The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inclusive Citizenship: Realizing the Potential1
Open accessAbstract
Citizenship has been described as a “momentum concept”. One important development over the past decade has been the various ways in which scholars and activists have developed citizenship's inclusionary potential. The first part of the article explores these developments in general terms with regard to the values underpinning inclusive citizenship; the implications of the notion of cultural citizenship; and the theorization of differentiated forms of citizenship, which nevertheless appeal to universalist principles. These principles provide the basis for the citizenship claims of people living in poverty, a group largely ignored in citizenship studies. Other lacunae have been disability and, until recently, childhood. The second part of the article discusses how citizenship studies has reworked the concept in a more inclusionary direction through the development of a multi-tiered analysis, which pays attention to the spaces and places in which lived citizenship is practised. It focuses in particular on the intimate and domestic sphere, with particular reference to debates around care and citizenship, and on the interconnections between the intimate/domestic and the global, using “global care chains” and ecological citizenship as examples.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Young, I. M. (2015) · Readings in Planning Theory · doi:10.1002/9781119084679.ch19 · Cited by 4,285
Hamilton, H., & Marshall, T. H. (1951) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/587460 · Cited by 4,094
Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange
Fraser, N. W., Honneth, A., Golb, J. D., Ingram, J. D., & Wilke, C. (2003) · Cited by 3,426
Feminists Theorize the Political
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203723999 · Cited by 2,974
Justice and the Politics of Difference
(2011) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g4q · Cited by 2,872
Yuval‐Davis, N. (1997) · Cited by 2,031
Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives
Lister, R. (1997) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26209-0 · Cited by 1,749
Self-citationPlummer, K. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203425268 · Cited by 1,253
Citizenship and the Environment
Dobson, A. (2003) · doi:10.1093/0199258449.001.0001 · Cited by 950
Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition, participationPreprint
Fraser, N. W. (1998) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 786
Cited by
Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation
Coffé, H., & Bolzendahl, C. (2010) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y · Cited by 529
Longman, C., De Graeve, K., & Brouckaert, T. (2013) · Citizenship Studies · doi:10.1080/13621025.2013.791540 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Lister, R.
- Venue
- Citizenship Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-61
- ISSN
- 1362-1025 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3593
- OpenAlex
- W2051388045
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 38.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inclusive Citizenship: Realizing the Potential1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13621020601099856
- The paper
- Lister, R. (2007). Inclusive Citizenship: Realizing the Potential1. Citizenship Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020601099856
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.