ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER ÇALIŞMALARINDA LABORATUVARLAR: METOD, İŞLEV VE KAPSAM

Sosyal bilimlerin farklı dallarında yaygınlaşmaya başlayan metodolojik çeşitlenmeyle beraber, dünya literatüründeki uluslararası ilişkiler araştırmacıları ve bölümleri açısından da veri analizinin yükseliş eğiliminde olduğu görülmektedir. Batı’nın uluslararası ilişkiler okulları açısından oldukça eski bir geleneğe sahip olan bu metodolojiler, teknolojik gelişmeyle beraber deneysel çalışma laboratuvarlarına doğru evrilmektedir. Bu birimler, varsayımsal bilgi üretmenin ötesinde, uluslararası ilişkiler olgularına veya aktörlerin davranışlarına ilişkin hem hipotez testleri yapmakta hem de nicel, nitel ya da karma yöntemleri kullanarak uluslararası hayata ilişkin bulgular sunmaktadır. Başka bir ifadeyle bu laboratuvarlar uluslararası ilişkiler kuramlarına ciddi katkılarda bulunurken aynı zamanda siyasal analizler için de veri toplamaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında incelenen uluslararası ilişkiler laboratuvarları üç çok temel işlevi üstlenir. Bunlardan birincisi başta lisansüstü öğrencileri olmak üzere temel istatistik ve uygulamalı olarak nicel, nitel ve karma yöntemlerin kullanımına ilişkin eğitimlerdir. İkincisi daha ziyade araştırmacılar için olup bilgisayar destekli veri madenciliği ve toplama süreçleri olup veri bankası, metin verisi gibi depolama işlevleridir. Son işlevi ise ileri düzeyli metotların veriye uygulanması, algoritma geliştirme ve öngörü sağlayan sistemlerin kurulması üzerinedir. Ampirik anlamda Türkiye’deki uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarındaki metodolojik sorunlar, Türk uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinindeki birçok yazarın da tespitidir. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara dayanarak, laboratuvar projelerinin Türkiye’deki uluslararası ilişkiler bölümlerinin veri temelli metodolojik gelişimine katkıda bulunacağı ileri sürülmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu laboratuvarların, kapsamı, alanı, kurumsal altyapıları ve işlevsellikleri hakkında bilgi vererek Türkçe uluslararası ilişkiler alanına katkıda bulunmak amaçlanmıştır.

LABORATORIES FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS RESEARCH: METHODS, FUNCTIONS AND SCOPE

The data analysis in international relations is gradually increasing today by researchers and departments of international relations along with the spread of methodological disparity among various social science fields. The empirical research which is an older tradition among Western scholars in IR theory evolved into the experimental fields of laboratories together with the technological development. Beyond the presumptive knowledge, those units both test hypotheses on the phenomena of international relations and provides observable/testable findings about the actual or historical events through the usage of quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. In other words, these laboratories can present significant information for the political analysis while contribute remarkably to the theory construction for international relations. Fundamentally, the investigated laboratories for international relations include three basic functions. The first function is regarding the basic statistics education for particularly graduate students of IR and trainings on applied qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods for IR. The second one is more appropriate for the researchers of IR field. This function includes event coding through data mining /collecting through using computational methods, creating depositories or textual banks and data processing. The last function is application of advanced methods into the data, developing algorithms and producing predictive systems on international relations. It can be argued here that there is lack or paucity of empirical methodology research in IR departments by referring various authors from Turkey. I argue that the laboratory projects can contribute the methodological development of IR scholars in Turkey. In this context this study was prepared in order to give a brief explanation on the context, scope, institutional infrastructures and functionality of IR laboratories by the aim of integrating it into the Turkish IR scholars.

PDF

___

Akgül, Öner (2015), “Uluslararası İlişkiler Araştırmalarında Veri Kullanımı ve Veri Setleri”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 11 (41): 69-101.
Akgül, Öner (2016), “Bilimsel Yöntemlerle Savaşın Nedenlerini Açıklama Yolu Olarak Savaş Çalışmaları Disiplini”. The War Studies as a Scientific Way to Understand the Causes of War, 12 (23): 1-34.
Akgül, Öner (2018), “A Bibliographical Study on the Academic Research of Peace and Conflict in Turkey”, Paper presented at the 7th Eurasian Peace Science Meeting, İstanbul.
Anderton, Charles H. ve John R. Carter (2011), “Conflict datasets: A primer for academics, policymakers, and practitioners”, Defence and Peace Economics, 22 (1): 21-42.
Aydınlı, Ersel (2019), “Methodological Poverty and Disciplinary Underdevelopment in IR”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8 (2): 109-115.
Aydınlı, Ersel ve Musa Tuzuner (2011), “Quantifying intelligence cooperation: The United States International Intelligence Behavior (USIIB) dataset”, Journal of Peace Research, 48 (5): 673-682.
Bayer, Reşat (2006), “Diplomatic exchange data set, v 2006. 1”, http://correlatesofwar.org.
Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King ve Langche Zeng (2000), “Improving quantitative studies of international conflict: A conjecture”, American Political Science Review, 94 (1): 21-35.
Beriker, Nimet (2014), “Introducing the FPC-TR Dataset: Dimensions of AK Party Foreign Policy”, Insight Turkey, 16(3).
Bond, Doug, Joe Bond, Churl Oh, J. Craig Jenkins ve Charles Lewis Taylor (2003), “Integrated data for events analysis (IDEA): An event typology for automated events data development”, Journal of Peace Research, 40 (6): 733-745.
Branch, Jordan (2016), “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in International Relations”. International Organization, 70 (4): 845-869.
Brecher, Michael (2013), Crises in World Politics: Theory and Reality (Elsevier Science).
Brecher, Michael ve Jonathan Wilkenfeld (1997), A Study of Crisis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Bursens, Peter, Vincent Donche, David Gijbels ve Pieter Spooren (2018), Simulations of Decision-making as Active Learning Tools: Design and Effects of Political Science Simulations (New York: Springer International Publishing). Chiozza, Giacomo ve Hein Erich Goemans (2011), Leaders and International Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cukier, Kenneth ve Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger (2013), “The rise of big data: How it's changing the way we think about the world”, Foreign Affairs, 92, 28.
Dehkharghani, Rahim, Yucel Saygin, Berrin Yanikoglu ve Kemal Oflazer (2016), “SentiTurkNet: a Turkish polarity lexicon for sentiment analysis: Language Resources and Evaluation”, Language Resources and Evaluation, 50 (3): 667-685.
Eck, Kristine (2005), A beginner’s guide to conflict data: finding and using the right dataset (Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University).
Flint, Colin, Paul Diehl, Juergen Scheffran, John Vasquez ve Sang-hyun Chi (2009), “Conceptualizing Conflictspace: Toward a Geography of Relational Power and Embeddedness in the Analysis of Interstate Conflict”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99 (5): 827-835.
Geller, Daniel S, ve Singer, J David. (1998). Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gerner, Deborah J., Philip A. Schrodt, Omür Yilmaz ve Rajaa Abu-Jabr (2002), “Conflict and mediation event observations (CAMEO): A new event data framework for the analysis of foreign policy interactions”, International Studies Association, New Orleans.
Gochman, Charles S. ve Zeev Maoz (1984), “Militarized interstate disputes, 1816- 1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28 (4): 585-616.
Goemans, H. E., K. S. Gleditsch ve G. Chiozza (2009), “Introducing Archigos: A Dataset of Political Leaders”, Journal of Peace Research, 46 (2): 269-283.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Miles Kahler ve Alexander H. Montgomery (2009), “Network analysis for international relations”, International Organization, 63 (3): 559-592.
Hatipoğlu, Emre, Osman Zeki Gökçe, İnanç Arın ve Yücel Saygın (2018), “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.
Hermann, Margaret G. (2005), “Assessing leadership style: A trait analysis”, J. Post, 178-212.
Hermann, Margaret G. ve Thomas W. Milburn (1977), A Psychological Examination of Political Leaders (New York: Free Press).
Horowitz, Michael C., Allan C. Stam ve Cali M. Ellis (2015), Why Leaders Fight (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Horowitz, Michael, Rose McDermott ve Allan C. Stam (2005), “Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49 (5): 661-685.
Intriligator, Michael D. (1982), “Research on Conflict Theory: Analytic Approaches and Areas of Application”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26 (2): 307-327.
İşeri, Emre ve Nevra Esentürk (2016), “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmaları: Merkez-Çevre Yaklaşımı”, Elektronik Mesleki Gelişim Ve Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4 (2).
Kavakli, Kerim Can ve Mohammad Mohsin Hossein (2018), “Why Do States Apologize?”, Paper presented at the 7th Eurasian Peace Science Conference: “Peace Science and Traditional Paradigms in a Deteriorating World Order”, Özyeğin Üniversitesi.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane ve Sidney Verba (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton University Press).
King, Gary (1989), “Event count models for international relations: Generalizations and applications”, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (2): 123- 147.
Ligon, Gina Scott, Daniel J. Harris ve Samuel T. Hunter (2012), “Quantifying leader lives: What historiometric approaches can tell us”, The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (6): 1104-1133.
Mahoney, James. (2007), “Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics”, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2): 122-144.
Maoz, Zeev. (2010), Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure, and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001 (Cambridge University Press).
Maoz, Zeev, Paul L. Johnson, Jasper Kaplan, Fiona Ogunkoya ve Aaron P. Shreve (2019), “The Dyadic Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) Dataset
Version 3.0: Logic, Characteristics, and Comparisons to Alternative Datasets”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63 (3): 811-835.
Maoz, Zeev, Ranan D. Kuperman, Lesley Terris ve Ilan Talmud (2006), “Structural Equivalence and International Conflict: A Social Networks Analysis”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50 (5): 664-689.
McDermott, Rose. (2011), “New directions for experimental work in international relations”, International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2): 503-520.
Midlarsky, Manus I. (1989), Handbook of War Studies (Boston: Unwin Hyman).
Midlarsky, Manus I. (2000), Handbook of War Studies II (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Midlarsky, Manus I. (2009), Handbook of War Studies III: The Intrastate Dimension (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Mintz, Alex, Yi Yang ve Rose McDermott (2011), “Experimental approaches to international relations”, International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2): 493-501.
Mintz, Alex ve C. Wayne (2016), “The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group Decision-Making”, Political Psychology, 37: 3-21.
Mintz, Alex (2016), Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Polyheuristic Theory of Decision (New York: Springer International Publ.).
Mitchell, Sara, Paul F. Diehl ve James D. Morrow (2012), Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes (Wiley).
Monogan, James E. (2015), Political Analysis Using R (New York: Springer International Publishing).
Morton, Rebecca B. (1999), Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science (Cambridge University Press). Muggah, Robert ve Nicholas Marsh. Mapping Arms Data: PRIO.
Pierson, Paul. (2007), “The costs of marginalization: Qualitative methods in the study of American politics”, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (2): 146-169.
O’Connor, Brendan, Brandon M. Stewart ve Noah A. Smith (2013), “Learning to extract international relations from political context”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Özdamar, Özgür (2017), “Leadership Analysis at a ‘Great Distance’: Using the Operational Code Construct to Analyse Islamist Leaders”, Global Society, 31 (2): 167-198.
Rummel, J. Rudolph (1969), “Some Empirical Findings on Nations and Their Behavior”, World Politics, 21 (2): 226-241.
Rummel, J. Rudolph (1967), “Dimensions of Dyadic War, 1820-1952”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11 (2): 176-183.
Rummel, J. Rudolph (1968), Dimensionality of Nations Project, https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/5409.
San-Akca, Belgin (2017), States in Disguise: Causes of State Support for Rebel Groups (Oxford University Press).
Schafer, Mark ve Stephen G. Walker (2006a), “Democratic leaders and the democratic peace: The operational codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton”, International Studies Quarterly, 50 (3): 561-583.
Schafer, Mark ve Stephen G. Walker (2006b), Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis (New York: Springer International Publ.).
Schrodt, Philip A. (1995), “Event data in foreign policy analysis”, Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation, 145-166.
Schrodt, Philip A. (2001), “Automated coding of international event data using sparse parsing techniques”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago.
Schrodt, Philip A. (2012), “Precedents, progress, and prospects in political event data”, International Interactions, 38 (4): 546-569.
Singer, J. David ve Melvin Small (1972), The Wages of War, 1816-1965: A Statistical Handbook (New York: Wiley).
Sprinz, Detlef F. ve Yael Nahmias-Wolinsky (2004), Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Starkey, Brigid A. ve Elizabeth L. Blake (2001), “Simulation in international relations education”, Simulation ve Gaming, 32 (4): 537-551.
Starr, Harvey (2000), “Using geographic information systems to revisit enduring rivalries: The case of Israel”, Geopolitics, 5 (1): 37-56.
Starr, Harvey (2002), “Opportunity, willingness and geographic information systems (GIS): reconceptualizing borders in international relations”, Political Geography, 21 (2): 243-261.
Taber, Charles S. ve Richard J. Timpone (1996), “Beyond simplicity: focused realism and computational modeling in international relations”, Mershon International Studies Review, 40: 41-79.
Unver, Akin H. (2017), “What Twitter Can Tell Us about the Jerusalem Protests”, The Washington Post, August, 28, 2017.
Unver, Akin H. (2019), “Computational International Relations: What Can Programming, Coding and Internet Research Do for the Discipline?”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 8 (2): 157-182.
Uzonyi, Gary ve Matthew Wells (2016), “Domestic institutions, leader tenure and the duration of civil war”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 33 (3): 294- 310.
Ward, Michael D., Katherine Stovel ve Audrey Sacks (2011), “Network analysis and political science”, Annual Review of Political Science, 14: 245-264.
Weidmann, Nils B., Doreen Kuse ve, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (2010), “The geography of the international system: The CShapes dataset”, International Interactions, 36 (1): 86-106.
Winter, David G., Margaret G. Hermann, Walter Weintraub ve Stephen G. Walker (1991), “The personalities of Bush and Gorbachev measured at a distance: Procedures, portraits, and policy”, Political Psychology, 12 (2): 215-245.
Yalçınkaya, Haldun, Emre Hatipoglu, Dilaver Arıkan Açar ve Mitat Çelikpala (2018), “Turkish Efforts in Peacekeeping and the Introduction of the TUBAKOV Dataset: An Exploratory Analysis”, International Peacekeeping, 25 (4): 475-496.
Zwitter, Andrej (2015), “Big Data and International Relations”, Ethics & International Affairs, 29 (4): 377-389.