Uluslararası İlişkilerde Nitel Yöntemlerle Makale Yazımı: Vaka Analizi ve İncelikleri

Abstract

Uluslararası ilişkiler alanındaki araştırmalarda, sosyal bilimler alanının genelinde olduğu gibi nicel ve nitel yöntemler net bir şekilde ayrılmakta, nicel yöntemlerin bilimsellik, genellenebilirlik ve objektif bilgi üretme konusunda nitel yöntemler üzerinde hiyerarşik üstünlüğü yaygın olarak kabul görmektedir. Bu makale, anılan ön kabulü sorgulamakta, nitel yöntemlerin genellenebilir ve objektif bilgi üretmesi için gerekli koşulları vaka analizi yöntemi üzerinden göstermektedir. Makale vaka analizinin salt bir yöntem olmadığını, tek bir ya da birkaç olay, bölge ya da politika alanının derinlemesine incelenmesinin ötesinde araştırma dizaynının kritik bir parçası olduğunu göstermektedir. Makalede ilk önce nitel vaka analizi tanımlanmakta ve vaka türleri ve vaka seçim kriterleri uluslararası yöntem literatüründen hareketle sonrasında da uluslararası ilişkiler alanında yayınlanmış İngilizce ve Türkçe makalelerden örnekler verilerek tanıtılmaktadır. Sonrasında ise makale vaka analizlerinin nitel olarak gerçekleştirilmesi durumunda nedensel etki ve nedensel süreç analizlerinin nasıl yapılacağı ortaya koymak için vakalar-arası analiz ve vaka-içi analiz tekniklerini tartışmaktadır.

Keywords

• Vaka çalışması
• vaka analizi
• vaka seçimi
• süreç izleme
• üçgenleme
• karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi

References

1. Abell, P. (2004). Narrative explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation?. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 287-310.
2. Anckar, C. (2008). “On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11/5, 389-401
3. Barkin, S. (2008). “‘Qualitative’ Methods”, Qualitative Methods Methods in International Relations, (A. Klotz ve D. Prakash), Palgrave Macmillan, 211-220.
4. Beach, D., & Rohlfing, I. (2018). “Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of debate” Sociological Methods & Research, 47/1, 3-36.
5. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2014). “Case studies and (causal-) process tracing”, Comparative policy studies (pp. 59-83). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
6. Brady, H. E. (2004). “Data-set observations versus causal-process observations: The 2000 US presidential election”, Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, 267-272.
7. Bartolini, S. (1993). “On time and comparative research”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5, 131–167.
8. Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) “Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, 13/4, 544-559.

9. Bennett, A. (2004). “Case study methods: Design, use, and comparative advantages. Models, numbers, and cases: Methods for studying international relations”, 19-55.
10. Cebeci, M. (2019). “Deconstructing the EU’s “Standards of Civilisation”: The Case of Turkey“, Uluslararasi İliskiler, 16/ 64, 77-91.
11. Collier, D. (2010). Process tracing: introduction and exercises. Beta Version, September, 22, 2010.
12. Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, 2.
13. Çakmak, F., & Bilişli, Y. (2019). İdeoloji, Söylem ve İletişim Çalışmalarında Ruth Wodak. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(2).
14. Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in developing human resources, 4(3), 335-354.
15. Fearon, J. D. (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World Politics: A Quarterly Journal of International Relations, 169-195.
16. Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2006). “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research”, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 219-245. DOI: 10.1177/1077800405284363
17. George, A. L., Bennett, A., Lynn-Jones, S. M., & Miller, S. E. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. mit Press.
18. George, A. L. 1979. Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison. In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy, edited by P. G. Lauren. New York: Free Press.
19. Gerring, J. (2005). Causation: A unified framework for the social sciences. Journal of theoretical politics, 17(2), 163-198.
20. Goertz, G. (2006). Assessing the trivialness, relevance, and relative importance of necessary or sufficient conditions in social science. Studies in comparative international development, 41(2), 88-109.
21. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1967). The affluent worker and the thesis of embourgeoisement: Some preliminary research findings. Sociology, 1(1), 11-31.
22. Hoffmann, Matthew J. (2008), “Agent-based Modeling”, in Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa, Qualitative Methods Methods in International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 187-210.
23. Işık, E., & Semerci, Ç. Nitel Araştırmalarda Veri Üçgenlemesi Olarak Odak Grup Görüşmesi, Bireysel Görüşme ve Gözlem. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 6(3), 53-66.
24. Jackson, S. L. (2008) Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
25. Klotz, Audie (2008). “Introduction” in Klotz, Audie and Prakash, Deepa, Qualitative Methods, Methods in International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, 1-10.
26. Kuru, A. T. (2011). Pasif ve Dışlayıcı Laiklik ABD. Fransa ve Türkiye, Çev: Eylem Çağdaş Babaoğlu, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
27. Kuyumcuoğlu, Ozan, “Geç Osmanlı’dan Erken Cumhuriyet’e Siyasal Seçkinlerin Suriye’ye Bakışı: Hüseyin Cahit Yalçın ve Falih Rıfkı Atay Örnekleri”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 16, Sayı 64, 2019, s. 107-126, DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.589445.
28. Levy, J. S. 2002. Qualitative methods in international relations. In Brecher, M., and F. P. Harvey, eds. Millennial reflections on international studies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 432–454., s. 442.
29. Levy, J., & Goertz, G. (Eds.). (2007). Explaining war and peace: Case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals. Routledge. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65, 682–693. Mahoney, J. (2015). Process tracing and historical explanation. Security Studies, 24(2), 200-218.
30. Mahoney, J, ve Goertz, G. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Political Analysis, Summer 2006, Vol. 14, No. 3, Special Issue on Causal Complexity and Qualitative Methods (Summer 2006), pp. 227-249.
31. Martin, I. (2001). Self-determination in East Timor: The United Nations, the ballot, and international intervention. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Peters, B.G. (1998). Comparative politics: Theory and methods. Houndmills: Palgrave. Rohlfing, I. (2013). Varieties of process tracing and ways to answer why-questions. European Political Science, 12(1), 31-39.
32. Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case studies and causal inference: An integrative framework. Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Ruggie, J. G. (1992). Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution. International Organization 46 (3), 561-98. Seawright, J. and Collier, D. (2004) ‘Glossary of Selected Terms’, in Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield), 273–313. Sandelowski, M. (1991). Telling stories: Narrative approaches in qualitative research. Image: the journal of nursing scholarship, 23(3), 161-166.
34. Sehgal, R. (2011), Kashmir Conflict: Solutions and Demand for Self-Determination (2011). International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1, No. 6..
35. Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (1992). Labour's grass roots: The politics of party membership. Oxford University Press.
36. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded Theory Methodology. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications 273-286.
37. Tellis, W. (1997) Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report 3 (3) 1-17.
38. Turan, İ. (2012). Area and International Studies in Turkey: The Case of the United States, All Azimuth, Vol. No.1, 50-63.
39. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40. Yin, Robert (2009 [1984]) Case Study Research (Thousand Oaks: Sage).