SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2022 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

‘Global’ IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and Data Repository

İsmail Erkam SULA
Pages
123–142
Publication Date
2022-01-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, the paper not only discusses the diagnoses in the literature regarding the shortcomings of the International Relations discipline in Turkey, but also offers concrete directions for a potential treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article covers the disciplinary debates on ‘global’ IR and the self-reflections of IR scholars about the state of the discipline in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Two separate groups of researchers composed of graduate students from various universities across Turkey are trained in the ways of research design, the fundamentals of data collection, and writing research papers based on rigorous methodological design, data, and replicable findings.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, the paper not only discusses the diagnoses in the literature regarding the shortcomings of the International Relations discipline in Turkey, but also offers concrete directions for a potential treatment.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Data collection · data repository · global studies

Abstract

This article covers the disciplinary debates on ‘global’ IR and the self-reflections of IR scholars about the state of the discipline in Turkey. It argues that high quality methodological training can contribute to overcoming the dissatisfaction felt by scholars of IR in Turkey. It suggests that inclusion of IR knowledge produced in the non-core into the ‘Global’ pool can be achieved through local ‘revolutions’, and that the potential for progress in this direction lies in methodological improvement and data-collection projects. The article offers three exemplary data projects to crystalize the argument: the Social Sciences Data Repository, the Global Security Database (GloSec) and the Global Risk Assessment Dataset (GRAD). These projects aim to: disseminate data-based research and encourage data sharing among scholars in Turkey, train prospective IR scholars to produce research based on clear, replicable, and rigorous methodology in Turkey, encourage graduate students in Turkish universities to have a global scholarly outreach and talk to the global scholarly community, and contribute to IR scholarship with these local pedagogical and academic experiences. Two separate groups of researchers composed of graduate students from various universities across Turkey are trained in the ways of research design, the fundamentals of data collection, and writing research papers based on rigorous methodological design, data, and replicable findings. Thus, the paper not only discusses the diagnoses in the literature regarding the shortcomings of the International Relations discipline in Turkey, but also offers concrete directions for a potential treatment.

🔖

Cite This Article

SULA, İ. E. (2022). ‘Global’ IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and Data Repository. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 123–142. https://ajindex.com/articles/712345

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 4–15. ———. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647–59.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London: Routledge, 2010.
  3. Aktürk, Şener. “Temporal Horizons in the Study of Turkish Politics: Prevalence of Non-Causal Description and Seemingly ‘Global Warming’ Type of Causality.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 117–33.
  4. Anderl, Felix, and Antonia Witt. “Problematising the Global in Global IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49, no. 1 (2020): 32–57.
  5. Aydinli, Ersel. “Methodological Poverty and Disciplinary Underdevelopment in IR.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (January 22, 2019): 109–15.
  6. Aydinli, Ersel. “Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-Reflections on Dialogue with the Core.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 13, no. 2 (2020): 287–312.
  7. Aydinli, Ersel, Erol Kurubaş, and Haluk Özdemir. Yöntem, kuram, komplo: Türk uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde vizyon arayışları. Istanbul: Kure Yayınları, 2015.
  8. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Time to Quantify Turkey’s Foreign Affairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations Discipline.” International Studies Perspectives 18, no. 3 (2017): 267–87.
  9. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289–303. ———. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693–712. ———. “Turkey: Towards Homegrown Theorizing and Building a Disciplinary Community.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner, 208–22. London: Routledge, 2009. ———. “Türkiye uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde özgün kuram potansiyeli: Anadolu ekolünü oluşturmak mümkün mü?” Uluslararasi Iliskiler 5, no. 17 (2008): 161–87.
  10. Aydinli, Ersel, Mustafa Aydın, Emre Baran, Andrey Makarychev, Karen Smith, Ramazan Gözen, Pınar İpek, et al. “Roundtable Discussion on Homegrown Theorizing.” All Azimuth 7, no. 2 (2018): 101–14.
  11. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem, and Bahar Rumelili. “Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings.” All Azimuth 8, no.