![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In the early 1960s, the Ford Foundation funded numerous projects in Turkey, primarily concerning science education and science policy. Related to the post-Sputnik debates on “scientific manpower needs,” and modernisation theory’s emphasis on “industrialising elites” in the developing world, these projects were the products of an intellectual bandwagon comprising scientists and experts commonly working with transnational organisations like the OECD and UNESCO. Characterising the need in terms influenced by this trend, the Ford Foundation’s representative in Turkey proposed establishing a special high school for students gifted in the sciences. Analysing the process of the establishment of this school, this article explores how Turkish scientists connected to the same networks participated in the Foundation’s initiatives to advance their status, and examines the broad political and economic factors that the Foundation’s “non-ideological” interest in education for scientific manpower overlooked, leading to the mixed results of the project.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. See Örnek and Üngör, eds., Turkey in the Cold War; Güvenç, “The Cold War.”
2. Krige, American Hegemony, 3; Also see Leslie and Kargon “Exporting MIT”; Raina “Engineering.”
3. Üsdiken “Exporting”; Örnek, “From Analysis”; Garlitz, “Land-Grant”; Erdem and Rose “American Philanthropy.”
4. Ayas et al., “Development”; Ünal et al., “Türkiye de.”
5. Erken, “Negotiating”; Erken, America.
6. Rudolph, Scientists.
7. Fägerlind and Saha, Education; Grubbs, Secular Missionaries; Lindo-Fuentes and Ching, Modernizing.
8. Weishaupt, From the Manpower.
9. For instance, see Pilot Study.
10. Chabbott, Constructing; Runté and Runté, “Evolving.”
11. See Henry, ed., Education for the Gifted; for criticisms see Harlow, “Review”; Bereday, “Selective.”
12. Farish, Contours, 132.
13. Altbach and McGill Peterson, “Higher Education”; Latham, The Right Kind.
14. DeBoer, “Scientific,” 588.
15. See Kaplan, Türkiye’de.
16. See White, Islamist; Williamson, Education.
17. Ayas et al., “Development.”
18. Berman, Influence; Parmar, Foundations.
19. Heydemann and Kinsey, “The State.”
20. Parmar, Foundations, 16–17.
21. For more see Maybury, Technical.
22. Tröhler, “Change.”
23. “Report on the First Meeting of the NATO Science Committee.”
24. Krige, American Hegemony, 210.
25. “Summary Record.”
26. “The NATO Science Fellowship Programme.”
27. Brown and Harbison, High-Talent. The Turkish translation is İlim ve Endüstri için Yüksek Istidatlı Insan Gücü: Içte ve Dışta bir Politika Değerlendirmesi (Istanbul: Yenilik, 1962).
28. Kerr, et al., “Sanayileşmede.”
29. Brown and Harbison, High-Talent, 81–2. For a positive Turkish review, see Onaran, “İlim.”
30. Kalkınma Planı, 441, 463.
31. Şahin, “Türk Eğitim.”
32. Tural, Türkiye’de, 29.
33. Erdem and Rose, “American,” 144.
34. Wyzanski to Gaither, August 17, 1958, Ford PA 57.
35. Smith, A. E. “Confidential Summary Report on the Experimental School Program Under the Ministry of Education in Turkey,” September 1958, Ford PA 57.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. On these, see Erken, “Negotiating”; Erken, America.
39. Erken, “Negotiating,” 11–13.
40. The Report of the Turkish National Commission, 80.
41. Ibid., 22.
42. Northrop, Riddles.
43. Northrop, “Efforts.” Also see England, A Patron, 241.
44. Northrop, “Modern Mathematics.”
45. Heper, “The State.”
46. For a detailed first-hand discussion, see Inönü Anılar, 421–74; Inönü also refers to Northrop’s support fondly. Also see Baysal, Üniversitelerde, 62–72.
47. “Discussion on Science,” Northrop’s handwritten notes, PA 63. For a more detailed version see “Discussion Paper on Secondary School Science,” July 1961, PA 63. Unless otherwise noted, archival documents are from Ford, PA 63. For a broad chronology of the process, see Maybury, Technical Assistance.
48. “Special School of Science,” Northrop’s handwritten notes, October 24, 1960.
49. Northrop to Berker, September 30, 1960.
50. On Rabi, see Krige, American Hegemony.
51. See Northrop’s notes from his meetings with Uluçay and Baysal, October 11, 1960; Süray, October 12, 1960; Tanyel, October 12, 1960; Berker, October 15, 1960.
52. Foundations like Ford supported projects representing various political orientations, as long as the overall capitalist paradigm within which they worked was left unquestioned. See Berman, Influence.
53. See, for instance, Northrop’s notes on his meeting with Eczacıbaşı, January 19, 1961, and letter from Osmanağaoğlu to Northrop, February 22, 1961.
54. Concerned with the popularity of the left, Eczacıbaşı noted to Northrop on February 1, 1961 that private enterprise should be central to the Turkish economy and inquired about Northrop’s views. Northrop supported him and the Ford-funded Economic and Social Studies Conference Board was established under Eczacıbaşı’s leadership.
55. Küçük, Rumeli´den 27 Mayıs’a, 178. Bahattin Baysal also refers to the Project as Northrop’s idea. See Üniversitelerde, 96.
56. “Memorandum on a Special Science Lycée for Turkey.”
57. Maybury, Technical Assistance, 184.
58. Ward to Northrop, March 13, 1961. His letter dated April 7, 1961 indicates that Northrop also met with Fuat Uluğ but I was unable to find any notes from this meeting.
59. Northrop’s undated handwritten notes.
60. Unger, “The United States.”
61. Akçay, Kapitalizmi, 88–9.
62. Ward to Harvey Hall, January 31, 1961.
63. Northrop’s handwritten notes dated April 12, 1961.
64. “Fen Lisesi’nin Kuruluş Komisyonu.” The quotations are from the English translation edited by Northrop, “Report of the Committee Studying the Subject of Establishing a Science Lycée in Turkey.”
65. Drori et al., Science.
66. “Request for Grant Action,” September 28, 1962.
67. Marshall, “Evolving.”
68. See Baysal, Üniversitelerde, 96–104.
69. See Schmelzer, Hegemony.
70. Finnemore, “International.”
71. “Progress Report,” 68.
72. Northrop’s handwritten notes dated February 22, 1961; Also see Erken, America, 77–8.
73. For examples, see Maybury and Banyopadhay, “UNESCO.”
74. “Summary of the Meeting Held at the Mathematics Department of the Faculty of Science of the University of Istanbul,” November 24, 1961; Fehr to Northrop, November 29, 1961.
75. As OECD representative, Howard Fehr supported Northrop’s project, and offered OECD support. See his letter to Northrop, dated May 28, 1962.
76. See Northrop’s letters to Edward Begle of SMSG, September 4, 1961, and Arnold Grobman of the BSCS, George Pimentel of CHEM, and Jerrold Zacharias of PSSC, September 5, 1961.
77. Northrop to Walter M. Bestian, Jr. April 18, 1963.
78. Northrop to Robert C. Hamer, May 8, 1963.
79. Memorandum from Robert Donaldson to Marshall and Northrop, November 13, 1965.
80. Duschl, “Relating,” 320.
81. Matthews, Science, 17.
82. Ausubel, “An Evaluation.”
83. Marshall to Northrop, June 7, 1965, 4.
84. William V. Houser to Northrop, July 12, 1967. This letter also discusses the experiences of the overwhelmed teachers.
85. Baysal, Üniversitelerde, 111, 120.
86. Burkman to Northrop, May 6, 1964, 2–3.
87. Marshall discusses this and similar issues in his memorandum “Final Report of Turkish National Science Lise Project” December 15, 1969, Ford PA 66.
88. Marshall to Northrop, February 26, 1964.
89. Millet Meclisi Session 2, February 17, 1963, 151.
90. Ibid.
91. Marshall to Donald Kingsley, February 2, 1965.
92. Baykurt “Avutucu,” 233. The original article was published on September 27, 1970.
93. Millet Meclisi, Session 2, March 23, 1966, 557–8.
94. Ibid.
95. James Curley’s handwritten note attached to his notes dated August 17, 1965.
96. Maybury, Technical Assistance, 142.
97. McVoy, “Some Basic,” 9–10.
98. “The Ford Foundation OD,” Ford PA 63, 19.
99. “The Ford Foundation OD Self-Study,” Ford PA 63, 36.
100. Thomas Scott to David Bell, August 18, 1972, Ford PA72.
101. Özoğlu, “Eğitim Sistemimizde – 2,” 16.
102. Özoğlu, “Eğitim Sistemimizde – 3.”
103. Kuşçu, Yurt Dışına, 34.
104. Görgün, Üstün, 88.
105. Ibid., 91.
106. Ibid., 41.
107. Robert Kerwin, “Evalution of the Science Education Program in Turkey, 1960–1980,” September 1, 1980, Ford PA 72.
108. Finnemore, “International Organizations”; Resnik, “International Organizations”; Huber, “Planning.”
109. Drori et al., Science.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
M. Alper Yalçınkaya
M. Alper Yalçınkaya is assistant professor of sociology at TED University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously he taught at Ohio Wesleyan University in the US, and worked as a Marie Curie research fellow at the Carlos III University of Madrid. As a historical sociologist of science and culture, Yalçınkaya focuses on the history and sociology of the culture of science in Muslim settings. Along with his book Learned Patriots published by the University of Chicago Press, Yalçınkaya has published several articles and book chapters on the history and sociology of science and religion in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.