QUANTITATIVE LARGE-N DATA ANALYSIS AND ITS APPLICATION IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS LITERATURE

Öz

Thanks to availability of various large-N datasets, developments in statistical techniques, and convenient usage of statistical softwares, quantitative large-N techniques have come to be applied extensively by researchers in the field of international relations. Such extensive applications of these techniques, on the one hand, help us evaluate the external validity of arguments or empirical claims made by scholars in the field. On the other hand, employing these techniques without paying attention to theoretical explanations, expectations, and assumptions with the aim of catching up statistical significance between variables of interest falls short of scientific integrity and quality. This article aims to highlight points requiring scholarly attention while applying quantitative large-N techniques to questions in international relations. Referring to prominent empirical discussions in the literature and giving examples, this article also wants to draw researchers’ attention to the future in international relations in the light of the big data revolution.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• large-N datasets
• quantitative techniques
• data analysis
• international relations

KANTİTATİF ÇOK VAKALI (LARGE-N) VERİ ANALİZİ VE KÜRESEL ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER YAZININDAKİ UYGULAMALARI

Öz

İstatistiki veri analiz programlarına erişimin kolaylaşması ve çok vakalı veri setlerinin yaygınlaşıp ulaşılabilir hale gelmesiyle birlikte uluslararası ilişkiler yazınında kantitatif çok vakalı veri analizlerine dayalı makaleler ağırlık kazanmaya başlamış ve günümüzde artık neredeyse her çalışmada görebileceğimiz yaygınlığa ulaşmıştır. Uluslararası ilişkiler yazınında gerek devletlerin gerekse devlet-dışı aktörlerin farklı boyutlardaki ilişkilerinin çok vakalı veri analizi uygulanarak incelenmesi, yapılan çalışmaların dış geçerliliğini (external validity) artırmaktadır. Ancak, veri setinin yapısına ve veri oluşum sürecine (data generating process) önem verilmeden ve sadece ortaya konan hipotezi doğrulama amacıyla sofistike kantitatif yöntemleri kullanma eğilimi, bu alanda suistimallere açık kapı bırakmaktadır. Bu makaledeki ana sav, güçlü teorik altyapıya sahip olunduğu ve araştırma yöntemlerindeki temel bazı unsurlara dikkat edildiği sürece basit istatistiki analizlerle bile çoklu vaka analizinin mümkün olabileceğine ve bu çalışmaların prestijli dergilerde yayınlanma potansiyeline dikkat çekmektir. Makalenin genel amacıysa, çok vakalı veri analizi yapmayı planlayan sosyal bilim araştırmacılarına sağlıklı bir sosyal çıkarım için verinin basitçe nasıl kullanılabileceği konusunda fikir vermek ve değişkenlerin amaca uygun dönüştürülmesinden veri setinin yapısına uygun analiz yönteminin seçilmesine kadar birtakım konularda basit düzeyde yardımcı olmaktır. Makale, ortaya konan sav ve amaçları doğrultusunda son elli yılda uluslararası ilişkiler yazınında öne çıkan çok vakalı veri analizi uygulamalarını, konu ile ilgili güncel tartışma ve önerileri ve özellikle de büyük verilerin (big data) kullanımının yazını yakın gelecekte nasıl etkileyebileceğini okuyucunun dikkatine sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çok vakalı veri setleri
• kantitatif yöntemler
• veri analizi
• uluslararası ilişkiler

Kaynakça

1. Anscombe, F. J. (1973). “Graphs in Statistical Analysis”, American Statistician, 27/1, 17–21.
2. Barbieri, K. (1996). “Economic interdependence: A path to peace or a source of interstate conflict?”, Journal of Peace Research, 33/1, 29–49.
3. Barbieri, K. (2002). The liberal illusion: Does trade promote peace?, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
4. Barbieri, K. ve Peters, R. A. (2003). “Measure for mis-measure: A response to Gartzke & Li”, Journal of Peace Research, 40/6, 713–719.
5. Beck, N., J. Katz ve R. Tucker. (1998). “Taking Time Seriously”, American Journal of Political Science, 42/4, 1260–1288.
6. Braithwaite, A. ve Lemke, D. (2011). “Unpacking escalation”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28/2, 111–123.
7. Braumoeller, B. F. ve Sartori A. E. (2004). “The promise and perils of statistics in International Relations”, Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations (Ed. D. Sprinz ve Y. Wolinsky-Nahamias), 129–151, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
8. Bremer, S. A. (1992). “Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36/2, 309–341.

9. Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1978). “Systemic Polarization and the Occurrence and Duration of War”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22/2, 241–267.
10. Bueno de Mesquita, B. B., Morrow, J. D., Siverson, R. M. ve Smith, A. (1999). “An institutional explanation of the democratic peace”, American Political Science Review, 93/4, 791–807.
11. Carmines, E. G. ve Zeller R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
12. Cox, D. G., ve Drury, A. C. (2006). “Democratic sanctions: Connecting the democratic peace and economic sanctions”, Journal of Peace Research, 43/6, 709–722.
13. Crescenzi, M. J. (2003). “Economic exit, interdependence, and conflict”, Journal of Politics, 65/3, 809–832.
14. Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S. A., Kann, R. A., Maurice Lee M., Lichterman, R. E. L., Lowenheim, F. L. ve Van Wagenen, R. W. (1957). Political Community in the Northern Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
15. Diehl, P. F. (2006). “Just a phase?: Integrating conflict dynamics over time”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 23/3, 199–210.
16. Dixon, W. J. (1994). “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict”, American Political Science Review, 88/1, 14–32.
17. Dixon, W. J. ve Moon, B. E. (1993). “Political similarity and American foreign trade patterns”, Political Research Quarterly, 46/1, 5–25.
18. Doyle, M. W. (1986). “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, 80/4, 1151–1169.
19. Gartzke, E. ve Li, Q. (2003). “Measure for measure: Concept operationalization and the trade interdependence-conflict debate”, Journal of peace research, 40/5, 553–571.
20. Goenner, C. F. (2011). “Simultaneity between trade and conflict: Endogenous instruments of mass destruction”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28/5, 459–477.
21. Goenner, C. F. (2013). “Mission accomplished: A reply to Reuveny and Keshk”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30/1, 19–23.
22. Goldstein, J. S. ve Freeman, J. R. (1990). Three-way street: Strategic reciprocity in world politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
23. Gowa, J. ve Mansfield E. D. (1993). “Power politics and international trade”, American Political Science Review, 87/2, 408–420.
24. Gökçe, O. Z., Hatipoğlu, E., Göktürk, G., Luetgert, B. ve Saygin, Y. (2014). “Twitter and politics: Identifying Turkish opinion leaders in new social media”, Turkish Studies, 15/4, 671–688.
25. Green, D. P., Kim, S. Y. ve Yoon, D. H. (2001). Dirty pool. International Organization, 55/2, 441–468.
26. Grieco, J. 1990. Cooperation among nations, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
27. Gurr, T. R., Jaggers, K. ve Moore, W. H. (1990). Polity II: Political structures and regime change, 1800-1986. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor.
28. Hopf, T. (1991). “Polarity, the Offense-Defense Balance, and War”, The American Political Science Review, 85/2, 475–493.
29. Hatipoğlu, E., Gökçe, O. Z., Dinçer, B., & Saygın, Y. (2016). “Sosyal medya ve Türk dış politikası: Kobani Tweetleri üzerinden Türk dış politikası algısı”, Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations, 13/52, 175–197.
30. Hatipoğlu, E., Gökçe, O. Z., İnanç, A. ve Saygın, Y. (2019). “Automated text analysis and international relations: The introduction and application of a novel technique for Twitter”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8/2, 183–204.
31. Heckman, J. J. (1979). “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error”, Econometrica, 47/1, 153–161.
32. Hegre, H., Oneal, J. R. ve Russett, B. (2010). “Trade does promote peace: New simultaneous estimates of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict”, Journal of Peace Research, 47/6, 763–774.
33. Huth, P. ve T. Allee. (2002). The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. Jones, D. M., Bremer, S. A. ve Singer, J. D. (1996). “Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 15/2, 163–213.
35. Keshk, O. M., Pollins, B. M. ve Reuveny, R. (2004). “Trade still follows the flag: The primacy of politics in a simultaneous model of interdependence and armed conflict”, Journal of Politics, 66/4, 1155–1179.
36. Keshk, O. M., Reuveny, R. ve Pollins, B. M. (2010). “Trade and conflict: Proximity, country size, and measures”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27/1, 3–27.
37. King, G. (1998). Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
38. King, G., Tomz, M. ve Wittenberg, J. (2000). “Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation”, American journal of political science, 44/2, 347–361.
39. King, G. ve L. Zeng. (2001). “Explaining Rare Events in IR”, International Organization, 55/3, 693–716.
40. Kugler, J. ve Lemke, D. (1996). Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
41. Lake, D. A. ve Powell, R. (1999). “International Relations: A Strategic-Choice Approach”, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Ed: D. A. Lake ve R. Powell), 3–38, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
42. Leeds, B. A. (2003). “Do alliances deter aggression? The influence of military alliances on the initiation of militarized interstate disputes”, American Journal of Political Science, 47/3, 427–439.
43. Lemke, D. (2003). “African Lessons for International Relations Research”, World Politics, 56/1, 114–138.
44. Levy, J. S. (1984). “Size and stability in the modern great power system”, International Interactions, 10/4, 341–358.
45. Mansfield, E. D. (1994). Power, Trade, and War, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
46. Mansfield, E. D. ve Pevehouse, J. C. (2008). “Quantitative Approaches”, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Ed: C. Reus-Smit ve D. Snidal), 481–498, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Maoz, Z., ve Russett B. (1993). “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–86”, American Political Science Review, 87/3, 624–638.
48. Mayer-Schönberger, V. ve Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
49. Mitchell, R. B. 2002. “A Quantitative Approach to Evaluating International Environmental Regimes”, Global Environmental Politics, 2/4, 58–63.
50. Morgan, T. C., ve Schwebach, V. L. (1997). “Fools suffer gladly: The use of economic sanctions in international crises”, International Studies Quarterly, 41/1, 27–50.
51. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948) 1978. Politics among Nations. 5. Baskı, Knopf, New York.
52. Morrow, J. D. (1997). “When do “relative gains” impede trade?”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41/1, 12–37.
53. Morton, R. B. (1999). Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
54. Moul, W. (2003). “Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816–1989”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47/4, 468–489.
55. Oneal, J. R. ve Russett, B. M. (1997). “The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985”, International Studies Quarterly, 41/2, 267–293.
56. Oneal, J. R. ve Russett, B. (1999). “Assessing the liberal peace with alternative specifications: Trade still reduces conflict”, Journal of Peace Research, 36/4, 423–442.
57. Oneal, J. R. ve Russett, B. (2001). “Clear and clean: The fixed effects of the liberal peace”, International Organization, 55/2, 469–485.
58. Organski, A. F. K. ve Kugler, J. (1980). The War Ledger, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
59. Peksen, D. (2012). “Does foreign military intervention help human rights?”, Political Research Quarterly, 65/3, 558–571.
60. Pevehouse, J. ve Russett, B. (2006). “Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace”, International Organization, 60/4, 969–1000.
61. Popper, K. R. (1963). “Science as falsification”, Conjectures and refutations, 1, 33–39.
62. Powell, R. (1991). “Relative and absolute gains in international relations theory”, American Political Science Review, 85/4, 1303–1320.
63. Reed, W. (2000). “A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation”, American Journal of Political Science, 44/1, 84–93.
64. Russett, B. ve Oneal, J. (2001). Triangulating peace. Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, Norton, New York.
65. Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
66. Signorino, C. (2002). “Strategy and selection in international relations”, International Interactions, 28/1, 93–115.
67. Singer, J. D. (1972). “The “Correlates of War” Project: Interim Report and Rationale”, World Politics, 24/2, 243–270.
68. Singer, J. D. (1988). “Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985”, International Interactions, 14/2, 115–132.
69. Singer, J. D., Bremer, S. ve Stuckey, J. (1972). “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” Peace, War, and Numbers (Ed: B. M. Russett), Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
70. Singer, J. D. ve Small, M. (1968). “Alliance aggregation and the onset of war, 1815–1914.” Quantitative International Politic: Insights and Evidence (Ed: J. D. Singer), Free Press, New York.
71. Siverson, R. M. ve Sullivan M. P. (1983). “The Distribution of Power and the Onset of War”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27/2, 473–494.
72. Souva, M. (2004). “Institutional similarity and interstate conflict”, International Interactions, 30/3, 263–280.
73. Sprinz, D. ve Wolinsky-Nahamias, Y. (2004). “Methodology in International Relations Research”, Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations (Ed. D. Sprinz ve Y. Wolinsky-Nahamias), 1–17, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
74. Walt, S. M. (1985). “Alliance formation and the balance of world power”, International security, 9/4, 3–43.
75. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
76. Wayman, F. (1984). “Bipolarity and War”, Journal of Peace Research, 21/1, 653–685.
77. Zinnes, D. (1980). “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher”, International Studies Quarterly, 24/3, 315–342.