Quo Vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s Footsteps within the Global

Abstract

The International Relations (IR) discipline is ascendant because of the theoretical and methodological divisions and controversies within. As it is mostly placed in the Non-Western IR category, Turkish IR is an interesting case in that it reveals the temporal changes of theoretical debates in IR and their local resonance from the purview of a geography that is jammed between the West and the rest. For this reason, this paper examines the literature on the Turkish School of IR (if there is any) and draws some conclusions regarding its current state. This research first utilizes the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys conducted by the International Relations Council of Turkey (IRCT) between 2007 and 2018. More extensively, the top 20 journals categorized under Google Scholar’s “Diplomacy and International Relations” list are coded based on their titles containing “Turkey.” Articles from the 1922–2021 period are then analyzed considering their authors, abstracts, and keywords. From this analysis, the study finds that studies focusing on Turkey have improved over the years, although there is a need for more theoretical and methodological advancements. As a “peripheral” country in IR, Turkey is still a subject of study by the “center” countries.

Keywords

• Turkey
• Global IR
• International Relations
• Non-Western IR

References

1. Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647-659.
2. Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287-312.
3. ———. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten Years On.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 17, no. 3 (2017): 341-370.
4. Alatas, Syed Farid. “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 51, no. 6 (2003): 599-613.
5. ———. “Knowledge Hegemonies and Autonomous Knowledge.” Third World Quarterly (2022): 1-18.
6. ———. “Academic Imperialism.” The History Society. Class lecture, University of Singapore, Queenstown, SG, 1969.
7. Aydın, Mustafa. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenlerinin Bilimsel Araştırma ve Uygulamaları ile Disipline Bakış Açıları ve Siyasi Tutumları Anketi [Survey of Turkish International Relations Scholars’ Scientific Research and Practices Based on their Disciplinary Perspectives and Political Dispositions].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 4, no. 15 (2007): 1–31.
8. Aydın, Mustafa, and Cihan Dizdaroğlu. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler: TRIP 2018 Sonuçları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme [International Relations in Turkey: An Assessment of the Results of the 2018 TRIP Survey].” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 16, no. 64 (December 1, 2019): 3–28. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.652877.

9. Aydın, Mustafa, Fulya Hisarlioğlu, and Korhan Yazgan. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri ve Alana Yönelik Yaklaşımları Üzerine Bir İnceleme: TRIP 2014 Sonuçları [An Investigation of International Relations Academics and their Approaches to the Field: TRIP 2014 Results].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 12, no. 48 (2016): 3–35.
10. Aydın, Mustafa, and Korhan Yazgan. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri Araştırma, Eğitim ve Disiplin Değerlendirmeleri Anketi-2009 [Survey of Turkish International Relations Academics’ Assessment on Research, Education and the Discipline -2009].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 7, no. 25 (2010): 3–42.
11. ———. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri Eğitim, Araştırma ve Uluslararası Politika Anketi-2011 [International Relations Scholars in Turkey Education, Research, and International Politics Survey-2011].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 9, no. 36 (2013: 3-44.
12. Aydınlı, Ersel. “Methodological Poverty and Disciplinary Underdevelopment in IR.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 8, no. 2 (2019): 109-115.
13. ———. “Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-reflections on Dialogue with the Core,” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 13, no. 2 (2020): 287-312.
14. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Time to Quantify Turkey’s Foreign Affairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations Discipline.” International Studies Perspectives 18 (2017): 267-287.
15. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289-303.
16. ———. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693-712.
17. Beigel, Fernanda. “Academic Dependency.” Alternautas 2, no. 1 (2015): 60-62.
18. Bilgin, Pınar, and Oktay F. Tanrısever. “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 (2009): 174-179.
19. Coşar, Simten and Hakan Ergül. “Free-Marketization of Academia through Authoritarianism: The Bologna Process in Turkey.”A Journal of Critical Social Research 26, (2015): 101-124.
20. Erozan, Boğaç. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Uzak Tarihi: Hukuk-ı Düvel (1859-1945) [A Long History of the International Relations Discipline in Turkey: International Law.” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 11, no. 43 (2014): 53-80.
21. Göçer, Derya and Şenyuva, Özgehan. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplini ve Niteliksel Yöntem: Türkiye’de Göç Çalışmaları Örneği [The Discipline of International Relations and Qualitative Methods: Migration Studies in Turkey].” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 18, no. 72 (2021): 19-36.
22. İşeri, Emre and Nevra Esentürk. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmaları: Merkez-Çevre Yaklaşımı [International Relations Studies in Turkey: Center-Periphery Perspective].” Elektronik Mesleki Gelişim ve Araştırma Dergisi 2016, no. 2 (2016): 17–33, www.ejoir.org.
23. Karacasulu, Nilüfer. “International Relations Studies in Turkey: Theoretical Considerations.” Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika 8, no. 29 (2012): 143-160.
24. Kentmen-Çin, Çiğdem and Canan-Sokullu, Ebru. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Öğrencisinin Sayılardan Korkusu ve Bu Korkuyu Aşmanın Yolları [International Relations Students' Fear of Numbers and How to Overcome this Fear].” In Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Eğitimi: Yeni Yaklaşımlar, Yeni Yöntemler [International Relations Education in Turkey: New Approaches, New Methods, edited by Ebru Canan-Sokullu, 209-232. İstanbul, Turkey: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2018.
25. Köstem, Seçkin. “International Relations Theories and Turkish International Relations: Observations Based on a Book.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 4, no. 1 (2015): 59-66.
26. Kristensen, Peter Marcus. “How Can Emerging Powers Speak? On theorists, Native Informants and Quasi-Officials in International Relations Discourse.” Third World Quarterly 36, no. 4 (2015): 637-53.
27. Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. “The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era.” PloS one 10, no. 6 (2015): 1-15.
28. Lohaus, Mathis, Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, and Olivia Ding. “Bifurcated Core, Diverse Scholarship: IR Research in Seventeen Journals around the World.” Global Studies Quarterly 1, no. 4 (2021): 1-16.
29. Li, Quan. “The Second Great Debate Revisited: Exploring the Impact of the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide in International Relations.” International Studies Review 21, no. 3 (2019): 447-476.
30. Mehmetcik, Hakan, and Hakan Hakses. “Turkish IR Journals through a Bibliometric Lens.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 12, no. 1 (2023): 61-84.
31. Mikelis, Kyriakos. “Lessons Learned from the Development of Turkish IR: A View from Greece.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 12, no. 1 (2023): 45-60.
32. Okur, Mehmet Akif, and Cavit Aytekin. “Non-Western Theories in International Relations Education and Research: The Case of Turkey/Turkish Academia.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 12, no. 1 (2023): 19-44.
33. Özkoç, Özge, and Pınar Çağlayan. “The Trajectory of International Relations Dissertations in Turkish Academia Between 2000 and 2020.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 12, no. 1 (2023): 107-128.
34. Shani, Giorgio. “Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 722-734.
35. Smith, Steve. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’.” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67-85.
36. Stillman, Calvin W. “Academic Imperialism and Its resolution: The Case of Economics and Anthropology.” American Scientist 43, no. 1 (1955): 77–88.
37. Sula, İsmail Erkam. “‘Global’ IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and Data Repository.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 11, no. 1 (2022): 123-42.
38. Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, Rahime. “The Sociology of Diplomats and Foreign Policy Sector: The Role of Cliques on the Policy-Making Process.” Political Studies Review 19, no. 4 (November 1, 2021): 558–73.
39. Şatana, Nil S. “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Bilimsellik, Metodoloji ve Yöntem [Scientificity, Methodology and Method in International Relations].” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 12, no. 46 (2015): 11-33.
40. Tenzin, Jinba, and Chengpang Lee. “Are We Still Dependent? Academic Dependency Theory After 20 Years.” Journal of Historical Sociology 35, no. 1 (2022): 2-13.
41. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver (edited by). International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York: Routledge, 2009.
42. Turan, İlter. “Progress in Turkish International Relations.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 7, no. 1 (2018): 137-42.
43. Umit, Resul. “Turnaround Times and Acceptance Rates in Political Science Journals.” Blog. July 6, 2021. https:// resulumit.com/blog/polisci-turnaround-acceptance/
44. Wæver, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687-727.
45. Zeiny, Esmaeil. “Academic Imperialism: Towards Decolonisation of English Literature in Iranian Universities.” Asian Journal of Social Science 47, no. 1 (2019): 88-109.