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

What does the decline in paradigmatic self-identification mean for how international relations (IR) scholars think about the world? We answer this question with a 2020 survey among nearly two thousand IR scholars. We uncover a two-dimensional latent theoretical belief space based on scholarly agreement with conjectures about the state, ideas, international institutions, domestic politics, globalization, and racism. The first dimension separates status quo–oriented scholars from more critical scholars. The second dimension captures the realist–institutionalist divide. We have three key findings. First, non-paradigmatic scholars vary greatly in their theoretical beliefs. Second, measurement invariance tests show that there is a similar structure underlying the beliefs of paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic scholars. Third, we find no evidence that non-paradigmatic scholars rely less on their theoretical beliefs in making predictions about conflict, institutions, political economy, democracy, and human rights. Instead, the positions of scholars in the two-dimensional theoretical belief space rather than self-assigned paradigmatic labels correlate with predictions about the world. Our findings suggest that non-paradigmatic scholars are not so different from self-identified Liberals, Constructivists, and Realists, although the decline of paradigmatic self-identification may still matter for how scholars organize debates and disciplinary divides.

In this article we present several important first steps toward understanding the role of academics in shaping US foreign policy – identifying their policy views on one of the most salient foreign policy issues of this generation, the US War in Iraq; exploring how those views differ from public opinion more generally; and assessing the extent to which scholarly opinion was reflected in the public debate. To determine how IR scholars’ views on the invasion of Iraq differed from those of the public, we compare the answers of IR scholars at US colleges and universities to those of the US public on similar opinion survey questions. To this end, we analyze data from a unique series of surveys of IR scholars conducted by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project.

This article describes the German International Relations (IR) community and their research and writing preferences based on data from the 2014 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) faculty survey. Germany has a relatively young IR community with a relatively large share of women, however, this changes once scholars reach tenured professorships. We found that German IR scholars are, on average, more oriented towards IR theory and the study of international organisation(s) than other national IR communities. The overall picture is one of paradigmatic as well as theoretical pluralism and a rejection of ontological warfare, despite there being more IR scholars in Germany than anywhere else in the world self-identifying as social constructivists. Their methodological orientations are overwhelmingly qualitative – again above average as compared to other IR communities in the world. At the same time, German respondents identified methodology and epistemology as two of the main factors causing division among IR scholars today. Moreover, German IR scholars are almost completely internationalised with a strong leaning toward the Anglo-American core of the discipline. Various ‘beauty contests’ reveal a still vividly accurate image of IR as an ‘American social science’.

Dear Colleagues,Henceforward “Gaziantep Medical Journal” will be published with its new title; “The European Journal of Therapeutics (EJT)”.Some of our contributors may have experienced delays in submission and evaluation processes during the transition as we were working on setting up a new manuscript submission and evaluation system for the journal. We apologize to our authors and thank them for their patience. Our new submission system is live now. We have also updated our reviewer database in the process. We will now be able to shorten the time it takes for us to provide our submitting authors with a first decision.Due to the lack of journals from Turkey within the scope of SCIE, many Turkish scholars are forced to seek international journals to publish work. There is no doubt that this will increase the quality, but as Turkish scholars, we should strive for the publication of international scientific articles in our country as well. We are going to work hard to attract international submissions to our journal in this new term.It is very important that our journal is indexed and abstracted by various international indices and contribute to the promotion of our country and scientific journals. On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to state that we will do our best to transform our journal into an international publication. Thank you very much for your support.Editor Prof. M. Murat Sucu

ABSTRACTOver the past two decades, there have been significant efforts to investigate knowledge production in the field of educational leadership and management (EDLM) in non-Western contexts. Consistent with this effort, the present paper aims to identify the contribution of Turkish scholars to the international EDLM literature. More specifically, the review examined the volume, journals, authors, types of papers, most frequently used keywords, citation impact, and co-citation networks of papers associated with Turkish EDLM scholars. Bibliometric methods were employed to examine 313 papers published by Turkish scholars in internationally recognised journals. The results show that while Turkish EDLM scholars have predominantly published in Turkey-based journals, there has also been a substantial increase in the number of papers published in international journals in recent years. This literature is largely empirical with topical foci concentrated on issues surrounding school leadership and organisational behaviour. Author co-citation analysis identified three main Schools of Thought in the Turkish literature: Leadership for Learning, Leading Teachers, Administrative Behavior and Effects in Turkey. Several recommendations are made in order to further develop EDLM field in both Turkey and other emerging countries.

Most states have embraced emerging Responsibility to Protect norm, which was adopted by UN General Assembly in 2005. R2P obliges states to prevent atrocity crimes within their own borders and not to turn a blind eye when they occur elsewhere. However, R2P's third pillar, which permits UN Security Council-authorized coercive actions, has been controversial. A few states have rejected R2P, fearing that third pillar might be misused, while others have localized R2P (adapting it to their own preferences) or have sought to modify it globally through in continuing UN discussions. This article explains range of responses to third pillar of R2P and explores why states employ different types of feedback, ranging from soft (which seeks to build broader support for R2P) to hard (which seeks to limit R2P). The article concludes that reflects both national strategic concerns and preexisting local norms. Prior normative commitments to human rights and humanitarianism reduce incidence of hard whereas normative commitments to anti-imperialism and noninterference increase likelihood of seeking to constrain R2P. States with mixed commitments (e.g., to both human rights and to anti-imperialism) may offer complex, even contradictory, feedback, reflecting a prevailing national hierarchy, changes to which could result in changed state responses to R2P. Keywords: R2P, international norms, humanitarian intervention. ********** GLOBAL NORMS HAVE BECOME A CENTRAL FOCUS OF MUCH INTERNATIONAL relations scholarship, particularly among theorists interested in understanding how international norms may influence states' behavior and how such norms are established and consolidated. (1) Among early seminal contributions were Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink's work on norm lifecycle, (2) and Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink's work on socialization. (3) These studies and others of that era saw diffusion as a process whereby new global norms were first articulated by entrepreneurs, and then embraced by a critical mass of states. Once a tipping point occurred, process would cascade as new eventually displaced older local norms through a process of socialization. More recent literature suggests that consolidation may not be a one-way process of socialization, but rather a give-and-take in which governments seek to adapt meaning of global norms to fit their local normative context (localization) or even try to influence and modify global norms (feedback). Such processes of localization and may continue long after global has been established. Amitav Acharya, for example, explores how local actors reconstruct global norms to make them fit local cognitive priors and identities. Acharya sees such localization of a global as a complex process whereby norm-takers build congruence between transnational norms ... and local beliefs and practices. (4) He argues that localization may be an essential part of global consolidation, as it enables states to reconcile global norms with local ones. Jochen Prantl and Ryoko Nakano's work on R2P in China and Japan goes beyond localization to observe a feedback whereby, in their view, the has been reconstructed and deconstructed at regional and national levels and fed back into global discourse (emphasis added). (5) They argue that this diffusion loop has altered content of global but, in doing so, it has also facilitated acceptance of it in Asia. We build on this work on feedback, observing state responses to emerging Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm, which holds governments responsible, individually and collectively, to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. We explain why different governments have responded to R2P differently at international level, what this portends for future of norm, and what this adds to our understanding of processes of international consolidation. …

Expanding collaborative autoethnography into the world of natural science for transdisciplinary teams

Scholars of international relations (IR) simultaneously believe that their work is policy-relevant and that a gap exists between the academic and policy worlds of IR. Using data from the 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey and the TRIP journal article database, we explore this disjuncture in one specific area, research on East Asia. If US scholars' work addresses policy-relevant issues, as they believe, we would expect academic work to provide insights on a region that US policy makers have long thought to be growing in strategic importance. We find that academics recognize the strategic significance of East Asia, but comparatively few scholars teach about or do research on the region. Compared with the IR discipline more broadly, published research on East Asia is more paradigmatic, qualitative, and oriented toward the study of international political economy. The neglect of East Asia and the systematic differences in the way it is studied have potentially important consequences for the study and practice of IR.

This article examines how the discipline of international relations (IR) engages with the policy process by investigating the discipline's responsiveness to world events. To this end, the article deploys a mixed-methods approach using historical data of journal articles in twelve top IR journals covering 1980 to 2012 from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project as well as a series of interviews with scholars to show how four major world events, or benchmark events, influence the discipline of international relations. The paper finds that benchmark events do cause a shift in the subject areas in which IR scholars publish, as well as a shift in the popularity of theoretical approaches in which scholars ground their research. Benchmark events do not, however, cause a significant shift in where in the world IR scholars study. A series of elite interviews with IR professors is used to elaborate a causal mechanism for these correlations.

Efforts to systematize our knowledge of international relations (IR) have tended to focus on journal articles while ignoring books. In contrast, we argue that to know IR we must know IR books. To this end, this article presents the first systematic analysis of such books based on coding 500 IR texts published by leading presses against variables covering methodology, theoretical paradigm, and policy application. We compare the results with those of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project's coding of 2,800 journal articles against the same variables, and the 2008 and 2011 TRIP surveys of more than 3,000 IR scholars. The main findings are that books are much less quantitative than articles published in leading journals, are somewhat more representative of the field according to paradigm, and are more engaged with policy concerns.

Despite arguments that the effects of globalization may be undermining the authority of the sovereign state, states remain important actors in contemporary global politics. If scholars of International Relations (IR) are to fully understand the sort of changes states and the states system may be undergoing, the problems states face and, indeed, the problems that this form of political organization may create, it is vital to further our understanding of how this institutional form, which has come to dominate the globe, developed. States have formed in different geographical areas, in different historical periods and under very different conditions. The early development of the modern state occurred in Western Europe, and this was followed by later episodes of state formation in the nineteenth century culminating in a number of new states gaining recognition after World War I, during the period of decolonization following World War II and, more recently, following the end of the Cold War. Thus, while an understanding of the general processes involved in state formation is important we should also be attentive to the particularities of different epochs and, within these epochs, the differences as well as similarities between states. Having said that, most work on state formation with which IR scholars are familiar focuses on early modernstate building in Western Europe and the discipline would benefit from a wider focus. Nonetheless, this chapter begins with Western Europe. It then provides a brief account of the successive phases of state formation, an overview of contending approaches to the study of state formation, and consideration of the possibilities for further research in this area. The development of the modern state was a gradual process in which rulers in core areasof Western Europe slowly gained centralized control over the means of violence and the means of revenue collection, resulting in the formation of the early ‘core’ states of Spain, England and France. The first of these two interconnected processes began with monarchs wresting secular authority from the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire and disarming the nobility (Elias 1982). In time this consolidation of control of the means of violence would lead to the development of standing national armies, rather than the earlier reliance on mercenaries. As monarchs extended their rule, they were able to better organize the second aspect of control, the routine extraction of funds from their populations. This was something that they needed to do in order to fund the wars in which they were often engaged and it also played an important role in the economic development of states as feudalism gave way to capitalism (Braudel 1972; Tilly 1985; Wallerstein 1974). Thus the classic definition of the modern state is of a centralized political authority thatclaims legitimate control over the means of violence within a clearly demarcated physical territory and over a defined population, though exactly how this population has been definedhas differed over time (Anderson 1991; Rae 2002). While the territorial sovereign state has undergone many changes and challenges, the claim that it is the state, and the state alone, that legitimately controls and uses the means of violence – that it is not legitimate for nonstate actors to use violent means without state sanction – remains central to the legitimacy claims made by contemporary states.

This paper proposes a theoretical framework to understand the impact of newly emerging global norms on contemporary social movements and applies the framework to an empirical case of social movement for former comfort women. In the past several decades, new normative expectations around progressive issues such as human rights and environmentalism have congealed into fairly coherent global norms and influential international instruments. The progressive ideas have diffused and changed political dynamics across the globe, engendering many new social movements that pressure governments and corporations to change their practice. Scholars in international relations and social movement research have taken notice and produced many studies that examine the impact of the new global norms and institutions on contemporary social movements. This paper builds on this burgeoning literature and seeks a theoretical synthesis of the existing studies on global dimensions of contemporary social movements, incorporating ideas in the world polity research. The theoretical framework will then be applied to a case study on social

In the most comprehensive survey of its kind in Ireland, this article analyses the growing field of international relations and international politics, examining what scholars working in universities in the Republic of Ireland think about international politics and what they are teaching the current generation of students. The article also provides for international comparisons with 10 other countries as the survey is part of a larger cross-national survey, led by academics at the college of William and Mary in Virginia, USA on teaching, research and international policy. The picture of Irish international relations that emerges from the first survey of Irish IR scholars is one of an internationally engaged community of scholars. Irish IR scholars themselves are very international; half come from countries other than Ireland and most speak at least one language other than English. This diversity within the Irish academy exposes students to varied global perspectives and helps them to better understand problems that are increasingly global in nature, such as environmental and health issues. Given this, the ‘internationalisation’ of Ireland's IR community may be one of the field's greatest strengths and indeed the Irish academy's comparative advantage. Perhaps because of this diversity, IR scholarship and teaching at Irish universities does not fall under any single hegemonic theoretical, methodological or ideological perspective. Instead, the field is characterised by vibrant theoretical and methodological debates drawing on scholarship and evidence from the United States, Western Europe and other countries and regions. Individual scholars in Ireland, however, do seem to be less likely to draw equally on rationalist and constructivist approaches in their work, more likely than their international colleagues to see their work exclusively in one approach, and much more likely than international colleagues to describe their work exclusively as rationalist.

Cet article établit un état des lieux des Relations internationales (RI) françaises à partir des réponses obtenues dans le quatrième sondage TRIP ( Teaching, Research, and International Policy ) auquel 3 466 internationalistes de 20 pays différents – et, parmi eux, 101 Français – ont participé en septembre 2011. Le bilan qui ressort de cette étude – portant sur la place des RI dans l’université française, l’éventuelle existence de RI à la française, le positionnement des internationalistes français par rapport aux tendances en cours dans les RI mondiales, leur attitude par rapport aux praticiens des relations internationales, et la question de la langue française – est ambigu : se dessinent les prémices d’une émergence des RI françaises, même si un certain nombre d’éléments invite à relativiser ce constat.

Enhancing public health and safety against biological threats arising from natural or man‐made causes is an overwhelming challenge for traditional governance structures. The rapid advances in the life sciences—although clearly bringing enormous benefits to public health—similarly raise concerns among governments, scientists and the public about potential risks and abuse. As seen in the 2003 SARS outbreak, increased transnational activities in trading, tourism and, in particular, air travel now allow infectious diseases to spread around the world in days. Ethical limits, owing to advances in such areas as genomics and stem‐cell research, are perceived to be under pressure. Similarly, security experts find it difficult to assess the potential implications of biological research, be it deliberate misuse by terrorists and government‐run weapons programmes or a lack of awareness by individual scientists. What is needed is an international and multidisciplinary effort to assess in full the risks involved and to identify methods to manage biological risks effectively. Communicating the results of risk assessment in a balanced and objective way is of equal importance, to ensure that public confidence in science is not undermined, and that sensible and practical regulations are developed and implemented where needed. Moreover, such an effort must be conducted at an international level with active participation—if not leadership—from the scientific community. The International Council for the Life Sciences (ICLS; Washington, DC, USA) was created specifically to help achieve this objective. The full spectrum of biological risks, ranging from emerging infectious disease to premeditated misuse, represents an urgent and global challenge for governments and intergovernmental organizations (Fig 1). Life‐science research and its commercial exploitation are essentially international in nature. They bring important benefits to medicine, public health, the food industry, agriculture and industrial processes; at the same time, potential risks to public safety and security from deliberate misuse or negligence are …