Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US

Mustafa Aydın; Cihan Dizdaroğlu

doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

EN

Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US

Abstract

This article utilizes data from the 2022–2023 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey, which features a sample of 176 scholars in Turkey and 979 in the US, to explore how IR scholars in both countries conceptualize their disciplinary identity, select research methods, engage with policy, and navigate academic recognition. Framed by how scholars in semiperipheral contexts relate to disciplinary cores, the study investigates whether Turkish IR reveals convergence with or divergence from global disciplinary norms. The findings highlight enduring divides: Turkish scholars demonstrate a stronger preference for qualitative, applied, and regionally focused research, whereas their American counterparts operate in a more pluralistic and post-paradigmatic scholarly environment. Nevertheless, there are signs of convergence, particularly in the increased engagement of Turkish scholars with international publications and leading theoretical approaches. This hybrid positioning highlights the fundamental contradictions within the Global IR agenda, namely the tension between inclusion and hierarchy, and between adaptation and autonomy. The article contributes to existing literature by offering a comparative, data-driven analysis of how disciplinary divisions and partial convergences influence knowledge production in different geopolitical contexts.

Keywords

References

Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–59.
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.
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Non-Western international relations theory perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York and London: Routledge.
Al, U., & Soydal, İ. (2014). Akademinin atıf dizinleri ile savaşı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 23–42.
Aydın, M. (2007). A questionnaire about scientific research and teaching practices, views on the discipline and political attitudes of international relations academicians in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 4(5), 1–31.
Aydın, M. (2025). Transformation of Turkish-Russian relations: Rivalry and cooperation in Eurasia and the Levant. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 22(85), 21–39.
Aydın, M., & Dizdaroğlu, C. (2019). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler: TRIP 2018 sonuçları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 16(64), 3–28.
Aydın, M., Hisarlıoglu, F., & Yazgan, K. (2016). An analysis of international relations academics in Turkey and their approaches to the field: TRIP 2014 faculty survey results. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12(48), 3–35.

Aydın, M., & Yazgan, K. (2010). Survey of international relations faculty in Turkey: Research, teaching and views on the discipline – 2009. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(25), 3–42.
Aydın, M., & Yazgan, K. (2013). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler akademisyenleri eğitim, araştırma ve uluslararası politika anketi – 2011. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 9(36), 3–44.
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), 289– 303.
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.
Benli Altunışık, M. & Martin, L.G. (2023). Turkey and the Middle East and North Africa under the AKP: A three level analysis of foreign policy change. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 20(78), 79–96.
Bilgin, P. (2005). Center-periphery relations in the study of international relations: Where is Turkey? Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2(6), 3–14.
Bilgin, P. (2021). How not to globalise IR: ‘Centre’ and ‘periphery’ as constitutive of ‘the international.’” Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 13–27.
Bilgin, P., & Capan, Z.G. (2021). Introduction to the special issue regional international relations and global worlds: Globalising international relations. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 1–11.
Entringer García Blanes, I., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M.J. (2024). The top international relations schools of 2024, ranked. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/30/international relationsschool- rankings-university-undergraduate-masters-phd-programs/.
Erdoğan, E. (2024). Türkiye’deki siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkiler akademisyenlerinin yöntemsel tercihleri, yayın eğilimleri ve kamusal görünürlük dinamikleri. Reflektif: Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(3), 735–64.
Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
Karamik, İ., & Ermihan, E. (2023). Quo vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s footsteps within the global. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(2), 241–60.
Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 529–50.
Köstem, S. (2022). Managed regional rivalry between Russia and Turkey after the annexation of Crimea. Europe-Asia Studies, 74(9), 1657–75.
Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers R., & Tierney, M.J. (2017). TRIP 2017 faculty survey: teaching, research, and international policy project. Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute. https:// trip.wm.edu.
Okur, M. A. & Aytekin, C.E. (2023). 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(1), 19–44.
Özdemir, H. (2024). The dark side of the moon: An ever-fragmenting discipline and Turkish IR in ‘the outer periphery. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(1), 1–22.
Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M.J. (2023). TRIP faculty survey 2022-2023. Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys/Faculty-Survey-2022- Partial-Report.pdf.
Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374–402.
Sune, E. (2024). Western-centric moments in homegrown IR theories: Dependency, Chinese and African schools. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(1), 1–22.
Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627–46.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

International Relations (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mustafa Aydın ^*
0000-0002-4029-6681
Türkiye

Cihan Dizdaroğlu
0000-0001-8613-8585
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 24, 2026

Submission Date

July 4, 2025

Acceptance Date

February 3, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 15 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA73LS57XF

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Aydın, M., & Dizdaroğlu, C. (2026). Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

AMA

1.Aydın M, Dizdaroğlu C. Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace. 2026;15(2). doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

Chicago

Aydın, Mustafa, and Cihan Dizdaroğlu. 2026. “Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 15 (2). https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1931765.

EndNote

Aydın M, Dizdaroğlu C (April 1, 2026) Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 15 2

IEEE

[1]M. Aydın and C. Dizdaroğlu, “Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, vol. 15, no. 2, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.20991/allazimuth.1931765.

ISNAD

Aydın, Mustafa - Dizdaroğlu, Cihan. “Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 15/2 (April 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1931765.

JAMA

1.Aydın M, Dizdaroğlu C. Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace. 2026;15. doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1931765.

MLA

Aydın, Mustafa, and Cihan Dizdaroğlu. “Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, vol. 15, no. 2, Apr. 2026, doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1931765.

Vancouver

1.Mustafa Aydın, Cihan Dizdaroğlu. Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace. 2026 Apr. 1;15(2). doi:10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

Manuscripts submitted for consideration by the Journal must follow the style given below. The manuscripts should not be submitted simultaneously to any other publication, nor may they have been previously published elsewhere, in English. However, articles that are published previously in another language but updated or improved can be submitted. For such articles, the author(s) will be responsible for seeking the required permission for copyright.
Please note that All Azimuth only publishes original research articles. It does not publish book reviews or other review articles except by commission. We look forward to receiving submissions that offer analytical answers to research questions found in the literature. We are particularly interested in novel theorizing and conceptual articles, not to mention articles that use novel methods or seek to introduce a database or other scholarly repository that can benefit the discipline. We do not publish descriptive or historical research. Policy-oriented articles are welcome but must provide their insights through an appropriate analytical framework mindful to showcase the necessary theoretical, conceptual, and methodological heft as needed. All publications must take great care to explain their novelty and contribution to their relevant field.
Data Policy:

All authors are required to have Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for research involving human subjects. Please indicate the IRB institution and the report number on your title page.All authors are required to upload all necessary materials, such as data, code, and any other relevant documents or information required to replicate their results, to an online repository.

Style:
Papers should be written in a considerable level of academic English.
Manuscripts should be typed and double-spaced in Times New Roman font, 12 points.
Manuscripts should be submitted either as Microsoft Word document file or Open Office Writer file.
Each article must be accompanied by an abstract of approximately 200 words.
Authors are asked to propose a maximum of 5 keywords.
Submissions should not be shorter than 6,000 words, but no longer than 11,000 including footnotes and bibliography.
Authors may use any reference style for their initial submission. However, once the manuscript is accepted for publication, the final version must adhere to the 7th edition of APA style. You can access the APA manual through the following link: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citation-guide/
The section titles and subtitles in the manuscripts should be numbered. (i.e. 1. Introduction, 2. Title Xxx, 2.1. Subtitle xxx, etc.)
If there are any tables, graphs and figures, they have to be included in the submitted main text file. Graphs and figures should be in one of the usual formats, at best in PNG or BMP format; please make sure that the graphics are small enough to fit an A4 page.
The tables, graphs and figures should be numbered consecutively for each and should match the same numbering used in the text.

Ethical Guidelines
All Azimuth: A Journal of Peace and Foreign Policy adheres to the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed here.

Authorship

The corresponding author is responsible for determining and reporting the list and order of contributing authors. In the case of a collaborative submission, contributing authors must agree on appropriate credit attribution.

Originality

All Azimuth only publishes original works. While a manuscript is under consideration for publication, it cannot be submitted to another journal. Not only is it ethically unacceptable to submit the same work to multiple journals but doing so creates unnecessary work and complications for editors as well as the independent reviewers who voluntarily sacrifice their time to ensure that manuscripts are up to standard.

Plagiarism, Fraud, & Retraction

Plagiarism of any form is unacceptable. If a manuscript is discovered to have committed plagiarism or some other form of manipulation, this will result in an immediate rejection, followed by other sanctions. For already-published articles, discovery of plagiarism and other manipulations will result in the retraction of the article.
Should an article require retraction, either due to misconduct or an honest error, the article will be formally retracted as stipulated by the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which can be accessed here.

Conflict of Interest

We request authors to disclose all conflicts of interest they may have, including institutional, financial, as well as personal and academic conflicts of interest.

Informed Consent & Best Practices

All research that uses human subjects must present the approval of their Institutional Review Board (IRB). This includes research with human participants, such as interviews, surveys, and other experimental methods.

Anonymity, and accordingly the participants’ informed consent, is crucial. No researcher can infringe on the rights of their participants and must work to preserve their anonymity. All work involving such methods must state that the authors received the informed consent of their participants in their methodology section. This includes whether the participants’ consent was provided in writing or verbally. In the latter case, the author must explain, with reference to his/her IRB’s decision why this route was taken.

Publication Guidelines

All Azimuth follows a double-blind peer review process. Although processing times may vary, most manuscripts are processed by the editorial staff within two weeks, by which time the editors decide if an article is to be rejected or merits the review process. Each round of reviews may take up to 6 weeks. Manuscripts need two affirmative reviews before they can be considered for publication. Pending the suggestions by the reviewers, an article may be accepted, rejected, or require revisions. In the last case, the author(s) will be given the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript based on, and addressing, the reviewers’ comments. This process is repeated until a manuscript is decisively accepted or rejected. In the case of an inconclusive review process, the editorial board may contact additional reviewers.

Only submissions that are submitted through the Journal’s online submission form will be considered for publication.

All Azimuth is an open access journal. Once accepted for publication, manuscripts will be made available online. There are no publishing fees.

Please see the Author Guidelines for more information on preparing manuscript.