The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inclusion and Democracy
Abstract
Theorists of deliberative democracy have not sufficiently attended to the ways that processes of debate and decision making often marginalize individuals and groups not only because of their lesser social and economic power but also because the norms of political discussion are biased against some forms of expression. Democratic theory should include forms of acknowledgement, narrative, rhetoric, and public protest, along with argument, in its account of the normative ideals of political communication. Inclusive democracy involves more than the formal equality of all individuals and groups to enter the political process, but entails taking special measures to compensate for the social and economic inequalities of unjust social structures. Such special measures may require forms of group representation, in order that the particular social perspective of group members gains voice. Residential segregation poses particular problems for inclusive democracy in many societies. Organizing metropolitan governance systems with diverse representation may respond to such problems. In a globalized world, finally, the project of inclusive democracy involves criticizing adherence to nation‐state sovereignty and creating global level democratic institutions.
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
An Epistemic Conception of Democracy
Cohen, J. (1986) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/292815 · Cited by 619
Purity, Impurity, and Separation
Lugones, M. (1994) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/494893 · Cited by 308
Cited by
The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks
Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005) · Scandinavian Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x · Cited by 678
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
A problem-based approach to democratic theory
WARREN, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000605 · Cited by 478
Amin, A. (2006) · Urban Studies · doi:10.1080/00420980600676717 · Cited by 417
Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, I. M.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2002-04-18
- OpenAlex
- W4299851987
- Cited by
- 3,250
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 55.03
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Inclusion and Democracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
- The paper
- Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and Democracy. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
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.