I congratulate Professor Toprak

And now, together with İrfan Bozan, Tan Morgül and Nedim Şener, she is analyzing the concept of "neighborhood pressure," introduced by renowned sociologist Şerif Mardin, on laic circles through a study supported by Boğaziçi University and the Open Society Institute and titled, "Being Different in Turkey: Those who are made to be like others based on religion and conservatism."

I, as a person claiming that the governing Justice and Development Party, or AKP, is causing neighborhood pressure by exploiting the National View since 2004 through the neighborhood policy, scrutinized this study and followed a related meeting with pleasure.

First of all, I congratulate Professor Toprak and her fellow scientists for their courage. They conducted research on a topic which we will discuss for a long time and will have a hard time digesting. Before mentioning the findings of the study, I would like to share my observations on its methodology because those who will belittle the study will make their attempts through this angle.

Key points
1) The study was conducted during face-to-face meetings in 12 provinces, by spending three to four days in each, and with a total of 401 people, 265 of whom were men and 136 were women. Its methodology is in-depth interview! In such research, no certain and numeric results come out. Besides, I am not sure how certain the results in studies on perception could be. For instance, a person may not perceive the neighborhood pressure as a pressure if he or she knows life through such pressure, or some other may perceive it as a pressure even if it is applied on one person only. In a country where even figures can be interpreted at one’s personal discretion, remember what happened to Tarhan Erdem in a previous study, a study that does not reveal numeric results will also be interpreted at one’s own discretion.

2) This study was about the neighborhood pressure on laic circles only, as I mentioned above. Professor Toprak conducted research on the pious previously and was applauded by them, too. Now hearing the remark "Why don’t you analyze [the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, Istanbul deputy] Canan Arıtman?" from these pious circles is pure nonsense! A crime writer cannot be asked "Why didn’t you write about love?" If this is done, it is called not playing the game.

However, if Professor Toprak is, on the contrary, applauded as "Welcome among us," this becomes equally unfair. Praise like "I have known all about the fact. Look you have learned it too," is being disrespectful to the researcher.

3) The thesis that the study was conducted with 401 participants only, or only members of such and such associations were interviewed, reflects how much the person making such a claim favors the non-scientific approach. For instance, a scientist making a study on Muslims cannot be lashed out at through the remark "Why didn’t you go to church, but went to mosque instead!" Laic participants can be found in laic associations.

4) If participants from different cities came up with similar stories and expressed similar concerns, these findings cannot be labeled as "urban legends," as they were created by the media.

Similar perceptions and events in different places are not scientific findings, but they compose strong opinions and give birth to hypothesis for future studies. I read this study through the description above. I will talk about the findings tomorrow.