dc.contributor.author | Aydınlı, E. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Mathews, J. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-02-13T13:51:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-02-13T13:51:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0260-2105 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11693/49462 | |
dc.description.abstract | Concerns over inequalities that have been located between the roles of the core and
periphery within the development of the IR discipline have led to questions of whether it is
possible to build up theoretical concepts in IR based on national differences. There have not
yet been studies however providing an in-depth look at how IR theorising has been developing
within a periphery country or region, and exploring both the local and core level factors
inhibiting the development of original theoretical paradigms from within that context. By
looking at the Turkish experience, the article postulates that homegrown theorising may be the
only means for periphery IR to be respectfully acknowledged by the core IR discipline. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | English | en_US |
dc.source.title | Review of International Studies | en_US |
dc.relation.isversionof | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210508008231 | en_US |
dc.title | Periphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: spinning IR theory out of Anatolia | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.department | Department of International Relations | en_US |
dc.department | Graduate School of Education | en_US |
dc.citation.spage | 693 | en_US |
dc.citation.epage | 712 | en_US |
dc.citation.volumeNumber | 34 | en_US |
dc.citation.issueNumber | 4 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S0260210508008231 | en_US |
dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | en_US |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1469-9044 | |