{"id":2948,"date":"2023-09-15T12:57:41","date_gmt":"2023-09-15T09:57:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/?p=2948"},"modified":"2023-09-15T12:57:41","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T09:57:41","slug":"new-publication-by-ersel-aydinli","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/en\/2023\/09\/new-publication-by-ersel-aydinli\/","title":{"rendered":"New publication by Ersel Ayd\u0131nl\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Theory importation and the death of homegrown disciplinary potential: an autopsy of Turkish IR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A primary premise of the Global IR initiative is its emphasis on world history as a basis for global IR theorising. While non-Western contri-butions are thus critical, periphery IR disciplinary communities oper-ate under the dominance and homogenising effect of core IR theories based on Western history and intellectual traditions. An import-dependent culture takes over periphery disciplinary communities, neutralising their potential for original IR production and theory creation. This study explores these assumptions by focusing on the case of Turkish IR; providing an evaluation of its evolution and current status, and suggesting lessons it might have for other periphery com-munities and the future of Global IR overall. It offers a longitudinal qualitative investigation of Turkish IR scholars\u2019 perceptions of their community\u2019s evolution. They suggest that Turkish IR has become a dependent consumer of core IR theory and devalued its history base, leaving it bifurcated between a minority \u2018core-of-the-periphery\u2019 who operate as \u2018compradors\u2019, copying and marketing global core knowledge, and a majority \u2018periphery-of-the-periphery\u2019, who remain voiceless, disconnected and resentful. Ultimately, the local commu-nity is unable to offer original contributions to the globalisation of IR, and the global IR movement is structurally diminished through the exclusion of large portions of the scholarly community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To continue reading: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/01436597.2023.2257141\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/01436597.2023.2257141\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Third World Quarterly<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Theory importation and the death of homegrown disciplinary potential: an autopsy of Turkish IR A primary premise of the Global IR initiative is its emphasis on world history as a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":2942,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-publications"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2948"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2948\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2951,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2948\/revisions\/2951"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2942"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foreignpolicyandpeace.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}