KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yükseköğretim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

ÜSDİK Kapanı: Türk Uluslararası İlişkilerinde Akademik Bağımlılığın Peçesini Kaldırmak

The URJIC Trap: Unveiling Academic Dependency in Turkish IR

Mehmet Akif Okur(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5095-6113
Mustafa Onur Tetik(HİTİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2318-8504
Sayfa
87–101
Yayın Tarihi
2026-08-31
🏛️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)

Bulgular: Bulgular, SSCI, AHCI, Scopus ve Web of Science gibi Batı merkezli indekslerin akademik liyakatin ana ölçütleri hâline geldiğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türk Uluslararası İlişkiler akademisinde Anglo-Amerikan akademik hegemonyasını yeniden üreten yerel kurumsal mekanizmaları incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Amaç, akademik bağımlılığı güçlendiren somut değerlendirme pratiklerini görünür kılmak ve bu süreci ÜSDİK kavramıyla açıklamaktır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Bulgular, SSCI, AHCI, Scopus ve Web of Science gibi Batı merkezli indekslerin akademik liyakatin ana ölçütleri hâline geldiğini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Akademik Bağımlılık · Küresel Uİ · Türk Uİ

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türk Uluslararası İlişkiler akademisinde Anglo-Amerikan akademik hegemonyasını yeniden üreten yerel kurumsal mekanizmaları incelemektedir. Amaç, akademik bağımlılığı güçlendiren somut değerlendirme pratiklerini görünür kılmak ve bu süreci ÜSDİK kavramıyla açıklamaktır. Yöntem: Araştırma nitel doküman analizine dayanmaktadır. Yetmiş devlet üniversitesinin atama-yükseltme ölçütleri, Üniversitelerarası Kurul doçentlik kriterleri, üniversite stratejik planları ve YÖK izleme raporları incelenmiş; indeks ve yayın göstergeleri URAP temelli gruplara göre kodlanmıştır. Bulgular: Bulgular, SSCI, AHCI, Scopus ve Web of Science gibi Batı merkezli indekslerin akademik liyakatin ana ölçütleri hâline geldiğini göstermektedir. Türkçe ve Türkiye merkezli yayınlar birçok değerlendirme sürecinde ikincilleştirilmektedir. Sonuç ve Öneriler: Çalışma, akademik bağımlılığın yerel politikalarla da sürdüğünü göstermektedir. Değerlendirmelerde indeks statüsü yerine içeriklerin niteliği ve Türkçe bilimsel üretim dikkate alınmalıdır.

Abstract

Objective: This study examines local institutional mechanisms that reproduce Anglo-American academic hegemony in Turkish International Relations academia. It aims to identify concrete evaluation practices that deepen academic dependency and to explain this process through the URJIC concept. Methods: The study uses qualitative document analysis. It examines appointment and promotion criteria of seventy Turkish public universities, Inter-University Council criteria, university strategic plans, and Council of Higher Education monitoring reports; index and publication indicators are coded by URAP-based university tiers. Results: The findings show that Western-centered indexes such as SSCI, AHCI, Scopus, and Web of Science have become central measures of academic merit. Turkish-language and Türkiye-based publications are often relegated to secondary status in evaluation processes. Conclusions and Recommendations: The article shows that academic dependency is sustained through local policy choices as well as global structures. Assessment systems should prioritize scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, local relevance, and Turkish-language scientific production rather than index status.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Okur, M. A., Tetik, M. O. (2026). ÜSDİK Kapanı: Türk Uluslararası İlişkilerinde Akademik Bağımlılığın Peçesini Kaldırmak. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1707696

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (50)

  1. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2017). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcx006
  2. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations: Origins and evolution of IR at its centenary. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647670
  3. Agathangelou, A. M., & Ling, L. H. M. (2004). The house of IR: From family power politics to the poisies of worldism. International Studies Review, 6(4), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.00448.x
  4. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003
  5. Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.636001
  6. Anadolu Agency. (2023, August 9). YÖK’ten QS’nin 2024 dünya üniversite sıralaması açıklaması: İlk 500’e giren Türk üniversitelerinin sayısı 3’e yükseldi. Anadolu Agency. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/yokten-qsin-2024-dunya-universite-siralamasi-aciklamasi-ilk-500e-giren-turk-universitelerinin-sayisi-3e-yukseldi/2936814
  7. Aydinli, E. (2019). Methodological poverty and disciplinary underdevelopment in IR. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.513139
  8. Aydinli, E. (2024). Theory importation and the death of homegrown disciplinary potential: An autopsy of Turkish IR. Third World Quarterly, 45(3), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2023.2257141
  9. Aydinli, E., & Aydinli, J. (2024). Exposing linguistic imperialism: Why global IR has to be multilingual. Review of International Studies, 50(6), 943–964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210523000700
  10. Aydinli, E., & Erpul, O. (2022). The false promise of global IR: Exposing the paradox of dependent development. International Theory, 14(3), 419–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192100018X
  11. Bilgin, P., & Tanrısever, O. F. (2009). A telling story of IR in the periphery: Telling Turkey about the world, telling the world about Turkey. Journal of International Relations and Development, 12(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.5
  12. Caporaso, J. A. (1978). Dependence, dependency and power in the global system: A structural and behavioral analysis. International Organization, 32(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300003842
  13. Chou, C. P. (2014). Why the SSCI syndrome is a global phenomenon? In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. vii–xv). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-407-9
  14. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Polity Press.
  15. De Swaan, A. (2001). English in the social sciences. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 71–84). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869484.71
  16. Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2013). Reforming higher education institutions in Finland: Competitiveness and global university rankings. In T. Erkkilä (Ed.), Global university rankings: Challenges for European higher education (pp. 124–143). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137296870_8
  17. Feder, M. E., & Madara, J. L. (2008). Evidence-based appointment and promotion of academic faculty at the University of Chicago. Academic Medicine, 83(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31815c64d5
  18. Fröbel, F., Heinrichs, J., & Kreye, O. (1980). The new international division of labour: Structural unemployment in industrialised countries and industrialisation in developing countries. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Hertig, H. P. (2021). Benchmarking and zeitgeist: University ranking in post-turbo-globalized neoliberalism (Post-TGNL). In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 93–104). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  20. Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
  21. Hou, Y.-W., & Jacob, W. J. (2017). What contributes more to the ranking of higher education institutions? A comparison of three world university rankings. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(4), 29–46.
  22. Hurtado, P., & Maglione, F. (2022, November 16). Profoundly flawed: Yale and Harvard law schools dump U.S. News school rankings that many grad students obsess over. Fortune. Retrieved September 1, 2024, from https://fortune.com/2022/11/16/yale-harvard-law-schools-dump-u-s-news-school-rankings/
  23. Jabłecka, J. (2012). Diversification, rankings and their conditions: General problems and the Polish example. In W. Bienkowski, J. C. Brada, & G. Stanley (Eds.), The university in the age of globalization: Rankings, resources and reforms (pp. 26–61). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023032_2
  24. Kauppi, N. (2013). Ranking European social science and stratifying global knowledge: The example of European political science. In T. Erkkilä (Ed.), Global university rankings: Challenges for European higher education (pp. 166–177). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137296870_10
  25. Kehm, B. M. (2013). The impact of rankings on the European higher education landscape. In T. Erkkilä (Ed.), Global university rankings: Challenges for European higher education (pp. 20–35). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137296870_2
  26. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
  27. Lo, W. Y. W., & Liu, S. (2021). Are university rankings still important? Perspectives from Greater China. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 278–293). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974981.00030
  28. Locke, W. (2011). The institutionalization of rankings: Managing status anxiety in an increasingly marketized environment. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 201–228). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_11
  29. Lohaus, M., & Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (2021). Who publishes where? Exploring the geographic diversity of global IR journals. International Studies Review, 23(3), 645–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa062
  30. Marginson, S. (2021). The reality underneath the rankings: Trends in global science. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 19–37). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974981.00010
  31. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Benign hegemony. International Studies Review, 18(1), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viv021
  32. Morphew, C. C., & Swanson, C. (2011). On the efficacy of raising your university’s rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 185–199). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_10
  33. Okur, M. A. (2015). Gramsci, Cox and hegemony: From local to global on the sociology of power. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12(46), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.463031
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1174701
  35. Ongur, H. Ö., & Gürbüz, S. E. (2019). Türkiye’de uluslararası ilişkiler eğitimi ve oryantalizm: Disipline eleştirel pedagojik bir bakış. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 16(61), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.541517
  36. Özkoç, Ö., & Çağlayan, P. (2023). The trajectory of international relations dissertations in Turkish academia between 2000 and 2020. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1218033
  37. Sabah. (2023, August 10). İlk 500’de daha çok üniversitemiz olacak. Sabah. Retrieved November 13, 2024, from https://www.sabah.com.tr/egitim/ilk-500de-daha-cok-universitemiz-olacak-5996643
  38. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. (n.d.). Journal rankings. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.scimagojr.com/
  39. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00042
  40. Stockemer, D., & Wigginton, M. (2019). Publishing in English or another language: An inclusive study of scholars’ language publication preferences in the natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2987-0
  41. Su, S.-W. (2014). To be or not to be: Impacts of “I” idolization from the perspective of humanities and social sciences faculty in Taiwan. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 51–80). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-407-9_4
  42. Şahin, F., Yavuz Tabak, B., & Tabak, H. (2017). Motivasyon kuramları bağlamında akademik teşvik ödeneği uygulamasının değerlendirilmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 7(2), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.217
  43. Treanor, W. M. (2023, March 13). U.S. News and World Report has a new, aggressive defense of its rankings. Law school deans like me see it for what it is. Slate. Retrieved November 3, 2024, from https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/u-s-news-law-school-rankings-controversy.html
  44. Turhan, M., & Erol, Y. C. (2017). Academicians’ opinions about academic incentive allowance. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.341708
  45. University Ranking by Academic Performance. (n.d.). University ranking by academic performance. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://urapcenter.org/
  46. Üniversitelerarası Kurul. (2023). Doçentlik başvuru ölçütleri. https://www.uak.gov.tr/DuyuruBelgeleri/2023/8/yokGenelKurulKarari_09082023.pdf
  47. Uysal, H. H. (2014). English language spread in academia: Macro-level state policies and micro-level practices of scholarly publishing in Turkey. Language Problems and Language Planning, 38(3), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.38.3.03uys
  48. Vila, F. X. (2021). The hegemonic position of English in the academic field: Between scientific diglossia and academic lingua franca. European Journal of Language Policy, 13(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2021.5
  49. Wang, H. H. (2014). The political economy of quantitative indexes for measuring academic performance. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 25–38). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-407-9_2
  50. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2022). 2022 üniversite izleme ve değerlendirme genel raporu. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/2022/2022-universite-izleme-ve-degerlendirme-genel-raporu.pdf