Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAydınlı, E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMathews, J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-13T13:51:47Z
dc.date.available2019-02-13T13:51:47Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.issn0260-2105
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/49462
dc.description.abstractConcerns 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.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleReview of International Studiesen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210508008231en_US
dc.titlePeriphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: spinning IR theory out of Anatoliaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of International Relationsen_US
dc.departmentGraduate School of Educationen_US
dc.citation.spage693en_US
dc.citation.epage712en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber34en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0260210508008231en_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.identifier.eissn1469-9044


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record