___

• Acharya, Amitav. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 4–15.
• ———. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647–59.
• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London: Routledge, 2010.
• Aktürk, Şener. “Temporal Horizons in the Study of Turkish Politics: Prevalence of Non-Causal Description and Seemingly ‘Global Warming’ Type of Causality.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 117–33.
• Anderl, Felix, and Antonia Witt. “Problematising the Global in Global IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49, no. 1 (2020): 32–57.
• Aydinli, Ersel. “Methodological Poverty and Disciplinary Underdevelopment in IR.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (January 22, 2019): 109–15.
• Aydinli, Ersel. “Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-Reflections on Dialogue with the Core.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 13, no. 2 (2020): 287–312.
• Aydinli, Ersel, Erol Kurubaş, and Haluk Özdemir. Yöntem, kuram, komplo: Türk uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde vizyon arayışları. Istanbul: Kure Yayınları, 2015.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Time to Quantify Turkey’s Foreign Affairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations Discipline.” International Studies Perspectives 18, no. 3 (2017): 267–87.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289–303.
• ———. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693–712.
• ———. “Turkey: Towards Homegrown Theorizing and Building a Disciplinary Community.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner, 208–22. London: Routledge, 2009.
• ———. “Türkiye uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde özgün kuram potansiyeli: Anadolu ekolünü oluşturmak mümkün mü?” Uluslararasi Iliskiler 5, no. 17 (2008): 161–87.
• Aydinli, Ersel, Mustafa Aydın, Emre Baran, Andrey Makarychev, Karen Smith, Ramazan Gözen, Pınar İpek, et al. “Roundtable Discussion on Homegrown Theorizing.” All Azimuth 7, no. 2 (2018): 101–14.
• Aydın-Düzgit, Senem, and Bahar Rumelili. “Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 285–305.
• Bezci, Egemen. “Secrecy and the Study of International History: Missing Dimension in Turkish Foreign Policy.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 327–38.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “‘Contrapuntal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 134–46.
• ———. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for The Global Transformation.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 492–501.
• ———. “Looking for ‘the International’ beyond the West.” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (2010): 817–28.
• ———. “The International Political ‘Sociology of a Not So International Discipline.’” International Political Sociology 3, no. 3 (2009): 338–42.
• ———. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
• Fisunoğlu, Ali. “System Dynamics Modeling in International Relations.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 231–53.
• Hatipoğlu, Emre, Osman Zeki Gökçe, İnanç Arın, and Yücel Saygın. “Automated Text Analysis and International Relations: The Introduction and Application of a Novel Technique for Twitter.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 183–204.
• Hobson, John M. “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.” Review of International Studies 33, no. S1 (2007): 91–116.
• ———. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106 (2019): 41–60.
• Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge, 2011.
• Jorgensen, Knud Erik. “Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?” All Azimuth 7, no. 2 (2017): 41–58.
• Kaliber, Alper. “Reflecting on the Reflectivist Approach to Qualitative Interviewing.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 339–57.
• Köstem, Seçkin. “International Relations Theories and Turkish International Relations: Observations Based on a Book.” All Azimuth 4, no. 1 (2015): 59–66.
• Maliniak, Daniel, Susan Peterson, Ryan Powers, and Michael J. Tierney. “Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field.” Security Studies 27, no. 3 (2018): 448–84.
• Özdamar, Özgür. “An Application of Expected Utility Modeling and Game Theory in IR: Assessment of International Bargaining on Iran’s Nuclear Program.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 205–30.
• Palabıyık, Mustafa Serdar. “Broadening the Horizons of the ‘International’ by Historicizing It: Comparative Historical Analysis.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 307–25.
• Palmer, Norman D. “The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives of Half a Century.” International Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1980): 343–63.
• Şan-Akca, Belgin. “Large-N Analysis in the Study of Conflict.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 135–56.
• Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2, no. 3 (2000): 374–402.
• Strange, Susan. “1995 Presidential Address ISA as a Microcosm.” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1995): 289.
• Sula, İsmail Erkam. “An Eclectic Methodological Approach in Analyzing Foreign Policy: Turkey’s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset (TFPRED).” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 255–83.
• ———. “Güvenlikleştirme kuramında ‘söz edim’ ve ‘pratikler’: Türkçe güvenlikleştirme yazınında ‘yöntem’ arayışı [‘Speech Acts’ and ‘Practices’ in Securitization Studies: A Search for ‘Methods’ in Turkish Securitization Literature].” Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 17 (2021): 85-118.
• Tickner, Arlene. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2003): 295–324.
• Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Waever, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London: Routledge, 2009.
• Travlos, Konstantinos. “Mobilization Follies in International Relations: A Multimethod Exploration of Why Some Decision Makers Fail to Avoid War When Public Mobilization as a Bargaining Tool Fails.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 359–85.
• Ünver, H. Akın. “Computational International Relations What Can Programming, Coding and Internet Research Do for the Discipline?” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 157–82.
• Vasilaki, Rosa. “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41, no. 1 (2012): 3–22.
• Waever, Ole. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline : American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687–727.
• Yong-Soo, Eun. “Global IR through Dialogue.” The Pacific Review 32, no. 2 (2019): 131–49.