KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US

Mustafa Aydın(KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4029-6681
Cihan Dizdaroğlu(BASKENT UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8613-8585
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-04-24
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The article contributes to existing literature by offering a comparative, data-driven analysis of how disciplinary divisions and partial convergences influence knowledge production in different geopolitical contexts.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This article utilizes data from the 2022–2023 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey, which features a sample of 176 scholars in Turkey and 979 in the US, to explore how IR scholars in both countries conceptualize their disciplinary identity, select research methods, engage with policy, and navigate academic recognition.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The findings highlight enduring divides: Turkish scholars demonstrate a stronger preference for qualitative, applied, and regionally focused research, whereas their American counterparts operate in a more pluralistic and post-paradigmatic scholarly environment.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The article contributes to existing literature by offering a comparative, data-driven analysis of how disciplinary divisions and partial convergences influence knowledge production in different geopolitical contexts.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2022–2023 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Disciplinary identity · Global IR · center-periphery

Abstract

This article utilizes data from the 2022–2023 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey, which features a sample of 176 scholars in Turkey and 979 in the US, to explore how IR scholars in both countries conceptualize their disciplinary identity, select research methods, engage with policy, and navigate academic recognition. Framed by how scholars in semiperipheral contexts relate to disciplinary cores, the study investigates whether Turkish IR reveals convergence with or divergence from global disciplinary norms. The findings highlight enduring divides: Turkish scholars demonstrate a stronger preference for qualitative, applied, and regionally focused research, whereas their American counterparts operate in a more pluralistic and post-paradigmatic scholarly environment. Nevertheless, there are signs of convergence, particularly in the increased engagement of Turkish scholars with international publications and leading theoretical approaches. This hybrid positioning highlights the fundamental contradictions within the Global IR agenda, namely the tension between inclusion and hierarchy, and between adaptation and autonomy. The article contributes to existing literature by offering a comparative, data-driven analysis of how disciplinary divisions and partial convergences influence knowledge production in different geopolitical contexts.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Aydın, M., Dizdaroğlu, C. (2026). Disciplinary Divides and Convergences: A Comparative Look at International Relations Scholarship in Turkey and the US. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1931765

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (29)

  1. Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–59.
  2. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312.
  3. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Non-Western international relations theory perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York and London: Routledge.
  4. Al, U., & Soydal, İ. (2014). Akademinin atıf dizinleri ile savaşı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 23–42.
  5. Aydın, M. (2007). A questionnaire about scientific research and teaching practices, views on the discipline and political attitudes of international relations academicians in Turkey. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 4(5), 1–31.
  6. Aydın, M. (2025). Transformation of Turkish-Russian relations: Rivalry and cooperation in Eurasia and the Levant. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 22(85), 21–39.
  7. Aydın, M., & Dizdaroğlu, C. (2019). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler: TRIP 2018 sonuçları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 16(64), 3–28.
  8. Aydın, M., Hisarlıoglu, F., & Yazgan, K. (2016). An analysis of international relations academics in Turkey and their approaches to the field: TRIP 2014 faculty survey results. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12(48), 3–35.
  9. Aydın, M., & Yazgan, K. (2010). Survey of international relations faculty in Turkey: Research, teaching and views on the discipline – 2009. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(25), 3–42.
  10. Aydın, M., & Yazgan, K. (2013). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler akademisyenleri eğitim, araştırma ve uluslararası politika anketi – 2011. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 9(36), 3–44.
  11. Aydınlı, E., & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 289– 303.
  12. Aydınlı, E. & Mathews, J. (2008). Periphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: Spinning IR theory out of Anatolia. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 693–712.
  13. Benli Altunışık, M. & Martin, L.G. (2023). Turkey and the Middle East and North Africa under the AKP: A three level analysis of foreign policy change. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 20(78), 79–96.
  14. Bilgin, P. (2005). Center-periphery relations in the study of international relations: Where is Turkey? Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2(6), 3–14.
  15. Bilgin, P. (2021). How not to globalise IR: ‘Centre’ and ‘periphery’ as constitutive of ‘the international.’” Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 13–27.
  16. Bilgin, P., & Capan, Z.G. (2021). Introduction to the special issue regional international relations and global worlds: Globalising international relations. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 1–11.
  17. Entringer García Blanes, I., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M.J. (2024). The top international relations schools of 2024, ranked. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/30/international relationsschool- rankings-university-undergraduate-masters-phd-programs/.
  18. Erdoğan, E. (2024). Türkiye’deki siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkiler akademisyenlerinin yöntemsel tercihleri, yayın eğilimleri ve kamusal görünürlük dinamikleri. Reflektif: Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(3), 735–64.
  19. Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
  20. Karamik, İ., & Ermihan, E. (2023). Quo vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s footsteps within the global. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(2), 241–60.
  21. Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 529–50.
  22. Köstem, S. (2022). Managed regional rivalry between Russia and Turkey after the annexation of Crimea. Europe-Asia Studies, 74(9), 1657–75.
  23. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers R., & Tierney, M.J. (2017). TRIP 2017 faculty survey: teaching, research, and international policy project. Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute. https:// trip.wm.edu.
  24. Okur, M. A. & Aytekin, C.E. (2023). Non-Western theories in international relations education and research: The case of Turkey/Turkish academia. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(1), 19–44.
  25. Özdemir, H. (2024). The dark side of the moon: An ever-fragmenting discipline and Turkish IR in ‘the outer periphery. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(1), 1–22.
  26. Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M.J. (2023). TRIP faculty survey 2022-2023. Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys/Faculty-Survey-2022- Partial-Report.pdf.
  27. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374–402.
  28. Sune, E. (2024). Western-centric moments in homegrown IR theories: Dependency, Chinese and African schools. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(1), 1–22.
  29. Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627–46.