The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creating Caring Institutions: Politics, Plurality, and Purpose
Open accessAbstract
How do we know which institutions provide good care? Some scholars argue that the best way to think about care institutions is to model them upon the family or the market. This paper argues, on the contrary, that when we make explicit some background conditions of good family care, we can apply what we know to better institutionalized caring. After considering elements of bad and good care, from an institutional perspective, the paper argues that good care in an institutional context has three central foci: the purpose of care, a recognition of power relations, and the need for pluralistic, particular tailoring of care to meet individuals’ needs. These elements further require political space within institutions to address such concerns.
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
Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy
Noddings, N. (2002) · doi:10.1525/9780520927568 · Cited by 667
Cited by
Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis
HANKIVSKY, O. (2014) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000094 · Cited by 287
Zhao, L. (2026) · Journal of Family Theory & Review · doi:10.1111/jftr.70092
Metadata
- Authors
- Tronto, J. C.
- Venue
- Ethics and Social Welfare
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 158-171
- ISSN
- 1749-6535 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6543
- OpenAlex
- W1969270199
- Cited by
- 618
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.