TÜRKİYE TEMELLİ VERİ TOPLAMA VE KÜRESEL ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER YAZINI

Öz

Türkiye, gerek tarihsel zenginliği, gerekse bulunduğu coğrafi konum itibariyle farklı boyutta birçok uluslararası ilişkiler (Uİ) sürecini bölgesinde yaşayadurmaktadır. Gerek Türkiye’nin diğer ülkelerle kurduğu diplomatik, askeri ve ekonomik ilişkiler, gerekse Türkiye’nin sınırları içinde yaşadığı uyuşmazlıklar küresel Uİ yazını için farklı çözümleme düzeylerinde nitel ve nicel veri üretmektedir. Şu ana kadar Türkiye üzerine ve/veya Türkiye’den toplanmış birçok veri kümesi küresel Uİ yazınındaki birçok tartışmayı zenginleştirmiştir. Bu tartışmalar, devlet-dışı aktörlerin siyasi yapılanmasından ülkelerin uluslararası barışı koruma faaliyetlerine katkılarının belirleyenlerine kadar geniş bir tayfta gerçekleşmektedir. Bu çalışmadaki ana savımız, Türkiye'de toplanacak birçok verinin küresel düzlemde ilgi görebileceği, bu verilerden oluşturulacak veri kümelerini tanıtacak makalelerin başlı başına prestijli dergilerde yüksek atıf alarak yayınlanma potansiyelinin olduğudur. Türkiye temelli Uİ verilerinin uluslararası yayına evrilebilmeleri için bazı koşulları sağlamaları gerekmektedir. Bu koşulların en önemlisi toplanacak verilerin mevcut küresel tartışmalar ışığında çerçevelendirilmesi, bu verilerden oluşturulacak değişkenlerin inşa geçerliliğinin ise sağlam bir kuramsal temel üzerine oturtulmasıdır. Verilerin ölçüm ve kodlama süreçlerinde hem bugünün popüler tartışmalarına hem de bu tartışmaların gelecekte evrilebileceği diğer araştırma sorularına katkıda bulunma potansiyeli dikkate alınmalıdır. Ortaya çıkan veri kümesinin küresel ve demokratik erişiminin sağlanması ve bu süreçte etik standartlara sıkı sıkıya bağlı kalınması, toplanan verilerin yayın haline dönüştürülmesi sürecinde takip edilmesi gereken diğer elzem noktalardır. Makalemiz, son yirmi senede ülkemizden çıkan veri toplama çalışmaları üzerinden savlarımızı detaylandırmakta ve günümüz Uİ yazınındaki bazı popüler tartışmalara Türkiye temelli katkıda bulunabilecek bazı veri seti önerileriyle sonuçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• veri toplama
• kantitatif veri

DATA COLLECTION IN TURKEY & GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Öz

Turkey experiences various multidimensional issues and problems regarding the field of International Relations (IR) due to her geopolitics and historical legacy. As a result of Turkey’s diplomatic, military, and economic relations with the regional and global powers as well as discordances and instabilities Turkey experiences in the domestic politics produces both qualitative and quantitative data in all levels of analyses within IR. As a matter of fact, existing data on Turkey, or collected from Turkey have enriched the many debates ongoing in Global IR including, but not limited to, the activities and structures of non-state armed actors, states’ contributions to international peacekeeping operations, various factors impacting the commitment to and level of foreign aid. In this manuscript, we argue that data collection efforts in Turkey would contribute to the ongoing debates within the field by reaching beyond the limits of Turkish politics, and hence, could be published in top-ranked journals of the field attracting attention by leading scholars. Yet, we believe, such efforts should fulfill some of the conditions prior to publication: First and foremost, these data collection efforts must build upon the global theoretical debates. Second, coding and measurement of data must comply with the recent rules and regulations and should be informed by the contemporary research questions. Accessibility to the data must be provided, and ethical guidelines in data collection and analysis processes must be strictly followed. We discuss our arguments in detail by investigating the data-collection process of multiple datasets generated in Turkey and explain how they offer to the global IR literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkey
• International Relations
• data collection
• quantitiative data

Kaynakça

1. Akcinaroglu, S. ve Tokdemir E. (2020). Battle for Allegiance: Governments, Terrorist Groups, and Constituencies in Conflict, 1.Baskı, University of Michigan Press, Ann-Arbor.
2. Akcinaroglu, S. ve Tokdemir E. (2018). “To instill fear or love: Terrorist groups and the strategy of building reputation", Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35/4, 355-377.
3. Albrecht, H. (2020). "Diversionary Peace: International Peacekeeping and Domestic Civil-Military Relations", International Peacekeeping, 27/4, 586-616.
4. APSA. (2020). American Political Science Association Annual Meeting Online Program. https://connect.apsanet.org/apsa2020/online-program/
5. Asal, V., Avdan, N. ve Shuaibi, N. (2020). "Women Too: Explaining Gender Ideologies of Ethnopolitical Organizations", Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1-18.
6. Avdan, N. ve Clayton, W. (2018). "The big, the bad, and the dangerous: public perceptions and terrorism", Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 11/1, 3-25.
7. Aydın Çakır, A. ve Arıkan Akdağ, G. (2017). "An empirical analysis of the change in Turkish foreign policy under the AKP government", Turkish Studies, 18/2, 334-357.
8. Aydın, M. ve Dizdaroğlu, C. (2019). "Türkiye'de Uluslararası İlişkiler: TRIP 2018 Sonuçları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme", Uluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations, 16/64, 3-28.

9. Aydinli, E. (2020). Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-reflections on Dialogue with the Core. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 13/2, 287-312.
10. Aydinli, E., & Mathews, J. (2020). Searching for Larger Status in Global Politics: Internationalization of Higher Education in Turkey. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1028315320932325.
11. Aydinli, E. ve Tuzuner, M. (2011). "Quantifying intelligence cooperation: The United States International Intelligence Behavior (USIIB) dataset", Journal of Peace Research, 48/5, 673-682.
12. Bacik, G. ve Coskun, B. (2011). "The PKK problem: Explaining Turkey's failure to develop a political solution", Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34/3, 248-265.
13. Balas, A., Owsiak, A. ve Diehl, P. (2012). "Demanding peace: the impact of prevailing conflict on the shift from peacekeeping to peacebuilding", Peace & Change, 37/2, 195-226.
14. Bayer, R. (2006). Diplomatic Exchange Data set, v2006.1. http://correlatesofwar.org.
15. Bayer, R. (2010). "Peaceful transitions and democracy", Journal of Peace Research, 47/5, 535-546.
16. Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking Past ‘Western’IR?. Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5-23.
17. Bilgin, P. (2020). Opening up international relations, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love non-Western IR. In Handbook of Critical International Relations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
18. Buhaug, H. ve Gleditsch, K. (2008). "Contagion or confusion? Why conflicts cluster in space", International Studies Quarterly, 52/2, 215-233.
19. Cederman, L., Gleditsch, K., Salehyan, I. ve Wucherpfennig, J. (2013). "Transborder ethnic kin and civil war", International Organization, 67/2, 389-410.
20. Cil, D., Fjelde, H., Hultman, L. ve Nilsson, D. (2020). "Mapping blue helmets: Introducing the geocoded peacekeeping operations (geo-pko) dataset", Journal of Peace Research, 57/2, 360-370.
21. Collier, P. ve Hoeffler, A. (2004). "Greed and grievance in civil war", Oxford economic papers, 56/4, 563-595.
22. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J. Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., et al. (2017). "VDem [country-year/country-date] Dataset v7. 1. Varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project”.
23. Fearon, J. ve Laitin, D. (2003). "Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war", American political science review, 97/1, 75-90.
24. Forsberg, E. (2008). "Polarization and ethnic conflict in a widened strategic setting." Journal of Peace Research, 45/2, 283-300.
25. Gates, S. (2002). “Recruitment and Allegiance: The Microfoundations of Rebellion.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46/1, 111-30.
26. Ghosn, F., Palmer, G. ve Bremer, S. (2004). "The MID3 data set, 1993—2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description", Conflict management and peace science, 21/2, 133-154.
27. Gleditsch, N., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M. ve Strand, H. (2002). ‘Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research, 39/5, 615–637.
28. Goemans, H., Gleditsch, K. ve Chiozza, G. (2009). "Introducing Archigos: A dataset of political leaders." Journal of Peace research, 46/2, 269-283.
29. Gokce, O. ve Hatipoglu, E. (2019). “Global Energy Relations Dataset: An Introduction,” 2019 International Studies Association Midwest Konferansı, St. Louis, ABD 22-23 Kasım 2019.
30. GTD. (2018). Global Terrorism Dataset. http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
31. Hatipoglu, E., Gokce, O. ve Soytas, M. (2020). “Energy Interdependence and Interstate Conflict,” KAPSARC Enerji Seminerleri.
32. Hayes, G. (1997). “Canada as a middle power: the case of peacekeeping”. Niche Diplomacy (Ed: A. F. Cooper), Palgrave Macmillan, London.
33. Henke, M. (2019). "UN fatalities 1948–2015: A new dataset", Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36/4, 425-442.
34. Horowitz, D. (2000). Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 2.Baskı, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
35. Humphreys, M. ve Weinstein, J. (2008). “Who Fights? The Determinants of Participation in Civil War”, American Journal of Political Science, 52/2, 436-55.
36. Jaggers, K. ve Gurr, T. (1995). "Tracking democracy's third wave with the Polity III data", Journal of peace research, 32/4, 469-482.
37. Kadıoğlu, İ. A. (2019). "The Oslo Talks: Revealing the Turkish Government's Secret Negotiations with the PKK." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 42/10, 915-933.
38. Kalyvas, S. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
39. Kathman, J. (2013). "United Nations peacekeeping personnel commitments, 1990–2011." Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30/5, 532-549.
40. Kibris, A. (2020). “The Geo-Temporal Evolution of Violence in Civil Conflicts”, Journal of Peace Research. Online First.
41. Ko, S. (2012). "Korea’s middle power activism and peacekeeping operations." Asia Europe Journal, 10/4, 287-299.
42. Köstem, S. ve Şen, Ö. F. (2020). "International Political Economy in Turkey: The Evolution and Current State of a Maturing Subfield", Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 17/66, 77-91.
43. Lake, D. A. ve Rothchild, D. (1998). “Spreading fear: The genesis of transnational ethnic conflict”. The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict (Ed: D. A. Lake ve D. Rothchild), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
44. Lane, M. (2016). ”The Intrastate Contagion of Ethnic Civil War”, Journal of Politics, 78/2, 396-410.
45. Lemke, D. (2008). "Power politics and wars without states.", American Journal of Political Science, 52/4, 774-786.
46. Lyall, J. M. (2009). “Does Indiscriminate Violence Incite Insurgent Attacks? Evidence from Chechnya”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53/3, 31-362.
47. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R. ve Tierney, M. J. (2017). TRIP 2017 Faculty Survey. Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project. https://trip.wm.edu/.
48. Mason, T. D. (2004). Caught in the Crossfire: Revolution, Repression, and the Rational Peasant, Rowman & Littlefield, New York.
49. Maoz, Z, ve San-Akca, B. (2012). "Rivalry and state support of non-state armed groups (NAGs), 1946–2001", International Studies Quarterly, 56 /4, 720-734.
50. Nemeth, S. C., ve Mauslein, J. A. (2019). "Geography and the Certainty of Terrorism Event Coding", Journal of Global Security Studies, 4/2, 227-240.
51. Olsson, L. ve Möller, F. (2013). "Data on women's participation in UN, EU, and OSCE field missions: trends, possibilities, and problems", International Interactions, 39/4, 587-600.
52. Palmer, G., Orazio, V., Kenwick, M. ve Lane, M. (2015). "The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description", Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32/2, 222-242.
53. Pettersson, T., Högbladh, S. ve Öberg, M. (2019). "Organized violence, 1989–2018 and peace agreements", Journal of Peace Research, 56/4, 589-603.
54. Salehyan, I. ve Gleditsch, K. S. (2007). “Refugees and the Spread of Civil War”, International Organization, 60/2, 335-66.
55. San-Akca, B. (2016). States in Disguise: Causes of State Support for Rebel Groups, Oxford University Press, New York.
56. Singer, J. D. ve Small, M. (1972). The wages of war, 1816-1965: a statistical handbook, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
57. Somer, M. (2014). "Theory-consuming or Theory-producing?: Studying Turkey as a Theory-developing Critical Case", Turkish Studies, 15/4, 571-588.
58. Stasavage, D. (2010). "When distance mattered: geographic scale and the development of European representative assemblies", American Political Science Review, 104/4, 625-643.
59. Tezcur, G. M. (2015). "Ordinary people, extraordinary risks: Participation in an ethnic rebellion", American Political Science Review, 110/2, 247-264.
60. Tilly, C. (2003). The Politics of Collective Violence, Cambridge University Press, New York.
61. Tokdemir, E., & Akcinaroglu, S. (2016). Reputation of Terror Groups Dataset: Measuring popularity of terror groups. Journal of Peace Research, 53(2), 268-277.
62. Unal, M. C. (2014). "Strategist or pragmatist: A challenging look at Ocalan's retrospective classification and definition of PKK's strategic periods between 1973 and 2012", Terrorism and Political Violence, 26/3, 419-448.
63. Yalçınkaya, H., Hatipoglu, E., Açar, D. A. ve Çelikpala, M. (2018). "Turkish efforts in peacekeeping and the introduction of the TUBAKOV dataset: an exploratory analysis.", International Peacekeeping, 25/4, 475-496.
64. Weidmann, N. B. (2015). “Communication Networks and the Transnational Spread of Ethnic Conflict”. Journal of Peace Research, 52/3, 285-296
65. Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Inside Rebellion, Cambridge University Press, New York.
66. Wimmer, A. (2013). Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World. Cambridge University Press, New York.