Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Migration and Exile StudiesBorder Security and International RelationsGender and Women's Rights

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disjointed knowledges, obfuscated visibility. Border controls at the French-Italian Alpine border

Open access
Tazzioli, Martina·2020·Political Geography
DOI 10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102155
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This article deals with border controls at the French-Italian Alpine frontier which have been implemented to govern and contain the migrants in transit. It analyses border controls by focusing on the circulation of knowledge and the economy of visibility which are enacted at that frontier. The article illustrates how the French-Italian Alpine area has become a border-zone for migrants, showing that modes of knowledge and forms of visibility are constitutive of bordering processes. It moves on with a section on the production and circulation of knowledge at the border, introducing the notion of “disjointed knowledges” to account for the asymmetries and fragmentariness at play in border control activities. It argues that we need to start from the partial non-circulation of data and local frictions in order to understand bordering practices. Then, it engages with the obfuscated visibility produced on migrant crossing, drawing attention to how migrants’ presence at the border is alternatively visible and concealed by the authorities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102155

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Aradau, 2017, ‘Performative politics and International Relations’, New Perspectives, 25, 2

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tazzioli, M.
Affiliations
Goldsmiths University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Tazzioli, Martina
ORCID
Tazzioli, Martina
Venue
Political Geography
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
79
Pages
102155
ISSN
0962-6298 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102155
OpenAlex
W3004116985
Cited by
46
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
  • cc-by-nc-nd
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Political Geography (publishedVersion)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration and Exile Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Border Security and International Relations
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Gender and Women's Rights
Keywords
border control, migrant transit, circulation of knowledge, bordering practices, migration governance, border zone, data asymmetry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.