From Prescription to Treatment: The Disciplinary (under)Achievement of IR in Turkey

Abstract

International Relations (IR) in Turkey has been assessed by scholars on topics, including but not limited to the need to increase contributions from Turkish IR scholars to theoretical discussions, the need for homegrown theorizing, and to improve the methodological quality of IR research originating in Turkey. This literature has revolved around the diagnosis of and prescriptions for what is referred to as the ‘disciplinary underachievement’ of IR in Turkey. Recently, an increasing number of scholars have focused on disciplinary self-reflection discussing the limitations and prospects in the state of IR discipline in Turkey. Adding to this emergent literature, this paper identifies the reasons for the ‘disciplinary underachievement’ in Turkish IR. The paper discusses the conditions that hamper IR education in Turkey under three groups: 1) the structure and content of undergraduate and graduate curricula, 2) the state of IR as an academic discipline in Turkey, and 3) the state of IR literature in Turkish. The paper also offers suggestions for a prospective treatment to improve the state of the IR discipline and pedagogy in Turkey. It argues that an improvement in the quality of IR education has significant potential to contribute to further inclusion of locally produced IR knowledge into ‘global IR,’ which is widely cited in the existing literature as a significant sign of ‘disciplinary progress.’

Keywords

• Global IR
• Pedagogy
• Methodology
• Self-reflection
• Turkey

Thanks

An earlier version of this research was presented at the 6th All Annual Azimuth Workshop: “Think Global Act Local: The Globalization of Turkish IR”, Bilkent University. November 6-7, 2021, Ankara. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions received from the participants of, and discussions at, the workshop. The authors also appreciate the comments and contributions of the anonymous reviewers of All Azimuth.

References

1. 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.
2. Aydın, Mustafa, and Korhan Yazgan. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Akademisyenleri Araştırma, Eğitim ve Disiplin Değerlendirmeleri Anketi-2009 [Survey Assessing Research, Education and Discipline of International Relations Academics in Turkey-2009].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 7, no. 25 (2010): 3–42.
3. Aydın, Mustafa, and Korhan Yazgan. “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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Aydinli, Ersel. “Methodological Poverty and Disciplinary Underdevelopment in IR.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 8, no. 2 (January 22, 2019): 109–15. http://dergipark.gov.tr/doi/10.20991/ allazimuth.513139.
7. Aydinli, Ersel. “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 (June 1, 2020): 287–312.
8. Aydinli, Ersel. “Opening Speech.” In 2ndPolitics and International Relations Congress. Trabzon - Turkey: Karadeniz Technical University. 2018. Available from: https://youtu.be/xz-R7FUWzq0, (Retrieved: 30.10.2021).

9. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Time to Quantify Turkey’s Foreign Affairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations Discipline.” International Studies Perspectives 18, no. 3 (2017): 267–87.
10. Aydinli, 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 (December 2000): 289–303. https://academic.oup.com/isp/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/1528-3577.00028.
11. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (October 1, 2008a): 693–712.
12. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Turkey: Towards Homegrown Theorizing and Building a Disciplinary Community.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 208-22. London: Routledge, 2009.
13. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Türkiye Uluslararası Ilişkiler Disiplininde Özgün Kuram Potansiyeli: Anadolu Ekolünü Oluşturmak Mümkün Mü [Homegrown Scholarship Potential of Turkish International Relations: Is it Possible to Create and Anatolian School?]?” Uluslararasi Iliskiler 5, no. 17 (2008): 161–87.
14. Baldwin, David A. “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,” International Organization 34, no. 4 (1980): 471–506.
15. Bilgin, Pinar, and Oktay F Tanrisever. “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, no. 2 (June 11, 2009): 174–79. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.5.
16. Bilgin, Pınar. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmalarında ‘Merkez-Çevre’: Türkiye Nerede? [‘Center-Periphery’ in International Relations Studies: Where is Turkey?]” Uluslararası İlişkiler 2, no. 6 (2005): 3–14.
17. Dedeoğlu, Beril. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmaları ve Eğitimi Çalıştayı (16-17 Nisan 2005) Üzerine [On International Relations Research and Education in Turkey Workshop (16-17 April, 2005)].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 2, no. 6 (2005): 151–55.
18. Guzzini, Stefano. “The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2005): 495–521.
19. Hoffman, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41–60.
20. 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.
21. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge, 2011.
22. Keyman, E. Fuat, and N Esra Ülkü. “Türkiye Üniversitelerinde Uluslararası İlişkiler Ders Müfredatı [International Relations Curriculum in Turkish Universities).” Uluslararası İlişkiler 4, no. 13 (2007): 99–106.
23. Kurubaş, Erol. “Türkiye Uluslararası İlişkiler Yazınında Tarihsel Olguculuk ile Disiplinlerarasıcılığın Analitik Yaklaşma Etkisi ve Türkiye Uygulaması [Impact of Historical-Factualism and Interdisciplinary Research on Conceptual Analyses in International Relations Literature in Turkey].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 5, no. 17 (2008): 129–59.
24. Mouton, Johann, and H. C. Marais, Basic Concepts in the Methodology of Social Sciences. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council, 1996.
25. Özcan, Gencer. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Alanında Lisansüstü Eğitimin Sorunları [Problems of Undergraduate Education in the Field of International Relations in Turkey].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 4, no. 13 (2007): 107–112.
26. Sartori, Giovanni, ed. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1984.
27. Sarı, Buğra and İsmail Erkam Sula. Kuramsal Perspektiften Temel Uluslararası İlişkiler Kavramları [Basic International Relations Concepts from Theoretical Perspective], 2021. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
28. Sula, Ismail Erkam. “Güvenlikleştirme Kuramında ‘Söz Edim’ ve ‘Pratikler’: Türkçe Güvenlikleştirme Yazınında ‘Yöntem’ Arayışı [‘Speech Acts’ and ‘Practices’ in Securitization Studies: A Search for ‘Methods’ in Turkish Securitization Literature].” Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 17, no. 37 (March 30, 2021): 85–118. https://doi. org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.905758.
29. Sula, Ismail Erkam. “‘Global’ IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and the Social Sciences Data Repository.” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 11, no. 1 (2022): 123-142. https://doi. org/10.20991/allazimuth.1032115.
30. Şule Kut, Ali Karaosmanoğlu, and Atila Eralp. “Workshop Report International Relations Studies and Education in Turkey.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 2, no. 6 (2005): 131–47.
31. Yalçınkaya, Alaeddin and Ertan Efegil. “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Eğitiminde ve Araştırmalarında Teorik ve Kavramsal Yaklaşım Temelinde Yabancılaşma Sorunu [The Problem of Theoretical and Conceptual Alienation of International Relations Education in Turkey].” Gazi Akademik Bakış 3, no. 5 (2009): 207–30.