2011. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 9(36), 3-44.
8. Aydın, M., & Dizdaroğlu, C. (2019). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler: TRIP 2018 sonuçları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 16(64), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.652877

9. Aydınlı, E., Kurubaş, E., & Özdemir, H. (2014). Yöntem, kuram, komplo: Türk uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde vizyon arayışları. Küre Yayınları.
10. Aydınlı, E., & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3585.00013.
11. Aydınlı, E., & Mathews, J. (2008). Periphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: Spinning IR theory out of Anatolia. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210508008095.
12. Aydınlı, E., & Biltekin, G. (2017). Time to quantify Turkey’s foreign affairs: Setting quality standards for a maturing international relations discipline. International Studies Perspectives, 18(3), 272. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekx013.
13. Aydınlı, E., & Biltekin, G. (2017). Widening the world of IR: A typology of homegrown theorizing. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 7(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.328427
14. Aydınlı, E., & Erpul, O. (2022). The false promise of global IR: Exposing the paradox of dependent development. International Theory, 14(3), 419-459.
15. Aydınlı, E., & Aydınlı, J. (2024). Exposing linguistic imperialism: Why global IR has to be multilingual. Review of International Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210523000700.
16. Babones, S. (2020), From Tianxia to Tianxia: The generalization of a concept. Chinese Political Science Review, 5(2), 131-147.
17. Behera, N. C. (2007). Re–imagining IR in India. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 7 (3), 341–68.
18. Bilgin, P. (2005). Uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarında “merkez-çevre”: Türkiye nerede?. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2(6), 8-10.
19. Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past Western IR. Third World Quarterly, 29 (1), 5-23.
20. Bilgin, P. (2016). Contrapuntal reading as a method, an ethos, and a metaphor for global IR. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 134–146,
21. Bilgin, P. (2018). How to globalise IR?. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/04/22/how-to-globalise-ir/], Retrieved on March 5, 2025.
22. Bilgin, P., & Tanrısever, O. F. (2009). A telling story of IR in the periphery: Telling Turkey about the world, telling the world about Turkey. Journal of International Relations and Development, 12(2), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.8.
23. Breuning, M., Bredehoft, J., & Walton, E. (2005). Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4), 447-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00206.
24. Breuning, M., Feinberg, A., Gross, B. I., Martinez, M., Sharma, R., & Ishiyama, J. (2018). How international is political science? Patterns of submission and publication in the American Political Science Review. PS: Political Science & Politics , 51(4), 789-798.
25. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
26. Callahan, W. A. (2008). Chinese visions of world order: post-hegemonic or a new hegemony?. International Studies Review, 10(4), 749-761.
27. Dankbaar, S. (2012). The U.S. monopoly in international relations and history: A comparative analysis of leading academic journals. University of Groningen Press.
28. Drulák, P., & Druláková, R. (2000). International relations in the Czech Republic: A review of the discipline. Journal of International Relations and Development, 3(3), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800073.
29. Friedrichs, Jörg (2004). European approaches to international relations theory: A house with many mansions. Routledge Press.
30. Grosser, A. (1956). L'étude des relations internationales, spécialité américaine?. Revue Française de Science Politique, 6(3), 634-651.
31. Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics Western international theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge University Press.
32. Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41-60.
33. Holsti, K. J. (1985). The dividing discipline: Hegemony and diversity in international theory. Allen & Unwin Press.
34. Hutchings, K. (2011). Dialogue between whom? The role of the West/non-West distinction in promoting global dialogue in IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 39(3), 639-647.
35. Ikenberry, G. J., & Mastanduno, M. (2003). Conclusion: Images of order in the Asia- Pacific and the role of the United States. G. J. Ikenberry & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), International relations theory and the Asia- Pacific (421-439). Columbia University Press.
36. İşeri, E., & Esentürk, N. (2016). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmaları: Merkez-çevre yaklaşımı. Elektronik Mesleki Gelişim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 4(2), 29-43.
37. Keyman, F., & Ülkü, N. E. (2007). Türkiye üniversitelerinde uluslararası ilişkiler ders müfredatı. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 4(13), 99-106.
38. Köstem, S. (2015). International relations theories and Turkish international relations: Observations based on a book. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 4(1), 59-66.
39. Kristensen, P. M. (2012). Dividing discipline: Structures of communication in international relations. International Studies Review, 14(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01061.
40. Kristensen, P. M. (2019). Southern sensibilities advancing third wave sociology of international relations in the case of Brazil. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22 (2), 468-494.
41. Küçük, M. (2009). Uluslararası ilişkileri kuramında “konstrüktivist dönüşü” anlamak. Ege Akademik Bakış, 9(2), 771-795.
42. Lake, D. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 567–587.
43. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Benign hegemony. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 147-149.
44. Milani, C. R. S. (2021). The foundation and development of International Relations in Brazil. Review of International Studies, 47(5), 617-636. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000432.
45. Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221-230.
46. Özkoç, Ö., & Çağlayan, P. (2023). The trajectory of international relations dissertations in Turkish academia between 2000 and 2020. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(1), 123-140.
47. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge.
48. Por, S. S. (2020). Tianxia: China’s concept of international order. Global Asia, 15(2), 43-50.
49. Porter, Tony (2001). Can there be national perspectives on inter(national) relations?. R. Crawford & D.S.L. Jarvis (Eds.), International Relations — Still an American Social Science? (131–47). State University of New York Press.
50. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Polity Press.
51. Schmidt, B. (2008). International relations theory: Hegemony or pluralism?. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36(2), 295–304.
52. Shahi, D. (2014). Arthashastra beyond realpolitik: The 'eclectic' face of Kautilya. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(41), 68-74.
53. Shahi, D. (2018). Kautilya and non-Western IR theory. Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Sil, R. & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytical eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2), 411–423.
55. Sula, İ. E., Sarı, B., & Lüleci-Sula, Ç. (2023). From prescription to treatment: The disciplinary (under)achievement of IR in Turkey. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(2), 261-280.
56. Sula, İ. E. (2022). ‘Global’ IR and self-reflections in Turkey: Methodology, data collection, and data repository. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 11(1), 139-154.
57. Talibu, O. (2023). A bridge-theory of international relations: Hegemonic stability theory revisited. Journal of Political Discourse. 1(4), 137-147.
58. Tickner, A. B. (2003). Hearing Latin American voices in international relations studies. International Studies Perspectives, 4(4), 341-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3585.00099.
59. Tow, W. T. (2002). International relations and foreign policy in the Australian Journal of Political Science: A review. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 628-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2015.1091534.
60. Teaching, Research & International Policy. (2024). Faculty surveys. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2024).
61. Turton, H. L. (2016). International relations and American dominance: A diverse discipline. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
62. Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi. (2024). Önceki kongreler. https://uikkongre.com/onceki-kongreler/, (Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2024).
63. Wach, E. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis (Practice Paper in Brief 13). Institute of Development Studies.
64. Wæver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687-727. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550688.
65. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Bell, N. J., Morales, M. N., & Tierney, M. J. (2016). The IR of the beholder: Examining global IR using the 2014 TRIP survey. International Studies Review, 18(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw003.
66. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Kristensen, P. M., & Lohaus, M. (2022). The global division of labor in a not so global discipline. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 11(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1034358.
67. Xuetomg, Y. (2010). The instability of China–US relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(3), 263-292.