Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Türkiye'nin Kutup Bilim Diplomasisi

Yıl 2022, , 5 - 24, 14.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.54722/iletisimvediplomasi.1098563

Öz

Bilim ve dış politikanın kesişim noktasında yer alan bilim diplomasisi kavramı, devletler arasında ikili ve çok taraflı bilimsel iş birliklerine ortak bir zemin sunma potansiyeli nedeniyle küresel iklim değişikliğinin olumsuz etkilerine paralel olarak son yıllarda sıklıkla gündeme gelmektedir. Bilim diplomasisinin kavramsallaşmasını Antarktika Antlaşmalar Zirvesi’ne dayandıran görüşler nedeniyle öncülleri, boyutları ve uygulama usullerine yönelik gerçekleştirilen güncel çalışmalarda konunun daha kapsamlı ele alınabilmesi için tarihsel perspektifin önemi vurgulanmıştır. Türkiye’nin kutuplara yönelik bilimsel araştırmalarına tarihsel perspektiften bakıldığında ise kutup araştırmalarına yönelik ilgisinin 1932 ve 1933 yılları arasında 34 devletin katılımıyla düzenlenen 2. Uluslararası Kutup Yılı’na dayandığı görülmektedir. Bu minvalde çalışma kapsamında tarihsel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı’nda yer alan resmi dokümanların yanı sıra söz konusu dokümanlarda elde edilen bulguların ışığında kutup araştırmalarına katkı sağlayan Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü ve Harita Genel Müdürlüğü gibi çeşitli kurumların arşivleri de taranarak bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla Türkiye’nin kutup bilim diplomasisi sürecine ışık tutulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı; başarılı bir kamu diplomasisi faaliyeti olarak yürütmekte olduğu kutuplara yönelik bilimsel araştırmalarına 2017 yılında İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ) bünyesinde Kutup Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (PolReC)’in kurulmasıyla yaptığı atılım sonrasında 2019 yılında Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK) bünyesinde Kutup Araştırmaları Enstitüsü (KARE)’nin kurulmasıyla kurumsal bir nitelik ve ivme kazandıran Türkiye’nin, kutup bilim diplomasisi potansiyelini geliştirmesine katkı sağlamaktır.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Avrupa Komisyonu (2016). Open Innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Erişim:https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1.
  • 2. Barkınay, A. R. (1935). Norveç Hidroğrafi Servisi, (Bear) Adasile (Spitzberg) Adalarına ait olmak üzere bu servisin vücuda getirdiği yeni “Arktik” haritaları. Haritacılar Mecmuası, Sayı: 9, 84-101.
  • 3. Berkman, P. A. (2019). Evolution of science diplomacy and its local-global applications. European Foreign Affairs Review 24, 63-79.
  • 4. Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., Young, O. R. (2011). Science diplomacy: Science, Antarctica and the governance of international spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
  • 5. Berkman, P. A., Kullerud L., Pope A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., Young, O. R. (2017). The Arctic Science Agreement propels science diplomacy. Science, 3(358), 596-598.
  • 6. Caymaz, E. (2021a). Arktik bilim diplomasisi ve Türkiye. Novus Orbis Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 3 (1), 36-54.
  • 7. Caymaz, E. (2021b). Arktik diplomasisi. İçinde Soğuk kuzeyin sıcak adaları Svalbard (Eds. Burcu Özsoy ve Barbaros Büyüksağnak). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • 8. Clem, K. R., Fogt, R. L., Turner, J., Lintner, B. R., Marshall, G. J., Miller, J. R., Renwicrk, J. A. (2020). Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades. Nature Climate Change 10, 762-770.
  • 9. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA). (3 Haziran 1935). Harita Umum Müdürlüğü Hidrografi işlerinde çalışmakta olan Uzman Rolf Kjaer'e ait kadronun tasdiki. 30-18-1-2/55-45-17.
  • 10. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. (1939). Jeoloji Birliği reisinin teklifi. 19 Şubat, s. 2.
  • 11. Çin Halk Konseyi [The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China] (2018). China’s Arctic Policy, January, http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content _281476026660336.htm.
  • 12. Depledge, D. (2012). The United Kingdom and the Arctic in the 21st century. Arctic Yearbook. URL: https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2012/2012-scholarly-papers/13-the-united-kingdom-and-the-arctic-in-the-21st-century.
  • 13. Dura, İ. Ş. (1954). Beynelmilel Jeodezi ve Jeofizik Birliği’nin 1954 Roma Kongresi. Harita Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • 14. Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1), 9-11.
  • 15. Flink, T., Ruffini, N. (2019). The current state of the art of science diplomacy. Handbook on Science and Public Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • 16. Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V. C., Grimes, R. W., Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6 (4).
  • 17. Gutenev, M. (2020). Science diplomacy of Great Britain in the Arctic. Arctic: New Region of World Policy, 2 (64).
  • 18. Haritacılar Mecmuası (1936). Türk-Bulgar birinci derece nirengilerin raptı. Yazar: General Abdurrahman, Sayı:10.
  • 19. IASC (International Arctic Science Committee) (2018). About IASC: https://iasc.info/iasc/about-iasc.
  • 20. İbrahim Edhem Paşa (2020). Medhal-i ilm-i jeoloji. Hiper Yayın.
  • 21. İleri, C. N. (1997a). Şimâl Hâtıraları, çev. İbrahim Demirci. İstanbul: Mavi Yayıncılık.
  • 22. İleri, C. N. (1997b). Kutub musâhabeleri, çev. İbrahim Demirci. İstanbul: Mavi Yayıncılık.
  • 23. International Polar Year Joint Committee (IPY) (2011). Understanding Earth’s polar challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008. University of the Arctic and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008.
  • 24. Kaltofen, C., Acuto, M. (2018). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, Vol. 9.
  • 25. Latola, K. (2018). Implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement with science diplomacy. Arctic Science Agreement Dialogue Panel, Science Diplomacy Action Synthesis No.3.
  • 26. Laursen, V. (1951). Bibliography for the second international polar year 1932-33. International Meteorological Organization.
  • 27. Limon, O, Caymaz, E. (2021). Svalbard Adaları: arşiv belgeleriyle cumhuriyetten günümüze. İçinde Soğuk kuzeyin sıcak adaları Svalbard (Eds. Burcu Özsoy ve Barbaros Büyüksağnak). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • 28. Lord, K. M., Turekian, V. C. (2007). Science and society: Time for a new era of science diplomacy. Science 315 (5813).
  • 29. Luszczuk, M., Padrtova, B., Szczerbowicz, W. (2020). Political dimension of Arctic research. Oceanologia 62, 608-621.
  • 30. Melchor, L. (2020). What is a science diplomat?. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15, 409-423.
  • 31. Moedas, S. (2015). EU approach to science diplomacy”. (Speech Washington, DC 1 June 2014). URL:https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/moedas/announcements/eu-approach-sciencediplomacy_en.
  • 32. Moomaw, W. R. (2018). Scientist diplomats or diplomat scientists: Who makes science diplomacy effective?. Global Policy 9, 78-80.
  • 33. MOSAIC Ekspedisyonu hk. Detaylı bilgi için bknz: https://mosaic-expedition.org/.
  • 34. Nanda D. (2019). India’s Arctic potential. Occasional Papers, 186. https://www.orfonline.org/research/indias-arctic-potential48263/
  • 35. National Research Council. (2012). U.S. and international perspectives on global science policy and science diplomacy: Report of a workshop. National Academies Press.
  • 36. National Science Foundation. (1957). A bibliography for the international geophysical year. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
  • 37. Nye, J. S. (2017). Yumuşak güç. BB101 Yayınları, s.146.
  • 38. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, 94-109.
  • 39. Pamir, H. N. (1948). XVIII Beynelmilel Jeoloji Kongresi Londra 1948. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, C.2, S. 2.
  • 40. Research in Svalbard Portal. URL: https://www.researchinsvalbard.no/.
  • 41. Rowe, E. W. (2018). Arctic governance power in cross-border cooperation. Manchester University Press.
  • 42. Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39, 250–274.
  • 43. Ruffini, P-B. (2020). Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: A critical review. Humanities and Social Communications 7.
  • 44. Runciman, W. (1983). A treatise on social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 45. Rungius, C., Flink, T. (2020). Romancing science for global solutions: On narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7.
  • 46. Science Diplomacy Center (2019). Science diplomacy action: An incidental serial for rigorous meeting syntheses. Synthesis No.3.
  • 47. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dışişleri ve Milletler Topluluğu İşlerinden Sorumlu Devlet Sekreteri) (2015). The UK and the Arctic. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldarctic/118/11809.html
  • 48. Sergunin, A., Konyshev, V. (2015). Russia in the Arctic: Hard or soft power? Stuttgart: IBIDEM.
  • 49. Servet-i Fünun Dergisi. (1930). Kutup heyeti seferiyyesi. C. 63, s. 1654 (1956 SB 501).
  • 50. Su, P., Mayer, M. (2018). Science diplomacy and trust building: ‘Science China’ in the Arctic. Global Policy 9 (3), 23-28.
  • 51. The Arctic Institute (2020). United Kingdom. URL: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/countries/united-kingdom/.
  • 52. The Royal Society (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: Science Policy Center.
  • 53. The Research Council of Norway (RCN) (2019). Ny-Ålesund Research Station research strategy. URL:https://www.uio.no/forskning/tverrfak/nordomradene/ny-alesund-research-station-research-strategy.pdf.
  • 54. The UArctic (2018). UArctic facilitating UK–Russia collaboration in Arctic research. URL: https://www.uarctic.org/shared-voices/shared-voices-magazine-2018/uarctic-facilitating-uk-russia-collaboration-in-arctic-research/.
  • 55. Turekian, C. V., Neureiter, P. N. (2012). Science and diplomacy: The past as prologue. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1).
  • 56. TÜBİTAK Marmara Araştırma Merkezi (MAM) bünyesinde Kutup Araştırmaları 0Enstitüsü (KARE). Erişim: http://kare.mam.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/kurumsal/biz-kimiz-0.
  • 57. Ulusoy, E. (1939). 5 inci Beynelmilel Fotogrametri Kongresi. Haritacılar Mecmuası, Sayı: 25.
  • 58. Vaxevanidou, M. (2018). Education as public diplomacy: How to build an international image in education. Journal of Media Critiques, 14(4), ss. 55-70.
  • 59. Wadhwani, R. D., Decker, S. (2017). Clio’s toolkit: historical methods beyond theory building from cases. İçinde R. Mir, & S. Jain (Eds.), Routledge companion to qualitative research in organization studies. Routledge.
  • 60. Wang, J. (2011). Introduction: China’s search of soft power. Editör: Wang J., içinde Soft power in China: Public diplomacy through communication, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, s.7.

Polar Science Diplomacy of Türkiye

Yıl 2022, , 5 - 24, 14.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.54722/iletisimvediplomasi.1098563

Öz

The concept of science diplomacy, which is located at the nexus of science and foreign policy, has been frequently on the agenda in recent years in parallel with the negative effects of global climate change owing to its potential to provide a common ground for bilateral and multilateral scientific cooperation between states. Since the conceptualization of science diplomacy has been predicated on the Antarctic Treaties Summit, the importance of historical perspective is emphasized in order to address the term more comprehensively in the current studies on its antecedents, dimensions, and application methods. On the other hand, when the scientific polar research of Türkiye is viewed from a historical perspective, it is seen that its interest in polar research dates back to the 2nd International Polar Year, which was organized with the participation of 34 states between 1932 and 1933. In this context, in addition to the official documents in the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Directorate of State Archives, the archives of various institutions such as the Turkish State Meteorological Service and the General Directorate of Mapping were scanned by applying the historical research method to shed light on Türkiye's polar science diplomacy process from a holistic perspective. Therefore, this study aims to enhance the polar science diplomacy potential of Türkiye in which scientific polar research has been conducted as a successful case of public diplomacy. The momentum has been further increased following the breakthrough upon the establishment of the Polar Research Application and Research Center (PolReC) within the body of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) in 2017 and gained an institutional framework upon the establishment of the Institute (KARE) within the body of Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TUBITAK) in 2019.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Avrupa Komisyonu (2016). Open Innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Erişim:https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1.
  • 2. Barkınay, A. R. (1935). Norveç Hidroğrafi Servisi, (Bear) Adasile (Spitzberg) Adalarına ait olmak üzere bu servisin vücuda getirdiği yeni “Arktik” haritaları. Haritacılar Mecmuası, Sayı: 9, 84-101.
  • 3. Berkman, P. A. (2019). Evolution of science diplomacy and its local-global applications. European Foreign Affairs Review 24, 63-79.
  • 4. Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., Young, O. R. (2011). Science diplomacy: Science, Antarctica and the governance of international spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
  • 5. Berkman, P. A., Kullerud L., Pope A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., Young, O. R. (2017). The Arctic Science Agreement propels science diplomacy. Science, 3(358), 596-598.
  • 6. Caymaz, E. (2021a). Arktik bilim diplomasisi ve Türkiye. Novus Orbis Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 3 (1), 36-54.
  • 7. Caymaz, E. (2021b). Arktik diplomasisi. İçinde Soğuk kuzeyin sıcak adaları Svalbard (Eds. Burcu Özsoy ve Barbaros Büyüksağnak). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • 8. Clem, K. R., Fogt, R. L., Turner, J., Lintner, B. R., Marshall, G. J., Miller, J. R., Renwicrk, J. A. (2020). Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades. Nature Climate Change 10, 762-770.
  • 9. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA). (3 Haziran 1935). Harita Umum Müdürlüğü Hidrografi işlerinde çalışmakta olan Uzman Rolf Kjaer'e ait kadronun tasdiki. 30-18-1-2/55-45-17.
  • 10. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. (1939). Jeoloji Birliği reisinin teklifi. 19 Şubat, s. 2.
  • 11. Çin Halk Konseyi [The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China] (2018). China’s Arctic Policy, January, http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content _281476026660336.htm.
  • 12. Depledge, D. (2012). The United Kingdom and the Arctic in the 21st century. Arctic Yearbook. URL: https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2012/2012-scholarly-papers/13-the-united-kingdom-and-the-arctic-in-the-21st-century.
  • 13. Dura, İ. Ş. (1954). Beynelmilel Jeodezi ve Jeofizik Birliği’nin 1954 Roma Kongresi. Harita Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • 14. Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science diplomacy in the 21st century. Cell, 136(1), 9-11.
  • 15. Flink, T., Ruffini, N. (2019). The current state of the art of science diplomacy. Handbook on Science and Public Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • 16. Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V. C., Grimes, R. W., Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6 (4).
  • 17. Gutenev, M. (2020). Science diplomacy of Great Britain in the Arctic. Arctic: New Region of World Policy, 2 (64).
  • 18. Haritacılar Mecmuası (1936). Türk-Bulgar birinci derece nirengilerin raptı. Yazar: General Abdurrahman, Sayı:10.
  • 19. IASC (International Arctic Science Committee) (2018). About IASC: https://iasc.info/iasc/about-iasc.
  • 20. İbrahim Edhem Paşa (2020). Medhal-i ilm-i jeoloji. Hiper Yayın.
  • 21. İleri, C. N. (1997a). Şimâl Hâtıraları, çev. İbrahim Demirci. İstanbul: Mavi Yayıncılık.
  • 22. İleri, C. N. (1997b). Kutub musâhabeleri, çev. İbrahim Demirci. İstanbul: Mavi Yayıncılık.
  • 23. International Polar Year Joint Committee (IPY) (2011). Understanding Earth’s polar challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008. University of the Arctic and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008.
  • 24. Kaltofen, C., Acuto, M. (2018). Science diplomacy: Introduction to a boundary problem. Global Policy, Vol. 9.
  • 25. Latola, K. (2018). Implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement with science diplomacy. Arctic Science Agreement Dialogue Panel, Science Diplomacy Action Synthesis No.3.
  • 26. Laursen, V. (1951). Bibliography for the second international polar year 1932-33. International Meteorological Organization.
  • 27. Limon, O, Caymaz, E. (2021). Svalbard Adaları: arşiv belgeleriyle cumhuriyetten günümüze. İçinde Soğuk kuzeyin sıcak adaları Svalbard (Eds. Burcu Özsoy ve Barbaros Büyüksağnak). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  • 28. Lord, K. M., Turekian, V. C. (2007). Science and society: Time for a new era of science diplomacy. Science 315 (5813).
  • 29. Luszczuk, M., Padrtova, B., Szczerbowicz, W. (2020). Political dimension of Arctic research. Oceanologia 62, 608-621.
  • 30. Melchor, L. (2020). What is a science diplomat?. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15, 409-423.
  • 31. Moedas, S. (2015). EU approach to science diplomacy”. (Speech Washington, DC 1 June 2014). URL:https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/moedas/announcements/eu-approach-sciencediplomacy_en.
  • 32. Moomaw, W. R. (2018). Scientist diplomats or diplomat scientists: Who makes science diplomacy effective?. Global Policy 9, 78-80.
  • 33. MOSAIC Ekspedisyonu hk. Detaylı bilgi için bknz: https://mosaic-expedition.org/.
  • 34. Nanda D. (2019). India’s Arctic potential. Occasional Papers, 186. https://www.orfonline.org/research/indias-arctic-potential48263/
  • 35. National Research Council. (2012). U.S. and international perspectives on global science policy and science diplomacy: Report of a workshop. National Academies Press.
  • 36. National Science Foundation. (1957). A bibliography for the international geophysical year. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
  • 37. Nye, J. S. (2017). Yumuşak güç. BB101 Yayınları, s.146.
  • 38. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, 94-109.
  • 39. Pamir, H. N. (1948). XVIII Beynelmilel Jeoloji Kongresi Londra 1948. Türkiye Jeoloji Bülteni, C.2, S. 2.
  • 40. Research in Svalbard Portal. URL: https://www.researchinsvalbard.no/.
  • 41. Rowe, E. W. (2018). Arctic governance power in cross-border cooperation. Manchester University Press.
  • 42. Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39, 250–274.
  • 43. Ruffini, P-B. (2020). Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: A critical review. Humanities and Social Communications 7.
  • 44. Runciman, W. (1983). A treatise on social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 45. Rungius, C., Flink, T. (2020). Romancing science for global solutions: On narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7.
  • 46. Science Diplomacy Center (2019). Science diplomacy action: An incidental serial for rigorous meeting syntheses. Synthesis No.3.
  • 47. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dışişleri ve Milletler Topluluğu İşlerinden Sorumlu Devlet Sekreteri) (2015). The UK and the Arctic. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldarctic/118/11809.html
  • 48. Sergunin, A., Konyshev, V. (2015). Russia in the Arctic: Hard or soft power? Stuttgart: IBIDEM.
  • 49. Servet-i Fünun Dergisi. (1930). Kutup heyeti seferiyyesi. C. 63, s. 1654 (1956 SB 501).
  • 50. Su, P., Mayer, M. (2018). Science diplomacy and trust building: ‘Science China’ in the Arctic. Global Policy 9 (3), 23-28.
  • 51. The Arctic Institute (2020). United Kingdom. URL: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/countries/united-kingdom/.
  • 52. The Royal Society (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: Science Policy Center.
  • 53. The Research Council of Norway (RCN) (2019). Ny-Ålesund Research Station research strategy. URL:https://www.uio.no/forskning/tverrfak/nordomradene/ny-alesund-research-station-research-strategy.pdf.
  • 54. The UArctic (2018). UArctic facilitating UK–Russia collaboration in Arctic research. URL: https://www.uarctic.org/shared-voices/shared-voices-magazine-2018/uarctic-facilitating-uk-russia-collaboration-in-arctic-research/.
  • 55. Turekian, C. V., Neureiter, P. N. (2012). Science and diplomacy: The past as prologue. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1).
  • 56. TÜBİTAK Marmara Araştırma Merkezi (MAM) bünyesinde Kutup Araştırmaları 0Enstitüsü (KARE). Erişim: http://kare.mam.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/kurumsal/biz-kimiz-0.
  • 57. Ulusoy, E. (1939). 5 inci Beynelmilel Fotogrametri Kongresi. Haritacılar Mecmuası, Sayı: 25.
  • 58. Vaxevanidou, M. (2018). Education as public diplomacy: How to build an international image in education. Journal of Media Critiques, 14(4), ss. 55-70.
  • 59. Wadhwani, R. D., Decker, S. (2017). Clio’s toolkit: historical methods beyond theory building from cases. İçinde R. Mir, & S. Jain (Eds.), Routledge companion to qualitative research in organization studies. Routledge.
  • 60. Wang, J. (2011). Introduction: China’s search of soft power. Editör: Wang J., içinde Soft power in China: Public diplomacy through communication, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, s.7.
Toplam 60 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Uluslararası İlişkiler
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Ebru Caymaz 0000-0002-9119-7659

Burcu Özsoy 0000-0003-4320-1796

Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Haziran 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 4 Nisan 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022

Kaynak Göster

APA Caymaz, E., & Özsoy, B. (2022). Türkiye’nin Kutup Bilim Diplomasisi. İletişim Ve Diplomasi(7), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.54722/iletisimvediplomasi.1098563