Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorGüner, Serdar Şahabettin
dc.contributor.authorSarı, Buğra
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-19T13:28:14Z
dc.date.available2018-03-19T13:28:14Z
dc.date.copyright2018-02
dc.date.issued2018-03
dc.date.submitted2018-03-16
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/36336
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of article.en_US
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D.): Bilkent University, Department of International Relations, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2018.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 223-263).en_US
dc.description.abstractAlthough power is one of the central concepts of International Relations, it is obvious that there is lack of consensus on what the concept means. As a result, there are many power conceptualizations today circulating in the discipline. Given the centrality of the concept, diversity within power conceptualizations creates negative implications for International Relations, curbing scholarly communication among power analysts and reducing the analytical strength of the discipline. Having concerns about the implications of diversity within power conceptualizations, the dissertation conducts a conceptual analysis on the concept of power in International Relations in order to highlight fundamental differences between the existing power conceptualizations by revealing the historical and theoretical contexts in which they are embedded. Then, the diverse power conceptualizations in the discipline are applied on a case study that is the 1998 October Crisis in order to compare and contrast their explanatory potentials and different focuses of aspects. Based on these, the dissertation aims to diminish the level of ambiguity on the concept of power, and to contribute the scholarly communication among power analysts in the discipline. To this end, the dissertation mainly asks three major questions: (1) why are there many power conceptualizations in International Relations? Or, how has power come to be conceptualized in many ways? (2) how has a specific power conceptualization come to mean as it is known to mean in a particular way? (3) what are the main features and focuses of aspects of the existing power conceptualizations?en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Buğra Sarı.en_US
dc.format.extentxv, 263 leaves ; 30 cmen_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectConcept of Poweren_US
dc.subjectDescriptive Conceptual Analysisen_US
dc.subjectPerformative Conceptual Analysisen_US
dc.subjectPower Analysisen_US
dc.subject1998 October Crisisen_US
dc.titleGenesis and genealogy of the concept of power: the 1998 October crisis between Turkey and Syriaen_US
dc.title.alternativeGüç kavramının ortaya çıkışı ve şeceresi: Türkiye ve Suriye arasındaki 1998 Ekim krizien_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of International Relationsen_US
dc.publisherBilkent Universityen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.identifier.itemidB158031
dc.embargo.release2021-03-16


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record