Ethnic identities and researchers' biases in psychological findings of Turkish-Kurdish conflict

What is it about?

We analysed existing social psychological studies on the Turkish-Kurdish conflict to explore how ingroup identity relates to outgroup attitudes, perceptions of discrimination, and support for minority rights in this context. In this article, we first discussed the three main outcomes of ingroup identities that are highly related to the maintenance of ethnic and cultural conflicts: outgroup attitudes, perceived discrimination against minorities, and support for minority rights. Then, we conducted meta-analyses to examine the correlations between ingroup identity and these variables. Last, we discussed the limitations in the available literature through the lens of methodological nationalism to provide a critical examination of how social psychology research has approached ingroup identity and intergroup relations between Turks and Kurds in Turkey. We discovered that while dominant group identity (Turkish) negatively correlates with recognizing discrimination and supporting minority rights, these relationships are less pronounced and nonsignificant among minorities (Kurds), respectively. These results reveal an asymmetry in how identity influences intergroup dynamics, suggesting that simple universal assumptions about identity’s role in intergroup relations are inadequate. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of examining how researchers’ biases that are embedded in historical and political contexts could influence the conceptualization, measurements, and therefore, research findings in conflict and postconflict societies.

Featured Image

Photo by Sushil Nash on Unsplash

Photo by Sushil Nash on Unsplash

Why is it important?

During a long and conflictual historical process, the structural and racialized injustices sustained through the differential treatment of identities have been a central element in determining the intergroup relationship and the main pillar of the Turkish–Kurdish conflict in Turkey. However, to date, there is no systematic overview of the relationship between ingroup identities and intergroup relations between Turks and Kurds from a social–psychological perspective. Moreover, we believe that a critical eye needs to be taken to the work conducted in social psychology on this issue, but we recognize that there are many political and potentially epistemic limitations to the ability to do so. Turkishness is an assimilative superordinate identity, and when it comes to Kurdishness, an acknowledgement of the identity and a focus on oppression and resistance can be deemed sensitive at best. This means that research in this area is often limited or rife with self-censorship. We believe that this is not only the case for this context, but political biases embedded into historical processes impacted how researchers approach politically contested research topics all around the world. Our study makes three significant contributions to future social and political psychology research on the Turkish–Kurdish conflict (and even more). First, by providing a comprehensive review of existing works and their limitations, we offer a foundation for general deductions in future research. Second, our findings encourage researchers to move beyond established relationships in the literature, which our study showed most of them are not replicable in this context, and delve into exploring potential moderators and mediators within these dynamics. This approach not only enhances the complexity and depth of future investigations but also fosters the development of more sophisticated and contextually relevant theoretical frameworks. Last, we observed a considerable influence of nation-state politics that contributes to epistemic and methodological challenges in understanding the dynamics of oppression and resistance, particularly concerning the identity-related conceptualizations, given the unequal status and power dynamics of parties involved in this conflict. This influence is evident in the phenomenon known as methodological nationalism, where research boundaries and norms align with those of the nation-state. By accommodating hegemonic nation-state narratives into the research agenda and treating society and nation-state as equals, the potential of social and political psychology discipline to provide the foundational insights into key processes for the conflict solution is overshadowed. Furthermore, the conceptualization and measurement of national and ethnic identities in these studies are inherently rooted in the perspective of the majority group, often ignoring the identity expressions and dynamics of the minoritized and racialized party involved in the conflict.