Using Content Analysis to Study Political Texts: Notes on Turkish Parliamentary Debates

References

• Avedian, V. (2013). State identity, continuity, and responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian genocide. The European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 797–820. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilali, R. (2013). National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, J. (2010). Defending the nation? Maintaining Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian genocide. South European Society and Politics, 15(3), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2010.513605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draege, J. (2019). Parliamentary discussions in authoritarian contexts: Introducing a dataset on party responses to Turkey’s Gezi protests. Mediterranean Politics, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2019.168171
   Google Scholar
• Ekmekçioğlu, L. (2016). Recovering Armenia: The limits of belonging in post-genocide Turkey. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göçek, F. M. (2016). Denial of violence: Ottoman past, Turkish present, and collective violence against the Armenians, 1789-2009. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gunter, M. (2007). Armenian terrorism: A reappraisal. Journal of Conflict Studies, 27(2), 109–128. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/view/10546
   Google Scholar
• Gürpınar, D. (2016). The manufacturing of denial: The making of the Turkish ‘official thesis’ on the Armenian Genocide between 1974 and 1990. Journal of Balkan and near Eastern Studies, 18(3), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2016.1176397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nefes, T. S. (2018a). Political roots of religious exclusion in Turkey. Parliamentary Affairs, 71(4), 804–819. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nefes, T. S. (2018b). The conspiratorial style in Turkish politics: Discussing the deep state in the parliament. In J. Uscinski (Ed.), Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them (pp. 385–395). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nefes, T. S. (2019). Negative perceptions of Jews in Turkish politics: An analysis of parliamentary debates, 1983-2016. South European Society and Politics, 24(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2019.1582856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nefes, T. S. (under review). The interplay between threat perception and ethnoreligious hostility.
   Google Scholar
• Ozturk-Tuncel, D., & Celikpala, M. (2019). Turkey’s rapprochements with Greece and Armenia: Understanding path breaking steps. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 19(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1629753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reams, P., & Twale, D. (2008). The promise of mixed methods: Discovering conflicting realities in the data. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802124509
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, C., & Cuneo, C. (2010). Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509357194
   Google Scholar
• Schram, A. B. (2014). A mixed methods content analysis of the research literature in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2619–2638. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.908328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulenberg, J. L. (2007). Analysing police decision‐making: Assessing the application of a mixed‐method/mixed‐model research design. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(2), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701334050
   Google Scholar
• White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkerson, J., & Casas, A. (2017). Large-scale computerized text analysis in political science: Opportunities and challenges. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar