Feeds:
Posts
Comments

We are pleased to announce Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (Research Turkey)’s public conference entitled “Europeanization of Public Debates and Civil Society in Turkey: The Kurdish Question and Secularism Debates Revisited” inalper which Dr. Alper Kaliber,  Marie Curie Research Fellow at European Institute, Istanbul Bilgi University will give a talk. This event will take place on Friday, 4 July 2014 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at Main College Buildings, Room 116, SOAS, University of London, WC1H 0XG. This event is co-sponsored by the Department of Development Studies, SOAS, Neoliberalism, Globalisation and States Research Cluster. Umit Sonmez of London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) will kindly chair the event.

You may find the synopsis of the talk and a short biography of Dr. Alper Kaliber below.

This event is free and open to public but it is a ticketed event that requires pre-registration. A ticket does not guarantee a seat. Please register using the form above or alternatively email toevents@researchturkey.org for registration.

Synopsis of the talk

Europeanization of Public Debates and Civil Society in Turkey: The Kurdish Question and Secularism Debates Revisited

Contemporary Turkish politics is characterised by fierce ideological, political and economic public debates flourishing in every segment of the society. These debates, which have been re-shaping both Turkey’s domestic politics and the trajectory of Turkey’s relations with the EU/Europe, have mainly revolved around such issues as the rise of political Islam, authoritarianism, and the Kurdish question and the peace process. Civil society organizations (CSOs) from all segments of the political spectrum have been heavily involved in these public deliberations dominating Turkish politics and polarising the society. These debates have been informed by distinct perceptions and representations of Europe: Europe either as a source of democratization and improvement of civil and political rights or as a source of insecurity threatening Turkey’s territorial integrity, the core characteristics of the regime and the ‘national will’.

This seminar aims to discuss the impact of the European norms, policies and institutions (particularly the EU) on the politically mobilised civil society organizations in Turkey. It focuses on the CSOs vocal on the Kurdish question and political Islam/secularism debates and on their distinctive perceptions of EU/Europe. It assesses to what extent and in what ways the CSOs formulate their political demands and deliberative positions by making reference to specific European norms, policies and institutions, in order to justify and express their political agenda and deliberative positions. The views of civil societal actors on the current peace process and the potential roles of the European actors in the process would be another focus of the seminar.

Against this background, I suggest a clear analytical distinction between EU-ization as an EU-induced process of legislative, institutional and policy engineering, and Europeanization as a wider socio-political and normative context. The impact of Europeanization is heavily conditioned by the extent of and the ways in which Europe is used as a context by domestic actors to promote their political/social projects. Civil society actors often support EU-ization reforms and consolidation of Europeanization as a political-normative context only when they think that this best serves their causes or deliberative positions. In such cases, they strategically emphasize norms and values which they consider resonate with those of Europe. When CSOs do not support Europeanization, they either ignore or make negative references to European norms and values. They try to explain how these roles conflict with the interests of the social groups that they claim to represent. Therefore, to get a better insight into the multi-layered impact of Europeanization, one needs to look at how Europe is politically and discursively constructed and used by domestic societal and political actors.

Short Biography of Dr. Alper Kaliber

Alper Kaliber currently works as a Marie Curie research fellow at European Institute, Istanbul Bilgi University and conducts a research project titled ‘Europeanisation of Public Debates and Civil Society in Turkey’. He completed his PhD in Political Science at Bilkent University, Turkey. Dr. Kaliber served as a research fellow at the University of Birmingham and he worked as a consultant and researcher in the SHUR project ‘Human Rights in Conflicts: The Role of Civil Society’, funded by the European Commission’s 6th Framework Programme. He previously taught on European security, European Integration, Turkey and the European Union relations, foreign policy analysis and international relations theories at Sabanci, Yaşar, Istanbul Bilgi universities and at the University of Birmingham. His areas of interest include Critical and Regional Security Studies, European security, the Cyprus conflict, Europeanisation, civil society and conflict transformation and Turkish foreign policy. Among his recent publications are ‘Contextual and Contested: Reassessing Europeanisation in the Case of Turkey’ inInternational Relations, ‘Turkey’s Cyprus Policy: A Case of Europeanisation’, in “Turkey and the European Union: Processes of Europeanisation”, Çiğdem Nas and Yonca Özer (eds.), (Ashgate, 2012); and ‘Human Rights, Civil Society and Conflict in Turkey’s Kurdish Question’, in “Civil Society, Conflicts, and the Politicization of Human Rights”, Raffaele Marchetti and Nathalie Tocci (eds.), (United Nations University Press, 2011). He was recently awarded with Young Scientist Award by Turkey’s Science Academy (BAGEP).

Please find below a summary of the public conference entitled ‘Are Islam and democratic liberalism destined to clash?’ given by Turkish journalist, Mustafa Akyol today at Ashmolean Museum Lecture Theatre in Oxford. The event was organized by OXGAPS (The Oxford Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Studies Forum) in collaboration with the Oxford University Islamic Society. Ali Aslan Gumusay (Lecturer in Management at Magdalen College, Oxford) acted as discussant.

Fotoğraf-0180Is Islam inherently incompatible with liberal democracy? This question is a challenging one and deserves serious attention due to its potential to problematize deterministic accounts. Mustafa Akyol suggests that there is a need to redefine Islamic theories and practice in line with a pluralist and liberal normative framework that has been generally applied -albeit imperfectly- in the Anglo-Saxon world. He rightly reminds that democracy is not only about free and fair elections; it is also about liberal values and norms that allow individuals to choose their own right and wrong during their lifetime. Akyol emphasizes the multiplicity of Islamic traditions and philosophies in order to reject the imposition of a singular version of Islam in the name of ‘sharia law’ in Muslim societies. He finds similarities between a pre-modern Islamic group known as ‘postponers’ and John Locke’s ideas in the sense that it suggested the ‘postponing’ of the discussion of which version of religious rule is the right one to after-life, facilitating the co-existence of multiple interpretations.

However, Akyol acknowledges the difficulty of dealing with Islamic traditions and notions that run counter to liberal values, such islam-without-extremesas the rule of death penalty against apostasy (renunciation of religion). Putting this rule in a historical context, he finds it irrelevant in the modern era. In his reading of Islamic history, apostasy meant joining the enemy forces during the war between Muslim communities and non-Muslim ones. In this sense, the crime of apostasy in those days could be comparable to today’s crime of‘high treason’. Multicultural societies of the modern era should no longer see apostasy as a vital threat against the Muslim community and should stop penalizing individuals for abandoning Islam. Also, Akyol reminds that penalties such as mutilating an individual’s body or hand or stoning to death were used during the pre-modern era when there were no effective institutions like prisons or courts. Criminals were penalized at the spot by the public. Today, such penalties have become obsolete. Another area where Islam seems to clash with liberal democracy is the area of women rights. However, Akyol stresses that rather than Islam, it is the cultural traditions of patriarchy that constitute the major source of gender inequality (since not only Muslim but also non-Muslim societies experience oppression against women). Such cultural traditions have often merged with Islam, and lead many to blame Islam for the violation of women rights. He agrees with ‘Islamic feminists’ that Islam is not against women rights.

Akyol’s criticism of Turkish (and French) secularism reminds of Ahmet Kuru’s thesis of ‘assertive secularism’. Kuru compared French and American secularist traditions and found a significant variation in their approach to religious rights and freedoms. While the French ban of religious symbols in the public sphere represents ‘assertive secularism’, American approach that does not allow the state to ban individual religious freedoms is ‘passive secularism’. Akyol does not use these terms but similarly argues that the Turkish secularism has been traditionally authoritarian and has oppressed Islamic segments of the Turkish society, pushing some groups to fundamentalism. He gives the example of Egyptian liberals adopting a similar pejorative view of towards Islam and supporting paradoxically military coups against elected Islamists. In this regard, Akyol suggests both secularists and Islamists to abandon the idea of ‘reshaping’ Turkish society in line of their own values. He criticizes the current AKP government for attempting to impose Islam-oriented moral values on Turkish society, which has proved counter-productive in terms of provoking anti-Islamic sentiments in some segments of the society. He believes that it is against Islam’s spirit to force individuals to follow Islamic practices and this would not only provoke resentment but also would reinforce hypocrisy.

As a response to the Changing Turkey team’s question about European potential to reconcile secularist and Islamist segments of Turkish society, Akyol gives a mixed picture. He suggests that there are many Europes and the answer would depend on ‘which Europe we are talking about’. He blames the European Court of Human Rights decision justifying Turkey’s headscarf ban in the case of Leyla Şahin for falling prey to French ultra-secularism that sees religious symbols in the public sphere as a ‘threat’ to individual rights and freedoms. He thinks that the ECtHR’s decision against Leyla Şahin led to the disillusionment of many Turkish Islamists with the idea of Europe representing rights and freedoms. In Akyol’s opinion, the European Union that follows liberal values and observes religious freedoms is capable of bridging divides in Turkey but it currently lacks both the capacity and the political will to do so due to the economic and political crises in Europe. Finally, Akyol argues that the AKP government no longer needs the EU membership to legitimize its domestic position since it has already curbed the political power of the Turkish military and other veto players in the domestic arena. In this context, it is crucial for the Turkish government to decide whether it will govern the society as a whole by taking a more liberal approach or continue to impose a certain version of Islamic values, which has already alienated certain parts of the society and damaged those very values in the eyes of many. To conclude, Akyol’s thesis needs much attention as it tries to merge two different ontological stances (liberalism and Islamism) that seem unbridgeable from many perspectives. It is to be seen whether Akyol will remain the exception in the Islamic world to take up this challenging task and whether his thesis will help the emergence and rise of a Liberal Muslim movement in Turkey and elsewhere.

 

Excerpt from Suphi Ural and Sitki Demirkol (2008) ‘Evaluation of occupational safety and health in surface mines’, Safety Science, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1016-1024.

According to 2004 statistics, the population of Turkey is 67,844,903 and 6,181,251 of the populations are insured employees with social security (SSK, 2004). Statistics have shown that 83,830 employees had an accident in 2004 comprising 1.36% of the total number of employees… In Turkey, mineral-extracting industries rank first in occupational diseases and permanent incapacity, third in fatal accidents and fourth in occupational accidents (SSK, 2004). Number of accidents for major branches of Turkish industry is presented in Table 1.

Adsız
Comparison of yearly mining accidents statistics in terms of past observations indicated that mining accidents have been diminishing continuously since the beginning of last century, although some minor deviations from this trend have been observed (Marovelli, 1981Leger, 1991 and Ramani and Mutmansky, 1999). Clanzy (1979) compared the safety record of two safest ever years, 1936 and 1977, each representative of a different era of coal production in Great Britain. He directed the attention to the importance of the human element and the need for meaningful education, training and instruction of personnel if a significant reduction in serious casualties was to be expected. Comparison of coalmine health and safety performance between the United States and European coal producing countries was evaluated (Marovelli, 1981). The study showed that one could encounter a great difficulty in making direct comparisons and any valid conclusions because of different mining methods applied, different reporting practices and standards in health and safety regulations and laws…They showed the effects of mine regulations and enforcements, new technology and equipment introduction, change in applied mining methods on the improvement of mining accidents and fatality rates along the historical trend.

Accident history of Turkish coal mines

Occupational accidents of Turkish mines were evaluated into two groups. The first group of studies analysed the occupational accidents in Zonguldak Hardcoal region (Arioglu and Ari, 1990Buzkan and Buzkan, 1990 and Akcin and Hamarat, 1994). Buzkan and Buzkan (1990) gave the number of fatal accidents subjected to the production workers of this region between 1970 and 1988. They found a relationship between the fatality ratios, which were calculated by dividing number of fatal accidents to total number of workers for each year, and amount of coal production. Arioglu and Ari (1990) examined statistically occupational accidents in the Zonguldak coalfield from 1941 to 1987. They found a strong correlation between amounts of raw coal production and number of injuries. Akcin and Hamarat (1994) studied legal and financial aspects of the occupational accidents and diseases occurring in Zonguldak coal region. They indicated that most of the accidents took place at the underground and majority of them were falls of ground type.

The second group of studies based their analysis on the occupational accident statistics taken from the surface and underground 0mines of TKI (Bozkurt, 1993Can, 1994Istanbulluoglu, 1999Kose et al., 1990,Sari et al., 2003Tatar and Ozfırat, 2002 and Yilmaz et al., 2000). Kose et al. (1990) investigated the occupational accidents in GLI Tuncbilek mine occurring at 1988 and 1989 in terms of months of year, days of week, hours of day, and age and job category of the injured worker. They concluded that workers engaged in the production and developments works with 25–35 age range were more accident-prone. Bozkurt (1993)studied OAL Cayırhan Enterprise mine accidents between 1985 and 1991. A general statistical evaluation of occupational accidents from some of the TKI mines between 1980 and 1992 was carried out by Can (1994).Istanbulluoglu (1999) presented and evaluated occupational accident statistics occurred during the last 16 years in the mines of TKI. He indicated that the yearly number of fatal accidents was not decreased during this period and the most important cause for that were the traffic accidents in surface mining operations.Yilmaz et al. (2000) evaluated the DLI Erzurum TKI mine occupational accident statistics which occurred from 1987 and 1998. They stated that the workers engaged in the production and developments works were more accident-prone. Tatar and Ozfırat (2002) investigated the occupational accidents occurred in ELI Soma TKI underground mine between the years 1992 and 2000. They showed that the most important cause of fatalities was falls of ground. Sari et al. (2003) statistically analysed historical records of GLI Tuncbilek and ELI Soma TKI underground mines. The results indicated that the safety and productivity are improved when the panels are mechanized.

Conclusion

Mineral-extracting industries of Turkey have the highest fatal and non-fatal incidence rates among the major mine-producing countries. Blasting operation, powered haulage and fall of face/highwall are the most common fatal accident/injury types. Mainbody, head and hand are affected the most. The studies (Can, 1994Sari, 2002 and The Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2005) suggest that usage of self-protection devices and technological improvements should be promoted. Mining workers must be forced to use this kind of devices at all stage of work activities. Excessive frequency in the 18–30 age range is a sign of risk factors for that age group of workforce in the Turkish surface mining sector. Therefore, young workers should be trained and the experienced workers should be preferred for critical works. Slope heights and inclinations must be recalculated and slope stability risk assessments should be carried out in surface mines. In order to increase the safety in the considered surface mines, efforts to decrease the number and severity of the accidents should be made. For this purpose, a study for finding the reason of the accidents at risky mines environments must be performed.

The Center for Middle Eastern Studies (Ortadoğu Araştırmaları Merkezi) in Sakarya University is going to organize the 1st Workshop on “Debating Human Security” on June 23-25.

“Debating Human Security Workshop” is a training project in the scope of which there will be a selection of 28 postgraduate students from different universities in Turkey (14 foreign and 14 Turkish citizenship students). Project is focused on analyzing the human security approach in the theoretical and practical perspective on basis of different points of view.

In this project there will be invited professors from Turkey and abroad who are going to accompany the participants through the entire workshop. At the end to all the participants there will be given certificates of participation and the research papers submitted during the workshop will be published. All the costs (accommodation, food, travel and materials) will be covered by the organizers.

Abstracts should include the title, objectives, methodology, major findings and keywords of the paper and must not exceed 500 words. Both English and Turkish submissions are welcomed.

The abstract should be submitted to: ormer@sakarya.edu.tr

Click for detailed information on the workshop

 

Important dates:

Abstract Submission:    01/06/2014

Notification to Abstract Acceptance: 06/06/2014

Full Paper Submission: 20/06/2014

 

You can follow us also through our Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/events/636101979802498/?fref=ts

 

With the hope that you are going to participate in our program, we wish you all the best!

Project Coordinator

Murat Yeşiltaş, PhD, Assistant Professor, Sakarya University.

XVIII SISP ANNUAL CONFERENCE 

University of Perugia, Department of Political Science and University for Foreigners of Perugia, Department of Human and Social Studies, 11 – 13 September 2014

Section 14. Focus on Turkey

14.4 From the Bosphorus to the dream of a strategic hub: Turkish foreign policy in its neighborhood

Chairs: Vittorio Emanuele Parsi, Alessia Chiriatti

Turkish foreign policy has been characterized, particularly in the last decade, by the attempt to extend its own influence on the Europe-by-Nightneighboring regions: its “Strategic Depth” has strictly involved not only Middle Eastern countries, but also Caucasian, Persian Gulf and Maghreb areas. However, Ankara seems to have missed the appointment: after three years from the explosion of the revolts, the interested nations have not reached a peaceful truce, and the eventual democratic transition has not succeeded. Therefore, the possibility of a rapid democratization has faced the immaturity and unsuitableness of a new model, inspired by the Turkish regime. The actual impasse seems to retrace a “new cold war”, in which Middle Eastern countries are involved particularly after the Syrian conflict, between the tumultuous domestic situation and the war for the supremacy in the region. Moreover, Syrian struggle resembles more and more the paradigm of a proxy war, with important consequences for the neighboring states, both for the presence of refugees as for the political instability: Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Jordan are definitively involved in this process. From the other side, Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf have started a multidimensional foreign policy, with the attempt not only to extend their own power and leadership on the North African countries, but also to destabilize the so-called “Shia Crescent”, throughout Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Moreover, on the Caucasian and Central Asian side, Turkey has constantly to face with Russia in order to try to influence countries from ex Soviet Union, while the situation in Ukraine could transform a privileged speaker in a new powder keg.

The panel has the aim to embrace papers that are interested, also with an historical and cultural perspective, in the analysis of the relationship between Turkey and its neighboring countries (Middle East, Maghreb, Persian Gulf, Caucasus, Central Asia). The advised focus will be not only on the bilateral relations, but particularly on the crossing directories that involve common characters between Anatolian peninsula and the states for which it acts as a “bridge”.

For more detailed information, please contact alessia.chiriatti[at]gmail.com

As Changing Turkey team, we would like to thank all scholars who attended our workshop ‘Bridging Divides: Rethinking Ideology in the Age of Protests’. Please find below a summary of the workshop that took place on 15th April at Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane campus in Oxford, UK.

chris rumford 1The workshop started with the keynote speeches of Prof. Chris Rumford (Royal Holloway) and Prof. Barrie Axford (Oxford Brookes), entitled respectively ‘Ideoscapes, multiperspectivalism and the need to rethink ideology’, and ‘Mere connection? The transformative impact of new media on insurrectionary and usual politics’. The keynote speeches discussed different theoretical perspectives on political mobilization in the post-ideological world and the changing dynamics underlying public protests in the global era.

The first panel included papers that offer comparative perspectives on public protests. Dr Gulcin Erdi Lelandais (CNRS & University of Tours, France) presented her paper ‘Reclaiming a New Democratic Ethos in the City via #Occupy Movements: Thinking on Gezi Park Protests in Turkey and Indignados in Spain’ panel 1that emphasizes the rise of a new democratic ethos that competes with the traditional understanding of politics relegating citizens to passive status, and thus seeks to expand citizens’ control over urban planning and development. In her presentation entitled ‘Reconceptualizing State-Society Relations in Turkey: a Culture of Contestation from Gezi and Beyond’, Harriet Fildes (Edinburgh, UK) suggested the necessity to consider the new social protests as part of a global social change that challenges the traditional relationship between state and society with a special focus on the notion of ‘cultural contestation’. James Dorsey (Singapore) presented his paper ‘Convergence and divergence: Turkish and Egyptian fans fight political battles’ via Skype and introduced the rise of soccer fan clubs in Egypt and Turkey as new political actors during the protests. Since the boundaries between social, cultural, individual and political have become blurred, the fan clubs become significant actors in the contestation of state authoritarianism and police violence.
panel 22The second panel provided with a thorough analysis of Gezi Park protests in Turkey, which spread to other parts of the country after the police intervention towards the environmentalist protesters at Gezi. In her presentation ‘What does it mean to be chapulling? A Snapshot of June Events in Turkey’, Dr Ozge Dilaver Kalkan (Surrey & BIAA) discussed the findings of the interviews she conducted in the Turkish capital city with Turkish protesters during the protests in the summer of 2013. The second presentation given by Dr. Sakir Dincsahin (Yeditepe & SOAS) investigated the (systemic and anti-systemic) discursive strategies employed by the Turkish government and the protesters, which sought to define who ‘the people’ is and what kind of claims the people can make. Finally, Dr. Kemal Ciftci’s (Ufuk University, Turkey) presentation ‘‘Understanding Turkey through “Gezi Park”: Revolt of a “Multitude” Against the Islamist Government’ suggested introducing the historical context underlying the rise of protests against the revival of Islamism in Turkish government’s rhetoric and policies, which includes both domestic factors such as the competition between Kemalist modernist ideology and political Islam as well as external factors such as the rise and fall of the thesis of ‘moderate Islam’ in the West.

The third and final panel involved non-Turkish cases to uncover similar paths and strategies adopted by the protesters and panel 3 mona das
national governments in different parts of the world, including the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt and anti-corruption protests in India, moving beyond a possible Eurocentrism. Dr. Shaimaa Magued (Cairo University, Egypt) presented her paper ‘The New Tahrir Square: From “Protesting” towards the “Occupation” of Public Sphere in Egypt’ via Skype and emphasized that on 25th January, the Tahrir square had become a “global street”, a place where new practices of the political and the social were developed by the protesters coming from diverse backgrounds and claiming legitimate ownership of the square as a ‘public space’. The second presentation ‘Common Man’s upsurge against a common nuisance: The curious case of anti-corruption movement in India’ given by Mona Das (University of Delhi, India) focused on the mass mobilization strategies during the 2011 anti-government demonstrations demanding passage of a piece of legislation named Janlok Pal Bill or Citizen’s Ombudsman Bill. The final presentation by Alia Bukhari (Royal Holloway, UK) dealt with the Federally Autonomous Tribal Areas situated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which allowed the audience to think about the transition from protest to conflict.

Overall, the workshop was a great success and we are working towards editing a volume that includes these excellent papers suggesting innovative ways of thinking about today’s public protests through a comparative perspective.

audience 1Fotoğraf-0064audience 2good2

 

 

Call for Applications

Research Lab: Constitutional Politics in Turkey

Prof. Dr. Silvia von Steinsdorff, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ece Göztepe-Çelebi, Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ankara

 

Project Idea: The Research Lab Constitutional Politics in Turkey Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Bilkent Üniversitesi in Ankara invite applications from researchers who, in the broadest sense, work on the topic “Constitutional Politics in Turkey” and want to receive short-term funding for their research and gain the opportunity to cooperate and exchange ideas with other researchers from different backgrounds.

Having in mind that research is often conducted in hermetic isolation, the research lab “Constitutional Politics in Turkey” is conceptualized as an alternative setting. It does not follow the classical research design – i.e. three year project with a thematic focus and a permanent research team –, but prefers a more experimental approach. Researchers from different backgrounds and at different career levels will be provided with financial support and institutional infrastructure. The common ground will be the interest in the topic “Constitutional Politics in Turkey”, but researchers are to approach this from different perspectives.

 

What do we offer?

We provide financial support (1-6 months research assignments) and institutional infrastructure at venues in Berlin and Ankara, as well as membership in the research laboratory “Constitutional Politics in Turkey”, funded by Stiftung Mercator.

 

What do we want?

(1) To establish a network among researchers in different career stages dealing with constitutional politics in Turkey;

(2) To approach the topic from a variety of perspectives, bringing together researchers from different disciplines (Law, Political Science, Sociology) and working with different research methods;

(3) To make our research available to a broader public by publishing the “work in progress” (field reports; articles; events and news) on our project website “Politics and Law in Turkey” and in academic journals.

 

Who can apply?

PhD-Students and Post-Doctoral Students in different stages of their studies; moreover, we also invite applications from MA-Students completing their studies.

The application should be submitted via e-mail as one PDF file in English sent to turkey.constitutionalism@hu-berlin.de

Review of applications for the first cohort will begin May 15th 2014.

Official deadline for the first round is August 29th 2014

 

 

Possible Research Objects

We encourage researchers in particular to pursue a comparative approach, understanding  Turkey as a crucial case which is particularly fertile for comparative analysis. Research  proposals may address, but are not limited to the following topics:

 The Constitutional Court of Turkey as a “crucial case”

 Comparative study of (Turkish) constitutions

 Hegemonic preservation of power through constitution-making

 The relation between demos and representatives and its constitutional grounding

 Public discussion of constitution-making process (referendum, commission drafting the  constitution, public expectations, etc.)

 

Application Procedure

What do we expect?

Researchers are obliged to contribute to the ongoing work in the research lab. This means:

(1)That they write a short piece on a practical problem/difficulty they experience during their  research; this will be published on the project website “Politics and Law in Turkey”;

(2)That academic output is created and published;

(3)That they present their research to audiences (e.g. students, other researchers, the public) at the respective research venue in the course of regular research lab meetings.

 

What do we need?

 A curriculum vitae, including a list of publications;

 University diploma;

 An exposé sketching the research project to be pursued (no longer than five pages), including a research plan which indicates what exactly will be done in the funding period;

 A sample of scholarly work (maximum 20 pages from an article, conference paper, or dissertation chapter);

 An individual financial plan for the applicant’s research project.

 

Contact Information

In case you need further information contact our team:

Felix Petersen (felix.petersen@hu-berlin.de)

Maria Haimerl (maria.haimerl@hu-berlin.de)

 

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Institut für Sozialwissenschaften

Research Lab: „Constitutional Politics in Turkey“

Vergleichende Demokratieforschung und Politische Systeme Osteuropas Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 820 other followers

%d bloggers like this: