Temporal Horizons in the Study of Turkish Politics: Prevalence of Non-Causal Description and seemingly Global Warming Type of Causality

Abstract

In this article, I critically evaluate the causal and temporal dimension of social scientific studies focusing on Turkish politics. A very important and yet often neglected aspect of social scientific analysis involves the temporal dimension of causal processes. The temporal dimension of causal processes has direct consequences for operationalization and measurement, and hence it is an essential component of research design. Does the dependent variable (outcome) of interest unfold over the short term or the long term? Do the hypothesized independent variables (causes) unfold over the short term or the long term? Paul Pierson (2004) provided a classification of four types of causality based on the temporal dimension of causes and outcomes using metaphors of natural disasters: tornado, earthquake, meteorite, and global warming. Operationalization and measurement of long term causes and outcomes pose a major challenge, compounded by the challenges of periodization of causes and effects. Unfortunately, a large proportion of the studies of Turkish politics do not have a clearly discernible independent variable (cause) to begin with, and they are thus better characterized as works of “non-causal description.” Moreover, many of the studies of Turkish politics tend to imply, but rarely state explicitly, a global warming type of causality (long term cause and long term outcome), which necessitates focusing even more intensively on such challenges of measurement and periodization. Yet the operationalization of the key (dependent and independent) variables is often missing even in articles published in reputable academic journals of Turkish politics and society. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I suggest a number of guidelines for research design in order to address the problems of causality and temporality discussed in this article. 

Keywords

• Causality,conceptualization,operationalization,periodization,temporality

References

1. Akçadağ, Emine, and Elnur İsmayilov. “Ukrayna Krizinin Rusya ve Japonya Arasındaki Kuril Adaları Sorununa Etkisi.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 12, no. 48 (2016): 95–115.
2. Aktürk, Şener. “The Fourth Style of Politics: Eurasianism as a Pro–Russian Rethinking of Turkey's Geopolitical Identity.” Turkish Studies 16, no. 1 (2015): 54–79.
3. ———. “NATO Neden Genişledi? Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları Işığında NATO’nun Genişlemesi ve ABD–Rusya İç Siyaseti.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 9, no. 34 (2012): 73–97.
4. ———. “One Nation under Allah? Islamic Multiculturalism, Muslim Nationalism And Turkey’s Reforms For Kurds, Alevis, and Non–Muslims.” Turkish Studies 3 (2018): 1–29. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2018.1434775.
5. ———. “Passport Identification and Nation–Building in Post–Soviet Russia.” Post–Soviet Affairs 26, no. 4 (2010): 314–41.
6. ———. “Regimes of Ethnicity: Comparative analysis of Germany, the Soviet Union/post–Soviet Russia, and Turkey.” World Politics 63, no. 1 (2011): 115–64.
7. ———. Regimes of Ethnicity and Nationhood in Germany, Russia, and Turkey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
8. ———. “Religion and Nationalism: Contradictions of Islamic Origins and Secular Nation‐Building in Turkey, Algeria, and Pakistan.” Social Science Quarterly 96, no. 3 (2015): 778–806.

9. ———. “Turkey’s Civil Rights Movement and the Reactionary Coup: Segregation, Emancipation, and the Western Reaction.” Insight Turkey 18, no. 3 (2016): 141–67.
10. ———. “Why Did the PKK Declare Revolutionary People’s War in July 2015?” POMEPS Contemporary Turkish Politics, November 29, 2016. Accessed December 16, 2017. https://pomeps.org/2016/11/29/why–did–the–pkk–declare–revolutionary–peoples–war–in–july–2015/. Ari, Başar. “Religion and Nation–Building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 2 (2013): 372–93.
11. Aslantaş, Selim. “Osmanlı–Rus İlişkilerinden Bir Kesit: 1826 Akkerman Andlaşması'nın Müzakereleri.” International Relations/Uluslararasi Iliskiler 9, no. 36 (2013): 149–69.
12. Aydin, Umut. “Who is Afraid of Globalization? Turkish Attitudes toward Trade and Globalization.” Turkish Studies 15, no. 2 (2014): 322–40.
13. Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel eds. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
14. Erdoğan, Emre. “Dış Politikada Siyasallaşma: Türk Kamuoyunun “Davos Krizi” ve Etkileri Hakkındaki Değerlendirmeleri.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 10, no. 37 (2013): 37–67.
15. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
16. Goertz, Gary. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.
17. Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. “Civil–Military Relations in the Second Constitutional Period, 1908–1918.” Turkish Studies 12, no. 2 (2011): 177–89.
18. Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The Arab Uprising and the MENA Regional States System.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 11, no. 42 (2014): 7–27.
19. Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
20. Karaosmanoğlu, Ali L. “Yirmibirinci Yüzyilda Savaşı Tartışmak: Clausewitz Yeniden.” International Relations/Uluslararasi Iliskiler 8, no. 29 (2011): 5–25.
21. Katznelson, Ira. “Periodization and Preferences: Reflections on Purposive Action in Comparative Historical Social Science.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietriech Rueschemeyer, 270–304. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
22. Mahoney, James, and Dietriech Rueschemeyer, eds. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
23. Pierson, Paul. “Big, Slow–Moving, and… Invisible: Macrosocial processes in the study of comparative politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietriech Rueschemeyer, 177–207. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
24. Pierson, Paul. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
25. Smets, Kevin. “‘Turkish Rambo’ Going Transnational: The Polarized Reception of Mainstream Political Cinema among the Turkish Diaspora in Belgium.” Turkish Studies 15, no. 1 (2014): 12–28.
26. Tekindor von zur Mühlen, Sevinç. “Korean War in the Turkish Press.” Turkish Studies 13, no. 3 (2012): 523–35.
27. Topaktaş, Hacer. “Polonya'nın Türkiye'deki İlk Daimi Elçiliğinin Kurulma Süreci: Tarihsel Dinamikler.” International Relations/Uluslararasi Iliskiler 11, no. 43 (2014): 105–25.
28. Wendt, Alexander. “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 24, no. 5 (1998): 101–18.
29. Yalvaç, Faruk. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramında Anarşi Söylemi.” International Relations/Uluslararasi Iliskiler 8, no. 29 (2011): 71–99.
30. Yavcan, Başak. “Public Opinion toward Immigration and the EU: How are Turkish Immigrants Different than Others?” Turkish Studies 14, no. 1 (2013): 158–78.
31. Yıldız, Necip. “The Relation between Socioeconomic Development and Democratization in Contemporary Turkey.” Turkish Studies 12, no. 1 (2011): 129–48.